Thread: Stop acta its far more worse than sopa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by HIMFanV3

Its funny because it's been proven time and time again that developers don't lose big bucks on pirated games. But they do lose money on second hand game sales. So places like Gamestop and such do more harm than us wee pirates.

that´s why the next xbox will get some steamlike copy protection. microsoft knows what sony and nintendo never will realise unless they copy it. so.... 2013 is meaning the end of gamestop and other resellers.

Video Game Market crashed hard before.. it can again...

Originally Posted by Brokebad

do you believe what you are telling?

nothing symbolic there... SOPA is based on the ACTA... little thinking might be good for us-poeple.

it didn´t go through any senat or anything else in the world because it is in fact some government-only stuff. nothing to decide for democratic countries, because if they had the chance to decide they wouldn´t allow it. ask europeans how many of them wanted the "EU" and all of its bs-laws (including financial disaster - which were very foreseeable).

yes the US signing of the bill was symbolic cuz most of the regulations imposed by the trade agreement were already on the DMCA and similar bills for US citizens. it was secret because they used the excuse of it being a national security issue which i do believe is total BS. Some good news tho, They didnt carry out the bill entirely the way they originally intended to and they did somewhat settle and drop some of the most controversial parts of the bill so it can pass more smoothly.

but here guys, check out this explanation video to clear up some ignorance on this topic:

more news guys Acta has watered down Alot of its current state. How ACTA would affect you: FAQ

By Zack Whittaker | January 29, 2012, 12:09pm PST

Summary: With SOPA and PIPA shelved, ACTA was somewhat ignored. Don’t know what ACTA is? Don’t worry: you weren’t meant to. Here’s what you need to know.

If you thought SOPA and PIPA were bad, ACTA is in an entirely different league of its own. ACTA may not order a mass culling of kittens, or declare war on China, but it will have a massive impact on trade, copyright, and intellectual property rights.

SOPA and PIPA overshadowed much of ACTA’s progress over the past few months. Since the ‘Internet killing’ bills were shelved from Congress, more focus has been drawn towards Europe, as many of the European Union member states are to sign the controversial international legislation. Plus, if you haven’t heard of it already, it’s partly because you weren’t meant to hear about it.

But since its conception, much of the ACTA text has changed significantly, and many of the controversial elements of the agreement have been watered down a great deal, or scrapped altogether. While conducted mostly behind closed doors, leaks have transformed the route that ACTA has taken.

As one Forbes commentator said: “Like vampires, these laws seem to die off once they see the light of day”. And, as TechDirt notably highlights, “much of the information and fear-mongering about ACTA is extremely dated.”

What is ACTA?

ACTA stands for the “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement”. First announced in late 2007, the U.S., the EU, Switzerland, and Japan said they would negotiate a new intellectual property enforcement agreement to counter the illegal counterfeit goods trade across borders.

The U.S. signed it last October, along with other major economies like Australia, Canada, South Korea and Japan. European member states still have to wait for the European Parliament to agree.

What does ACTA cover?

Initially it was thought that ACTA would enable governments to effectively work together in tandem across borders to prevent counterfeit goods, like medicines and knock-off technology goods for example, from entering the market. The Act aims to protect the economy and end-consumers’ confidence.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that though the ACTA name uses the word “counterfeiting” in its title, it vastly focuses on the transfer of copyrighted materials online. The agreement will make it easier for law enforcement and ISPs (’intermediaries’) to monitor consumers, and impose new criminal sanctions on those who flout copyright and patent laws.

Who is signing up to ACTA?

Many major countries on the world stage have been involved in the discussions. Australia, Canada, Japan, Jordan, South Korean, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates — and of course — the United States.

More recently, 20 European Union member states signed up to the agreement, including the UK and notably Poland, which saw widespread protests, bringing the issue further into the public limelight.

Is ACTA a law?

No, it is neither a law nor a treaty. ACTA is a “trade agreement”, which allows countries to work in alignment on certain matters. It is similar to SOPA/PIPA in that it will battle copyright infringement, but expand to patents, counterfeit goods and intellectual property rights.

ACTA supporters say that it will not change U.S. law, nor can it change U.S. law, because that would be unconstitutional. Because it is a “sole executive agreement”, it allows the President to sign it without additional support from the Senate, and therefore without scrutiny. Some argue that because ACTA is vague in places, it could be interpreted to require changes to U.S. law.

Who will enforce ACTA?

The agreement will create an “ACTA Committee” to make amendments to the agreement. The problem is that this committee is not accountable to anybody. It is outside the public and judicial process, and not accountable to a nation or an international body. The committee won’t even be accountable to those countries governed by the agreement, including the U.S. government and the European Commission.

As ReadWriteWeb explains: “Folks in the United States can vote out Lamar Smith and others who endorsed SOPA/PIPA, but we would have no real influence on the ACTA Committee.”

Why such an upheaval?

There are numerous reasons. ACTA’s provisions would have been as effective as SOPA and PIPA, before they were shelved. Many intrusive elements of ACTA have since been removed, thanks to the European legislators.

The remainder of the provisions, though watered down, still pose a significant impact on end Web users and ordinary consumers — while the Canadian government notes that ACTA is “not designed to be intrusive.”

There is also a broad scope of definitions; too broad, some have argued. The EDRI notes that: “ACTA provides an extremely low threshold for imposing criminal sanctions.” This means that should a person, a company, or even a government accidentally or unintentionally infringe copyright, this could be considered a criminal act. Further into this, what used to be a civil offence can now be deemed a criminal offence [PDF].

Is ACTA actually shrouded in secrecy?

Some claim that ACTA is a “secret” agreement. In fact, it has been made public for some time. But the negotiations themselves were behind closed doors. A leaked U.S. diplomatic cable, however, said that the ACTA negotiations had been “set at a higher level than is customary for non-security agreements”, leading to some criticising the build-up phase as ’state secrecy’.

Could ISPs be liable for their customers’ illegal activity?

ISPs are currently not liable for what their customers do. ACTA proposed that ISPs would be partly if not wholly responsible for what their customers get up to, including illegal file-sharing. But these measures have since been removed. Reduced to a mere footnote in the text, countries can now do as much or as little as they like to limit ISP liability.

Will ISPs be forced to snoop on its users?

ACTA could give governments new powers to deal with “Internet distribution and information technology”. While ISPs could have been forced into blocking sites that infringe copyright — or even worse — forced into installing “mandatory network-level filtering” at ISP-level, these measures have since been removed from ACTA.

The European Union adopted an Internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by EU member states that affect citizen’s access to the Internet “must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens”. That taken into account, it did say that European citizens are entitled to a “fair and impartial procedure” before any Web-restricting measures can be imposed.

Could a ‘three-strikes’ rule become a universal sanction?

U.S. negotiators were intent on requiring ISPs to adopt a three-strikes rule on serial copyright infringers. France already has a three-strikes rule, which the government claimed recently to be a ‘success’.

But the European Parliament voted in 2010 to not pass ACTA if it includes a three-strikes rule; measures which are staunchly backed by the MPAA and the RIAA. It does not guarantee that the U.S. will not enact a three-strikes rule, but it means that signing European member states will not be able to.

Will DMCA takedown notices now go worldwide?

The U.S. currently has a notice-and-takedown system under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). If you have ever seen a ‘missing’ search result in Google, that’s what it is. It allows rights-holders to send a notification to a party infringing copyright that they are doing so, and to take it down or face court. On the whole, the system works.

But the U.S. has since climbed down from its attempts to essentially push its DMCA system on the rest of the world. Still, there is hope that the equally controversial TPP agreement (see below) could push for such changes.

“ACTA makes access to medicines more difficult”: Is this true?

One of the worries is the vague language used by the text. Generic drugs are at risk of being considered illegal, and could be confiscated at borders, making the global fight against disease far more difficult.

Corporations would in effect be able to prevent generic, non-branded medicines and drugs from reaching those who need them. Counterfeit drugs can be dangerous, cause more harm than good, and can kill. Such ‘grey market’ drugs can infringe patents belonging to pharmaceutical giants, but are far cheaper for both poorer nations and for NGO’s to buy from charitable fundraising.

Oxfam said in a statement in 2010:

“A trade agenda that limits the legitimate movement of cheap generic medicines will hit the poorest people in developing countries disproportionately hard. The interests of big drug companies can not be put ahead of the needs of two billion people around the world who do not have access to essential medicines.”

Is it possible for ACTA not to be passed in Europe?

Yes, it is possible. Because 20 of the countries that are willing to sign ACTA are member states of the European Union, ACTA will effectively have to pass along the desk of the European Parliament — expected in June.

Because not all members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are in government in their respective nations, it is likely that many will refuse to sign ACTA, leaving the U.S. and others outside the European Union in the cold. It would also strike a heavy blow to the U.S., which appears to be spearheading this agreement.

How will home file-sharers be affected?

Simply put: there will be little difference than today. If you are caught illegally file-sharing, you may face trouble in your respective country, as you would do anyway.

Because the agreement also covers piracy, individual file-sharers — including those who use peer-to-peer networks and file-sharing sites like RapidShare — were in the crosshairs. It meant that college kids downloading music or movies could have faced fines, seizure of equipment, and even custodial sentences.

But as the negotiation process went on, these measures were eventually eliminated from the final text.

How does ACTA deal with statutory damages?

‘Statutory damages’ allow rights-holders to receive compensation per work rather than compensation for losses or damages. In the U.S. for example, the basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work. This means that one college student can be fined $675,000 for downloading only 30 songs. Ultimately, it can result in extremely disproportionate fines for ordinary Web users.

Though watered down, ACTA still pushes for statutory damages. ACTA will export the U.S.’ system of damages to jurisdictions that do not have statutory damages.

U.S — check. Europe — check. Will non-signing countries be unaffected?

No. Just as the United States can lobby the Spanish government to implement SOPA-like laws by threatening to include the country on a trade sanctions list, it can also lobby other countries with smaller economies with similar sanctions.

The U.S. Trade Representative draws up an annual intellectual property “naughty list”, as described by Public Knowledge, which allows the U.S. to threaten emerging nations with trade sanctions. The U.S. can threaten — as it has done before — to enact such sanctions, forcing smaller economies in changing their laws to align with that of the United States.

How will borders and airport security be affected?

Imagine an airport experience where your mobile phone or laptop was plugged in and its contents downloaded or analysed for infringing material. The U.S. has for some time conducted such searches in the fight against terrorism.

ACTA allows such measures, but on a wider scale to include infringing material. The EU was critical of this, saying [PDF]: “EU customs, frequently confronted with traffics of drugs, weapons or people, do neither have the time nor the legal basis to look for a couple of pirated songs on an iPod music player or laptop computer, and there is no intention to change this.”

But ACTA does allow exceptions to this, such as personal baggage. ACTA ‘permits’ this as an exception, rather than requiring one, making this an opt-out policy. The chances are the EU would opt-out, but other nations may not.

Could ISPs be forced to give rights-holders details of Internet subscribers?

It is possible. As ReadWriteWeb highlighted, ACTA will give governments a “legal support mechanism” should they themselves decide to allow rights holders to seek subscriber data from ISPs. It was noted that the agreement’s text has replaced the word “shall” with “may”, but it does give governments “an excuse to do so”.

Is ACTA all doom and gloom?

Yes, and no. Though the language used in ACTA is often vague, difficult to comprehend, and often illegible to the ordinary citizen — as is any other treaty, international agreement, or legal statute — there is some hope.

ACTA wants to protect legitimate e-commerce and freedom of speech. It notes it, saying:

“These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with that Party’s law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.”

If SOPA, PIPA was a ‘distraction’ for ACTA, what is ACTA thought to be covering?

If you thought SOPA and PIPA were bad, then ACTA is your worst nightmare. If you read this and thought that ACTA was bad, then TPP is even worse. It’s like the passing of a nuclear hot potato.

In short: TPP stands for the “Trans-Pacific Partnership”. The levels of secrecy are even more stringent than that of ACTA, according to TechDirt, with some negotiating documents being kept secret for up to four years after ratification.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said that TPP will “rewrite the global rules on [intellectual property] enforcement”, but. “omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.”

When is ACTA expected to come into force?

Prof. Michael Geist, a notable expert on ACTA and Internet privacy issues, notes that: “The majority of ACTA countries have signed the agreement, but it will only take effect once five countries have formally implemented and ratified it. That is not expected until at least May 2013, opening the door to stopping the agreement from taking effect.”

The European Parliament also has a heavy sway in whether ACTA goes through. It must through the European Parliament before member states’ can ratify it.

Could a ‘three-strikes’ rule become a universal sanction?

U.S. negotiators were intent on requiring ISPs to adopt a three-strikes rule on serial copyright infringers. France already has a three-strikes rule, which the government claimed recently to be a ‘success’.

But the European Parliament voted in 2010 to not pass ACTA if it includes a three-strikes rule; measures which are staunchly backed by the MPAA and the RIAA. It does not guarantee that the U.S. will not enact a three-strikes rule, but it means that signing European member states will not be able to.

Some US based ISP's already have a 3-strike rule for copyright infringement.

Bottom line if this bill passes in current state(US citizens):

Use an IP blocking program like PG/PB & keep it updated to combat the anti-p2p companies. DON'T USE TORRENTS & US citizens should be fine no matter what as far as copyright infringement goes.

Originally Posted by tonybologna

Some US based ISP's already have a 3-strike rule for copyright infringement.

Bottom line if this bill passes in current state(US citizens):

Use an IP blocking program like PG/PB & keep it updated to combat the anti-p2p companies. DON'T USE TORRENTS & US citizens should be fine no matter what as far as copyright infringement goes.

Guys it has already been passed since October 2011!!! check my previous post for a video explaining what this means to U.S citizens.

Originally Posted by mariano1988

Guys it has already been passed since October 2011!!! check my previous post for a video explaining what this means to U.S citizens.

Go back & read the last post from drive1 dude! There's updated information & details. His post specifically tells what this means!

Originally Posted by FreqEteQ

LOL, your a funny wee man. You need to settle down with the tantrum, sit back, take a breath and relax a little.

So piracy is not theft? OK. Sharing copyrighted material is FAIR USE? Right......

Your rant is all over the place. I think that most people can agree that what we do isn't considered 'fair use'. I can admit it. It is stealing, nothing more, nothing less. It is not the same as copying a movie off the TV. I get games either by hiring or downloading, and burn them to my HDD, if I did not have that ability then I would of instead purchased some of those games or hired them more often or maybe never played them at all. So I cost companies, both games developer, distributors, retailers, advertisers, delivery drivers, sales staff, video shops and I'm sure others as well, money through my piracy. I am essentially 'stealing' money from them through their loss of profit. One example is the local video shop, they would have made more money off me if I had had to hire UC3 for more than one day. I cannot see how that would be considered 'fair use'.

If you think it is 'fair use' what we do, then fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't think my post warranted your reply. All it was saying was that if you see a wall of water coming towards you that is unstoppable, then learn to swim. And we have a wall of water coming at us in the form of these various acts being implemented around the world, it is inevitable that these acts, or ones similar, will come into law. So instead of whining about it, adapt. Learn to swim.


Just some friendly words from your resident undercover down syndrome corporate schill, LOL.

D00d - you can shove your 'intellectual copyright' song and dance so far up your mother****ing *** it hurts you in the buttcheeks.

OKthnx - now **** off with your 'intellectual copyright' bull**** - THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Call it what it is - neo-feudalism by 'money people' who want even more of your cash at even less reasonable conditions. And the pathetic dumbass sheep and slaves like you even repeat this claptrap.

I have another solution too - if stupid people would just run off the mother****ing cliff - then stupid idiots like you would not infect the rest of society and we could actually get some S H I T done.

Oh and BTW - feel free to ban me for 'offensive remarks' (that is called laying it down and not mincing words - it's called 'not tolerating retardation' as exemplified by this MF'er here) - as if I ****ing care hanging around with a bunch of dumb self-hating freeloaders that have never contributed to jack squat.

Lawl. This is the governments of the world bringing in the neo feudalism. Like I said in another thread, the entertainment indutry is making ridiculous amounts of money. Anybody who says anything about "lost revenue" must not understand that there may not have even been any transfer of money. For example, I would never have gone to see "why did I get married?" in a theatre. Where is the lost revenue? Now, if I bought that movie from "Bruh man" or Lenny, you could argue that. Sharing is only illegal because certain people are saying it a lot and getting a lot of people to believe it. Don't they teach kids to share in kindergarten? If I'm making money off of someone else's work, that is illegal. That's where you get lost revenue. Sharing can only lead to exposure and maybe free publicity...or someone using someone else's work to make money. You can't control what other people do though. Like that one guy said, every since that day, anything can be classified as a threat to security and is and is usually a freedom grab presented as something to protect you. Slavery is back, and it's gonna be bad if people are as apathetic as some of the guys here.

Originally Posted by tonybologna

Go back & read the last post from drive1 dude! There's updated information & details. His post specifically tells what this means!

updated info about something that has been open, shut and already signed since october 2011? the trade agreement hasn't changed a single millimeter since then. Nor can it, at least without some serious international repercussions. drive1's tl'dr post doesnt offer any new info that hasn't been covered in the video i mentioned. its just somebody else talking about it.