Germany stalls over ACTA treaty ratification Germany has become the latest, and more economically important, nation to place a hold on ratification of the controversial ACTA treaty. The government said that it had decided to hold off on signing ACTA after concerns were raised by the Minister of Justice over the need for the treaty. The government has said it will now …
How dare film makers, artists or anybody that invests in creativity stop us pirating their works for free. I want to be able to walk into my local shop and take what I want without paying, just like millions do on the internet. I don't care if struggling artists can't feed their families because of piracy. They should be thankfull we take the time to listen to their music - infact they should pay us! I don't care if a young director manages to make a minor hit film with promising sales where he might just cover his costs - only for it to be posted on the piratebay and kill any chance he had of paying the cast, cameras, makeup, lighting and moving forward with new projects. In a similar vein I think my boss shouldn't bother paying me, after all I steal everything so I couldn't hold it against my boss for doing the same. Why should I be paid for my hard work? Best of all, like the artists I steal from, I am no longer paid and now work for free, thus I am not taxable and no longer contribute to the running of schools, roads and hospitals.
This post has been deleted by its author
How dare citizens of the EU, their representatives or anybody individual who pays taxes anywhere stop us getting draconian laws that affect everyone's privacy on the statute books, I want to be able to walk into a persons home, rip it apart, confiscate anything I want to because I think that once upon a time they might have used the internet or seen a dodgy Louis Vuitton bag at a market which automatically makes them guilty of piracy, hell, they may even have committed the heinous crime of format shifting, moving media I own in perpetuity from an obsolete medium to a usable medium and not paid me for the privilege every time they use it. I don't care if they have bought the same tired old shite on every format in existence, it's mine I tell you and I want my dead business model propped up with laws that restrict the rights of my customers. How dare they expect laws enacted tby their masters to have been debated properly and not just railroaded through onto the statute books because we happen to have much more money than they do, it is after all what governments are for, to pander to the will of corporate business and help us increase our profits whilst all the time we seek to minimise the taxes we pay into the system to contribute to the running of schools, roads and hospitals.
in conclusion, fuck you, we're corporate and we do what the fuck we want, never mind your 'rights' to privacy, democracy and fairness, we demand our profits and we want them now.
It's not designed to stop people taking what they are not entitled to.
It's designed in the same way as the same anti-terrorist legislation which define the whole of Iceland as a terrorist nation just because some banks were over-extended.
Copyright infringement is already an offence. Why do you think any government need far more wide ranging powers and for more "offences" to convict on to stop something they already have the power to convict on?
Oh look, there's someone driving while using a mobile phone. We need a new law to stop that from happening. It's obviously not driving without due care and attention or reckless driving. Oh noes!, we need another new law for that very specific offence.
Grow up and smell the coffee.
When you've done that, go actually read and take in just what ACTA means.
"Oh look, there's someone driving while using a mobile phone. We need a new law to stop that from happening..."
Actually, here in California, U.S.A. we have precisely that. I'd like to extend your analogy slightly, so that anyone caught violating that law is stripped of driving privileges for life, put under house arrest and forced to wear an electronic tracking device to ensure they never come closer than ten feet to the steering wheel of a motor vehicle, and forced to register, like sex offenders, on a rogues' registry of menaces to the driving public paraded before the public at every opportunity.
I think that was the original posters point, most countries have a "no using the mobile phone whilst driving" law, despite them all having a "driving without undue care and attention" catch-all law on the statute books already which allows the cops to prosecute anyone for anything which they think is dangerous from eating a sandwich to receiving oral pleasure.
Unfortunately they don't seem to ever apply it to parents with screaming kids on the back seat, possibly the most distracted and dangerous drivers I see.
Biggest downvote record outside of criticising Apple products.
Now that AC posts appear to be a thing of the past, eventhough I think you are talking through your ears I will give you an upvote on the grounds that we must all take a balanced view and I sympathise with your .....
S*d it, no I won't!
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
It has no advantages to the population. It can be interpreted in different ways particularly as it only sets lowest standards in enforcements. If an agreement says that a certain datum must be stored for at least 2 weeks and up to 2 years, politicians will more likely go for the 2 year period, they have a track record of doing that.
Anti-ACTA is also against the idea that you can dictate laws from "above", wherever that may be. Laws should be created in a transparent and open way. That's what democracy is about. If politicians don't want that, they should stop calling themselves democrats. They should start a referendum to change the constitution to grant them unlimited power, and if it fails they should leave. That would at least be honest.
What I wold like is for your mother or father or a child to be in the hospital or go to a doctor, and end up dying from having been giving a counterfeit medication. Or be in a fatal airline or automobile crash because some unknowingly put a counterfeit part in it, either a brake or an engine mount or a computer chip or a fuse or anything.
Then maybe you will understand the problem that is being addressed by this bill, so vehemently opposed by stupid people like you.
Says a moron who clearly knows and understands jack shit about ACTA, or the effects it will have on our lives. So I guess you're defending this POS bill just because being the contra pole gives you a boner.
I fully won't comment on your wish for someone to die, though, as this would most certainly be removed by the moderators due to the language used. Just to say that someone must be a real low-life to do that.
>>end up dying from having been giving a counterfeit medication
>>some unknowingly put a counterfeit part in it
>calls people stupid
Some here haven't the slightest clue about traceability and engineering or how liability works.
Some even thinks random book laws can change the laws of human behavior.
That's not what ACTA is for.
We already have laws prohibiting what you describe, and far reaching powers to punish offenders.
What happens if you knowingly sell fake insulin to a diabetic and that person dies?
Worst case, you get fried.
We don't need ACTA, just like we don't need most of the "anti-terrorist" style laws. We have enough laws to prosecute the bad guys. These new laws have only one purpose, to remove freedoms.
You'd like my family to die to illustrate a point about counterfeit goods? Bit extreme don't you think?
Problem with laws like ACTA is that they don't fix the problem, there's no way for counterfeit drugs/aircraft parts or computer chips for critical systems to get into the system unless there's a gaping hole in the procedures put in place to ensure that they don't. That gaping hole will still be there, ACTA or not.
The worst part about Turtle's milli-digit IQ rant is that it can be used to justify any law. As long as your only criteria is "come up with an over-the-top, melodramatic, too lame for Lifetime sob story which could at some point be prevented by this law" you'll pass any crap you want.
"What I wold[sic] like is for your mother or father or a child to be in the hospital or go to a doctor, and end up dying from having been DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DUE TO WRONG COLOUR SHOELACES. Or be in a fatal airline or automobile crash because some unknowingly WORE THE WRONG COLOUR SHOELACES TO WORK AND WAS SENT HOME BEFORE THEY COULD FIX IT, either a brake or an engine mount or a computer chip or a fuse or anything.
Then maybe you will understand the problem that is being addressed by this bill, so vehemently opposed by stupid people like you."
I agree. Ban chromatic shoelaces.
This post has been deleted by its author
I did. In fact I wrote to all the UK Lib Dem's MPs.
I received interesting replies back from some of them. Not all of them are happy with the ACTA bill. Some couldn't give a $hit about it or their constituents as long as the gravy train keeps all rolling.
But what they do know now is that people are watching their actions and will hold them to account. If more people wrote it would have a bigger impact. So what's stopping you? The time it takes to make a angry comment on here would be better sent directing it at them.
Here is the link: http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs.html
Go on make a difference
I did write some years ago when ACTA was first being leaked, and got a boiler-plate reply to the effect that such treaties are 'normally negotiated behind closed doors'.
Pathetic!
Now while I agree that some of the anti-ACTA protests are based on imagined or now-deleted aspects of the treaty, it should still be kicked out simply BECAUSE OF THIS.
If we are to have better laws, and a more sensible approach to trademarks & IP, then it should be something that is discussed in public with inputs from ALL parties, and not just the government ministers and IP lobbies.
You won't make everyone happy, but at least you will have some semblance of democracy in action, and a chance to deal with the issues that matter to both the IP lobby (protection & reward of invention and creativity) and to the consumers (fair global market, no locked-down systems intended to prevent fair use and maximise profit).
Laws that are seen to be fair and reasonable have more chance of being respected and upheld.
Last weekend I wrote to all of my MEP's asking them to reject ACTA. After a week the only one who responded was William Dartmouth (UKIP MEP). He said he would vote against it.
To be fair his response basically said the UKIP will vote against all EU legislation and treaties, but he seemed very keen that I understand the UKIP are dead set against ACTA and have pushed for a 'motion for resolution'.
Something is very wrong when you find yourself on the same side as the UKIP, next thing you know the BNP or SNP will come out against it.
Bit of a difference between UKIP and the BNP. (Can't comment on the SNP, although they do look amusing on the TV). UKIP are for the UK's interests and against the EU bureaucratic steam roller.
Given the way national governments go round implementing pretty much anything which comes out of Brussels you would be forgiven for wondering why we both to pay for all their second homes and duck houses.
... that it's not so much the content of *this* particular treaty (though I don't like it personally) it's more...
The underhand secretive method it been done in, to paraphrase the UK gov 'Nothing to hide nothing to fear'
It's a foot in the door for Big Media which you *know* will begin to scope creep as soon as it's ratified and THAT is a very very bad thing so slam the door shut and crush the foot, preferably as painfully as possible to make it think twice about coming back any time soon. Big Media wants control of the internet and it's not too fussed about how it gets it.
'We the people' do not support putting the interests of wealthy corporations before our own. We don't want this and you do not do this in OUR name or for OUR benefit.
And so forth.
is letting the neanderthal record corporations and film studios set themselves up as judge, jury, prosecution and executioner all in one, and forcing the ISPs to be the police force.
We already have copyright laws. If you're accused of breaking the law you should face a fair trial.
The slightest mention of certain people and they refuse to post it.
The real nerve is this site often posts articles condemning the sort of behaviour they are more than happy to perpetrate themselves.
I have no doubt that you Chinese inspired hypocrites will censor this comment also.
How is this censorship? Everyone can say what they want on their own site or elsewhere. No-one gets hurt
This is our site - our rules. You are entirely capable of making your points more politely. But if you insult our staff I can guarantee you that those comments will not be published.
However when one of your staff decides that *his* opinions are the only ones that matter and that *nobody* else is allowed to post comments disagreeing with him (even when he gets fundamental details wrong such as thinking that Yvette Cloette is male!) it's not so much "our site - our rules" but "this is my ball and my back yard and if I don't like you, you're not allowed to play".
Well, maybe if some of the authors actually did what a proper journalist is supposed to do (research) instead of making things up then the feedback wouldn't be so negative?
Or in short: don't play with fire if you can't stand the heat.
I agree that blatantly offending posts should be removed, but it seems everything which is critical regarding a certain author is just censored. That *IS* censorship, and it's cowardice.
Exactly. If said author wants an Internet megaphone without the feedback then he/she should open his/her own blog with the comments disabled and see how far that gets him/her.
How many IT news sites don't have comments these days? Very few.
How many IT news sites that do have comments disable them for just one author? I'll hazard a guess: One.
Kind of odd that this author is afforded the same protection as other publications do for the royal family.
but we are the people that spread this sites, bread with butter.
without us this site and the articles on it are worthless. We regular commentards should be able to voice our opinions about issues we see that are detrimentally affecting the sites creditability.
notable exceptions to this are the nasty little trolls. As for personal attacks these are just the last refuge of the truly stoopid! And that doesn't just refer to the commentards.
Of course you could withdraw service from those that don't play by the rules and you are entitled to do so. But isn't this just the same as what the media companies did. If you don't like our prices go elsewhere... well guess what everybody did.
I think the absence of reasoned discussion in the comments section shows that this is also happening here. Why do I come? Because there is still some excellent articles here but they are getting harder and harder to find.
Please don't take this personally as it isn't meant as an attack personal or otherwise but an observation
It's about a company saying "Hey, that's a rip-off" (of our patent / TM / colour etc.) and getting things confiscated.
Just think about the current spats between Apple, Motorola, Samsung, etc. Now think that instead of talking to judges, Apple just says to the customs people: "Anything that looks like a tablet that isn't made by Apple is a rip-off; confiscate them and feed them to the crusher". Perhaps Motorola can say "Apple hasn't paid any license fees for our patents that they use in their iPhones; confiscate them". It's bad enough already, but without judges slowing down the squabbling, it will just get out of hand.
Now imagine that you are coming home from your holiday through customs, and the customs person takes a liking to your handbag/camera/whatever. They ask you for the receipt to prove that you bought it at a shop authorised by the trademark owner. If you haven't got it, can they say they suspect it is fake and confiscate it?
What about those Levis Jeans that you bought in Tescos. Levis have already tried to stop that, but haven't managed so far. Since they own the trade mark, they can claim that Tescos are selling the jeans in breach of their trademark (even though they aren't even fakes). Dawn raid on Tescos perhaps?
And that is part of the problem, not just with ACTA, but with PIPA and SOPA too. These poorly conceived "laws" and "treaties" might have the best intentions behind them (but I doubt that) but they all suffer from the same problems.
1. They are being pushed through without proper debate. At least they were - public protest already have had an effect on the two US based laws. We shall have to wait and see about ACTA.
2. They are so loosely based that they can be interpreted in any conceivable way. To use my previous hammer example, just because it looks like a hammer, it doesn't mean that it will only ever be used to knock nails in. OK, Tescos might be big enough to weather these attacks but what about all the small companies, the start ups, the single person businesses whose cash flow could be wiped out just for a single link out of place or a familiar tune in the background of a video?
3. The main people behind it or pushing for these things to become official are people with a vested interest in the status quo. And no, I am not referring to the UK heavy rock (well heavy-ish) band.
Does this now mean that the law is a Motion Picture Ass of America? Shall we just do away with gubbermints in favour of the BMI and its big brother, the RIAA?
Well done 'The People'. We is fighting the 'Corporate Whores' and we is Winning! Power to the People (used to be called democracy).
All grammatical errors made on purpose.
ACTA isn't about helping the struggling artist, it is about keeping much needed cheap medicines from third world countries and controlling the free flow of information.
The problem with over-reaching on copyright laws is being illustrated plain as day here, after looking at ACTA I'm seeing nothing objectionable really, but because of things like DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, and dozen other proposed laws and actual laws, it doesn't really matter.
It's like the boy who cried wolf. The public is sick to death of governments and big corporations and automatically assumes anything coming out of their mouth's is a lie, never mind the actual text of the treaty. The public sees a law being pushed by big corporations with hot-topic words like "copyright" and "piracy" and automatically sees "censorship".
And the corporations have no-one to blame but themselves, they were the ones that sued kids for downloading MP3, they were the ones that wanted huge board powers, they were the ones that pushed and pushed and now they are feeling the backlash. And frank if the people don't want it... well... they are making their voices heard... and governments might love the big cheques that come in from the "contributions" but they like being in power a great deal more, as illustrated by the government suddenly "rethinking" ACTA.
'"infringement of copyrights" if you prefer is a crime. It's very simple, punish those who violate law.'
You do realise that if you take a photo and show it off (maybe facebook) but somewhere in it there is a work of art, poster, etc, you are then guilty and so should be locked up and/or fined massively for infringement?
Laws should be fair and reasonable, to both parties in any IP dispute. This is something that is being forgotten in the move to court-free action on infringement from a teenager copying one song, all the way to the seizure of competitor's products at trade shows, etc, without a proper court hearing to decide if patents and/or trademarks have actually been infringed to an amount that demands such extreme action.
I'm so suprised to still see this kind of comments. If you don't understand anything about the issue then please do not comment!
Copyrights are not equal to right to copy. In fact they have nothing in common.
For example one of my friends in Finland has copyrights to a composition called "The Battle for Free Internet", but he wants you to listen, download and share this musical piece in the internet as much as possible.
I also recommend you to do it. It is an excellent prove of how good music and culture we could spread throughout the whole globe if only those old time record companies could end their death struggle and their whining. We don't need them anymore.
http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/104978
which says:
"THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT,
NOTING that effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is critical to sustaining economic
growth across all industries and globally;"
This assumes something that is by no means proven. Namely that enforcement of 'intellectual property rights' are 'critical to sustaining economic growth'. The early history of the USA suggests that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the assertion is true.
Even if we discount the possibility the agreement is a bad one made for bad ends it is quite reasonable to think that its premises are faulty and that it will therefore not have good effects.
Any law that has not been worked out in open session by my elected representatives without any "party line" to be whipped to is not legitimate.
Further, any law that is pushed in front of them by large monied corporations is not legitimate either.
Any corporation that gives money to a political candidate is making that candidate illegitemate unless the candidate rejects the money and makes public any accompanying communications.
If this last item occurs, appropriate individuals within the corporation should be prosecuted for attempted bribery.
Very few of us ordinary folk have the time to read these things in detail or the legal expertise to understand precisely what they mean or HOW THEY MIGHT BE INTERPRETED IN THE FUTURE. However, experience tells us that when media corporations get together with governments it is unquestionably for the sole purpose of destroying our liberties in order to line their pockets.
I think we are wise to rebel against anything that stinks of a government/media corporation stitch-up without feeling the need to read it. Discussing the details simply gives them an excuse to shout us down as 'thieves' or confuse us with lies and quasi-legal bullshit. The world belongs to us the people, and when corrupt, greedy, authoritarian bullies try to take it over we should stamp on them hard. That's what I do when cockroaches invade my kitchen; I don't engage them in conversation.
Politicians need our votes more than the MAFIAA's money, and the MAFIAA needs our money more than the politicians' votes. We are in the driving seat here. There used to be an old-fashioned notion in England that the government existed to serve the people, and I think it is high time we reasserted that simple principle - by fair means or foul. Without our tacit support these people are NOTHING: no votes from us = no politician; no money from us = no media baron. They should beware the Ides of March.
Talking of votes and politicians, I keep reading here and there that if the European Parliament votes against ACTA it will be thrown out. Now, the last time I checked the legislative rights in the EU I read that all proposed legislation had to be passed to the Parliament for approval, BUT the Parliament's decision is NOT BINDING on the Executive (ie the unelected Commission).
I have tried to check this but without 16 years of specialist EU law training I simply haven't the foggiest notion of what any of it actually means in real life. Can anyone enlighten me? I accept I am not a fan of the EU, mainly because I think its lawmaking is not only outwith the mandate of the people but also so deliberately obfuscated that the EU can interpret it any way it chooses. But if there is a guaranteed, cast-iron certainty that the elected Parliament really can throw out legislation proposed by the Commission I will be pleased to hear it.
Can anyone find an actual fact behind all the smoke and mirrors that will clarify the real power that the Parliament has, or doesn't have over the Commission in this matter? But please, no romantic tosh about 'elected representatives', if in reality their expense accounts are greater than their power.
AFAIK ... it is a parilamentary system: 'cabinet' (commission) proposes 'laws' (directives, regulations), these must pass the 'two chamber legislature' (EU Parliament + council of ministers). Also, the commission needs the 'confidence' of the parliament: the parliament votes on the approval of the roster of commissioners, (in theory) there could also be 'a vote of no confidence' dismissing the commission in mid term.
All talks have progressed with a great deal of secrecy.
Why, if they did not fear exposure? Why indeed, if such exposure would result in public reaction?
This alone merits reaction.
ACTA would result in basic civil rights being eroded/breached/restricted, and criminalize generic medicine which would in turn result in many epidemics deaths in third-world countries. All for lining the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies, as well as MPAA supporters.
It is NOT in the public interest. On the contrary. It is an effort to bypass all checks and balances, and only benefit the already obscene rich.
Read the wikipedia article on it, if you have time. Some of the links there are of interest too.
@Turtle, ACTA will actually kill people. For example Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctor Without Borders) get over 80% of their AIDS medicines from generic producers in India, which ACTA intends to stop. So those people it is treating will die without these drugs. One of the many reasons ACTA must be stopped. See http://www.msf.org.uk/handsoff.aspx
If ACTA is bad the "Trans-Pacific-Partnership" is even worse...it is currently being negotiated in the same secretive way as ACTA was and what has leaked reveals the very sort of scope creep that anti-ACTA activists feared. Even more draconian "IP" rules and penalties.
Of course we are not allowed to know exactly what is being discussed or even by whom let alone see a draft ... gotta love the mix of big content and government bureaucracy.
Not the anti-piracy aspect - I really don't care if true pirates are hammered by the authorities. What is wrong is the fact that this treaty effectively binds all signatories in a single legal framework, one produced not to satisfy real moral problems (eg slavery, child abuse) but to satisfy business interests.
In producing this agreement the signatories have accorded the 'Right Holder' representatives rights equivalent to those of national governments. It pretty much gives them the whole cake and helpfully provides the cutlery for them to eat it.
Way, way over the top.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that the EU ratification affects whether or not the treaty comes into force should check out Article 40:
"This Agreement shall enter into force for each Signatory that deposits its instrument of
ratification, acceptance, or approval after the deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification,
acceptance, or approval, thirty days after the date of deposit by such Signatory of its instrument of
ratification, acceptance, or approval."
Sure, if the EU rejects it it would diminish its impact, but once the sixth state ratifies it all who ratify are bound by it.
JCB33 may not be a troll, but if not, he/she/it is doing a marvelous impersonation of one.
The attitude in the first post is precisely what the lobbyists are managing to sell to legislators and representatives: that the voices in protest against these Draconian and hopelessly flawed measures are all freetards afraid of losing their pipelines to pirated products and may thus be safely discounted. Thank God for those like Helena Drnovsek Zorko who are obviously not in that number, who have the platforms where they will be heard and the determination to get the truth across.
( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/03/acta_protests_grow/
http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta )
The industries pushing this nonsense must know that they have already passed the point of diminishing returns, where each increment toward their (ostensible) the goal of preventing piracy, which can never be achieved but only approached asymptotially, costs them more than they can ever hope to save because of it. It's not business any more; its lust for power and dominance, for the pleasure of having it all their way.
Their histrionics have left the stratum of reasonable concern for what is rightly theirs and entered the realm of the ridiculous. They have become crybabies with clout, buttonholing those worth buttonholing to whine in their ears while voices of reason, unable to get in as close as they do, are ignored or written off.
That is dead wrong, dear Sir. It is not opposition to copyright that is the so-called flavor of the month; it is opposition to unworkable, overbearing, overbroad, underhanded, insupportable and nonsensical measures concocted by a narrow sector of the business community managing to convince people in positions of power that a certain problem is a crisis and that any imposition of intimidation, denial of rights and freedoms explicitly promised within the written law, penalties grossly misfitting the crimes and imposition of requirements for personnel and resources in business and government (with no offer of compensation) making their own narrow slice of the totality of business and personal interest into a de facto department within everything from ISPs to search engines to government agencies (at their expense) just to look out for theirs, something no other industry comes close to enjoying is justified and needed tomorrow noon if their industry is to survive until the weekend.
(Author pauses to catch breath and ignore grade-school lectures against run-on sentences...)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
