Secret trade agreement will require searches of laptops, MP3 players,and cellphones at airports

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Co...rade_Agreement

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed
plurilateral trade agreement that would impose strict enforcement of
intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in
information-based goods. The agreement is being secretly negotiated by
the governments of the United States, the European Commission, Japan,
Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Canada, and Mexico.
[1][2] If adopted at the 34th G8 summit in July 2008, the treaty would
establish an international coalition against copyright infringement,
imposing a strong, top-down enforcement regime of copyright laws in
developed nations. The proposed agreement would allow border officials
to search laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for copyright-
infringing content. It would also impose new cooperation requirements
upon internet service providers (ISPs), including perfunctory
disclosure of customer information, and restrict the use of online
privacy tools. The proposal specifies a plan to encourage developing
nations to accept the legal regime.

The European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade
Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, and other government agencies have acknowledged participating
in ACTA negotiations, but they have not released documents relating to
the proposed agreement. Public interest advocates in Canada filed an
access to information request but received only a document stating the
title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.[2] On May
22, 2008, a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded
to Wikileaks, and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations
quickly followed.[3][4][2][5]

Border searches
Newspaper reports indicate that the proposed agreement would empower
security officials at airports and other international borders to
conduct random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones
for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travelers with
infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their
devices confiscated or destroyed.[2][5]

ISP cooperation
The leaked document includes a provision to force internet service
providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers
without a warrant, making it easier for the record industry to sue
music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial
BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay.[6]

Enforcement
ACTA would create its own governing body outside existing
international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO),
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United
Nations.[2][7]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Co...rade_Agreement



More wikipedia bull****.

The United States copyright laws already give consumers certain rights
to enjoy music as they see fit for their own personal use. If I go to
a store, buy a CD and then copy the contents to my computer, that is
100% legal. I'll bet that it's even legal in Canada.

Then there is another problem with this farce. Jurisdiction.
In the USA, domains are controlled by ICANN. If you own a domain name
registered in the USA, then the USA laws apply to that domain name
regardless of where you live. Read the laws.

Canada does NOT have the legal right to shut down any dot com website
for alleged copyright infringement. Think about it. How is a Canadian
Court going to impose Canadian laws on a USA citizen living in the
USA?

This trade agreement sounds like somebody's scare tactic to curb the
illegal copying of files. So what are we supposed to do then when
crossing borders? Carry proper documentation that we have the legal
right to the music and other property? Bull****.

What about the Fair use doctrine? Digital rights management is the bad
thing.

Bill

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 03:20:05 GMT, "Bill Cunningham"
wrote:

What about the Fair use doctrine? Digital rights management is the bad
thing.

Bill

Precisely. M$ has declared itself the watchdog of the industry and now
insists that simply because you use it's products, YOU must have a
license. No license? You're screwed.
Even though you have legally obtained that music.

I can't even play a WMA file on winamp simply because I have no
license. DRM ain't about rights, it's about kickbacks and making
money.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 23:14:02 -0400, Larry wrote:

In article ,
richard wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Co...rade_Agreement



More wikipedia bull****.

The United States copyright laws already give consumers certain rights
to enjoy music as they see fit for their own personal use.

Copyright laws do not in any way protect the end user, Richard. They
protect the owner of the copyright.

Larry, you are not an expert in the field.
There are clauses in the copyright laws which give the end user
certain "rights" to enjoy that music as they see fit.
I can legally copy a protected song into any device I own and listen
at my convenience. What I can not do legally, is make copies and sell
that item. That's what the copyright law is all about.



If I go to
a store, buy a CD and then copy the contents to my computer, that is
100% legal. I'll bet that it's even legal in Canada.

Then there is another problem with this farce. Jurisdiction.
In the USA, domains are controlled by ICANN. If you own a domain name
registered in the USA, then the USA laws apply to that domain name
regardless of where you live. Read the laws.

You obviously haven't.

I have.



Canada does NOT have the legal right to shut down any dot com website
for alleged copyright infringement. Think about it. How is a Canadian
Court going to impose Canadian laws on a USA citizen living in the
USA?

Have you thought about it? Have you researched it?

As a NYC ADA, Larry, can you legally prosecute a citizen of Canada who
has never set foot in your city? Of course not. This is why we have
borders. Canadian laws have no meaning in the USA. Period.



Here's a free hint on where to start: look up the history of France and
Yahoo.

In that case against yahoo, in France, the case only effected that
portion of yahoo that resides in France. Are you aware that yahoo has
offices in France? Probably not.



This trade agreement sounds like somebody's scare tactic to curb the
illegal copying of files. So what are we supposed to do then when
crossing borders? Carry proper documentation that we have the legal
right to the music and other property? Bull****.

How eloquent. And wrong.

Do you know what started all this crap?
The director of RIAA, a woman with no clues about copyrighty laws,
said to the creator of NAPSTER, "Aren't you aware that what you are
doing is illegal?"
No it's not. Never has been. The program he wrote never violated the
laws. As I can legally share with you any item I own. Again, what I
can not do with it is, make copies and sell it.

Do you own law books? Have you ever given one of them to a friend? Now
why is that legal to do and not with music?
Have you ever purchasesd a CD and given it to a friend as a present?
Legal? Yes it is.

On Jun 1, 12:03*am, Larry wrote:

As a NYC ADA, Larry, can you legally prosecute a citizen of Canada who
has never set foot in your city? Of course not.

I most certainly can. *Extradition would be tough, but it could be done.

Always? Moron.

Want some examples of how I can prosecute someone who committed a crime
in NY but never set foot here?

1) Someone stands on the shore of the Hudson River in NJ and fires a
shot into NY, killing someone. *NY has jurisdiction to charge the person
with murder.

Apples-oranges. Both NY and NJ are in the SAME country! Moron.
Say a person stands in Canada and fires a bullet into the U.S. killing
someone. They are charged with murder and Canada is asked for
extradition. Too bad. The U.S. has the death penalty and Canada won't
extradite where a person would face the death penalty. So much for
your bold assertions.

2) Someone hacks into a computer that is in NY, or commits a crime where
the victim is in New York (such as identity theft) even if they never
come to NY themselves.

From China? Oh sure. That'll work. What about all those billions of
Asian illegal copies of stuff? Where exactly is U.S. law? I'll tell
you, they just decided the problem was too big to handle and just
isolated the region with it's own separate copyright rules that wink
at illegal copies and concentrated on the rest of the world instead.

Want more examples, fool?

So who is the "fool" here? Just keep suing those college kids for
millions in the hope of shaking a few more quarters out of their
pockets. Hopefully kids will wise up and reject all you greedy guts
and your rules designed to force everyone to pay and you'll all go out
of business. Until then you can just keep billing those chargeable
hours to the trade associations!

On May 31, 11:55*pm, richard wrote:

How eloquent. *And wrong.

Do you know what started all this crap?
The director of RIAA, a woman with no clues about copyrighty laws,
said to the creator of NAPSTER, "Aren't you aware that what you are
doing is illegal?"
No it's not. Never has been. The program he wrote never violated the
laws. As I can legally share with you any item I own. Again, what I
can not do with it is, make copies and sell it.

Well, that's the way it USED to be. You know "Copyright" = right to
copy? But all that has changed. Take the Napster case. As you know it
went to the Supreme court and they decided AGAINST Napster. Sure he
was only making software, but the court said that he "should have
known" that people would use it to copy things illegally. You know
its the same idea that if you manufacture guns, you "should have
known" that criminals would kill people with them, or if you make cars
you should have known that people would get drunk and kill and injure
others with your products. Bottom line is that if someone is misusing
a product you make, you have to be responsible for all the damages
done by anyone who misuses that product! It's only sensible I'm sure.

As for "fair use"? It's non-existent. Courts have stripped it down to
a level where a "researcher" can quote a few words for a review of
your work or a teacher might read a few lines of it in class but if
you xerox a paper or copy some music to do research, it's a copyright
violation pure and simple. There is no such thing as a copyright
holder having a responsibility to society. If someone wants to refer
to your work for research to educate the next generation, then let
them pay through the nose! It's only sensible!

Do you own law books? Have you ever given one of them to a friend? Now
why is that legal to do and not with music?
Have you ever purchased a CD and given it to a friend as a present?
Legal? Yes it is.

Well, USED to be! You need to get up on the law. Today with software
people leading the way, things change. Used to be when you purchased a
CD or software or a book. You got to own the book and to use it and to
transfer that book to someone else. But now, you only own the MEDIA
(paper if it's a book, Plastic if a CD etc.) and the INFORMATION on
that media is only given to you to use under the myriad terms of the
license agreement. Use as long as you owned the book is gone. Now the
license is for a limited time. So you get to read your book or play
the CD for a year and then when the license runs out you the device
quits or a minimum it becomes illegal to use it. You simply then have
to purchase a NEW license for an additional year! And keep doing that
EVERY year until you are no longer interested in the intellectual
property! Shouldn't the creator be able to make a profit from others
using their work? Of course, it's only "sensible"!

Of course the public does have a say in all this and they can vote
with their wallets. All this nasty greed is killing the goose that
laid the golden egg and is the motor behind the "open source"
copyright movement. These product are actually copyrighted but
licensed in such a way that prohibits the usual copyright
restrictions. Smart.

And oh, by the way, Congress was not about to let others act without
jumping on the greed bandwagon and has extended copyright law to such
an extent that the next revision will be to ban all public domain
works forever. The payments to the copyright holders will continue on
through estates of the dead long after the original author or artist
is worm food. You know that Mozart and Beethoven had relatives and
his descendants should all deserve cut of their genius! It's only
sensible.

As for me this is being posted from Firefox and Ubuntu. Screw the
greedy *******s.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 23:55:05 -0400, Larry wrote:

In article ,
richard wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 03:20:05 GMT, "Bill Cunningham"
wrote:

What about the Fair use doctrine? Digital rights management is the bad
thing.

Bill

Precisely. M$ has declared itself the watchdog of the industry and now
insists that simply because you use it's products, YOU must have a
license. No license? You're screwed.

Wait, a company that creates something gets to decide how the product is
used? SHOCKING!

M$ did not create the music. The program now includes a protective
device known as DRM that says, "no license, no listen".
That sir, is illegal.
I refuse to use that program on that basis.


Even though you have legally obtained that music.

You have obtained it pursuant to your license with them. You don't have
an absolute right to use it however you want.

Yes I do. As long as it is in the privacy of my own home and for
personal use.

I can't even play a WMA file on winamp simply because I have no
license. DRM ain't about rights, it's about kickbacks and making
money.

Wait, a company that creates something gets to make money from letting
others use it? SHOCKING!

The license agreement is nothing more than a moneymaking scam for a
certain few and you know damn good and well the artists aren't getting
a dime of it.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
In article ,
richard wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 23:14:02 -0400, Larry wrote:

In article ,
richard wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Co...rade_Agreement



More wikipedia bull****.

The United States copyright laws already give consumers certain rights
to enjoy music as they see fit for their own personal use.

Copyright laws do not in any way protect the end user, Richard. They
protect the owner of the copyright.

Larry, you are not an expert in the field.

I never claimed to be. I do, however, know much more about the law than
you do.

There are clauses in the copyright laws which give the end user
certain "rights" to enjoy that music as they see fit.

I find it humorous that you make this claim, since you've repeatedly
demonstrated that you can't - or won't - read statutes. Can you cite me
a "right" given to music listeners in federal copyright law? Provide
the cite he

17USC107

Fair use and all that it means.

In article ,
Larry wrote:


States routinely achieve extraditions in these circumstances by agreeing
not to ask for the death penalty. Problem solved.

After, of course, an appropriate amount of blustering for the cameras
about how these other countries shouldn't pry into our business lest
anyone suggest the prosecutor is Soft On Crime.