ACTA. This is International!!! ACTA AD ACTA. ACTA is DEAD.

  • Thread starter Ibonibo
  • 40 comments
  • 3,230 views
Ibonibo

Ibonibo

Premium
5,440
Luxembourg
Luxemburg
Already paying my Isp 4 Access
I know we have topics for Sopa, Pipa,...

But I wanted to open a direct thread with the link to the petition and concerning ACTA.
ACTA concerns us all, it is not a national bill, it's international. The whole world needs to go to the streets and internet and channel their voices against this fascist industry mouvement trying to take over politics and controlling the people.

The world helped stop SOPA. ACTA is exacly the same, probably worse and it is on international order.

Now we need to stop ACTA.

I will fill the first post with links of acta.

Sound of below with your view on it, share links (i will repost them in the 1st post) and talk about it with friends, families,...

because lots of people don't know what impact it has or think it's an anon thing.

FREE WILLY .... eemmm I mean the Internet

This saturday in whole Europe will be protest against ACTA. If you have the time, go and show that we people still hold on to our voice. For the place and dates look on FB, or google

Links: (use google for the translation)
- Petiton against ACTA:
http://www.avaaz.org/de/eu_save_the_internet_spread/?cKWlNcb

Against ACTA:
- negociator of the Eu throws the towel, ACTA is a joke:

EN: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/01/acta-goes-too-far-kader-arif
EN: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142
FR: http://www.numerama.com/magazine/21424-acta-demissionnaire-kader-arif-denonce-une-mascarade.html
- Germany halts ratification till EU parliament
DE: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,814527,00.html
- ACTA and it's Brinkmanship Politics ***EXCELLENT READ***
DE: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,815155,00.html
- Conservative politican against ACTA (interview)
DE: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,814976,00.html
- Desperation makes aggressive ***EXCELLENT READ***
DE: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,812381,00.html
- Political support shrinking
DE: http://www.chip.de/news/ACTA-Politischer-Rueckhalt-schrumpft-drastisch_54606267.html
- Artists point of views on ACTA & SOPA
DE: http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/...treiten-um-das-neue-Urheberrecht-7315838.html
-Musicians against SOPA/ACTA:

-EU halts ACTA. waits verdict from EU court
DE: http://business.chip.de/news/ACTA-EU-zieht-Notbremse-verweist-an-EuGH_54713906.html
CISPA
DE:http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/...SPA-Sicherheit-statt-Datenschutz-7449942.html

For ACTA (mainly to show the shallowness and stupidity & how stupid they think we are):
- A German politic beeing for ACTA declares the war on the internet: (a must read)
DE: http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung...e-ihr-werdet-den-kampf-verlieren/6127434.html
- Eu trying to calm down the discussion
EN: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-...cs/intellectual-property/anti-counterfeiting/
- Enemies of Contentmafia are hypocrites
DE: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,814276,00.html
 
Last edited:
Now I try my personal opinion:
This is just a symtome of a bigger disease happening : Industry control the politics via lobbists that are not legitimated elected by the people and yet have the influencal power to create bills & rights to their likening.

That is my main concern and this jsut shows how much of handpuppets politicians have become.

On the piracy aspect I redirect you to the first link (spiegel) which basiclly has the same opinion as me:
The industry has still araic business models and are too dumb to see what the internet really is. For them the internet is full of criminals. Rather then changing their business models so they are succesful on the internet they try to criminalize those who try other ways then their araic models.
Pirates also will pay for content. All it needs and that is 101 marketing : P-P-C:
Price, Place Convenience.
price and conv. are not there.
One thing MEgaupload showed is pirates will pay for content if the price is right, and they OWN the content after.
Also, on Mega., why is the owner (swiss artist) not even mentionned. Why do we need ACTA? Mega. showed that the now present laws are enough. The industry got hold of a german in New zealand via a US entity. That is prettyy strong, so why ACTA?
it is also rumored that Kim.com and Mega where trying to create a legal plattform but priced correctly (see above PPC why that would piss off the industry).


And here is where ACTA takes places: It simplifies the industry to open their greedy hands even more, controlling every level of distribution, criminalizing people so they can hold on to their vintage business model.

Why would they otherwise do the meetings in secret (yes it is public now, but wasn't for a long time, more than 2 years), Eu ratification was done on an agriculture meeting (seems wierd, no?),...
And as it seems, since in ACTA, the worse was written off due to the EU, the industry is again taken secret meetings last week to redo an other text even worse than ACTA (or like the original ACTA)
Source: DE http://business.chip.de/news/ACTA-Geruechte-um-die-naechsten-Geheimvertraege_54270429.html
Kader Arif also said the political right try to pass this as fast as possible so the public couldn't protest against it.

In the Pollution thread I also wrote about an other exemple of industry dominance:
The lightbulbs when first developped lasted 2500 hours. That was too much for the industry so they made a cartell and decided to lower the lightbulbs lifecycle to a 1000 hours.
So they messed around, took less good material,.... and in 1940 big ads garentueed 1000H lightbulbs.
That was long ago and it has gotten worse.
Now the lightbulbs are discontinued, which already pisses off alot of people, but they replace them with highly nocive ones instead of subventening LEd light bulbs, which are the future. Again Industry taken over the politics.
Click to expand...

And this is a very dangerous evolution. Who wants to live in such a society where laws are created and enforced by industries (then we are not far away from Umbrella or Equilibrum, V's society)

And to make my post not more lengthy, I will stop here and take part in the following discussion.
 
Last edited:
The whole world of commerce is eventually going to fail. There is no other outcome.

You can't eat your own 🤬 and pretend its food. But that's exactly what the monetary system does.

Corporation will keep screwing the world down like bloodthirsty vampires until there is nothing left for anyone. See the film Daybreakers for a good metaphor of the global economy.
 
^that is my main grip with the Occupy mouvement:

The basic idea behind it is good, but you will never been taken seriously when you say capitalism is bad and needs to be abolished, and don't even give an alternative.

Capitalism is good : those who work their behind off should get more money than those not working. But the system needs a sandbox, regulations.
The main flaw with capitalism is the non existance of "natural" frontiers. You can't make every year more profit, you will come at a point where it is simply not possible anymore (globally speaking, I know about taking over other companies,...)
We need a regulated capitalism, where as an exemple a manager still gets a bonus, but not a million heavy one, and the guy who broke his back to work for said manager get nothing.

What's bad about it when a company is second or third, as long as the company is healthy, can pay the salaries, bills,.... But no, in the current system, you need to make more more more
 
Unfortunately, regulated capitalism wouldn't work purely because of the inherent greed of the human species.

Space Cash, springs to mind.

Lust for power, crushing corporations and the might of militia will always dominate. Some people feel the need to feel mighty for whatever reason. There would have to be a global fundamental change in the way humans think before any of this improves.

Perhaps it will be a by-product of our evolution.
 
^Something will change in the near futur (5-15 years), whether it will turn out good or bad is also up to the people.

That's a sentence I love in the american consitution : We the people,...

We sometime forget it. We have the power, simply by the sheer number

Update articles/links:
Germany halts ratification till EU parliament
Enemies of Contentmafia are hypocrites
 
If ACTA becomes a success, the following would happen.

  • YouTube might be shut down. There happens a copyright violation on YouTube every 10 seconds worldwide. My YouTube channel would be closed and all my work would be for nothing. As mentioned on the GTPlanet news about the features (posted August 18th, 2009) of GT5, PD wanted to implement the YouTube replay output. Even that it has been chanceled due to the long processing time to create a video file, this is a confirmation, that making videos about Gran Turismo 5 is allowed and might also be in the future. It is also the first step, where a developper and the gamers can work together. Every video we upload on YouTube helps PD to fix bugs and and bring us a better product.

  • The Gaming-Industry is also glad if they don't have to spent too much money on advertisement. Every gameplay-video seen on the internet is an advertisement for the developper of the game, which brings him more cash. Of course on every DVD/BluRay case it says "all rights reserved" which means you have to ask the developper before doing something. But even if you ask, you'd probably never get an answer. So you upload it anyway and don't get a warning for visual copyright violation, except the music, which is a different story. Electronic Arts has started to make use of the free advertisement we do for them and allowed us to do gameplay videos. You can see an example here (look at description).

  • The lust for more money would increase rapidly. If you get caughed by doing a copyright violation of any kind, your internet-provider is forced to give all your personal information (IP, name, adress, etc.) to the content-holder, so they can abuse you with several thousand dollars (f.e.) or by disconnecting you from the internet for a undefinite time. And even you ask nicely to use this content for non profits, there migtht be a high chance that you'd have to pay 100+ of dollars to use the content.

  • Our creativity would drop to zero... or almost to zero. Lets say you have a non-profit project in mind and need some cool pics for it. Then you search the internet and find by chance an amazing pic which would be the perfect fit for your project. Every picture on the internet is copyrighted by its respective owner. But how do you find that owner, when there isn't any information available and there are too many of the same pictures around the internet? The internet is censored, so it's nearly impossible to find the right content-holder for this picture. This causes more trouble since anyone could say then that it was his or hers who drew it without having an evidence. This again causes a continued copyright infringement, because someone who doesn't own the rights of that picture gave you the permission to use it and you don't know if he/she is the right content-holder. So what can you do? You'd have to draw a similar picture by yourself. But you either do have time for that, nor you are good in drawing.

  • Social Networks like Facebook, Twitter and Google+ would have a serious damage. For many people, social networks have become an important role in their life. Sharing information to each other, posting pictures of each other (with copyright protected background), sharing videos of each other (with copyright protected background and music) would be forbidden, which forces us all to look like stickmans in black & white.

These are probably the worst consequences we have to fear....
 
Last edited:
^True.
On the greed: a german advocate now said that an average german 16-year old facebook page is worth 10 000€ in copyright infrigements. If most of them wouldn't have private settings, those people would get letters of advocates with cease and .... papers.

Good thing: ACTA becomes more and more knowleged by people, and opposition is growing strong.
 
^people think (outside of EU) that it doesn't concern them.
But it was an initiative between the Us and Japan.
But if it doesn't get any attention in the news, people don't know and don't want to know.
I have no idea why a thread about Sopa had so much traffic, but Acta nobody seems to be interested. That's sad, because Acta is worldwide, so if it passes we are all screwed.

Acta is way worse than Sopa or Pipa (who has an nice arse).

If this passes, the protests of occupy will be teardrops against what will happen.

Added again a few articles. Spiegel has a columnist (Lobo) who really shines in this topic. Very good articles.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing how little people are actually aware of ACTA. I've only had about 1 or 2 people know what it is, through the many people I have mentioned it to. Society needs to open its eyes to this and do something!
 
Exactly and their is already a new bill in the works with everything scrapped from SOPA or ACTA.
I don't get it how people can't be aware of this, it's in the internet since 2008 and now big since 2 months, and a lot of countries have already signed (22 EU countries, USA, Japan,....)
The new bill was noted in one of the comments of the already many articles I posted. Can't remember the name though.
But it is really good to see that there are even artists who are against it. But sadly, there are also those who are for such rules, and want their money even if it costs the freedom of speech, like Duff McKagan (former bassist of Guns'n'Roses)
 
There is a way to defend from this oppression, by boycotting. Send the film corporations and record companies bankrupt, it's not that hard. Publicly boycotting Ford, GM & Chrysler might also help on the side.

edit: also, some campaign posters that liken X country to North Korea would help our plight. eg. Basically it'd have 'This is what America will become under ACTA' and show some 'traditional scenes' of daily life in North Korea.
 
Last edited:
GTRufus
If ACTA becomes a success, the following would happen.

  • Our creativity would drop to zero... or almost to zero. Lets say you have a non-profit project in mind and need some cool pics for it. Then you search the internet and find by chance an amazing pic which would be the perfect fit for your project. Every picture on the internet is copyrighted by its respective owner. But how do you find that owner, when there isn't any information available and there are too many of the same pictures around the internet? The internet is censored, so it's nearly impossible to find the right content-holder for this picture. This causes more trouble since anyone could say then that it was his or hers who drew it without having an evidence. This again causes a continued copyright infringement, because someone who doesn't own the rights of that picture gave you the permission to use it and you don't know if he/she is the right content-holder. So what can you do? You'd have to draw a similar picture by yourself. But you either do have time for that, nor you are good in drawing.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

If anything, people would have to become more creative, and find innovative ways to use their talents and skill. If they don't "have" those skills, then you'd actually have to improve upon your own skills like everybody else, or cite your sources because that's what you're supposed to do when you aren't performing your own original research.

If anything, suggesting that people just take shortcuts and the path of least resistance for important things in life is accelerating laziness and eventually stifles your own creativity. If anything, groups of people suffer creatively, and then entire populations weaken their creativity, making them more susceptible to allowing big media companies to thrive and push their agendas in the first place...a vicious cycle.

  • Social Networks like Facebook, Twitter and Google+ would have a serious damage. For many people, social networks have become an important role in their life. Sharing information to each other, posting pictures of each other (with copyright protected background), sharing videos of each other (with copyright protected background and music) would be forbidden, which forces us all to look like stickmans in black & white.
Click to expand...

See above. What good is social networking if everyone is just re-posting and regurgitating information. It creates a hive-mind mentality and an insular way of thinking that eventually creates a narrow-minded existence.

You could still take a picture of yourself or just about anything in the world around you, and it would generally be 100% legal to post anywhere, even under any of these anti-internet laws.

-----------------------

Oh yes, YouTube would certainly suffer. It wouldn't be half as interesting if all the media that's protected by copyright is suddenly removed due to it's technically re-distributed existence as a derivative work. Of course, the media suppliers could just allow what they want to see on YouTube, by either asking for their content to be blocked, accepted, or controlled by them. Suggesting to them that method would be the best of all worlds, instead of blocking it en masse would make everyone happy. Of course, these media companies want to control their content (make you pay for it).

But then, there's nothing saying that YouTube wouldn't be more about creativity, and less about how much duplicate stuff which already exists. YT is an awesome music generator, but darn if it isn't breaking copyright virtually every time you press play; just because you upload a song and use the a still image of an album cover for 5 minutes isn't exactly reeking of personal creativity, and is not need a unique work as defined by copyright. And, there's no saying that anything you personally create (from scratch) requires a copyright, although by default, it is.

In effect, this is really nothing more than strengthening copyright laws and honoring the rights of those who make their own creative works. While that also means that all sorts of third-parties and lawyers get involved and start creating a rent-seeking environment for constricting the means of distribution for copyrighted works, artists, film producers, musicians, et al would have no other recourse to protect their works. No politician is going to take any one artist seriously, so they band together under umbrella and political action groups to support their cause.

What I don't agree with is any method that blocks your access to the internet, or invades the privacy of your computing devices. What I also think is crap is that these same media companies are effectively wasting their money lobbying, rather than committing their monies and profits towards producing more product. In an economic sense, we're getting less for more dough.

What isn't being addressed are the means in which people are able to illegally obtain content, although I figure that would come, in time. The effect is that we won't be able to share many things (not everything) the way we've been used to for the past 15 years. Which might wind up shooting these media companies in the foot more than anything else; but I could see that an entire divide will occur, and that in time, the net will divide up a bit more into "the pay-per-view" par and the "free" part. The big players in the future of the internet will make these decisions - basically the biggest websites - and we'll kind of be forced to make decisions from there.
 
Last edited:
^Laziness has brought humanity forward not hold it back.
Otherwise why we would have invented automated devices?
For not doing the work ourself.
Why a wasching machine, why a car,...? Are you too lazy to handwash, walk,...?

On the copyright part:
Copyright needs to be put in the new age.
Content industry has an old business model not made for the internet, so they want to criminalize those using the internet so they return to the contentindustries old business model.
That you can hear when they talk about internet users:
We are all pirates and criminals and we all want to completely abolish copyright and want everything for free. And that's BS.

That if you invent something you are entitled to live of your invention if commercially succesful, nobody argues that.
But where is the limit?
You write one book and you and your futur generation can live of it? Why, what value did the children add to it.
That is what most people are arguing. How long should an intellectual propriety be exclusive. How long should copyright be last (same goes for patents)?
Look at Itunes, they doubled W. Houston song's prices minutes after hearing of her death.
All they want is more money, not for the artist but for themselves.
Also piracy did not lead to losses, current number shows that in the last 10 years, these contentmafia nearly doubled their profit.
If it would strengten the artist, ok, but it doesn't. It will even damage the artist more.
If you invent a product, you need to produce it, refine it over the years and invent something new, add all the other cost of R&D, HR,...
If you invent a song, text,... you worked a certain time and then cash in without working on it further, without having factory cost,... Just pure cash.
And if you want to be succesful as artist, you nearly always need to give up your rights and write them over to the content mafia. So the artist is screwed.
Giving those industries more power will not be good. Look at meds, Acta wants to limit illegal made meds, yes that's good. But it also gives them the right to keep the patent of those meds for a really long time, which means no more generic meds at prices a normal human can pay.


The same goes for patents, look at the kindergarden fights between smartphone manufactors. It's ridiculous.
Look at the Apple design patent for a tablet!
After a certain time, those things should be considered technological norm, or public domain.
And most of all these money made on product doesn't go to the inventer or artist but to the content industry.
In Patent they are called Patenttroll! Heard of Elios trying to say it invented just because it purchased some patents. They even extorsion companies: Either you sell us your patents or we sue you for infringing a patent we bought!

I could elaborate futher and more precise but I don't want to write 5 pages. Otherwise nobody comes in this thread already not very frequented
 
Last edited:
*ibo* S3 Racer
^Laziness has brought humanity forward not hold it back.
Click to expand...

Debatable....In terms of technology, laziness doesn't necessarily improve the breed by finding the quickest, easiest, and or efficient means to do anything. It's a far from absolute standard that must be judged on a quite a case-by-case basis. One could argue the automobile has caused far greater casualties than when we were using horse-drawn carriages, but the convenience of which is allows us to get to our destinations outweighs some of the risks to most people.

Constant vigilance, learning new ideas and concepts, and that creative spark improves technology, philosophy, and the arts. Becoming heavily dependent on others to do our thinking and feeling, force-feeding and starving our emotions is not a society that's going anywhere, no matter how we attain those means (whether legally or illegally). I'm not saying the big evil corporations are out to get us, but explaining that ACTA (or SOPA, PIPA) is a permanent restriction of our creativity blurs the truth. Much of the rest of the bill has the potential to be true, though.
 
^True, that's debattable, but along the big lines, it could be said like that, maybe it's laziness with some other factors as well that would give a better thesis.

About the creativity:
A lot of work is always build upon a former product, work, so if you deny that possibility, there is a great chance to miss a lot of opportunities for creating something.
Sure the yt music vids with the cover for 5 min is not creative, but someone who takes just the instrumental version and sings/ rap over it (Flobots vid above) will be screwed too.
You in the US have the fair use policy, but you know that is a very vague article and a thorn to the industry. It already abolished that in a lot of countries (mainly Europe, since the end 90's) and the industry will try to limit that as much as possible.
Under ACTA, even citation can be a copyright infrigement. Part of a sentence can be copyrighted!
That is ridiculous. Look at Apple, facebook, or stupid Paris Hilton.
Paris didn't got "her" phrase that's hot patented, luckly but you see where this is going.

But Facebook and Apple are suing everyone who could even vaguely be mistaken for them.
Facebook sues very one with either face or book in their name. Teacherbook got closed down,...
Apple sued NY city for their green/eco compaign, sued schools, little startups, (even a canadian beaver, ahh porn site)...
So the copyright in these cases probably already cost jobs and whole lifes went to ahah because of that.
That nobody should copy a great company logo or even the whole name is more than rational, but a silly little part of it is just plain stupid.
No one in the world is allowed to use any derivate representation of an apple in their logo. Steve Jobs invented the Apple? He really must be God. What's next? Apple suing fruit stands?
 
To be honest, knocking-off another site (or any other company/business) with basically the premise and using a nearly-identical name will get you a cease and desist letter in America; it was that way far before the web. Let's say Joe opens a bar, but three blocks down, someone builds another pub, but calls it "Better than Joe's". That pub will be shut down, or forced to rename itself very quickly, and there's thousands of cases like that nationwide.

Why do you think there are so many "unofficial" websites? Because even 15 years ago, companies and organizations sued ordinary folks operating not-for-profit/zero-profit websites that purported themselves to be The Official Website of Burnt Toast, or whatever you wanted to support. They have an image to protect, even if the said websites only gave glowing, slavish reviews about how awesome Burnt Toast is.

The logo thing has been going around for years; basically, there's a reason nobody else has combined the propeller of BMW and the three-pointed star of Mercedes-Benz to form an automaker's logo. (Maybe a Chinese manufacturer has done it, that would be a riot.) There's that whole "competing industry and likeness" thing to look after. And to be fair, those laws are with merit, but sometimes at the cost of not allowing someone to use free speech via logos and emblems, which are covered by copyright like a photograph or how song lyrics might be covered. If someone mis-represents an image of you, there are laws (which vary form area to area, naturally) to protect yourself from slander and misrepresentation. Same goes for a logo and a company, et cetera.

Perhaps the blame for this sort of action is not the casual user of the internet, but those who have literally stolen thousands of dollars in music and movies over the web, and made it easier for others. But I can't deny that locking someone up for not making any profit in return by doing so is any fairer than throwing a speeding ticket offender in jail.

Personally, my policy is to avoid a business or company that wishes to spend many of it's days in courtrooms suing others; it's another thing to do so as a defendant, though.
 
^True to all, but their is a difference between protecting your name and image / and sueing everybody even if name and logo differ largely:

This is Apples logo and the one from the New York campaign:
amd_apple_.jpg


There is no sane person who would think that Apple has to do something with the NY logo. Or not?

I understand to trademark "facebook" as a whole, but trademarking "face" and "book" seperatly is non sense. Those are common words not belonging to any entity.

What's next ? Apple sueing NewYork for beeing named the big apple?

This is kind of off-topic, but it shows that alraedy with the laws in place you can mischief with trademarks, so there is no need to strengthen this futher.
The same as Megaupload showed that the legislation in place is enough to close down a site like that, no need to have even more draconic laws
 
 
Ha ha, I like how New York won that one...there was nothing that could confuse the two, unless you'd suddenly time-travelled to NYC from 50 years in the past.

What a bunch of App-holes.
 
apples.jpg


Here other ones:
http://creativebits.org/opinion/apple_sues_another_company_apple_logo

Vandenal:
And you also have ACTA ;)
400px-Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_map_%28English%29.svg.png

It's from Wiki, so I have no idea from when this dates

Politicans argue they only want to export our trademark values to other countries which are pirating, but I fail to see any of those countries on the image.
If you want to stop product counterfeidt, China, Russia and India should be aimed at and not the industrialized world
 

Similar threads

Mr. S
French Raceworks Setups | F1 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 Career Mode Setups
7 8 9
Replies
269
Views
273K
Mr. S
Mr. S
Evolution.
Spyware/Ad-Ware...Do's and Don'ts.
Replies
20
Views
950
Solid Lifters
Solid Lifters
Vendrah
GT6 List Of Categories ("which car in which category?")
Replies
25
Views
29K
lighterwings
L
The Stig Farmer
Sébastien Loeb Rally EVO (PS4/XB1/PC) - Milestone
43 44 45
Replies
1K
Views
128K
GTboyz
GTboyz
zonekill
  • Sticky
Tourist Trophy: The Real Riding Simulator, General info and discussion
19 20 21
Replies
628
Views
137K
Whodoyouthink
Whodoyouthink

Latest Posts

Back