Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Apr 2010 19:33 UTC, submitted by ozonehole
Legal Yes, even more copyright and intellectual property stuff. We have several stories on this one today, so I figured I'd throw them all together. First and foremost, ACTA has finally been dragged out of the shadows and into the light (thanks to the EU parliament), so we can take a look at what's in there. Is it really as bad as everyone thinks it is? Short answer: yes. Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.
Order by: Score:
Dead
by jackastor on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:17 UTC
jackastor
Member since:
2009-05-05

Wow, either noone has posted a comment yet because this topic is a dead horse, or the sheer insanity ACTA has caused all OSNews' readers' heads to explode.

In any case, someone will eventually find a way to work around the ACTA. And make money doing it. Exploiting loopholes (and the poor) is what America is good at.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Dead
by satsujinka on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:42 UTC in reply to "Dead"
satsujinka Member since:
2010-03-11

My head certainly did. The fact that anyone would consider ACTA sane is a testament to their insanity.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Dead
by spikeb on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:51 UTC in reply to "Dead"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

personally, my head blew up

Reply Score: 2

Guilty until proven innocent?
by Zifre on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:18 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

What has happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? I thought that was what our justice system was supposed to be based on.

So, could I theoretically just say that any random video on YouTube that I don't like is infringing on my copyright and have it taken down without due process? What is our world coming to?

It just boggles my mind how idiotic these people are. Sometimes I just wish I could punch every one of those politicians in the face. ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Guilty until proven innocent?
by Lazarus on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:41 UTC in reply to "Guilty until proven innocent?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

What has happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?


Has it ever really worked that way? These monkeys are just now figuring out how to use the available tools to make "guilty until proven innocent" a more effective net with which to catch what they think of as bottom feeders; basically every single Human Being who is not them.

ACTA is bad for the vast majority of us, the people pushing it are misinformed at best, and evil at worst, and you'd better bet they're not going to be enforcing their monopolies over their imaginary property with anything less than real bullets.

It is sickening how they wish to extend this blight over all the world. I certainly hope that there are enough semi-sane people in power to tell these jerks where to go and how best to get there.

Reply Score: 8

This smells...
by churlish_Helmut on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:38 UTC
churlish_Helmut
Member since:
2010-04-12

Well, looking at the youtube video archive, nearly 80% of the content could be removed because of that.

But there must be some way to go against this. I think, law is always a two-sided sword. Or am I wrong?

Reply Score: 1

RE: This smells...
by Rugxulo on Wed 21st Apr 2010 23:31 UTC in reply to "This smells..."
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

Well, looking at the youtube video archive, nearly 80% of the content could be removed because of that.


While there is actual good and legal content on YouTube, at least 80% is crap crap crap, whether legal or not.

Reply Score: 1

Imminent infringement
by Stratoukos on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:45 UTC
Stratoukos
Member since:
2009-02-11

I can't possibly imagine what imminent infringement could be. I mean what are they going to do? Sue people that looked liked they were going to download something? The linked article didn't have any details.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Imminent infringement
by fretinator on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:54 UTC in reply to "Imminent infringement"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

I can't possibly imagine what imminent infringement could be.


I sure can (but I might be wrong). If you have copyrighted material available via file share, they can bust you - even if they can't prove there was any copying. Normally, it would be hard to say you violated copyright if nothing was copied, but this would relieve them of having to prove that copying actually took place.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Imminent infringement
by Glynser on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 10:47 UTC in reply to "Imminent infringement"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

I guess if you're commenting on this article, you're already making yourself a suspect

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Licaon_Kter
by Licaon_Kter on Wed 21st Apr 2010 20:55 UTC
Licaon_Kter
Member since:
2010-03-19
RE: Comment by Licaon_Kter
by Karitku on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 08:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by Licaon_Kter"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12


Unfortunatly article is all about technical mambo jambo. Real issue is this, if someone makes video(lets call it Burt) out of small piece of video (lets call this Lester) that is made by another person and maker of Burt gets money from showing Burt is it fair use? Shouldn't maker of Lester get some part of money from Burt maker? If you look these Hitler videos clearly it might look like that there isn't any money on play, but there is actually alot. Even if the maker of Burt don't get any money the site that hosts Burt might get, is it fair for maker of Lester?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Licaon_Kter
by Licaon_Kter on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Licaon_Kter"
Licaon_Kter Member since:
2010-03-19

Real issue is this, if someone makes video(lets call it Burt) out of small piece of video (lets call this Lester) that is made by another person and maker of Burt gets money from showing Burt is it fair use?

but this is not the issue here, the makers of the Hitler vs. PS3, Hitler vs. GTA4 tech issues, Hitler vs. nVidia Fermi etc don't make any money, the hosting service does through ads... and that's a different thing

moar: http://ideas.4brad.com/studio-does-content-id-takedown-my-hitler-vi...

Reply Score: 1

v OSNews or Thom's copyright news?
by nt_jerkface on Wed 21st Apr 2010 21:42 UTC
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There has been a lot of mobile news this week like Adobe giving up on the iphone but I guess Thom's personal vendetta is more important than providing news with technical substance.


Or, how about: I provide you this service for free and have a life, too?

The Adobe story is in the works.

Edited 2010-04-21 22:25 UTC

Reply Score: 5

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Because in the long run this is way more important than Adobe or the iPhone will ever be?

Reply Score: 5

Feanor Member since:
2006-12-21

Thom has said it before: They do take submissions. If you have a topic you feel is important to spread to the OSNews community, WRITE about it and SUMBIT the article.

Sidenote, As of this writing, this article has 4 thumbs up, and the Flash CS5 one has none.

Edited 2010-04-22 01:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

probably because ACTA could have more impact on technology and innovation than Adobe giving up on the iPhone.

Reply Score: 4

Why is a monarchy so good?
by amadensor on Wed 21st Apr 2010 21:53 UTC
amadensor
Member since:
2006-04-10

"They might want to eventually abolish the monarchy (which goes against every fibre in my body) "

I live in a country that has never had a monarchy, so I do not understand why you would want one. Please help me understand why family heritage is a better system of choosing leadership than the will of those being led.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why is a monarchy so good?
by churlish_Helmut on Wed 21st Apr 2010 22:22 UTC in reply to "Why is a monarchy so good?"
churlish_Helmut Member since:
2010-04-12

Why is monarchy so bad? At least, most of the time of human civlisation has been done by kings, so that system can't be that wrong :-)

And i think this news about the ACTA is some more important as the newest IPhone News.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why is a monarchy so good?
by darknexus on Wed 21st Apr 2010 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is a monarchy so good?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Well, considering that it can really suck when a bad ruler comes into absolute power... but still, given the crap chute we're making of things lately maybe an absolute ruler wouldn't be so bad.
That being said, is the Netherlands a true monarchy? I don't believe it is, as they have a parliamentary government as well, so what's the monarch's purpose? Figurehead?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why is a monarchy so good?
by Lazarus on Wed 21st Apr 2010 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is a monarchy so good?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Why is monarchy so bad? At least, most of the time of human civlisation has been done by kings, so that system can't be that wrong :-)

And i think this news about the ACTA is some more important as the newest IPhone News.


I agree with ACTA news being more important, but it is also a good example of how a small group of people in power can royally (pun intended) screw over everyone else.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why is a monarchy so good?
by amadensor on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is a monarchy so good?"
amadensor Member since:
2006-04-10

I did not say that it is bad. Just that I do not understand it. I have never lived with one, and I am curious about what it is like, and what makes it good. I know the issues of self government, like representatives following the polls instead of the long term good, and the possibility of majority abuse of a minority. I also know the good side, like the accountability of those in government to those they govern, and the ability to change things if they are going wrong.

I have never lived with a monarchy, and as Thom implies that they are great, I am interested to know why.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why is a monarchy so good?
by sultanqasim on Wed 21st Apr 2010 22:39 UTC in reply to "Why is a monarchy so good?"
sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

The monarchy in such countries is meant to be symbolic and ceremonial, and to preserve the traditions of the nation. For example, Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of Canada (even though we separated from Britain hundreds of years ago), and most of us don't mind keeping her (with the exception of certain groups like the Quebec seperatists).

Edited 2010-04-21 22:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why is a monarchy so good?
by Rugxulo on Wed 21st Apr 2010 23:30 UTC in reply to "Why is a monarchy so good?"
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

I live in a country that has never had a monarchy, so I do not understand why you would want one.


Ditto, American here. A good/bad leader is still a good/bad leader whether king, president, P.M., etc. At least monarchy would maybe save taxpayer money on insane elections that last forever (1+ year) and avoid all the insultingly stupid campaign ads we have to endure.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why is a monarchy so good?
by coreyography on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 01:22 UTC in reply to "Why is a monarchy so good?"
coreyography Member since:
2009-03-06

Please help me understand why family heritage is a better system of choosing leadership than the will of those being led.


It isn't. Anyone who like me has lived in the US as of late can attest to that.

Don't get me wrong; I still love my country. But its government in recent years is not one I'd hold up as a model, or even claim to be in any way aware of our founding fathers' principles.

That said, most monarchies now appear to be symbolic, and they generally appear to be good for PR (or entertainment). Whether that is worth the support cost is another debate.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why is a monarchy so good?
by Cody Evans on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 01:33 UTC in reply to "Why is a monarchy so good?"
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

Monarchs are immune to a nifty American invention called "Campaign Contributions"

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why is a monarchy so good?
by darknexus on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is a monarchy so good?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Monarchs are immune to a nifty American invention called "Campaign Contributions"


Hah! They're not immune to bribery, they just have a more truthful name for it.

Reply Score: 2

Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

No one gave a shit about Obama receiving $656,357,572 in campaign contributions. While if he had received even say a $1,000 bribe, it would have been breaking news on every new network in the US and considered a scandal.

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

No one gave a shit about Obama receiving $656,357,572 in campaign contributions. While if he had received even say a $1,000 bribe, it would have been breaking news on every new network in the US and considered a scandal.


Precisely. A bribe by any other name is still a bribe, even if we're too stupid as a people to see it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why is a monarchy so good?
by Soulbender on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:17 UTC in reply to "Why is a monarchy so good?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

What makes you think monarchs are the leaders? They're just figureheads, devoid of any real power that costs the state quite a fair amount of money in upkeep.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why is a monarchy so good?
by qbast on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is a monarchy so good?"
qbast Member since:
2010-02-08

Yeah, probably less than 1/1000 of money recently given to banks as 'bailout'. Oh the horror!

Reply Score: 1

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

It is closer to 1/100000 of the recent bailouts.

Monarchs are not that costly. Sure in theory all the stuff they "own" has value, but are you really going to sell the Palace if there was no Queen, or do you just have to pay for the maintainence out of a different pocket?

You end up paying the same and only get a small handfull of no income, inherited wealth celebrities out of it.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I fail to see how one wrong thing justifies another.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why is a monarchy so good?
by AaronD on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 05:53 UTC in reply to "Why is a monarchy so good?"
AaronD Member since:
2009-08-19

You beat me to it. ;)

"They might want to eventually abolish the monarchy (which goes against every fibre in my body)"

I too found the above to be an interesting statement. This is probably the wrong place to discuss it, so hopefully one of Thom's "random subject" blogs will expand on the statement.

Edited 2010-04-22 06:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I too found the above to be an interesting statement. This is probably the wrong place to discuss it, so hopefully one of Thom's "random subject" blogs will expand on the statement.


Not sure. Those random slow-day posts at least had something to do with OSNews. This would be, eh, stretching it.

Reply Score: 1

Enforcability
by Almafeta on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:19 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

At least one part looks unenforcable - imminent infringement. Any user using Tor could be accused of 'imminent infringement' under this law.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Enforcability
by qbast on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:36 UTC in reply to "Enforcability"
qbast Member since:
2010-02-08

Yes, sucks for Tor users. But what exactly makes it unenforceable? Besides, as someone else already said, it is probably tool to catch file sharers without having to prove that someone actually downloaded - just 'making available' will be enough. Or maybe just going to piratebay and downloading .torrent file.

Reply Score: 1

ACTA: threats to Free Software
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 02:49 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://blogs.fsfe.org/hugo/2010/04/acta-threats-to-free-software/

Today with the first public release of ACTA, the effects the international agreement will have on Free Software appear to be dangerous for its development and its distribution. First, by extending infringements proceedings and criminal offences to a broad scope of “intellectual property” including software patents. Second, by destabilizing the most important means of distribution for Free Software, which relies on an open and neutral platform on which online services are not meant to control whether “intellectual property rights” (including patents) are infringed. Third, by strengthening the protection of Digital Restrictions Managements (DRMs) against Free Software and fair competition.


It looks very much like big business doesn't want people to enjoy the fruits of their own collaborative efforts.

Next up: a ban on growing vegies in your own back yard. SWAT teams to burst into homes and arrest suspected vegie growers.

Reply Score: 6

Imminent infringement
by jackastor on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 03:32 UTC
jackastor
Member since:
2009-05-05

I'm still waiting for them to pass laws against "imminent murder."

'she was by herself in the park, you were bound to chop her up sooner or later.'

Reply Score: 3

RE: Imminent infringement
by jal_ on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 07:45 UTC in reply to "Imminent infringement "
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

I'm still waiting for them to pass laws against "imminent murder."


Hey, you haven't seen "Minority report"?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Imminent infringement
by qbast on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 09:40 UTC in reply to "Imminent infringement "
qbast Member since:
2010-02-08

There is already. Start chasing someone with an axe on busy street. Police will not wait until you manage to actually catch and kill your victim - they just have to believe that murder is imminent to arrest you.

Reply Score: 1

A mistake in the article?
by WorknMan on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 05:31 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Non-commercial infringement will be prohibited as well ("significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain"), which is probably an attempt to make file sharing illegal (which it is in the US, but not in many European countries). Computers and devices used to infringe can be confiscated and/or destroyed.


Just for the record, file sharing is not illegal in the US, but piracy is. Nobody's going to come beating down your door for sharing a Linux ISO.

It seems that when people refer to 'file sharing' (as in P2P file sharing), what they really mean is piracy. I guess file sharing is just a nice euphemism.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A mistake in the article?
by Lanadapter on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 19:50 UTC in reply to "A mistake in the article?"
Lanadapter Member since:
2009-10-01

You mean like how the IIPA uses "intellectual property" as a euphemism for monopoly?

Edited 2010-04-22 19:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Next Untergang parody.
by wannabe geek on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 10:16 UTC
wannabe geek
Member since:
2006-09-27

So, how long before we can see an Untergang parody about ACTA? ;)

Reply Score: 3

ACTA is ????
by jo3lr0ck5 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 14:48 UTC
jo3lr0ck5
Member since:
2010-03-17

[Shaking head no]

ACTA is the bomb diggity guys!
Embrace ACTA!!
Long live ACTA!!!

[/end]

OOoops...ATTICA, ATTICA!!!

On a serious note ACTA is a total mess, I just I'm dying to see the news put this on TV but the people who this would affect most don't watch TV...maybe put it all over facebook?

Reply Score: 1