fchan

discussion

ACTA

Pages:1
1Report
Leviathan at 9 Jun 2008: 23:36

So, I was sitting on a muck the other day and was talking to a few people when someone shouted that there was a new trade agreement going into effect at the end of the political summit in July.  This agreement is basically an anti-counterfitting/copywrite protection agreement.  Now, it states that anyone who infringes upon copywrite infringment will be able to be prosecuted without legal representation, and if you travel internationally, you are subjected to illegal search and seizure.  What does everyone think about this, and the possible implications to the fandom?

2Report
at 9 Jun 2008: 23:40

I invite you (and others who have posted about this) to go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

tl;dr: Papers please Comrade.

3Report
at 10 Jun 2008: 10:31

*copyright
*counterfeit

Other than that spelling nazism, I don't have all that much to say other than;
This only affects people who have already committed/are going to commit a crime. If you haven't committed a crime, why should you care if Random Officer #123 looks at your files?
Yes, I know its one of those crimes that's just accepted nowadays, like littering or swearing in public (yes, thats illegal in some places), and 90-something% of people here have probably done it, but its still your own fault if you get caught.

4Report
at 10 Jun 2008: 12:20

>>3
You are dead wrong. It affects your privacy. Your personal information and everything you do will be shared with foreign countries who may not have decent security. Corporations and pretty much ANYONE could argue "trademark infringement, intellectual property infringement, copyright infringement, etc etc" and take down a competitors website WITHOUT any actual proof necessary.

This will hurt the economy and the travel industry, this will hurt relations with foreign countries forced into the agreement, this will further cement monopolies in the various business industries. If you have a website trying to give a fair review on a product and they don't like you doing that they can get your website shutdown. Fair use no longer applies.

5Report
at 10 Jun 2008: 16:40

>>3 here
>>4
And how is that all that much different from now? Google (and most other search engines) already stores everything you search, and I for one trust them a hell of a lot less than I trust a hypothetical extra-governmental body. Both US and UK are introducing PHORM soon anyway, which actively sends your information (supposedly encrypted in some form or other) to companies for profit.

Your second point is, frankly, wrong. The new legislation won't make any difference to the amount of proof needed, it just changes whether or not they need a warrant first.

Economy? How?
Travel? They can do a hell of a lot more invasive searches without a warrant than checking your laptop at an airport.
Hurt relations? The only countries involved are the "lets police the world" brigade of US and EU, and the countries that follow at heel anyway.
Monopolies made worse? The competitors shouldn't have broken the law.
Reviewers shut down? Bollocks.

6Report
at 11 Jun 2008: 13:17

>>5
You are stupid, go fucking die.

7Report
at 11 Jun 2008: 18:43

>>5
isn't having your personal information given out to any company who wants it for any reason a bit worse then google knowing you searched for "XXX furry"?

8Report
at 11 Jun 2008: 21:00

>>6
Very mature.

>>7
I must have missed the part where "extra-governmental, heavily monitored agency" was re-defined as "any company who wants it for any reason". PHORM has nothing to do with ACTA.

For pity's sake people, stop over-reacting.

9Report
at 11 Jun 2008: 21:19

>>8
Why should I be mature? You basically made an idiot out of yourself in the reply.

"The competitors shouldn't have broken the law" is quite possibly the most blaring example of your lack of intellect on the issue. There is no need to explain it to someone like you because you live in a reality where logic and information do not apply. Only what YOU think matters.

10Report
at 11 Jun 2008: 21:32

>>9
Methinks that the so-called "blaring example of my lack of intellect on the issue" (without going into an Ad Hominem argument about how little sense that makes as a sentence) rather shows your own ignorance of the facts.
If a company breaks copyright law, it should, and can, be shut down. If they didnt break the law, all that happens is a lot of money is wasted on lawyers in snappy suits.

What "logic and information" tells you that an agreement that only provides for Border Searches and ISP co-operation is going to change ANYTHING about how the law works once the suspect is identified?

What I think may not matter, but unless you're a high-profile international copyright lawyer (which I doubt), yours doesn't matter either pal.

11Report
at 11 Jun 2008: 22:07

>>10 here again.
I consider the matter closed. Don't bother replying to my post, since I have better things to do with my life than argue with some kid on a porn site.

12Report
at 11 Jun 2008: 22:58

>>8
yes, you did. PHORM has nothing to do with my post, i merely mentioned that "any company who wants it for any reason" can do so under ACTA which is what this topic is about. as well as the post you were referring to during your comment.

13Report
at 11 Jun 2008: 23:09

>>11
You are the little kid. You refuse to look at the ACTA and actually READ it to see how it affects things other than piracy.

14Report
at 12 Jun 2008: 02:35

.

15Report (sage)
at 12 Jun 2008: 07:38

>>12
Where does it say that? I assume you're referring to "Procedures enabling right holders who have given effective notification of a claimed infringement to expeditiously obtain information identifying the alleged infringer", which basically comes down to "there will be a way to ask ISPs for information through this system", which means that they have to go through legal channels to do so, and provide evidence that you have infringed on their copyright.

>>13
You appear to not be very bright, so I'll say this slowly.

It. Doesnt. Affect. Anything. But. Piracy. (And. By. Extension. Counterfeiting.) It. Was. DESIGNED. To. Only. Affect. Counterfeit. And. Piracy.

If you disagree, show me WHERE in the release you think it says anything else.

16Report
at 12 Jun 2008: 13:01

>>15
You are so stupid it's beyond belief. The Patriot Act was designed to find terrorists but guess what? It also took away american freedoms and opened up a whole new can of worms regarding spying on American citizens, ignoring due process, etc etc.

Get a fucking BRAIN and realize that "designed to do" doesn't mean shit. ACTA is too vague and thus relatively open to abuse.

17Report
at 12 Jun 2008: 14:26

>>16
...ok, sure. Whatever you say. Put your tinfoil hat back on and get back to the bunker now ok?

18Report
at 12 Jun 2008: 14:54

>>17
Go back to your concentration camp, you are happy there.

19Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage