• Latest ACTA revision leaked!
    108 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;23388782]police can seize and copy your hard drive at airports without warrant you don't even need to have evidence against you to be jailed for pirating; all you need is for a record company/movie publisher to accuse you three times[/QUOTE] Bullshit. You better provide a reliable source. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;23388782]you don't even need to have evidence against you to be jailed for pirating; all you need is for a record company/movie publisher to accuse you three times[/QUOTE] Bullshit too. I know for a fact, that there has been a law proposal similar to Englands proposed "Three strikes rule" where they could cut your internet connection if you pirated three times. This law was of course not voted in, because you can't limit a persons freedoms without a court. You people seem to forget that copyright infringement is a lot more than just digitally. When they say imprisonment, they obviously mean for people gaining a profit. Ie. selling placebos to Africa that looks like real medicine.
[QUOTE=Skyhawk;23409113]If this passes, somebody needs to take it to court. There is so much of the U.S. Constitution that this is in blatant violation of, and I'm sure it's a similar case in other countries. If the Supreme Court actually sees this there is no way it can remain in place.[/QUOTE] Hahaha. You do know that the new supreme court nominee, Elena Kagan, has stated in her writing that she is perfectly fine with the banning of books? And I'm sure there's more to come. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBqdKKKRrrg&feature=player_embedded[/media]
[QUOTE=noctune9;23409172]Bullshit. You better provide a reliable source.[/QUOTE] [quote=ACTA 2.2.1] Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer who knowingly [b]or with reasonable grounds to know,[/b] engaged in infringing activity of [intellectual property rights] [copyright or related rights, or trademarks], to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement.[/quote] Reasonable grounds to know? No definition under what constitutes as reasonable grounds to know.
Ah yes, I'm glad I live in Norway. Stupid EU regulations.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;23409590]Reasonable grounds to know? No definition under what constitutes as reasonable grounds to know.[/QUOTE] [quote]Each Party shall provide that in civil [b]judicial proceedings[/b], its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer who knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity of [intellectual property rights] [copyright or related rights, or trademarks], to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement.[/quote] Judicial, in other words, by court. So they can't take your hard drive without a warrant.
[QUOTE=noctune9;23409722]Judicial, in other words, by court. So they can't take your hard drive without a warrant.[/QUOTE] This is true. I know they have certain exclusions varying from country to country. If the police came to my door and asked for my hard drives without a warrant. My door would crack the sound barrier as i slam it shut. I know my rights.
I hope airport security enjoys my furry porn.
4th amendment. 1st amendment. 5th amendment. 6th amendment. 8th amendment. 7th amendment. 10th amendment. :colbert: Fuck off ACTA. [editline]10:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=User-Maat-Re;23410106]I hope airport security enjoys my furry porn.[/QUOTE] *Names file "Pirated things1" "Limewire folder" "The pirate bay folder"* Instead of pirated things inside are goaste, shock images, gay porn, ect and a big FUCK OFF ACTA backround.
[QUOTE=Skyhawk;23409113]If this passes, somebody needs to take it to court. There is so much of the U.S. Constitution that this is in blatant violation of, and I'm sure it's a similar case in other countries. If the Supreme Court actually sees this there is no way it can remain in place.[/QUOTE] I don't know how bad this bill actually is because I don't feel like sludging through 30+ pages of legalese right now, so I'm assuming that it isn't the doom and gloom people are crying about right now, seeing as every Western Government is supporting it. But, under the supremacy clause, it doesn't really matter if it's constitutional or not. [QUOTE=Dolton;23410396]4th amendment. 1st amendment. 5th amendment. 6th amendment. 8th amendment. 7th amendment. 10th amendment. :colbert: Fuck off ACTA. [/QUOTE] Article VI, Clause 2 [quote=United States Constitution] and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the [i]supreme[/i] Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Archy;23407478]i like how they pulled the census here in canada because it was "too invasive" (only 3 people have complained in a decade) but they let this go through[/QUOTE] The conservatives are idiots, what do you expect? Bring back Chrétien, let him be PM until he dies
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23410530]I don't know how bad this bill actually is because I don't feel like sludging through 30+ pages of legalese right now, so I'm assuming that it isn't the doom and gloom people are crying about right now, seeing as every Western Government is supporting it. But, under the supremacy clause, it doesn't really matter if it's constitutional or not. Article VI, Clause 2[/QUOTE] Fuck. I was certain that the Supremacy clause applied just to the Constitution and it's amendments.
[QUOTE=Dolton;23410642]Fuck. I was certain that the Supremacy clause applied just to the Constitution and it's amendments.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it applies to treaties too, and the process of ratifying a treaty is much easier than ratifying constitutional amendment. Hell, it's easier than passing a normal bill.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23410691]Yeah, it applies to treaties too, and the process of ratifying a treaty is much easier than ratifying constitutional amendment. Hell, it's easier than passing a normal bill.[/QUOTE] Well that is just backwards. Who ever thought that was a good idea?
[QUOTE=Dolton;23410712]Well that is just backwards. Who ever thought that was a good idea?[/QUOTE] the guys who didn't know such shit like IP, RIAA and MPAA would ever show up.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;23412948]the guys who didn't know such shit like IP, RIAA and MPAA would ever show up.[/QUOTE] Poor, poor Founding Fathers. They had too much faith in humanity.
[QUOTE=Dolton;23413228]Poor, poor Founding Fathers. They had too much faith in humanity.[/QUOTE] All politicians suck and should be sent out on a leaky boat.
Meh I'll just make my own country with internet privacy & no stupd ACTA.
[QUOTE=chamon;23423569]Meh I'll just make my own country with internet privacy & no stupd ACTA.[/QUOTE] Can I come?
[QUOTE=noctune9;23409172]Bullshit too. I know for a fact, that there has been a law proposal similar to Englands proposed "Three strikes rule" where they could cut your internet connection if you pirated three times. This law was of course not voted in, because you can't limit a persons freedoms without a court.[/QUOTE] The Digital Economy Bill was voted in by the House of Lords back in June you asshat. The 3-strikes rule is law now.
If this shit goes through, I'll start a riot and lead a movement against the government's control. I really don't care if I'd go to jail for it, it's for my freedoms.
[QUOTE=Pr0vologne;23427095]If this shit goes through, I'll start a riot and lead a movement against the government's control. I really don't care if I'd go to jail for it, it's for my freedoms.[/QUOTE] You most likely wont.
Yeah you're probably right. At most I'll move to the UK since they rejected ACTA.
[url]http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5205/125/[/url] Canada's positions.
[QUOTE=ShaRose;23427410][url]http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5205/125/[/url] Canada's positions.[/QUOTE] It's good to see that we're trying to limit ACTA but it isn't enough. The whole thing needs to be shelved, individual countries should be deciding their own laws. This is very good: [quote]Section 3: Criminal Enforcement Article 2.14: Criminal Offenses Paragraph 1: Canada is proposing to clarify that criminal offenses apply to acts of piracy (rather than acts of infringement as the US is proposing). In either case, the piracy or infringement still must be commercial in nature. This seems like an attempt by Canada to make clear that criminal enforcement applies to a specific subset of infringement activities, rather than using infringement loosely in different contexts.[/quote] [quote]Canada is proposing wording that clarifies that ISPs not be held liable in cases of referring or linking users to a location containing infringing material.[/quote]
I'd take an empty hard-drive though with nothing but the same image in about 50,000 folders saying "You dumbfucks"
Hope the airport security enjoys all the weird porn they're going to have to wade through. :v: :ohdear:
Can someone tl;dr for ACTA in canada?
[QUOTE=adamater;23428102]Can someone tl;dr for ACTA in canada?[/QUOTE] 4 posts up.
Well I'll just continue living a normal life in Norway.
1. Buy a blank hardrive for your laptop. 2. Infect it with a virus. 3. Let them copy it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.