Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Digital copyright: it's all wrong.The ACTA draft is Scary.
smh.com.au — A draft treaty proposes draconian measures to protect copyright.The US (surprise, surprise) has circulated a draft (ACTA) for the next G8 meeting. Any border guard, in any treaty country, can check any electronic device for any content that they suspect infringes copyright laws. They need no proof, only suspicion.
lucy22- 2324 diggs
- digg it
- TheAthlon, on 06/10/2008, -3/+136I really hope this article gets enough diggs to make it to the home page. The bright light of day needs to shine on this treaty and the congressmen who support it.
Wikileaks article: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_mul ...- Phearce, on 06/10/2008, -0/+13I'm not sure, but I don't think the ACTA would require congressional approval. Presenting it to the G8 summit skips around all the pesky checks and balances, right?
- krogothwolf, on 06/10/2008, -0/+13No, it still has to be implemented by a vote in the countries government since it would change currents laws and provide certain individuals with more power. You can submit anything you want to G8 and they can all go "yeah this looks great, we should do this". But when they, certain governments have to have them ratified by legislature approval before it can be implemented. A good example is the Kyoto Accord. The US signed it, but it has yet to be Ratified, making the signature merely symbolic. I believe for the US President to ratify a treaty he needs 2/3rd the US Senate vote.
Could be wrong though as I'm canadian lol. - jgtg32a, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1And if it does pass, it also placed higher than the constitution itself. Gotta love how that works.
- jgtg32a, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry for spreading that horrible lie
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/tre ...
- krogothwolf, on 06/10/2008, -0/+13No, it still has to be implemented by a vote in the countries government since it would change currents laws and provide certain individuals with more power. You can submit anything you want to G8 and they can all go "yeah this looks great, we should do this". But when they, certain governments have to have them ratified by legislature approval before it can be implemented. A good example is the Kyoto Accord. The US signed it, but it has yet to be Ratified, making the signature merely symbolic. I believe for the US President to ratify a treaty he needs 2/3rd the US Senate vote.
- itsfullofstars, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab, including:
- Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)
- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
GET THESE GUYS OUT OF CONGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - sk11, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7"The proposed treaty is being sponsored by a small group of US Congress members, all of whom Wikileaks says have received significant contributions from major record companies and film studios."
***** whores!! Why the ***** is the bribing of US politicians considered completely legitimate, but copyright violation is treated as a serious crime?- enri, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4When you make the laws you get to decide what it legal. Bribery: OK for me. Fair Use: Not OK for my bribers.
Let's hear it for the 94% re-election rate. Keep voting them back into office people.
- enri, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4When you make the laws you get to decide what it legal. Bribery: OK for me. Fair Use: Not OK for my bribers.
- Phearce, on 06/10/2008, -0/+13I'm not sure, but I don't think the ACTA would require congressional approval. Presenting it to the G8 summit skips around all the pesky checks and balances, right?
- lucy22, on 06/10/2008, -1/+39Yes the more that know and write their congressmen or members of parliament the better. It is a real invasion of privacy they are bringing about.
- zeero, on 06/10/2008, -1/+9if this BS does pass, truecrypt to the rescue :)
- Fhwqhgads, on 06/10/2008, -2/+5Why do people think their congressmen or MPs give a ***** about them? Write your congressman or MP. Hah! Don't make me laugh.
- malakite33, on 06/10/2008, -0/+8"Hello Mr. Border patrol guard, how are you today?"
"Please step out of the vehicle sir. This is a random copyright infringement inspection"
"Uh, ok."
Patrol guards tear the vehicle apart as if searching for drugs. Special, hard drive sniffing hounds are sent out.
"We got a USB drive hidden under the back seat!!!"
"Oh *****, you found my stash"
"Come with us sir, we will be suing you on behalf of a dozen record companies, hope you enjoyed your music while it lasted."- GregR, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2And how long until these 'police' can stop you on the street because they 'suspect' that the ear-phones they see are connected to something that contains material that infringes copyright?
- AlwaysAwake, on 06/10/2008, -17/+90Obssessed with celebrities, the pursuit of "happiness", and video games, rights and entitlements are daily disappearing without significant notice by the "volunteer" victims. Ron Paul's message of facts and truth has largely fallen on deaf ears and blind eyes. When they do wake up, after it is too late, they will be whining "Why didn't somebody tell me ?". We did. You weren't listening !!!!
- Waiting2awake, on 06/10/2008, -2/+19Welcome every day of my life....
- klco, on 06/10/2008, -8/+24I don't agree with anything like ACTA but I don't agree with Ron Paul either. If anything this seems to illustrate what might happen if we go along with his agenda of deregulation. I think if anything the Bush administration has shown the danger of handing further power to corporations (think Blackwater).
- Noods, on 06/10/2008, -2/+7This doesn't hand power to corporations. It hands power to the government. This isn't deregulation, its regulation. If anything, Ron Paul would be totally against this...you know...his whole pro-civil liberties, small government thing. Your logic is ass backwards.
- wenomspitta, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3***** video games...
- daggah, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2And how do you figure Ron Paul would have anything to say about this?
- RyanElston, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Are you kidding? He is referring to Ron Paul the presidential candidate not Mr. Paul, the ice cream man that lives down the street. Because he wouldn't have anything at all to say about this. Not one bit.
- daggah, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1OK so post it up. What has Ron Paul the fanatical presidential candidate said about advocating the consumer-rights side of the copyright issue? I think you're just projecting issues you think are important on him, assuming that he's your buddy on this.
I wish you Paultards would wake up, he's not the libertarian savior you guys think he is. He wants to move important issues from federal government hands into state government hands. That's it. He doesn't care if states enact a Patriot Act. He doesn't care if they trample over religious liberties and separation of church and state issues. He doesn't care if states erode your fair-use rights. All he cares about is whether the federal government does these things. If you ACTUALLY value your freedoms, you'll stand opposed to him and support the protection of these rights from ALL levels of government, not just the big bad feds.
- daggah, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1OK so post it up. What has Ron Paul the fanatical presidential candidate said about advocating the consumer-rights side of the copyright issue? I think you're just projecting issues you think are important on him, assuming that he's your buddy on this.
- Chassit, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1Are you stupid? (rhetorical as we already know)
- RyanElston, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Are you kidding? He is referring to Ron Paul the presidential candidate not Mr. Paul, the ice cream man that lives down the street. Because he wouldn't have anything at all to say about this. Not one bit.
- bstory, on 06/10/2008, -10/+67As the holder of several copyrights I believe that something must be done to protect intellectual property however I don't think that governments need to go to these extremes to achieve protection.
- KlogereEndGrim, on 06/10/2008, -6/+36Everone is the holder of several copyrights.
It's like putting "pedestrian" in your title, or adding "inhaler of CO2" in your CV.
Ever made a drawing as a kid? That drawing is copyrighted.
But I agree with you that the measures are not proportionate to what they seek to protect.- bstory, on 06/10/2008, -2/+15Yes of course copyrights are automatic however what I meant was that I have actually gone the extra distance and actually registered the copyrights with the Library of Congress. I suppose what I should have said was "as the holder of several Registered Copyrights..."
- Parkinsons, on 06/10/2008, -2/+3Why not just make copyrights expire after 3 or so years? This seems like a reasonable compromise.
- RyanElston, on 06/10/2008, -0/+9There is not a single copyright in the world that should be protected more then my privacy.
- Frustian, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2You have more intelligence than the whole US Congress combined. Except for your then/than usage, fix that and you'll be fine.
- KlogereEndGrim, on 06/10/2008, -6/+36Everone is the holder of several copyrights.
- madwaxer, on 06/10/2008, -1/+36Liked reading your observations. however i feel the likely hood of these new policy failing are quite high.
As online storage and network speeds increase computers will be able to store most of their essential data on remote machines and load/stream them as needed through a secure connection. they could even be mounting remotely hosted encrypted files like those created by programs like True Crypt. simpler yet they could leave an ultra small laptop in a hidden compartment in their home and run it as a home server that can be sent into standby remotely if their home is ever raided. There are already so many tools available for by passing restrictions in even china that i can't yet imagine how they expect to be able to win this battle. eventually people will be making their own social networks with each other using public keys exchanged via bluetooth or in email signatures. It won't be long till someone modifies WASTE tto become an active p2p-server-client app at which point.....
http://digg.com/software/Forget_the_RIAA_and_MPAA_ ...- Waiting2awake, on 06/10/2008, -1/+9From your lips to un-named deity.
- protogenxl, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3I would use a Cubestation because you would want your files to be at least RAID protected and it is smaller than a bread box.
- xister, on 06/10/2008, -0/+8I agree- not to mention, how on earth are you suppose to prove to an airport guard that those 5000 songs on your iPod are all legit? Better yet, how in the hell are they going to prove that they aren't? It's not like there's any quick way to check. Are they going to detain you until they get server logs, etc. and the proof? How annoying and cumbersome would that task be?
- secrity, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6This is Customs, they have no need to prove anything and they have no need to allow you to prove your side of the issue.
- roodammy44, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4I was thinking the exact same thing.
There's no point in ordering that data cannot be taken over borders.
Network attached storage is growing in use and it's easy to stream it anywhere encrypted.
This battle isn't like how the authorities commercialised the radio or print media - mCanada, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2freenet / darknet.
- Ryosen, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2How is that going to protect your iPod?
- mCanada, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3wipe your ipod clean when you go over the border, connect to the freenet (connect to your own node at home) and re-download your files. Not great but in the future this will be an encrypted government proof way of transferring files across borders. ***** them.
- Ryosen, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2How is that going to protect your iPod?
- Jandal, on 06/10/2008, -1/+0The online storage debate works fine if you live in Japan or the US where you have high speed and high data caps. Try using online storage when you live in NZ where 56k and data caps at 1gig are all to common!
- JKAL, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I think the point here isn't if the policy can be enforced or not. Sure for most techheads it is a nobrainer and
illogical, and there will be workarounds. However for the average traveler there will be a policy in place.
This one more political move to appease the large media companies and at the same time placing yet one more restriction on general rights.
We can argue between ourselves on how smart we are and what methods we will use to workaround this, however we should be using that energy to put a stop to this. The only way to that is on a massive scale to make the average Joe/Jane understand the implications other than that it is all just hot air.- xister, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1Then there's only one thing to do; get smarter.
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.
Hunter S. Thompson
- xister, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1Then there's only one thing to do; get smarter.
- alapoet, on 06/10/2008, -1/+68This is some really bad legislation.
- Waiting2awake, on 06/10/2008, -1/+19Worse than bad - scary. Must. Not. Pass.
- lucy22, on 06/10/2008, -1/+60It is a big invasion of privacy.
- whoreable, on 06/10/2008, -3/+55Encryption. You should use it.
- simg, on 06/10/2008, -0/+40doesn't matter, they still get to TAKE YOUR COMPUTER ....
- carpespasm, on 06/10/2008, -0/+29Encryption. You shouldn't be forced to use to use it to be secure in your personal effects. See: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- XenoSNK, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Would this technically be applied to other countries?
- juniorb, on 06/10/2008, -0/+22Encryption. Means your laptop is twice as likely to be confiscated.
- ExSlashdotter, on 06/10/2008, -0/+9Encryption. Let me know how breaking that AES-256 works out...
- ExSlashdotter, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10On another note, they'll be busy confiscating every laptop then. Our corporate policy is to encrypt the drive of any machine that leave the USA. We're a top 5 government contractor with 65,000 employees.
They gonna confiscate the machine of every business traveler?- kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7Yea this is one of the main reasons why I think this ***** will get smack back down like it should be. The record companies are taking this ***** too far, and hollywood is getting like this also. They are rocking the boat which no one wants thus it'll get smacked down.
- karan1003, on 06/10/2008, -0/+12They can confiscate based solely on suspicion, not evidence.
- ubergeek09, on 06/10/2008, -1/+10They will ask for the key most likely and if you don't give it to them, you will have a really bad day. So it doesn't help.
- Devotia, on 06/10/2008, -0/+13Two sets of keys. The first unlocks an empty partition, the second unlocks your actual drive.
- precision256, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3Good call.
- Syzothermy, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4not an empty partition hopefully, just one with no copyright infringement.
- ExSlashdotter, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4TrueCrypt already provides two levels of plausible deniability, in case an adversary forces you to reveal the password:
1) Hidden volume (steganography).
2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished from random data).- jgtg32a, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2That's the thing that has always confused me, couldn't they do an analysis and realize that it is random yes, but in doing so it is an encrypted volume?
- AnotherBrian, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Re: jgtg32a
From a statical point of view, an encrypted file/drive is indistinguishable from the same file/drive filled with random noise. There is no way to _prove_ it either way, until you successfully decrypt it.
However, a large file that seem to have no structure and doesn't open with any other program I would assume is an encrypted volume. But there would be no way to tell if it was empty or had data in it because TrueCrypt fills newly created volumes with random noise.
- Devotia, on 06/10/2008, -0/+13Two sets of keys. The first unlocks an empty partition, the second unlocks your actual drive.
- stuffradio, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2Moral of the story: Leave your computer at home :)
- kazimierczuk, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Moral of the story is don’t allow the government to invade your privacy. Don't allow bills like this one to be passed.
- glenSM, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6They can demand key, if you dont give it to them it must be for a reason and that reason is because your a terrorist, pretty clear imo XD
Just another scare tactic ill just have to pirate more before this comes in.- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/10/2008, -0/+15th amendment applies. So actually they can't demand anything of me or punish me for not giving it to them.
- robotirl, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Common sense. They should use it.
- devoted, on 06/10/2008, -11/+2digital copyrights are never going to happen
- KlogereEndGrim, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7Well, they sort of already have, and as a matter of fact, copyrights where there before computers, so they have always been, that is sort of the problem.
- Alexcarrier, on 06/10/2008, -0/+11Disgusting.
- webkami, on 06/10/2008, -1/+103Can I see your iPod sir?
hmmm...wow cool....oh woooow....
Sorry sir we have to confiscate this device for security reasons.....- invinciblechunk, on 06/10/2008, -1/+13I had almost the same experience with airport security and my GP32 (thankfully they didn't confiscate it). So it would happen.
- bwdd, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7You have a GP32? Nice.
- pvtjohndoe, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Something similar happened to me on many occasions last summer while I was traveling Europe. I had just gotten an iPhone and they weren't out in Europe yet. It seems the iPhone hype had made it's way around the world. At least 5 times I had multiple heavily armed guards (with automatic weapons) playing with my iPhone. "Hey guys, look, it changes if you turn it sideways!"
- invinciblechunk, on 06/10/2008, -1/+13I had almost the same experience with airport security and my GP32 (thankfully they didn't confiscate it). So it would happen.
- HSlipwiffle, on 06/10/2008, -1/+19God,I can't believe things are this bad already.
- thedreaming1, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4Murphy's Law dictates that it can and will get worst. I'm just waiting for a local cop to pull me over, take my mp3 player and scream at me, "You a pirate boy? If I look in your ipod, am I going to find pirated music or movies? You look like a pirate boy! I think I'll just keep this, since you're not a pirate, you shouldn't have a problem with it..."
- sirellyn, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1The best part about Murphy's law is that whenever you start thinking it's always right, it's not.
- thedreaming1, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4Murphy's Law dictates that it can and will get worst. I'm just waiting for a local cop to pull me over, take my mp3 player and scream at me, "You a pirate boy? If I look in your ipod, am I going to find pirated music or movies? You look like a pirate boy! I think I'll just keep this, since you're not a pirate, you shouldn't have a problem with it..."
- digg1520, on 06/10/2008, -1/+21If you think this sucks, do something more about it than just digging this story. The least you can do is send 10 bucks to the ACLU http://www.aclu.org/ , they are fighting against stuff exactly like this. Do it NOW.
- sealbeater, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4The ACLU will get money from me when they decide to stop cherry picking the Articles of the Constitution to defend. Defend the whole thing or none.
- jgtg32a, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2***** that how about someone useful or at the very least relevant
EFF maybe?
- protogenxl, on 06/10/2008, -0/+21Like U.S Customs isn't already overloaded.
- carpespasm, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1That's odd, I have a friend and a brother who work for an airport and they say customs just comes whenever they feel like it. Never sounds like they're busy.
- kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2they're inefficient, and when they do work it gets really ***** busy from what I've heard.
- carpespasm, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1That's odd, I have a friend and a brother who work for an airport and they say customs just comes whenever they feel like it. Never sounds like they're busy.
- anonatron, on 06/10/2008, -0/+80Right now it takes me about 4 hours to get from Ohio to Canada. Now I have to plan on 4 hours sitting at the border while they check everyone's ipods, cds, laptops. That is getting ridiculous.
I wonder when it will be illegal to simply remember a song.- coyote1284, on 06/10/2008, -0/+51"We got a whistler!" "Good work, Lou. Illegally reproducing copyrighted materials, that's 10 years in the slammer and a $10 million fine. Nab 'im, boys."
- zyl0x, on 06/10/2008, -0/+8Next time you come up here, you should just stay.
- coyote1284, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Some may take you up on your offer around November. We have a 50/50 chance of at least 4 good years coming up.
- kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3In 2010 once I get back from Japan. I plan on going to graduate school in Mcgill University. So I'll be up there even if I get in the program or not.
- stuffradio, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Montreal eh? The west coast is better ;)
It doesn't snow as much over here in the winter :P - kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Yea let me know of any univeristies in Vancouver(I've always wanted to go there :D )
- stuffradio, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Montreal eh? The west coast is better ;)
- TheRealMisterd, on 06/10/2008, -0/+9"In 1996 the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) told the Girl Scouts of the USA that scout camps must start paying a licensing fee to sing any of the 4 million copyrighted songs that ASCAP controlled (Walker and Fagan). This included girl scout staples such as "Happy Birthday". Many camps went songless for months, until newspaper and talk show attention generated enough outrage that ASCAP was forced to say that they had no intention of prosecuting girl scout camps for violations of singing songs around the campfire. But in backing down, ASCAP still insisted that they still might prosecute camps for playing background music without a license. Though most citizens would bristle at ASCAP’s attempts to charge the girl scouts, as a copyright holder the law is on their side, and the girl scouts’ only defense would be fair use (but only as long as fair use remains a defense)."
Source: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/~howard/Papers/copyright ...
- Ethek, on 06/10/2008, -0/+18Welcome to world government. Alliances that entangle our national sovereignty and transfer our rights to unreasonable search and seizure to foreign unelected policy makers. Instead of God inherited rights we are only permitted the rights we are granted by members of the world community.
I don't believe debating the wisdom of this one particular issue on Copyright and having it over turned will be very productive at all. Your just as likely to have yourself, as a non violent criminal be subjected to the full power of the state , nation, UN doctrine for the next effort to control peoples behavior or actions.
Despite the best of intentions this path of do all good for all people ultimately ends up as what is good for a few is good for all people. After all you may want to feed poor people. Never mind that Aid Programs have almost all of its funding funneled into corrupt oppressive third world governments. Back to the issue at hand it amounts to if you don't fall in line then hang on the line. In china or wherever, all for a Ipod of songs you may or may not have copyright to. - kravex, on 06/10/2008, -0/+32Yeah, border patrols wasting time looking for terrorists and illegal immigrants, copyright thieves now that's the problem!
- Spartanious, on 06/10/2008, -0/+19Do these people realise what they're doing? Do they know they're destroying the world for future generations.
- positron, on 06/10/2008, -0/+9Yes, they do and they don't care so long as their pockets are lined with lobbyists' cash and they can claim to be fighting "cybercrime" in their next election campaign.
- simg, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1yes, they know entirely what they're doing and they don't care.
copyright infringement threatens their livelihoods and they will stop at *absolutely nothing* to make sure that doesn't happen. - funkyloki, on 06/10/2008, -2/+0Won't someone please think of the children! Sorry, I know this is a serious subject, but whenever I hear of future generations, I just can't help hearing the preacher's wife from the Simpsons.
- taketheleap, on 06/10/2008, -0/+64i said it a week ago, and i'll say it again: if this passes in Canada, people will go berserk.
and by "people", I mean me.
I will be the first one, after this is enacted, to drive across the border and taunt the security guard with my iPod until he decides he wants to "inspect" it. And then I'll fight this HUGE invasion of privacy right up to the Supreme Court. And when I win, I'm gonna walk my ass over to the CRIA and piss all over their building.- xister, on 06/10/2008, -0/+40(and I say this with no sarcasm intended) I hope that works out for you.
- Stavrosian, on 06/10/2008, -1/+16Whereupon you will tragically face a 30 year sentence for public urination. Zero tolerance, my friend.
- thesonofdarwin, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6The very real threat of uromycitisis allows for public urination. If I learned anything from television, it was that.
- b0gus2008, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7Actually, he'll be in Canada, so he may have to write an essay on why peeing on buildings is not cool. That's about it.
- zeero, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5pee in a bottle then throw it at the building.. or get lots of friends to pee in balloons and throw them at it. no essay required.
- Stavrosian, on 06/10/2008, -0/+20At this point I'd just like to say I admire everybody's dedication to making sure the pee gets delivered with minimal ramifications. All it takes is a common goal.
- toekneebullard, on 06/10/2008, -0/+41I don't understand this type of legislation. Not only is it completely malicious, it's entirely unenforceable. You'll need to hire thousands of skilled border guards who know how to operate several OS's, predict and figure out personal file structures, and be copyright experts. They plan on doing this how?
Oh wait, I know. Maybe they'll just use it as a thinly veiled excuse to get around your rights to privacy so they can snoop on you further.
Nah, our wonderful government wouldn't do that.- xister, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6"You'll need to hire thousands of skilled border guards who know how to operate several OS's, predict and figure out personal file structures, and be copyright experts."
And it's doubtful that will ever happen. Look at what happened a month or two back:
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/14047?commen ... - coyote1284, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7No need, it'll be just like airports; if the guard thinks, just thinks, it looks funny, the item is confiscated. If you just bend over and take it like a good little traveler, then you'll get to your flight on time, instead of being escorted to a holding area to be grilled by TSA thugs over your playlist.
- NCg8r, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4This laptop isn't booting to Windows OR Leopard. Smash it, quick! Before it blows up!!!
- toekneebullard, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4You really think they'd include OSX in their training? I bet they'd even be surprised by Vista.
- funkyloki, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5I believe that if passed, they won't have to know how to access your device, they'll just confiscate and destroy any device they can't access, because encrypted files must mean illegal content. This "treaty" gives them that right too.
And wouldn't the makers of these devices love that too. "My iPod was destroyed crossing the border, and so I have to buy another one."- kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3which almost every business and corporation encrypts their *****. Which means that this treaty won't pass, and it won't get very far if it does pass. Rock the corporate boat and you see what happens.
- enri, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1It's easy. Everyone is a copyright violator.
Guard A: Sir. We're detecting electronics in the doll.
Guard B: Little girl. We need to confiscate the doll.
Susie: No! My Elmo!
Guard A: Suspect uncooperative.
Guard B: Put the doll on the ground and your hands on your head.... NOW! I said NOW!
Susie: NO! NO!
Susie pushes Guard B away.
Guard B: Suspect is in a state of excited delirium!
Guard B tasers Susie.
Guard A: Sir. We've secured the contraband. We're bringing the mule in for questioning.
- xister, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6"You'll need to hire thousands of skilled border guards who know how to operate several OS's, predict and figure out personal file structures, and be copyright experts."
- Panther37, on 06/10/2008, -0/+24Are you now going to have to carry around your entire CD collection just to prove all the songs on on your mp3 player are legal? This is a load of crap!
- Stavrosian, on 06/10/2008, -1/+9Just another unworkable copyright law, nothing out of the ordinary.
- d05k, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7the plan is to make as many ridiculous things as possible illegal, over an extended period of time so it doesn't seem likes it coming all at once, and then be able to prosecute/control anyone if they get out of line. it's been going on for years, and by the end everything the peons (us) do during our day-to-day will be illegal.
- coyote1284, on 06/10/2008, -1/+5Oh, no, then you're proving that you made copies. You think the average border guard can tell the difference between copies made legally for personal back-ups, media shifting, and pirated copies.
- PJofT35, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1No, you could have borrowed those CDs from friends. You'd have to lug around every single receipt of everything that may have some form of copyright in your pocket, and present that to any official who doubts you. Very consumer friendly.
- ww917352, on 06/10/2008, -1/+27Congratulations, people of the G8 nations of freedom and democracy. You are about to enter the year of ninteen eighty-four.
- Arcueid01, on 06/10/2008, -0/+19Wow, this is insane. We really need to start voting smart because or supposed representatives are no longer representative. We need to get people that actually listen and are part of normal society. This bill is garbage.
- sfacets, on 06/10/2008, -2/+1The reason there is such a gap between expectations and representation is the aging population - older generation citizens just don't understand the issues at hand and vote out of ignorance.
- kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1and the older generation of citizens outnumber the youth in America so we get ***** over so badly it's ridiculious, and a lot of us have just taken a nihilistic and pessimistic view on things.
- sfacets, on 06/10/2008, -2/+1The reason there is such a gap between expectations and representation is the aging population - older generation citizens just don't understand the issues at hand and vote out of ignorance.
- boobsbr, on 06/10/2008, -2/+23i hope all the people involved die of some terrible disease.
- daines88, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10I wish I could double digg you. Why can't Karma work out the way I want it to?
- Bananas21ca, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3I'll digg it up for ya
Who wants to digg it up for me now?
- Bananas21ca, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3I'll digg it up for ya
- daines88, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10I wish I could double digg you. Why can't Karma work out the way I want it to?
- tolbs, on 06/10/2008, -0/+23Can we get a list of the congressional stooges that drafted and support this? I need a place to forward my junk mail to.
- macegruvy, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2I too would love to know what asshats drafted this legistlation. They are certainly not representative of me or my views.
We need to find out who is responsible for this, and make a concentrated effort to see that they are removed from office. - enri, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1 - Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)
- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)- Codename46, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Gee, bipartisan support...
- macegruvy, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2I too would love to know what asshats drafted this legistlation. They are certainly not representative of me or my views.
- toddc612, on 06/10/2008, -0/+18Is it possible to get the names of those in Congress who are supporting this? This is insane.
- stuffradio, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab, including:
- Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)
- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)- dsmx, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Is it possible to get a list of donations for these members of congress with respect to the contributions from the media industry?
- stuffradio, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Probably, you can get anything with Google ;)
- dsmx, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Is it possible to get a list of donations for these members of congress with respect to the contributions from the media industry?
- stuffradio, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab, including:
- FairDinkumMate, on 06/10/2008, -0/+8Is this being covered at all in the US, Canadian, European media?
The article is from the Sydney Morning Herald(Fairfax Media) - in my opinion the best newspaper Australia has. Fortunately, it is one of the few Murdoch doesn't own. I'll bet its competition(News Limited - Murdoch papers) don't cover it.- funkyloki, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Very little about this is making its way into the MSM in America.
- cmapes2, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Its been a while since the "News" actually reported the news.
- Devotia, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Who needs news? I've gotta have a play by play of the R. Kelly trial or I'll never be able to relax!
- cmapes2, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Its been a while since the "News" actually reported the news.
- UncleCrapper, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Several Canadian newspapers have covered the story, including my local paper, the Calgary Herald.
I should also point out that the article described how the Ottawa Citizen was the first newspaper to break the story.
It is extremely unlikely for ACTA to ever become law in Canada given the current political climate, but one must always remain vigilant. The Conservatives can't even get their version of the DMCA off the ground, never mind ACTA.
- funkyloki, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Very little about this is making its way into the MSM in America.
- znicket, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7ahh.. now I understand the purpose of this _cloud_ computing that everybody seems to fancy so much. Stop carrying devices - access your data on loaners.
- swine, on 06/10/2008, -0/+30This legislation, when passed will have untold consequences on how you live. But all of us have to take some responsibility for its existence.
We bitch and moan about the record and movie industry wrecking our freedom, yet continue to line up to buy the product, like a bunch of sheep heading for shearing.
Boycott
Don't go to the movies
Don't rent videos
Dont buy the video games
Don't support any artist or band that is signed to the record companies involved. (Harsh for the artists, but they have to realize that they are part of the solution as well)
When I was a kid, we used to go downtown to listen to the buskers. These sidewalk musicians belted out their tunes in the hopes of getting money thrown in their hat. They gladly thanked the people who listened and contributed. They didn't try to sue the ass off the people that listened and chose not to contribute. I miss those days- Aerandir, on 06/10/2008, -9/+2Yeah, Boycott sounds like a good idea...
But what would happen to all the good people working for those companies? Do we let them lose everything they have hardly earned?
People like you are just plain stupid. Think of the consequences first before making such dumb statements.- vtnerd, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Yes, yes we do. If you work for RIAA/MPAA or work for an organization that belongs to either then you're the problem and you deserve to have nothing.
- kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2yep. Dude the chinese people boycott certain companies in china when they do something they don't agree with. Even the hispanics boycotted the whole US work force.
WE can do this.
- ExSlashdotter, on 06/10/2008, -0/+8Thats the beautiful thing about bittorrent. I get to voice my opinion with a boycott, but when it comes down to it, it doesnt cause a change to my lifestyle.
Digg me down though...- enri, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Keep on justifying their actions.
- Aerandir, on 06/10/2008, -9/+2Yeah, Boycott sounds like a good idea...
- theratdotus, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10lol, if they take and destroy enough devices (everyone has something they own they put on another device "illegallY") there will be such riots. id personally start punching people and be arrested, smiling the whole way... id martyr myself for this (and those stupid ***** bag checks in nyc subways...they are lucky they never asked to search my bag)
If i was stopped before entering the subway in nyc, id say no, go ***** yourself, walk out, take a bus to a stop before it, get on the train, pull up into the cop station and call them fags from inside the train.
STAND UP TO THE WATCHMEN- BlackJackJester, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2No you wouldn't. You'd just blog about it.
- sfacets, on 06/10/2008, -1/+24The US - protecting the corporations against the greedy masses.
- noclss2000, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6isn't that a oxymoron?
protecting corporations from greedy masses? I thought corporations ARE the greedy masses...
I think we seriously need to put our foot down on the US government and get them in place, as they are supposed to be protecting our rights and yet they are taking them away. It's like we have to vote for someone who will take the least amount of rights away. Maybe we just need to do what we did 230 somewhat years ago and tell the government to go screw themselves and wipe the slate clean...
- noclss2000, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6isn't that a oxymoron?
- NCg8r, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7Yikes... I guess I will have to get creative with those tiny 4gb Micro-SD chips next time I travel abroad. I can already see my wife shaking her hair out in our hotel room and dozens of Micro-SD drives sprinkle out (a la the diamond heist in Goodfellas).
On the other hand, how does one go about getting a job as an International Media Screener? I think my years of perusing various forms of digital media should qualify me for at least an Asst Manager position... - jonr, on 06/10/2008, -3/+3plutocracy much?
- kiwiboyus, on 06/10/2008, -0/+22There is no way something like this could be enforced day to day on a majority of people, the machine would grind to a halt. But it if you wanted to detain someone for what ever reason it is an easier excuse than claiming they may have drugs on them. How many people these days don't have an MP3 player, Laptop or Cell Phone that can be used to store files. Seems to me it's just another way to control us dressed up as some kind of just protection.
- Steeple, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5double plus digg
- mrcoderga, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Yes you have nailed it.
This gives the guards a cover story to pick on a predetermined person for other reasons.
Copyright-checking gives a guard the perfect cover story to detain and search anyone of their choosing.
Everybody carries a smart phone. Will the guards check everyone's smart phone?
No, of course not. There is no time to check everyone.
Checking everyone's music copyright is not even the point.
This gives guards the power to detain merely the persons they were already targeting for reasons which do not meet any bar of legitimacy.
If you are someone who participates in political writing on the internet, you might want to think twice about bringing your cell phone or laptop on a trip.
If you are someone who borrows the wrong types of books at the library, whatever that is, you might want to think twice.
If you are someone who participates in policy protests, you might want to think twice.
If you are someone who surfed to any pr0n sites, you might want to think twice.
If you are someone who donated to ACLU or EFF online, you might want to think twice.
- pcghost, on 06/10/2008, -0/+16My home directory will now be a truecrypt volume. Why can't they see that the harder they push this issue, the more foolish they look. The tech that can be used to aid piracy (among other things) will always be one step ahead of the tools used to detect/prevent it.
Truecrypt FTW!
I agree with the poster above, it is sick that we have to resort to this.- NCg8r, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3So what do you do when they insist that you provide the PW, under threat of losing your hardware? What would stop them from taking it, even if it wasn't "by the book"? What would you do to stop them??? Nothing, unless you enjoy being a prisoner....
I'm sure you could sue later, or make a big stink and write a book about it. But that won't get you on your plane in time, nor will it return your hardware in working order...- vtnerd, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4Providing the password is the equivalent of being a witness against yourself and is protected in the US under the 5th amendment. You have a Constitutional right not to provide the password. You might lose in the short term in that they take your hard drive, but in the long term you will prevail.
- celotil, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2As been shown time and time again, constitutional rights do not extend to foreigners visiting the US (like myself), nor do they apply to US citizens if the airport security guard is having a bad day, didn't get laid, thinks you look arabic/suspicious/brown/etc.
It doesn't matter who thinks what at an airport, it's the men with the guns who make the decisions.
- celotil, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2As been shown time and time again, constitutional rights do not extend to foreigners visiting the US (like myself), nor do they apply to US citizens if the airport security guard is having a bad day, didn't get laid, thinks you look arabic/suspicious/brown/etc.
- NCg8r, on 06/10/2008, -1/+0Agreed, but (as I said) this doesn't help you make your connection (non-refundable tickets) nor restore your hardware after their "Experts" take it apart to look for drugs.... I mean W4r3z...
- kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2yea in the shot term you lose your harddrive. In the long term you can sue the hell out of them.
Also business travelers also encrypt their files so I don't know how this will be enforceable. I guess we all should start wearing suit and ties to the airport.
- vtnerd, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4Providing the password is the equivalent of being a witness against yourself and is protected in the US under the 5th amendment. You have a Constitutional right not to provide the password. You might lose in the short term in that they take your hard drive, but in the long term you will prevail.
- Abomonog, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1You do realize that any encryption on your laptop will be construed as an admittance of guilt under this law.
- NCg8r, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3So what do you do when they insist that you provide the PW, under threat of losing your hardware? What would stop them from taking it, even if it wasn't "by the book"? What would you do to stop them??? Nothing, unless you enjoy being a prisoner....
- Snoozefrenzy, on 06/10/2008, -0/+9We've barely started writing world copyright and intellectual protection laws. Sadly it isn't possible to stop the signing of proposals into laws if it's all done behind closed doors (which is counter to democracy across the world), but we can protest on two noticeable levels. We can purchase the content legally and use it however we want, wherever we want, regardless of what restrictions are placed on it, showing the organizations that want to restrict our usage that it just isn't working. The other way is something creators should look at. It's easier than ever for us authors/musicians/film makers to cut out the conventional publishers/record companies and reduce costs for the end user, increase convenience, increase the creators income (and their quality of life making it easier for them to create more content), and force everyone who wants to control that content to realize that the people who own it don't even want to acknowledge their methods but bypass them and deal with their fans/users on their own. This is why I self publish.
- gquaglia, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2They already do that at the US boarder.
- Panda200x, on 06/10/2008, -0/+23All I store on my iPod are Rick Astley albums.
- ikarimaru, on 06/10/2008, -0/+15You're never going to give those up, are you?
- ExSlashdotter, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7I see what you did there.
- Sultana, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5Hahaha. Thanks for the laugh. Now I have to explain to my co-workers why I'm laughing...Don't think they'll get it though...Ah well.
- ikarimaru, on 06/10/2008, -0/+15You're never going to give those up, are you?
- TDragon, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6A "world police force"? Who's to say that they won't stop at border checks? What's next world-wide packet sniffing and hacking into random people's computers? This is going to be out of control!
Do they expect us to travel with filing cabinets full of documentation supporting if we legally bought something or not? Not that it will make any difference because there are no appeals or hearings. - SarahC, on 06/10/2008, -1/+6Keep your music on a server somewhere. Cross the border with blank equipment, download your songs again, and voila! Stuff customs.
How pointless are these rules?- cmapes2, on 06/10/2008, -0/+8The point is that you shouldn't have to do that, everyone is becoming so desensitized that they forget they have ***** rights.
- Steeple, on 06/10/2008, -0/+14i bought some ram last week, and they threw in a free 1 gig usb stick, honest to god it was the size of a FINGERNAIL!
i could LITERALLY HIDE THE THING IN MY MANLEY SIDEBURNS!- earthforce1, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Then you'll probably wet your pants if you ever see a micro SD card.
- mrcoderga, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Are your manley sideburns also lined with tin foil?
Because their metal detectors can detect, well, metal, which is what the electrical contacts in your USB stick are made of.
There is no optical interconnect for USB my friend.- Steeple, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1well I'm no expert but there's twice the metal in the rivets on my jeans, and they sail through
- earthforce1, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Then you'll probably wet your pants if you ever see a micro SD card.
- RevEng, on 06/10/2008, -0/+12I just don't understand how governments treat copyrighted works. Infringing is an act, not a state. Being in possession of a copyrighted work is not a crime. Anybody who has legally purchased a copy of a copyrighted work is in possession of a copyrighted work! It's only infringing when you make a copy, without the copyright owner's permission, and when not in any of the situations covered under Fair Use. And the infringing is only the copying. The copy can be identical to the original, in which case it's impossible to tell which was the original and which was the copy. In fact, it's impossible to tell that it was copied at all.
So unless the border guards see you burning off CDs and selling them to people at the border, they can't possibly have any evidence, or even suspicion, that you have infringed somebody's copyright. Looking through the songs on your iPod will not tell them -- you could have purchased those songs legally or even have copied them, legally, from the original media that you personally own.
Major copyright holders like the music and movie studios are trying to morph copyright into something that it is not. They want to make copyright an infinite, unequivocal right to say where, when, and how their works can be used. They want to do away with the Fair Use clauses that leave some semblance of fairness in the laws. And they've already done it. DRM limits what you can do with media, including preventing many things otherwise allowed under Fair Use. The DMCA makes it a felony to circumvent DRM, making it illegal for you to practice your rights under the Fair Use clauses. Copyright holders continually lobby for longer copyright terms, including "forever less a day". And the DRM already in place doesn't respect these copyright terms anyway, allowing them to limit the use of those copies perpetually through the DMCA.- Travelsonic, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4"Being in possession of a copyrighted work is not a crime. Anybody who has legally purchased a copy of a copyrighted work is in possession of a copyrighted work! It's only infringing when you make a copy, without the copyright owner's permission, and when not in any of the situations covered under Fair Use"
To add, you can get copyrighted works for [legally] free too. - kuzotz, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Also legally it's only infringement if you claim it as your own original creation and seek to reap profits from it.
- animeorb, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Well one way they could possibly find you(but there prob not that smart) is to check out all the comment tags on the mp3s because if you download,they sometimes have information about where they were downloaded from. umm..like the legal nine inch nails album i downloaded(The Slip).
- Travelsonic, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4"Being in possession of a copyrighted work is not a crime. Anybody who has legally purchased a copy of a copyrighted work is in possession of a copyrighted work! It's only infringing when you make a copy, without the copyright owner's permission, and when not in any of the situations covered under Fair Use"
- VitriolAndAngst, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4Look, the GOOD NEWS is, that this draconian effort to guarantee the profits of a paid up business isn't going to matter. The BAD NEWS is that the airline tickets will get too expensive, and you will be spending your money on food rather than entertainment.
The government, will likely issue free stamps for vodka, and start allowing nudity on Fox News. CNN will cover the controversy in detail. This worked well in Russia when their country was going down the tubes. - Fhwqhgads, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10Hey nice iPod you have there. New model! 8 kajillion gigs of storage! Awesome! I'll arrest you and keep it for myself. Thank you.
- nny777, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Very well written article.
FYI, the EFF has a letter you can send to your Senator about ACTA.
http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=383- Peace25, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Done, and done.
- jgtg32a, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the link.
- SilverBlade2k, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7Sure, add *another* thing that makes airline travel unnecessarily hard.
A lot of businesses send employees out on trips with business-owned laptops. If they are going to be concerned about their laptops getting confiscated, then the number 'business trips' will decline.
Let the airlines suffer because of this. If they go out of business, blame the ACTA-Agreement. - bwdd, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Like they can tell that all the songs on my iPod are stolen. Seriously.
Note: if you bring a laptop, leave a backup of any questionable material at home. It's not like you're gonna need them on vacation.- Yage2006, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Why should they have to tell ?
They will just make a snap judgment and let you live with the consequences.
Because what would you do anyway argue about it ?
End up getting taserd and thrown in jail for arguing about it ?
This is by far the most disgusting law/treaty I have ever set eyes on and this fills me with nothing but contempt for big media.
- Yage2006, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Why should they have to tell ?
- misconstrued, on 06/10/2008, -0/+15This is just an excuse to be able to seize and search your electronic devices without a warrant.
- artfuldodga, on 06/10/2008, -0/+8It just boggles my mind as to the people we have elected, I try to see light at the end of the tunnel but its not there. :P
- jessehadden, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3This is the repealment of an unrepealable right. Sieg heil!
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by