[Espy]

Wait, Ashy, is this if the bill passes? Or are we talking about the demise of MegaUpload? (which really pisses me off.)

[Ashy]

its talking about the censoring of information

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Oh this thread makes me depressed and anxious. The news is naturally all over up here as people are talking about a similar thing. I really *really* hope that doesn't pass, because if it does then there's a fair chance something similar will happen in Canada too. People are already griping about it. One person (professional in digital privacy or something similar I believe, can't recall her name) said that it wasn't necessarily that it was all bad, just that it needed to be a hell of a lot more specific.

I've heard it argued that in the USA some of the laws are too specific, such that they allow for technical loopholes that might not go over in Canadian courts due to the certain amount of discretion allowed to the judge, and it does sound to me from what Coda has been saying that it's intended to be a coverall for all situations of copywrite infringement that have and have yet to come up. I don't imagine it is intended to be as harsh as it sounds when it comes to actual practice, but it certainly leaves to door open for potential abuse or for companies to get at specific websites while ignoring others, and basically letting then go after who ever well they darn well feel like at any given time.

I can't help but wonder what it would do for the smaller sites, users, and markets that depend on word of mouth or user sharing for their advertising and business promotion rather than paid commercials or other media advertizing. Of course, I suppose a potential copyright holder could simply choose not to press infringement charges, but that could well be a risk that website and forum providers do not want to take.

It all makes my head hurt!

(my verbal dump. I hope I didn't repeat to many things, I didn't read every post here, and I've tried to ignore the mess but it's not working well. >.<. I feel better now though. :)

[Fenris]

If the internet died...you would have a very very sad Fen on your hands. I operate on the net @_@

[Belial]

Originally Posted by Espy

Wait, Ashy, is this if the bill passes? Or are we talking about the demise of MegaUpload? (which really pisses me off.)

I can't claim to understand that, because a small part of their business was located in the USA they can deny them due process and shut the whole thing down even without SOPA?

[Duchess]

From what I read pertaining to the people behind MegaUpload, I don't think they were shut down based solely on copyright stuff even though that's what was released.

Check this on the founder of MU.

In 2001, Schmitz purchased $375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company LetsBuyIt.com and subsequently announced his intention to invest EUR 50 million in the company.[13] Unknown to others, Schmitz did not have the funds available to invest, although the announcement caused the share value of LetsBuyIt.com to jump by nearly 300%.[14] Schmitz quickly sold the shares and profited $1.5 million as a result.[13]
Schmitz had also arranged and obtained an unsecured loan of EUR 280,000 from Monkey AG, a company for which Schmitz had served as Chairman of the Board. The funds were to be paid to Kimvestor AG. As a result, both Monkey and Kimvestor went bankrupt.[15]
In January 2002, Schmitz was arrested in Bangkok, Thailand, deported to Germany, and sentenced to a probationary sentence of one year and eight months, and a EUR 100,000 fine, the largest insider-trading case in Germany at the time.[16] Schmitz also pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and received a two-year probation sentence.[17]

He has been doing shady business in the past even though his record got wiped clean. Also.. he was not arrested in the US, he was arrested by New Zealand cooperating with a shitton of other authorities like Hong Kong and Canada.

It's unfortunate to see data get wiped without prior notice. Imagine if someone was using MU as backup or storage. All that information will now be gone. However, I don't think them taking down MU itself was bad at all. If you commit a crime, you should be punished for it, whether people are legitimately using your services or not.

[Toxic Rainbow Kisses]

Yup now we have to worry about another one.

As my little brother put it on Facebook.

"So, Obama Signs ACTA, Which is a Super Saiyan Version of SOPA..... Back to my Gameboy Advance"

[Coda]

ACTA isn't nearly as bad as SOPA. (It's been called "SOPA Lite" by some.) It's still problematic, sure, but it's definitely not "SOPA's evil twin" or "Super Saiyan SOPA".

[Toxic Rainbow Kisses]

Ahh, I didnt know this. I think if its gonna happen, it will happen.
I do like that a few people pulled out of Sopa though. 1 of the original "Idea makers"

[Coda]

The biggest complaint about ACTA, really, is that it was negotiated in secret, so no one that would be affected by the treaty could actually know what was going to happen until it was too late to do anything about it. There were also some nasty clauses in the leaked drafts (like "break the rules three times and your Internet access is revoked for life") but those were removed before the final version.

I've actually read over the full text of the final version of ACTA (that is, the version that the US signed) and honestly it's not all THAT bad. It's MOSTLY about stopping counterfeit products from being imported or exported. The big problem is that it's designed to be able to fast-track prosecution for intellectual property violations -- which in itself isn't a problem, but the mechanism by which it does that has some chilling effects: ACTA requires that a whole array of companies (for example, Internet service providers) have to turn over information related to alleged offenses when ordered by the authorities. Taken on its own this doesn't sound too scary, but the information that's required is stuff that most ISPs (especially smaller ones) simply don't track. This encourages them to gather more information about their customers and their customers' activities online in order to comply with information requests. This could put smaller ISPs out of business just by the costs of having to implement this.

Another potential problem is that service providers will want to censor user content to avoid being potentially held liable for infringement. ACTA as written is unclear on this, and that lack of clarity is actually the worst problem, because it makes it uncertain what kind of "safe harbor" provisions provided by existing laws will still apply and which won't.

And then the biggest problem, at least in my opinion, is that it further criminalizes behavior and tools that "circumvents" technological means of limiting the consumer's rights. So for example, if you buy music that's copy-protected, it becomes illegal to convert that music to MP3 format in order for it to work on your music player. It means that ONLY authorized vendors may produce decoders -- this is particularly problematic for Linux users, because it essentially makes it illegal to watch DVDs using open-source software, even if you're not doing anything wrong; it criminalizes what would currently be considered fair use of your own property.

[Coda]

The biggest complaint about ACTA, really, is that it was negotiated in secret, so no one that would be affected by the treaty could actually know what was going to happen until it was too late to do anything about it. There were also some nasty clauses in the leaked drafts (like "break the rules three times and your Internet access is revoked for life") but those were removed before the final version.

I've actually read over the full text of the final version of ACTA (that is, the version that the US signed) and honestly it's not all THAT bad. It's MOSTLY about stopping counterfeit products from being imported or exported. The big problem is that it's designed to be able to fast-track prosecution for intellectual property violations -- which in itself isn't a problem, but the mechanism by which it does that has some chilling effects: ACTA requires that a whole array of companies (for example, Internet service providers) have to turn over information related to alleged offenses when ordered by the authorities. Taken on its own this doesn't sound too scary, but the information that's required is stuff that most ISPs (especially smaller ones) simply don't track. This encourages them to gather more information about their customers and their customers' activities online in order to comply with information requests. This could put smaller ISPs out of business just by the costs of having to implement this.

Another potential problem is that service providers will want to censor user content to avoid being potentially held liable for infringement. ACTA as written is unclear on this, and that lack of clarity is actually the worst problem, because it makes it uncertain what kind of "safe harbor" provisions provided by existing laws will still apply and which won't.

And then the biggest problem, at least in my opinion, is that it further criminalizes behavior and tools that "circumvents" technological means of limiting the consumer's rights. So for example, if you buy music that's copy-protected, it becomes illegal to convert that music to MP3 format in order for it to work on your music player. It means that ONLY authorized vendors may produce decoders -- this is particularly problematic for Linux users, because it essentially makes it illegal to watch DVDs using open-source software, even if you're not doing anything wrong; it criminalizes what would currently be considered fair use of your own property.

[Alexander Linden]

Originally Posted by Coda

ACTA isn't nearly as bad as SOPA. (It's been called "SOPA Lite" by some.) It's still problematic, sure, but it's definitely not "SOPA's evil twin" or "Super Saiyan SOPA".

What? Are you serious? ACTA is WORSE! They are trying to get the UN in on it even and having other countries sign. This will ban ISP and will make sites liable for things that users post.

I'm waiting to here how Poland responds to this...


And I agree, the lack of clarity is the worse part. But think about what they can do with it because of that? The US wants to take away a lot of freedoms from us that we as Americans have the rights to have, so says our constitution. The things they are currently trying to do are unconstitutional and in the future could lead to a lot of problems. Think about the anti-terrorist things. They want to be able to indefinitely detain people? And they are unclear about what is defined as a terrorist, and saying that someone is no longer an American citizen if they are against that... I'm just so upset with where this country is going right now.

[Lucid:]

I came across this anti-ACTA pamphlet today. I tried reading through ACTA but I just don't have the tolerance for reading legal documents. What I want to know is how much of the pamphlet is true, and how much is hyperbole?

[Coda]

Make sure you're up to speed on the actual version that was ratified. As I mentioned, a lot of the REALLY scary stuff that was leaked was taken out before the treaty was signed. It IS intimidating of course that it was negotiated in secret and that it essentially forces the signatories to pass laws that would otherwise not make it through Congress / Parliament. But the actual CONTENT of the treaty isn't nearly as bad as the chilling effects of SOPA.

I saw that pamphlet too. I'll give you a breakdown, by page (pamphlet page, not PDF page).

Pages 2 and 3 are accurate and not exaggerated. However, it's mostly a criticism of the process of its creation. Only the third and fourth bullet points on page 3 discuss the actual content of the treaty. Those I find to be SLIGHTLY hyperbole, in that they are accurate descriptions of the treaty, but its plurilateral nature will help keep it from going power-mad.

Page 4: Bullet point 1 is true, but tempered by several clauses saying "without prejudice" for established protections and freedoms for individual rights such as speech and privacy (that is, ACTA doesn't override those).

Page 4: Bullet point 2 is the big problem I was mentioning earlier -- it indicates that service providers have to take certain actions that may be financially infeasible for smaller companies and potentially run afoul of things like DMCA's safe harbor provisions.

Page 4: Bullet point 3 is hyperbole. While the statement is true, this is a problem even without ACTA, especially in the United States; furthermore, some European countries already have laws governing orphan works (the US does not) that would take precedence over ACTA.

Page 4: Bullet point 4 indicates that the whole pamphlet needs to be taken in context, because it's old enough that it was written before the full final text was available. I've read the final version. In particular, the "three strikes" possibility mentioned in the footnote was removed in a later draft; while it does "leave the door open" for signatory countries to pass such laws, it doesn't promote or suggest doing so and countries would be free to pass such laws whether or not they accept ACTA.

Page 5: Bullet point 1 is equivalent to Page 4 point 2.

Page 5: Bullet point 2 is somewhat speculative. The indirect effects of ACTA very well might make such things attractive for service providers. This is actually one reason SOPA is worse because it's a much more direct correlation there; ACTA leaves room in the laws of the individual countries for interpretation.

Page 5: Bullet point 3 is based on the same idea as Page 4 point 2. It's SLIGHTLY hyperbole, as this is true of ANY intellectual property legislation. From certain points of view this is actually DESIRABLE; even the average layperson will have mixed reactions to this depending on how you spin it.

Page 5: Bullet point 4 is again slightly hyperbole, for largely the same reasons.

Page 5: Bullet point 5 is again the same as Page 4 point 2.

Page 6: Bullet point 1 is a big deal if you're European, and irrelevant if you're American. This is a battle currently being fought, especially in Poland.

Page 6: Bullet point 2 is again slightly hyperbole as it doesn't require ACTA to cause the described problems.

Page 6: Bullet point 3 is VERY hyperbole. The final draft includes countless modifications to try to make things as streamlined for legitimate trade as possible, including requiring plaintiffs to reimburse defendants for their losses in the event of an illegitimate complaint. What restrictions are put in place are really quite reasonable to protect signatory countries from illicit, potentially dangerous, counterfeit prescription drugs.

Page 6: Bullet point 4 is a big problem, although I personally think it's slightly hyperbole because it's a treaty and not a law; it sounds like that may have been intentional to allow signatory countries to adapt the interpretation to comply with their own laws and the desires of their populations. The vagaries of the text are only a major problem if you believe that the governments are going to be evil about it or be unreasonably subject to lobbyists. The vagaries are in our defense if you believe that the governments will listen to the protests of their peoples.

Page 6: Bullet point 5 is a problem for legislators but not so much for the layperson. It's a problem, but not something that has direct effects that individual citizens should worry about (except to ensure that their legislative representation has their best interests in mind).

Page 6: Bullet point 6 is similar to point 5; while ACTA fails to meet those standards it doesn't mean that signatory countries can't keep those standards in mind when creating their laws.

TL;DR: Start reading here

Page 7 is really a pretty accurate summary: ACTA is vague and not very helpful in guiding its signatories for good ways to implement the laws. Whether this is simply a sign of a poorly-written treaty or if it's a harbinger of catastrophic legislation is up to the readers' belief in the fairness and wisdom of their governments (and how well they listen to their constituents).

[Alexander Linden]

If you can't tell already, I'm freaking out about it.