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

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... meet-acta/

Seriously, SOPA was only a national application of what's been signed upon internationally, which is ACTA.

To sum it up, ACTA is SOPA's bigger brother.

Spread the word, research it, discuss it, anything. Because seriously, we haven't won this war from a long shot and information awareness is a vital.

Here we go again.

It seems they can't take no for an answer.

All this serves to do is to demonstrate the increasing stupidity of rigid positions--on both sides.

Artists have property interests in the work that they create. And individuals have a right to free expression. Those two conflicting sets of interests have existed ever since the reproduction of artistic works first became possible. It is no coincidence that the first copyright legislation followed upon the invention of movable type.

As the means for reproduction and distribution of created works has increased, so to has the challenge of balancing the interests of artists, consumers of art and individuals.

Broadcasters and producers of mass media are foolish if they believe that they can put the genie back in the bottle and go back to the status quo ante. But free(down)loaders are equally foolish if they believe that they can continue to traffic in copyrighted works.

A compromise is necessary--but who is going to sit down on behalf of "the internet" to negotiate a compromise? If there is no way to get "the internet" to live up to a bargain then it necessarily falls to government to act. So far, government's action has been decidedly one-sided and wrong headed, to be sure. But that does not mean that the interest that the government is trying to protect is not a legitimate one.

So instead of simply parrotting "Free Internet," perhaps we would be better engaged on finding the third way--the way in which the freedom of expression that lies at the heart of the internet and the right of fair compensation that is inherent to artists are both respected, and neither is sacrificed for the other.

Thank you for sharing this information. I actually was unaware of this. I will do my very best to spread this information.

Ffff-fff-ff-ff-ffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmQN93NqqDM[/youtube]

What's wrong with these people? That's like sxxx! Sopa then acta? Give me a break! Give me my Internet freedom!! Jeez!!

The internet is one of the few things that links the whole world together, and is the only thing that allows information to be passed around on such a massive scale. Of course those with wealth and power want to shut it down. It's just a damn, crying shame.

Y'know, maybe one day I would have wanted to be a philomath, instead of watching silly videos on Youtube. I could have used Wikipedia more productively...

The internet is everyone's intellectual property. Knowledge and the freedom to it is a birthright.

Yesterday would not be too soon to stop ACTA. Are there any online petitions or such for Web-heads like me to join?

That's rather like aying that the food in the grocery store belongs to everyone.

People don't write music for the purpose of that music not being heard. But everytime someone torrents a song instead of buying a copy from iTunes (for example), the musician is deprived of a royalty. If you can't afford to buy the music that you listen to, there are thousands of streaming audio services on which you can listen to music for free.

People don't make films for the purpose of not being seen. But everytime someone torrents a movie instead of going to a cinema, buying a DVD or subscribing to a online dowload/streaming service, the filmmaker is deprived of a royalty. (Not to mention the odious practices of distributors which work to deprive artists of their compensation).

People don't write plays for the purpose of those plays not being performed. But everytime a group of actors presents a play without buying the performance rights, the playwright is deprived of a royalty. If you can't afford to buy the performance rights, there are thousands of works in the public domain that you are free to perform without any royalty cost.

People don't write books for the purpose of those books not being read. But everytime someone torrents a .pdf of a book instead of buying a legitimate electronic copy, the author is being deprived of a royalty. If you want to read the book so badly, there are libraries. There are even libraries with electronic collections.

Using Facebook, twitter and other internet resources to coordinate a political demonstration is demonstration of the importance and power of the internet. But is it fair that this importance and power is bought--in part--by depriving artists of the legitimate proceeds of their work?

Unless and until advocates for the freedom of the internet are willing to acknowledge the harm that freedom of the internet does to some people, they will be making common cause with thieves and scoundrels. It is high time that the principled, high minded advocates of freedom cut away their fellow travellers whose only interest is how many gigs of free HD video they can score.

Better that than making common cause with fascists and police state proponents, that either do not acknowledge or care about the harm that an Internet that no longer is free causes.

What do you even mean by this? Do you just want people who happen to have a common interest in the freedom of the internet to break into tiny little squabbling factions?

While I don't approve of piracy, I'm not going to start fretting about people's opinions on it when I'm considering a separate (and much more important) issue.

Sounds like Conservertive/Tea Party Republicans once again going against freedom just to make sure we suffer like what happened from 1920 to 1940.

So they're saying each ISP would have to monitor and police everything that gets uploaded and downloaded? That's absurd! How is that impossible. They haven't got the man power for that and on top of that, assuming they could get enough people to do it, where is all the money to do it with coming from? There are sooooo many more people using the net than can possibly be monitored.

Let's pile some more crap on top of that shall we. There goes our privacy. Why not put cameras in everyone's home to see if they're making copies of CDs and DVDs for their friends. And then we can put cameras in the stores restrooms to see if anyone is hiding something they shouldn't. Let's survey everything! Ok, enough with the privacy rant... >.>

But seriously I read and watched some of this and it's just a little over the top ridiculous. Let's turn into the Chinese government everyone.

You have made a lot of very good points there. I don't torrent anything, though, because I'm not very computer savvy and I don't have the time or wherewithal to fix viruses that I may happen to accidentally download onto my computer.

However, things like Wikipedia, Deviantart, Etsy, Amazon, should be left alone!

Sites shouldn't be shut down just because someone draws a picture of Bambi, or some person decides to try and sell a pilfered T.V. It can happen anywhere.

I see knock off models of cartoon characters and pinatas in the Mexican stores all the time. They aren't shut down for it.

Is that the only alternative? Why make common cause with either?

Why not work toward the development of a system in which artists can harness the internet rather than the politics of extremism in which there can only exist two camps, with no compromise between them.