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."
From 1960 to 1970 the number of Americans who had tried marijuana had increased from a few hundred thousand to 8,000,000.
US Census 1970: 203,302,031 inhabitants
So a total of less than 4% of the population tried it through the golden hippie years, ever. It's freaking hard to find good data on P2P users, but the pirate bay has over 10 million simultanious users alone. Never mind all the other public BT trackers, private BT trackers and all the other P2P networks. With all due respect, the P2P movement is far bigger than the marijuana movement ever was.
Yeah,not too mention WTH is the point of voting if your choice is "rich old money corporate ass kisser A" or "rich old money corporate ass kisser B"? Lets face it,when it comes to kissing the corporate booty the dems and repubs are pretty much the same. Basically anything that can boost profits or screw us out of fair use WILL be passed,no matter whether the guy you vote for has a D or a R in front of his name.What are the copyrights up to now,100 years?
And while I would be happy to vote for an Independent that had even the tiniest of snowballs chance in hell,I just don't see us getting a real third party anytime soon. Not unless we can get someone like Ron Paul or Jessie Ventura to run and build up a buzz. But that is my 02c,YMMV
If there's no point to voting, then why not "waste" your vote on the independent candidate anyway? It's the only way anything will ever change.
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.
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.
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?
And you don't think that is the ultimate goal, to kill off the internet as we know it ( and most digital media devices ) and return to the old form of 'media distribution' where they had pretty much total control?
Fundamentally, the problem is that virtually every society on Earth is ruled by sociopaths (or in the case of my country right now, perhaps psychopath is more accurate.)
Fundamentally, the problem is dealing with sociopaths without reducing the freedoms of the majority of decent folks. How do you let decent folks participate in self governance, and give them freedoms, without ceding control to the sociopaths?
You educate. You inform. More importantly, you teach people how to think. That's the real lesson. Make sure that the average man knows as much as he can, and is able and willing to think and criticize what he's told. That way, when push comes to shove, people will make a reasonable decision. As for avoiding tyrants...it boils down to trial and error. The key thing is to make sure that power is not and can not be consolidated by any one group or person. Which is what the Constitution tried to do.
Now that is good advice. Educate, and teach people critical thinking. Create a system with checks and balances. The 'blood of tyrants' quote may have been mere cheerleading (still, very necessary) but our founding fathers were brilliant men who cared deeply for human freedom, and gave the issue a lot of thought.
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.
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?
I think you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what they want to do. The elites have for so long controlled the media and have been in the exclusive position to be able to propogandise the public and control inforation flow. Since the development of the internet, we have seen for the first time true freedom of speech for the masses, where we dont only have it on paper, but people are actually able to use it without having a lot of money and resources. Previously, media was easy control , and it by definition had to be large corporations in order to reach large numbers of people. Now anyone can publish information that can be accessed by anyone else. This terrifies them, since their goal, being power hungry and really seeing the planet as something to be controlled rather than a place where people can control themselves and live in freedom. They have for years trying to find ways to shut down the internet and control it.
Yes, all IP packets are sent from one peer to another.
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...
I went to wikileaks, read their summary, dled the PDF and read as much of it as i understood, and this document does nothing to 'criminalize' p2p activity. What it does criminalize is...
"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)
"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..."
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?
Sneak it in the back door via treaties that trump sovereign laws.
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 )
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 06 2008, @04:56PM (#23688147)
"have all the real issues of the world solved"
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.
Nah. HTTP has too many legitimate uses and has been around for too long. It's much easier to attack the fringe first. After all, most people will agree that the majority of P2P sharing infringes on someone's copyright. Whether or not this is fair use is another argument. So by taking out the things with the most illegal use, they get people accustomed to having protocols be made illegal. So when the big media companies create a new protocol, call it "Guaranteed Information Delivery Protocol", or something equally fuzzy, all other protocols will be slowly phased out, as "illegal things" could happen on them. Of course, with GIDP, you'll never have to deal with something scary and illegal like child pornography. Only our nice and safe news/entertainment will be available to you. And how I wish that someone could prove to me that these are just the paranoid ramblings of a/.er.
Typical... Sneak it in the back door via treaties that trump sovereign laws.
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.
People will substitute away into another technology that will get around the requirements of the treaty if enacted. It's a nice thought though, isn't it;-)
The proposed agreement would allow border officials to search laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for copyright-infringing content. It would also impose new cooperation requirements upon internet service providers (ISPs), including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, and restrict the use of online privacy tools. The proposal specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime.
I think the implications are not as bad as all that. If it looks like enforcing the treaty would cause undue harm or expense, Canada won't ratify it under such onerous terms.
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).
"How can we outlaw P2P? A lot of people use it for legitimately trading legal content."
"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?"
\begin{comment} 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}
Hello, let's have some perspective here. There are plenty of people who would rejoice if 700MB downloads of free operating systems were no longer possible. Those people have billions in the bank and enough political influence to make this happen.
So don't say that this is a bad side effect. I see it very much as an INTENDED side effect.
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)
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)
"Actually, Sonny [reference to her late husband, Sonny Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
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:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
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.
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....
can someone come along and say "you can serve", and "you can request", and keep and monitor that separation? seems rather daunting
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
Corporations used to write laws, but that turned out to be really inefficient. Why bother when you can write treaties instead?
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.
<SOAPBOX>
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!
..Said it before, I'll say it again: If this is the shape of things to come, then they can KEEP their fucking fucked-up internet. I'll go back to PRINTED BOOKS and actually TALKING TO LIVE PEOPLE IN PERSON, and these fucking politicians and their ISP lap-dogs won't get a SINGLE PENNY more of mine.
</SOAPBOX>
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;
Problem is, the Constitution doesn't give a ranking for treaties when they're unconstitutional, and it's been treated that they supersede it.
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.
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
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; . . .
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)
Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Informative)
US Census 1970: 203,302,031 inhabitants
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Interesting)
And while I would be happy to vote for an Independent that had even the tiniest of snowballs chance in hell,I just don't see us getting a real third party anytime soon. Not unless we can get someone like Ron Paul or Jessie Ventura to run and build up a buzz. But that is my 02c,YMMV
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'll settle for a second one.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
One man's patriot is another's insurgent.
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:When I was in school (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
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...
Parent
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)
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)
Can you say 'one world government by proxy' ?
No. Proxies are now outlawed too.
Parent
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.
Parent
Just as with anything... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just as with anything... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hrm, DPI was in preparation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hrm, DPI was in preparation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
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:Canada (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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).
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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....
Parent
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
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.
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: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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:The First Amendment to the Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)
Parent
Re:If P2P is outlaws (Score:4, Informative)
Parent