STOP ACTA - Please Watch

Good Morning Ladies and Gents.

I am posting this today to raise awareness about ACTA and how it is effecting everyone and to raise support against it. If you have heard about ACTA you may or may not be aware of how bad it is or how it will effect everyone including yourself!

So whether or not you have heard of ACTA this video is a must watch for everyone. Share the Video between your friends and family, share it amougst other online communities ACTA must be heard about, It must be stopped!

http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0

If you wish to show your support at stopping ACTA please sign the below petition:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet/?fp

300,000 Signatures today. Thank you to everyone that is watching the video and signing the petition. We really do need to show the people are against this.

Please continue to raise awareness share the video and petition around. And if you haven't signed it allready then please do. We need your support.

Regards,
Max

Geez, yesterday that video had 64 views, now 400k. Well, I hope you guys can beat this threat to free speech. Good luck

Thank you to everyone for your continued support we have now reached 978,430 signatures and the video has been watched a total of 570,907

Please if you haven't already show your support against ACTA. The peition is due to be handed in shortly so help us get to 1 million signatures. Remember you can sign this petition no matter where you are in the world. It effects everyone worldwide!

Video: http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0

Petition: http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet/?fp

999,000 Signatures........ They are rapidly racking up.........

its a good thing to know that someone here in this community supports stop acta act.
good luck for all of us.

6 REASONS TO BE AGAINST ACTA (Important links at the bottom)


1: SURVEILLANCE: "Currently the internet works a lot like the highway system -- there are rules, and there are police patrolling the information highway looking to make sure those rules are followed. But citizens have the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to travel it without warrantless searches or seizures. Under the new system, it would be as if the highway patrol put a video camera, GPS, and sensor network inside your car tracking your every movement."


2: SECRECY: "The trouble with ACTA is that it was all carried out under the shroud of secrecy and executive orders. The public would never have known about ACTA's wild provisions at all, were it not for a source/sources close to the trade agreement who leaked it to the internet." There is proof that ACTA was first talked about and put in Motion from as early as May 2008 and we are only hearing about it now over 3 years later.


3: CHANGEABLE: "ACTA is a fluid document, in that unlike a law like SOPA or PIPA, it can be changed or altered at any time with little effort outside of convincing the member states to embrace the change." From a video at the bottom of this post you will find there are big secrets about ACTA that are not yet 'part of ACTA' but as soon as ACTA becomes enforced world wide they are free to add in these secret parts which are automatically enforceable and nothing you can do about it!


4: ABOVE THE LAW: ACTA gives the rights of Media Companies to and Copyright holders to view your information, your actions and to disconnect you from the internet without a court order. Once enforced it is untouchable via national laws and override them all.


5: ILLEGAL: "ACTA is Likely an Illegal Document"

""the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.""


6: BRIBERY: "cash payments for favourable rules" Media Companies are paying to have their own rules agreed to.


ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT VIDEO: http://youtu.be/Dy3zBZ4vI4E

A VIDEO ALL ABOUT ACTA: http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0

PEITION AGAINST ACTA: http://goo.gl/6GIkI (WORLDWIDE CAN SIGN)
1.2 Million Signatures Thank You!!!!

E-MAIL THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF VOTING WITH NO EFFORT: http://stop-acta-in.eu/ (EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ONLY)

FOLLOW THE LATEST WITH ANONYMOUS: https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23Anonymous

Misinformation goes both ways, it seems.

Mis Information?

I know there is an artical about myths of ACTA but what is fogotten about is once ACTA is in enforment it can be changed and added to without any voting and just gets enforced. Do you really think they aer going to refrain from adding more.

I appologise if I have any bad information and I know there is alot out there but the most important thing is we need to stand up against ACTA as there is alot of truth about what is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by max_carpenter

I know there is an artical about myths of ACTA but what is fogotten about is once ACTA is in enforment it can be changed and added to without any voting and just gets enforced. Do you really think they aer going to refrain from adding more.

---

Perhaps you could point out the section where the ACTA articles can be amended 'without vote'? Do you understand how this international agreement - which has already been signed (in the US by Obama) - is enforced?

Basically, the points that you have put forward are bogus statements based on straw man arguments: are they your thoughts and statements, conclusions reached by others after watching/reading scare tactic media, or is it simply a copy of statements made by said media?

I really recommend reading it, if you have not done so (perhaps in as little as an hour).

Of note, I see you are from the UK, yet you have quoted the US Bill Of Rights. Any US law means diddly squat to someone in the UK and visa versa (ignoring the fact that this agreement cannot supersede the Bill of Rights).

But therein lies one of many problems with this agreement (lest one think that I, personally, approve of said agreement): it is worded poorly, but critically, the agreement itself is not at fault, but one is at the mercy of the laws of ones own province. This article indicates the obligations of the parties to an agreement, but make no requirements on how those laws are made.

For example, just because the US agrees (per this agreement) to impose jail time and/or fines for an infringement, doesn't mean that it automatically happens. It still has to be established through the legislative process. Note that there are already federal laws regarding such infringements.

While I don't believe Obama has the authority to make such an executive decision, this agreement is nothing more than pssing in the wind; this is nothing more than international back slapping and has no authoritative power over the signatory parties.

Hi, Thanks for your post. Yes I know I quoted a US law and I am from the UK but I am not just shouting out to people in the UK I am shouting out to the world.

What I am stating is based on information I have read throughout the net and from other people regarding ACTA and like I said I appologise if certain bits are wrong I try to keep it as factual as I can but I have seen many places state that this agreement can be changed by a comittie on many sites. I do not have an example right now as I didnt save these articals (too many) but if I come across one again I will link to it.

Also I read somewhere about the way International Treaties work and they are not allowed to be open to interpratations and therefore if there are areas that are too generic then it must be agreed upon what it actually means.

I know if has been signed by the US and many other countires (including the UK but not enforced until signed by the EU) and from what I have read it wont be actually enforced until all intended parties are in agreeance and signed.

I have not read the ACTA text myself yet because I am a very slow reader and it will take me time as well as trying to keep up with what is happening but I will get round to doing so.

I recommend that before you start shouting, that you do a bit of research: that is, read the document and read a dissemination from a reliable source ;)

A self-professed anarchist, such as 'Anonymous' really isn't an objective source: the video you posted is basically a pack of lies, misdirection, straw man arguments and non-sequiturs. Ironically, if Youtube were to be 'shutdown' it would be no big loss if this is representative content.

Each argument could be ripped down and shown for what it is, but as I have said - that the video does not recommend, and specifically implies that it's too hard for you, the viewer, to understand - read the document.

Note that the agreement is written at a low grade level. It has to be this way because the agreement is required to be written in English, and the keeper of the document will be Japan (go ahead and ask for a reference for this statement). Many signatory countries are not native English speaking nations.

So, ratherthan relying on dubious anonymous commentary and crappy videos, I'd refer you to the actual document. this is the starting point for a reasoned argument:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy...cta1105_en.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

this agreement is nothing more than pssing in the wind;

---

Ya know, that's a pretty bad metaphor. As one who has made a minor study of this action, it is one that should not be taken without due consideration of the impacts. Direction, velocity, audience, and 'down winders' all have to be taken into careful account when undertaking such an action. Failure to do so will have dire consequences up to and including great bodily harm or even death (depending on those down winders).

so what about the world of programming? will it be that affected as to the music/movie industry?
and if it is, will all the ideas like all the posts here are to be copyrighted?

Despite facts being wrong I am still opposed to the idea and so it appears are many EU MP's as their replies are suggesting that they are worried about the act and will be voting no when the time comes.

Ok it might not be any where near as bad as it seems and the like of Anonymous are saying but I still do not agree with it and I feel if we just let it happen we are just as bad and letting them get away with more and more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lehgzil

so what about the world of programming? will it be that affected as to the music/movie industry?
and if it is, will all the ideas like all the posts here are to be copyrighted?

---

Copyright laws don't necessarily change because of the mentioned agreement.

If you are in the US, there are already well-defined copyright laws; such agreements give the ability to enforce those copyright laws, and establish well defined copyright laws where none exist.

As far as forum posts go, simply saying something does not imply it is copyrighted. Saying that something can be done cannot be copyrighted. It is very well defined what is, or is not, copyright-able (sp?) but it does get quite hazy with regards to code. Specifically, if you post code that you yourself have created, that meets the terms of copyright, and you post it here, is it copyrighted? The answer is yes, it is. The issue that a lot of people don't 'get' is that just because it is copyrighted, doesn't mean you can't use it. Also, things get fuzzy: because you post it to a public forum, can one demand that one cannot use it? (Yes). However, doesn't posting to a public forum imply consent to use? (debatably, yes). This is where the internet makes things complex: the ability to define how ones own copyrighted works are used is exponentially more difficult: just because it is trivial to copy/replicate a creative work does not diminish ones rights to that work.

These are the laws today, without any PIPA, SOPA, ACTA and so on (and probably many other law proposals that are working their way through various governments).

Here's an example: you create a cool piece of code. And yes, it is really cool, creative, elegant and no one has though of that before. It took a few months of hard work, but it came out really nice. Cudos to you. You decide to post it to a forum "hai guys! Here's a really cool piece of code!". Everyone loves it. Now, lets say I also like that code and decide to use it. It's really cool! So, I post it to (another) forum and say" hey. look at this really cool piece of code I created!". Cudos to me. Maybe I'll start selling it, since it is mine, after all. Is this acceptable, borderline, or wrong?

Now, I'm sure some people will say that it is no big deal. But some of us do code for a living. If code was, and should be freely shared, how much of a living will (should) a coder make? Remember, it's all cozy and nice if you are on the receiving end of the cool code, but when one spends months, years working on some really good code and applications, should that code and/or applications be given away for free? Who should make that decision? The person who does the work, or the person who receives the work?

so this depends on who shares their knowledge.

then again if something like this forum is to be blocked, then how would someone on somewhere connect to it and learn from the posts. Sharing of ideas would be limited as to banning and blocking of sites. We would be limited to that of are approved by the laws, lets say we have a library that doesnt contain Japanese Literature do we need to go to Japan just to see theirs, doing that on the net is much like having limited sites to go on do some research.

another we would lose our anonymity thus losing are free speech. anonymity on the net is really important, dont you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

Copyright laws don't necessarily change because of the mentioned agreement.

If you are in the US, there are already well-defined copyright laws; such agreements give the ability to enforce those copyright laws, and establish well defined copyright laws where none exist.

---

I could point you to one case being fought at the moment where Company A, well know within these circles, is sueing Company B over copyright infringement.

Company B have repeatedly said yes they are ready to go to court and have a decision made, Company A have on more than one occasion not turned up to arbitration meetings, are constantly asking for extensions, and are doing their level best to extend things out as long as possible.

Company A is fairly large with a huge fighting fund, Company B is a start up with limited funds.

Now how exactly is any consumer of either company's product benefiting by what amounts to a prolonged attempt by one party to send the other party bankrupt and hence win the case by simply being the "last man standing"?

In essence U.S copyright law sucks and does nothing outside protecting large companies able to foot large legal bills.

The same case is also raging in the UK where there is a fixed court date has already been established, Company A cannot change that date by delaying tactics.

So what were you saying about the glories of the US copyright system again?

Here is my quote:

"It builds on the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), but has been negotiated outside the WTO (and World Intellectual Property Organisation) framework. It is governed by a new “ACTA committee” through which signatories may amend the agreement, with industry consultation but no requirement for public input"

This quote is from a document that a European MP has e-mail to me. here is a link to the orginal document: http://rfc.act-on-acta.eu/fundamental-rights

Signature of the email:

Grace Murray
Office of Keith Taylor MEP
Green Party MEP for South East England
The European Parliament
Rue Wiertz
1047 Brussels, Belgium


I have also received e-mails from 3 other MP's who show their concern for ACTA.

Kind Regards,
Max

"The European Parliament had unsuccessfully requested a copy of the draft agreement from the European Commission on numerous occasions. In March 2010 the Parliament issued a resolution “deplor[ing] the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation” (2010b:para 6). It “call[ed] on the Commission and the Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries” (ibid:para 3). As a result, in April 2010, ACTA negotiators finally released the draft text having removed attribution to country positions. This highlights the value of public pressure, and provides an example of an effective tool that the European Parliament can use."

Also this was in the body on one of the MP's e-mails:

"May I take the opportunity to point out that the European Parliament is only an amending chamber. The real power lays in the non-elected European Commission. While I encourage you to check the votes on the 22nd June don't be fooled by the results. Indeed if the MEPs vote against ACTA, there is no doubt the Commission will find another way of imposing its will. If it is not intellectual property they invoke to justify the surveillance of our internet use it will be paedophilia or fight against drug or God knows what. The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lehgzil

so this depends on who shares their knowledge.

then again if something like this forum is to be blocked, then how would someone on somewhere connect to it and learn from the posts. Sharing of ideas would be limited as to banning and blocking of sites. We would be limited to that of are approved by the laws, lets say we have a library that doesnt contain Japanese Literature do we need to go to Japan just to see theirs, doing that on the net is much like having limited sites to go on do some research.

another we would lose our anonymity thus losing are free speech. anonymity on the net is really important, dont you think?

---

Knowledge and copyright/IP are not the same thing. Also, what makes you think this site would be blocked? Is it awash with material which infringes copyrights?

KiwiDexter, from your example no conclusion can be drawn. Indeed, you follow up the example with a judicial difference, not a copyright issue. Making blind statements that the copyright laws (in the US) 'suck' without understanding the principles and laws involved isn't the way to get them changed if they are, indeed, flawed.

Max, you are indicating an EU issue, not a copyright/IP issue. The sovereign nations giving their domain up to an abstract organization is just asking for this sort of thing. It was wrong when it was formed and it is wrong now. The mobility benefits gained diminish in comparison to the abuses that majority stakeholders can - and are - placing on those member nations.

How a nation decides to present any agreements or treaty to its own citizenry is simply down to the laws of that nation. In the US, the ACTA agreement has been made available to the public, for commentary, at least a year before it was signed. It has been 5 months in the US since it was signed. Ignorance of what ones own government is doing does not necessarily mean they are doing things 'in secret': however, sucks [sic] to be European, it seems - the argument is that the various European Ruling Elites are sticking it to you. Perhaps rethinking the EU engine might be a good thing for the citizens of the member states? Perhaps the fuss being made over this agreement is enough to make people realize that these sorts of agreements are made continuously without and public input. As it stands now, there's nothing you can do about it (as a nation) except wag your finger and hope the EU takes pity on you.

Regardless, shaggy hiker hit the mark, and was not swayed by the breeze.

That post feels like you took a big breath and blurted it all out in one go lol.

Yes I do not agree with European Memebership I didnt at the time and I don't now but the fact is it is there they are keeping things close to themselfs and not letting the public vote which is wrong. As for individual member nations they are just as bad signing it without any vote yet again and they did not announce what was happening. This is where the European Membersihp is a bonus because the majority of European countries have signed this in secret and without anyone knowing all ready however they cannot inforce it until EU say yes to it. So now there is lots of preassure on EU not to sign this but as one MP has pointed out to me at the end of the day the commision is above us and ultimately if they want this they will regardless of MP votes.

I along with millions of others are against ACTA and don't want it. Whether it be actually ACTA or the princepal of how it has been thrown upon us but still there are many against it as the petition shows - Now 1.5 Million signatures!

But it is now the end of the week. A week without sleep I must add and I am very tired and can't think so I am going to go get a weekend of sleep... I wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

Knowledge and copyright/IP are not the same thing. Also, what makes you think this site would be blocked? Is it awash with material which infringes copyrights?

---

i just meant it for an example and you havent` answered it. i am saying that if some sites are to be blocked then the flow of knowledge/ideas are also blocked.

http://megaupload.com/

what about all those helpful ideas/knowledge/samples that are stocked on that site. And those private files that was stored on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lehgzil

i just meant it for an example and you havent` answered it. i am saying that if some sites are to be blocked then the flow of knowledge/ideas are also blocked.

http://megaupload.com/

what about all those helpful ideas/knowledge/samples that are stocked on that site. And those private files that was stored on it.

---

And I will reiterate with a more general question: what makes you think these sites (any site) will be shut down?

Even so, what do you think people did before the internet? While the internet is great for the 'free exchange of ideas', I would contend that the reality is that the majority of 'ideas' aren't ideas at all.

If megaupload is used for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material, then yes, it should potentially be shut down. While this thread discussed the signed ACTA bill, SOPA, in an effort to comply with ACTA, was a reasonable attempt to hold web site owners accountable for the content. As they should be.

Quote:

---

If megaupload is used for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material, then yes, it should potentially be shut down. While this thread discussed the signed ACTA bill, SOPA, in an effort to comply with ACTA, was a reasonable attempt to hold web site owners accountable for the content. As they should be.

---

I actually thought you had some reasonable points before you said this.

SOPA was not a reasonable attempt at anything it was a bloody awful bill that quite rightly when the general public (to clarify the American general public, as this was an American bill) actually got to find out what was in it, they responded by contacting there senators / congressmen in such large numbers that they had no real choice but to drop there support for the bill.

Elements of SOPA completely remove the need for due process when dealing with potential copyright infringement.

If you think SOPA was a reasonable attempt at a bill i would be interested in your opinion what you thought was good about the bill? i couldn't see much.

SOPA was reasonable, even though it wasn't agreeable. I read it. PIPA was just atrocious, though.

While there was concern for some elements, which could readily be changed, the internet cess pool went after it with a bludgeoning stick. In this current political climate, every stuffing politician will do anything not to piss off your average ignoramus. In addition, there are huge lobby groups bribing politicians: many seem to blame the briber, but shouldn't we be more concerned by the bribee (sp?) and the people who put him there?

What SOPA did cover are sites which have links to other sites which offer copyrighted material, often through advertising links. It makes the web site owner responsible for those links. However, the ability to go after the host directly is questionable.

Additionally, while its intention is to stop online piracy, the objective is to remove the market access to pirated material. This has the same effect: if you want to see a movie (or super bowl game) then you have to access it through the channels that the creator/distributor deems appropriate. If there is pirated material, then the market has no access to it. Without access to customers, there is little point in pirating it.

The bottom line is that there are far too many people who feel that stealing copyrighted material is OK. As long as people feel that way, then these 'strongarm tactics' (as some may think) will be come more and more prevalent. It's OK to steal 10 music albums, is it OK to steal a DVD player? Is it OK to steal MY DVD player? What would happen to the thief if they were caught stealing a DVD player (Retail cost $89 plus tax) from, say a residence in one of many states in the US? I know they aren't the same thing, and the repercussions are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, but the dissimilarity doesn't negate the commonality: stealing.

The question is, if a market for a given product shrinks or disappears, what happens to that product?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

I would contend that the reality is that the majority of 'ideas' aren't ideas at all.

---

Please clarify as to what are that('ideas') supposed to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

If megaupload is used for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material, then yes, it should potentially be shut down. While this thread discussed the signed ACTA bill, SOPA, in an effort to comply with ACTA, was a reasonable attempt to hold web site owners accountable for the content. As they should be.

---

then they should have had removed those of with copyrighted material and have the public re-download all their private files before banning the site.

Please note that i am not against anti piracy law but is only concerned about what will happen to those articles/data/files/sites that leads like us(talking bout us newbies) on learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

hold web site owners accountable for the content

---

What about those private people that only share things on which that will be hold against the act or will be accountable for it. and those of downloaders?

then if this is true,
what about those sites that provides people of a downloading software in the first place? awkward, i have read somewhere that some sites that supports the the act/bill, have provided those softwares for downloading/copying contents.

Quote:

---

the internet cess pool went after it with a bludgeoning stick.

---

Every man and his dog went after it, in fact virtually all major tech companies because it was badly written and also because it called for DNS blocking to be used. (which if you speak to anyone who works in Internet security is just not a good idea as it would break DNSSEC) how are millions of people and major companies like Google, Facebook, AOL, Ebay,Twitter and Yahoo the internet cess-pool?

On the other side the SOPA & PIPA bill was put forward and heavily lobbied for by major Hollywood companies with large vested interests who obviously have the general public's interests at heart and not there own profit margins.

Quote:

---

Additionally, while its intention is to stop online piracy, the objective is to remove the market access to pirated material.

---

Just because something is illegal and you create provisions to stop it, does not make it effective.

Probably never in the history of human kind have we ever managed to stop people getting there hands on prohibited items what makes you think that this would have worked any better? as with all technology they would just find another way.

Quote:

---

The bottom line is that there are far too many people who feel that stealing copyrighted material is OK.

---

and what evidence is there for this? most people i know and talk to of any age dont think stealing is ok.

The major entertainment industries instead of spending there money on fighting piracy actually spent it providing the best service to get there content out to the public everyone would use it.

Just look at Apples ITunes store, it just hoovers up money, but Hollywood doesn't appear to have learned the lesson from the music industry and is letting other companies determine the online market place.

The main problem seems to me is availability, if the movie & music industries stopped trying to exert so much control as to when, how and on what platform you can play the content you buy from them i very much doubt there would even be a market for piracy.

Finally...

The single biggest problem i had with SOPA though was the immunity granted ISP's if they pro-actively take down sites that have been accused of copyright infringement. So someone could potentially have just accused a site of copyright infringment and the ISP's probable action under SOPA would have been to automatically block it so they have immunity, it just wouldn't be worth the risk to do anything else.

Well, if most of the people you talk to don't think stealing is OK, you imply that they aren't stealing. If you have a representative sample, then piracy isn't an issue?


While these sort of bills are slammed, those that want their free stuff create straw man arguments that their favorite site du-jour will be shut down because of these evil corporations. likewise, the other, ahem, corporations that are on the same side as the down trodden somehow don't have an ulterior motive?


Because people will always bypass the technology, and find a way, doesn't justify not attempting to prevent unlawful actions. Replace media piracy with 'stealing candy bars from the corner store', 'human trafficking' or 'drunk driving': does the argument still hold from a legal standpoint?

As usual, the 'big bad media conglomerates' are always at fault. It seems they' re wrong to protect their assets? So, it should be the general consumers that have the right to decide how someone else's assets should be distributed?

All these 'holier than thou' companies fighting the evil conglomerates, the 'we know better than you' techies, put forward technical solutions to the problem, but never follow through. Which reminds me, what was it that was mentioned about 'people always finding a way around technology'? Such people have no vested interest in restricting the copyrighted material, whereas the media companies are, as I've said, protecting their assets. They are doing it legally. To fight illegalities. Seems that those opposing such actions have the problem.

Quote:

---

While these sort of bills are slammed, those that want their free stuff create straw man arguments that their favorite site du-jour will be shut down because of these evil corporations

---

so Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, eBay are against the bill because they want free stuff?

Quote:

---

Because people will always bypass the technology, and find a way, doesn't justify not attempting to prevent unlawful actions.

---

What it does is make it pointless and expensive, but at the same time the SOPA bill could have fundamentally affected the next generation of internet security.

It is never a good idea to bring in a law to help reduce one type of theft if it also at the same time helps increase the likelihood of another type.

Quote:

---

As usual, the 'big bad media conglomerates' are always at fault. It seems they' re wrong to protect their assets? So, it should be the general consumers that have the right to decide how someone else's assets should be distributed?

---

Yes they are wrong when it hurts there customers, to make money these are the same people they need to sell to.

Many of these companies are just afraid of the Internet as they just dont understand it. What they should be doing instead is spend there money creating the next Movie ITunes instead of burying there heads in the sand and letting someone else do it.

There is loads of money to be made from giving your customers more choice of how to buy digital content, and as they (the big media conglomerates) are rights holders they wont have to jump through all the hoops they make other services jump through.

I just think it is always better to give your customers more choice and make your product more available and that in it self would help massively reduce piracy, not get rid completely but then when have we ever been able to completely eradicate illegal activity.

Quote:

---

All these 'holier than thou' companies fighting the evil conglomerates, the 'we know better than you' techies, put forward technical solutions to the problem, but never follow through.

---

You dont work for a large media conglomerate do you???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

You dont work for a large media conglomerate do you???

---

No I don't. I create software, I also engineer solutions. I get pissed off when people think that it's OK to pirate movies, music software and replicate products (knockoffs); and those that think it's ok to purchase such things and believe they are doing nothing wrong. Ignorant is an understatement.

What is worse, is those that ignore such actions and blame the owners of those products for going after both the pirates and those that consume the products; and also dictate to the owners of the products how they should distribute their products.

Since the 'consumers' have very little regard for the products produced, why should the producer care about hurting these 'consumers'? The 'consumers' aren't legitimate consumers: if you purchase a DVD, for example, you are in no way hurt by these actions - but you are hurt by those who obtain the same material through illegal actions. It is only those 'consumers' who obtain illicit material who will be hurt. Since it is commonly argued that if the pirated material dries up these very same people obtaining pirated material aren't going to buy 'overpriced DVDs', the product suppliers are not hurt by that: they have lost nothing and gained nothing.

I have been silent for awhile so I thought I would chip back in.

A completly agree piracy is wrong, it hurts artist and it hurts good faith consumers who are having to pay more for an item to cover the losses - and pay for the big companies to spend money combating piracy.

What I don't agree on is methods to combat piracy that invade innocent people's privacy and also potentially be used for unfair censorship in the future hence why I am against the acts. Even if they are 'optional' anything that could possibly promote and make it legal to monitor everyones or selective peoples usage is wrong.

I am all for stopping piracy and I am well aware that they can't stamp it out unless they can monitor but I whole heartdly do not agree in monitoring nor will I ever just give in to it and pretty much everyone I talk to feels the same as I do.

Quote:

---

No I don't. I create software, I also engineer solutions. I get pissed off when people think that it's OK to pirate movies, music software and replicate products (knockoffs); and those that think it's ok to purchase such things and believe they are doing nothing wrong. Ignorant is an understatement.

---

I agree hole heartedly, pirating movies or anything else is not a good thing, and i am not for it, but the SOPA bill would have had a lot of other unintended consequences which would have been bad for consumers in general and actually bad for the internet and companies trading on the Internet.

Quote:

---

What is worse, is those that ignore such actions and blame the owners of those products for going after both the pirates and those that consume the products;

---

Quote:

---

It is only those 'consumers' who obtain illicit material who will be hurt.

---

This is i think is where we disagree, the SOPA bill would have effected pirates & normal consumers alike and i dont think it is legitimate to hurt normal consumers in order to go after the pirates. It also would have potentially affected perfectly legitimate business trading on the internet.

I think that just going after pirates is not the answer, banning stuff or blocking access to stuff very rarely works. Often it just fuels a black market rather than gets rid of one.

If they make there movies really easy to get hold of online at reasonable prices people will buy and they will make loads of money.

One last push from me. Please help us to get to 2 Million Signatures against ACTA! We need you. If you havent already please please please sign the below petition and if in Europe visit the second link:


Peition Against ACTA: http://goo.gl/6GIkI - NEARLY 2 MILLION!


Europe Only: E-mail the MP's automatically: http://goo.gl/P9UWJ



Others potentially useful links:

Video about ACTA: http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0

I'm going to address is the question about what would happen to sites like this (VBF)... in short: nothing.
Since developer.com owns the site, they are the copyright holders of the content here. Did you know they own your posts? And that you don't? And that if they wanted to mine the forums for code, make a DVD of all the code samples here, and sell it... there's nothing you can do. Once you post something here, you (largely) give up and future rights to it... read the TOS... bet most of you glossed over it... So in the end since developer.com owns the site and all content, they are the technical copyright owners of it, and so there's no conflict which would cause this site to be shut down. So stop getting your knickers is a bunch.

The general feeling I've gotten from people, both on and off line, is yes, we all recognize that pirating content is a problem. Where the industry (MPAA and RIAA) seem to be at odds with the general public is how to curb it and enforcement. MPAA and RIAA seem to be content to fire indiscriminately into the crowd in the hopes of hitting a guilty party. They are old-school and I don't think they get it. And they probably never will.
http://bit.ly/yizbpo
A good number of artists are figuring it out, that's why there are a lot of independent labels now... they're trying to get around organizations in their own industry and going straight to the public. In a lot of cases, it's been met with a lot of success. In some, not so much.
RIAA needs to relax some. I used to run a streaming station... I've looked into the licensing rules implemented by RIAA for playing media. If I charge no money, and spend no money on equipment, new music, or services, then I pay $X .... if I make money, say through ad revenue, then I pay $X + $Y ... OK... I get that... makes sense. If I spend money, say to upgrade a server, or aquire new music to add to the collection, then I pay $X + $Z ... where Z is actually HIGHER than Y even if income = expenses... WHAAAT? I don't think the RIAA has figured out that the harder they try to clamp down, it makes it harder for the rest of us that want to do the right thing, and in the end drives us underground and obtain things through alternate channels.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

I think that just going after pirates is not the answer, banning stuff or blocking access to stuff very rarely works. Often it just fuels a black market rather than gets rid of one.

If they make there movies really easy to get hold of online at reasonable prices people will buy and they will make loads of money.

---

I suspect we are on the same page, but differ on how to go about things, because it is difficult to concur on the 'problem' that requires the 'solution'.

I do think that 'creating' a black market will make a difference - we can agree that getting to the pirates themselves is destined to fail (as you note, technological solutions can almost always be bypassed). Do people not do certain things because it is wrong, or because it is illegal? While piracy is illegal, both consumption and distribution, it it not perceived as something deserving of punishment, although there are very hefty fines and jail time.

As an example: texting while driving. Is it wrong (or, rather, a bad idea)? Most people will agree, I think. Should a 'law' be put in place to punish those who text and drive? A lot of people think so. Will it reduce the number of people texting-while-driving? If it reduces the number of people texting-while-driving, isn't the reduction because of the law, and not what is right or wrong? Or, are there people who truly don't know that it is wrong, and the law just makes it abundantly clear?

I also agree that making media available will probably be a big win for everyone, but again, that is the media companies choice. Hopefully, as more younger people move into the media companies and move up the corporate ladder they will see both the harm that piracy has caused, but also be in a better position to implement and affect an appropriate solution.

Quote:

---

As an example: texting while driving. Is it wrong (or, rather, a bad idea)? Most people will agree, I think. Should a 'law' be put in place to punish those who text and drive? A lot of people think so. Will it reduce the number of people texting-while-driving? If it reduces the number of people texting-while-driving, isn't the reduction because of the law, and not what is right or wrong? Or, are there people who truly don't know that it is wrong, and the law just makes it abundantly clear?

---

It's "wrong" because it's a bad idea... the morality of it is unambiguous... because it's not moral or immoral to do so. It's like drunk driving... there's nothing inherently morally wrong or right about it... however as a society we have decided that someone who is not in full control of their faculties represents an inherent danger to the community at large... and we have decided that something that represents a potential danger to the safety of our society is wrong and so implemented laws governing the enforcement and limits of that enforcement (minimum limits on the BAC) to protect from unjust enforcement.

I've seen knee-jerk reactions to texting while driving... there's an out cry: "DO SOMETHING" and so a law is introduced, banning the use of cell phones in vehicles in motion... and then the public gets a hold of it and realizes that it wasn't specific enough, as the wording also affects passengers. Or doesn't allow for hands-free communication - I don't care what people say, using speaker phone in the vehicle is NOT like talking to someone in the vehicle with you... no, it's actually safer... when talking to someone, the tendency is to use hands, or look at the person you're talking to... when I'm on the phone, I don't look at the phone, so I can keep my eyes on the road...

Making something illegal or not doesn't necessarily reduce the problem... it just means that the number of people caught goes up. Look at DUI statistics for any place that has lowered the legal limit. Look at the DUI rate for the two-three years before the change and the two-three years following... the DUI rate goes up... sometimes by a lot. They saw that happen in Ne a few years ago when the legal limit was changed from .08 to .06 ... it wasn't because more people were drinking, it was because people who in the past would have been deemed "ok" to drive no longer did... did it make the roads any safer? that's debatable.

THE MPAA and RIAA have decided that they can't go after the pirates themselves, many of whom are probably in other countries, so they've decided to go after the middle man (distributors) and the consumers (the public) in a very heavy-handed way... they're taking the same approach as the war on drugs has been conducted, and we can all see how that's working out. Which is what brings me back around to the idea if they just relaxed and work with service content providers (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Apple (yes, I'm including iTunes), Vudu and so on) to make their content in an accessible manner to the general public, the need to go to the black market drops. But unfortunately they just don't get that. And what we end up with are these pissing wars where the service content providers are having to pay exorbent licensing fees to have access to the content... in some cases those fees are heaver than for traditional distribution, despite lover production & storage costs.

-tg

Quote:

---

I suspect we are on the same page, but differ on how to go about things, because it is difficult to concur on the 'problem' that requires the 'solution'.

---

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I am much more in the camp that you can out-innovate the problem rather than out-regulate it.

Haha! I'm in the camp that thinks you can't do either... and trying harder to do either will only exacerbate the problem.

-tg