Leaked ACTA Treaty to Outlaw P2P? 387
miowpurr writes to tell us that a draft of the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has been posted on Wikileaks. Among others, Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow has weighed in on the possible ramifications of this treaty. "Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty."
Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, just like all those students from the 60s and 70s voted to legalise marijuana.
Society changes, but it's often much slower than one might expect.
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Informative)
US Census 1970: 203,302,031 inhabitants
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'll settle for a second one.
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of lamenting your "two" choices, make use of your ballot to go with Option C. If you don't care which of the two major party candidates gets elected because it's all the same to you, instead of sitting on your ass, throw your vote away on someone you care about. Those numbers can add up. Your conclusions are contradictory. "Why bother voting if you only have two choices?" and "I wish I had a third choice" don't mesh: you DO have a third choice. Not voting at all isn't a form of protest; it's not resignation to a fate out of your hands. It's just lazy.
What difference does it make to you whether the independent candidate has a chance? If there's no point in voting for Corporate Candidate A or B, don't. Candidates have a chance when voters give them a chance. Stop bitching and do something about it. The worst that could happen is that your vote has no impact--but if you don't vote, that's a certainty regardless.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, then, do something about it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am pretty tech-savy (having a Ph.D. in Computer Science helps), and I am also active in politics, both national and local (I am a member of my city council in DK, approx. 45000 residents, and was a candicate for the last national election). And, while one of my major motivations for joining politics was to work for better laws in the tech area, I quickly realised that in order to have any influence, or getting elected to anything you need a much wider scope. Tech stuff simply does not interest enough people to get you any votes. This is OK, by definition, the voters have a right to focus on what interest them. The problem with that however is, that in order to stay sharp on the issues of "the masses", in order to get any votes at all, you lack the time to work on/stay updated on "fringe" issues. But I digress.
Now, what pisses me off in your sentiment, which is echoed by many, is the inherent "it does not matter anyway" attitude. It does freaking matter what you do. But laying on the couch, waiting for a perfect candicate to get enough exposure that you discover him, and can vote on him, will never help. For the candicate it is a chicken and egg problem: As long as he can not demonstrate that tech issues has the interesst of a sufficient number of voters, he/she gets no leverage on the party. For fringe candidates (and most that are tech savy are that), you simply can not get any leverage on these issues. The candicate needs you to get off that couch and take part in the public debate (and, no, that is not Slashdot, believe me) and make this an issue that engages influential people or the media. Then, you will see tech savy candidates to your elections. So, get off that couch right now. Find the local candidate that are tech savy, and support the one that matches your overall political profile best. And by support, I mean: join his party, call him, go to meetings, write letters to the newspapers, let your neighbours, friends and coworkers know that this is something that matters to you. Join your local branch of whatever passes for a digital rights group in your area (EU: http://www.edri.org/ [edri.org]).
As long as the political parties are made up of people that couldn't give less about IP and tech stuff, it is simply to hard to get any leverage for these issues, and the companies that are able to post large amount of money into professional lobbyists will get their way. Sure they will. But, you _can_ make a difference. And if you do not try to make a difference, quit complaining - you are wasting bandwitdh, really. (On satelitte here, btw, so I am entitled to complain about bandwidth
Gotta say it... (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously....the govt obviously has no ear nor idea of representing the population any longer.
I guess everybody, needs to incorporate themselves, and band together to lobby to try to get some individual rights again....
Apparently, the individual citizen doesn't matter as much as the corps...so, lets lawyer up and suit up in corporations...to fight on more even ground? Heck why not....you can pay less taxes that way at the very least....
Re:Gotta say it... (Score:4, Interesting)
The government only represents the people when the people vote. Guess which age group is least likely to vote? It's exactly the same age group that's most likely to use P2P and play WoW.
99.999% of politicians aren't politicians because they love helping people and doing the right thing. They're in it for the money and the power. As far as politicians are concerned, people who don't vote don't exist. Non-voters have no say in whether the politicians keep their cushy jobs, so why cater to them when they can cater to actual voters and keep their jobs? If you ignore politicians, the politicians will ignore you.
Even if the corporations are buying off politicians left and right, the voters are still ultimately responsible for continually re-electing the corrupt politicians.
It's really hard to feel bad about all of this political bitching when the people most upset are also the ones least like to vote.
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or that, if you really want to get technical, everything that takes place over the internet exchanges information between two or more parties. How does one quantify p2p as opposed to simply transfer of information between two people, two servers, etc?
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Crime is the excuse, and that sounds good to ignorant people.
Just look at England with all of the CCTVs(Is my sig ironic now...?) and the antisocial behavior law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Crime is the excuse, and that sounds good to ignorant people.
Just look at England with all of the CCTVs(Is my sig ironic now...?) and the antisocial behavior law.
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, its a nice quote, but I've thought about it a lot, and it was just a cheerleading slogan. It doesn't give any real advice on how to deal with the problem.
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem, as I see it, is that our current corporate 'free market' system allows an end run around the checks and balances. A free market contains no checks or balances against the consolidation of power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you get past that whole "slavery" thing, they really did care deeply for human freedom!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
One man's patriot is another's insurgent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
People are too busy with their Britney Spears', their Amy Winehouses, etc. to pay attention.
As they say, evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
What you are seeing, with your own eyes, is good (and mediocre) men doing nothing.
When I was in school (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was in school, we were taught about Francis Cabot Lowell, who heroically copied machine plans in England to use in the US for textile mills.
England was so worried that their monopoly on their mill technology would be taken that they would search ships, cargo and passenger for hidden plans.
Fortunately for the US, Lowell memorized the plans and was able to build his own plants in the New World. His business was the beginning of the industrialization of the New World. Without which, the United States would have continued to be merely agrarian in nature. Does anyone know if they still teach this lesson in gradeschools, or was it killed when they started teaching kids to respect copyrights more?
Re:When I was in school (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Interesting)
p2p == !DNS (Score:5, Informative)
The defining characteristic of what people call peer-to-peer systems is that the peers find each other without relying on the Domain Name System. A service that relies on the DNS--like a web server--can be shut down by removing its address from the DNS. Wikileaks had a problem like that recently. If you can force everyone to go through the DNS, then the DNS become a single point of control for the entire internet, and you can easily shut down anyone you don't like.
The tricky part is establishing the legal principle that forces everyone to go through the DNS. You have to make it illegal to send a packet to an IP address unless you have obtained that IP address through a DNS lookup. Or something like that...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
OH GOD THEY'RE COMING TO GET ME!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not only that (Score:2)
Not that I know about anyone that's working on such a thing [koff] as far as you know [/koff]
Bad summary. (Score:5, Informative)
"For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet. This clause would also negatively affect transparency and primary source journalism sites such as Wikileaks. "
Basically, not just a pirate bay killer, but a wikileaks killer all rolled in one. Legitimate P2P is completely unaffected. except that there will never be 'open' trackers after this law goes through, in member nations. it's really easy to have a closed tracker, as WOW uses for distributing patches... now if WOW or say, SC2 uses P2P for 'user created content' (custom maps, sprites etc) then they might have to 'kill' those features in a patch, after all you can easily infringe on copyright (especially with custom sprites)
Re:Bad summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
EXACTLY. It will criminalize unauthorized information exchange on the internet. Sounds all fine and good until you start thinking about who gets to define what constitutes "unauthorized." A legislative body with proper representation drafting the definition after careful consideration, input from constituents, and an informed debate on the issue? Hardly. "Unauthorized" will be at the sole whim of the MAFIAA and whatever political party is in power at the time. This will be used to squash differences in opinion from those in power. It may take down Wikileaks first, but who is to say if it will stop there? What they're trying to do with this is no less than pulling the wool over everyone's eyes until it's too late to do anything about it. They're going to try and present it fait accompli because they know it won't stand up if they actually ask people what they think.
Face it, power no longer rests with the people, and hasn't for some time. It all resides in the hands of the corporations with money to buy votes. The oil, content, and software industries are the ones ACTUALLY running the US. So when does everyone decide to use what little power they have left to say "That's it, you're ALL fired. Every single one of you. Get the HELL out of Washington and find a REAL job, while we vote in people who actually have a spine to stand up for those that they represent!"
I know, I know. It's a pipe dream that won't happen in my lifetime, or even in my grandchildren's lifetimes (I'm 26, single, no kids. Typical Slashdotter, but there's an idea of the timescale I'm talking about), but can't a man dream?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You'd better hope that a solid Constitutional argument can be made against it, since all federal and state laws in the US are subordinate to ratified treaties. Only the Constitution can outrank a treaty in the American legal system, and the US Supreme Court has been known to turn a blind eye to Constitutional concerns when the Walt Disney Company's profit margins are alleged to be threatened.
Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Im glad our collective governments have all the real issues of the world solved ( like famine, disease, terrorists , etc ) and can focus on such important things as saving some corporate entity from having to adapt to the future.. ( and make us all criminals in the process )
Can you say 'one world government by proxy' ?
Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about music and/or copyrights, thats just a smoke screen for what they are really doing which is controlling the flow of information that they cannot watch. People in power get into power because they seek power over others. They fear the loss of power and so they want to control as much as they can. They fear any spread of information outside of their control as it can undermine their positions of power. This is all about constructing a global information gathering network. They want power over the internet and what flows on it. Most of us who don't seek power don't think like the people who seek power. The power seekers spend decades learning to gain and hold onto power. They are always looking at new ways to control and so far the Internet has grown up largely outside of their control and they dont want that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It may not be some grand scheme, but it is the end result
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)
Can you say 'one world government by proxy' ?
No. Proxies are now outlawed too.
Treaties do NOT trump federal law or Constitution. (Score:4, Informative)
Treaties do NOT trump federal law or the Constitution.
When a treaty requires some internal law change to implement its provisions, that can only happen if congress passes such laws. Congress is not obligated to pass such laws or refrain from repealing them. Laws implementing a treaty are just as subject to being struck down as unconstitutional as any other law.
The idea that treaties are a way to effectively amend the Constitution by an easier procedure comes from a common misreading of the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution. What the clause ACTUALLY means is that the Constitution, federal law, and treaties, each trump state/county/local law when they conflict (and the laws or treaties are constitutional).
The supremacy clause from article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.
But see also article III Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Note how, in both, the treaties are subordinated to the Constitution and how in article III they're also clearly subordinated to federal law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just as with anything... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just as with anything... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
hey, i can imagine the boarder officials trying to access my linux laptop, with 2 logins, one that 'looks completely clean' and then the other one, that hides all the sneakernet data in files completely invisible to anyone except the user of that 'hidden' account...
Re: (Score:2)
Never. The business community needs encrypted traffic.
Re:Hrm, DPI was in preparation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hrm, DPI was in preparation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Canada (Score:4, Funny)
I swear to God, if Harper signs this, I am going to skull fuck him.
Bring it on CESIS, I'm ready and waiting!
Re: (Score:2)
*shrugs* it will just take one person to challenge the provisions in the treaty. I'd take it to the supreme court, but it's unlikely that they'll enforce that anyway. As with most treaties, they don't usually bother enforcing some of the more arcane provisions until some nit complains that you're violating them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As with most treaties, they don't usually bother enforcing some of the more arcane provisions until some nit complains that you're violating them.
Which is the best thing that can happen to us.
If a law isn't enforced in Canada, it becomes void. I don't know the exact term for it, but it's true. (I studied this about 2 months ago) You can't get caught on a minor, obscure technicality here.
Also, SCC = 7 figures. Good luck with that.
It's best to call the NDP and Liberals to tell them what's going on. With the current scandal, this might be enough to topple to Conservatives.
Oh, don't forget the Bloc. I'm sure they'd love to have their content controlled
Re:Canada (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Canada (Score:4, Informative)
Remember that though treaties are used by lobbyists to do end-runs around the laws of various countries, treaties cannot escape ratification by signing nations. Ratification still has to be voted on in the commons and given Royal Assent to be put into law before they can be enforced in Canada.
Sometimes that isn't even enough. The Kyoto treaty was ratified, then pretty much ignored by the Liberal government of the time, the Liberal government following it and the present Conservative government.
I don't even think a draconian copyright treaty would even get as far as Kyoto. Canada has been under some degree of pressure for a decade to "update" its copyright law to include DMCA-like provisions. It isn't an issue that resonates with the electorate like the environment, the Industry and Heritage committees have reviewed copyright law ad-nauseum, and copyright reform bills have died on the order paper.
With it being a minority government run by a Conservative party that can only claim to live up to the name by the slimmest of margins as it tries to lure voters with policies scattershot all over the centre and right of the ideological spectrum, and a Liberal party with no principles to speak of and an ineffectual leader yet very eager to dig up all the dirt it can, I cannot see the government stepping up and pushing through a contentious copyright bill that would outlaw all forms of P2P (something even legitimate content providers are toying with, including the CBC--so such a law would even make criminals out of government-owned institutions).
Wow, this makes great sense. (Score:5, Funny)
"Exactly. We make legally trading content illegal, then we'll catch those copyright infringers."
"But if you outlaw legal file-sharing you set a dangerous precendent and risk a horrific backlash from the populous."
"Look, you want this kickback or not?"
Who is going to foot the bandwidth bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
It might well put a damper on piracy efforts that rely on decentralized distribution to stay afloat, but it will seriously hurt the (few) legitimate uses of peer-to-peer distribution. Imagine the strain on software development if the the good will and bandwidth of end users disappeared from their distribution model. At the end of the day somebody has to pay for the $n$ million downloads at 700MB apiece; I seriously doubt the paid development, marketing, sales, and support staff want to see it reallocated from their budgets.
\end{comment}
Re:Who is going to foot the bandwidth bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
So don't say that this is a bad side effect. I see it very much as an INTENDED side effect.
If your congress critter is on this list (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA
Thank you also to the Members present, who have done so much to advance
the cause of IP protection, including:
- Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)
- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Re:If your congress critter is on this list (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If your congress critter is on this list (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know any of those names but one: Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA). The only 'constituents' that she gives a rat ass about are those that work for the content industry.
This is the woman that pushed the Copyright Term Extension Act through Congress. This is a telling quote: (emphasis mine)
WTF is wrong with our elected officials? IANAL but I've read the Constitution enough times (and paid enough attention in civics class) to understand that the power of Congress to grant patents/copyrights is time limited. Let me help you Congresswoman:
I also love the bit about what the MPAA President wanted. Care to tell me why his concerns should carry anymore weight then those of any American citizen?
In short, she's a bitch and I wish I lived in her district so I could vote against her. Since I wouldn't live in California if you paid me a million bucks a minute (sorry to my friends on the west coast!) I'll have to be content with donating money to the campaign of whomever runs against her.
Re:If your congress critter is on this list (Score:4, Insightful)
Soon we'll know who's running against these dicks. PLEASE DONATE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN TO THEIR OPPONENTS IN THIS YEARS'S ELECTION!!
In the Congress, money talks; bullshit walks. All this discussion about "IP rights" and "Constitution" is pure bullshit to these leeches. All they care about is money. Well, put your money where your mouths are and donate liberally to their opponents come November. If we can just kick a couple of these bloodsuckers out of Congress, then we'll send a message to the others that these shenanigans won't do.
On the other hand, if they win again, then you might as well kiss the Internet (as we know it) goodbye....
technologically feasible? (Score:4, Interesting)
otherwise, if the status quo is two way traffic flow, p2p traffic can be obfuscated in such a way that it is hard to detect and hard to isolate from "acceptable" traffic
so i think all these laws do is breed stronger p2p apps
yup. excellent point (Score:3, Interesting)
a very important concept
the law must hew closely to an actual concept of fairness. the law must not just serve a few well-placed economic interests. otherwise, it undermines the entire relationship between the law and its citizenry should it be understood that the law serves a special economic interest group at the detriment of the rights and freedoms of the people at large
if the people begin to see the law as illegitimate, as serving a special class of people rather than the public at large, this
Time to get some people on record (Score:3, Interesting)
Can we gather a list like this and ask candidates to comment on it, like the groups interested in abortion or taxes or the environment do? Or is that outside the scope of
The one-world corporate state (Score:4, Insightful)
And like I've said before, there's no bribing going on: the people writing these laws and treaties believe with all their hearts that the good of the nation -- nay, all humanity is served by maximizing corporate profit through physical force.
I wasn't always like this. And in fact, lest you mistake me for a turtle-suit-wearing WTO protester, I'm actually all in favor of free markets. It'd just be nice if we ever actually saw an actually free market in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wikileaks article (Score:3, Funny)
So that's still OK because it's not a copyright violation.
The First Amendment to the Constitution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The First Amendment to the Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
Problem is, the Constitution doesn't give a ranking for treaties when they're unconstitutional, and it's been treated that they supersede it.
Re:The First Amendment to the Constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It doesn't say treaties trump the constitution, or even are peers of it. It says that the hierarchy is Constitution -> Federal law -> Treaties -> state law.
It's even clearer in article III section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Treaties themselves have no power internally without enabling legislation. Congress is not obligated to pass enabling legislation, to make it conform to the actual treaty language if they do pass it, or to refrain from repealing it. Courts can strike the enabling legislation (or any attempt at direct application of treaty language to the international activity of US citizens or entities) for unconstitutionality, interpret it into impotence, or set up impossible enforcement roadblocks, as easily as they do the same to federal law.
Re: (Score:2)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis mine)
I would agree that this sounds like a First Amendment issue, but I wouldn't be
Re:The First Amendment to the Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)
Re: (Score:2)
The proper question here, is "why shouldn't p2p be allowed"? Once you accept that certain methods for transferring data are "not legal", then it is trivial to expand that list.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a first amendment issue, and I am pretty sure a court would see it as such. Interfering with the distribution of "works that are legally available, like... books" is interference with the press.
Getting to be time to leave... (Score:2)
I'm hoping that a new administration with fresh ideas might go some way to improve the situation here, but I'm getting tired of a country whose politics are motivated by money. It wasn't too many years ago that companies felt some sort of obligation to the betterment of societ
Re: (Score:2)
there's nowhere to run (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think that European governments aren't listening in to everything you do or say? British police records and retains license plate information all over the place, as well as having installed massive video surveillance. Germany has passed a data retention law, and the main German phone company (and possibly some other companies) have been using stored data to spy on their employees and journalists. In addition, they tried out massive facial recognition screening in public p
Who is really behind ACTA? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)[4]
Top four campaign contributions for 2006:
Time Warner $21,000
News Corp $15,000
Sony Corp of America $14,000
Walt Disney Co $13,550
Top two Industries:
TV/Movies/Music $181,050
Lawyers/Law Firms $114,200
"
Can we outlaw these groups from the internet? kthx
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference becomes even larger when considering what's at stake here. I'm sure big media will pay out billions if they can extend copyright duration, enforcement and broadness for significant periods; to counter that the populace would need tens of millions to donate large sums in a coordinated fashion. Which won't happen.
Not that they even need to try justifying it... (Score:3, Insightful)
How could doing this sort of thing in secret possibly be justified?(I'd honestly be curious to hear plausible sounding answers, my usual arsenal of quips is exhausted)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they will also then manipulate the facts into lies by saying that (perhaps) some region free DVD players sales go to help terrorists and then region free == terrorist supporting.
In the end it is rather sad as who pays for pirated materials? Just about everyone, well... pirates them!
American Lawmakers and diplomats ... (Score:2)
and when you think that you people actually VOTE those into power in america, i become speechless.
Yes, but... (Score:2, Funny)
I'm a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
If I use P2P of any kind for any reason, legal or not, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I get for free, legally or not, what I could PAY for, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I don't spend every last penny I make on what corporate America tells me to, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I don't purchase a gas-hogging SUV every three years, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I ride a bicycle because gas is so expensive, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I don't consume, consume, consume, and CONSUME, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
I object to having to live in a fucking nanny-state, so OBVIOUSLY I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I don't live exactly like EVERYONE ELSE, then I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
Know what? The fucking bastards can fucking drop me in an oubliette in Gitmo then, because I guess I'm a fucking terrorist. I don't do everything I'm told to do, believe everything I'm told to believe, and keep my mouth shut because my opinions aren't "politically correct", so that makes me an "undesirable", worthy only of societies' scorn, and I should be treated like a dog.
Let them sign their fucking little treaty. It's all paperwork bullshit anyway. I say it over and over again like a mantra: You can't stop the signal, goddamnit! Outlaw BitTorrent? Let's see them try, and if they do, someone will re-tool it into something completely different. Make the public internet unusable for anything other than their corporate bullshit? We'll find a way to subvert it into doing what we need it to do, or we'll tell them to go fuck themselves and go back to SneakerNet -- or maybe we'll just start creating a mesh network of our own and SCREW the ISPs!
</SOAPBOX>
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Welcome back mainframes (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit in multiple places.... (Score:3, Insightful)
A deeper, less hysterical, and non-intellectually dishonest analysis than Doctorow's chicken-littling is at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080602-the-real-acta-threat-its-not-ipod-scanning-border-guards.html [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, HTTP and FTP Warez sites exist. Now though, it is going to make it hard for me to get download speeds of anything faster then 2 KB/Second when Ubuntu 8.10 comes out....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If P2P is outlaws (Score:4, Informative)