

Those opposing ACTA are missing something fundamental… - filmn
http://postdesk.com/blog/acta-sopa-pipa-support-defence

======
skymt
The line in support of ACTA and SOPA has always been this: the Internet has a
piracy problem. We're just trying to fix it. If you don't like our method, why
don't you suggest an alternative?

I have a huge problem with that. Copyright infringement is already illegal. We
already have the DMCA to enforce it. If ACTA and something like SOPA pass and
piracy continues, then what? The problem hasn't gone anywhere, and the same
people will be back with an even harsher "solution" and the same old argument.
This argument, extrapolated, is a never-ending death spiral into Internet
totalitarianism.

------
tomp
The author makes a big rhetorical/logical fallacy: (s)he describes the
"problem" that the internet has without ever explaining what exactly the
problem is (its existence is just implied).

The issue is exactly the oposite. There is no problem with the internet, but
the industries, that see internet as a potential new source of (parasitic)
revenue, are __creating __a problem so that the politicians ca __solve __it.

> but then how do we make money without intellectual property rights

I really don't know. But maybe you should ask Paulo Coelho, the developers
behind The Indie Bundle, or Monty Python
([http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/monty-
py...](http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/monty-python-
youtube-move-boosts-dvd-sales-23000)).

> We talk of freedom, artistic expression, and creativity, but at the end of
> the day, someone has to get paid.

Well, who said that art must be paid for, and that it must be paid for by the
customer? In my opinion, art made for profit is not art, true art comes from
within, and is expression of the soul, which would need to be expressed even
if there was no money coming from creating art. Even so, the politicians and
lobbyists emphasise the "successful" artists, those earning big bucks, but
really there are many artists that are only losing/spending money doing their
art, but still do it. After all, we're all artists.

Furthermore, that artists have to "make a living" is a relatively new idea. In
the past, artists had donnors, rich people who financed them so that they
could create in peace, without worries.

~~~
rsanchez1
In reality, the people making the most money off artists (that's musical
performers mainly) today are the recording companies. It used to be that you
needed to sign with a record label to market your music, sell your music, and
book live concerts. The internet has put that power into the artists' hands.
Artists can "make a living" without "making it big" with the internet. The
record labels are running an antiquated business which is no longer needed.

------
twelvechairs
The author conflates value with money all through this article - saying that
if something doesn't make money it is worthless. This is simply ridiculous.

examples:

> How does the internet create and sustain value?

> ...at the end of the day, someone has to get paid

> Without the structure, the economic exchange will not get beyond the barter
> level.

> The industry has to begin to demonstrate what legislation it wants

------
bediger
The author takes the idea of "intellectual property" for granted. What about
the problem of independent invention? The telegraph, telephone and lots of
other major inventions had multiple pretenders to the throne of "inventor". I
think that this fact make "IP" into something less than property.

The problems with this article extend further into its underpinnings than
merely assuming a problem without explaining what the problem is.

------
glogla
What I dislike about the article (apart from the sensationalism he admits to
in the first paragraph) is how he is is trying to equate current state with
"Wild West" and heavy regulation and censorship with "civilized modern age".

But that's not how it works, at least according to most people who know
something about the Internet. ACTA is not "inevitable civilizing of
uncivilized land", turning Wild West to Modern Age, it is something turning
Modern Age to Orwellian dystopia.

That's why arguments like "if you don't want ACTA, you have to propose
something yourself" won't work on people who don't buy the "OMG IT'S SO
SAVAGE, IT NEED CENSORSHIP" meme.

------
kevingadd
The only 'problem' ACTA, SOPA and PIPA actually solve is that outdated
business models are increasingly unprofitable.

Any of the other problems around the IP regime - for example, the extremely
destructive effects of software patent abuse, or the unchecked power of large
organizations to issue fraudulent copyright takedowns - are not remotely
addressed by any of these bills or by past bills.

Engaging with these people isn't helpful because they're in complete denial
about reality. It may be true that the vast majority of political forces and
financial forces are aligned in favor of stuff like ACTA and SOPA, but that's
not because the bills solve a real problem; it's because those bills make rich
people richer, so naturally they're going to spend money to pass them.

------
PLejeck
Why did people not say this about VCRs— oh wait…

------
gerggerg
Cheesy opinion piece by a dude who doesn't seem to have even read the
legislation. Plus, why is it written in the 3rd person?

------
etherael
I don't understand this "the internet needs to be tamed" perspective that
people approaching from this angle always come from. How does this make any
sense at all? Is there something actually, demonstrably wrong with the current
anarchic structure of internet governance?

Or is the answer to that simply "We don't have powers we would like to have to
better our own position" from entrenched real world political blocs?

~~~
DanBC
"We see stuff that we don't like. Some of it is stuff that you wouldn't like.
Some of it is stuff that paid lobbyists are telling us not to like. We don't
understand the Internet, nor international law, and we want to do something
about this stuff that we don't like. Some of that stuff is actually serious
and causing harm to real people. Some of it is stuff that paid lobbyists claim
is causing indirect harm (unemployment) to real people."

I'd like to see better, stronger, cleverer measures taken against images of
child abuse; against the people who abuse children for those images; the
people who make those images, or who share those images, or who distribute
those images, and probably against people who possess[1] those images.

I'd like to think there's effective ways for international law enforcement to
track people trading things like plutonium or other specialist radiological
materials.

Many people would happily give up some freedoms to give law enforcement powers
needed for those things.

So it's baffling to me that regulators point to movie piracy or mp3s or fake
handbags. Most people don't care about fake rolex watches; they certainly
don't want to allow weird privacy violating laws to be passed just to crack
down on sellers of fake rolexes.

[1] I accept that more research is needed. If someone can show me excellent
quality research that possession of images of child abuse reduces a person's
risk of abusing a child in the real world then I guess possession becomes less
problematic.

~~~
etherael
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/30/child-
por...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/30/child-pornography-
reduces-child-abuse/) There does seem to be some evidence to indicate that
this is actually the case. However I don't think it should even be granted
that just because a a digital item has the potential to be abhorrent to human
sensibilities, this is adequate justification for the policing of all digital
content. Even assuming child pornography is not, there could be other digital
items within this category (images of snuff, detailed plans for wardrobe lab
production of biohazardous / infectious diseases, whatever) that certainly
are.

My objection isn't that there is zero potential for some degree of damage from
those things, but that actually policing them is one hundred percent utterly
impossible. All allowing legal enforcement agencies to try does is give them
wide ranging fishing powers and the curtailment of civil liberties in the
general populace. So not only do any attempts to actually accomplish anything
in this area fail on principle, they simply give people in power a skeleton
key for the abuse thereof by justification of whatever digital closet horror
you can be manipulated by.

The mathematics of the situation is this; Digital content can be stored and
transmitted completely privately and there can be no method by which this can
ever be exposed. The consequences of this fact are limited to the transfer of
knowledge only, from which nobody can directly be harmed.

Although I am an anarcho-capitalist so I even carry this theory over into the
real world, at least in the real world the objection that real people can be
directly physically hurt or killed by the absence of strong centralised
authority to keep various boogeymen at bay has some basis in reality if you
accept that is the best way to prevent those negative externalities.

Online, the worst that can happen is that you are mentally exposed to some
deeply unpleasant things. And typically this is only in the case that you have
searched for them extensively, so it appears to be the definition of a limited
harm victimless crime.

------
rsanchez1
The problem is that it's not the people asking for this. That's why people are
protesting SOPA/PIPA/ACTA. That's why people in several European countries
took to the streets protesting their government's involvement in ACTA. Even
worse, ACTA was drafted in secret, away from the people the agreement is going
to affect. When the special interests in RIAA and MPAA and the like have the
power to bring governments together to draft a treaty in secret, you can't be
surprised when the people take to the streets, and I'm of the opinion that you
can't morally defend ACTA unless you had a hand in crafting it, or got paid by
someone who did.

