Latest ACTA Version Leaked

Where do places with free or payed wifi / internet fall?

Hotels?

Coffee shops or other places with free wifi when you buy food?

Do they fall under safe harbor?

Some places with free wifi just have a open AP.

What about places with internet jukeboxes Where does the jukeboxes fall? music licensing is a big mess.

There are guitar hero arcade games and there is the music rights / licensing fees issues with that game.

If I wear a halloween mask over my face, and commit a crime, they don't ban me from buying masks ever again, nor would they try.

What if I use my cell phone? Would they try to ban me from ever owning a cell phone again?

Trying to force people off the internet, because they misused the tool, doesn't mean they should be able to knock you offline.

Like most tools, they have many important uses.

The internet is getting more and more important and useful to have, and to be banned from it, for downloading music or movies, or software, is STUPID and should not be tolerated in a democracy.

Felons can't possess firearms.

Drunk drivers lose their licenses.

Securities fraud results in loss of credentials.

Gross medical malpractice results in loss of medical license.

But wait -- I thought "sharing" movies and music isn't a crime?

Maybe you should get your facts straight. In most cases "sharing" movies and music without permission over the internet is a tort rather than a crime. The content providers should have to seek their own private enforcement. Other than providing the courts for the lawsuits and enforcing the judgments of the courts the government shouldn't be involved in a free rather than tyrannical country. ACTA is tyranny!

You replied to the wrong person, check one post above mine for the crime reference.

And simmer down, it's only Tuesday!

So lets break down what you said here...

Felons can't possess firearms... In most cases, I don't support this idea either. The right to bare arms should not be usurped

Drunk drives lose their licenses... LOL... Really? Not very often, and surely not for life.

The rest of your points, were as equally unimpressive.

If I ride a bike, to rob a bank, should I never be able to own a bike again?

Using the internet, to commit a crime, should be viewed no differently, than using a public road to do the same.

The courts in this country get away with a bunch of crap, that they shouldn't. It is getting way out of hand.

We the people, shouldn't have to fear our government, they should fear us.

It's called Corporate Interests (money) trump Individual rights or freedoms (or Justice!).

More simply put: He who has the Gold makes the rules.

Stealing billions from shareholders is also a crime. How many corporate crooks are free and get millions as severance ?

Crimes are only for law abiding citizens. Rich criminals somehow have a different set of laws.

Absolutely correct, stealing billions is better suited to the government.

Yeah, because downloading a song or movie off the Internet is up there with those high crimes.

Not.

Maybe we should prosecute the RIAA etc et all for "Crimes against Humanity".

Absolutely. Depriving people of their needed free movies and music is a reprehensible crime.

How about extortion, Racketeering and other travesty of justice, violation of the Constitution (Ever heard of the punishment fitting the crime?)

10 years in prison? $100,000 fine? Really? And don't tell me it's because *our* "Representatives" set these punishments. They sure as hell weren't "representing" the public interest when they keep upping the punishment, extending the terms, and restricting public use.

ACTA sucks.Hollywood and the MAFIAA will never ever see a dollar from my pocket.
I buy all my films and things used now.
Big Content loses here as I have boycotted them for years.

including the ones recently released in the cinema. He said he never pays for movies, never goes to a movie theater or rents blue-ray or dvd discs. He downloads all movies directly through bittorrent.

My neighbor used to make money off making copies on movies, programs, video games on cd-r for like 10 or 20 bucks each copy.

Due to such high piracy, there are no services there like iTunes, Xbox Live (local) or Zune

Said by "collegeboy"

"Due to such high piracy, there are no services there like iTunes, Xbox Live (local) or Zune"

lol, good one

There was "piracy" (your word) here too, yet those services thrive and effectively reduced it. That's the solution: availability at reasonable prices. Most people are willing to pay.

quote:

---

There was "piracy" (your word) here too, yet those services thrive and effectively reduced it. That's the solution: availability at reasonable prices. Most people are willing to pay.

---

I doubt it will change soon no matter what price they offer. They can't run it at too low price (like $0.10 per movie). lol

How many people there can really afford to pay for an entertainment on regular basis? Not many!

Average person there makes only 1300 PLN per month. Perhaps people in Warsaw or Krakow make a lot more but how many are there in those cities combined vs 48 million the whole country?

Very true. There are a number of people already paying to download content for free. Newsgroups, hosting sites, etc.

Price out a service that gives you access to HD (HDTV HD, not heavily compressed) content and I would be certain that a lot of people would be fine with paying a smaller monthly fee. It would also have to allow for higher throughput.

Netflix is just the start of this type of option. If they had better quality streaming, I would be more than happy to go with them. They also restrict how much throughput can be obtained. I can heavily saturate my connection with 3rd party services but not even close with Netflix.

And I have friends who live overseas who are forced to use those methods in order to get TV shows and movies at the same speed as other parts of the world get them. One of the big reasons a lot of people in other parts of the world pirate things is that they aren't released there until months or sometimes years later. One of my favorite shows is Castle, and I know some people who live in areas where season two either hasn't even started yet or has just started when season three is about to begin airing in the U.S. Those people are stuck between a rock and a hard place, because they want to follow the fandom online, but if they do so, they're spoiled constantly by people talking about stuff that aired almost a year ago. Even Canada will be off sometimes by a few days or weeks, depending on the schedule. And sometimes Canada gets airings ahead of the U.S. Maybe the entertainment industry should start treating its fans with respect and release things in a timely fashion worldwide. I suppose that some of that could be the fault of individual countries being unwilling to air things, but I'd be surprised if some of it didn't come from the entertainment industry itself just wanting to stagger releases to try and milk more money. Unfortunately, that doesn't work when people from all over the world talk together online and want to be able to watch the stuff at the same time.

One thing this industry seems to fail to get: If someone wasn't going to pay to go see it anyway, they wouldn't have gotten money from them in the first place. Until they get that, we're never going to be able to have any serious and legitimate discourse on this issue.

I think you summed up a lot of good reasons why folks would pirate TV shows.

This certainly applies in the "global marketplace" we have now. Add restrictive DRM to the mix so you can't do what you want with your purchase and the pro-piracy arguments become almost endless.

By "forced" you actually mean "really really really want to" right?

I've never heard of someone being "forced" to be the first to watch a TV show.

I think a more realistic evaluation of her post is:
A lot folks would pay a reasonable amount for the programming of their choice.

However, as long as content providers are more concerned with controlling viewer choice then they are with fair_product@fair_price; a meaningfully free market isn't normally available to viewers.

I'll pay ~$10.00/mo for one Channel of Netflix that gives me an ad-free selection of content.

I won't pay $10.00/mo for a basic cable package that gives me 30-40 channels; each consisting of ad-driven content beyond my choice.

I'd pay $15.00/mo for the 3 non-premium channels of my worldwide choice. I suspect her friends might too.

NV

edit:subst non-premium for broadcast. that better fits my intention

Look, not to be rude, but this is, in a nutshell, the entire debate! It isn't yours, so you don't get to decide what the content owners should charge. All you get to do is evaluate the offerings in the marketplace and decide whether you want to pay what they're asking, or do without.

Of course the simple alternative for many people is "bah, if they won't sell it to me for $15 (or $10, or $5, or $1 or whatever I think is 'fair') then I'll just download it."

The same justification has been used for years by people pirating software: "No way Office 20xx Pro is worth $400, I hardly use anything except Word and Outlook, but I really want Excel and Access just in case, so I'll just pirate it. Microsoft doesn't get hurt because I just wouldn't buy it for $400 anyhow."

Now MS has evolved their thinking and offered more options like Home editions and vastly reduced prices for Student editions, bully for them. But people still pirate Office and it's still wrong, and Microsoft could have chosen to stay with their old pricing model, and it wouldn't be a question of "fair".

So you can pick arbitrary numbers and appoint yourself lead negotiator with the TV industry and tell them that $15 is "fair" (to you) until you're blue in the face. Until they decide it's in their financial interest to offer packages like that, it's still fair.

The real difference nowadays is there is a choice. They can charge a fair price, or we can get it easily for $0.

What's great about piracy is that it actually creates a free market... no pun intended.

My beefs with ACTA are not about the whole piracy issue, but rather the privacy issue and my opinion still stands that we shouldn't throw our privacy out the window to protect the entertainmnet cartels from civil infringements.

So, you support the free market ideal
that the owners should charge what they want to charge;
but you also support the anti-capitalist notion
of carefully controlling a user's viewing experience
by purposefully limiting their choices.

A free market would have all available content
on the market
competing for consumer dollars;
as the technology emerges that enables that to happen.

A belief
that every legal business practice
is by default pro-capitalist and ethical,
isn't a very reasoned one.Which is why I suggested the realistic third option. It seems to be important to you that a consumer respect business practices; but I don't see evidence of a corresponding concern - for a capitalist free market - that protects consumers.There isn't anything at all arbitrary about my numbers. The two dollar amounts omitted by you above are actual market dollar amounts. The third ($15.00) is a definite value of the suggested product.

That the content providers universally choose to avoid competition by restricting their products is an anti-capitalist measure. Their disrespect toward the consumer side of the equation is unethical.

You are advocating for respect in only one direction. Your concern for content controllers (and seemingly no one else) is
interesting.

NV

It's kind of funny watching you tapdance around choosing words so carefully -- Is there a framed poster somewhere what uses the phrase "carefully controlling a user's viewing experience by purposefully limiting their choices"? I swear that comes up verbatim in every one of these threads.

It's very simple. The owner of something (or holder of the copyright, or licensee, or whatever) has the right to decide whether or not to sell, rent, share, or give away the material if they want to, or decide not to, and also to determine the price they want in exchange.

That's capitalism at its absolute foundation, and it drives some people nuts that they can't stomp their feet, or beg mommy and daddy, or convince Senator So-n-so to pass a law to get them their way. Sniveling and offering to pay $10 or $15 sounds like a teenager trying to to coax a parent to give an advance on their allowance to buy something they can't afford.

Choosing not to offer $2 digital downloads on iTunes doesn't make them insensitive or disrespectful or evil or unfair or anything else. It's called freedom. The same freedom you have to change the station when a crappy show comes on, and go do something else when there's nothing good on at all. When you run a media company you get to decide what is fair for your customers, and you'll be judged on the decisions you make.Protects them from what, the mind--bending peril of not being able to watch their favorite shows without commercials from their laptop on an airplane? I don't care if people respect companies or not. If the company thinks it's worth pandering to the masses and kissing their asses, good for them -- it's their choice. If instead the company decides to take a hard line, then the marketplace will determine whether that decision was correct or not. Definite to whom? To you? What channels do you own again? You lost me here.So wait, which is it, I'm getting confused -- are they being greedy or short-sighted? Are they anti-competitive or disrespectful? And your attempts to deceive people about what capitalism really means are pretty feeble, but good for a laugh. Just a hint though -- try to get away from words like "disrespect" and instead just call them evil greedy heartless corporations full of suits who are out the screw everyone except the rich investors and other CEOs. Otherwise you're going to confuse a lot of people.

Just keeping you focused on the topic.Some folks don't require a framed poster to remind them of the obvious. It's true. There are a lot of us, actually.

Do you deny that the content market is manipulated by limiting viewer choice? It's a Yes or No question.Several folks seem to be reminding you of the same thing.

Perhaps this time....Sure is.

Especially if one chooses to ignore lots of other relevant stuff.But they do not have a "Right" to join with the near entirety of the industry to artificially manipulate the market.

They do not enjoy a "Right" for corporate lawyers to draft exceeding longer copyright laws every generation or two.

The word that isn't featured in your posts is Ethics. As much as anything, that is what you appear to be railing against.

Well, you do seem to endorse ethical behavior for consumers.
And that's where your interest seem to end.And is that the whole of capitalism in your world?

So we know where you stand.
On the 1-10 scale:
1=Not bothered -
10=Bothers me LOTS
See if you'll respond with how you feel about each of these.

A Consumer is committing repeated unethical acts against a corporation.

A Corporation is committing repeated unethical acts against a consumer.

Would you say your posts in this thread reflect your response to the above?Oh Yea. We get laws like that all the time.

Like the DCMA.
Like the Copyright Act of 1909 (extends CR to 28 yrs + 28 yrs)
the Copyright Conventions of 1954 and 1971
the Copyright Act of 1976 (extends CR again to 75 yrs + 50 yrs)
the Berne Implementation of 1988 (expands US CR abroad)
the URAA of 1994 (anchors US CR on foreign works)
the Copyright Term Ext of 1998 (extends CR again to 95/120 yrs + 70 yrs)

Yep. Consumers sure are convincing Senator So-n-so to pass a law to get them their way.
Why, each and every one of the consumer-driven laws above,
just drove one nail after another
into the coffin of Big Entertainment.

Sure. That's how it is.Remember when I mentioned respect running in only one direction?
You appear to expect respect, but you don't seem to be handing much out.

Not much of a recipe for success.Hmm. Only pronouncements on consumer behavior from you here.
And above.
And below.

I haven't seen a single expectation from you concerning corporate behavior.

Not one. Judging by what you've offered here (and offered, and offered);
you have no expectations of appropriate corporate behavior.

None at all.

But it "drives you nuts" when consumers behave poorly.

Why is that Double Standard OK with you?No. That answer was wrong.
It was a really terrific guess however. Really was.

My third option helps protect folks
from the decisions of Content Managers
who compulsively reject
notions of ethical business practices.

Yes. I know you object to any discussion of corporate ethics.
It distracts you from your rants about consumer ethics.

Repetition can be an effective teaching tool for those with no interest in understanding certain subjects.Well, that's a complete turnaround from everything you've posted previously in this thread.And if the company's lawyers compose industry friendly laws and offer tremendous incentives for legislators to pass those laws...

Have you ever found a corporate practice objectionable?
If so, would you link to where you posted about it?Try to stay with me here.
It's what I would pay per month to view 3 channels of my international choice.

Imagine the BBC lifting the - UK only - restrictions on their stream, and then getting paid for each one of those additional streams.
I realize millions/month of new income isn't the most important thing for some.

The BBC would have to abandon their collusive contracts with overseas networks and compete in the open market.

I'll wager you find that prospect objectionable.
After all, it's got competition
and gives consumers a tiny bit of content control.

I'm not causing you any projectile vomiting, am I?Don't be. It's Yes and Yes.YesYes.

Four for Four. Good Job!Yep. Nothing more anti-capitalistic than competition. Right?You keep not mentioning ethics. If it's because that word causes you severe intestinal cramping, I am sincerely apologetic for my repeated use.

Just let me know, (ethics) I'll understand(ethics). Don't you worry about (ethics) surprising me.I understand that corporations consist of fallible human beings, just like consumers can be fallible human beings.

I just prefer to not endlessly demonize consumers for singularly unscrupulous behavior; while defending unscrupulous corporate behavior; committed in bulk.

But that's me. I'd rather examine the ETHICS on both sides of the issue.

Other people prefer other things.Well, one anyway.

NV

Yes private enterprise should have absolute rights to set prices or deny service, all in the name of controlling their products and services.

If they don't want to serve their content to a certain country or ethnic group, they should have that right.

OR If they *CAN* get it some other way, they do so, despite how the "owners" say it's "wrong". Seriously, they need to stop trying to force people to buy what they want them to buy and dictate to them the terms and start providing options that people can accept. Piracy will never go away entirely because some people just don't (or won't) have the money to buy "entertainment" when there's other pressing needs.

Right. Like I said in the other post, heaven forbid anyone have to go without all the free movies and music they want.

My point really is focusing on the Piracy side and the stick is missing out on a market.

There's the carrot-and-stick approach. These days it's mostly all stick.

They'd be better off trying to win new revenue then spending money trying to stop something they can't.

You could spend millions trying to stop piracy to get it down to some magic number, but in reality all you're doing is pissing off the customers you already have and wasting loads of money.

Yeah, your posting history really points to a deep concern for the well-being of media companies and their opportunities for profit.

And your posting history really shows a concern for consumers and the public's best interests, right?

Not to mention a tendency to make some "friendly" little snide comments and insulting remarks, eh?

But a smiley makes it all good.

Okay, yes, forced perhaps isn't the right word. In order to stay *current* with the show, they have to resort to those methods. They always have the option of *not* staying current, but it ruins their participation in social networks and conversations with friends who get the shows in a timely fashion in other parts of the world. It ruins their enjoyment of the franchise to constantly be behind the rest of the world. They pay for TV service, and would buy the DVDs if they were available, but they usually can't do *that* either because DVDs aren't released yet and importing them would be difficult because of region restrictions on players. I'm actually curious after thinking about this about who IS in charge of the decisions not to release things worldwide so everyone can view them at roughly the same time.

I spend a lot of time in several show fandoms online, and these aren't as isolated of cases as you'd think. And yes, while it's just entertainment, think about whatever your favorite hobby is, and imagine it being gimped similarly. Would you not be frustrated if you couldn't stay current in it and participate in it?

No, at approximately age 9, I reached a level of maturity that permitted me to stop measuring my self-worth based on my ability to speak knowledgably with peers about last night's episode of the latest TV shows or next weekend's movies.

Also by around that same age, I learned that it is okay if my friends had toys that I didn't have (and vice versa) and that we didn't all have to dress the same, or look the same, or talk the same.

I play a lot of video games, so maybe that's my correlary. I suppose if I wanted to get in the beta test of the great new game, even while thousands of other people WERE in the beta, and having fun, OMG, that would be horriffic and I'd probably have to cut myself. And if I was unemployed when the game was finally released and didn't have money to buy the game, I guess I'd have to try to shoplift it from the Gamestop store. But at least I wouldn't feel "gimped".

Everything in that last paragraph, except the first sentence is a fabrication.

"No, at approximately age 9, I reached a level of maturity that permitted me to stop measuring my self-worth based on my ability to speak knowledgably with peers about last night's episode of the latest TV shows or next weekend's movies."

There's no need to be condescending about it. If you think I'm basically talking about water cooler gossip, you're missing my point entirely. The fans I'm talking about are the people who would travel to another country to attend conventions, buy everything as soon as it's available in their region, and are cheerleaders for the shows they watch to no end. They are some of the biggest assets that the content providers *have* because they're the people encouraging everyone they can think of to watch the show too. And then, in turn, their reward for being such an avid fan is being denied the opportunity to watch the product they love when it's first released. So can I see their perspective of choosing to download it? Absolutely. And they still spend money on it when it's available. So I wouldn't fault them for it.

The people like the guy in Poland who downloads anything and everything he can get? He wouldn't be paying in the first place. No one loses money on him. If anything, they maybe gain some, because he might talk up the stuff he watches to other people who would in turn give it a chance and spend money on it when they wouldn't have.

And I don't think beta test is an accurate or fair comparison. I think a better one would be that the game wouldn't be sold in your country at all, or not until an undetermined point in the future. If it's so unimportant, than why is it important enough at all to restrict people geographically from those things?

I do not consider downloading TV shows to be piracy though. It is not the fault of the viewer that the companies will not sync up their production world wide. the Viewer should not have to be a season or two behind just because the corporate overlords said so.

I also view downloading TV shows as no different than when you say back in the VHS days let someone borrow a tape of a few shows you taped or made a copy.

If they cannot keep their shows synced up around the world here in the 21st century than it is them who is flawed not the idea of downloading their shows.

For example, Hulu is a perfect setup but they are dumb and region lock hulu to the US for some silly reason.

As long as my ISP states clearly that it has to give information to third parties when requested, I can figure out how to keep this information from my ISP.

From that point, the general population will take measures to hide from their ISP as well.

Which will probably lead us to a much more encrypted internet over all... making to jobs of law enforcement much more difficult in the process.

So in a nutshell... I don't know if it's in the gubbermint's best interest to get on board with this garbage because not only are we setting up a criminal law enforcement infrastructure to deal with civil infringement, at great cost to the taxpayer...

But we're making *actual* time sensitive law enforceme that much more difficult, by creating a climate where most, rather than a few will want to hide their traffic.

Seems like lose-lose for both consumers and the government.

There are a handful of reseller ISPs who have grown to a level where their base product itself comes with at least an ssh tunnel or similar product that takes all of the host isp's power away from possibly doing anything to the traffic. Not to mention all the isps involved lose the ability to even point a finger at someone if they are accusing some IP from doing it.

Ya know, if they knock these people offline for file sharing, and all these people have, are VOIP for phone service, are they going to pay for them to reinstall land line service? What if land line service no longer exists? What if they weren't using a computer, and the internet, but a cell phone? No more smart phones for them either?

In every news story, I see, about knocking people off the internet for file sharing, makes me less and less happy about admitting to being an American.

How far we have fallen...

Knocking a person off the internet is analogous to banning a person from even being a passenger on our public highways. As Americans become more dependent on the internet it will be increasingly clear (at least to the public) that it is cruel and unusual punishment.

Who spend all of their time taking people's private property, making excuses for themselves, and so on, now turning and crying when their privacy is going to be taken.

You've done the crime. Don't whine when you got to do the time.

this "law" structure is going to have stronger protections about breaking DRM, but what about legal copies? such as archive of a DVD to a Home Media Server. Right now that is legal under copyright law but in theory you are breaking the DMCA(thankfully they cannot enforce the DMCA on the home user yet because it would never hold water in court).

this is simple. we hate the acta