Germany has become the latest, and more economically important, nation to place a hold on ratification of the controversial ACTA treaty. The government said that it had decided to hold off on signing ACTA after concerns were raised by the Minister of Justice over the need for the treaty. The government has said it will now wait …
I want, I want it all
How dare film makers, artists or anybody that invests in creativity stop us pirating their works for free. I want to be able to walk into my local shop and take what I want without paying, just like millions do on the internet. I don't care if struggling artists can't feed their families because of piracy. They should be thankfull we take the time to listen to their music - infact they should pay us! I don't care if a young director manages to make a minor hit film with promising sales where he might just cover his costs - only for it to be posted on the piratebay and kill any chance he had of paying the cast, cameras, makeup, lighting and moving forward with new projects. In a similar vein I think my boss shouldn't bother paying me, after all I steal everything so I couldn't hold it against my boss for doing the same. Why should I be paid for my hard work? Best of all, like the artists I steal from, I am no longer paid and now work for free, thus I am not taxable and no longer contribute to the running of schools, roads and hospitals.
I want it all
How dare citizens of the EU, their representatives or anybody individual who pays taxes anywhere stop us getting draconian laws that affect everyone's privacy on the statute books, I want to be able to walk into a persons home, rip it apart, confiscate anything I want to because I think that once upon a time they might have used the internet or seen a dodgy Louis Vuitton bag at a market which automatically makes them guilty of piracy, hell, they may even have committed the heinous crime of format shifting, moving media I own in perpetuity from an obsolete medium to a usable medium and not paid me for the privilege every time they use it. I don't care if they have bought the same tired old shite on every format in existence, it's mine I tell you and I want my dead business model propped up with laws that restrict the rights of my customers. How dare they expect laws enacted tby their masters to have been debated properly and not just railroaded through onto the statute books because we happen to have much more money than they do, it is after all what governments are for, to pander to the will of corporate business and help us increase our profits whilst all the time we seek to minimise the taxes we pay into the system to contribute to the running of schools, roads and hospitals.
in conclusion, fuck you, we're corporate and we do what the fuck we want, never mind your 'rights' to privacy, democracy and fairness, we demand our profits and we want them now.
It's not designed to stop people taking what they are not entitled to.
It's designed in the same way as the same anti-terrorist legislation which define the whole of Iceland as a terrorist nation just because some banks were over-extended.
Copyright infringement is already an offence. Why do you think any government need far more wide ranging powers and for more "offences" to convict on to stop something they already have the power to convict on?
Oh look, there's someone driving while using a mobile phone. We need a new law to stop that from happening. It's obviously not driving without due care and attention or reckless driving. Oh noes!, we need another new law for that very specific offence.
Grow up and smell the coffee.
When you've done that, go actually read and take in just what ACTA means.
YOU MUST BE OUT TO GET THE....
Biggest downvote record outside of criticising Apple products.
Now that AC posts appear to be a thing of the past, eventhough I think you are talking through your ears I will give you an upvote on the grounds that we must all take a balanced view and I sympathise with your .....
S*d it, no I won't!
Of phones and steering wheels
"Oh look, there's someone driving while using a mobile phone. We need a new law to stop that from happening..."
Actually, here in California, U.S.A. we have precisely that. I'd like to extend your analogy slightly, so that anyone caught violating that law is stripped of driving privileges for life, put under house arrest and forced to wear an electronic tracking device to ensure they never come closer than ten feet to the steering wheel of a motor vehicle, and forced to register, like sex offenders, on a rogues' registry of menaces to the driving public paraded before the public at every opportunity.
I think that was the original posters point, most countries have a "no using the mobile phone whilst driving" law, despite them all having a "driving without undue care and attention" catch-all law on the statute books already which allows the cops to prosecute anyone for anything which they think is dangerous from eating a sandwich to receiving oral pleasure.
Unfortunately they don't seem to ever apply it to parents with screaming kids on the back seat, possibly the most distracted and dangerous drivers I see.
I don't give a crap what it contains.
This is an international treaty that requires governments to enact legislation that has been agreed behind out backs and without any democratic process.
It has to go for that reason alone.
To add to that
It has no advantages to the population. It can be interpreted in different ways particularly as it only sets lowest standards in enforcements. If an agreement says that a certain datum must be stored for at least 2 weeks and up to 2 years, politicians will more likely go for the 2 year period, they have a track record of doing that.
Anti-ACTA is also against the idea that you can dictate laws from "above", wherever that may be. Laws should be created in a transparent and open way. That's what democracy is about. If politicians don't want that, they should stop calling themselves democrats. They should start a referendum to change the constitution to grant them unlimited power, and if it fails they should leave. That would at least be honest.
Here's what I wold like.
What I wold like is for your mother or father or a child to be in the hospital or go to a doctor, and end up dying from having been giving a counterfeit medication. Or be in a fatal airline or automobile crash because some unknowingly put a counterfeit part in it, either a brake or an engine mount or a computer chip or a fuse or anything.
Then maybe you will understand the problem that is being addressed by this bill, so vehemently opposed by stupid people like you.
Well said sir and/or madam
It's worrying that Germany hasn't accepted Mr Orlowski's advice, of course, but it stands to reason that several years of a US-driven secretive process is "not necessarily to our advantage."
Then maybe you will understand the problem that is being addressed by this bill
Says a moron who clearly knows and understands jack shit about ACTA, or the effects it will have on our lives. So I guess you're defending this POS bill just because being the contra pole gives you a boner.
I fully won't comment on your wish for someone to die, though, as this would most certainly be removed by the moderators due to the language used. Just to say that someone must be a real low-life to do that.
Because we clearly don't have laws against fake medicines and counterfeiting already?
>>end up dying from having been giving a counterfeit medication
>>some unknowingly put a counterfeit part in it
>calls people stupid
Some here haven't the slightest clue about traceability and engineering or how liability works.
Some even thinks random book laws can change the laws of human behavior.
you must have done something bad in a previous life to have all that s*it happen to you!
That's not what ACTA is for.
We already have laws prohibiting what you describe, and far reaching powers to punish offenders.
What happens if you knowingly sell fake insulin to a diabetic and that person dies?
Worst case, you get fried.
We don't need ACTA, just like we don't need most of the "anti-terrorist" style laws. We have enough laws to prosecute the bad guys. These new laws have only one purpose, to remove freedoms.
You'd like my family to die to illustrate a point about counterfeit goods? Bit extreme don't you think?
Problem with laws like ACTA is that they don't fix the problem, there's no way for counterfeit drugs/aircraft parts or computer chips for critical systems to get into the system unless there's a gaping hole in the procedures put in place to ensure that they don't. That gaping hole will still be there, ACTA or not.
The worst part...
The worst part about Turtle's milli-digit IQ rant is that it can be used to justify any law. As long as your only criteria is "come up with an over-the-top, melodramatic, too lame for Lifetime sob story which could at some point be prevented by this law" you'll pass any crap you want.
"What I wold[sic] like is for your mother or father or a child to be in the hospital or go to a doctor, and end up dying from having been DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DUE TO WRONG COLOUR SHOELACES. Or be in a fatal airline or automobile crash because some unknowingly WORE THE WRONG COLOUR SHOELACES TO WORK AND WAS SENT HOME BEFORE THEY COULD FIX IT, either a brake or an engine mount or a computer chip or a fuse or anything.
Then maybe you will understand the problem that is being addressed by this bill, so vehemently opposed by stupid people like you."
I agree. Ban chromatic shoelaces.
You would like my child to die?
I wish you had the guts to say that to my face, such a pity that freaks like you are so cowardly you only ever say such horrible things while hiding in your bedroom.
Re: Here's what I wold like.
FFS man, behave yourself.
No. In this case, stupidity is inability to distinguish between fighting bad things and fighting bad laws that supposedly fight the bad things.
BTW, could someone delete at least one of JBC33's comments, they are identical (except for the headline) and completely off topic as well as fairly stupid. I don't think we need that _twice_.
Nah proof of doofosity [or alternatively astroturfing, who knows] is a teachable moment.
@Author: it's 'Der Spiegel' not 'De Spiegel'
It's a German magazine, not a Dutch one ;-)
Write to your EU MP
I did. In fact I wrote to all the UK Lib Dem's MPs.
I received interesting replies back from some of them. Not all of them are happy with the ACTA bill. Some couldn't give a $hit about it or their constituents as long as the gravy train keeps all rolling.
But what they do know now is that people are watching their actions and will hold them to account. If more people wrote it would have a bigger impact. So what's stopping you? The time it takes to make a angry comment on here would be better sent directing it at them.
Here is the link: http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs.html
Go on make a difference
@Write to your EU MP
I did write some years ago when ACTA was first being leaked, and got a boiler-plate reply to the effect that such treaties are 'normally negotiated behind closed doors'.
Now while I agree that some of the anti-ACTA protests are based on imagined or now-deleted aspects of the treaty, it should still be kicked out simply BECAUSE OF THIS.
If we are to have better laws, and a more sensible approach to trademarks & IP, then it should be something that is discussed in public with inputs from ALL parties, and not just the government ministers and IP lobbies.
You won't make everyone happy, but at least you will have some semblance of democracy in action, and a chance to deal with the issues that matter to both the IP lobby (protection & reward of invention and creativity) and to the consumers (fair global market, no locked-down systems intended to prevent fair use and maximise profit).
Laws that are seen to be fair and reasonable have more chance of being respected and upheld.
UKIP came out on top
Last weekend I wrote to all of my MEP's asking them to reject ACTA. After a week the only one who responded was William Dartmouth (UKIP MEP). He said he would vote against it.
To be fair his response basically said the UKIP will vote against all EU legislation and treaties, but he seemed very keen that I understand the UKIP are dead set against ACTA and have pushed for a 'motion for resolution'.
Something is very wrong when you find yourself on the same side as the UKIP, next thing you know the BNP or SNP will come out against it.
Bit of a difference between UKIP and the BNP. (Can't comment on the SNP, although they do look amusing on the TV). UKIP are for the UK's interests and against the EU bureaucratic steam roller.
Given the way national governments go round implementing pretty much anything which comes out of Brussels you would be forgiven for wondering why we both to pay for all their second homes and duck houses.
Wrote to your MP?
Did you really expect anything to come out of it?
On the SNP, of course: why should it be bracketed with the loony right-wing phenomenon that is the BNP and the slightly less loony right-wing phenomenon that is UKIP?
What's being forgotten here is
... that it's not so much the content of *this* particular treaty (though I don't like it personally) it's more...
The underhand secretive method it been done in, to paraphrase the UK gov 'Nothing to hide nothing to fear'
It's a foot in the door for Big Media which you *know* will begin to scope creep as soon as it's ratified and THAT is a very very bad thing so slam the door shut and crush the foot, preferably as painfully as possible to make it think twice about coming back any time soon. Big Media wants control of the internet and it's not too fussed about how it gets it.
'We the people' do not support putting the interests of wealthy corporations before our own. We don't want this and you do not do this in OUR name or for OUR benefit.
And so forth.
What it's really about
is letting the neanderthal record corporations and film studios set themselves up as judge, jury, prosecution and executioner all in one, and forcing the ISPs to be the police force.
We already have copyright laws. If you're accused of breaking the law you should face a fair trial.
Censorship of comments is getting out of control.
The slightest mention of certain people and they refuse to post it.
The real nerve is this site often posts articles condemning the sort of behaviour they are more than happy to perpetrate themselves.
I have no doubt that you Chinese inspired hypocrites will censor this comment also.
Re: Censorship of comments is getting out of control.
How is this censorship? Everyone can say what they want on their own site or elsewhere. No-one gets hurt
This is our site - our rules. You are entirely capable of making your points more politely. But if you insult our staff I can guarantee you that those comments will not be published.
However when one of your staff decides that *his* opinions are the only ones that matter and that *nobody* else is allowed to post comments disagreeing with him (even when he gets fundamental details wrong such as thinking that Yvette Cloette is male!) it's not so much "our site - our rules" but "this is my ball and my back yard and if I don't like you, you're not allowed to play".
This is our site - our rules - agreed
but we are the people that spread this sites, bread with butter.
without us this site and the articles on it are worthless. We regular commentards should be able to voice our opinions about issues we see that are detrimentally affecting the sites creditability.
notable exceptions to this are the nasty little trolls. As for personal attacks these are just the last refuge of the truly stoopid! And that doesn't just refer to the commentards.
Of course you could withdraw service from those that don't play by the rules and you are entitled to do so. But isn't this just the same as what the media companies did. If you don't like our prices go elsewhere... well guess what everybody did.
I think the absence of reasoned discussion in the comments section shows that this is also happening here. Why do I come? Because there is still some excellent articles here but they are getting harder and harder to find.
Please don't take this personally as it isn't meant as an attack personal or otherwise but an observation
It is censorship
Well, maybe if some of the authors actually did what a proper journalist is supposed to do (research) instead of making things up then the feedback wouldn't be so negative?
Or in short: don't play with fire if you can't stand the heat.
I agree that blatantly offending posts should be removed, but it seems everything which is critical regarding a certain author is just censored. That *IS* censorship, and it's cowardice.
"Everyone can say what they want on their own site or elsewhere."
Exactly. If said author wants an Internet megaphone without the feedback then he/she should open his/her own blog with the comments disabled and see how far that gets him/her.
How many IT news sites don't have comments these days? Very few.
How many IT news sites that do have comments disable them for just one author? I'll hazard a guess: One.
Kind of odd that this author is afforded the same protection as other publications do for the royal family.
ACTA is not really about internet copying
It's about a company saying "Hey, that's a rip-off" (of our patent / TM / colour etc.) and getting things confiscated.
Just think about the current spats between Apple, Motorola, Samsung, etc. Now think that instead of talking to judges, Apple just says to the customs people: "Anything that looks like a tablet that isn't made by Apple is a rip-off; confiscate them and feed them to the crusher". Perhaps Motorola can say "Apple hasn't paid any license fees for our patents that they use in their iPhones; confiscate them". It's bad enough already, but without judges slowing down the squabbling, it will just get out of hand.
Now imagine that you are coming home from your holiday through customs, and the customs person takes a liking to your handbag/camera/whatever. They ask you for the receipt to prove that you bought it at a shop authorised by the trademark owner. If you haven't got it, can they say they suspect it is fake and confiscate it?
What about those Levis Jeans that you bought in Tescos. Levis have already tried to stop that, but haven't managed so far. Since they own the trade mark, they can claim that Tescos are selling the jeans in breach of their trademark (even though they aren't even fakes). Dawn raid on Tescos perhaps?
And that is part of the problem, not just with ACTA, but with PIPA and SOPA too. These poorly conceived "laws" and "treaties" might have the best intentions behind them (but I doubt that) but they all suffer from the same problems.
1. They are being pushed through without proper debate. At least they were - public protest already have had an effect on the two US based laws. We shall have to wait and see about ACTA.
2. They are so loosely based that they can be interpreted in any conceivable way. To use my previous hammer example, just because it looks like a hammer, it doesn't mean that it will only ever be used to knock nails in. OK, Tescos might be big enough to weather these attacks but what about all the small companies, the start ups, the single person businesses whose cash flow could be wiped out just for a single link out of place or a familiar tune in the background of a video?
3. The main people behind it or pushing for these things to become official are people with a vested interest in the status quo. And no, I am not referring to the UK heavy rock (well heavy-ish) band.
Does this now mean that the law is a Motion Picture Ass of America? Shall we just do away with gubbermints in favour of the BMI and its big brother, the RIAA?
Well done 'The People'. We is fighting the 'Corporate Whores' and we is Winning! Power to the People (used to be called democracy).
All grammatical errors made on purpose.
ACTA isn't about helping the struggling artist, it is about keeping much needed cheap medicines from third world countries and controlling the free flow of information.
...what could possibly go wrong.
The problem with over-reaching on copyright laws is being illustrated plain as day here, after looking at ACTA I'm seeing nothing objectionable really, but because of things like DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, and dozen other proposed laws and actual laws, it doesn't really matter.
It's like the boy who cried wolf. The public is sick to death of governments and big corporations and automatically assumes anything coming out of their mouth's is a lie, never mind the actual text of the treaty. The public sees a law being pushed by big corporations with hot-topic words like "copyright" and "piracy" and automatically sees "censorship".
And the corporations have no-one to blame but themselves, they were the ones that sued kids for downloading MP3, they were the ones that wanted huge board powers, they were the ones that pushed and pushed and now they are feeling the backlash. And frank if the people don't want it... well... they are making their voices heard... and governments might love the big cheques that come in from the "contributions" but they like being in power a great deal more, as illustrated by the government suddenly "rethinking" ACTA.
after looking at ACTA I'm seeing nothing objectionable really
Well, I have, for example the fact that ACTA is supposed to be controlled by a committee which is free to interpret the bill text as they see fit.
Maybe you didn't look close enough?
It doesn't matter
As long as they continue to prosecute pirates, it's all good. Laws are only of value if they are enforced. Piracy or "infringement of copyrights" if you prefer is a crime. It's very simple, punish those who violate law.
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE
- Analysis Hey, Teflon Ballmer. Look, isn't it time? You know, time to quit?
- Murdoch Facebook gloat: You're like my $580m, 'CRAPPY' MySpace