Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/26/12 09:25 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/26/12 07:07 AM, Kiler-Tofu wrote: Well it just got worse...

For those of us who aren't able to access youtube 24 hours a day, and those of us who realize youtube is just as good a news source or primary source as my foot, please post your thoughts in writing.

it is another attempt to restrict the flow of information: ACTA. It legally obliges your ISP to track your internet activity, and disconnect you if copyrighted material is being viewed too often, as well as report you to the authorities where you can be fined and possibly detained. But just like SOPA, it's definition of copyright infringement is very vague and can be applied to almost anything. A law like this can cause lots of damage not just to Internet users, but to websites, and yes once again, especially ones that rely on content created by users.

It is disturbing, the amount of bills like this we keep having to fend off in such short succession, the government obviously doesn't care about how much you like being able to use the internet the same way you are able to use it now, it just wants to control it, and it probably wants to just get it done as fast and quietly as possible before you can react.
here's a nostalgic video game reference

At 1/27/12 09:14 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: it is another attempt to restrict the flow of information: ACTA. It legally obliges your ISP to track your internet activity, and disconnect you if copyrighted material is being viewed too often, as well as report you to the authorities where you can be fined and possibly detained. But just like SOPA, it's definition of copyright infringement is very vague and can be applied to almost anything. A law like this can cause lots of damage not just to Internet users, but to websites, and yes once again, especially ones that rely on content created by users.

It is disturbing, the amount of bills like this we keep having to fend off in such short succession, the government obviously doesn't care about how much you like being able to use the internet the same way you are able to use it now, it just wants to control it, and it probably wants to just get it done as fast and quietly as possible before you can react.
here's a nostalgic video game reference

So basically it checks your cookies (that would be the easiest way to check someones history) just like thousands of websites already do and if there is enough evidence that you've been watching a lot of copyrighted material you have to deal with the consequences of intentionally pirating copyrighted material? How about instead of biased articles and even worse youtube videos one of you guys post a link to the bill with a quote of the wording that you are particularly against? The places you go online are already being recorded and sold off by websites so what makes it ok for them to do it and wrong for your ISP to do it? Finally, if you looked at SOPA you would have seen that it defined piracy and copyright infringement by referencing pre-existing laws on the subject (I even commented as such on one of those dumbass anti-SOPA flashes that was posted on Newgrounds when it claimed that SOPA's definition of piracy was vague) so if this bill uses similar methods of defining piracy you won't be in any more danger if it passes than you are now. So once again, how about you post a link to the actual bill and quote it's definition of copyright infringement so that you actually have something to go on instead of youtube videos and biased articles?

Have you read the bill, djack? I haven't, and I'm not shouting in horror until I do, but unless you have then aren't you technically on the same boat as anyone who's proclaiming doomsday on it?

The only thing that I heard about the act (it's not a 'bill' or a law, it's an international treaty) that makes it different than 'looking at cookies' is that ISP providers are to retain a history of information packets that have passed through their servers for up to 18 months. I have absolutely no clue how that's even feasible, but whatever.

If someone could clarify where people are getting these numbers to satiate my own curiosity I would appreciate it - otherwise I have better things to do than to freak out about something that we have no power to change since it's already gone through President.

At 1/27/12 10:38 PM, Gario wrote: The only thing that I heard about the act (it's not a 'bill' or a law, it's an international treaty)

International treaties don't mean anything until they are enacted as part os the United States Code (i.e. through a bill, and then becoming a law).

At 1/27/12 10:38 PM, Gario wrote: Have you read the bill, djack? I haven't, and I'm not shouting in horror until I do, but unless you have then aren't you technically on the same boat as anyone who's proclaiming doomsday on it?

No, I'm not in the same boat. I didn't say that was definitely how it worked or that it wasn't a bad bill just that the simplest way to monitor what someone does online is with their cookies which thousands of websites already use to check what you've done and they then proceed to sell that information to other websites and companies. I also pointed out that claiming it's definition's are vague is moronic without proof, especially when you're comparing it to a bill that did not have vague definitions. I'm not making any claims about the bill as I have not read it, I'm simply pointing out the fallacies of complaints against the bill based on what's been stated about it and the fact that the only "proof" is a bunch of youtube videos and one biased article. It's these same types of fallacies that the anti-SOPA crowd used and it's what caused me to dislike them so much. It's similar to the jackassery of OWS and what caused me to dislike them so much. It's not necessarily that they're wrong to oppose what they do, it's that they oppose it for the wrong reasons using the wrong methods.

Here it is.

At 1/27/12 11:44 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Here it is.

Only three pages in and there's already a clause protecting privacy rights.
"1. Nothing in this Agreement shall require any Party to disclose:
(a) information the disclosure of which would be contrary to its law or its
international agreements, including laws protecting right of privacy,
(b) confidential information the disclosure of which would impede law
enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest, or
(c) confidential information, the disclosure of which would prejudice the
legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private."
Let's start skimming and see what else. Several definitions including one for intellectual property and one for pirated copyright goods. Multiple sections that protect the rights individuals have within their own country most importantly article 2.10.
"Each Party shall adopt or maintain a procedure by which their competent
authorities may determine, within a reasonable period of time after the initiation of the
procedures described under Article 2.X, whether the suspect goods infringe an
intellectual property right."
I can't find any reason to believe that this law will in any way target the sites themselves or get rid of fair use and unless you fall under section 2.14 (criminal copyright infringement) those "fines" are actually you paying damages to the people who hold the copyright (section 2.2) on the property you stole.

This is why I said to provide quotes from the law that show you're opposition to ACTA. Seriously, show what about this law you specifically oppose. I've shown that the law does work to protect your privacy and that it clearly defines piracy. Unless you can show where it says that it will target the site and/or eradicate fair use all of you're claims are completely baseless.

Cary Sherman (RIAA boss) shot his mouth off in the NY Times about opposition to the bills, and Techdirt completely ripped apart what he said:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/01453517694/riaa-t otally-out-touch-lashes-out-google-wikipedia-everyone-who-pr otested-sopapipa.shtml

At 2 hours ago, wildfire4461 wrote: Cary Sherman (RIAA boss) shot his mouth off in the NY Times about opposition to the bills, and Techdirt completely ripped apart what he said:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120208/01453517694/riaa-t otally-out-touch-lashes-out-google-wikipedia-everyone-who-pr otested-sopapipa.shtml

That article is very biased and they make no show about it. Perhaps we need someone neutral to make these judgments. What we're getting here just isn't cutting it.