Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

[Beatdrop]

http://digg.com/world_news/The_Anti_Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_ACTA_2

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm...

Has anyone heard of this tremendous heap of bullshit? It this thing for real?

EDIT: Yep, it's for real:

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/October/Ambassador_Schwab_Announces_US_Will_Seek_New_Trade_Agreement_to_Fight_Fakes.html

[Imagist]

I'm a little confused. How could such searches possibly be conducted with useful results? After all, what's the difference between a legal, DRM-free mp3 and a properly-tagged pirated version? I mean, I could see its usefulness for some media, but... it seems like this would be just as impossible to effectively enforce as current piracy laws.

[Sinewav]

No argument here, Imagery. Personally, I'm adamantly against digital piracy, but laws like this serve no practical purpose but to take away peoples' rights.

[L.T.W.]

This is truly bull crap!

IMO the only way to stop governments from creating laws like this is to raise awareness on people that is illegal to use Limewire to get Music and Movies.

I mean, buying a movie or song from iTunes is super cheap, and there are many other websites that sells you music for very cheap. I havent used Limewire in 5 years since I discovered iTunes and I plan staying that way.

Limewire also gives you ad-ware, spy-ware and viruses. The speed is also a lot slower than iTunes.

If people would stop downloading movies and songs illegally this laws would not exist.

[JH Sounds]

Er, what? Why is it citing a Wikipedia article?

[Sinewav]

IMO the only way to stop governments from creating laws like this is to raise awareness on people that is illegal to use Limewire to get Music and Movies.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that it's illegal by now. There's just lots of people out there who don't care. They should be stopped, but laws like this don't help. It's just an excuse for The Man to rifle through our hard drives as if they're channel surfing.

[Bahamut]

Wow what bullshit. And this is why I've stayed away from purchasing RIAA label music & movies for the most part and bought competitors' music (movies I've generally just axed watching them largely).

[Sinewav]

Yeah, I'd much rather spend my money supporting artists who aren't in it for the money... especially one's who distribute their music for free, like in the free music thread.

Movies are a much different case, I think. I imagine that movie piracy mostly limited to the more net-savvy people like BitTorrent users, as opposed to music which has much smaller file sizes and is much more readily accessible.

[Bahamut]

Yeah, I'd much rather spend my money supporting artists who aren't in it for the money... especially one's who distribute their music for free, like in the free music thread.

Movies are a much different case, I think. I imagine that movie piracy mostly limited to the more net-savvy people like BitTorrent users, as opposed to music which has much smaller file sizes and is much more readily accessible.

Well, plenty of good artists who focus on the music are on RIAA labels - Dream Theater for example. The problem is that the big 4 music labels focus more on marketing than getting listeners to buy music for the art in it, and so when those listeners deem their marketed music not worth buying, they complain about not getting their money. My response is that they should not have focused on such a shortsighted strategy and have little right to complain when it backfires.

It's like if Apple customers suddenly got sick of their marketing and decided to buy another product - Apple would have little right to complain, and instead would have to adapt. In any other industry, this would be the norm, but the RIAA labels are so invested in their strategy that they do not wish to adapt with the changing market, but instead insist on imposing their will for extortionist handme outs.

[Dyne]

The fact remains that if they pass this, they've basically opened the door to search and seizure practices that are Constitutionally illegal. On top of that, if they search your home under this new "Trade Agreement", and they find something else that they've already deemed illegal, they can take that while they're at it.

I find this disturbing. What's even more disturbing is that there's no response to it from anyone yet, I think it's being kept as far under wraps as possible.

Also, if you've read the Wiki on it, the fact that it's "outside international institutions" really raises the red flag for me. That pretty much screams "outside international law" to me. I think we need to get a movement going against this. The time has come for our leaders to stop taking away our basic civil rights. I'm not saying I agree with piracy, I don't agree with it, I think it's wrong. At the same time, I don't believe that searching people at random is going to yield the results they say they're after, if anything, it's basically designed to put people in fear of being searched, whether you're guilty or not.

[Moseph]

... search your home under this new "Trade Agreement", and they find something else that they've already deemed illegal ...

I think it would only authorize border security agents (e.g. airport secutiry) to do these searches, so they still shouldn't be able to search your house. Not that this makes it much less troubling.

[Kanthos]

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't read the PDF linked on WikiLeaks, but it strikes me that any official sources other than this say nothing about searching hard drives, cell phones, and MP3 players for illegal audio. Of course, that may be because they're keeping this more-or-less secret, but I'm not immediately assuming they're going to scan my hard drive to determine if any of my 5 thousand audio files are pirated. The link to the US government site read to me that this is more about stopping the entry of physical materials into foreign countries; things like some asian markets selling illegal reproductions of DVDs for a fraction of the cost. Of course, it can encompass both physical and electronic media, but at least from what I've seen, there's nothing to indicate clearly that it's one or the other.

[Dyne]

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't read the PDF linked on WikiLeaks, but it strikes me that any official sources other than this say nothing about searching hard drives, cell phones, and MP3 players for illegal audio. Of course, that may be because they're keeping this more-or-less secret, but I'm not immediately assuming they're going to scan my hard drive to determine if any of my 5 thousand audio files are pirated. The link to the US government site read to me that this is more about stopping the entry of physical materials into foreign countries; things like some asian markets selling illegal reproductions of DVDs for a fraction of the cost. Of course, it can encompass both physical and electronic media, but at least from what I've seen, there's nothing to indicate clearly that it's one or the other.

Even so, this is how it starts. First "illegal" materials found either on DVDs or in laptops/mp3 players/etc... Then it goes from there and grows into "hey, we're doing this at airports and borders, let's start doing this in our own backyards." And then it really becomes the issue of civil rights and privacy vs. big government checking up on its own citizens when it could be out hunting down the real criminals either on the streets of America, or over seas as they're so apt to do these days.

[PassivePretentiousness]

Even so, this is how it starts. First "illegal" materials found either on DVDs or in laptops/mp3 players/etc... Then it goes from there and grows into "hey, we're doing this at airports and borders, let's start doing this in our own backyards." And then it really becomes the issue of civil rights and privacy vs. big government checking up on its own citizens when it could be out hunting down the real criminals either on the streets of America, or over seas as they're so apt to do these days.

I strongly disagree. I'm not endorsing this, but random searches at the border are pretty common practice. Have you ever left the country, had your bags searched, and got felt up? You can make a constitutional argument, but it's both hardly clear cut and contradicts what we find acceptable elsewhere.

When you get down to it, it's not really very extreme, in contrast to the patriot act in security issues and due diligence in civil cases. let's be real here; no one would be pissed off about this if it weren't for the fact that every single person posting in this thread has illegal music on his computer. It's not a civil rights issue. I find it more analogous to a bunch of drug dealers pissed off that they use dogs to find cocaine at airports. I don't believe drugs should be illegal so don't be offended by that.

If you want to make anti-intellectual property arguments, fine, but given that record companies obviously believe in the integrity of intellectual property, can you really blame them for pressuring the government to find a way to enforce their rights?

[Sinewav]

I strongly disagree. I'm not endorsing this, but random searches at the border are pretty common practice. Have you ever left the country, had your bags searched, and got felt up? You can make a constitutional argument, but it's both hardly clear cut and contradicts what we find acceptable elsewhere.

When you get down to it, it's not really very extreme, in contrast to the patriot act in security issues and due diligence in civil cases. let's be real here; no one would be pissed off about this if it weren't for the fact that every single person posting in this thread has illegal music on his computer. It's not a civil rights issue. I find it more analogous to a bunch of drug dealers pissed off that they use dogs to find cocaine at airports. I don't believe drugs should be illegal so don't be offended by that.

If you want to make anti-intellectual property arguments, fine, but given that record companies obviously believe in the integrity of intellectual property, can you really blame them for pressuring the government to find a way to enforce their rights?

I for one, don't have any illegal music on my computer, which is exactly why it bothers me that the government and the RIAA wants to grant itself the right to go through my stuff. Border and airport security is one thing... but being searched in my own home without a warrant? It's hardly the same thing.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to protect their copyrights... but it's a ridiculous double standard to demand that your rights be protected by infringing on the rights of other, unrelated parties.

[Dyne]

I strongly disagree. I'm not endorsing this, but random searches at the border are pretty common practice. Have you ever left the country, had your bags searched, and got felt up? You can make a constitutional argument, but it's both hardly clear cut and contradicts what we find acceptable elsewhere.

When you get down to it, it's not really very extreme, in contrast to the patriot act in security issues and due diligence in civil cases. let's be real here; no one would be pissed off about this if it weren't for the fact that every single person posting in this thread has illegal music on his computer. It's not a civil rights issue. I find it more analogous to a bunch of drug dealers pissed off that they use dogs to find cocaine at airports. I don't believe drugs should be illegal so don't be offended by that.

If you want to make anti-intellectual property arguments, fine, but given that record companies obviously believe in the integrity of intellectual property, can you really blame them for pressuring the government to find a way to enforce their rights?

First of all, look at the RIAA. Exactly what part of that organization is about the artists and protecting their property as much as it's about them making sure the labels make their money? And aren't they in hot water over their activities of late?

Also, you make a very broad assumption that everyone in this thread has somehow download illegal music. That being the case, then that would also mean YOU have done so.

No, my argument here is that searching through someone's laptop or MP3 player or whatever is basically like inflicting a cavity search on them in an attempt to find drugs that aren't there. Also, I'd like you to tell me how these people are supposed to know what songs were bought on iTunes and what songs are illegal.

What if I have music that I ripped from one of the CDs I have that I bought at Best Buy or FYE or whatever? Are those copyright infringement? That's fair use, is it not?

You have this habit of coming into a thread and attempting to sound all high and might, as if you know something, and you're starting to remind me of someone. You really need to get off that high horse that lets you think you know everything, or know what everyone does or does not do, and come back to reality. And when you can actually confirm for a fact, FOR A FACT, that everyone in this thread has done something illegal, you let me know, and maybe then I'll concede your point. But it's not likely.

[Dyne]

Something else I'd like to add to my previous statement. In the wikileaks article, there is a section about "ISP cooperation". It states the following:

The leaked document includes a provision to force internet service providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a warrant, making it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay.[7]

So, explain to me how this wouldn't lead to home searches. Because in truth, if they go through the records from the ISP and find discrepencies, the first thing they're going to do is search your home because they'll have everything from your name and address to your social security number. Tell me this is not a violation of the search and seizure annotation from the Fourth Amendment. They need probable clause, yes, and they basically have it at this point, what they don't have is the warrant. And that's the part that violates the Fourth Amendment, and makes the entire trade agreement ILLEGAL.

Oh, and in case you haven't been paying attention, the last eight years of the current Administration have not exactly been kind to the poor and middle-class of this country, I don't care how much the politicians stretch the truth on that, "the proof is in the pudding" as some wise person once said.

[PassivePretentiousness]

First of all, look at the RIAA. Exactly what part of that organization is about the artists and protecting their property as much as it's about them making sure the labels make their money? And aren't they in hot water over their activities of late?

it's property rights. would you get pissed at a corner store that egged the police for more protection if they always got their windows broken? that is in the pursuit of profit. you can make the anti-intellectual property argument if you want against that if you want, but you aren't.

also stop throwing eggs at the RIAA. it's ad hominem and irrelevant.

Also, you make a very broad assumption that everyone in this thread has somehow download illegal music. That being the case, then that would also mean YOU have done so.

yes it does, and it probably means you have too. I don't need to prove that. it's ridiculous if you insist that each and every person in this thread is by themselves very likely not to have illegal music on their computer. and yes, that means I do, depending on how you spin fair use doctrine wink wink.

No, my argument here is that searching through someone's laptop or MP3 player or whatever is basically like inflicting a cavity search on them in an attempt to find drugs that aren't there. Also, I'd like you to tell me how these people are supposed to know what songs were bought on iTunes and what songs are illegal.

the same cavity searches you can constitutionally get with a bare modicum of cause when you cross the border. this happens everyday.

The logistics of figuring out what is illegal don't make much to me either, but however they come up with enforcement is a different area of debate. The point here is the principle; the specifics are immaterial.

What if I have music that I ripped from one of the CDs I have that I bought at Best Buy or FYE or whatever? Are those copyright infringement? That's fair use, is it not?

I have mp3s like that too. I don't know how they're going to be able to differentiate, but that is a separate point to argue

You have this habit of coming into a thread and attempting to sound all high and might, as if you know something, and you're starting to remind me of someone. You really need to get off that high horse that lets you think you know everything, or know what everyone does or does not do, and come back to reality.

why? at least I'm have no pretenses regarding my pretentiousness, unlike you apparently. it's also ironic for you to get mad at me for being on "hat high horse that lets you think you know everything, or know what everyone does or does not do, and come back to reality." when you assert that I'm "starting to remind [you] of someone."

And when you can actually confirm for a fact, FOR A FACT, that everyone in this thread has done something illegal, you let me know, and maybe then I'll concede your point. But it's not likely.

I don't need to. It's unlikely that I could prove it even if I tried, but of the members who are active on this forum, what percentage have illegal music? to rephrase, what percentage of the general 15-30 YO population has a single illegal music file? something to the effect of 97%? I can't think of a single person I know in that age range who doesn't. Given who we are, our general computer savvy, and what are interests are, the group of people in this thread probably have a higher likelihood than that. Let alone the self-selecting bias that people who would enter this thread are probably pissed off at the RIAA etc in general, which makes the likelihood even higher.

So, explain to me how this wouldn't lead to home searches. Because in truth, if they go through the records from the ISP and find discrepencies, the first thing they're going to do is search your home because they'll have everything from your name and address to your social security number. Tell me this is not a violation of the search and seizure annotation from the Fourth Amendment. They need probable clause, yes, and they basically have it at this point, what they don't have is the warrant. And that's the part that violates the Fourth Amendment, and makes the entire trade agreement ILLEGAL.

I alluded to this. I agree with you in saying that it's unconstitutional, just that it's not out of place given the current political structure. If they can ctrl+f for a filename they know is specific to an illegal file, or can find the address of someone who regularly visits limewire by no more intrusive means than requesting a list from a company, we're getting close, if not at, some semblance of probative benefit, which in a theoretical construct such as this one, does not necessarily require a warrant. Remember, civil rights are created to protect the innocent, not the guilty, and I cannot associate any cost whatsoever to the consumer with the innocent being listed along with the guilty when the government is searching for very specific signs. The greatest cost I see is to large ISPs, which will lose business to bootleg ones, but I don't think that's what you care about really.

Oh, and in case you haven't been paying attention, the last eight years of the current Administration have not exactly been kind to the poor and middle-class of this country, I don't care how much the politicians stretch the truth on that, "the proof is in the pudding" as some wise person once said.

Again with mud throwing and guilty by association.

You're also suggesting that screwing copyright law hurts the poor and middle class, which kinda shows your hand. You don't really believe in copyright law. Just say that.

[Bahamut]

The RIAA is not wholly irrelevant, as such organizations have been lobbying for this type of action for a while. My despising of the RIAA comes from their actions, which clearly is aimed at protecting the business model of the big 4 labels - I worked for a quickly rising startup organization for college students that got shut down because the RIAA chose to wield big money in lawyers, and we did not have the money to pay for our lawyers; our plight would've brought us into a case decided upon by the Supreme Court, and it would've been highly unlikely the RIAA would've won, but again, the money was too much. They did not even attempt to contact us prior to try to help them with copyright infringement. With these type of decisions, it's clear that the RIAA does not care about working with companies taking legitimate stances, and instead choose to cherry pick what companies should remain according to the wishes of the big 4, and in such a situation, those companies cherrypicked are forced to bend to their wills in what amounts to blackmail.

How is that relevant to this document? Here we have a situation where according to the supposed information about this proposed treaty, ISPs can be coerced into giving customer information without a warrant. Provisions such as this fits in line with the wishes publicly expressed by the RIAA, highly suggesting a link with them and our government in spurring these discussions. It also fits in the consistent pattern of the RIAA's willingness to trample on the Constitution for the sake of copyright enforcement. In addition, the RIAA and/or the big 4 record labels have a history of pursuing questionable actions itself, such as the copyright extension of the "Save Mickey" Act, DMCA, and price fixing.

[PassivePretentiousness]

The RIAA is not wholly irrelevant, as such organizations have been lobbying for this type of action for a while. My despising of the RIAA comes from their actions, which clearly is aimed at protecting the business model of the big 4 labels - I worked for a quickly rising startup organization for college students that got shut down because the RIAA chose to wield big money in lawyers, and we did not have the money to pay for our lawyers; our plight would've brought us into a case decided upon by the Supreme Court, and it would've been highly unlikely the RIAA would've won, but again, the money was too much. They did not even attempt to contact us prior to try to help them with copyright infringement. With these type of decisions, it's clear that the RIAA does not care about working with companies taking legitimate stances, and instead choose to cherry pick what companies should remain according to the wishes of the big 4, and in such a situation, those companies cherrypicked are forced to bend to their wills in what amounts to blackmail.

How is that relevant to this document? Here we have a situation where according to the supposed information about this proposed treaty, ISPs can be coerced into giving customer information without a warrant. Provisions such as this fits in line with the wishes publicly expressed by the RIAA, highly suggesting a link with them and our government in spurring these discussions. It also fits in the consistent pattern of the RIAA's willingness to trample on the Constitution for the sake of copyright enforcement. In addition, the RIAA and/or the big 4 record labels have a history of pursuing questionable actions itself, such as the copyright extension of the "Save Mickey" Act, DMCA, and price fixing.

it's irrelevant because has nothing to do with whether what is going on is right or wrong. vegetarians aren't wrong because hitler was one. it doesn't matter whether the group identified with the idea in general is a saint or a sinner. Say why it's wrong here, not why the greatest proponent is a robber baron doing sketchy things.

[Bahamut]

it's irrelevant because has nothing to do with whether what is going on is right or wrong. vegetarians aren't wrong because hitler was one. it doesn't matter whether the group identified with the idea in general is a saint or a sinner. Say why it's wrong here, not why the greatest proponent is a robber baron doing sketchy things.

I don't agree with it being irrelevant - identifying the driving sources for this international effort and detailing some of the history would be just the opposite.

[PassivePretentiousness]

wikipedia wrote

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

such as the other things the RIAA does

[Bahamut]

wikipedia wrote

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

such as the other things the RIAA does

Ok, so I said more than necessary - I still think it's good for people to know causes for why nations are even discussing such a treaty, and consider it a supplement to what is, to most people here, an outrageous proposed document.

[kitty]

This thing will probably get passed because of the dumbasses in Congress.

[PassivePretentiousness]

Ok, so I said more than necessary - I still think it's good for people to know causes for why nations are even discussing such a treaty, and consider it a supplement to what is, to most people here, an outrageous proposed document.

why? it's a bias. they're in it for the profit and because who they are. Just the same as the union (hopefully) supports what is good for the union worker. Arguments against the collusive effect of unions cannot be used against a bill for requiring safety standards any more than a cartel pushing for protection of property rights. Besides, the cartel at least has what it can argue to be a negative right, rather than the play to moral sensibilities that the union has.

Besides, you can only really say any of what you said if the points made by the RIAA are specious in general. However, the view of the RIAA is entirely valid - that intellectual property deserves to be preserved. Their overzealousness does not diminish intellectual property by any means. You have to explain why either A) the proposed law is overzealous in contrast to similar laws in other industries and practice, why intellectual property doesn't make sense in general or C) our standard of civil liberties is insufficient in protection against the coercive power of government. You can't honestly make an argument in connection to what the RIAA does elsewhere before establishing that it has done anything wrong in the first place. Otherwise, the law is purely guilty by association. The RIAA presumably supports laws against murder. Does that make murder any less valid. The RIAA presumably supports laws against shoplifting. Does that make laws against shoplifting any less valid?

To go off in an entirely different direction, you may want to argue against the notion that it is a logical fallacy to suggest it is incorrect to ignore who is making the argument. To a certain extent, that's the vibe I get from the post, but I don't see you making the argument of Bayes or, to pull a random economist out of my hat, Steven Landsburg. Yet, such a view is altogether disparate from that which we judge the public or prosecute criminals, in which case you have a problem with society in general, not this proposal.