Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTA_treaty
ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis[1] and would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.[4][12] Citing a fact sheet published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the USTR's 2008 Special 301 report the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) states that the goal of ACTA is to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement beyond the existing standards in the TRIPs Agreement and to increase international cooperation, including the sharing of information between signatory countries' law enforcement agencies.[2]
According to the European Commission the goal of ACTA is to establish an international framework that improves the enforcement of existing intellectual property right laws. The Commission states that ACTA is to create improved international standards for actions against large-scale infringements of intellectual property. To this end ACTA will have three primary components: "international cooperation"; "enforcement practices"; and "legal framework for enforcement of intellectual property rights". The "ultimate objective" of ACTA is that large emerging economies, "where intellectual property rights enforcement could be improved, such as China, Russia or Brazil, will sign up to the global pact".[8] According to New Zealand ACTA aims to facilitate a "strong and modern legal framework so that law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and private citizens have the most up-to-date tools necessary to effectively bring counterfeiters and pirates to justice." Areas for possible ACTA provisions include: criminal enforcement, border measures, civil enforcement, optical disc piracy, and Internet distribution and information technology.[13]
Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It’s bad. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused — again, without evidence or trial — of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
H/T @miccolis, @ilabra & @exposur3
MORE:
The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together
From EFF.org:
Negotiations on the highly controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement start in a few hours in Seoul, South Korea. This week’s closed negotiations will focus on “enforcement in the digital environment.” Negotiators will be discussing the Internet provisions drafted by the US government. No text has been officially released but as Professor Michael Geist and IDG are reporting, leaks have surfaced. The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations. The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.
As expected, the Internet provisions will go beyond existing international treaty obligations and follow the language of Article 18.10.30 of the recent U.S. – South Korea Free Trade Agreement. We see three points of concern.
First, according to the leaks, ACTA member countries will be required to provide for third-party (Internet Intermediary) liability. This is not required by any of the major international IP treaties – not by the 1994 Trade Related Aspects of IP agreement, nor the WIPO Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. However, US copyright owners have long sought this. (For instance, see page 19 of the Industry Functional Advisory Committee report on the 2003 US- Singapore Free Trade Agreement noting the need for introducing a system of ISP liability). (Previously available at http://www.ustr.gov/...r_reports.htm.)
Second and more importantly, ACTA will include some limitations on Internet Intermediary liability. Many ACTA negotiating countries already have these regimes in place: the US, EU, Australia, Japan, South Korea. To get the benefit of the ACTA safe harbors, Internet intermediaries will need to follow notice and takedown regimes, and put in place policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of allegedly copyright infringing content.
Read the rest here
The United States has drafted the chapter under enormous secrecy, with selected groups granted access under strict non-disclosure agreements and other countries (including Canada) given physical, watermarked copies designed to guard against leaks.
Despite the efforts to combat leaks, information on the Internet chapter has begun to emerge (just as they did with the other elements of the treaty). Sources say that the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement, focuses on following five issues:
1. Baseline obligations inspired by Article 41 of the TRIPs which focuses on the enforcement of intellectual property.
2. A requirement to establish third-party liability for copyright infringement.
3. Restrictions on limitations to 3rd party liability (ie. limited safe harbour rules for ISPs). For example, in order for ISPs to qualify for a safe harbour, they would be required establish policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content. Provisions are modeled under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, namely Article 18.10.30. They include policies to terminate subscribers in appropriate circumstances. Notice-and-takedown, which is not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement under WIPO, would also be an ACTA requirement.
4. Anti-circumvention legislation that establishes a WIPO+ model by adopting both the WIPO Internet Treaties and the language currently found in U.S. free trade agreements that go beyond the WIPO treaty requirements. For example, the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement specifies the permitted exceptions to anti-circumvention rules. These follow the DMCA model (reverse engineering, computer testing, privacy, etc.) and do not include a fair use/fair dealing exception. Moreover, the free trade agreement clauses also include a requirement to ban the distribution of circumvention devices. The current draft does not include any obligation to ensure interoperability of DRM.
5. Rights Management provisions, also modeled on U.S. free trade treaty language.
If the world becomes a 1984 mockup in the next years, I'm joining the Liberal Crime Squad.
If the world becomes a 1984 mockup in the next years, I'm joining the Liberal Crime Squad.
@ Neonivek:
You do realize that if this gets passed, it would be several orders of magnitude WORSE than the Patriot Act, right?
I'm doing my part by posting it wherever I can to make sure word gets out. :(
Yeah, I just noticed typing in only 'secret copyright treaty leaked' to google actually churns out results. So I'd have to say google isn't being censored as I originally thought - it's just got a shittier search algorithm.
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.-Internet Service Providers are requires to sift through all their materials to see if they are copyrighted
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.-Internet service providers are requires to shut off the internet of an entire household if someone is ACCUSED. (not even convicted)
* That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused — again, without evidence or trial — of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.-ISPs must take down copyrighted material upon accusation without legal recourse. (In otherwords "Guilty until proven innocent")
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)-You are unable to modify material from the internet to suit either personal use or to allow the material to be accessed by, for example, the disabled. I believe this also means you cannot translate a book online and then send the translation to someone.
How can you make whole-world law?
For the record, just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he's a liberal.
This is happening under a liberal administration. Since the conservatives have taken steps of their own to harsh our collective mellows in the past, I think the best choice is to join the Independent Crime Squad.
Yeah, I just noticed typing in only 'secret copyright treaty leaked' to google actually churns out results. So I'd have to say google isn't being censored as I originally thought - it's just got a shittier search algorithm.
I did exactly the same search as you and I have about 10 500 results ...
But yes, this law sucks, and will slow down your internet speed to an ungodly slow speed. Besides, what ever happened to the criminal's right to a speedy trial? Innocent untill proven guilty? If the US goes back on those constitutional rights, then who knows what might happen next.Yeah, this is what bothers me the most. The US was FOUNDED on those principles, and now they throw out a law which says "Up yours" right in it's face?
The United States has drafted the chapter under enormous secrecy, with selected groups granted access under strict non-disclosure agreements and other countries (including Canada) given physical, watermarked copies designed to guard against leaks.
Despite the efforts to combat leaks, information on the Internet chapter has begun to emerge (just as they did with the other elements of the treaty). Sources say that the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement, focuses on following five issues:
1. Baseline obligations inspired by Article 41 of the TRIPs which focuses on the enforcement of intellectual property.
2. A requirement to establish third-party liability for copyright infringement.
3. Restrictions on limitations to 3rd party liability (ie. limited safe harbour rules for ISPs). For example, in order for ISPs to qualify for a safe harbour, they would be required establish policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content. Provisions are modeled under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, namely Article 18.10.30. They include policies to terminate subscribers in appropriate circumstances. Notice-and-takedown, which is not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement under WIPO, would also be an ACTA requirement.
4. Anti-circumvention legislation that establishes a WIPO+ model by adopting both the WIPO Internet Treaties and the language currently found in U.S. free trade agreements that go beyond the WIPO treaty requirements. For example, the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement specifies the permitted exceptions to anti-circumvention rules. These follow the DMCA model (reverse engineering, computer testing, privacy, etc.) and do not include a fair use/fair dealing exception. Moreover, the free trade agreement clauses also include a requirement to ban the distribution of circumvention devices. The current draft does not include any obligation to ensure interoperability of DRM.
5. Rights Management provisions, also modeled on U.S. free trade treaty language.
Hmm, I thought those things were only happening in Britain.
Not that I'm saying there's no possibility that it won't be passed, but... you guys are seriously saying it has to be fake because there's no chance that the same national government that passed the Patriot Act without a national vote could do this?
Hahaha. :D Again, I'm not saying there's no chance it's fake, but if you guys think it COULDN'T be real... I call that denial.
I think ever since Obama took out Workerdrone's livestream of XCOM because of 'Too Many Buttons', there was a security leak, and the government doesn't want to go through a ton of red tape to get their job done.
How can you make whole-world law?
The UN already does this (or tries), up to and including ordering countries not to research nuclear warfare and other weapons. Why should you be so surprised when quote-on-quote 'worldwide' treaties are made to regulate other things?
How can you make whole-world law?
The UN already does this (or tries), up to and including ordering countries not to research nuclear warfare and other weapons. Why should you be so surprised when quote-on-quote 'worldwide' treaties are made to regulate other things?
That is pretty crazy analogy. You cannot force the whole world to use US copyright inquisition rules with one US law. How would you force the whole world to adopt it?
I also would like to see whole unedited material. I am not saying it is not true, it is just a "too-bad-to-be-true" story.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTA_treaty
ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis[1] and would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.[4][12] Citing a fact sheet published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the USTR's 2008 Special 301 report the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) states that the goal of ACTA is to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement beyond the existing standards in the TRIPs Agreement and to increase international cooperation, including the sharing of information between signatory countries' law enforcement agencies.[2]
According to the European Commission the goal of ACTA is to establish an international framework that improves the enforcement of existing intellectual property right laws. The Commission states that ACTA is to create improved international standards for actions against large-scale infringements of intellectual property. To this end ACTA will have three primary components: "international cooperation"; "enforcement practices"; and "legal framework for enforcement of intellectual property rights". The "ultimate objective" of ACTA is that large emerging economies, "where intellectual property rights enforcement could be improved, such as China, Russia or Brazil, will sign up to the global pact".[8] According to New Zealand ACTA aims to facilitate a "strong and modern legal framework so that law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and private citizens have the most up-to-date tools necessary to effectively bring counterfeiters and pirates to justice." Areas for possible ACTA provisions include: criminal enforcement, border measures, civil enforcement, optical disc piracy, and Internet distribution and information technology.[13]
The negotiations for the ACTA treaty are conducted in secrecy[4][5][6][7] and are not part of any international organisation.[1] The European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other government agencies have acknowledged participating in ACTA negotiations, but they have refused to release drafts of the treaty or to discuss specific terms under discussion in the negotiations.[4]
In November 2008 the European Commission stated that thus far there had been three rounds of negotiations: early June 2008 in Geneva, end of July 2008 in Washington, mid October 2008 in Tokyo.[8] A fourth round of negotiations were held in Paris, mid December 2008, and a fifth round in Morocco, in July 2009.[9] Participants at Morocco indicated that they currently sought to conclude the agreement "as early as possible in 2010", and that the next round of negotiations would be held in South Korea in November 2009. [9]
ETA: Anyway, I'm just gonna wait for Snopes to reply. If people seriously want to pretend that there's no chance this is real, it's fine with me... but how do you breath, with your head in the sand like that?
Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/09/digital-rights-groups-sue-for-access-to-secret-acta-treaty.ars
Public statements have indicated that ACTA is meant to be wrapped up by the end of 2008, so groups that want to affect the process need to act quickly. The federal suit asks a judge to force USTR to process the FOIA request, to do so in an expedited manner, and to award attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs.
ACTA is currently being negotiated by the US, Canada, the European Community, Switzerland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates.
How can you make whole-world law?
The UN already does this (or tries), up to and including ordering countries not to research nuclear warfare and other weapons. Why should you be so surprised when quote-on-quote 'worldwide' treaties are made to regulate other things?
That is pretty crazy analogy. You cannot force the whole world to use US copyright inquisition rules with one US law. How would you force the whole world to adopt it?
I also would like to see whole unedited material. I am not saying it is not true, it is just a "too-bad-to-be-true" story.
Funny how everyone is laughing at Australia cos' we're getting our porn blocked, and now you're getting your everything blocked.
Possibly I'm over-reacting a bit
To be fair, some of you guys could have been a bit less blunt.
Possibly I'm over-reacting a bit
Well, you're over-reacting to people not agreeing with you, that's for sure.
In any case, I'm not worried about this being real but I guess time will tell
tinfoil hatteryhur hur
The reson that people are skeptical mate (i'm sure the OP will be back :P) is simply because you've taken someones opinion on what the bill will do and posted that up as fact. That's just not how it works.Well, and the fact that a) it's an extremely improbable thing and b) the only sources are people's blogs
I sincerely doubt this will pass, if only because it would be completely impossible to enforce and would shut down numerous gargantuan websites like Youtube, or Facebook.
I sincerely doubt this will pass, if only because it would be completely impossible to enforce and would shut down numerous gargantuan websites like Youtube, or Facebook.
Also if "acussation -> no trial -> mandatory removal" system gets real, guess what webpages will be the first to be acussed? Pages of goverment, DRM sympathizants, etc (however also bittorent sharing sites, warez forums, etc)
ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis
That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused
I support CopyrightLikewise.
I just don't support the stupid and abusive aspects of it.
No one should be able to make a buisness out of copyrighting a bunch of things with hopes that someone will stumble into it.
Basically any business centering around creative work would collapse.OH HO HO, Some of us would say it already has! :D
QuoteBasically any business centering around creative work would collapse.OH HO HO, Some of us would say it already has! :D
I would hardly call any of that "creative work"QuoteBasically any business centering around creative work would collapse.OH HO HO, Some of us would say it already has! :D
Yeah, sure, whatever. Hollywood ain't no ghost town, there's more channels on TV than ever before, people are still writing novels, and EA and Activision/Blizzard are still posting record profits.
Oh praytell my dear Dorian, what masterpiece of imagination would meet your absolute discernment?I would hardly call any of that "creative work"QuoteBasically any business centering around creative work would collapse.OH HO HO, Some of us would say it already has! :D
Yeah, sure, whatever. Hollywood ain't no ghost town, there's more channels on TV than ever before, people are still writing novels, and EA and Activision/Blizzard are still posting record profits.
I really don't appreciate having the efforts of family and friends called unimaginative.I would hardly call any of that "creative work"QuoteBasically any business centering around creative work would collapse.OH HO HO, Some of us would say it already has! :D
Yeah, sure, whatever. Hollywood ain't no ghost town, there's more channels on TV than ever before, people are still writing novels, and EA and Activision/Blizzard are still posting record profits.
Terrible news: I saw a newspaper from last friday.The end is nigh.
THIS IS ALL TRUE!
Not only that, but details: If they have sufficient suspicion, they will ban the whole household for AN ENTIRE YEAR.
All that CONFIRMED by a local newspaper (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/).
People are. You voted for them.
Who's electing the people that do these kinds of things?
Terrible news: I saw a newspaper from last friday.
THIS IS ALL TRUE!
Not only that, but details: If they have sufficient suspicion, they will ban the whole household for AN ENTIRE YEAR.
All that CONFIRMED by a local newspaper (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/).
Canadian officials are taking part in negotiations for a top-secret copyright treaty that could see families barred from the Internet for a year if someone in the household is suspected of illegal downloads.
You know, if this were passed, a group of amateur hackers will take out all of the internet with a simple program to spam ISPs with accusations.Fixed.
PTTG??, the whole point about this is that no lawsuit is involved. The accusation is made, the site is shut down.
That is the process.
Does the phrase "top-secret treaty" strike anyone else as asinine? Just me? What is this, 1913? There's no such thing as a secret treaty, and sure as Hell not for some kind of draconian international super-law cooked up by an independent think tank that violates several articles of most industrial nations' statute governance.I have to agree with you there. That was one of the things I was trying to imply earlier when I asked why a nation would hold treaty negotiations in secret.
There's no such thing as a secret treatyYou would know! :D
Logically there should be no such thing as a secret treaty. It goes against the idea.There's no such thing as a secret treatyYou would know! :D
1: To establish the laws universally through all the treaty nations.
2: To ensure that these governments will work together in these lawsuits and criminal investigations.
Thus, any violations would basically be treated like any other law violation, with the added ability of these agencies to reach across national borders.
From what I understand, the treaty has two main functions:
1: To establish the laws universally through all the treaty nations.
2: To ensure that these governments will work together in these lawsuits and criminal investigations.
Thus, any violations would basically be treated like any other law violation, with the added ability of these agencies to reach across national borders. However, I can't say that I know any of that for sure.
There's just no gain in taking down multiple individuals.Except for the money to be made leeching off them if you can get enough off of lawsuit.
QuoteThere's just no gain in taking down multiple individuals.Except for the money to be made leeching off them if you can get enough off of lawsuit.
Its like people who give you free money for no reason!
You do know that lawyers are very expensive? ...
This treaty would end up just like all other anti-piracy attempts have- benefiting no one except for the pirates, who continue on as if nothing had changed. All a new method of stopping pirates does is reduce piracy for a few weeks, then hackers break through it and give pirates the same programs they were getting.Yeah, the accepted way to deal with is to buy it to show support, then download a DRM free version. It's only right.
Ex: I bought Spore. I can install it only three times before I have to but it again. A pirate can install spore as many times as he/she wants, faster and easier than I can.
Read it carefully; ISP's have to cut off internet to anyone who is accused of violating copyright immediately. If this treaty passes, i can accuse The NASA site of violating copyright, and NASA's ISP is duty bound by law to shut the site down right then and there.
Who's gonna do the enforcing? The ISP's certainly aren't going to pay a shitload of money to enforce a law that will lose them customers. If it did pass, they would do it in name only, because anything more would be suicide.
Also, has anybody considered how this bill would fare in a body like the US congress?
This story is such an obvious hoax it's not even funny.
I'm gonna ask again, has any real/reputable media source reported this as fact yet (as opposed to mentioning the fact that a rumor exists?)
I'm gonna ask again, has any real/reputable media source reported this as fact yet (as opposed to mentioning the fact that a rumor exists?)
Not that my MPR trawling has caught.
I'm gonna ask again, has any real/reputable media source reported this as fact yet (as opposed to mentioning the fact that a rumor exists?)
Not that my MPR trawling has caught.
I sent an email via Whitehouse.gov.
I probably won't get a response and am probably now a terrorist suspect, considering how any disagreement with the U.S. Government now days instantly makes you unpatriotic. Lovely. I feel like we're in the McCarthy Age again. Don't question the U.S. Government. Let them invade your privacy for your own good.
I'm gonna ask again, has any real/reputable media source reported this as fact yet (as opposed to mentioning the fact that a rumor exists?)
Not that my MPR trawling has caught.
I sent an email via Whitehouse.gov.
I probably won't get a response and am probably now a terrorist suspect, considering how any disagreement with the U.S. Government now days instantly makes you unpatriotic. Lovely. I feel like we're in the McCarthy Age again. Don't question the U.S. Government. Let them invade your privacy for your own good.
I'm gonna ask again, has any real/reputable media source reported this as fact yet (as opposed to mentioning the fact that a rumor exists?)
Not that my MPR trawling has caught.
I sent an email via Whitehouse.gov.
I probably won't get a response and am probably now a terrorist suspect, considering how any disagreement with the U.S. Government now days instantly makes you unpatriotic. Lovely. I feel like we're in the McCarthy Age again. Don't question the U.S. Government. Let them invade your privacy for your own good.
What are you talking about? Are you still living in 2002?
I'd like to offer an apology to Aqizzar/etc. (but Aqizzar particularly). You were offering reasonable (if blunt) discussion and I got, for some reason that is not clear to me now, unnecessarily butthurt.
Governments screw with their people because they're not afraid enough.
Governments screw with their people because they're not afraid enough.
So your solution to this is to be afraid of everyone?
Ok, while I feel that it IS important for each household to have some kind of self-defense weapon, all these gun nuts afraid that the government is going to come and steal their AK-47s- or worse, that they have to use their AK-47s to protect aborted babies or get the atheist muslims out of the white house- are worse than a few morons being elected.
Isn't that the whole point of a democracy? That we can threaten the status quo without bunches of ammuntion or, you know, killing people?
Governments screw with their people because they're not afraid enough.
So your solution to this is to be afraid of everyone?
Ok, while I feel that it IS important for each household to have some kind of self-defense weapon, all these gun nuts afraid that the government is going to come and steal their AK-47s- or worse, that they have to use their AK-47s to protect aborted babies or get the atheist muslims out of the white house- are worse than a few morons being elected.
Isn't that the whole point of a democracy? That we can threaten the status quo without bunches of ammuntion or, you know, killing people?
And such a wonderful and charming person to boot.Governments screw with their people because they're not afraid enough.
So your solution to this is to be afraid of everyone?
Ok, while I feel that it IS important for each household to have some kind of self-defense weapon, all these gun nuts afraid that the government is going to come and steal their AK-47s- or worse, that they have to use their AK-47s to protect aborted babies or get the atheist muslims out of the white house- are worse than a few morons being elected.
Isn't that the whole point of a democracy? That we can threaten the status quo without bunches of ammuntion or, you know, killing people?
I know that even a sneeze that sounds like "Ayn Rand" will probably throw some people into pitbull-mode, but I'm a fan anyway, and she was a pretty avid supporter of the democratic system.
You really want to go to North Korea over a spectacular copyright treaty?
North Korea has far far worse problems than copyright my friend.
Did you know that spell check does not recognize the word "craptacular"?...
Holy shit. That's astonishing. I knew SOPA would be tried again but I didn't expect it to happen a week after it was shelved with something that was created before SOPA. This is huge.
Well fuck... What cha doing over there US? Looks like you have a gun, is... is that thing loaded? Your are going to shoot yourself in the foot? And everybody else here too? Look I know times seem tough, what with the economic crisis and all, but there is no need to-The religion already exists, and is called Kopimi (pronounce Copy Me). It is even recognized by at least one country.
*Bam*
Why?!?!?
Ok but seriously now, if I make a new church and say that intellectual property theft is part of my religion, could I make a killing being the only person in the world who can afford to host an ISP?
I know that we all talked about SOPA and PIPA and now ACTA. But recently a friend of mine pointed me out to something pretty important.
ACTA in it's final version. Is mearly a treaty designed to allow those that sign it to gain the power to monitor everyone's actions on the net. But only, if they can pass a bill that can allow internet censorship.
So on it's own ACTA can do nothing.
However, if a bill passes through the government and becomes law. ACTA can be enforced based upon the bill that becomes law.
So in otherwords. ACTA is only as powerful as the bill that pass through congress and becomes law.
And this also means that SOPA and PIPA were the US's attempt to put laws in place to enforce ACTA when(and if) the European Parliment activates it.
Here's a link that explains it all.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of_acta_heres_what_you/
More or less, internet copyright censorship battles are far from over. Since our governments will try to put bills on the table to pass so they can apply ACTA to it.
So, what happens tomorrow, when it goes into effect?
Good night, Sweet Prince.So, what happens tomorrow, when it goes into effect?
Read the actual law? It's actually a lot scarier than people say. It's being signed tomorrow, it's going into effect the moment the EU can enforce it.
Low and behold, the age of free information is drawing to an end.
Don't we have script kiddies in guy fawks masks who normally protest this kind of stuff? Any word on their front?
Well fuck... What cha doing over there US? Looks like you have a gun, is... is that thing loaded? Your are going to shoot yourself in the foot? And everybody else here too? Look I know times seem tough, what with the economic crisis and all, but there is no need to-The religion already exists, and is called Kopimi (pronounce Copy Me). It is even recognized by at least one country.
*Bam*
Why?!?!?
Ok but seriously now, if I make a new church and say that intellectual property theft is part of my religion, could I make a killing being the only person in the world who can afford to host an ISP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_Church_of_Kopimism
How did this get in so fast and sneak under everyone's radars? I mean, the SOPA outrage was immense, it's hard to imagine something similar going unnoticed.
This is completely impossible to enforce, in any way.
This is just a tool for people who don't like what you're saying to get you, its censorship exactly.
I mean technically under this raywilliamjohnson could be censored since his entire video series shows clips of other videos.
But that probably won't happen because this is impossible to enforce, here's how it'll get used.
It'll be used as an "I gotchya" technique. The person filing a complaint doesn't even have to be the victim of copyright infringment (which is almost impossible NOT to do on the internet when you consider the hundreds of copies of reuploaded cat videos). If you uploaded one of those cat videos and also have a blog protesting pollution. They can get you for uploading that cat video and shut you down.
Well that doesn't have anything to do with pollution, haha too bad! You are a criminal, now everything you say is a lie, no wait sorry, everything you say was someone elses idea first.
This is basically when a cop pulls you over for something but can't prove it but also doesn't like you, he can get you on something else.
Censorship, because freedom is scary.
How did this get in so fast and sneak under everyone's radars? I mean, the SOPA outrage was immense, it's hard to imagine something similar going unnoticed.Wait, fast? ACTA's apparently been in the works for a bit more than half a decade, now. Started up in '06 with discussion between the states and Japan, according to the wiki page. And yeah, rest of world, you can apparently lay blame for this shit right on the shoulders of the states (And Japan, I suppose.).
Then there's the media industry lobbyist's motivation: they want a legal ability to shut down any threats to its business model and force all content to be produced and distributed through its channels, where it can be profited from.
How did this get in so fast and sneak under everyone's radars? I mean, the SOPA outrage was immense, it's hard to imagine something similar going unnoticed.Wait, fast? ACTA's apparently been in the works for a bit more than half a decade, now. Started up in '06 with discussion between the states and Japan, according to the wiki page. And yeah, rest of world, you can apparently lay blame for this shit right on the shoulders of the states (And Japan, I suppose.).
You guys just promise me you'll try not to do anything stupid, okay?
Sorry
I'm kinda surprised they're going through with it, concidering how much rage SOPA/PIPA got
I'm kinda surprised they're going through with it, concidering how much rage SOPA/PIPA got
Sorry
I'm kinda surprised they're going through with it, concidering how much rage SOPA/PIPA got
It was part of the plan all along. SOPA/PIPA are the triggers used to empower ACTA. Once ACTA in place, ANY law remotely similar to SOPA/PIPA will activate it. So once it is in place it will sit idle and silent until those who value freedom and knowledge make a mistake and let down their guard. But ACTA will lie in wait, lurking, waiting, scheming. It could be in a year, a decade or even a century but in the end we will lose unless ACTA can be broken and killed.
Sorry
I'm kinda surprised they're going through with it, concidering how much rage SOPA/PIPA got
It was part of the plan all along. SOPA/PIPA are the triggers used to empower ACTA. Once ACTA in place, ANY law remotely similar to SOPA/PIPA will activate it. So once it is in place it will sit idle and silent until those who value freedom and knowledge make a mistake and let down their guard. But ACTA will lie in wait, lurking, waiting, scheming. It could be in a year, a decade or even a century but in the end we will lose unless ACTA can be broken and killed.
And I think ACTA will most likely get passed due to the lack of coverage (compared to SOPA/PIPA).
Are we doomed?
Well ACTA is a treaty, right? Then SOPA/PIPA was mearly an attempt to enforce it, which failed and we can give resistance to any other attempt anywhere else
The lack of coverage is intentional. In the US the existence of ACTA was classified top secret for the longest time.Or for more clarification:
United States
Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration had rejected requests to make the text of ACTA public, with the White House saying that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security."[91] In 2009, Knowledge Ecology International filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request in the United States, but their entire request was denied. The Office of the United States Trade Representative's Freedom of Information office stated the request was withheld for being material "properly classified in the interest of national security."[92] US Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) penned a letter on 23 November 2009, asking the United States Trade Representative to make the text of the ACTA public.
Has anyone told you your continued role playing of this Character you pretend to be even during serious subjects is a tad annoying?
Oh ye, of little faith. Politicians are people too (though you personally seem to think them of some kind of black monolithic entity), therefore they will take the path of least resistance. They not going to risk getting kicked out of their money train by being hated.Well ACTA is a treaty, right? Then SOPA/PIPA was mearly an attempt to enforce it, which failed and we can give resistance to any other attempt anywhere else
Until something fundamental changes, this means making a massive push every few months for the foreseeable future to remind everyone in our government that we'll make hell if they actually do something like this. We fail once, and it's time to make good on that threat. If we fail to make good on the threat, then we've simply lost.
Personally, I don't think there's enough attention span in the public to fend this off forever. The law will come down on the internet eventually, and our reaction at that point will be what determines the final outcome.
Well ACTA is a treaty, right? Then SOPA/PIPA was mearly an attempt to enforce it, which failed and we can give resistance to any other attempt anywhere else
In general most laws are almost impossible to remove unless it comes before the supreme court and gets redefined, which don't happen often.
Ohhhhh fuck, who wants to join an information summgling business with me. We'll deal primarly in hard drives, CD's and floppy discs.I was being fucking serious about this, now who wants to help me or do have to get my IRL friends to do it with me?
One thing to note: There have been pushes now and then for an Internet Bill of Rights. There are several various drafts out there. The idea has been around for almost 15 years. If it were ever an idea to take seriously, now would be the time. It wouldn't be a final answer to the problem, but it would be an extra line of defense. Instead of clawing directly at the heart of the internet, there would be an outer shell they'd have to chip away first, the same way they're doing with those rights that we wrote for ourselves in meatspace.Hmm. Would it actually be possible to have the internet be legally considered a nation?
One thing to note: There have been pushes now and then for an Internet Bill of Rights. There are several various drafts out there. The idea has been around for almost 15 years. If it were ever an idea to take seriously, now would be the time. It wouldn't be a final answer to the problem, but it would be an extra line of defense. Instead of clawing directly at the heart of the internet, there would be an outer shell they'd have to chip away first, the same way they're doing with those rights that we wrote for ourselves in meatspace.Hmm. Would it actually be possible to have the internet be legally considered a nation?
Allowing you to do things on the internet but not in real life? ...uhh...
I'm surprised it's not illegal to keep these things secret so the public has little time to respond.
Like, really, that's bullshit to just keep it secret and pass it at the last second when it catches everyone by surprise.
Posting on this thread to see how this develops. Honestly, I can't think of anything to say. This is just plain evil. I mean, I didn't even know about ACTA until recently.
I'm surprised it's not illegal to keep these things secret so the public has little time to respond.
More then likely, this new internet regulation isn't going to be as terrible as it's being made out to be.
People will find work-arounds to get what they want.
People, download TOR and Freenet while you can. You may need them in the not so far future.n
So yeah, that's democracy in Europe.
In Dystopian Europe, corporations spy on whistleblowers!So yeah, that's democracy in Europe.
Several decades in the future, people will look back and make Soviet Russia jokes about Dystopian Europe.
In Dystopian Europe, corporations spy on whistleblowers!So yeah, that's democracy in Europe.
Several decades in the future, people will look back and make Soviet Russia jokes about Dystopian Europe.
Sorry, couldn't resist :P. Is ACTA in effect yet?
Sorry, couldn't resist :P. Is ACTA in effect yet?
Now, I should probably go screw around on YouTube for a bit, before all I get is a 'This webpage is no longer available' message.
Now, I should probably go screw around on YouTube for a bit, before all I get is a 'This webpage is no longer available' message.
I'm scared that I'll get hauled in for watching something that infringes copyright >_>
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, technically almost everyone who's posted in this thread can be persecuted under ACTA. That's how vague the laws are.
Not sure how not supporting any copyrighted material all March will help. Copyrights are important... about as important as revising copyright law is right now. We need to do it right, though, in a way that grows along with new technology (ex. the Internet) rather than runs at odds with it. ACTA does not achieve this, and instead diminishes the power of new technology to support business models never before possible, and fighting what could otherwise make media and culture widely accessible.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, technically almost everyone who's posted in this thread can be persecuted under ACTA. That's how vague the laws are.
Not sure how not supporting any copyrighted material all March will help. Copyrights are important... about as important as revising copyright law is right now.
Anyway, I'mma keep on Livestreaming, using Youtube, etc. If there comes a day when I am arrested for no other reason than doing the above, then may I be able to make a message of myself.
How will this affect Fair Use?The cartels do not recognize fair use as a thing that exists.
How will this affect Fair Use?
How will this affect Fair Use?
if your on about ACTA:
essentialy youll be able to use the net, but do one wrong thing, speak out in the wrong way, try find the wrong site or annoy someone and bam. Accusation of copyright theft, internet cut off, computer seized for an indefinate amount of time, all your files and online activitys searched through and your privacy violated by unsecure and unaccountable third partys. And should you have a single file that you shouldnt, theoreticaly you could be extrodited and tried in another country or shoved a hefty fine on you.
Fair Use will probably survive, since it covers a whole host of things that diverge significantly from the original content, like parody. In the US anyways.
But what's construed as Fair Use might shrink, and the ability of copyright holders to launch extra-legal countermeasures means they can preempt any legal challenge with their penalty. They can stick it to you even before the courts decide to hear your case to decide whether what you're doing is Fair Use or not. And so people decide they can't even risk being wrong to see where the boundaries are.
A 10 second clip from a 30 minute show, that you show during your news cast, is Fair Use. That's the part that is mostly likely to change because of this.
Showing a copyrighted image that you've doodled on, perhaps adding a funny mustache and some glasses, would be Fair Use and would probably still survive.
That's what the Chilling Effect is all about, people become unwilling to even risk it because the consequences, even in victory, are too severe. The old adage "It's easier to seek forgiveness than permission" would be in a sense be turned on its head.
Then it will face a legal challenge at some point here in American courts, guaranteed. People get verklemped about laws passing but if the EU is any example, the law being passed is just the beginning. Fair Use is vital to the news casting industry.
A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by means of a written notification to the Depositary*. The withdrawal shall take effect 180 days after the Depositary receives the notification.*The Depositary being the government of Japan.
1. This Agreement shall enter into force thirty days after the date of deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval.
2. This Agreement shall enter into force for each Signatory that deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval after the deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval, thirty days after the date of deposit by such Signatory of its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.
Well lads. If your up for doing anything im all with you, i have tor, i can easily help out. But unless someone has a good idea how to deal with this, then im not going to be able to do much.
BRB, investing in grappling hook, combat boots, and... what was the last thing? Right, a long red bandana.
Wait, has this "thing" been passed im Amercia yet, if so then shhhiiiiiiiitttttttttt.America and Australia signed it in September >:(
Good luck europemens, we'll be cheering for you... ...from behind iron bars.If Europe votes no America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand will have to opt out as well, or so that is the desired hope. China and Singapore, not so certain about, Singaporeans have not been known to be concerned with the internet, and China already have existing censorship laws.
If Europe votes no America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand will have to opt out as well, or so that is the desired hope.My goodness! What do you guys need to get them to say no? Food? Guns? Our money--which will likely put us further into debt? Our souls?
China and Singapore, not so certain about, Singaporeans have not been known to be concerned with the internet, and China already have existing censorship laws.I've never really heard about Singapore sites, so I'd say Singapore wouldn't even be bothered. China... China is already pretty bad and pretty far gone as far as I can tell with their Great Firewall.
Can't people like get together and...counter lobby?Yes, but sitting on your ass is much more convenient. The average citizen just doesn't care enough until it's too late.
Spreading word of ACTA probably isn't going to help much. We need a much more efficient way of telling the government "Fuck you, we will not stand for this censorship". Something tells me peaceful protest just isn't going to cut it anymore :(
Wow, this f**king sucks.
If the Europeans protest peacefully, will they listen to the public at all? I mean, this stupid law was in the making tons of years prior, and seemed to be a fallback for SOPA/PIPA, in case those stupid laws didn't get passed and were shelved.
I can only hope...
Protests won't do s**t anymore, IMO. Riots will, but it only has a small chance of changing things.
We're f**ked if we can't find a nice and efficient way of telling people to oppose this madness.
China and Singapore, not so certain about, Singaporeans have not been known to be concerned with the internet, and China already have existing censorship laws.I've never really heard about Singapore sites, so I'd say Singapore wouldn't even be bothered. China... China is already pretty bad and pretty far gone as far as I can tell with their Great Firewall.
Can't people like get together and...counter lobby?
Can't people like get together and...counter lobby?Yes, but sitting on your ass is much more convenient. The average citizen just doesn't care enough until it's too late.
Protests won't do s**t anymore, IMO. Riots will, but it only has a small chance of changing things.
We're f**ked if we can't find a nice and efficient way of telling people to oppose this madness.
Can't people like get together and...counter lobby?
Any day now, a war-hardened revolutionary from the future is going to arrive in a time machine and slap the pen out of someone's hand before they can sign ACTA. Then they will regale us with stories of the dark dystopian future they come from, ravaged by a great conflict known to them only as "The Copyright Wars". You'll see.
You know, maybe rioting isn't the best way to demonstrate? I myself agree fullheartedly with the "demonization" of violent riots- the London Riots for instance had a lot of looting and arson/
Wow, when bay12 starts to look at rioting as an option, I honestly feel a little insecure. I mean the internet is 90% retarded, and I would expect that 90% to resort to rioting given any chance they could, and then there is bay12, the 10% of the 10% who are pretty fucking left wing, humanitarian, and generally against needless violence. This must be worse than first thought if we are running that low on options.It would only be an option when no options are left. It probably wouldn't even be viable if there were no other options anyways. But ACTA is ridiculous.
I mean excuse the expression, but shit just got real.
I have a feeling that the media might be slightly pro government.
It's times like these that tend to confuse me. Where I can't tell if the governments are made up of sinister masterminds with everything figured out, or idiots who have no idea what the hell they're doing...It's made of sinister masterminds with everything figured out controlling idiots who have no idea what the hell they're doing.
I am sincerely interested in seeing how they enforce this law.
I am sincerely interested in seeing how they enforce this law.
Simple, they ignore it until they find a website they want to burn, then use it to take them down.
What, you thought they were going to try and police the entire internet? Not likely, only things they don't like that they can't take down through other means.
I mean fuck, did you know Cadbury has copy write on a specific shade of purple? They could take down your site for using the wrong color, but nobody is going to sit there checking the hex codes of every web page! Instead they find something they hate, and comb over it for any minute detail and use it against you.
I must agree with everyone that rioting won't do anything. But when you're out of options, what else could you do?
Note that I totally abhor riots, since they bring more problems to the table than solutions (and may even kill others).
I hope we can find a solution out of this mess that doesn't involve rioting. SOPA had enough time for publicity, and was prevented from becoming law because of that. But this one just suddenly woke up from the grave, announced that it'll become law in a few days without warning and suddenly got signed by the UK.
We must find a way to stop the other governments doing the same.
Can't people like get together and...counter lobby?
I think a lot more can be said by standing in front of a tank than attacking it.
However, the MEP said ACTA would have an impact on civil liberties, ISPs' responsibilities and the manufacturing of generic drugs.Did I miss something?
Ah, I see.
So you mean we are also fighting large pharmaceutics? Son of a...
French MEP quits ACTA 'charade' in protest at EU signing (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/mep-quits-acta-charade-in-protest-at-eu-signing-10025297/)
He's also been rather nervous lately. Several of their most profitable drugs have patents set to expire soon, and they don't have any good breakthroughs in the pipeline anytime soon. There's been a lot of tension in the corporate side of things lately, because they expect a major drop in profits.This is how the system is supposed to work, though - you aren't supposed to keep profiting off the same stuff - you make progress, or you die (economically, of course), making room for those who are managing to create new stuff and giving them additional resources to work with based off your expired patents. That's how the incentive structure works.
QuoteHe's also been rather nervous lately. Several of their most profitable drugs have patents set to expire soon, and they don't have any good breakthroughs in the pipeline anytime soon. There's been a lot of tension in the corporate side of things lately, because they expect a major drop in profits.This is how the system is supposed to work, though - you aren't supposed to keep profiting off the same stuff - you make progress, or you die (economically, of course), making room for those who are managing to create new stuff and giving them additional resources to work with based off your expired patents. That's how the incentive structure works.
If they can't figure out how to make new stuff, the solution isn't to let them keep making profits - it's to let them go out of business, because their benefit to society has ended.
Sort of makes me want to go see what 4chan is up to.
Then I remember that I have no interest in seeing what 4chan is up to, and are happy to watch the aftermath... Still, they must be having a party!
Hilariously, every masked member of Anonymous is paying funds directly into the pockets of Time Warner by buying their licensed V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes masks.
I don't hate Anonymous. Not in the least. But it is INCREDIBLY ironic that they're protesting bigmedia while wearing something purchased directly from one of the biggest companies.Sort of makes me want to go see what 4chan is up to.
Then I remember that I have no interest in seeing what 4chan is up to, and are happy to watch the aftermath... Still, they must be having a party!
As I recall, one of the ACTA threads turned into a flame war, that turned into a thread about orange soda. Meanwhile, the useful parts of 4chan are pissed, and talks of riots, demonstrations and other means of protest are ongoing.Hilariously, every masked member of Anonymous is paying funds directly into the pockets of Time Warner by buying their licensed V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes masks.
Unless they buy Guy Fawkes masks, and not V ones. Or if they don't buy them from Time Warner. Also, try to stay on topic, this is about ACTA not who likes/hates anonymous :/
I don't hate Anonymous. Not in the least. But it is INCREDIBLY ironic that they're protesting bigmedia while wearing something purchased directly from one of the biggest companies.
And no, you cannot find a plain Guy Fawkes mask anymore basically anywhere outside of maybe the UK itself. They're ALL licensed V for Vendetta masks.
Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
QuoteMandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
...wait, what? 0_o
We need Anonymous to get its act together and start publicizing darknet. We can outrun the aging government.
Europe has begun arresting ACTA protestersReally? What freaking jerks.
Europe has begun arresting ACTA protesters
Europe didn't complain, they were pressured by its citizens to defend people who's human rights were threatened, and proceeded to wage war. Guess what, now it's Europe vs it's citizens. Don't blame us. Also, reports of American websites being taken down, though I cannot confirm this whatsoever, and I believe it to be false.Europe has begun arresting ACTA protesterswelp, fuck this government, and fuck those arsewipes that think censoring the internet is good.
I bet they'll all get voted out.
also, protesters get arrested?
and you complain about other dictators doing the same, europe?
hypocrite much?
Also, the image is 404'd.
Propaganda has won in the past, and if we let it it could win again.
Europe didn't complain, they were pressured by its citizens to defend people who's human rights were threatened, and proceeded to wage war. Guess what, now it's Europe vs it's citizens....Is it? This seems like hyperbole to say the least.
If this shit doesn't cause violent rebellion in at least some countries, then fuck this. I have lost all faith in mankind.Why should it cause violent rebellion when the majority of people aren't necessarily gonna be affected by ACTA?
Sadly not :(Europe didn't complain, they were pressured by its citizens to defend people who's human rights were threatened, and proceeded to wage war. Guess what, now it's Europe vs it's citizens....Is it? This seems like hyperbole to say the least.
In November 2008, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) requested secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents from the EU Council, specifically naming 12 documents to be published. The request was denied by the EU council, stating that "disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations, would weaken the position of the European Union in these negotiations and might affect relations with the third parties concerned".
Sadly not :(...Nope, it really is hyperbole. Firstly because Europe isn't a country and any crackdowns on ACTA protests are fairly localised. Secondly because the majority of people don't care about ACTA because they don't use the internet that much. Sure, it might be important to us, but not everyone shares our hobbies.
Although I also agree, I don't see worldwide rebellion over this matter any time soon. What's the point of human rights if humanity is dead :/
Sadly not :(...Nope, it really is hyperbole. Firstly because Europe isn't a country and any crackdowns on ACTA protests are fairly localised. Secondly because the majority of people don't care about ACTA because they don't use the internet that much. Sure, it might be important to us, but not everyone shares our hobbies.
Although I also agree, I don't see worldwide rebellion over this matter any time soon. What's the point of human rights if humanity is dead :/
Sure, and I am against ACTA, but I can see why most people wouldn't care, and can't really blame them for not caring.
Sure, and I am against ACTA, but I can see why most people wouldn't care, and can't really blame them for not caring.
The only excuse I can see would be ignorance.
Why are some of you hoping for violence? I don't get it. Deciding to kill a bunch of people would be worse than ACTA.>Implies we've been promoting rioting, killing and violence.
Why are some of you hoping for violence? I don't get it. Deciding to kill a bunch of people would be worse than ACTA.
Why are some of you hoping for violence? I don't get it. Deciding to kill a bunch of people would be worse than ACTA.Because it feels like there's no other option. No other way of getting the point across. Non-violent protest is being ignored or bypassed.
There's also the hope that a little violence now will prevent a lot of violence later. It's never a good thing with civil rights abuses are allowed time to settle in to the bureaucracy and societal norms. That makes getting rid of the abuses that much more difficult. That the abuses in question are intent on damaging what's more or less the best damn invention our species has managed so far just makes things worse.
And so it is, that the information age comes to its knees and rioting and violence become the voice of the common man, when everything else has turned a blind eye. And what bought about this state of anarchy? Not kings, nor generals, nor gods themselves, but the very information we prized, being covenanted by those that see it as not enlightenment, but a commodity.[/i]
And so it is, that the information age comes to its knees and rioting and violence become the voice of the common man, when everything else has turned a blind eye. And what bought about this state of anarchy? Not kings, nor generals, nor gods themselves, but the very information we prized, being covenanted by those that see it as not enlightenment, but a commodity.[/i]
Totally read this in Morgan Freeman's voice xD
Get out of my mind.And so it is, that the information age comes to its knees and rioting and violence become the voice of the common man, when everything else has turned a blind eye. And what bought about this state of anarchy? Not kings, nor generals, nor gods themselves, but the very information we prized, being covenanted by those that see it as not enlightenment, but a commodity.[/i]
Totally read this in Morgan Freeman's voice xD
Ron Perlman for me.And so it is, that the information age comes to its knees and rioting and violence become the voice of the common man, when everything else has turned a blind eye. And what bought about this state of anarchy? Not kings, nor generals, nor gods themselves, but the very information we prized, being covenanted by those that see it as not enlightenment, but a commodity.[/i]
Totally read this in Morgan Freeman's voice xD
Ron Perlman for me.And so it is, that the information age comes to its knees and rioting and violence become the voice of the common man, when everything else has turned a blind eye. And what bought about this state of anarchy? Not kings, nor generals, nor gods themselves, but the very information we prized, being covenanted by those that see it as not enlightenment, but a commodity.[/i]
Totally read this in Morgan Freeman's voice xD
Maybe I can help you out a little...
War. War never changes...
Having spent much of the day reading up on Orwell, I read Aqizzar's post as:That's infringement. Criminal.And so it is, that the information age comes to its knees and rioting and violence become the voice of the common man, when everything else has turned a blind eye. And what bought about this state of anarchy? Not kings, nor generals, nor gods themselves, but the very information we prized, being covenanted by those that see it as not enlightenment, but a commodity.[/i]Totally read this in Morgan Freeman's voice xD
Control the media, control the mind.
Yay, lets remove the last standing good source of information the world has, and turn it into another profit venue.