Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Oct 2011 13:31 UTC
Legal A few days ago, several countries signed ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. As you are probably aware, ACTA was drafted up in secret, and is basically Obama/Biden's attempt to impose the US' draconian pro-big business/big content protection laws on the rest of the world ('sign it, or else'). The European Parliament still has to vote on it, and as such, Douwe Korff, professor of international law at the London Metropolitan University, and Ian Brown senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, performed a 90-page study, with a harsh conclusion: ACTA violates fundamental human rights.
Order by: Score:
Who didn't see this coming...
by Arawn on Tue 4th Oct 2011 13:38 UTC
Arawn
Member since:
2005-07-13

Finally in the open what I have predicted years ago when MP3 started to gain popularity and the first lawsuits appeared.

This is nothing more than covert extreme law abusing and politician arm twisting to control an important media conduit: the Internet.

This has to stop. And I'm going to write to representatives in the EU parliament to urge them to vote against this.

Reply Score: 5

In Britain
by MrWeeble on Tue 4th Oct 2011 15:13 UTC
MrWeeble
Member since:
2007-04-18

To write to your MEPs, you can use the form at http://www.writetothem.com/

Simply enter your postcode and it will list all your elected representatives. You can then write a single message to all your MEPs at once or craft individual messages to each of them (you are represented by between three and ten MEPs depending on which region you live in)

Reply Score: 2

Correction
by zizban on Tue 4th Oct 2011 15:18 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

This treaty was started during the Bush/Cheney administration. It was continued under Obama.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Correction
by looncraz on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:21 UTC in reply to "Correction"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Correction:

The groundwork was laid by Clinton, accelerated under Bush at first (before stalling), and continued under Obama.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Correction
by zizban on Tue 4th Oct 2011 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Correction"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought it started under Clinton but I wasn't 100% sure.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Correction
by JAlexoid on Tue 4th Oct 2011 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm pretty sure that neither of them actually were the originators nor were they pushing it through...
The real puppet-masters are the global media conglomerates. Vivendi being the French one...

Reply Score: 5

What human rights violations?
by Yamin on Tue 4th Oct 2011 15:53 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm just curious as I didn't see in the article. Just what human rights are being abused here?

As far as I can tell, it talks about fines and seizing property in counterfeit cases.

Maybe in some kind of libertarian paradise, this would be a violation of human rights. But in a world of income taxes, heavy regulation, attempts to monetize every kind of work, globalized free trade, patents, legal trademarks... this hardly seems extraordinary.

Edited 2011-10-04 15:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: What human rights violations?
by anevilyak on Tue 4th Oct 2011 17:18 UTC in reply to "What human rights violations?"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

I'm just curious as I didn't see in the article. Just what human rights are being abused here?


Justice and/or due process.

Reply Score: 5

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Due process isn't a right, it is a procedural restriction on the government to prevent it from acting arbitrarily and in conflict with the law, so that is doesn't illegally infringe on actual rights. So in other words: you don't have a right to due process, you have rights and the government cannot infringe on those rights without first following the due process of law.

Copyright is itself a violation of individual rights that is created and enforced by the government because the law allows for it. "Fair use" is a common law creation of the courts that have poked limited holes in the monopoly granted by copyright law. But common law precedent can in most cases always be superseded by statute or treaty where those statutes/treaties aren't in violation of some superior law such as a constitution.

How this all applies to civil law systems found throughout Europe, I'm not sure because I'm no expert in them. But it seems to me that deep philosophical debates about inalienable human or natural rights are so 18th century... governments these days, and most sheeple for that matter don't care as long as they aren't too inconvenienced while getting strip-searched at the airport or being spied on by CCTV on every corner.

Reply Score: 2

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

And some of us do care, so it isn't moot. Hence this discussion.

Dave

Reply Score: 3

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Due process isn't a right, it is a procedural restriction on the government to prevent it from acting arbitrarily and in conflict with the law, so that is doesn't illegally infringe on actual rights. So in other words: you don't have a right to due process, you have rights and the government cannot infringe on those rights without first following the due process of law.


As far as I know, at least in the US, it is a right, inscribed in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution (the amendment being part of the "United States Bill of Rights"), which reads, in part:

"[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Now of course I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I might be wrong. After all, all I do is read what the letters say in English, not Legalese...

[edit: typos]

Edited 2011-10-05 09:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Your citation is exactly how i phrased it. Due process is a restriction on arbitrary government action in order to protect rights (life, liberty, property, etc.), not a right per se. There is a large semantic difference between the two. Similar to how requiring a warrant to search your home is a restriction placed on the power of government, it is not itself an individual right. And in following the legal requirement to acquire a valid warrant, the government is meeting its due process obligation.

Reply Score: 1

AnyoneEB Member since:
2008-10-26

The Bill of Rights is a bit odd in that respect (for some explanation as to why, see the Federalist Papers: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Federalist_papers#Opp... ). Basically, your interpretation is essentially why some of the authors of the US Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is very explicitly about the government, not the people: it does not list rights the people have, it lists (some examples of) rights the people already have independent of the Bill of Rights which the government is not allowed take away.

Of course, this is philosophy and Bill of Rights is not always interpreted as I described.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Due process isn't a right, it is a procedural restriction on the government to prevent it from acting arbitrarily and in conflict with the law, so that is doesn't illegally infringe on actual rights. So in other words: you don't have a right to due process, you have rights and the government cannot infringe on those rights without first following the due process of law.


Uhm, no. Due process is an inalienable right - it's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Declaration of Human Rights, and the US Bill of Rights.

Interestingly enough, it's not part of the Dutch equivalent of the Bill of Rights (chapter 1 of our Constitution), since we consider the European Declaration of Human Rights to be conclusive in this regard. There's a lot of pushing going on to include it in our Constitution anyway.

Reply Score: 4

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

The words "due process" are not even present in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Much of that document is silly anyways... universal human right to paid holidays... ha!

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Did you not read beyond the first paragraph?


As the study points out, encouraging the 'cooperation' between internet providers and the content industry amounts to privatised policing, violating the rule of law and the right to fair judicial process.



ACTA also allows for the monitoring of internet users without initial suspicion, the handing over of their personal data to rights holders on the basis of mere claims and the transfer of this data even to countries without adequate data protection, all of which is in clear conflict with legal guarantees of fundamental rights in the EU


Sure, it's an EU based study so they are using EU law as a benchmark but "countries without adequate data protection" and I'll add the potential of countries already known to institue human rights violations.


The agreement does not contain 'fair use' clauses or exceptions for trivial or minimal infringements. It therefore tilts the balance - both in terms of substance and of process - unfairly in favour of rights holders and against users and citizens.



Overall, ACTA tilts the balance of IPR protection manifestly unfairly towards one group of beneficiaries of the right to property, IP right holders, and unfairly against others. It equally disproportionately interferes with a range of other fundamental rights, and provides or allows for the determination of such rights in procedures that fail to allow for the taking into account of the different, competing interests, but rather, stack all the weight at one end," the study concludes, "This makes the entire Agreement, in our opinion, incompatible with fundamental European human rights instruments and -standards.


I think much of the issue is around imposing US draconian enforcement on other nation states primarily through removal of due legal process. It's a nice political document designed to allow RIAA to take the law into it's own hands by whatever definition of "evidence" is convenient at the time.

("RIAA" being used to mean it and it's counterparts outside the US.)

Reply Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And like I said, given our current state of laws, this is hardly a big deal.


Presuming that's true it still doesn't mean we should just let things erode even further.

Reply Score: 5

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Privatized policing is everywhere... private security guards at events, private security at homes and malls.

Security guards is not "policing". Those people can't charge you with anything, can't conduct investigations and can't arrest you - that what policing means.

And what about speed cameras, DUI check points...

So... In what country are there privately operated DUI checkpoints and private speed cameras?

Isn't this pretty much what most laws do? Pit one group against another.

Nope... In countries with a proper legal system, constitutional courts actually review fairness of laws. Remember that Franch three strikes law actually was stopped by the constitutional court.

Public sector union negotiations tip the balance of power to the public sector unions against the rights and property of the general population.

The term negotiations is not the eye candy in that sentence.....

These laws just aren't that out there... especially when you consider the general state of affairs in the EU.

Really? EU? Considering UK with it's archaic laws and non-codified un-constitution is part of EU along with Scandinavian and Baltic states with very modern laws, you can't talk about EU in general.

Reply Score: 6

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

You don't give your location in your profile but you do give your website address. So, from your August 2nd posting:


So here's what I came with as a reasonable state of a free society.

A free society is one in which the default position is freedom. It is up to the government to prove the harm caused by individual freedom in any area is so great that the government must intervene


The default is freedom (liberty, lets say).
It is up to the government to prove harm.

Yet, in your responses in this discussion, you are questioning why it is wrong to remove police/government from the situation and place the powers of law in the hands of corporations (RIAA and similar) along with granting them authority over other companies (ISP). You don't think authority for a corporation to act without due legal process conflicts with "proving harm"?

And, you suggest that the default in a free society is freedom yet you suggest we suspend individual's freedom at the mere unsubstantiated claim of wrongdoing by for profit corporation. So "innocent until proven guilty" - "er.. unless it's a major content providing corporation in which case 'guilty until proven less guilty'".

Am I the only one having a little cognitive dissonance in trying to correlate all this?

Let's make it simple;

- the law should not be places in the hands of for-profit corporations or any other entity with a vested interest in the guilt of the accused. The law should remain within the hands of an independent third party.

- the law of one nation should not be forced on another independent state. (sign ACTA or else you get put on the "do not trade" list)

No one is saying "go infringe copyright all you like". The issue is the legal cock waiving being done expressly for the purpose of removing rights granted to the individual by copyright law.

Reply Score: 3

fossil Member since:
2009-05-29

Sounds like a corporate-run police state is fine by you ... maybe even desirable. Or am I missing something? That's what we're moving to here in the U.S. & both major parties, plus the so-called "Tea-Party" (=$$$-party) are on board. Personally I'm not enjoying it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What human rights violations?
by sagum on Tue 4th Oct 2011 17:33 UTC in reply to "What human rights violations?"
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

Basically, the UK has a parlimentry act that was passed in 1998. This is 'The human rights act, 1998.

These are:
•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty



Trying to inforce these USA laws on the people of the UK, violates at least these

•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property

and if the USA did push for this in the UK, then they'd also violate;
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms


Laws around the world differ, even in the states of America the laws differ. You can not expect the Law of the land from one country to be replicated in another, and you certainly can not force your law upon another.

That is oppression, and there will be war.

Reply Score: 9

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

But you can convince them to enact it of their own accord. Thats not war, silly, thats politics.

Edited 2011-10-04 22:10 UTC

Reply Score: 1

yes, we can
by nillbug on Tue 4th Oct 2011 20:12 UTC
nillbug
Member since:
2009-09-25

Everybody misunderstood the meaning of the slogan "yes, we can".
Obama wanted to tell that he would have done what Bush did, if he was at his place, and that he could do what Bush would, in case Bush was at his place.

Reply Score: 1

Call me contrarian...
by jackeebleu on Tue 4th Oct 2011 21:34 UTC
jackeebleu
Member since:
2006-01-26

But if I'm not stealing content or media, what's the problem? y'all the same people complain about the TSA and airport screening, but let a plane blow up and its all this manufactured outrage about why no one was screening people right?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Call me contrarian...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 4th Oct 2011 21:42 UTC in reply to "Call me contrarian..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you think either the TSA or ACTA will ever stop a terrorrist or criminal... I have a bridge to sell you.

On top of that, many of the things ACTA deems illegal are legal in my country.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Call me contrarian...
by jackeebleu on Wed 5th Oct 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Call me contrarian..."
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

Funny, since no planes have blown up lately, TSA just might be considered some form of deterrent. Ask all the idiots that thought it was cool to pack a gun in their suitcases how the flight went.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Call me contrarian...
by christian on Tue 4th Oct 2011 21:55 UTC in reply to "Call me contrarian..."
christian Member since:
2005-07-06

But if I'm not stealing content or media, what's the problem?


Depends on whose laws you're basing it on.

"Stealing" content or media was not even a crime until recently, under pressure from the content providers to redefine what constitutes "theft".

It is laws like these that, for example, makes it technically illegal to even watch DVDs on Linux using VLC.

As a rule, I tend to avoid illegal copying of media, I prefer to own^Wlicense my copies of movies, but laws like this have far too much scope for abuse.

PS. IANAL, above may be complete fabrication etc.

Edited 2011-10-04 21:56 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Call me contrarian...
by lemur2 on Tue 4th Oct 2011 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Call me contrarian..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It is laws like these that, for example, makes it technically illegal to even watch DVDs on Linux using VLC.


Arguably, it isn't illegal to watch DVDs on Linux using VLC. One has paid for the optical DVD drive, one has paid for the DVD, and one has a license to run the VLC software. When one buys a DVD player and a DVD, one expects to be able to play it. "Playing" is what DVDs are meant for, afetr all, so the right to play them is implicit in the sale transaction.

The VLC software itself is not a copy of any other software, and it does not employ "stolen" keys nor any other information other than what is on the DVD itself. The decoding library (called libdvdcss) written and used by VLC has never been challenged in court. The VLC software does not have a "copy DVD" function, it is a player not a copier. The encoding used by DVDs is very weak, it is neither novel nor original, so it shouldn't have any patents applicable to it.

Why should it be illegal to watch a DVD on Linux using VLC?

No one who suggests it is illegal is ever able to explain what law has allegedly been breached by such an act.

Edited 2011-10-04 22:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Call me contrarian...
by M.Onty on Tue 4th Oct 2011 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Call me contrarian..."
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23


No one who suggests it is is ever able to explain what law has allegedly been breached by such an act.


No, but its well within the Law of Straw Man Examples.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Call me contrarian...
by howitzer86 on Wed 5th Oct 2011 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Call me contrarian..."
howitzer86 Member since:
2008-02-27

Arguably, it isn't illegal to watch DVDs on Linux using VLC. One has paid for the optical DVD drive, one has paid for the DVD, and one has a license to run the VLC software. When one buys a DVD player and a DVD, one expects to be able to play it. "Playing" is what DVDs are meant for, afetr all, so the right to play them is implicit in the sale transaction.

The VLC software itself is not a copy of any other software, and it does not employ "stolen" keys nor any other information other than what is on the DVD itself. The decoding library (called libdvdcss) written and used by VLC has never been challenged in court. The VLC software does not have a "copy DVD" function, it is a player not a copier. The encoding used by DVDs is very weak, it is neither novel nor original, so it shouldn't have any patents applicable to it.

Why should it be illegal to watch a DVD on Linux using VLC?

No one who suggests it is illegal is ever able to explain what law has allegedly been breached by such an act.


You can rip DVDs with VLC by streaming them to a file. VLC also must have some kind of copy protection workaround because it's able to play and stream copy protected DVDs.

Having said that, it's still not something that will get you in trouble. This isn't a Orwellian police state, the FBI aren't going to know what you used to play a DVD with and frankly they don't care. They'll care if you start selling bootlegs. So ultimately it has to do with what you do with this software rather than the software itself.

ACTA sucks, but chances are you aren't going to be affected by it. Especially if you're a US citizen.

Edited 2011-10-05 04:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Fair Use granted by Copyright to the content license holder says I pay to license the content not the medium it is delivered on. It also says that I can, for private use, access that content any way I like. Music comes on CD, I can legally convert it to mp3 to enjoy using my digital music player. Movies come on DVD, I can legally convert it to a digital format to vew though digital media players.

But boy howdy does big content put a lot of effort and lobbying into trying to remove fair use from copyright so they can sell me the same content license over and over on different storage mediums.

Reply Score: 3

jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

So all the movies, music, audio books, et al, showing up on the interwebs is just "fair-use" right not "theft"? Last I checked the RIAA wasn't going after people that burned their movies/music/for use in the comfort of their own home...unless one lives in a bit torrent site.

So please stop this facade about fair use and how evil corporations are. Enjoy your product for your personal use and you'll have no problem. Whats the issue?

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06


So all the movies, music, audio books, et al, showing up on the interwebs is just "fair-use" right not "theft"?


Maybe read what I wrote not what you wanted to hear.

A quick note on "theft"
- when copying content deprives the source of that content, we can call it theft. Best of luck with that one though unless one can change the physics of digital duplication.

- when it's proven that one infringement is indeed equal to one lost sale, we can call it theft. Best of luck with that though as one infringement has yet to ever equate directly to one lost sale; the majority of people will actually happily pay to license good content and those who wouldn't where never going to in the first place even long before digital duplication became possible.

Now, back to your accusation:

Please point to precisely where I said any such thing. Heck, point to anywhere that I suggested it was ok to infringe copyright by downloading unlicensed content or distributing it to unlicensed recipients. What, someone mentions "fair use" and it could only possibly be for the purpose of trying to promote infringement?

Now that you mention it though, if one has a legally purchased DVD representing a license for the content contained within, what exactly is the issue with downloading that content in a more usable format from another content license holder who has done a better job of converting it? Heck, if the source does not have a license for the content it's still not an issue for the recipient if they do have a license.

Now, this is the part where one normally points to those digital copies that some DVD/Blueray bundles now include. Try using that DRM crippled digital copy outside of a Windows/osX machine. One is still limited to cracking DRM or downloading a usable copy of the content and guess which method free market forces have chosen.

Just to be clear, I do agree with legal action against massive distributors of infringing content especially when that distribution is honest to goodness counterfeit product sold for profit. I don't agree with attacking someone who have a copy of a CD or a few songs to a friend as mix tapes and small scale sharing have always been a part of the market and have done far more to promote content sales. Smart companies would call this free marketing.


Last I checked the RIAA wasn't going after people that burned their movies/music/for use in the comfort of their own home...unless one lives in a bit torrent site.


Yeah, they had to stop threatening individuals over fair use since the 2010 federal court decision that fair use was indeed except from the DMCA. How long has the law been on the books now?

You'll forgive me if I put more stock in the word of content creators rather than the parasitic corporations that feed on them though.


I may be one of very few people in this room who actually makes his living personally by creating what these gentlemen are pleased to call "intellectual property."



The head of Universal Music France talked about just how much money was necessary to nurture new talent. Didn't Barlow understand economics?

"If you're spending $5 billion on new artists, we're not getting our money's worth," Barlow cracked, and he reframed his argument in economic terms of scarcity and abundance.

"Trying to optimize towards scarcity, as you are by all of your methods, is not going to be in the benefit of creation, I promise you," he said. "It's not IP enforcement that gets you guys properly paid." In his view, payment comes from building a product that people actually want to buy - and the movie industry's repeated record box office takes in recent years show that people have no problem coughing up the cash for something of value.


G8's a bitch when you have someone who someone business savvy who also makes there living off created content.

here's a bit more


"Some of Canada's best known musicians, including Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlin, Sum 41, and Barenaked Ladies, have formed a new copyright coalition. The artists say in a press release that they oppose file sharing lawsuits, the use of DRM, and DMCA-style legislation and that they want record labels to stop claiming that they represent their views."

http://slashdot.org/story/06/04/27/0015239/canadian-music-stars-fig...

Seems the content creators feel differently than the megacorp claiming to act on there behalf:

http://drm.info/node/40

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/spyware/artists-revolt-against-drm/726

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2005/12/16/more_artists_t...

http://www.copyleft-music.com/2005/12/17/artists-against-drm/

Being aware of corporate motivations and critical of resulting behavior does not equate to promoting copyright infringement. So please stop this facade about the poor starving RIAA executives.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Call me contrarian...
by sagum on Wed 5th Oct 2011 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Call me contrarian..."
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

the copy protection used in DVD encyption is Content Scramble System (aka CSS) and is licensed to venders for use in DVD player hardware and software from the DVD Forum. They are a collection of companies who designed and setup the DRM (CSS) for use with DVDs in the first place. The cost is $10-15. The (Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for the USA members here, forbids VLC from playing DVDs.

Legally, if you are in the USA and use VLC to play a whole movie you are doing something illegal because you don't have a license to play DVDs. That license does NOT come as part of a DVD disc.

Of course, USA laws don't apply to everyone else, regardless of if the DVD Forum is made up of company around the world.

Lastly, VideoLAN and who created the libdvdcss that VLC uses, is a French non-profit organization and there is nothing the USA can do about that with the DMCA.

Edited 2011-10-05 06:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Call me contrarian...
by lemur2 on Thu 6th Oct 2011 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Call me contrarian..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

the copy protection used in DVD encyption is Content Scramble System (aka CSS) and is licensed to venders for use in DVD player hardware and software from the DVD Forum. They are a collection of companies who designed and setup the DRM (CSS) for use with DVDs in the first place. The cost is $10-15. The (Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for the USA members here, forbids VLC from playing DVDs. Legally, if you are in the USA and use VLC to play a whole movie you are doing something illegal because you don't have a license to play DVDs. That license does NOT come as part of a DVD disc. Of course, USA laws don't apply to everyone else, regardless of if the DVD Forum is made up of company around the world. Lastly, VideoLAN and who created the libdvdcss that VLC uses, is a French non-profit organization and there is nothing the USA can do about that with the DMCA.


The DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It is meant to prevent copying of copyrighted works, it is NOT meant as a means to enforce collection of bogus fees-for-use.

VLC does not use the software from the the DVD Forum, therefore there is no need to purchase a $10-$15 licesne from the DVD Forum to run VLC.

There was a case of a printer manufacturer who tried to put "copy protection" into prinetr ink cartridges, and then to charge users a premium price for printer ink catridges. A competing firm made cheaper ink cartridges for that printer, and the printer firm sued, claiming a DMCA violation. It went to court, the printer firm lost.

The DMCA is NOT a law for enforcing collection of license fees or locking other products out of markets or locking people into expensive support, it is strictly for the protection of copyrighted works.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Call me contrarian...
by sagum on Thu 6th Oct 2011 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Call me contrarian..."
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

While it is true that the DMCA does not provison the locking out or collection of license fees, it enforce any digital rights management included on digital media. The DMCA is a pain in the ass, but well as serveral other things that are included in the DMCA, it does provide companies with anti-circumvention of their encryption methods.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/

You might want to read up on what the DMCA actually allows you to do. That site is what google uses when they have takedown notices for search results.

Remember it only applies to members of the USA - its not enforable anywhere else in the world, as such and like I said, is why the VideoLAN (who are in France - that outside of world America) people were able to create the libs and thus why VLC player works without a takedown notice. If the libs or VLC was created in the USA, then it'd have been removed long ago.

Edited 2011-10-06 10:56 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Call me contrarian...
by lemur2 on Fri 7th Oct 2011 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Call me contrarian..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

While it is true that the DMCA does not provison the locking out or collection of license fees, it enforce any digital rights management included on digital media. The DMCA is a pain in the ass, but well as serveral other things that are included in the DMCA, it does provide companies with anti-circumvention of their encryption methods. http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/ You might want to read up on what the DMCA actually allows you to do. That site is what google uses when they have takedown notices for search results. Remember it only applies to members of the USA - its not enforable anywhere else in the world, as such and like I said, is why the VideoLAN (who are in France - that outside of world America) people were able to create the libs and thus why VLC player works without a takedown notice. If the libs or VLC was created in the USA, then it'd have been removed long ago.


http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/02/4636.ars

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2004/10/4352.ars

"To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and 'scenes a faire' doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_fai...

VLC software is not a copy of any other software. VLC does not use the software from the DVD consortium. The actual CSS algorithm is effectively a "scene that must be done" in order to play a DVD. Playing a DVD does not copy its content in a way that violates copyrights. As long as the VLC software in question is being used to play videos, and consumers legally bought DVDs and a DVD drive, then essentially it would seem there is no case for VLC to answer. Even under the DMCA.

When actual illegal content (i.e. content which violates a copyright, even a copyright held by an American interest) is hosted on download sites, such as Rapidshare, anywhere in the world, copyright owners (even American ones) are able to use the DMCA and issue a "takedown notice" to get that content removed.

There have been no takedown notices issued for VLC. Playing a DVD using VLC is not illegal.

Edited 2011-10-07 03:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Call me contrarian...
by saynte on Fri 7th Oct 2011 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Call me contrarian..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

I am curious, did you read the parent's post? I am only asking because it basically spells out what part of using VLC could be considered illegal. It also spells out why you wouldn't find a DMCA notice issued for VLC.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Call me contrarian...
by sagum on Fri 7th Oct 2011 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Call me contrarian..."
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

From the pages you've linked, Judge Merritt said;

Judge Merritt in his concurring opinion spoke out strongly against the use of the DMCA as a monopolist?s tool.


By contrast, Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its ?purpose.? Such a reading would ignore the precise language ? ?for the purpose of? ? as well as the main point of the DMCA ? to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark?s reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes.



So DMCA is, was and continues to provide measures for the "prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs"

Regardless of how you want to read into the DMCA, it no longer affects DVD play back anymore, but you seem hell bent on trying to pass on the rights of the rest of the world in the USA for some reason.

And you are right in one instance. VLC was never illegal - American's using it to watch or rip DVDs were using it illegally.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Call me contrarian...
by JAlexoid on Wed 5th Oct 2011 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Call me contrarian..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Actually, you own copies of movies. There is no license with movies, just like with books.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Call me contrarian...
by Soulbender on Wed 5th Oct 2011 02:38 UTC in reply to "Call me contrarian..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

y'all the same people complain about the TSA and airport screening


Pointless measures created by panick'ed politicians and pushed by companies making a good buck.

With your argument any punishment is ok.
Off with their heads!

Reply Score: 3

This ACTA stinks
by apcoelho on Tue 4th Oct 2011 23:17 UTC
apcoelho
Member since:
2011-10-04

I believe that is important to maintain intellectual property, this ACTA act in my country - Portugal - violates two important laws or rights:

The first is that the proportion of the punishment to the crime. If the US wants that a single infringement be punish with a fine starting in $150.000 USD, imagine a single MP3 track to be punish in this way. Its completely illegal in my country.

The second, this act wants to invert the "innocent until proven guilty" right, by given the power to punishing without trial, and only by allegations to commit a crime or infringement. This is also illegal in my country, and I believe even in US, but laws are bend to the will of few.

In a few years, if nothing done against these laws-benders, I believe that the Internet as we know will disappear - maybe it appears another "Internet" parallel to the one that exists today, but more free.

Sorry for my English.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This ACTA stinks
by JAlexoid on Wed 5th Oct 2011 00:21 UTC in reply to "This ACTA stinks"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Innocent until proven guilty, is not really popular outside of common law countries. I bet Portugal, like most other Civil Law countries, have the Schroedinger's Cat of guilt/innocence doctrine. But depriving someone of possessions without a trial is however illegal.

Having studied my own county's constitution a lot, I can say that ACTA would violate the constitution without even touching on human rights issues. And the article that would be violated can't be changed without a 75% approval in a referendum.

Reply Score: 3

Australia has signed :(
by melkor on Wed 5th Oct 2011 01:35 UTC
melkor
Member since:
2006-12-16

without consulting the people. We have no inbuilt human rights laws in our constitution, nor freedom of speech. We're screwed.

We could argue that Australia mostly relies on British common law, and that this violates British common law (innocent until proven guilty), but no politician in Australia would care about this. I shall have to investigate further.

Dave

Reply Score: 3

RE: Australia has signed :(
by sagum on Wed 5th Oct 2011 06:12 UTC in reply to "Australia has signed :("
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

There is no freedom of speech in the UK either ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 5th Oct 2011 02:48 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Pretty good summary thom. I've got my aluminum bat ready. I have supplies to make several boards with nails in them. Who's with me.

Edit: wait, can we take this stuff on airplanes? how the hell else are we going to get to dutchland. I'm certainly not taking a boat. I think we may have to fight this one out with words. Lets start a petitiononline.com page. That way they'll have to listen

Edit 2: sigh this keeps getting worse and worse

Edited 2011-10-05 02:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by LB06
by LB06 on Wed 5th Oct 2011 12:03 UTC
LB06
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm proud to see that two Dutch representatives, on behalf of ALDE, are the biggest opponents of this deal. I'm of course talking about Sophie in 't Veld and Jeanine-Plasschaert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7tqyKD3e0I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7wCDxaxxvk

Reply Score: 2

Are we stupid or what?
by twitterfire on Wed 5th Oct 2011 12:37 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Why do EU citizens let US try to enforce their stupid laws in EU? ACTA isn't the only toxic law they try to shove down our throats. In the name of "defense of intellectual property", "war on terrorism", "think of the children" they tried multiple times to pass some laws which can affect our freedom, rights and privacy. Last time I've checked, EU isn't under US sovereignty.

We should make clear to them that this is unacceptable. After all, we don try to coerce them to pass laws or to do anything. As a matter of reciprocity, they shouldn't try to interfere with our internal affairs.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Are we stupid or what?
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 5th Oct 2011 13:51 UTC in reply to "Are we stupid or what?"
bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

Please don't blame the US citizens. We don't want these laws here in the US or in other countries. We did not get the chance to vote on them. Not that voting matters anymore. If voting made a difference the government would ban it. The last three presidents had a hand in passing this illegal mess. Both parties supported it because members of the RIAA poured millions into their pockets. "Land of the free" is just a memory.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Are we stupid or what?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 5th Oct 2011 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Are we stupid or what?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Please don't blame the US citizens.


Fully agreed. Out of experience - Americans rock. I'm not being sarcastic - I really like you guys. I'd take the average American over the average Dutchman anytime.

Edited 2011-10-05 14:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Are we stupid or what?
by twitterfire on Wed 5th Oct 2011 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Are we stupid or what?"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Please don't blame the US citizens.
I'm not blaming the regular US citizens, I'm blaming "The Man".

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Are we stupid or what?
by Soulbender on Wed 5th Oct 2011 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Are we stupid or what?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But in a democracy, aren't we all "The Man"? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Are we stupid or what?
by twitterfire on Fri 7th Oct 2011 10:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Are we stupid or what?"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

But in a democracy, aren't we all "The Man"? ;)


These are amongst why people all over the world hold US in high regard:

CHARLESTON, S.C.—Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is calling for a century of American dominance in his first major foreign policy address, outlining plans to strengthen the U.S. military while rejecting multilateral institutions like the United Nations when necessary.


and


"This century must be an American century. In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world," Romney says. "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will."


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/10/07/romney_god_...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Are we stupid or what?
by Soulbender on Sat 8th Oct 2011 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Are we stupid or what?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

These are amongst why people all over the world hold US in high regard:


You are confusing "in high regard" with "dislike your gung-ho superiority complex".

Reply Score: 2

RE: Are we stupid or what?
by tomcat on Wed 5th Oct 2011 17:40 UTC in reply to "Are we stupid or what?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Why do EU citizens let US try to enforce their stupid laws in EU?


Because there's a reciprocal benefit to both parties.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Are we stupid or what?
by Soulbender on Wed 5th Oct 2011 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Are we stupid or what?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Right, but only in the way that any extortion scheme has reciprocal benefits. You don't get your store trashed, we get some money...

Reply Score: 3

US Govt. Sucks
by Drunkula on Wed 5th Oct 2011 14:24 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

It's not new news but, holy bejeebus! USG is REALLY getting out of hand. Time to prune the hedges...

:-(

Reply Score: 1

Privatized policing already exists...
by tomcat on Wed 5th Oct 2011 17:47 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Remember all those cease-and-desist and 'pay us $2,000, and we won't file suit against you' letters? The evidence was collected privately. And, as long as people are part of public networks, that aspect of policing isn't going away anytime soon. The difference, I think, is that this law aims to make it easier for the police to target and extract compensation/punishment from/for people.

Look, I know that we all don't want a Big Brother state. But, when the shit hits the proverbial fan -- and if this law ever sees the light of day -- it's primarily going to be an issue for the great unwashed among us who have no idea how to anonymize ourselves properly. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of this law. I'm not. But there are always countermeasures, and that's what it might come down to...

Reply Score: 2

As Mitt Would Say
by fretinator on Wed 5th Oct 2011 19:13 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

But corporations are people too!

Reply Score: 2

v OSnews, promoting theft and crime
by jefro on Wed 5th Oct 2011 19:43 UTC
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Bad attempt at trolling. Sorry, not gonna fly.

Reply Score: 3

apcoelho Member since:
2011-10-04

The problem isn't that stealing be or not an human right, cause it isn't. The problem is how they determine that you have steal.
I.E. You have an wifi router that is cracked and someone use your network to steal. They want that you be the responsible for that steal. Without investigate deeper cause is very difficult to determine that abuse.
Another example is that a family can have the Internet access cut-off just because the infringement of one of the elements of the family. Imagine that my daughter make an illegal download and I stay without Internet. This is also abusive and attempt to the freedom of individuals. These examples are human rights abuse.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I would add the stipulation of due dilligence in owning and using a wifi router. If your running wide open, with WEP or with a weak password then your neglegence did indeed contribute to the copyright infringement (or at minimum, the neglegence of the company that shipped you a wifi router with weak default settings).

But that might be just me as I don't fuck around when it comes to computer and network security.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jabbotts,

"I would add the stipulation of due dilligence in owning and using a wifi router. If your running wide open, with WEP or with a weak password then your neglegence did indeed contribute to the copyright infringement"

Do you realize that this is contrary to alot of initiatives for public wifi? For example see fon.com. Open hotspots can sometimes be deliberate, and it's not morally wrong - at worst, it's a violation of your ISP's terms. Many campuses/coffeehouses/hotels/etc have open hotspots.

As for copyright lawsuits, well that is a problem. Unfortunately the courts have no easy way to deal with the fact that IP addresses don't correlate to individuals - so they have to drastically lower the burden of proof, to the point of stabbing in the dark sometimes, in order to try some of these cases. Since the burden of proof is so low, it's quite likely that many innocent people are caught up in the dragnet. Even if a case is completely bogus, it can still be cheaper to settle than to hire defense lawyers and fight it.

If you have any solutions to these problems, I would like to hear them.

Reply Score: 3