SOPA Storms Back

[solar065]

God I really hoped that we had won that one... on a similar note:

Have any of you guys heard of ACTA? Basically it's SOPA on speed, and it's being drawn up in EU, and it has been since 2008 WITHOUT the knowledge of the populations of the countries involved...

Show us your surport- surport a free internet-STOP ACTA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bAkpsRLE

This is a common misconception. America and Japan are the driving forces behind ACTA. In fact, the EU is one of the major players that hasn't signed on to it.

But you're right, it's damn dodgy. Considering it's being done in complete secret. When a group requested information on the treaty via the Freedom of Information Act in 2009, it was denied by the US Government in the interest of national security. Apparently a go-to phrase for them.

Some information has been made public via wikileaks though. I also find it amusing that it's been attracting criticism from most processionals; a group of over 75 law professors sent a joint letter damming ACTA to the White House. Enjoy.

http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/academic-sign-on-letter-to-obama-on-acta

 

[Boskone]

Looks like Smith is getting paid! This guy is making you Americans look really bad. I hope this all sorts out.

 

[Revolutionary]

As a dirty thieving foreigner, this makes me laugh at the pure ignorance of Mr. smith. However it also scares me shitless of what twits like him might try next.

 

[warrenEBB]

(I think it's important to maintain the line between theft of actual property and infringing conceptual rights).

The problem is that the distinction is one based on personal belief. (...)

Actually, no, I believe there is clear legal precedent that copyright infringement is NOT theft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Theft
:
"Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'""

I think it is common to use the word "theft," because it is inflammatory. but it is not correct, and I hope to stick to correct descriptions of the 'crime.'

it's easy to agree that thievery is wrong. I wouldn't ask "theives" over for dinner.
But when i infringe a copyright, I am not a thief. I wouldn't mind inviting "infringers" over for dinner.