# Internet must remain free!!! STOP ACTA!



## sk8harddiefast (Jan 27, 2012)

Sorry but is impossible to do not post this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=63JyXmu0fqM

INTERNET MUST REMAIN FREE!!!
SOPA, PIPA, NOW ACTA!!!!
FIGHT!!!! YOUR PRIVACY IS DYING, YOUR FREEDOM IS DYING. INTERNET IS DYING. RESIST!!!!!!!!! INSIST!!!!!!
POST THIS, UPLOAD THIS, LINK THIS, EVERYWHERE!!!!
EVERYONE MUST KNOW! HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW!!!!!
HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND INTERNET!!! FOR ME, FOR YOU, FOR ALL OF AS!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## UNIXgod (Jan 27, 2012)

expect us


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 27, 2012)

Oh bother and poppycock. I see the same thing in that video that I see everywhere else. It professes to agree that copyright protection is good then goes on to say they don't think anyone should get in trouble for infringing a copyright and they, then, define copyright infringement as giving a lollipop to a baby. I might be exaggerating but so are they.

Almost everything I see and read about SOPA/PIPA and now ACTA is people jumping on a bandwagon without paying attention. I agree that all those bills are not well thought out and need input from tech companies and not politicians, but their heart is in the right place and that is to extend copyright and trademark protection to the internet. In that sense, SOPA/PIPA/ACTA are good things.

To further educate people on all this, I've joined a group called PEEING. I don't think that's an acronym.


----------



## UNIXgod (Jan 27, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Oh bother and poppycock. I see the same thing in that video that I see everywhere else. It professes to agree that copyright protection is good then goes on to say they don't think anyone should get in trouble for infringing a copyright and they, then, define copyright infringement as giving a lollipop to a baby. I might be exaggerating but so are they.
> 
> Almost everything I see and read about SOPA/PIPA and now ACTA is people jumping on a bandwagon without paying attention. I agree that all those bills are not well thought out and need input from tech companies and not politicians, but their heart is in the right place and that is to extend copyright and trademark protection to the internet. In that sense, SOPA/PIPA/ACTA are good things.
> 
> To further educate people on all this, I've joined a group called PEEING. I don't think that's an acronym.



Since the failure to sell to the public SOPA/PIPA we can see if ACTA goes through. If that doesn't they will be working on PCIP which might get a better response as it's name is a better FUD strawman. 

I downloaded SOPA and read some of it. Really had very little to do with protecting the interests of artists.

Sad things is the corporations that benefit from this will eventually get it through. As with anything in our newspeak style society they would probably spend 10 years worth of profits lobbying to insure they stay in power and musicians will have to go back to the 'pay to play' structure with less opportunities to take advantage of the current world wide distribution model which currently removes the long in the tooth greed centered middle men.

There is also a foundation being put in place for the current adoption of ebook reading devices.  The current model being put in place also removes the lion's share from the author and places in the hands of the distributor. I imagine as time goes on and that becomes "accepted" there will be more and more DIY publishing for tech writers.

None the less we all know piracy will never be defeated. There will always be technical workarounds. I agree with you that their "hearts" where in the right place. Just as every politician is out to protect us from ourselves without any benefit to themselves or the third parties they actually own stock in and/or represent.

At least these bills have real acronyms vs something that bears no resemblance to it's actual name such as the patriot act.


----------



## vermaden (Jan 27, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> Since the failure to sell to the public SOPA/PIPA we can see if ACTA goes through.



We tried to stop that shit at Poland and we failed, our fscked up 'government' sign ACTA on 2012/01/26 at Japan, along with other 22 countries from Europe.

Here are manifests from my city:
http://youtu.be/An9faG1mH1M

If You want to check more, just type 'poland acta' into youtube searchbox.

Along with Anonymous, many polish governtment site were diabled or hacked, that also did not help ... the last thing we can do is to abandon our government which probably will not be that easy.

The democracy is just a myth today, the current political system on the world is moneycration ...


----------



## fonz (Jan 27, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> Really had very little to do with protecting the interests of artists.


That is rarely the intent of anti-piracy organisations and/or politicians meddling with things they don't understand. The most unfortunate thing is that most artists are not astute enough to realise that and to fight for their own interests.

Illegal reproduction of copyrighted materials is pretty much as old as the cassette tape. Only back in those days piracy was usually limited to family, friends, co-workers/fellow-students and other such closed circles (but we've all done it, be honest). The Internet changed all that and people from Oslo can now happily exchange copyrighted materials with people from Buenos Aires whom they don't know and have never even met.

The practice itself remains as illegal as ever, but technology seems to have developed to a point where it gets very hard to prevent it from happening. Ban one protocol and another one gets developed. Ban the Pirate Bay and another site comes up. Plus "organisations" such as Anonymous will attack you. Try to pass legislation in one country and it soon becomes apparent that the Internet as a whole is difficult (if at all possible) to legislate globally. This is an even bigger problem for the U.S., who are often accused (justified or not, that's another discussion) of trying to police the whole world.

In my opinion the key point is not in legislation but in moving from the conventional business models to something new. For example: the film industry may complain but doesn't suffer as much from piracy as the music industry does. Why? Because movie DVDs are affordable (maybe less so when they're brand spanking new, but that diminishes quickly) and people are still willing to buy theatre tickets to see the movie in a cinema because those are affordable. Blockbuster movies make millions if not billions of revenue in their first few weeks alone, due to people buying theatre tickets and merchandise. The music industry, on the other hand, is *sicker than a terminal cancer patient in their last days*. Album CDs are already prohibitively expensive and concert tickets are almost unaffordable. Another problem is that movies usually only make sense as a whole. Music on the other hand is judged on a per-song basis and if a band/artist makes a crap album with one hit song, people are reluctant to buy the entire (expensive!) crap album just for that one cool song.

In the end, piracy is a crime, I won't deny that, but it's nigh-impossible to prevent from a technological point of view (see the cassette tape again). So in my opinion the order of business should be to develop a system that minimises the gain of piracy compared to legal purchase. Charging 10 euros or less for a cinema ticket works. Selling DVDs (with features and all) for 10 euros or less works. Charging 20 euros or more for a music CD does NOT work. Charging 100 euros for one lousy concert ticket certainly doesn't work. In my student days (with limited income!) I've seen the Stones, I've seen Bon Jovi, I've seen Kiss, I've seen Mark Knopfler (post Dire Straits) etc. But nowadays I don't go to concerts anymore. Not because I'm becoming an old fart, but because tickets are getting more and more expensive.

The industry - and particularly the music industry - needs to rethink things. Piracy cannot be prevented completely, that's a technological reality. But the trick is to make it as little profitable compared to the real deal as possible. The film industry knows where to go. The music industry doesn't want to follow *because the record companies only care about money, not the artists*. And the artists are not astute enough to see that they are basically being exploited for the profits of greedy, selfish and self-perpetuating leviathans.

Fonz


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Jan 28, 2012)

sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> The third global war is coming! Not for water as we were believe but for Internet!



Say NO to ACTA here!!!
http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet/
https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/just-say-no-to-acta


----------



## fonz (Jan 28, 2012)

Dude... posting the picture once is enough. Otherwise people might think of you as a zealot.

Fonz


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Jan 28, 2012)

Sorry. Mistake when I tried to add the url's. I deleted.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 28, 2012)

The sentence for the first guy has not happened yet but that inequality is an issue with the court system and not the bill itself. 

I agree that the TV and film industry has their head up their butts when it comes to cost and distribution. Even sports leagues are all screwed up about this. I would gladly pay to watch my local teams over the 'net for a reasonable fee but, to show how stupid things are, it's something like $120 for a year long subscription to major league baseball, and they black out local games which forces you to subscribe to cable TV if you want to watch them. Worse, I owned some property out in the country but inside their regional zone which means I couldn't watch it there either but I couldn't pick up any local TV stations that carried it and cable TV was unavailable.

It's so bizarre that it costs me $9 to go to the theatre to see a film but $20 to watch it on DVD. Netflix may not have it online so I have to be subscribed to the mailing service to get it. It's just not thought out at all.

How much money the film and music industry makes doesn't bother me. I understand it because I was in the film and TV industry for 10 years and my son's a professional actor. I know how much putting these things together costs. It's the distribution and access at a reasonable price that drives me up the wall. If the people in charge could just get into the 21st century, they could make far more than they do now with the current model.

For example, major league baseball had only about 25 games on television or less not too long ago. Attendance at games could be as low as 5000 on average. But now all games are televised, ticket prices are higher, and attendance at many parks, specifically ours, are near sellouts every game.

Speaking of my son, I have to go pick him up from a play he's directing in Chicago.


----------



## fonz (Jan 28, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> It's so bizarre that it costs me $9 to go to the theatre to see a film but $20 to watch it on DVD.


Just one quick response to avoid misunderstandings (I'll look at the rest tomorrow):
Here in the Netherlands movie tickets are approximately 10 euros; sometimes a bit less, sometimes a bit more, but it's a fairly accurate average. Movie DVDs are usually about 20 euros when they're really brand-spanking new but often drop to 10 euros or less after a short while.

Fonz


----------



## vermaden (Jan 28, 2012)

Probably the reason why MegaUpload had been shutdown:
http://www.techpowerup.com/159397/W...-Down-MegaUpload-To-Kill-The-Competition.html


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 28, 2012)

vermaden said:
			
		

> Probably the reason why MegaUpload had been shutdown:


Not true at all. Interesting that article doesn't give the details. There was an established music star/publisher who was talking to Dotcom about going 'legit' and establishing a distribution service similar to what I mention above. That music star obviously is already involved with the music industry so he's be competing with himself. I don't recall that person's name but I think it was in the NYTimes article when the story broke.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Jan 28, 2012)

My try against ACTA
http://defendweb.dyndns.org
The less I can do to help me too, to say a BIG NO!


----------



## jrm@ (Jan 28, 2012)

Here is an interesting read regarding some of the legal questions involved in the case: http://www.granick.com/blog/?p=739.

I've never used megaupload, so I'm not exactly clear what's going on, but this is what I'm guessing.  The actually owners didn't post copyrighted material, but provided a venue for others to do so and didn't do much (anything?) to stop them.

Setting aside many questions about the state of copyright law, jurisdiction, etc., I (with absolutely no background in law) fail to see significant differences between this and handgun manufacturers being responsible for crimes involving their guns.


----------



## da1 (Jan 29, 2012)

@jrm: interesting view. After reading your last sentence, somehow, I tend to agree with you.


----------



## jrm@ (Jan 29, 2012)

It's a tough question when the rights of creators (those representing them?) and the community as a whole are misaligned.  Most seem to agree that blatantly stealing others creative work is morally wrong.  Many of us also agree that the proposed solutions are oppressive.

I guess my statement was intended to be a bit provocative to continue the discussion.  Surely you could poke holes in my pseudo-logic.  Was megaupload created exclusively to aid others to steal?  Are handguns manufactured exclusively to illegally harm others?

When I'm in an optimistic mood I hope that more people will become bored with the hollywood/billboard pop culture and the demand will erode and we'll be done with the RIAA/MPAA.



			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Almost everything I see and read about SOPA/PIPA and now ACTA is people jumping on a bandwagon without paying attention.



@dr, you've likely heard from him before, but here is a some information on the subject from a qualified guy who is certainly not on a bandwagon. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/


----------



## Crivens (Jan 30, 2012)

jrm said:
			
		

> ...
> Setting aside many questions about the state of copyright law, jurisdiction, etc., I (with absolutely no background in law) fail to see significant differences between this and handgun manufacturers being responsible for crimes involving their guns.



More appropriate would IMHO be the comparison to the toll booth operating company, the railway company, FedEx, ... anyone who provides transport service for money for the drugs being shiped by them without their knowledge.


----------



## nekoexmachina (Jan 30, 2012)

*sk8harddiefast*

Please stop using caps-lock.
Also sorry for writing no info & thoughts into the thread: I do not want to have my opinion based on opinion of the people I do not know, who's opinion is based on opinion of the people who them do not know which may be (and only may be) is based on the opinion of a man with legal (don't know the right word for it) education & huge knowledge on world of law.


Also I see much, much more trouble and *1984* (mindcrimes, etc) in this: Man Who Downloaded Bomb Recipes Jailed For 2 Years


----------



## Crivens (Jan 30, 2012)

And herewe see how ACTA is being shoved down our throats.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 30, 2012)

I've seen that gun comparison before but you are supposed to have a license to carry a gun.


			
				Crivens said:
			
		

> More appropriate would IMHO be the comparison to the toll booth operating company, the railway company, FedEx, ... anyone who provides transport service for money for the drugs being shiped by them without their knowledge.



Without their knowledge is key. Megaupload was certainly aware.


----------



## Crivens (Jan 30, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Without their knowledge is key. Megaupload was certainly aware.


As is a ferry company, a train company or the postal service that their services are being used to commit serious crimes. MU provides a service which, in itself, is not illegal. 

You want to share your vacation pictures with the family but do not have a server? Use a hoster. This is perfectly legal use. The question is, how much illegal use is tolerated.
And as long as this is not answered, things like MU will be used to introduce laws for communication tracking.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 30, 2012)

Crivens said:
			
		

> As is a ferry company, a train company or the postal service that their services are being used to commit serious crimes. MU provides a service which, in itself, is not illegal.


If the ferry company, et al, were aware they were transporting stuff to commit crimes, you can be sure there would be all kinds of hell coming down on them. Like I said, MU was aware what they were doing and all kinds of hell came down on them.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 30, 2012)

This has been my complaint about those against SOPA/PIPA/ACTA and I've been questioning things for a long time. Good to see someone wrote about it. Internet Awash in Inaccurate Anti-ACTA Arguments


----------



## jrm@ (Jan 30, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> If the ferry company, et al, were aware they were transporting stuff to commit crimes, you can be sure there would be all kinds of hell coming down on them. Like I said, MU was aware what they were doing and all kinds of hell came down on them.



But is it justified to prosecute MegaUpload for providing, in itself, a legal service?  Why can't we simply pursue those that actually committed the crimes?  That's what we do with handguns.  I think the answer is that it's simply too difficult.

Maybe a handgun manufacturer can't be certain that one specific gun will commit a crime, but we can be sure that some proportion of their guns will be used to commit much more serious crimes than distributing bits of information.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 30, 2012)

jrm said:
			
		

> But is it justified to prosecute MegaUpload for providing, in itself, a legal service?


MegaUpload knowingly and willingly allowed illegal files to be up/downloaded to their site. If a handgun manufacturer knowingly and willingly sold guns to criminals, you would look at them in a different light, too, wouldn't you?

I'd have to double check but didn't MU also participate in some sort of payment plan for the illegal uploads?


----------



## jrm@ (Jan 31, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> MegaUpload knowingly and willingly allowed illegal files to be up/downloaded to their site.



Those files are not necessarily illegal in all jurisdictions.  For example, in Canada it can be argued that downloading music files for personal use is legal because of a levy on blank media[1].



			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> I'd have to double check but didn't MU also participate in some sort of payment plan for the illegal uploads?



As I said earlier, I've never used MegaUpload, so I have no idea what they did.  My argument is more general.  I think you are saying that if an entity provides a means to exchange information and those that provide the information break laws in some jurisdictions then that entity should be prosecuted if they are aware laws are being broken.  In other words, you think they should police themselves.  Maybe they should, but this could be challenging.  I also think we have to be very careful.  Those that created bittorrent are certainly aware of copywritten material on bittorrent.  Should they be prosecuted as well?

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourinterview/2008/04/michael_geist.html


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 31, 2012)

jrm said:
			
		

> Those files are not necessarily illegal in all jurisdictions.  For example, in Canada it can be argued that downloading music files for personal use is legal because of a levy on blank media[1].


I'm sure copying files of music you did not purchase is illegal in almost every country. At least from my reading, copyright laws are in every country.

Just read your link and it's not clear what he's talking about. I believe he's talking about making copies of music someone paid for, not making copies of music you did not pay for.


> In other words, you think they should police themselves.  Maybe they should, but this could be challenging.


The headlines today talk of a number of similar services doing just that. Perhaps it is challenging but they are in that business so they will have to do what is necessary.





> Those that created bittorrent are certainly aware of copywritten material on bittorrent.  Should they be prosecuted as well?


They have been for many years. Someone will remember for me the name of that file sharing program everyone used which eventually went legit but is a mere shell of itself now. A number of people getting arrested shows up in the news now and again.

Coincidentally, my son is directing a play in Chicago. It's his first professional play since getting out of college but it's definitely small stuff. I went there this weekend to help him with some props. He was talking about the music they were using and he casually mentioned the cost of the music they were paying to use. Just three 15-second blurbs for a one-act play by some no-name people on a no-name stage in the middle of nowhere. No one would ever know but he's paying the artist online for it.


----------



## kpa (Jan 31, 2012)

> They have been for many years. Someone will remember for me the name of that file sharing program everyone used which eventually went legit but is a mere shell of itself now. A number of people getting arrested shows up in the news now and again.



Could you provide a reference to an actual case against a developer of the bittorrent protocol, I get the feeling that what you're referring to are just users of BT or developers of client software for BT.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 31, 2012)

Yes, I misread what he said. What I'm talking about are the "enablers", the people who allow transportation through their servers and networks.


----------



## Crivens (Jan 31, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> I'm sure copying files of music you did not purchase is illegal in almost every country. At least from my reading, copyright laws are in every country.


As is "fair use". Here, I am allowed to give a copy from my legally bought CDs to my family. Since the family is spread around a bit, I can upload it. I can even use such a cloud storage for backup purpose - and that is still legal. The hoster has no way to check if the uploader has the right to do so and the downloader is different from the uploader.

To be clear on this, I do not use MU and I have pretty good reason to disliky Kim.
But I also do not like this "that's illegal here im BumF***, West Virginia. Jail them!" attitude. Other countries have other laws.




			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> If the ferry company, et al, were aware they were transporting stuff to commit crimes, you can be sure there would be all kinds of hell coming down on them. Like I said, MU was aware what they were doing and all kinds of hell came down on them.



As is an airline. Or do you think they do baggage checks for fun?
And still sometimes you read about someone passing customs with come kilos of coke.
So it does happen, they know it, everybody knows it.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 31, 2012)

Crivens said:
			
		

> But I also do not like this "that's illegal here im BumF***, West Virginia. Jail them!" attitude. Other countries have other laws.


Hence the problem. In the USA, artists are paid for their work. If you download without paying for it, the artist never gets paid. The problem is prevalent in countries foreign to the US so, at least with SOPA/PIPA, the idea is to block sites that allow illegal downloading. 

Just recently, I was reading a post from David Flanagan, O'Reilly book author, who said he may not write any more books cause his income has decreased due to pirating.


> And still sometimes you read about someone passing customs with come kilos of coke.
> So it does happen, they know it, everybody knows it.


So we should let pirating be legal and run free? I'm shocked at how many people state they are anti-piracy but don't want any controls put in.

My other son, who has a degree in criminal justice, just walked by and told me one of the things to think about is "criminal intent" or the intention to commit a crime. Examples of ferry companies or airlines, as mentioned, are not of criminal intent and therefore not considered under current law.


----------



## aragon (Jan 31, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> MegaUpload knowingly and willingly allowed illegal files to be up/downloaded to their site. If a handgun manufacturer knowingly and willingly sold guns to criminals, you would look at them in a different light, too, wouldn't you?


Your conditioning makes your stance understandable, but you've got to realise a few fundamental things.  Firstly, a country's legal system is grounded in the morals upon which it is built.  Secondly, the morals upon which humans operate can be vastly different to the morals that justify a country's laws.

Copyright law may declare copying of information illegal, but it is certainly not immoral, and I for one reject any opposing claim.  All humans are very familiar with copying of information.  From our evolved biology, to the accumulated knowledge of millenia, we have been copying from each other since the dawn of life.  To entertain a notion of copyright, you have to consider yourself copywritable too.  By association, all your ancestors, and every person with whom you've been in contact since you were conceived should also be considered copywritable.  How much of you is really you?  Did your parents pay for the privilege of conceiving and raising you?  And if not, shouldn't the owners of the hospital that delivered you be sued for supporting illegal copying?  What's happening today strikes at the fundamental flaw of copyright - it is unnatural.

Copying of information is not violent, depriving, nor restricting.  But copyright is all three, and for one purpose only: preservation of profit.  We live in a time where information can be created and shared more easily than ever, giving us the ability to make information more abundant and accessible than ever, and some of us want to destroy that potential to support an irrelevant aspect of society that has no life supporting attributes, nor basis in natural law whatsoever?  I consider that a perversion of consciousness, eating away at humanity like a cancer.

The issue of copyright is a business problem.  Stop making it a human problem.  In fact, you can keep your copyright altogether.  One day such thoughts will be recognized as lunacy.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 31, 2012)

aragon said:
			
		

> The issue of copyright is a business problem.  Stop making it a human problem.


I think I agree but I wasn't the one trying to compare this to guns, ferry boats or anything else but those, too, are businesses.





> In fact, you can keep your copyright altogether.  One day such thoughts will be recognized as lunacy.


The works of others must be protected somehow or they may no longer be interested in producing those works you all enjoy as shown by the one example I linked to above. Some people do like to create such things for free but not many. Does anyone have a better method of compensating those who create these works?


----------



## UNIXgod (Jan 31, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> The works of others must be protected somehow or they may no longer be interested in producing those works you all enjoy as shown by the one example I linked to above. Some people do like to create such things for free but not many. Does anyone have a better method of compensating those who create these works?



I own the Flanagan/Matzumoto Ruby book. I bought it when it was first published. In all honesty tech books on both Ruby and Rails have been over-saturated by the publishing companies to cash in on web2.0 technologies.

The problem now becomes the search for the next K&R (i.e. the next classic computer science text)

Unfortunately due to the lack of editorial review and push to get the information to press before FAQ, blogs, mailing lists and forums self publish the information we end up with garbage in the first place. Simply looking at ruby and rails books on amazon's used marketplace will result in many $0.01 to a couple dollar books. In some cases that may be paying to much.

The Flanagan/Matzumoto Ruby book is one of the better ones. It makes a reference at the beginning that it attempts to follow the style how K&R C Programming was written as a gold standard. (styles can't be copyrighted right)

Either way I imagine Flanagan will land on his feet if he decides that his contract with O'reilly doesn't garner him enough to support his family. There is a plethora of work for documentation writers out there in which he could easily qualify for with his curriculum vitae.

None the less we are at the beginning of a huge change which will effect us all. This is beyond a moral or ethical issue, which we can debate all day long, as it's has become a legal issue. All of which is centered around how power and greed are distributed in an economic climate which is currently on life support.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 1, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Hence the problem. In the USA, artists are paid for their work. If you download without paying for it, the artist never gets paid.


The effect against this is that more people buy the work because they first check out if they want it - that effect can overcompensate. There are studys out there on this. So simply stating that artists will not get paid is not enough.

Most money from what I would spend on, say, a CD will end up in the distribution. Distributors want to make the most money for themselves, and I have doubt you ever read one of those contracts they hand out to the artist. And the means for them to make the maximum buck, not the fair and appropriate one, borders on conning the customer. Big surprise customers do not want it. Sony, for example, should not be surprised to be treated by me like any other individual who tries to sneak some rootkit on my computer.



			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> The problem is prevalent in countries foreign to the US so, at least with SOPA/PIPA, the idea is to block sites that allow illegal downloading.


Yes, it is prevalent outside the US. We are all commies. *sight* Thanks for sharing that thought.

You are aware of the fact that the world is more than just the USA and that there are some places around where laws on copyright infrigement are even worse than in the US?

You are aware of the pharma companies, some of which are based in the USA, which search the world for household remedies which they then turn into a patent and by means of the WTO then force the people in the country where they "researched" this to pay them?

This is also something that ACTA is about. And when you see this shit is thrown at you with no way to stop it by democratic means, you expect people to love it?



			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Just recently, I was reading a post from David Flanagan, O'Reilly book author, who said he may not write any more books cause his income has decreased due to pirating.
> 
> So we should let pirating be legal and run free? I'm shocked at how many people state they are anti-piracy but don't want any controls put in.


Please define the "control" you want to see put in place.
I do not advocate piracy. I live on software, too. But once you state what you want, I may be able to explain to you what shocks you.

The problem is, most of the methods which are cooked up to "stop piracy" are something which Heinrich Himmler or Erich Mielke would get wet dreams about. That is why there is some strong resentment against any laws in that direction. But this is now not related to MU but more to SOPA/ACTA and co.



			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> My other son, who has a degree in criminal justice, just walked by and told me one of the things to think about is "criminal intent" or the intention to commit a crime. Examples of ferry companies or airlines, as mentioned, are not of criminal intent and therefore not considered under current law.


Again, this only goes for the USA. Here, not knowing the law does not protect you from it. And as criminal intent would imply to knowingly break a law, you could not attach that label to someone who does not know the laws - right?

And it also cuts both ways with MU. Did they state anywhere that their business modell was to support piracy? And even if they did, was it illegal where they did it?
And if you think that they should be prosecuted for this which may be legal in NZ but not in the USA, then you might want to pack a bag and go to Ryad where you will be prosecuted for drinking alcohol. That you did so in the USA does not matter, does it?

PS: For the records : I do not promote piracy, I do not like Kim or MU but I also do not like hypocrits and strongarm politics. I still participate in this discussion because I like to argue with people who do not bring a toothpick to a fencing session, so to speak.


----------



## jrm@ (Feb 1, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Just read your link and it's not clear what he's talking about.



Here is the relevant part.



			
				David Magda Toronto said:
			
		

> What is the current legal status of downloading music and video files in Canada? Also, is it legal to make a copy of someone else's music CD for your own personal use?





			
				Michael Geist said:
			
		

> Downloading music for personal, non-commercial purposes is arguably legal in Canada due to the private copying levy which places a levy on blank media such as blank CDs. The private copying levy does not extend to video as it only covers sound recordings. Making a personal copy of a music CDs is also covered by the private copying levy.


----------



## jrm@ (Mar 1, 2012)

*Kim Dotcom interview*

Interesting watch: Kim Dotcom interview


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 1, 2012)

I missed this because I was out of town at the time I guess.


			
				Crivens said:
			
		

> Most money from what I would spend on, say, a CD will end up in the distribution. Distributors want to make the most money for themselves


Of course. Publication, distribution and marketing always makes up a huge percentage of the price on the item. A lot of people don't think about that. That's why you see films never make it to some cities because the cost to print and advertise a copy would not be worth it.


> and I have doubt you ever read one of those contracts they hand out to the artist.


Actually I have because my son has been a professional actor since he was eight and I worked in the TV/film/radio business for 12 years. However, I've not seen anything that Bon Jovi signs, I'm sure.


> And the means for them to make the maximum buck, not the fair and appropriate one, borders on conning the customer.


It's charging what the market will bear. It doesn't matter if it costs $1 to produce something. If you're willing to pay $100 for it, that's what they, and I, will charge.


> Yes, it is prevalent outside the US. We are all commies. *sight* Thanks for sharing that thought.
> 
> You are aware of the fact that the world is more than just the USA


I don't have to look anything up to bet that there are far more people ripping off USA entertainment companies than those in the USA ripping off other countries. But I'm glad you admit you're all commies  .


> You are aware of the pharma companies, some of which are based in the USA, which search the world for household remedies which they then turn into a patent and by means of the WTO then force the people in the country where they "researched" this to pay them?


I don't see how that matters to the topic. 


> Please define the "control" you want to see put in place.


I guess I meant "protection". I advocate the ability to stop pirates.


> The problem is, most of the methods which are cooked up to "stop piracy" are something which Heinrich Himmler or Erich Mielke would get wet dreams about. That is why there is some strong resentment against any laws in that direction.


So "stop murderers" does the same thing? Come on now.


> And it also cuts both ways with MU. Did they state anywhere that their business modell was to support piracy?


A criminal is not going to state they are going to commit a crime. Criminal intent needs to be proven. None of what MU did can be stated as "unknowingly". Is it illegal where they are? I guess so since he's under arrest but all of that is what the courts are for.

The rest of your post is silly. You're arguing for the reasons I gave in my previous post. You state you are anti-piracy but don't want anyone to do anything about it.

So that's my reply. I don't come to these boards for political discussions and this will be my last comment on it.


----------



## dgauze (Mar 1, 2012)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Almost everything I see and read about SOPA/PIPA and now ACTA is people jumping on a bandwagon without paying attention. I agree that all those bills are not well thought out and need input from tech companies and not politicians, but their heart is in the right place and that is to extend copyright and trademark protection to the internet. In that sense, SOPA/PIPA/ACTA are good things.



So how much of the responsibility lies in the hands of the distributors, like those the RIAA represents? 

People have to wake up to the fact that this is all about really big companies not wanting to evolve, and find a way to get ahead in business without updating their business model, like all the rest of us have to do. They don't want to play by the rules.


----------



## Simba7 (Mar 10, 2012)

I find it funny that people are just now finding out about ACTA. Heck, I've been following this for at least a couple years now.


----------

