ACTA, SOPA's big brother

[Aberration]

Your rights should not infringe upon anothers rights. That is a pretty basic and fundamental concept shared pretty much by all developed countries.

You have the right to free speech, unless it infringes on someone elses rights... copyright. You have the right to privacy, unless it infringes on someone elses rights... copyright. A basic and fundamental right is to that of your property and the right to protect it.

[BoredByLife]

Your rights should not infringe upon anothers rights. That is a pretty basic and fundamental concept shared pretty much by all developed countries.

You have the right to free speech, unless it infringes on someone elses rights... copyright. You have the right to privacy, unless it infringes on someone elses rights... copyright. A basic and fundamental right is to that of your property and the right to protect it.

Maybe this will clarify it for you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Xg_C2YmG0

[Aberration]

Maybe this will clarify it for you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Xg_C2YmG0

I stopped when they started with a copy being the same as an original.

Copyright.

[BoredByLife]

I stopped when they started with a copy being the same as an original.

Copyright.

Than it says a lot about you, if you would have watched the complete video you would have known what it is about. But maybe you just prefer to have no knowledge about the subject. That choice is up to you.
ACTA where C stands for Counterfeiting, not Copying.

[01Lude]

I can't see governments enforcing this on a practical level. I don't think they would arrest their own citizens for copying the ideas of people in other countries because it would only hurt their own competitiveness in a global marketplace. Unless they plan to adopt a policy of "selective enforcement" where they only go after small fish?

If you think about it, people borrow ideas from each other all the time. That's how we learn and grow. Children in schools "infringe" on the ideas of their teachers. When we get older we take ideas from other businesses and adapt them to fit our own companies. Artists "sample" from each others works all the time. If we weren't allowed to borrow ideas from each other then society would be completely stagnant.

Sometimes it isn't so clear who should "own" the copyright in the first place. For example calculus was developed simultaneously by both Newton and Leibniz in two completely different countries. On top of that we don't pay a royalty to these people every time we solve a math problem in school or in the workplace. That would be just ridiculous.

Those who believe that society will simply stop innovating because of online piracy are dead wrong. One might even argue the idea market will become MORE competitive for several reasons.

1. The time window to make one's profits will be significantly diminished, so there is added pressure to release good ideas sooner and more often, rather than sitting on a good idea for a period of time or relying on the income for years and years because you own the copyright.

2. Copyrights and patents cost big money. Without the need for huge amounts of cash to protect copyrights, the market opens up for the average person to make a name for himself/herself. The way things are now, if you have a good idea you basically have to sell it to a large patent company who has the money to buy good lawyers. Without this layer of red tape, ideas could come directly from individuals, and perhaps even allow for opportunities for creative people in third world and developing nations to make names for themselves.

This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure others can think of more but my brain is tired now.

[01Lude]

Than it says a lot about you, if you would have watched the complete video you would have known what it is about. But maybe you just prefer to have no knowledge about the subject. That choice is up to you.
ACTA where C stands for Counterfeiting, not Copying.

I think that is more semantics than anything else. It's a legal argument, not an ethical one. It would be quite easy for lawyers to correct such a minor oversight by changing the language itself, or even simpler by changing the interpretation of the current language. So technically you are correct that counterfeiting is not copying, but I'm pretty sure they (industry lawyers) can fix that pretty easily.

[Aberration]

I think that is more semantics than anything else. It's a legal argument, not an ethical one. It would be quite easy for lawyers to correct such a minor oversight by changing the language itself, or even simpler by changing the interpretation of the current language. So technically you are correct that counterfeiting is not copying, but I'm pretty sure they (industry lawyers) can fix that pretty easily.

The title has little bearing on the legal contents, and does not need to be completely accurate to the language of the bill.

[Aberration]

Than it says a lot about you, if you would have watched the complete video you would have known what it is about. But maybe you just prefer to have no knowledge about the subject. That choice is up to you.
ACTA where C stands for Counterfeiting, not Copying.

Why would I watch the entire video when they are dishonest within a few minutes? Says a lot about you that you are willing to accept dishonesty.

Yes C is for counterfeiting. And in SOPA, P was for Piracy. What was your excuse then?

[01Lude]

Your rights should not infringe upon anothers rights. That is a pretty basic and fundamental concept shared pretty much by all developed countries.

You have the right to free speech, unless it infringes on someone elses rights... copyright. You have the right to privacy, unless it infringes on someone elses rights... copyright. A basic and fundamental right is to that of your property and the right to protect it.

1) You don't have the right to either free speech or to privacy, internationally speaking. Other countries are not beholden to each others laws unless they agree to of their own free will. Try going to China and telling them to respect your *cough* "right" to free speech.

2) How do you justify "ownership" of this property you speak of, especially on an international scale? Historically, ownership of property has been about having the POWER to enforce one's own interpretation of "ownership" over others' interpretations. For example in the U.S. (old west) there was no such thing as "private property" until barbed wire was invented.

[Aberration]

1) You don't have the right to either free speech or to privacy, internationally speaking. Other countries are not beholden to each others laws unless they agree to of their own free will. Try going to China and telling them to respect your *cough* "right" to free speech.

I am specifically addressing the US. And no treaties we sign can violate our Constitutional rights. BTW, I am in China

2) How do you justify "ownership" of this property you speak of, especially on an international scale? Historically, ownership of property has been about having the POWER to enforce one's own interpretation of "ownership" over others' interpretations. For example in the U.S. (old west) there was no such thing as "private property" until barbed wire was invented.

I don't really care about how property rights were protected in the past. Live in the now. But even in the now, you are complaining about people using power to enforce their rights. And we are not talking about interpretation of ownership, as that is pretty basic. What we are talking about is what people think they should be able to do with another's property.

And sorry, the concept of private property existed long before the US Constitution, and long before barb wire. You are talking about the ability to assert and protect your rights.

[01Lude]

BTW, I am in China

cool then you already get the point.

I don't really care about how property rights were protected in the past. Live in the now. But even in the now, you are complaining about people using power to enforce their rights.

To understand the here and now we have to understand the historical precedent upon which our foundations are based. I'm not complaining; I'm telling it how it is. Even today it is all about having the power to impose your point of view upon others. Sure at first we try to persuade each other, but when we agree to disagree, then POWER comes into play; and this is unfortunately the point at which the average citizen loses to large corporations.

And we are not talking about interpretation of ownership, as that is pretty basic. What we are talking about is what people think they should be able to do with another's property.

It isn't basic at all. People in other countries have an entirely different conception of "private property." In fact I would say that this debate is the central issue of our time. Again I reiterate, how does anyone justify ownership of anything? You seem to assume that everyone shares your understanding of property rights. Don't tell me that even when living in China, an American citizen can still live in a bubble?

And sorry, the concept of private property existed long before the US Constitution, and long before barb wire. You are talking about the ability to assert and protect your rights.

Again we need to hit on the point about being able to JUSTIFY why this piece of land is yours. Is it because you got there first and planted your flag? What about the native peoples who roamed the land long before any of us? It isn't as simple as "I paid for it therefore it's mine."

Let's back up a bit. A "right" is something we feel we are naturally entitled to. In actuality there is nothing "natural" about it. "Rights" are fought over constantly. Workers' rights, women's rights, rights to anything are contested every day. You said you are in China right now, right now you do NOT have the right to free speech. Your passport protects you to a degree, but most people on the planet aren't lucky enough to "own" the "right" to travel possessed by U.S. citizens. This thread is about much more than just U.S. citizens.

[Nightstar]

Your rights should not infringe upon anothers rights. That is a pretty basic and fundamental concept shared pretty much by all developed countries.

You have the right to free speech, unless it infringes on someone elses rights... copyright. You have the right to privacy, unless it infringes on someone elses rights... copyright. A basic and fundamental right is to that of your property and the right to protect it.

I'm one of those fellows with the strange belief that intellectual property beyond a secret is a spurious concept. Setting that difference aside I agree that ones rights should not be infringed without absolute necessity. In that context ACTA and SOPA are particularly offensive since they would serve to attenuate the rights and privliges of the common citizenry which in some nations happen to be grounded in the fundamental constitutional laws and documents of institution. If we're not already enforcing the laws that protect the rights of the citizenry should we really draft laws enshrining the right to controll the dissemination of information?

Call me crazy but this stuff just amazes me. How can this be deemed acceptable given our level of civilization? After all, here we are discussing this in a publicly accessable online forum.

Additionally all things are copies or derivative works from artifice to organism even perception and recollection. This notion of originality is the product of hubris devoid of awareness.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...opyright-case/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...main-works.ars