Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Hello Devon, To be honest if I purchased a DVD of a film I purchased the rights to watch the content of that IE: the film. In reality as I purchased the rights to watch that film does it really matter how I watch it. I believe that ACTA is to protect against counterfeit Goods for which I cant agree that this would then come under as there is no gain to be made by anyone except for the company I legitimately purchased the DVD film from. All I have done is transfered the film from one media to another for my own personal use, and I believe in this country thats why they are changing the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiflyer 129 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Hello Devon, To be honest if I purchased a DVD of a film I purchased the rights to watch the content of that IE: the film. In reality as I purchased the rights to watch that film does it really matter how I watch it. I believe that ACTA is to protect against counterfeit Goods for which I cant agree that this would then come under as there is no gain to be made by anyone except for the company I legitimately purchased the DVD film from. All I have done is transfered the film from one media to another for my own personal use, and I believe in this country thats why they are changing the law. Under ACTA, Chapter 2, Section 4 on "Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in the Digital Environment" there is discussion of "some of the special challenges that new technologies pose for enforcement of intellectual property rights." including "the circumvention of technological protection measures" When you transfer film or music, there is usually no way to do so without using software that circumvents DRM (thus violating the EULA as well) And treaty signatory's agree to ACTA definitions of piracy in that regard. Those definitions are broad; really really broad. (read section 2, general definitions paragraph K of the released agreement) Above and beyond that, Articles 5 and 6 of the treaty provide creation of an "ACTA committee" which may make "subsequent amendments to the agreement" for which "Public review or judicial review will not be needed" Defination of policy laundering ACTA is legislation laundering on an international level of what would be very difficult to get through most Parliaments. —Stavros Lambrinidis, Member of European Parliament, S and D, Greece So now you also have a moving target, driven by "Industry representatives" with "consolatory input to amendments" whose agenda (SOPA/PIPA) is already quite clear. The thing to remember here is that in the US, these IP laws were also originally claimed to be targeted at wide scale counterfeiting rings, but over time that was modified to include private individuals, hence the thousands of RIAA lawsuits. Similarly you are right, ACTA was initially concerned with the counterfeit of physical goods, but has since suffered from incremental "mission creep" to the point that it now incorporates all intellectual property. Meanwhile one might wonder what exactly drove the European Parliament's appointed investigator on ACTA to call the whole thing a "Charade" and quit in protest siting among other reasons "unprecedented maneuvers' and backroom dealings which saw the proposed agreement rushed to avoid the public being alerted to its content - depriving Parliament of its right of expression and stopping it carrying out the demands of its citizens." Here is what Forbes magazine has to say. Again this will affect websites, just like this one. Some things have been very recently watered down, but there is no guarantee at all that they will not return as "amendments" EDIT: Quick update on a fast moving story. It seems the protests, blogging and etc have had an effect! http://www.forbes.co...us-on-ip-rules/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Hello Devon, Well I honestly think that if they tried to take an individual to court for copying media they already purchased and owned from one type of media to another I think it would basically not entertain it as the simple question would be, "And how much revenue have you lost through this persons actions" answer, "None" so If I were the judge I would say, "So what are you doing in my courtroom". At the end of the day common sense prevails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert S 75 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Bear in mind, that with these proposed measures, as with all prior laws regarding copyright protection, the intent isn't to go after "the little guy". The probability that you will have your iPad or iPhone seized to examine content is virtually non-existent...imagine the man-power and time consuming process that would be involved? And as Shaun points out, they would be battling the use to fair right laws, and if you can prove that you legally own the blu ray or DVD or CD etc then it becomes even harder to prosecute...too time consuming. Sure, the verbiage might be in there just to make it ironclad, but the "intent" of the law will be and always has been to go after illegal distributors of large amounts of copyrighted material, or those that download massive amounts of it. And that enforcement will come from ISP forensics, not end user device inspections. It's a bit like speeding laws: yes you can get pulled over for travelling faster than the posted limit, but they'd be pulling over just about everyone...not feasible. They're after the ones going at least 10 to 15 over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geddy_2112 99 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 At the end of the day common sense prevails. Unfortunatley Common sense is no longer that common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiflyer 129 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Shaun and Robert S; I would provisionally agree with you on the grounds of common sense. At the same time, I would look at the implementation/evolution of these laws in the United States where there is a noted tendency to legislate the cost of implementation on others such as ISP's as Robert S noted. I don't believe in the individual device search yet, either. But just the power these laws grants creates a chilling effect where the costs of even being accused of infringement (much less actually being found guilty) can be so damaging that "proactive" compliance becomes the norm. The lawsuits brought by the RIAA against targeted individuals are a perfect template for this sort of action. Faced with stiff penalties, individuals were simply too frightened to fight back, though when they did, the RIAA often hastily backed away, since actually putting the law to a test was not in their best interest. We can debate intent, but many believe just allowing the tools to exist creates the precedent for acceptance and further expansion. In the meantime, on the non-private front, a chilling effect is already rippling across the internet. Some sites have already begun obstructing US visitors. Others are disabling linking on their sites, while still others are blocking content in specific countries Ala' YouTube, or moving their servers to safer homes. Twitter, seeing the blob looking its way, has reacted proactively. With new censorship. http://blog.twitter....-must-flow.html Big or small, many will be too scared to do anything but comply. Is this really the way we want to go? On another note, to me, a really troubling aspect is that as these things are defeated or watered down when exposed, politicians will just get even trickier at hiding them in otherwise innocuous bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britfrog 2 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 if i can add my twopence here what i think is so wrong and perverted is if you invent something for example that saves millions of lives you can get a patent on it which stops copying anywhere in the world except china, this lasts for 25 years after which it becomes open and copyable by all , however if you create a bit of music the rights of this last forever, however if i bought a record i can sell it on as it is mine, if i wish to copy it i can, i can give it to anyone i wish, however if i want to let others copy my record that is illegal, this is bullsh-- what is even sicker and stupider in my eyes is software, here not only do i buy it ,but dont own it, I can copy it for my own use but can't give it to anyone else , and again this has no time limit this is utter madness why doesnt it have a 25 year limit? it is soooo wrong. software should be like anything else you buy it, you own it, end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Hello Britfrog, To be honest there is a difference between a Patent and Copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts