If you thought SOPA was bad, just wait until you meet ACTA!

Post Reply New Topic

I'd much rather see severe civil unrest than some of the things you have mentioned, so to the compromises you likely ask for, I feel confident that I can say no to. You do not care about the poor; you do not care about people being able to become paying appreciaters of culture, from the use of what is deemed illegal filesharing; you do not put freedom before corporate interests... all you seem to care about is keeping the old industry method going strong. Unfortunately, it is crumbling, and creating a China-like Internet firewall is not going to be as easily accepted here, as it is in China, where people sadly have become accustomed to this over a long period. It was the young that rose up in Arab countries, last year, and it is the young that will do it, again - especially as it is the young who have a clue how the Internet works. It has already started in Poland.

ACTA was passed here in Sweden, today, by the way, without almost a single news article covering it. Thursday the 26th of January, 2012, is a very dark day for free speech in this country. It is time for the uprising to start.

It's actually big media that has the problem, not artists. And it is their problem, not mine.

All I ask is that they don't do something incredibly stupid which harms me while trying to fix their problem.


I don't think it's 'extremism' or anything like it to oppose laws which would hobble the internet.

When it comes to your representation of my beliefs, you are at best presumptuous, at worst a liar. So let's go through your errors:

1) Of course I care about the poor. I have certainly called for systems under which people without means can consume artistic product. But caring about the poor does not mean giving free and unrestricted access to the property of others--and certainly doesn't mean giving free and unrestricted access to people who can afford to pay.
2) "What is deemed illegal filesharing?" It is not, "deemed" it is clearly and unequivocally illegal filesharing.
3) I have never once trumpeted corporate interests. I have always been very clear that I support artists' interests. I have no interest in protecting industrial distributors, they have the means to do so themselves.

However, you are quite right that I do not put freedom before artists' interests. There are five essential characteristics of a democracy: free and fair elections; rule of law; free expression; protection of civil liberties and minorities; and private property. If any of these interests are missing, democracy is threatened. You cannot sacrifice one to bolster another, all five must coexist.

4) Read my posts. I have consistently said that the status quo is broken. SOPA and PIPA are bad law, and the implementation of ACTA will be no different. I have never suggested that this is the way forward, but rather have been a voice in the wilderness looking for a reconciliation of artists' interests with free expression.



If you were able to learn that rhetoric is no substitute for reason, we might make some progress. So long as you demonize every person who does not agree entirely with you, there is no possibility of discussion with you--only argument.

Meanwhile, your free speech has not been undermined. You are free to continue to speak your mind as you see fit. You have never had the privilege to utter other people's words, so its no use pretending that the implementation of ACTA has changed your rights one little bit.

What ACTA may do is cut off your access to some forums for the exercise of that free speech. And that is properly a subject of concern. But do not for a moment suppose that the avaialbility of Megaupload is in any way comparable to the ability to organize a political demonstration. The former is trivial--the latter is the real test.

If ACTA is so harmless, why were they careful to negotiate it in secret?

Last I checked, the latest publicly available version was a *leaked* draft from 2010. In the US, freedom of information requests were refused on grounds of "national security".

Pretending that "the privilege to utter other people's words" is the only reason anyone would oppose such a thing is silly.

I've read the actual agreement and believe me, it's like reading a EULA to any software you purchase in terms or legal wordplays. The real danger is that the agreement only poses safeguards of freedom of expression, fair process, etc to business communities not individuals. In other words, there's nothing in ACTA protecting civil liberties of individuals. Anything that remotely suggest any such safeguards are waivered by saying, "No part of the agreement shall require" and basically says 'any measure infringing privacy' as one of the few conditions. This means they're still allowed to impose such invasive measures, it's just not required to comply with ACTA to do so.

Heh, jailbreaking, modifying products, disabling DRM, using proxy/VPN, all become illegal under ACTA btw too, as they count as circumventing methods of anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy measures.

But what's really scary is that SOPA/PIPA do not contravene ACTA's safeguard provisions by what I read. Meaning that the U.S was basically introducing new legislation based on recommendations and provisions of ACTA already!

According to Wikipedia, ACTA has been signed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement

This is the only relevant article I could find on it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/27/eu_signs_acta/