[Tom]

ACTA is no friend of the public — or the law — according to a prominent EU official

Details of the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) leaked in 2008. The multi-national agreement brokered by the U.S. government at the behest of the music and film industries looks to adopt sweeping new anti-piracy measures that include warrantless searches of citizens and destruction of devices containing potentially pirated works.

See highlighted. POTENTIALLY. That means if you have MP3s on your harddrive, it is illegal regardless of whether you bought the CD or not. Because the POTENTIAL is there for piracy.

Even as groups like the ACLU, WikiLeaks, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have fought the pact, the government has moved ahead to implement it. However, the agreement has gained perhaps its most prominent critic yet, Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Mr. Hustinx serves as a privacy chief for the EU and he found the provisions of ACTA alarming. He authored an opinion paper [PDF] on several topics, including ACTA. In the piece he writes that there’s concern that ACTA may be violating the legal rights of citizens in multiple nations.

He argues, “The EDPS strongly encourages the European Commission to establish a public and transparent dialogue on ACTA, possibly by means of a public consultation, which would also help ensuring that the measures to be adopted are compliant with EU privacy and data protection law requirements.”

He also questions the pact’s plans to share data about citizens between nations. He writes:
It can be questioned first whether data transfers to third countries in the context of ACTA are legitimate. The relevance of adopting measures at international level in that field can be questioned as long as there is no agreement within the EU member states over the harmonisation of enforcement measures in the digital environment and the types of criminal sanctions to be applied. In view of the above, it appears that the principles of necessity and proportionality of the data transfers under ACTA would be more easily met if the agreement was expressly limited to fighting the most serious IPR infringement offences, instead of allowing for bulk data transfers relating to any suspicions of IPR infringements. This will require defining precisely the scope of what constitutes the ‘most serious IPR infringement offences’ for which data transfers may occur.
ACTA would allow the U.S. and other nations to search citizens at border crossings for suspected infringed materials. Border agents would have authorization to destroy citizens’ personal property, such as iPods, if they suspect it to contain infringed works. The agreement also calls for the proactive monitoring of citizens online by law enforcement.

He also takes issue with “three strikes” proposals, such as the pending legislation in EU member nations Britain and France, which could sever the internet connections of filesharers.

He comments, “Such practices are highly invasive in the individuals’ private sphere. They entail the generalized monitoring of Internet users’ activities, including perfectly lawful ones. They affect millions of law-abiding Internet users, including many children and adolescents. They are carried out by private parties, not by law enforcement authorities. Moreover, nowadays, Internet plays a central role in almost all aspects of modern life, thus, the effects of disconnecting Internet access may be enormous, cutting individuals off from work, culture, eGoverment applications etc.

The U.S.’s secret ACTA pact would allow border patrol agents in the EU and North America to arrest and fine citizens suspected of copyright infringement. It would also give them means to annul constitutional protections against search and siezure, allowing them to destroy citzens’ personal property suspected to contain infringed works. It also would seek to implement proactive monitoring of citizens online. (Source: Digital Journal)

Again, see the word SUSPECTED. That means it doesn’t matter if YOU say it is for personal use.

So open your f*cking eyes and grow up.

F*ck me drunk and sideways, people are so f*cking dumb and naive these days, makes you wonder if any of them went to f*cking school!

[Tom]

I don’t know a Dan, but if I did, I’m sure I wouldn’t ram him. Not unless he’s bleached & waxed his butthole and paid me £50, anyway.

[Tom]

@irish_lucy wrote:

your not a racist your a muppet – that other post was to prime where HE said he was a racist.
Christ man learn to read

I wasn’t talking to you, was talking to Prime. Nor do I see where Jim Henderson comes into this anywhere :?

[Tom]

@irish_lucy wrote:

In the past decade, much controversy has arisen from the newfound portability of music. Digital music files and encoding as well as peer-to-peer file sharing have revolutionized the way that music can be distributed, much to the chagrin to the music industry. The free flow of music between users is directly at odds with copyright law, as it should be. Media, although intangible, does have value. And just like radio stations must pay performance royalties and movie theaters must pay licensing fees, everyday users cannot distribute music without authorization and permission from those who own the rights to it.

But where is the line drawn?

Headlines from the past few years have covered the arrest and prosecution of various file sharing kingpins and music piracy offenders, landing them in jail or slapping them with huge fines. With this in mind, a certain amount of paranoia is understandable. For instance, is it illegal to copy a CD to your computer (ripping) and then sync the songs to your iPod? Is it illegal to burn a mix CD for a friend? Is it illegal to burn a backup copy of a CD for yourself?

The law is not incredibly clear on these issues, but in general, you don’t have to worry about going to jail for copying music for your own personal use. Record companies don’t have the time, resources nor motivation to persecute individuals who copy music for their own use and have expressed as much publically. However, a Supreme Court decision in MGM vs. Grokster held that “the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted” does not “necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization.” In other words, what allows you to copy CDs to your computer or iPod is permission from the record label, which can rescinded at any moment.

The likelihood of this happening, however, is slim. But what will get you in trouble is illegally distributing music that you’ve ripped. This includes sharing your music over peer-to-peer networks, uploading music and making it available for download or burning CDs and giving them away without permission. (Yes, this includes mix CDs and mix tapes—though no one has ever been prosecuted for distributing a mix tape.)

Bottom-line: You probably won’t go to jail for ripping CDs, copying them to your iPod or sharing them with a few close friends. But that doesn’t mean it’s not illegal, nor is it protected as Fair Use. The real reason why you won’t likely get charged is because it’s very difficult to detect and not particularly worthwhile for record companies to pursue on a granular level. What will likely catch the eye and ire of copyright enforcement officials is distributing music. Your chances of being caught for illegally sharing music over the Internet is even greater, since many Internet Service Providers (ISPs) monitor for such activity, since their failure to quell music piracy may implicate them as well.

So, rest easy. You can safely rip your music for your own personal use. But avoid sharing it over the Internet.

YES I CAN :) Its legal to burn for personal use in IRELAND but cant sell on

So you’re basically confirming what I said.

Because the corporations argue that you can’t prove you ripped the MP3s from the CD, and you can’t prove that you haven’t sent the MP3s to other people. Suspicion alone is enough to seize and prosecute.

Seriously, if you haven’t read ACTA then don’t bother posting because you’re looking delusional, naive and foolish to think you can tell the friendly corporation lawyers “oh don’t worry I haven’t downloaded them or sent them anyone, honest” and they’ll believe you and leave it at that.

Grow up the lot of you, you’re not naive children surely.

[Tom]

@themaster wrote:

For personal use is perfectly acceptable, otherwise all iPods and MP3 players are immediately illegal.

This is absolutely paranoid bóllöcks by the way.

Oh the brainwashed masses have come to defend their globalist masters, how quaint. Don’t worry your little head, the truth will smack you in the face soon.

I’m assuming you don’t even know what ACTA is nor watched the UN Summit today but felt the need to reply because of your sub-conscience programming dictated you do.

One day you’ll have your own mind, this much I have faith in, because you’ll have no choice when your system collapses around your ears and you see your masters fleeing.

[Tom]

@irish_lucy wrote:

Yes i have ripped cd’s, for personal use only and that is legal.
Prime my bf LMAO awww is someone getting angry?? :lol:

You’re wrong. You obviously haven’t kept up to date with privacy law news have you?

It is now illegal to rip CDs onto your machine. If you want the songs on the machine, you have to pay for the MP3s from valid website stores. Copying the album at all, for personal use or not, is illegal.

Because the corporations argue that you can’t prove you ripped the MP3s from the CD, and you can’t prove that you haven’t sent the MP3s to other people. Suspicion alone is enough to seize and prosecute.

I’m surprised you’re in favour of this breach of privacy and human rights, the Republic of Ireland’s government is thoroughly against it and is standing with the EU in protest.

[Tom]

@irish_lucy wrote:

I said IF. Im only going by what the idiot said in f1 – to which he had proof!!!

No he didn’t. He had a copy/paste from a rumour site run by an anti-BNP group, which to be fair back then I was a fair and legit target, and if you visit the source of that ‘story’, Lancaster Unity, you would see a more recent article providing evidence of her telling everyone, including myself, that she was 20.

So get your facts right before spouting sh*te and sticking up for your little boyfriend Prime.

[Tom]

@themaster wrote:

Is Gazlan breeding? :shock:

I was here a good 7 years before Gazlan :wink:

[Tom]

Grow up, Lucy and stop spouting sh*te. So you’re OK with violations of human rights & invasion of privacy? What next, going to make lies up about everyone who is against genocide? Besides, what has that got to do with films, music & software? The corporations aren’t concerned with such trivial stuff as who you chat to. You could have the Anarchist’s Cook Book on your HD for all they care and they’d ignore it, they’re only interested in whether you have software/music/videos on there.

There’s nothing illegal on my computer, except perhaps a handful of MP3s. But that is not the concern nor the point. The point is since when do corporations have the right to police powers of search & seize? What does this lead to? Security cameras installed in our homes monitored by advertising agencies? It’s a very slippery slope you’re supporting/all for.

Have you ever burnt a CD off? Have you ever copied a CD onto your harddrive? If so, you too would be imprisoned from a simple randomised search & seize operation, they don’t even need a report or suspicion. They would just go from street to street one day at a time.

[Tom]

I’m not a racist, and despise racism. Racism is a policy of illogical hatred of other human beings based on physical appearance. It is the most lowly of policies that only the unintelligible would adhere and aspire to adopting.

I’m a non-racist libertarian & humanitarian that is concerned of over-population and environmental issues affected by it such as the destruction of the countryside and the inability for the nation to be self-sustainable. I joined that rotten Party when I was young and lost, I’ve grown out of it.

I’ve been offered a position in the English Democrats, but I believe in the Union and am highly suspicious of “regional civic nationalism” which I fear may just be a nice glossy front with some very dark and sticky evils hidden behind it.

I have an appointment with the regional organiser of UKIP to discuss my options there, they’re aware of my BNP past and just want to ask a few questions to ensure I’m in the right mind-set and have truly turned my back on the far-right, I believe I’m required to make a public statement condemning the BNP and my actions of the past, which of course I’ll do without problem or prejudice.

So you’ve admitted you’re a racist who concerns yourself with whether someone’s toddler is in bed or not, Prime, and you obviously know you’re in the wrong as you became so defensive you immediately went looking for desperate ammo and rumours to put up a defensive wall up hoping to deflect your wrong-doings by comparing a scenario of deception to a scenario of wilful wrong-doing.

The best thing you could do is simply apologise to Tommo for not only your harassment, but of your threats to him and his family. Grow a set for once in your life and do the right thing, or aren’t you man enough?

[Author]

Posts