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.