Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

page: 2
71
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
This is awful. I won't be able to post other people's videos or photos or stories on the internet and claim they are my own!




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



This is awful. I won't be able to post videos or photos or stories on the internet unless they are my own!


There, I corrected that for you.

Edited to add; Considering the EU has ruled that as few as 11 words from an article can constitute copyright infringement, I think you'll find most of your own articles would be subject to this prevention. You should not be so smug.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by quackers]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by quackers]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe that the ISPs are really going to play along with it. The very concept that they'd be able to monitor every single user and make sure he doesn't have a song or a picture he didn't pay for is ridiculous. The ISPs don't even like to turn over information on their users.

They will never be able to truly control the net because it's really just a massive network of computers, you could make your own net with a couple computers in your house.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
This isn't going to hold up in court and its time to look over the actual legality of their nwo bills and decisions, including this one, and make incredible class actions over and over again, never accepting any bad judgments, and keep firing the cannon of justice till it hits, amongst other measures.

PRO BONO advice would be greatly appreciated right now. We the people are goign to have to stop all of this.

And if the system doesnt make the arrests or press the charges we need to seek the legality behind citizens arrests and citizens courts.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
This is awful. I won't be able to post other people's videos or photos or stories on the internet and claim they are my own!


Actually it means that even if you post your own photos and stories, and are the legal Copyright holder of your content, all it takes is someone else claiming that they are their's and not your's, providing no proof of such for you to lose your IP, lose your Internet Access, and lose your Rights...without legal recourse or remediation.

It means that your ISP will be forced by International Law to do Deep-Packet Sniffing and logging of all your activity online (under the provisions of "proactive measures"). This means that your Right to Privacy will be null and void. This means that every little thing you say or do online will be monitored and filtered accordingly, not just by Government Alphabet Soup Agencies, but by numerous private Corporations. Do you really trust Charter, ComCast, AT&T and so forth with that data? Do you really think that they won't sell that information off to the highest bidder? Do you really think they aren't going to abuse the privilege?

It means that if your child, or a family friend using your network, downloads content they shouldn't, but three times, you and your family lose your Internet privileges condemning you to live a Third-World life without access to what is becoming a Necessity of Life in the Modern World. This will further increase the divide between the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots".

Just because you don't knowingly violate another's IP, doesn't mean this law doesn't adversely affect you.

You do realize that the RIAA has Federally mandated powers over all Music right? That means that they can pursue legal action against even musicians who post their own music that they legally make and post online...and they have done such many times before already. Now, if you post your own Music online, the RIAA can not only pursue legal action against you but have your Internet privileges taken away permanently for making your own music publicly available!

This is bad, very bad news for everyone...Pirates, Non-Pirates, Legal-Abiding Netizens, ISPs, Content Providers, and IP Holders alike.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


When the torrent site Torrentspy was found guilty of facilitating copyright infringement, the court ordered that they pro actively monitor the actions of users who visited the site as well as filter user submitted content. Torrentspy appealed arguing that it simply was not feasible to filter all search results for all content due to the way the content is aggregated from all over the internet, or keeps logs of user activity due to hardware constraints. The court could not care less about the technical details, or that what they were asking was virtually impossible to implement. As a result Torrentspy had no other option but to close.

If an ISP argues that is is technically impractical to monitor in real time the activities of its subscribers, and filter all of their content for infringing material (an impossibility in itself), then expect ISPs to find them on the wrong side of fines, and watch as the providers slowly go out of business or are bought out. Then you will have 0 options as the only one left standing will not need to filter your content as the only content available will be directly from them.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by quackers]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


The Pirate Bay was told they had to remove all copyrighted material a while ago and I have yet to see a change in the products they offer.

When we talk about ISPs we're not talking about a small group of people running a website, we're talking about million, if not billion, dollar companies in most cases. Companies like AOL are not of the size to be simply pushed over and bullied into submission. That goes doubly for ISPs like Time Warner which are part of a much larger company.

It should be on the copyright holder to provide proof of theft. If someone stole some artwork I did and I took them to court it would be my responsibility to prove that it's mine and that they stole it.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I've said this before, and it still holds true.

The people who want this implemented are driven purely by greed.

many years ago I bought the album "Hunky Dory" on vinyl.

then I bought it on cassette

then I bought it on CD

Now they want me to pay to copy that CD onto my computer, and from there onto my MP3 player.

When they bring it out again in a new format, doubtless they will want me to pay full price for that as well.

So the record company, and to a lesser extent, Mr Bowie, have had my money 3 times for the same product.

Same goes for video, DVD, blu-ray

Now if I went to a shop with my Vinyl/cassette/CD and paid only the production costs, I might be willing to listen.

Otherwise, they can suck it up as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I am an artist who produces not only visual media but music as well & this is BS. This is a clear-cut case of the suits wanting money for doing absolutely nothing. People don't realize that the actual artists are being hurt by all of these lame-ass business moves that only have share holders & owners' interests in mind once again.

Especially considering the recent study that showed those who download illegally are also the ones who spend the most money on music:

www.independent.co.uk...

The ISP's would have a hell of a time tracking that anyways from a technical level if they don't know all of the copyright agreements for any given artist/company. There's no way of them ever being able to effectively enforce this save for particular files distributed particular ways tagged specifically.

It will never fly for so many reasons....



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


The Pirate Bay owes its success to the failure of Torrentspy, an American based site that was the largest torrent site at the time. The only way they could close the site was to impose limitations that the site clearly could not abide by for very real reasons. This is no different a situation. The copyright Mafia lobbies for these restrictions knowing full well that they are near on impossible to implement. The goal is to force ISPs to close, or merge in an attempt to survive. Eventually there will be one or two ISPs just to give you the illusion of choice, and they won't need to filter your content as they will decide what you do and do not have access to. This is the death cry of peer to peer communications.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 


Agreed - I would rather give my music away and let people pay a donation/what they want, than let those vultures get their hands on it.

Digital media has made it a whole new ballgame, and the big companies are panicking seeing the gravy train pull out of the station without them.



[edit on 4/11/2009 by budski]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
!! Hahahahahaha !!


I laugh because the more big corporations and big government try try to censer the internet the more difficult they are making it on themselves. Lets take Napster for example, they closed that down we got Kazza and Morpheus, they shut that down and we got bit torrent! You see with more regulation the problem mutates. We see an interesting phenomena when power brokers try to regulate the internet.

Heck in communist China they circumvent internet censorship, if they can do it, so can we. I'd like to see them try to regulate this, it would be funny to watch.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus

Originally posted by Essan
This is awful. I won't be able to post other people's videos or photos or stories on the internet and claim they are my own!


Actually it means that even if you post your own photos and stories, and are the legal Copyright holder of your content, all it takes is someone else claiming that they are their's and not your's, providing no proof of such for you to lose your IP, lose your Internet Access, and lose your Rights...without legal recourse or remediation.


So if I claim all the BBC's internet output is actually mine, then the USA will close down the BBC? Great


I can claim the CIA's website (I assume they have one?) was all written by me too and get that closed down as well.

As for ATS - well everything you post is copied off me so you're all gonna be banned from the internet forever!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent-ATS
reply to post by budski
 


Lol at the repeated "No more net access"

Breath little blue man the vains in your head are already poking out youre skull.

But "No more net access" would SUCK.

I hope im safe here in the UK for a bit longer, but it's bound to happen sooner or later?

"Where did i put that proxy list?"



[edit on 4-11-2009 by Agent-ATS]



Watch the proxies... they are honeypots...

That's bond.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
If this ever passed and was being enforced I see a new revolution in encryption technology. I'm sure the NSA will love that. ; )



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
If you download with ssl, how can they tell what files you are downloading, in first place?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


Wow! talk about taking the words right out of my mouth!

Welcome to my friends list, brother.

Specifically: Who Benefits from this? Looks to me like the gov simply confiscating the web from the people.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


My buddy got a letter in the mail yesterday from comcast telling him that they monitored his download of the new transformers movie (yes...he pirated it...different thread about morals and what not, please...)

but anyways...yeah...they're monitoring it all now, in the name of the use-to-be-mighty dollar.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
If you download with ssl, how can they tell what files you are downloading, in first place?


Packet-Shape and Packet-Size, regardless of Encryption method can and are analyzed for content by many ISPs already using common technology.

In order for a request to be sent and delivered from one computer to the next, the Routing Headers are *NOT* Encrypted. From just the destination IP Address or the Port Number, you can tell what the contents are with a fair degree of certainty. This is how ISPs can filter, prioritize, route, or shape Internet Traffic based upon what type of content it is...giving priority to Web content on Port 80, while blocking Outgoing SMTP on Port 25, while re-routing or delaying P2P content on higher Port Numbers in the 35000-65000 Range.

Encryption doesn't hide what you are doing. All it does is prevent the actual contents from being discerned. Looking at the Packet-Headers they can tell that you are downloading a file via P2P even with Encryption, but they just can't tell if you are downloading Pr0n or a Disney Movie.

The various protocols that all Internet services use also have what is called an Inter-Packet Delay between packets that acts as a signature of the Internet Service being used. Even Encrypted, any "Stepping-Stone" between your computer and the service (i.e., your ISP) is able to discern what services you are using. Services such as FTP, Telnet, SSH Remote Desktop, and rlogin are especially easy to determine this way despite being the most commonly Encrypted of Internet Traffic.

As such, even Proxy Servers aren't going to be a way around this, as those Packets still have to go from your computer to the Proxy Server, allowing your ISP the opportunity to Deep-Packet Sniff the contents and analyze them.

The only circumvention is the use of Deep Web or Dark Nets which are more commonly used in countries with strict Internet Censorship. They use a combination of Trusted Gateways and encapsulated Packets that cause their Traffic to be far more difficult to either analyze, sniff, or prevent from other Traffic.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I have prohibited the kids from downloading new movies, before they are on the cable, once they are released and can be video taped, but the last kind, I will never allow anyone to take that right away, or videos on youtubes by muscicians, that are their videos they release on mtv and music stations to promo their work and many other songs, guess what. If I didn't discover you on youtubes, and fall in love, I would never buy your work.

However, I don't give them the right to do this and they will not win. I have already written to one, and threw in a ps that we demand disclosure too, and not Vrill and that I knew he knew what I meant.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Unity_99]





new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join