ACTA to be signed tomorrow by gov.

Gman1

So the Irish government are to sign ACTA tomorrow. Its bad enough that Sean Sherlock was bringing in a SOPA style law, we now have to combat against ACTA which is 10 times worse!

More info here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-and-eu-to-sign-controversial-acta-treaty-tomorrow-336764-Jan2012/

ACTA Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d4qhmzjATg

There is a protest tomorrow outside the Dail at 12.30. Join if you can.
https://www.facebook.com/events/322868877751259/

http://www.reddit.com/r/ACTA/comments/owt14/demonstrations_against_acta_in_ireland_26_january/

John Doe1

Right lads, get the gunpowder and meet me underneath parliament

Mickey H

John Doe1 wrote: »

Right lads, get the gunpowder and meet me underneath parliament

I'll bring the matches.

Run_to_da_hills

It's finally come.

It doesn't seem like two years ago.

ACTA.......is ready to attack your IPOD

ejmaztec

I hope my knock-off AK47 doesn't fail me when everything kicks off.

Bullchomper

I'll press that button on the luas...

Stereomaniac

For anything to change, these jokes need to not be. People need to start taking action now.

Dannyboi3k

Looks like its too late to do anything if its being signed tomorrow?

Run_to_da_hills

Under the ACTA agreement customs officials could nab you for the unauthorised content of your Laptop, IPhone, Ipod, MP3 player etc

Dannyboi3k

Hmm.. guess everyones laptop/ipod/iphone/mp3 player/PC etc is gonna be nabbed so.

Digital / Virtual dictatorship.

Bye Bye freedom...

Doc Ruby

Names of the signatories please, I'd like to remind people who not to vote for in future.

Loud and often.

Dannyboi3k

Modern day Nazi-ism

Overheal

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It's finally come.

It doesn't seem like two years ago.

ACTA.......is ready to attack your IPOD

Oh my goodness. My post in that thread means... I may have to eat my own shoe.

I was right though, It was nowhere near time to panic about it 27 months ago. But you'd hear about it every once in a while until up to this last months when you can't get away from it.

I wouldn't necessarily wait until tomorrow to start protesting, or at the very least start protesting bright and early, you want to get there before the politicians do.

AlmightyCushion

Dannyboi3k wrote: »

Modern day Nazi-ism

Oh no, he's far worse than hitler. You wouldn't have hitler trying to kill the internet.

Doc Ruby

Overheal wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily wait until tomorrow to start protesting, or at the very least start protesting bright and early, you want to get there before the politicians do.

Too late for that. What you want is for it to be known that every name signed on that piece of paper is the end of a political career.

Always time for that.

Overheal

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Too late for that. What you want is for it to be known that every name signed on that piece of paper is the end of a political career.

Always time for that.

^Everyone should repost this among their social media.

Stereomaniac

Woah Doc, this is HEAVY!

Lone Stone

They have awoke the DRAGON :mad:

PseudoFamous

Well, fuck.

There really seems to be no transparency when it comes to internet dealings by the government. We should really set up a website designed to alert Irish people of upcoming legislation and the potential dangers.

Gman1

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Well, fuck.

There really seems to be no transparency when it comes to internet dealings by the government. We should really set up a website designed to alert Irish people of upcoming legislation and the potential dangers.

The potential danger is the government.

They want to bring in these internet laws because
Major entertainment companies are losing money with an extinct business model and to stop the ability of the people to rise up against governments. Like twitter/facebook was used in the arab spring.

quietriot

Dannyboi3k wrote: »

Hmm.. guess everyones laptop/ipod/iphone/mp3 player/PC etc is gonna be nabbed so.

Digital / Virtual dictatorship.

Bye Bye freedom...

You say as though you have a right to pirate other people's creative content?

If you steal from a shop and make it out undetected, that doesn't make the goods you've stolen your property. If you're subsequently caught with said stolen goods, you'll be charged as per the law.

It doesn't magically change just because the product you're stealing isn't a physical entity.

Gman1

quietriot wrote: »

You say as though you have a right to pirate other people's creative content?

If you steal from a shop and make it out undetected, that doesn't make the goods you've stolen your property. If you're subsequently caught with said stolen goods, you'll be charged as per the law.

It doesn't magically change just because the product you're stealing isn't a physical entity.

The only problems I can see with that is how do they prove your media is copyright infringing?

Are you guilty and then have to show receipts, money transfer info to prove you bought the media?
Or do they have to prove its obtained illegally?

I can guarantee, they wont have to prove anything. It will be up to you to prove you bought it.

WindSock

And I only just finished finally downloading a car

ilovesleep

What does this mean?

I buy my music from itunes

Doc Ruby

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Woah Doc, this is HEAVY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA7T7ffE0mM&feature=youtu.be&t=13s

Gman1

WindSock wrote: »

And I only just finished finally downloading a car

http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-wants-you-to-really-download-a-car-120124/

Soon! :P

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0126/1224310756875.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0126/1224310756861.html

quietriot

Gman1 wrote: »

The only problems I can see with that is how do they prove your media is copyright infringing?

Are you guilty and then have to show receipts, money transfer info to prove you bought the media?
Or do they have to prove its obtained illegally?

I can guarantee, they wont have to prove anything. It will be up to you to prove you bought it.

Well obviously it should always be a case of innocent until proven guilty. There is absolutely no need for you to be carrying receipts around with you to validate the content on your ipod, it is up for them to determine a non-invasive way to find pirated content and to be honest, I'm sure they'll absolutely struggle to do so.

I'd imagine a lot of it is scaremongering anyway. Implementing more hassle at the airport on behalf of the music industry would kick up a **** storm with the EU. I mean, tourists would then have to bring proof their content is legit also, which immediately would prevent such a thing being implemented as we're not going to do anything more to damage the tourist industry at the moment.

These laws are worthy of concern, absolutely, but I think a lot of people are kicking up a fuss merely because they don't want to be stopped infringing on the rights of creative content producers.

Mr Trade In

Anonymous and anyone with a V(Guy Fawkes) mask will have a busy day ahead of them tomorrow.

quietriot

Mr Trade In wrote: »

Anonymous and anyone with a V(Guy Fawkes) mask will have a busy day ahead of them tomorrow.

ANYONE?!

*scrambles to hide halloween costume*

Well, I guess it is the same group that essentially made a lot of innocent people part of their crimes in DDOS'ing governmental computers the world wide...

PseudoFamous

Victor wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0126/1224310756875.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0126/1224310756861.html

And this, this is the very reason that the media are untrustworthy.

Gman1

Mr Trade In wrote: »

Anonymous and anyone with a V(Guy Fawkes) mask will have a busy day ahead of them tomorrow.

Forbidden Planet sell them for a fiver!

buzzerxx

the super rich keep getting paid by the dopey workers,aib keeps paying the bond holders,even though they invested in non secured bonds,which means they should NOT be paid the billions they wherewhen the banks sank
the stinkiun robbing politicians are in with tyhe bond holders and laughing at the workers,?????makes me want to see them greedy bastards die

lugha

quietriot wrote: »

You say as though you have a right to pirate other people's creative content?

If you steal from a shop and make it out undetected, that doesn't make the goods you've stolen your property. If you're subsequently caught with said stolen goods, you'll be charged as per the law.

It doesn't magically change just because the product you're stealing isn't a physical entity.

I’d agree with that sentiment. I get the distinct impression that it is not because of a deficiency in any particular law that seeks to protect copyrights that angst people so
but the fact of the them. People get real comfy with their freebies and are reluctant to give them up.


I wonder what kind of copyright protection laws they would favour?

Darius.Tr

lugha wrote: »

I wonder what kind of copyright protection laws they would favour?

I dont think we would like any of them

quietriot

lugha wrote: »

I wonder what kind of copyright protection laws they would favour?

Darius.Tr wrote: »

I dont think we would like any of them

Yep, and so long as this attitude exists, the Governments of the world are going to pursue over-zealous legislation to prevent it.

I mean, the Government are there to protect the people, including those creating content. They're having their infringed upon, with no punishment being issued to those breaking the law and infringing on their rights, like no other section of Western society.

People can make up whatever excuses they want or justify it however they want, at the end of the day laws are being broken and individuals are suffering as a consequence. It's not surreal to see legislators saying enough is enough.

The key is to get balanced legislation in place and enforced to punish those who feel they've a right to break the laws simply because they can, whilst protecting the freedom to valuable, uncensored resources like the internet for those who adhere to the law.

You have to laugh though, the people bleating about these laws would be quick to outrage if they created something and found someone to be infringing on their copyright of that creation.

PseudoFamous

quietriot wrote: »

People can make up whatever excuses they want or justify it however they want, at the end of the day laws are being broken and individuals are suffering as a consequence. It's not surreal to see legislators saying enough is enough.

Who is suffering, and for what reason? Third party Stats and citations are needed to verify your claims.

jmc19

With all these new laws being introduced, will it have a knock-on effect with broadband providers seeing a lot of their customers downgrading their packages?

Darius.Tr

Yup the balance must be found...I couldn't afford to download music legaly or watch any movies, I'm not even gonna talk about all the software that I'd have to pay for, It would cost me a fortune to buy all of what i am using at the moment.

PseudoFamous

jmc19 wrote: »

With all these new laws being introduced, will it have a knock-on effect with broadband providers seeing a lot of their customers downgrading their packages?

No, with the introduction of cheap and convenient high quality services such as Netflix and Steam, it's fair to assume that a higher standard of broadband delivery will be demanded.

quietriot

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Who is suffering, and for what reason? Third party Stats and citations are needed to verify your claims.

Seriously?

If I make a song and upload it to itunes, someone buys it for .99c and then uploads it to a torrent or file sharing site, where 100 people download it, I'm not suffering or at a loss?

Surely that makes sense, and we're all aware of the amount of illegal file sharing of music alone that takes place every day online.

I don't really believe it needs to be spelled out any further. The same goes for all types of creative content. When created, the author/creator has several rights included in copyright and when these rights are infringed upon with regards to a good the author is charging for, they are losing out.

Not spelling it out any more, it's incredibly obvious and I'm not going to enter a debate with someone trying to justify people infringing on the copyright of content creators as they're merely just trying to convince themselves that what they're doing is right over everything else.

Darius.Tr wrote: »

Yup the balance must be found...I couldn't afford to download music legaly or watch any movies, I'm not even gonna talk about all the software that I'd have to pay for, It would cost me a fortune to buy all of what i am using at the moment.

Yep, I'm sure a huge number are in the same boat. Unfortunately though, piracy is probably sealing the fate of some smaller companies who may have succeeded if their products received more income, aiding the continuing flow of job losses, etc.

I dislike the whole "the industry should adapt or f*ck off, man" attitude people are taking also. It's not the industry who are breaking the law. Sure, the industry need to tackle new ways of distributing media, however that's not for the people who'll never pay for it to insist.

Enforce the law and then let the industry do what it wants or inevitably fail. Accepting law breaking and expecting the industry to combat it in a non-legislative way is ridiculous.

Kirby

quietriot wrote: »

Seriously?

If I make a song and upload it to itunes, someone buys it for .99c and then uploads it to a torrent or file sharing site, where 100 people download it, I'm not suffering or at a loss? .

No, you are not at a loss. Those 100 people never had any intention of buying your song in the first place. They download it because its free and for the same reason a dog licks its own arse. Because they can. Are they getting something for free? Yes. Are you losing money? No.

Avatar was the most pirated movie of 2010. I think it did pretty well. It may have made billions or something. I'm not sure...........

There may have been this modern warfare game thingy-majiggy. It may have been pirated like mad. It also may have made billions. Although I wouldn't know.

And thats another issue anyway. We aren't talking about piracy. We are talking about copyright infringement. They aren't the same.

Darius.Tr

I understan the whole copyrights thing, but in the end it's not up to us to decide what will happen..I highly doubt that the whole piracy thing will ever get solved, as people will come up with new ways to share their files...

quietriot

Kirby wrote: »

No, you are not at a loss. Those 100 people never had any intention of buying your song in the first place. They download it because its free and for the same reason a dog licks its own arse. Because they can. Are they getting something for free? Yes. Are you losing money? No.

That does not make the cut I'm afraid and is a weak/completely null argument. They infringed on a copywritten product that is being sold for money and some will have re-distributed it themselves also. The law is broken and those people should be liable for the amount of money they owe the person whose content's copyright they have infringed on. Re-distributors of pirated content should face even heavier punishment.

Who are you to say why someone downloads something? There is a lot of content available on the internet, why don't they download EVERYTHING? Oh, because they just download what they're interested in? Well, those products have a price and if they're interested they can either pay it or for go it.

Thankfully, the law and moral code is on my side in this and your internet activist excuse tripe wouldn't stand up in the worst court in the worst of the countries.

Avatar was the most pirated movie of 2010. I think it did pretty well. It may have made billions or something. I'm not sure...........

There may have been this modern warfare game thingy-majiggy. It may have been pirated like mad. It also may have made billions. Although I wouldn't know.

Yes and they would have made even more had they not been pirated. Even a 1% increase in sales would be another ten million per million in revenue. How much can $10,000,000 produce, in terms of goods, services and jobs? A f*cking lot, and piracy has prevented that, at the very least.

And thats another issue anyway. We aren't talking about piracy. We are talking about copyright infringement. They aren't the same.

Yes it is, that is exactly what it is and in saying that, you've shown you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not even the smallest iota of a clue, so I'm certainly not engaging you on the matter until you at least know what copyright is, and the rights it extends and protects for content creators.

I'll give you a hint: it's found in any good law book. Best of luck with your research.

quietriot

Darius.Tr wrote: »

I understan the whole copyrights thing, but in the end it's not up to us to decide what will happen..I highly doubt that the whole piracy thing will ever get solved, as people will come up with new ways to share their files...

Oh absolutely, but active legislation will at least cut it down a bit.

A lot of people got a fright over pirates getting fined previously and it aided the boom of things like itunes.

I'd even go so far as to say a lot of this legislation is merely to scare people off piracy, a big "IF" in their face that they won't want to deal with so they'll just go to itunes and get their stuff cheap there.

Determined people will always find a will/way, but the lay person will be affected by this and a lot might finally just say enough is enough and move on.

Kirby

quietriot wrote: »

Yes it is, that is exactly what it is and in saying that, you've shown you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not even the smallest iota of a clue, so I'm certainly not engaging you on the matter until you at least know what copyright is, and the rights it extends and protects for content creators.

I'll give you a hint: it's found in any good law book. Best of luck with your research.

Ill explain simply and succinctly how you are wrong and haven't got the foggiest idea about what this discussion is about.

Lets say I decide to pirate Avatar. I upload it to the internet and allow 20 million people to download it. This is Piracy.

Now lets say I do a video review of the Movie Avatar and how much I like/hate it on youtube and use a song from the Avatar movie in the background. This is Copyright Infringement.

There is a difference between the two and if you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.

Darius.Tr

"Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exlusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivate works. It often refers to copying intellectual property without the creator's written permission."

I'we looked into avatar's gross earnings, it was $2,783,918,982 . So lets say they lost even 1% of this sum of money due to copying their movie illegaly, its still a huge lump of money lost...I'd be mad aswell if I'd have lost that much.

Kirby

Darius.Tr wrote: »

"Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright."
.

This is exactly the definition of my youtube example. Unauthorized use of the song. This is copyright infringement. People might "often refer to" piracy as copyright infringement but that would be inaccurate.

quietriot

Kirby wrote: »

Ill explain simply and succinctly how you are wrong and haven't got the foggiest idea about what this discussion is about.

Lets say I decide to pirate Avatar. I upload it to the internet and allow 20 million people to download it. This is Piracy.

Kirby wrote: »

Now lets say I do a video review of the Movie Avatar and how much I like/hate it on youtube and use a song from the Avatar movie in the background. This is Copyright Infringement.

There is a difference between the two and if you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.

Wow, I'm astounded.

Ok kiddy, I'm going to quote the copyright laws here in Ireland and what they cover and explain it for you, as it frightens me that such you can sit with pride of such ignorance.

Ok, lets look at the Copyright and Related Acts, 2000. We're going to focus on Chapter 4, section 37 which details the rights of the copyright owner.

37.—(1) Subject to the exceptions specified in Chapter 6 and to any provisions relating to licensing in this Part, the owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to undertake or authorise others to undertake all or any of the following acts, namely:
(a) to copy the work;
(b) to make available to the public the work;
(c) to make an adaptation of the work or to undertake either of the acts referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) in relation to an adaptation,
and those acts shall be known and in this Act referred to as “acts restricted by copyright”.

Now, so what do we take from this Kirby? We know that when I, as a content creator, I have the exclusive right to copy my work, make it available and to change my product as I see fit. I also am allowed to give authority to others to do these things.

Let's look a little further:

The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner undertakes, or authorises another to undertake, any of the acts restricted by copyright.

Ok, so if someone carries out any of the above things, they've infringed upon my copyright. Remember now,I hold full right over the copying, adaptation, reproduction, making available of, distribution of and rental and leasing of my work.

Ok so lets take your example:

Lets say I decide to pirate Avatar. I upload it to the internet and allow 20 million people to download it. This is Piracy.

In this example, you have copied my product without my permission and made it available to the public, again without my permission. You have infringed upon my copyright in more than two ways alone.

Piracy is copyright infringement and the fact that you don't understand that is pretty terrible, since you're so adamant that you're right here.

Read the Copyright and Related Act 2000 starting here, at Chapter 4
It'll give you some idea of the concept you are talking about and which you currently appear to have absolutely zero understanding of. If you can't make sense of the quoted legislation then don't bother replying, you're wasting your own time and the time of anyone who reads your ill-informed drivel.

Kirby

Mate, I've had a look at your posts in After Hours in the last few minutes and I would wind it back a bit.

Between this thread, the "Was Jesus a Gay" and "Do we actually have complete 'freedom' " threads you are heading for trouble. It is possible to be polite while debating a point.

Personally, I feel there is a large difference between a simple youtube video that may infringe copyright and pirating 20 million copies of a movie. You seem to cling to your legislation and let that guide your morals. I don't agree.

quietriot

Kirby wrote: »

This is exactly the definition of my youtube example. Unauthorized use of the song. This is copyright infringement. People might "often refer to" piracy as copyright infringement but that would be inaccurate.

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Piracy

Piracy and copyright infringement are the exact same thing. The fact that you continue to assert otherwise shows nothing but stubbornness and sheer ignorance. You're on the internet, there is a plethora of resources available to check before trying to state something as fact.