Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
TPP treaty (ACTA all over) provisions leaked. (boingboing.net)
151 points by rst on Aug 26, 2012 | hide | past | web | favorite | 30 comments



Please link directly to the article, rather than to boingboing's link to the article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/tpp-creates-liabilitie...


This has been done, but nobody seems to care about that HN entry: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4434154

Maybe the title was badly chosen.


> Requirements for Internet intermediaries to filter all Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material.

Each time I read something like that, I wonder if they really realize the cost needed to achieve efficient filtering.


They aren't interested in efficient filtering. Laws such as these are only selectively applied and are meant to give them leverage in negotiations and take-down requests ... after a treaty such as this one gets implemented, a content distributer will not think twice about complying with a DMCA takedown request. And such services will end up paying licensing fees even if all the hosted content is legit, simply because of the risk associated.


Laws such as these are only selectively applied

Laws architected not be obeyed but to abused are totally unacceptable.


Well, of course. But we end up with such laws because the politicians don't have the technical knowhow do understand the full implications and the lobbyists don't really care as long as it's in their advantage.


This has the whiff of a law architected by the lobbyists. The politicians, as you put it, "don't really care as long as it's in their advantage."

The pre-meditation is particularly worrisome.


By increasing ISP liability they're trying to make the business of an ISP inherently risky and unprofitable unless they purchase content licenses.

So it's effectively a transfer of wealth from anyone who handles online content to the MPAA/RIAA.


Why would the cost matter if the result is only that the entrenched big boys solidify their position thereby?


How is behind these things? It seems that they won't stop until they are dead -- any hope that they are getting old or have other illnesses?


This kind of shit is the reason I pirate all major-label and big studio content I want. I refuse to help feed their legal machine. I still pay for third-party, independent content. Anything else is fair game. I consider this approach to be far superior from a moral standpoint.

Everyone really ought to be doing the same. Stop feeding the MPAA/RIAA.


...why not just refuse to watch their stuff?


That works incredibly well too. With the added bonus of having time to spare to do more rewarding things.


What's the difference? Either way, you're not giving them money.


Two main reasons.

1. When you don't pirate, at the margin you'll give some of your time, attention, publicity, and money to the sort of producers you want to encourage, which would've gone to Big Content, except only for the money.

2. People rationalize. It's what humans do. When you have a reason not to pay, to what extent is it the main reason? You're both setting up a constant temptation to lie to yourself and clouding your motives to others -- they have more trouble telling how seriously to take your stated reason.

(My Big Content disclosure: a netflix subscription and a very occasional DVD or CD purchase -- the last one was Game of Thrones. Haven't been to the cinema in several years and I'm thinking of dropping netflix. Oh, I do still buy plenty of books, though the internet has cut into that. Also, I hypocritically pirate academic books sometimes and do the same for papers with no compunction at all (edit: barring evidence the actual author cares). Maybe that should've gone first, oh well.


When you don't pirate, at the margin you'll give some of your time, attention, publicity, and money to the sort of producers you want to encourage

Pirating from people who I don't want to encourage, and paying people who I do want to encourage are not mutually exclusive actions.

When you have a reason not to pay, to what extent is it the main reason? You're both setting up a constant temptation to lie to yourself and clouding your motives to others -- they have more trouble telling how seriously to take your stated reason.

For one, I don't particularly care what anyone else thinks of my media consumption habits. I state my reasons for pirating content - if someone disbelieves me, that is their prerogative.. the goal of not supporting people who campaign against me is achieved regardless.


You can do both, but at the margin there is an effect.

You may not care, but 1. People's opinions affect the fight; perhaps it's most of the battle. And 2. as a human you can't trust your self-perception.


What do you mean by 'at the margin'?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

In a world where I'd already watched Game of Thrones season 2 via torrent I'd still have consumed some of the other entertainments that I actually did, but less of them.


Because if you think it has enough value for you to watch it, but refuse to pay for it, you're not really protesting anything. You're just being a jerk. It isn't taking a principled stand to do something which helps your own wallet at the expense of the people making the content you watch.

For clarification, since I seem to have worded that unclearly: if your protest is indistinguishable from simply being greedy, don't be surprised if your message gets lost. If you think it's worth protesting, go all the way. Otherwise how am I supposed to tell that you really think your reason to protest them outweighs—even to you—your reason to watch the stuff they create?


>You're not really protesting anything.

Sure I am. I'm protesting giving money to people who campaign against my interests.

Nobody (save for you) has said that taking a stand has to be an exercise in self flagellation.


I have the right to watch anything I want to because I need to understand my own society. And I can't have my money going to these organizations that are hostile to my interests.

The best solution is for these media companies to simply cease operations. The world will be no worse off if they just stop producing digital entertainment, a huge chunk of which is just propaganda anyway.


> if your protest is indistinguishable from simply being greedy, don't be surprised if your message gets lost.

Well put.


Aside from what other people have already said, you add to the statistics on people who download media illegally. These provide ammunition for the creation of crazy laws such as SOPA.


this works well for the most part.


I've come to the same conclusions. I:

- never buy anything from a MAFIAA-affiliated company. If in doubt, I don't buy it.

- vote for the Pirate party at every occasion.

- encourage all my friends to do the same.


The MPAA/RIAA donate to politicians who make their views the foreign policy of the US.

These politicians include Lamar Smith and former-politicians like Chris Dodd but there are dozens more.


They'll never give up. Better patch the meatspace bug and write a software workaround.


This one has been moving since 2005, slowly but steadily. Oddly the US isn't an original signatory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economi...


The linked leaked text seems to be from February 2011. Is this the current text I wonder?




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: