Author Topic: Obama's Massive Piracy Crackdown exposes the Bilderberg/WTO Satanic Agenda  (Read 19374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18815
Jason Mick (Blog) - June 23, 2010 10:37 AM


Recent studies have shown that piracy may actually help the U.S. economy and that virtually every citizen commits some form of IP infringement on a daily basis.  (Source: Learn Languages)

Despite this, the Obama administration is firmly on the side of groups like the RIAA and MPAA and plans to crack down on infringers at home and abroad.  (Source: CITV)

Among its plans is to assist copyright organizations in prosecutory efforts, such as sending out threat/collection notices. The government also looks to legislation imminent infringement (thought crime), criminalization of P2P development, and criminalization of DRM bypassing later this year.  (Source: Flickr)
 
"It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window." -- U.S. VP Joe Biden


While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking depths of the internet, copyright protection attack-dog organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have long dreamed of the day when they would no longer have to pay for their own copyright enforcement.  Now that dream is on the verge of coming true, thanks to the Obama administration.

After countless lobbyist dollars from the music and film industry and a brief "public review", the administration rolled out its vision to fight piracy yesterday afternoon.  U.S. Vice President Joe Biden -- whose blunt speech has sometime left him in trouble -- did not mince words.

He states, "This is theft, clear and simple.  It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."

The sound-byte comparing downloads to stealing jewels from New York City's finest jeweler quickly lit up the web.  Bob Pisano, interim chief executive officer at the Motion Picture Association of America praised the VP, "It is especially critical that the United States has an effective framework for protecting creative content online and enforcing intellectual property rights in the digital environment."

According to the Obama administration, the RIAA, and MPAA, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad.  Without such a crackdown, businesses will go bankrupt the coalition argues.  Biden states, "Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy."

Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.

Another noteworthy study from three years back notes that virtually every citizen violates intellectual property laws in some way on a daily basis.

The White House press release was full of buzz phrases, but short on details.  It did however indicate that the U.S. government may increasingly monitor filesharing networks and BitTorrent sites and assist media groups in their prosecution/threat letter efforts.  It speaks of improved "law enforcement efforts at the Federal, state and local level."

The biggest effort, though, will be devoted to cracking down on piracy websites in the U.S. and overseas.  The administration was short on details of how exactly it would convince piracy-loving nations like China to change their ways, but it did say it would try to do so by "being as public as we possibly can" about infringement.

The press release states, "As we shine the spotlight on foreign governments that have rogue actors doing illicit business within their borders, it's the government's responsibility to respond."

Such efforts have shown mild success.  After lots of threats against the Swedish government by the U.S., the European Union nation finally tried admins with the nation's largest torrent site The Pirate Bay last year and found them guilty.  The trial was later exposed to be a perversion of the justice system, with the judge who gave the verdict have multiple ties to copyright protection organizations.  The verdict -- $3M USD in damages and a year of hard prison time for the admins -- is currently being appealed.

The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year.  The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement.  It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk").  This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government.  The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

Ultimately, it should be interesting to see how American taxpayers react to President Obama's decision to spend their money on efforts to prosecute them and try to choke out piracy at home and abroad, particularly when the current evidence is inconclusive of its effects.  One thing's for sure, though.  Top politicians on both sides of the aisle are firmly behind the music and movie industry anti-piracy and money-collection efforts.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

charrington

  • Guest
"It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense"

http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Administration+Announces+Massive+Piracy+Crackdown/article18815.htm


Offline HAZMAT

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
This is crap! Once again they are basically blaming Americans for f**king up the economy and claim piracy hurts it. Most people that pirate end up buying whatever they pirated in the end unless its music. I know with movies and games people use it as basically a free rental service and end up deleting it later. So, in fact, piracy may be making more money for these idiots. Though, the DRM part freaks me out the most, here you own something but you can't back it up to protect it from damage nor can you install it on more than a set number of computers before you can't anymore. Just trying to generate revnue by throwing people into the system.

charrington

  • Guest
Time to get your passports in order...

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Meanwhile, in Asia, piracy is rampant.  Yet we continue to kiss China's ass.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Federal Government sees the American People as their enemy.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors

Without the distinction that "piracy" should require that a commercial interest was involved, the argument that "piracy" in general costs anyone anything is retarded.

Little Joey listening to a "pirated" copy of his favorite tune in his mom's basement is hardly on par with STEELE MICROSYSTEMS of Dallas Texas acquiring blatant PIRATED COPIES of both Microsoft Windows (sometimes labeled WINDOWWS or WINDOOS) and Microsoft Office back in 1998-99 (complete with crappy laser printed cover and bag-based shrink-wrapping) and selling them AS NEW to unwitting customers buying brand new high-end notebooks.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,239
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Quote
Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

But continues to look on approvingly as the financial terrorists pulling its strings literally wage WAR on the American people!  ::)

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.msg976255#msg976255
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

charrington

  • Guest
I think until people understand they are going to have to make major sacrifices in their lives to get their freedom back - it will continue. Boycotting all music period would send a signal heard clearly. Everyone taking off a day and NOT driving their cars would send another message. It's peaceful yet sends messages clearly. Unfortunately - there is no solidarity in America , left vs right, black vs white, Democrats vs Republicans etc...

Yet it is so simple to do , albeit you would be classified a terrorist if you tried to organize it.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
This is crap! Once again they are basically blaming Americans for f**king up the economy and claim piracy hurts it. Most people that pirate end up buying whatever they pirated in the end unless its music. I know with movies and games people use it as basically a free rental service and end up deleting it later. So, in fact, piracy may be making more money for these idiots. Though, the DRM part freaks me out the most, here you own something but you can't back it up to protect it from damage nor can you install it on more than a set number of computers before you can't anymore. Just trying to generate revnue by throwing people into the system.
When they start enforcing all of this crap and putting innocent people in jail, there's going to be hell to pay.  

"Man's got to make a living somehow." (bounty hunter, jackbooted thug)

"Dying ain't much of a livin'".

-Clint Eastwood

Offline BruntFCA2

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
Meanwhile, in Asia, piracy is rampant.  Yet we continue to kiss China's ass.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Federal Government sees the American People as their enemy.

What he said.

Also, the way they've got naked body scanners at the airport for Americans, but nothing to stop Mexicans and whoever else to cross the Arizona border?

I wonder if this law applies to non US-Citizens in the US. This is kinda getting like fall of the Roman Empire where it's worse to have a citizenship (so they can get their legal claws on you), than being without.

Offline TBPauly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • The World Of Big Pauly
Just remember...a government of terrorists will make anyone look as such to throw everyone off the scent that they are the terrorists themselves.  Classic misdirection trick, and we shouldn't fall for it.
"Let justice be done though the heavens fall."
Jim Garrison, c. 1969

Offline Initiated

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Time to get your passports in order...

Never ... I would never run from protecting my family.
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."  ~ James Madison

charrington

  • Guest
Never ... I would never run from protecting my family.
Take them with you... That's protecting them. Staying here is the danger.

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Meanwhile, in Asia, piracy is rampant.  Yet we continue to kiss China's ass.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Federal Government sees the American People as their enemy

Again with this Obama bin Soetero "future crimes" garbage!! Indefinite preventative detention indeed.

The day when an immigrant illegally banishes any American from America from a throne in the White House and gets away with it, is a month after doomsday...

Offline Kakumei

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
No one's going to take me alive / The time has come to make things right / You and I must fight for our lives / You and I must fight to survive - Muse, Knights of Cydonia

uswgo

  • Guest
This is my response against both the Obama Administration and the RIAA:

http://uswgo.com/why-uswgo-founder-sides-with-the-pirate-bay-and-wants-activation-workarounds-and-non-commercial-sharing-to-be-legal.htm

Also going after pirates...aka Non commercial file sharers ain't gonna help the economy in fact it will hurt it because once non commercial file sharing is controlled nobody is gonna wanna buy mp3 players or even dvd discs anymore thus putting a death to the computer industry then the RIAA will really go bankrupt. Maybe the plan is to ruin piracy....aka non commercial file sharing so that people lose their interest in keeping the net and thus cuts more jobs so the RIAA can rule everyone and be a super monopoly and force everyone to be a slave to their record company managers :(

Offline TheProxy

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
    • Invalidcookie.net
I'm screwed then.. =p I've helped code a few Filesharing sites (which i'll leave nameless) think tracker, and biggest.
I bring a message Those who would try to take our freedom... Pray.
-----------------------------------------
http://invalidcookie.net

Offline TheProxy

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
    • Invalidcookie.net
Take them with you... That's protecting them. Staying here is the danger.
-- there really is no running, there is no place on this earth their poison will no touch.
I bring a message Those who would try to take our freedom... Pray.
-----------------------------------------
http://invalidcookie.net

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
This is my response against both the Obama Administration and the RIAA:

http://uswgo.com/why-uswgo-founder-sides-with-the-pirate-bay-and-wants-activation-workarounds-and-non-commercial-sharing-to-be-legal.htm

Also going after pirates...aka Non commercial file sharers ain't gonna help the economy in fact it will hurt it because once non commercial file sharing is controlled nobody is gonna wanna buy mp3 players or even dvd discs anymore thus putting a death to the computer industry then the RIAA will really go bankrupt. Maybe the plan is to ruin piracy....aka non commercial file sharing so that people lose their interest in keeping the net and thus cuts more jobs so the RIAA can rule everyone and be a super monopoly and force everyone to be a slave to their record company managers :(
Yeah part of this is to scare the shit out of people using the Internet by making them become deathly afraid of getting sued into oblivion.  But that isn't going to make the people buy any RIAA label garbage, because that's disposable income crap anyway which no one will be able to afford.

The globalists don't give a f*ck about the RIAA.  It's just another corporate parasite leech whose only job is to facilitate more tyrannical lockdown of digital information.  They can easily have the RIAA fall on it's on sword just like BP.  It makes zero difference to them--once they have the control, nothing else matters period.  Scumbag fascists like Cary Sherman, Dan Glickman (former MPAA) and Jack Valente have been complete puppets that bent over for Bilderberg/CFR.

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Wait until Obama's cyberthugs start fining and arresting people for sharing free software such as Ubuntu. That might finally wake the libsheep up and get them behind TRUE classical liberalism which is part of libertarianism.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Wait until Obama's cyberthugs start fining and arresting people for sharing free software such as Ubuntu. That might finally wake the libsheep up and get them behind TRUE classical liberalism which is part of libertarianism.


  This may FINALLY get the soccer moms and Joe Six Packs off their butts. 

  The internet has been the greatest tool of the exchange of ideas and of the search for truth since the invention of the printing press.  They can't control the printing press so they want to control the internet.
                                                                                             ---Judge Andrew Napolitano
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832

The expansion of power & controll distracting us from the true abomination.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,239
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
This may FINALLY get the soccer moms and Joe Six Packs off their butts.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Bottom line: by the time these distraction-obsessed zombies posing as human beings awaken to the glaringly obvious, it will be the logical equivalent of some willfully ignorant person finally awakening to the fact that he's on a sinking ship now that he's (surprise!) dying of hypothermia.

Talk about too little too late!

    "They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

    "Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    "Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

    "Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up."

-- attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

H0llyw00d

  • Guest

  This may FINALLY get the soccer moms and Joe Six Packs off their butts. 

  The internet has been the greatest tool of the exchange of ideas and of the search for truth since the invention of the printing press.  They can't control the printing press so they want to control the internet.
                                                                                             ---Judge Andrew Napolitano

Sorry Judge..THEY DO CONTROL THE PRINTING PRESSES!!!

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Sorry Judge..THEY DO CONTROL THE PRINTING PRESSES!!!

Yep... from http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/final_warning/cfr_and_the_brookings_institute.htm

"Some of the major newspapers, news services and media groups that have been controlled or influenced by the CFR: New York Times (Sulzbergers, James Reston, Max Frankel, Harrison Salisbury), Washington Post  (Frederick S. Beebe, Katherine Graham, Osborne Elliott), Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Sun-Times, L.A. Times Syndicate, Houston PostMinneapolis Star-Tribune, Arkansas Gazette, Des Moines Register & Tribune, Louisville Courier, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters News Service, and Gannett Co. (publisher of USA Today, and 90 other daily papers, plus 40 weeklies; and also owns 15 radio stations, 8 TV stations, and 40,000 billboards)."

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,865
Wait a minute, Obama on the side of megacorporations again... who'd a thunk it.
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline s3d1t0r

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • F̱̹̳̖o̤llow the mon̐ͫ͂̓̊̓͊ë́͐͒̍ȳ̏ͨ̾͆
    • Seditious Blasphemy doth appear here!


Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.



There is a term coined just for this exact con game...  "Hollywood Accounting".  i was reading a real interesting article about how Disney and WB are getting themselves in hot water for doing this exact same tactic. (when you take hundreds of millions of dollars and multiply that by the  thousands and thousands of films made it equals enough accounting fraud to make your head spin)

FROM: http://techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml

"'Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts
from the math-is-hard dept

If you follow the entertainment business at all, you're probably well aware of "Hollywood accounting," whereby very, very, very few entertainment products are technically "profitable," even as they earn studios millions of dollars. A couple months ago, the Planet Money folks did a great episode explaining how this works in very simple terms. The really, really, really simplified version is that Hollywood sets up a separate corporation for each movie with the intent that this corporation will take on losses. The studio then charges the "film corporation" a huge fee (which creates a large part of the "expense" that leads to the loss). The end result is that the studio still rakes in the cash, but for accounting purposes the film is a money "loser" -- which matters quite a bit for anyone who is supposed to get a cut of any profits."

CONTINUED with scanned documents @ http://techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml
“go to work, send your kids to school
follow fashion, act normal
walk on the pavement, watch T.V.
save for your old age, obey the law
Repeat after me: I am free

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
It is the WTO section on "imminent infringement" which is completely illegal.

Imminent infringement, if legal, would have resulted in 89% of the US congress being in jail as well as all directors of every international conglomerate on the planet.

Imminent infringement is a Nazi/Stalinist method of shutting down anyone at any time based on the opinion of the current pharaoh/ruler/tyrant.

It is a dictatorial phrase used for cowardly elites to stop people from awakening to who is raping them on a daily basis.

Look up imminent infringement, China has dozens of cases against this nonsense. I am sure others will too when the Bilderberg control freaks escalate their empire building on the Internet.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
GLOBAL: Scary IP border control measures
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100709173608818&mode=print
Anna George*
11 July 2010


In the wake of the recent Goldman Sachs revelations, it is clear we are still working our way through the financial and ethical wreck imposed by investment bankers who were 'too big to fail'. They represent the 'Big Brother Corporate Bankers' who had enormous capacity to force governments to abandon the normal purpose of governing - for the benefit of citizens.

The phenomenon of over-reach of corporate influence over the economy is not confined to the banking sector. Another industry that has increased its influence, to the extent that it can now be seen as an alternative private 'tax collecting' agency, is the complex intellectual property industry that defines its tax base in terms of licensing, royalty and access agreements managed through a complex web of monopoly rights defined through copyright, trademarks and patents law.

What the IP industries have already received from government is a domestic legal framework and enforcement system that assures a stream of IP taxes that facilitates monopoly control over goods and services for periods ranging from 20 years to life + 70 years. The World Trade Organization intellectual property agreement, TRIPS, provided this in full measure.

What the WTO agreement did not provide, and what the IP industry now demands, is even tougher legal enforcement and border-control measures. Now the industry wants the enforcement rules to be standardised and managed through a global regime, and to adapt national laws and enforcement practice to accommodate higher standards.

The mechanism to achieve this is through the current negotiations underway to develop an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. A couple of versions of the negotiating text have been released with the most recent leak highlighting some very draconian views on how to police intellectual property.

The recent ACTA meeting held in New Zealand issued a press statement: the time is right to release the consolidated negotiating text today. So at last, the public is now being allowed a small window into these negotiations.

But this officially released version has a caveat: "In agreeing to release publicly this draft text in the particular circumstances of this negotiation, participants reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of their respective positions in trade negotiations."

So if you want to get a sense of what some countries want out of these negotiations you will have to access the leaked version. And, now that the official text is being made public we will also be served a media campaign promoting the value of ACTA and many articles on the terrible effects of counterfeit trade and the losses that the IP industry suffer.

Media opinion makers should do their homework before simply endorsing these views. Specifically, they should make themselves aware of the role and business model used by the IP industry and the 'too big to fail' arguments that will be proffered, particularly in relation to 'innovation' and access to technology.

The difference between our existing WTO obligations and the objectives of ACTA are significant and include cost-shifting and applying more stringent legal penalties. These changes would give corporations or individuals who own patents, copyright or trademarks - the IP right-holders -privileged access and quasi-legal status to pursue counterfeit/illegal downloading claims.

Significant commercial enforcement costs would be transferred, in various ways, to the government and/or to third parties such as internet service providers, or ISPs, to police downloading activity. (For example, enforcement tools commonly referred to as three-strikes-policy or graduated response.)

The IP industry's justification for seeking these changes is that this sector has a special place in the economy. Without enhanced protections from government, innovation will be stunted and the economy will suffer, as this quote from the negotiations claims: "...proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods in international trade poses an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable development of the world economy...and in some cases represents a risk to consumers".

So there you have it: the IP industry (which is based on monopoly rights) must have even more government support to protect these rights, and, by the way, it is also 'too big to fail' because there will be 'consequences' if IP is not protected.

The ACTA approach to enhancing IP enforcement and border measures will be costly in a variety of ways. Requiring authorities to react directly to claims initiated by IP right holders rather than going through the existing administrative and court systems alters the onus of proof and shifts the legal costs from the commercial to the government sector. Initiating seizure/destruction of claimed counterfeit goods would also be fraught with problems when authorities are caught up in these processes without appropriate legal sanction.

Individual and civil rights are more easily over-ridden in such circumstances. Comments in the official draft text (under Art.2.5) that refer to requests from the applicant IP right-holder "...to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement..." raise very large legal questions about motive and judgment and provide a sense of just how draconian these ACTA enforcement objectives could be.

Now that the official draft text is available civil society groups have become more aware of the inherent problems with this new draft ACTA Treaty. Recent activities to raise awareness and lobby against ACTA include the Wellington Declaration and the EU Resolution on Transparency and State of Play of the ACTA Negotiations.

More than 90 academics, practitioners and public interest groups from around the world met from 16-18 June in the US and issued a Communiqué which is recording significant endorsement from industry bodies and individuals.

At the international level, India and China have formally registered concern at the ACTA negotiations, which they claim will undermine the balance reached in the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

Their statements to the recent TRIPS Council Meeting in Geneva illustrates the problems inherent in this attempt to go outside the multilateral system - to expand IP rights, shift costs of commercial activities to governments and third parties and give IP owners extended rights to claim infringements.

More generally, a public debate should be taking place questioning where in all of these negotiations is the balance of rights and obligations that was supposed to be an intrinsic part of the agreements that initially awarded these IP rights?

IP taxes are embedded in all the goods and services we buy and use. They are measured in billions of dollars, and they create at-times impenetrable barriers to access to information and to basic scientific tools.

Why would it be in any country's interest to actively raise the status of a corporate entity or an individual who just happens to own monopoly rights to intellectual property? This question is particularly relevant because there is beginning to be a more rigorous and critical approach by the institutions of government to assessing the role and value of intellectual property rights to society.

For example, Australia's parliament has been at the forefront internationally in holding an inquiry into the patenting of gene sequences (such as breast and ovarian cancer). Our courts have also been active in making decisions on intellectual property rights related to databases and defining the legal boundaries of responsibility of internet service providers.

Some readers will have seen reporting on the successful outcome of the iiNet case, which was initiated in Australia and taken forward by 34 mostly international corporations holding global IP rights.

Many in the digital community questioned why iiNet was the target of this very high-powered international conglomerate of essentially foreign IP right-holders.

The 34 corporations tried through this case to make iiNet and, by example, all ISPs in Australia, responsible for policing the internet. They lost, and are appealing the judgment. The case mirrored many of the objectives the ACTA lobby groups are seeking.

Australia is not a large holder of IP rights. To the contrary, approximately 90% of patents are foreign-owned and Australian copyright is also very small given the globalised nature of the music, film and media industry, which means that Australia's copyright-collecting societies transfer a large percentage of 'copyright taxes' overseas.

So are our politicians on the ball in protecting Australia's interest? Senator Scott Ludlam attempted again to get a sense of the rational and scope of ACTA from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at a recent Senate Estimates hearing but was generally unsuccessful in drawing out the consequences of the ACTA negotiations.

Let's hope others follow his lead and take better care of Australia's national interest. The over-reach of the IP industry has already given it too much leeway in defining and extending IP 'rights' and how they will be managed. Let's make sure that a 'too big to fail' attitude does not continue to define Australia's national interest.

An innovative society cannot be nurtured if the IP corporations holding monopoly rights are allowed to determine the economic and trade rules, circumvent courts and define constraints on civil liberties. This Big Brother IP corporate industry will of course argue nothing new or innovative will develop unless they have extended protections.

But this attempt to argue the 'too big to fail' case is an illusion. Politicians need to take responsibility for understanding what intellectual property rights really are, and not accept what the industry claims they are. They also need to understand the social compact that underpins awarding any monopoly power.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Do people realize how satanic the entire WTO agreement is?

It is completely ambiguous and gves total control to a select elite.

WTF?

Here is just an excerpt about the illegal "imminent infringement" measure. There is no such thing as imminent infringement. It is completely made up, bogus, and simply exposes more and more how psychopathic this ruling class is.



http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/index_p_e.htm

provisional measures (TRIPS 50) (protection of intellectual property rights)  administrative procedures, principles applying to (TRIPS 50.8 )  compensation for injury caused by measures found to be unjustified (TRIPS 50.7) duration/termination (TRIPS 50.6) initiation of proceedings on the merits and request by defendant suspension of release and (TRIPS 55 and 58(b)) evidence, right of judicial authorities to require (TRIPS 50.3) actual or imminent infringement status as “right holder” “sufficient degree of certainty” identification of goods, executing authorities’ right to information (TRIPS 50.5) object and purpose preservation of evidence (TRIPS 50.1(b)) demonstrable risk of destruction (TRIPS 50.2) prevention of entry into channels of commerce (TRIPS 50.1(a)) prevention of infringement (TRIPS 50.1(a)) prevention of irreparable harm (TRIPS 50.2) parties’ right to be heard (audi alteram partem), relevance (TRIPS 50.2 and 50.4) notice without delay after execution of measures, need for (TRIPS 50.4) “prompt and effective” (TRIPS 50.1) review at request of defendant (TRIPS 50.4) right to be heard (audi alteram partem) within reasonable period after notification security or equivalent assurance to protect defendant/prevent abuse (TRIPS 50.3)



http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_05_e.htm#article50_3

Part III — Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

Section 3: provisional measures back to top

Article 50

1.    The judicial authorities shall have the authority to order prompt and effective provisional measures:

    (a)    to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property right from occurring, and in particular to prevent the entry into the channels of commerce in their jurisdiction of goods, including imported goods immediately after customs clearance;

    (b)    to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement.

2.    The judicial authorities shall have the authority to adopt provisional measures inaudita altera parte where appropriate, in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holder, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.

3.    The judicial authorities shall have the authority to require the applicant to provide any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the right holder and that the applicant’s right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent, and to order the applicant to provide a security or equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the defendant and to prevent abuse.

4.    Where provisional measures have been adopted inaudita altera parte, the parties affected shall be given notice, without delay after the execution of the measures at the latest. A review, including a right to be heard, shall take place upon request of the defendant with a view to deciding, within a reasonable period after the notification of the measures, whether these measures shall be modified, revoked or confirmed.

5.    The applicant may be required to supply other information necessary for the identification of the goods concerned by the authority that will execute the provisional measures.

6.    Without prejudice to paragraph 4, provisional measures taken on the basis of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall, upon request by the defendant, be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, if proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case are not initiated within a reasonable period, to be determined by the judicial authority ordering the measures where a Member’s law so permits or, in the absence of such a determination, not to exceed 20 working days or 31 calendar days, whichever is the longer.

7.    Where the provisional measures are revoked or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the applicant, upon request of the defendant, to provide the defendant appropriate compensation for any injury caused by these measures.

8.    To the extent that any provisional measure can be ordered as a result of administrative procedures, such procedures shall conform to principles equivalent in substance to those set forth in this Section.



I invite everyone to read the WTO document.

It is a framework for the insane bills that have recently been passed which are 100% unconstitutional and deny the very existence of the bill of rights.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Academics, Politicians: Pending Global Treaty Threatens Free Internet, Fundamental Rights
ACTA: Flagship of the growing internet censorship armada
http://www.prisonplanet.com/academics-politicians-pending-global-treaty-threatens-free-internet-fundamental-rights.html
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Jul 9th, 2010

Over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents have collectively warned that a secretive global treaty, currently being negotiated by governments of the world’s largest economies would see tight controls placed on the internet and would threaten other fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has received fleeting public attention, yet it has been quietly evolving for a number of years.

On it’s face ACTA is described as a countermeasure directed at the rise of counterfeit goods, medicines and pirated copyright protected material, including “piracy over the Internet”.

If officially ratified, however, ACTA would mark the formation of a major new global legal infrastructure with relation to standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.

It would also see the formation of an international governing body to oversee implementation of the agreement. That body would operate beyond the jurisdiction of national governments and even beyond that of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.

ACTA would effectively challenge already defined national court precedents regarding consumer rights and “fair use” laws and could fundamentally alter or remove limitations altogether on the application of intellectual property laws.

The US, along with all the countries of the European Union as well as Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a handful of other countries, have been involved in the ACTA negotiations since 2006.

Leaked drafts of the agreement in 2008, 2009 and most recently in April 2010 have raised concern over the legal scope of the proposed treaty. The secrecy surrounding the negotiations has also prompted further worry over the draconian provisions within the agreement. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with other notable watchdog organisations, have called for more transparency on ACTA.

 

A group of international experts was convened last month by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at The American University Washington College of Law to debate the proposed treaty. The group later released a communique that makes worrying reading.

“ACTA is the predictably deficient product of a deeply flawed process.” The statement reads. “What started as a relatively simple proposal to coordinate customs enforcement has transformed into a sweeping and complex new international intellectual property and internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and governments’ ability to promote and protect the public interest.”

The communique bullet points the following four key conclusions:
Negotiators claim ACTA will not interfere with citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties; it will.
They claim ACTA is consistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); it is not.
They claim ACTA will not increase border searches or interfere with cross-border transit of legitimate generic medicines; it will.
And they claim that ACTA does not require “graduated response” disconnections of people from the internet; however, the agreement strongly encourages such policies.

Those who endorsed the statement include professors from leading universities across the globe and several European members of parliament who have formed a working group on ACTA.

The group identified at least seven critical areas of global public policy in which ACTA is hostile to the public interest. They define these as:

“fundamental rights and freedoms; internet governance; access to medicines; scope and nature of intellectual property law; international trade; international law and institutions; and democratic process.”

With specific reference to internet governance, the group says ACTA would:
Encourage internet service providers to police the activities of internet users by holding internet providers responsible for the actions of subscribers, conditioning safe harbors on adopting policing policies, and by requiring parties to encourage cooperation between service providers and rights holders;
Encourage this surveillance, and the potential for punitive disconnections by private actors, without adequate court oversight or due process;
Globalize ‘anti-circumvention’ provisions which threaten innovation, competition, free (freedom-respecting) software, open access business models, interoperability, the enjoyment of user rights, and user choice;

Internet law professor Michael Geist has previously spoken out against ACTA, noting that

“The provisions would pave the way for a globalized three-strikes and you’re out system,” referring to a proposal within the treaty to have internet service providers cut off service – without access to a trial or counsel – to anyone accused at least three times of illegally sharing copyrighted material.

Geist has also noted that “offenders” could even be imprisoned for sharing copyrighted material.

The three strikes policy mirrors that contained within the recently passed Digital Economy Bill in the UK, with similar provisions also outlined in Australian legislation, indicating that ACTA negotiations may also be driving national government policy on internet regulation proposals.

“The US government appears to be pushing for Three Strikes to be part of the new global IP enforcement regime which ACTA is intended to create…” Gwen Hinze at the Electronic Frontier Foundation has previously noted. “…despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European Parliament and by national policymakers in several ACTA negotiating countries, and has never been proposed by US legislators,”.

The agreement would also force internet service providers to crack down on sites that offer file sharing and peer to peer software, even though those sites may be entirely legitimate. ACTA could even see popular Web sites like YouTube and Flickr shut down because of a provision in the treaty that would force them to monitor everything uploaded to the site for copyright violations.

The upshot is that all current and future innovations that allow knowledge and information to be distributed on a mass scale are directly threatened by ACTA simply because it presumes such technology will be used by a minority to distribute material that is deemed copyrighted.

ACTA represents another huge warship in an armada directing it’s guns at the free internet. We have previously highlighted countless similar legislative programs that have either been enacted or are working their way into law in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and many other European countries.

In addition, ACTA is so much more than an internet censorship bill, it covers physical goods and even medicines, while systematically re-writing previously established laws on trade and intellectual property.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

kushfiend

  • Guest

Offline chrisfromchi

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,179
Is that the Mirror Universe Obama?