StarGateWars Forums

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - [spoiler]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement[/spoiler]

I'd never though I would live to see this day.
Let me see if i get this, I'll use analogies.

Here we have the shovel market. People selling shovels because, well, it's a living. I buy a shovel. I can use it for a great number of things. I can dig with it, i can use it as a walking stick OR i can hit people in the head with it, laugh maniacally and steal they money. Now, we all know that the shovel wasn't build for my last reason, that's just me being all psychotic but the government, well the government has a great idea on how to stop me. DESTROY the ENTIRE SHOVEL MARKET.

Now, i'm not the smartest kid on the block, but this to me is the equivalent of napalming a forest because fire ants just made a nest there.

Canada

The University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic filed an access to information request but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.


What a joke.

The new SOPA?

The final text was released on 15 November 2010,[19] with English, French, and Spanish published on April 15, 2011.[20] A signing ceremony was held on 1 October 2011 in Tokyo, with the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signing the treaty. The European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended but did not sign, professing support and saying they will do so in the future.[21][22] Article 39 of ACTA states countries can sign the treaty until 31 March 2013.

Final version
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-ag ... 11_eng.pdf

I would like to know what do you people exactly dislike about this trade agreement? The fact it fights the ability to download for free (not legally free like trial versions or the no-cost-for-consumers programs like OpenOffice) and then distribute said goods for free (Torrents, eMule, Kazaa...)/not free (sell said goods by yourself throughout ripped CDs/DVDs and making profit out of it) goods such as movies, music, e-books? That it also fights ability to buy for very cheap prices compared to normal price, counterfeit goods of bad quality like cloths or technological goods (TV, mobiles, gaming consoles...)?

Or is it because of the "Big brother" attitude of scanning activities of internet users when they download/upload stuff?



Rather legitimate worrying for the second reason, but the first is logical to be fought. Even though I would agree that in the case of few software, downloading it from "alternative sources" is rather tempting considering their price (software costing beyond $250). Second case I would argue is the case of TV series, lacking proper distribution from legal supports outside of series' country of origin (digital download limited access internationally, slow acquirement of rights to broadcast it on TV channels etc...). Otherwise...

Edit: I forgot to include in small list of "exceptions" when watching by streaming sports like football matches, when you cannot have access to said matches with your TV channels despite having already sports channels you pay, or when said channels aren't available in your TV channels pack, etc...

I could see Jim being a Vulcan.
Well, i would like to see the reason/ need to police what has been called a "basic human right". A.k.a., the interwebz. So now, they say that torrenting and "illegal" downloading are causing massive losses to the big companies. If that were so, wouldn't they be small(er) companies, actively looking for a better solution, campaigning and telling people this pirating could be the end of entertainment as we know it? No. No sir. They made a move worthy of any sith apprentice. They backhanded the public (a.k.a. the consumer), violated our rights and went on trying to control the internet. That basic human rights stuff i was talking about.
Logic put to good use can and has caused major issues with something far more important than it. Moral. The basic moral fiber, which is degrading before our very eyes. Yeah, right there, in the corner. It's being beaten up, drugged and now people want to rape and suck few drops of life outta it.

[justify]I don't know if that's a good or bad thing to say I'm like a Vulcan (considering I used to be accused to bring as arguments in the past "emotional nonsense" it's strange that I could be seen as so ), but, anyway, I'm sure there wouldn't be pushing for such laws now if all people who download "illegally" were like me.
You see, the kind of guy who sometimes downloads stuff, then if they don't like it, usually remove the files from their computer and if they like it, they buy the Maxi CD/CD/DVD/digital album, whatever...Also the kind of guy who doesn't share what he downloaded because he cannot be sure others would act like him and suspects they might be of the second category of downloaders -mentioned later-. It would prevent the "blind buy" which might cause slight drops in the sales, but the "preview" factor generalized replacing people who are like "I download tons for free and that's it whether I like it or not" would reduce a lot the "loss" said companies are talking about.
I'm of course not talking about artists who decide to propose free download content for various reasons, because it's artist's choice.

Regarding moral confronted to internet, I don't know if being able to download tons of stuff -meant to cost something to pay their author/creator- and share it for free or even in some cases make profit out of downloads you did by selling it in the streets or whatever, can be considered as moral... That's especially for this I started to change towards a rare downloader and spend more because I considered what I did in past during my teenage was wrong, especially towards artists I liked.[/justify]

A problem with entertainment business companies views on downloaded movies and such is that they use the math [times downloaded]x[cost of movie], completely ignoring the fact that those that download a lot of movies would not buy more than a small fraction of what they download if they could not download it.

"Well, i would like to see the reason/ need to police what has been called a "basic human right". A.k.a., the interwebz."
Any proof of this holding true for all nations?

dastupy wrote:"Well, i would like to see the reason/ need to police what has been called a "basic human right". A.k.a., the interwebz."
Any proof of this holding true for all nations?

For the fact that it's a basic human right or that they are policing it?

We do support one single type of policing of the net that is going behind the scenes. The policing that stops child porn. That is both wrong and against internationally agreed-upon laws.

When the problem is such a thing like the entertainment business has with downloaders, then it wont help to criminalize it. Courts of law do not have capacity to take care of such and at the same time do what they're supposed to with serious violations of law.
The thing the entertainment business needs to realize is that they need to kill the reason people rather download than buy. Kill the cause, and the problem solves itself. Kind of like a headache. If you figure out why its there and deal with that, headache will go away. Or you could just chop the head off. Same result. Mostly.

Malx wrote:

dastupy wrote:"Well, i would like to see the reason/ need to police what has been called a "basic human right". A.k.a., the interwebz."
Any proof of this holding true for all nations?

For the fact that it's a basic human right or that they are policing it?

The internet is not a basic human right. Are you freakin' kidding me?! **Filtered**!! You're actually going to make me agree with Congress for once. I will forever hate you for this.

Modern technology and freedoms have far too many people thinking certain things are entitlements when they aren't. Basic human rights in the US are defined as "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", not "Life, Liberty, and the freedom to have the internet." The United Nations defines basic human rights as, "the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in this world." I don't see *internet usage* anywhere in there, either. And if those two places don't have it, no one does.

If you have the money and the means, you are entitled to buy a computer and hook it up to the internet to do whatever you see fit (for the time being). That's not to say the governments of this world are not able to police it ever; most just haven't done so yet.

The internet is going to change eventually. But we can stop bad changes, such as SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, so long as we realize the internet is going to morph and adapt to culture, society, and new laws as time goes on and try to help steer it in a direction that is beneficial to everyone and not just the policing agencies.

Sure, piracy is bad and maybe goes overboard sometimes, but laws like these aren't going to stop hackers and downloaders from doing what they do best (ie: finding ways around blocks and security systems). The only people affected by these policies are the little guys who can't do anything to fight back. That is why I am against these policies; they are not designed well enough to be effective in their actual intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

So basically you agree but you don't really agree but you agree. (?)

In any case, i believe i've had enough of this hate posting.

Right to access to the internet...but it's not concerning content policing of the internet.

Malx wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

So basically you agree but you don't really agree but you agree. (?)

In any case, i believe i've had enough of this hate posting.

Having a supposed "right to access" doesn't mean there is no limit to what you are able to access. Think of it like a library, you can "access", or check out, any book the library has (except for reference books, usually), but that doesn't mean you have access to every book ever written in whichever format you like. There's a difference.

Technically, it's not a human right, it's an entitlement offered by a company/business for a customer/consumer. If the company/business gets strangled and put out of business by laws or regulations, you lose your entitlement to go to that company/business to fulfill your needs/desires, not your "rights".

I agree that these laws are pointless and should be prevented from coming to pass. The idea behind them is a decent one, but it is also very naive and clearly written by those who do not understand the internet. The only thing I have disagreed about in this thread, and the other, is the idea that the internet and it's use is a basic human right.

Psyko wrote:

Malx wrote:

dastupy wrote:"Well, i would like to see the reason/ need to police what has been called a "basic human right". A.k.a., the interwebz."
Any proof of this holding true for all nations?

For the fact that it's a basic human right or that they are policing it?

The internet is not a basic human right. Are you freakin' kidding me?! **Filtered**!! You're actually going to make me agree with Congress for once. I will forever hate you for this.

Good, you can then forever love me for showing you how you can once again disagree with Congress.

Psyko wrote:Modern technology and freedoms have far too many people thinking certain things are entitlements when they aren't. Basic human rights in the US are defined as "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", not "Life, Liberty, and the freedom to have the internet." The United Nations defines basic human rights as, "the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in this world." I don't see *internet usage* anywhere in there, either. And if those two places don't have it, no one does.

I absolutely agree that internet access is not a pre-existing right. But should it remain a privilege? I don't believe so.

Let's start with that pursuit of happiness tidbit. In order to be happy, one must have stable finances. I'm going to stop for a second and just say that the first person that tries to argue that you don't have to have money/things to be happy, I'm going to punch them in the face. Now, but to what I was saying. To have financial stability, one must have a job, no? With every passing day, internet access is required by more and more companies and government agencies just to file an application submit a resume. In fact, very few companies even accept hand written applications and resumes anymore. Faxes have largely been replaced by email, and the few times one does need to fax something, it can be done online. Without access to the internet, your ability to find and sometimes even keep a job is greatly diminished. You wont be able to apply for a wide swath of jobs, including some of the best such as government jobs. Nearly all federal jobs require internet applications. Applications for government jobs in large cities are likewise going to require internet applications. So without internet access, your pursuit of financial stability becomes incredibly limited.

Socializing is a large part of the pursuit of happiness. By far the best way to socialize is in person. But people are using social media to connect with the world around more and more everyday. Social media has many benefits, including allowing people whom are otherwise uncomfortable in certain social situations to socialize with their peers. It also allows those whom wouldn't otherwise be able to socialize to do so. People are also utilizing social media to find better jobs, which is yet another aspect to the pursuit of financial stability. I mean honestly, how many of you would be able to socialize as much in the real world as you do online?

Liberty. Again, everyday it becomes clearer that the internet is just as important to freedom as guns were a hundred years ago. Revolutions have been started and won all thanks to the internet. The internet has proven to be an extremely important springboard for change. Obama, for example, in large owes his presidency to the internet and social media. SOPA and PIPA got shot down by the furor on the internet. It was through social media that people discovered SOPA/PIPA and rallied against it.

The internet is becoming the cornerstone for society. We rely on it for more and more every single day. No, the internet isn't a preexisting right, but as it morphs into something that is required to do just about anything, it should certainly be protected as one.