Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby The Reaper » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:52 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:P.P.S. Lets all put on our big boy pants and act like rational adults now.

Ah, I see what the problem is. You seem to be mistaking the American government, much less the American populace, as people that act rationally.

User avatar
Zorlin
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 2:31 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Zorlin » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:43 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:The Sky is falling!!!!!

I didn't know it was possible to miss the point so very entirely.

If this is genuine, it means that DMCA-like provisions will go into effect in every single country that is part of this. Reverse engineering is threatened by it, and fair use is threatened by it. On top of this, you could lose access to the Internet without doing anything wrong, since disconnection is at the whim of the media giants and not the courts.

I've spent quite a lot of money on copyrighted materials lately, and I'm still worried about this. It's not about stealing, so fuck you.
Mysterious wizard rabbit of unknown proportions.

Check out #xkcd-hugs movie night! Watch movies with your fellow xkcdians.

Meaux_Pas wrote:You're all mad.

User avatar
Spacemilk
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:03 pm UTC
Location: Hugh ston
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Spacemilk » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:56 pm UTC

Zorlin wrote:Reverse engineering is threatened by it, and fair use is threatened by it.

As well as freedom of the press, or free speech... because the instant someone doesn't like a particular piece of information on the internet, no matter how free that information is, they can get it removed from public access.

Not to mention all ISPs are going to have to double in employee size to handle the self-policing they'll be doing. Which means they'll raise our rates. I love paying more for less access and more hassles, that's cool and all.

Lastly, the potential for harassment is huuuuge. I don't think I need to go in to this one. It ties in to my first point.
milk from space is good for you!



Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:58 pm UTC

Zorlin wrote:If this is genuine, it means that DMCA-like provisions will go into effect in every single country that is part of this. Reverse engineering is threatened by it, and fair use is threatened by it. On top of this, you could lose access to the Internet without doing anything wrong, since disconnection is at the whim of the media giants and not the courts.

I've spent quite a lot of money on copyrighted materials lately, and I'm still worried about this. It's not about stealing, so fuck you.


Im curious of any media giants that actually do threaten people or have them cut off from the internet who do not actually download copyrighted material. I mean the whole argument that copyrighted material should be available for free etc, is a separate issue. Are there any court cases or stories of being cut-off without your IP address being used to actually download material that is copyrighted? More often than not the stories we hear are of people actually downloading things illegally (however minute) and then getting caught for it.

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Freakish » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:02 pm UTC

I wonder if this applies to schools.
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Ixtellor » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:21 pm UTC

Zorlin wrote:I didn't know it was possible to miss the point so very entirely.


I didn't miss the point, but I think you missed mine.

There are over 20 posts predicting the end of the internet, the doom of freedom, etc.

Zorlin wrote:I've spent quite a lot of money on copyrighted materials lately, and I'm still worried about this.


I am suggesting your worries are unfounded, and at the very least you should not be predicting the evil corporations denying you access to the internet and confiscating all your paid for materials.

You know that companies want you to buy their stuff right? That ISP's want you to subscribe... this is how they make money...

Spacemilk wrote:As well as freedom of the press, or free speech... because the instant someone doesn't like a particular piece of information on the internet, no matter how free that information is, they can get it removed from public access.


I am not so sure, that being denied instance access to 18 year old girls defiling themselves so douchbags can jerk off to it, is such a bad thing. 2girls1..... Isn't good for humanity.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Spacemilk
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:03 pm UTC
Location: Hugh ston
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Spacemilk » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:40 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:I am not so sure, that being denied instance access to 18 year old girls defiling themselves so douchbags can jerk off to it, is such a bad thing. 2girls1..... Isn't good for humanity.

Except I don't think 2girls1X is copyrighted at all so that's really the shittiest example you could have possibly found. (no pun intended!)

This isn't about protect young, innocent eyes from the big badness of the Internet; it's about restricting information in order to make it significantly harder to pass around copyrighted material. Unfortunately it also makes it significantly harder to pass around legit material.

Here's a link to a relevant piece of information: When New Zealand was considering similar legislation (although it wasn't as hush-hush as this legislation is), this is what Google had to say:
In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.

In other words, we're going to end up paying more to access less of the Internet, simply because businesses are engaging in the most cutthroat methods they can find. If the current state of affairs with takedown notices is this bad, imagine how bad it's going to be when this "secret legislation" is passed.

Seriously, do you people not fucking remember the whole hullaballoo when a McCain campaign video was incorrectly removed from Youtube? Some kid sent Youtube a fake takedown notice, and Youtube took it down and left it down for a significant period of time. Here's a link. That's just one example of the bullshit you can pull with these takedown notices.
milk from space is good for you!



User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:22 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Are there any court cases or stories of being cut-off without your IP address being used to actually download material that is copyrighted? More often than not the stories we hear are of people actually downloading things illegally (however minute) and then getting caught for it.
At this stage, that's rather irrelevant; because the treaty allows for you to be cut off on accusation, not once the proof has been gathered, and an actual decision made about whether there was wrong-doing or not.

/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Diadem » Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:29 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:
Diadem wrote:I think it has become clear and undeniable now: Obama is evil. We thought he would be an improvement over Bush. We thought he would restore democracy. But it is clear now that only his rhetoric is different. His policies are indistinguishable.

America is well and truly fucked. The world is well and truly fucked.

Ordinarily I'd stay out of this, but this here bothers me. Shades of grey, people, shades of grey. You built Obama into the Messiah last year, nobody's going to live up to those expectations. All politicians have to make compromises to get things done and none are going to live up to every campaign promise. I mean yeah, you should always expect them to do better, but c'mon, evil? Seriously? Don't you think that's just a wee bit over the top?

I never build Obama into a messiah. I've always thought he was more words than actions. But his heart at least seemed to be in the right place, and with his land-slide victory even a relatively poor president should be able to get things done.

I don't demand miracles. But it hasn't been a year and he's already broken almost all his promises. And then legislation like this. Seriously. This is not a case of being a weak or overly timid president. Or a president trying to appease the republicans. This is putting up your middle finger to your voters and taking freedom and democracy from behind. This ... is ... evil.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Zorlin
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 2:31 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Zorlin » Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:36 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:I am suggesting your worries are unfounded, and at the very least you should not be predicting the evil corporations denying you access to the internet and confiscating all your paid for materials.

Look carefully at what I'm about to say: I don't give a shit, and I don't believe that's going to happen. What I'm concerned about is being disconnected on accusation and those corporations having the ability to control such disconnections. I don't honestly believe there is a high risk of it happening to me, but I still don't believe they should have that kind of power.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/0 ... n-notices/

And "over 20" is a bit much. Quote them. Sources. The doomsaying is referring to the end of the Internet as we know it, not overall; so I believe you did miss the point.
Mysterious wizard rabbit of unknown proportions.

Check out #xkcd-hugs movie night! Watch movies with your fellow xkcdians.

Meaux_Pas wrote:You're all mad.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby General_Norris » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

Don't worry fellow Americans! We Europens are going to have this shit too! Yay!

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby The Reaper » Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:07 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:Don't worry fellow Americans! We Europens are going to have this shit too! Yay!

ORLY?
http://www.physorg.com/news176635871.html
However, in a victory for the EU assembly, governments relented and agreed to include guarantees in the bill protecting users from arbitrary cutoffs of their Internet services.

"This Internet freedom provision is unprecedented ... and (gives) a strong signal that the EU takes fundamental rights very seriously," Reding told reporters. "(It will) substantially enhance consumer rights and consumer choice in Europe's telecoms markets."

The bill still needs the final approval of the European Parliament and EU governments, which is expected later this month.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Ixtellor » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:39 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:Don't worry fellow Americans! We Europens are going to have this shit too! Yay!


The only thing we have is a leaked memo. I assume everyone has lots of those.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Sourire » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:45 pm UTC

Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and sound stupid here, but I think it's for the best.

For clarity's sake-what exactly are we looking at here? Because from some poster's responses, I would have assumed that this memo was indeed law that had already been set (if not yet in enforcement). This list is an absolutely awful idea of how to run the internet, but it's not exactly a new set of ideas per se. How close/far are they from seeing implementation? If our principle argument is that Obama did something in violation of public trust, I can understand the outrage, but what exactly was done here?
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

BrotherLaz
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:53 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby BrotherLaz » Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:12 pm UTC

Hi, my name is Europe, my name is China, India. Please implement this bill. We shall welcome your wretched and internet-less yearning to be free. (Please bring doctorate education)

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Philwelch » Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:13 pm UTC

Sourire wrote:Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and sound stupid here, but I think it's for the best.

For clarity's sake-what exactly are we looking at here? Because from some poster's responses, I would have assumed that this memo was indeed law that had already been set (if not yet in enforcement). This list is an absolutely awful idea of how to run the internet, but it's not exactly a new set of ideas per se. How close/far are they from seeing implementation? If our principle argument is that Obama did something in violation of public trust, I can understand the outrage, but what exactly was done here?


Obama is (secretly) trying to pass these provisions into law around the world.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Ixtellor » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:09 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Sourire wrote:Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and sound stupid here, but I think it's for the best.

For clarity's sake-what exactly are we looking at here? Because from some poster's responses, I would have assumed that this memo was indeed law that had already been set (if not yet in enforcement). This list is an absolutely awful idea of how to run the internet, but it's not exactly a new set of ideas per se. How close/far are they from seeing implementation? If our principle argument is that Obama did something in violation of public trust, I can understand the outrage, but what exactly was done here?


Obama is (secretly) trying to pass these provisions into law around the world.


Yes According to the website BoingBoing, Obama is secretly trying to pass these provisions.

The NYT, Washington Post, and um... every other news agency in the world has apparently missed the story.

So in summary: The famous website boingboing claims they have leaked information about this.

Ixtellor

P.S. The evil corporations aren't telling us about this leaked info because they are... evil corporations.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Aikanaro » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Philwelch wrote:
Sourire wrote:Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and sound stupid here, but I think it's for the best.

For clarity's sake-what exactly are we looking at here? Because from some poster's responses, I would have assumed that this memo was indeed law that had already been set (if not yet in enforcement). This list is an absolutely awful idea of how to run the internet, but it's not exactly a new set of ideas per se. How close/far are they from seeing implementation? If our principle argument is that Obama did something in violation of public trust, I can understand the outrage, but what exactly was done here?


Obama is (secretly) trying to pass these provisions into law around the world.


Yes According to the website BoingBoing, Obama is secretly trying to pass these provisions.

The NYT, Washington Post, and um... every other news agency in the world has apparently missed the story.

So in summary: The famous website boingboing claims they have leaked information about this.

Ixtellor

P.S. The evil corporations aren't telling us about this leaked info because they are... evil corporations.

You know, I know you're trying to paint this as a ridiculous scenario, but seriously, with the way the news agencies have been going these days....occasionally I'll hear stuff on these fora that gets me in an outrage, and then I'll be amazed that loads of other sites completely ignore it. (Off topic case in point: a couple of major news sites pretty much had zilch on Al Franken's recent amendment to the defense spending bill.)
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby kiklion » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:08 am UTC

Another point where the news stations were far behind the internet was with the Iran elections.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Philwelch » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:13 am UTC

Obviously, if it didn't make the New York Times it never happened.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby EMTP » Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:20 am UTC

This is an internet rumor. It's unsourced. It is a bad habit to which we are all subject to require very little in the way of evidence when a story agrees with the direction of either our prejudices or our fears.

Evidence first, panic second. That's how it should go.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Philwelch » Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:35 am UTC

Why? It's better to demonstrate palpable outrage against something that didn't end up happening (thus preventing it from happening unnecessarily) than to remain silent in the face of something that did end up happening, but we didn't have good enough evidence for.

And quite frankly, I'll give Doctorow the same credibility to report from anonymous sources that I'll give the New York Times. This isn't just some anonymous crank.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby EMTP » Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:54 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:Why? It's better to demonstrate palpable outrage against something that didn't end up happening (thus preventing it from happening unnecessarily) than to remain silent in the face of something that did end up happening, but we didn't have good enough evidence for.


A) No one cares about your outrage, and B) The question is not whether this is going to "end up" happening but whether there is any evidence this is happening at all. Credible arguments require evidence. You have none. Your argument is not credible. End of story.

And quite frankly, I'll give Doctorow the same credibility to report from anonymous sources that I'll give the New York Times. This isn't just some anonymous crank.


Your uncritical and emotional embrace of fact-free speculation when it fits your prejudices is an illustration of my point, not a counter to it.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Philwelch » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:15 am UTC

EMTP wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Why? It's better to demonstrate palpable outrage against something that didn't end up happening (thus preventing it from happening unnecessarily) than to remain silent in the face of something that did end up happening, but we didn't have good enough evidence for.


A) No one cares about your outrage


If no one cares about our outrage, then why do you waste your time arguing against expressing it?

B) The question is not whether this is going to "end up" happening but whether there is any evidence this is happening at all. Credible arguments require evidence. You have none. Your argument is not credible. End of story.


We have reliable individuals and organizations reporting a leaked document; we have public confirmation that the document exists but is being kept secret. That is evidence, but it is not enough evidence for you. There is a distinction.

If there is a credible risk that the leaked document is in fact genuine, then it is better to express outrage even if the document is not genuine. If the document is genuine, but we withhold our outrage out of skepticism, that is a much graver mistake.

EMTP wrote:
And quite frankly, I'll give Doctorow the same credibility to report from anonymous sources that I'll give the New York Times. This isn't just some anonymous crank.


Your uncritical and emotional embrace of fact-free speculation when it fits your prejudices is an illustration of my point, not a counter to it.


It's not fact-free speculation—it's an alleged statement of fact which is not verified to your personal satisfaction. There is an important difference.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby EMTP » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:27 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
If no one cares about our outrage, then why do you waste your time arguing against expressing it?


I'm arguing against having outrage on the basis of unsourced internet rumors. I'm arguing for people to smarten up a little bit and elevate the discourse.

We have reliable individuals and organizations reporting a leaked document; we have public confirmation that the document exists but is being kept secret. That is evidence, but it is not enough evidence for you. There is a distinction.


I'm sorry to have to tell you this, by reliable individuals tell me Cory Doctorow is deeply in debt to the Russian mob, as a result of demanding that he be fed exclusively an all-white-tiger diet for the past six years. They are forcing him to drive this rumor in order to pump up sales of pirated movies to gullible internet dittoheads. Doctorrow hasn't a shred of credibility left.

I read it on the Internet. Is true.

If there is a credible risk that the leaked document is in fact genuine, then it is better to express outrage even if the document is not genuine. If the document is genuine, but we withhold our outrage out of skepticism, that is a much graver mistake.


Yeah, no. Any such treaty would have to pass the Senate. I'd be in the public sphere for months. Pre-emptive hyperventilating does nothing but muddy the waters, destroy the credibility of those who cry wolf, and increase the pointless vitriol of our public discourse.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby folkhero » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:14 am UTC

EMTP wrote:I'm sorry to have to tell you this, by reliable individuals tell me Cory Doctorow is deeply in debt to the Russian mob, as a result of demanding that he be fed exclusively an all-white-tiger diet for the past six years. They are forcing him to drive this rumor in order to pump up sales of pirated movies to gullible internet dittoheads. Doctorrow hasn't a shred of credibility left.

If you had done anything to establish as much credibility as Doctorow has, and if your story wasn't obviously ham-handedly made up to make a point, we might tend towards believing you and not him. You haven't and it isn't so we won't. Cory Doctorow is somewhat credible, and you can't just wish that away.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
MiB24601
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:13 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby MiB24601 » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:39 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:If there is a credible risk that the leaked document is in fact genuine, then it is better to express outrage even if the document is not genuine. If the document is genuine, but we withhold our outrage out of skepticism, that is a much graver mistake.

EMTP wrote:Yeah, no. Any such treaty would have to pass the Senate. I'd be in the public sphere for months. Pre-emptive hyperventilating does nothing but muddy the waters, destroy the credibility of those who cry wolf, and increase the pointless vitriol of our public discourse.


Actually, it doesn't have to be to voted on by the senate, since technically, the ACTA isn't a treaty, it's an executive agreement. While executive agreements are considered treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), as far as the internal United States law is concerned, treaties are entirely different instruments from congressional-executive agreements and executive agreements. Executive agreements don't have to be voted on by the legislature.

However, like I mentioned much earlier in the thread, the court has never ruled on if executive agreements would supersede existing federal statutes the way treaties do. It's hard to say which way the courts would decide that issue since pretty much every international law expert has a different view on the matter.
"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby phillipsjk » Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:00 am UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:
Cynical Idealist wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:('_')
Government oversight of this would not be the only thing sucking up money or jobs, should this be enacted and followed through in a measurable way on. It would be a real damper for P2P services of all sorts, and those are kind of a big deal.

Yes, P2P is kind of a big deal, but...you didn't link any sites really connected with P2P.

<_<
Misuse of the term. My bad.
All of them are essentially based around people communicating, sharing files of varying sorts, and so on amongst themselves. All of them also happen to be very hard to comb through effectively to find copyrighted materials, let alone find out who put them there. Wiki especially. Anyway, the sharing of files from a non-centralized distributor tripped me up there.

Actual P2P stuff would be rather in a tight spot too, though.

IMHO, "Bright Shadows" was using the term correctly. The Internet Protocol is a peer-to-peer protocol. Just because most consumers are prohibited from listening on "Well known Ports" does not change that fact.

I am hopeful the the Transition to IPv6 (Hurricane Electric site) will lead to a resurgence of P2P protocol experimentation. Of course, all your ISP has to do to block a 6over4 tunnel is block protocol 41. I am not sure how a tunnel would affect the TOS. Many "white label" ISPs tunnel your packets over the network of the "real" provider anyway. It probably boils down to a Coloured bits problem.

As for my position on the specific issue: Copyright lasts far too long for such serious penalties on infringement. I am not yet at the point where I think copyright should be abolished. I feel the term should be drastically reduced to something like 20 years, possibly renewable once. I currently have a book out of the library originally published in 1896 entitled: "Bicycles & Tricycles: An Elementary Treatise On Their Design And Construction; With Examples And Tables" By Archibald Sharp, B.Sc. The copy I have was republished in 1977 By the MIT Press. The copyright page reads:
MIT Press wrote:Copyright (C) 1977 by
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

This book was reproduced from an original in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries.

This book was printed and bound by Braun-Brumsfield Company in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Sharp, Archibald, 1862-1934.
Bicycles and Tricycles.

Reprint of the 1896 ed. published by Longmans, Green, London, New York.
Includes index.
I. Bicycles and tricycles. I. Title
TL410.S5 1977 629.22'72 77-4928
ISBN 0-262-19156-3

If I am reading that correctly, MIT press was able to renew the copyright after the author's death by photocopying and republishing an original they had in thier collection. Why am I not allowed to do the same thing with a DVD in 81 years? In a similar vein, try finding classical sheet music out of copyright some time (you will find similar contemporary copyright dates).

Even more troubling: why must my computer enforce some kind of police state? The DRM of today is no different than the stern warnings in the copyright pages of yester-year. The only difference is that now the "information storage and retrieval system" has the smarts to say: "You are not allowed to do that!"; even if it is wrong.
Did you get the number on that truck?

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby General_Norris » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:03 pm UTC

I don't get the European Treaty, it says exactly the same thing, that no judge is needed but that there must be first some kind of investigation, there must be a "not-trial" with an impartial "not-judge" and "not-evidence" must be shown. Also the "not accused party" can make counterclaims and prove their "not innocence".

That's what I read in the newspaper today. So basically, it doesn't make sense. There doesn't need to be a judicial order BUT there must be a judge. Wow.

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby headprogrammingczar » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:59 pm UTC

phillipsjk wrote:
MIT Press wrote:Copyright (C) 1977 by
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

This book was reproduced from an original in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries.

This book was printed and bound by Braun-Brumsfield Company in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Sharp, Archibald, 1862-1934.
Bicycles and Tricycles.

Reprint of the 1896 ed. published by Longmans, Green, London, New York.
Includes index.
I. Bicycles and tricycles. I. Title
TL410.S5 1977 629.22'72 77-4928
ISBN 0-262-19156-3

The irony in this quote is incredible. Not only do they get to 'steal' the copyright by photocopying the book, but they also get to tell other people they can't do the same.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby The Reaper » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:31 pm UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:The irony in this quote is incredible. Not only do they get to 'steal' the copyright by photocopying the book, but they also get to tell other people they can't do the same.
I imagine it only applies to the reprint, and not the original book. The original book may not have had the copyright, and, if you get a copy of it, you may be able to reproduce it yourself, just so long as you don't copy MIT's version.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:25 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:Obviously, if it didn't make the New York Times it never happened.


I am not saying that and furthermore thats a strawman tactic. (Step up your game - you represent the philosphy division of XKCD. )

What I am saying is that Doctorow is not an investigative journalist, and furthermore he has an agenda.
I do not doubt that he is an expert on copywrite and filesharing, but I fear(very high probability) his agenda is driving the story, instead of cold hard facts. I think this is nothing more than a speculative scare tactic be driven by a vocal minority who hate copyright laws and think p2p is the greatest thing since polio vaccinations.

Perhaps, he did hit on something important, but I think its evident to any rational personal, there is no supporting evidence that the sky is falling.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby diotimajsh » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:47 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:]I imagine it only applies to the reprint, and not the original book. The original book may not have had the copyright, and, if you get a copy of it, you may be able to reproduce it yourself, just so long as you don't copy MIT's version.
I'm guessing MIT Press put some work into transcribing it, possibly doing some extra editing? Maybe phillipsjk can tell us whether it looks exactly like this Google Books copy of the original, or if they did re-set the type and page organization, add editor's notes and corrections, etc. When it comes to classical sheet music, typically that gets "re-engraved" to be more readable, rather than exactly replicating several-hundred-year-old manuscripts.

That said, I still feel pretty disgusted by the practice. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing to respect the work that MIT put into "reproducing" it, assuming they did do something beyond merely photocopying it. And maybe it's a bit like contemporary musicians performing out-of-print music: they get copyrights to the new sound recordings of their performances/interpretations, though not the compositions. But it doesn't sit quite right with me.


Say, now I'm curious: does anyone know what happens if you attempt to register a copyright on the public domain content itself? E.g., I send in a composition that is note-for-note identical to one of Chopin's more obscure preludes, but I call it something different; I also register it with ASCAP/BMI. Next, I attempt to sue any performers who release recordings of that prelude.

I can't imagine it would hold up, and maybe it wouldn't even make it through the registration processes, but then...
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Cynical Idealist » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:47 pm UTC

phillipsjk wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:
Cynical Idealist wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:('_')
Government oversight of this would not be the only thing sucking up money or jobs, should this be enacted and followed through in a measurable way on. It would be a real damper for P2P services of all sorts, and those are kind of a big deal.

Yes, P2P is kind of a big deal, but...you didn't link any sites really connected with P2P.

<_<
Misuse of the term. My bad.
All of them are essentially based around people communicating, sharing files of varying sorts, and so on amongst themselves. All of them also happen to be very hard to comb through effectively to find copyrighted materials, let alone find out who put them there. Wiki especially. Anyway, the sharing of files from a non-centralized distributor tripped me up there.

Actual P2P stuff would be rather in a tight spot too, though.

IMHO, "Bright Shadows" was using the term correctly. The Internet Protocol is a peer-to-peer protocol. Just because most consumers are prohibited from listening on "Well known Ports" does not change that fact.

If we consider the entire Internet Protocol a peer-to-peer protocol, then he still didn't link any sites that make extraordinary use of peer-to-peer methods.

However, he did link plenty of sites with user-generated content, which is both more applicable to the discussion and probably what he meant to say. This agreement, if it becomes law and is enforced, will essentially spell the end of large-scale sites with user-generated content. They just don't have the manpower, and can't afford the manpower, to review all user submissions to ensure that they are non-infringing. But they will be required to.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:50 pm UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:However, he did link plenty of sites with user-generated content, which is both more applicable to the discussion and probably what he meant to say. This agreement, if it becomes law and is enforced, will essentially spell the end of large-scale sites with user-generated content. They just don't have the manpower, and can't afford the manpower, to review all user submissions to ensure that they are non-infringing. But they will be required to.
Wikipedia?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Belial » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:54 pm UTC

But...but...wikipedia....

I know I've defended him a lot, but if Obama kills wikipedia, I will be casting my next vote for anyone-but-him.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:58 pm UTC

Belial wrote:But...but...wikipedia....

I know I've defended him a lot, but if Obama kills wikipedia, I will be casting my next vote for anyone-but-him.


1) Did you read the time article that suggested wikipedia was kind of dying on its own? (nothing much left to right about thats exciting enough to... )

2) I have been having large debates with academic peers regarding wikipedia and its merits. I am a big fan, and while I would never let or recommend anyone using it in formal writing, I think it is an excellent starting point for any research -- assuming you don't have access to Jstore or Lexis-Nexis. I still get the whole "did you get that off of wikipedia" snide remarks when debating with fellow academics, as if it instantly makes an argument invalid. *frustrating*


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:00 pm UTC

This just in!

MEGA-HITLER announces bid for Presidency in 2012! His comprehensive policies include: OPPRESSION, MURDER, KILLING EVERYONE WITH A NAME HE CANNOT PRONOUNCE...









...and not fucking with the internet.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby Jessica » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:04 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:This just in!

MEGA-HITLER announces bid for Presidency in 2012! His comprehensive policies include: OPPRESSION, MURDER, KILLING EVERYONE WITH A NAME HE CANNOT PRONOUNCE...









...and not fucking with the internet.

Pff he's just lying about the last one... But those other values... at least he's honest amirite?
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:26 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:Pff he's just lying about the last one... But those other values... at least he's honest amirite?
I'm actually imagining that his entire campaign is run by 4chan, who agreed to help him on the basis that he will not fuck with the internet (except the parts of the internet that Scientology operates on. Apparently they're okay with that).

BUT THEN AT THE LAST MOMENT HE'LL BETRAY THEM, AND...

Okay, if I keep going with this I'll end up writing a story about Mega-Hitler and his epic battle against Wikipedia and the internet, so I'll stop here.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grop, Zamfir and 7 guests