It may be civil now, but the proposed ACTA guidelines call for criminal enforcement with prison terms. think about it prison terms for downloading some crappy song. And if that's not bad/absurd enough, it takes all the burden off the media cartel and puts the cost squarely on our backs.

Alternatively, the media kartels could just quit producing digital content. Why should the rest of the world be denied use of the net, when they could stop this by keeping THEIR movies on film and THEIR music on vinyl. Then the rest of us could produce our own digital images, movies, and music and the kartels could pirate us. However, they want to have their cake and eat it, too ... and your cake ... and my cake ...

You seriously want to put people in jail for copyright infringement? So, someone downloads a 0.99$USD song illegally and you make a government waste thousands of dollars for this person?

Not him, but ACTA will do this. Interesting thing about ACTA is that the Kopyright Kartel Kompanies blame the secrecy on govermnents, and they blame one another. When kids start drawing prison terms for downloading 99-cent songs, the Kartel will claim they didn't want it and governments will claim they didn't want it, either. So kids will go to jail for 99-cent downloads ... because nobody wants it. From Michael Geist's summary of the October 2008 negotiations here

Day one focuses on criminal enforcement. The U.S. and Japan supply draft text of the criminal enforcement provisions. The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties - including imprisonment - sufficient to deter future acts of infringement (specific language is "include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines ..."

Ain't that grand? Nobody wants it, but it's coming. But its all a secret because nobody wants it to be secret either. Liars.

Follow the money.... who gets what from who?

Interesting. How do you suppose that will work out for people who can't figure out how to change their homepage? (But do click on e-mail links entitled, "Naked Pictures of ... Whoever")

Brilliant! Love it.

Casual perusal of the linked pages and the links there suggests that the civil aspects of require judges to take action based on unsubstantiated allegations by the "rights holders," oddly(?) I saw nothing to suggest that "rights holders have to prove that they have any rights. However, its the criminal enforcement aspects of what is being proposed that are really scary:

The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties - including imprisonment - sufficient to deter future acts of infringement (specific language is "include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines, from the first link:

Item (2) would include Jammie Thomas, what are we talking about here? Prison time for downloading songs? Looks like it. Lets see, she had what 3 +/- 1 hours worth of listening time ... extending the financial damages ratios to the criminal case suggests .... Nah too complicated: one year in prison per song is simpler. Ta-da: 20 years for Jammie. Ought to make Big Media happy. Wow! You know, if some 19 year old girl gets 50 (or 500) years in prison for downloading songs and her father or husband takes a potshot at some media mogul or Bono with a high powered rifle, they won't understand why. In-fucking-credible.

People seem to think that this stuff needs Congressional approval. I'm not so sure, as it been pointed out by others that this is being negotiated by the Executive Branch as a trade agreement rather than a treaty per se so that at least some parts could be established by Presidential proclamation in the U.S. Assuming that some Congressional action is needed, who here really thinks that the U.S. Congress gives a shit about individual rights? The same Congress where Orrin Hatch proposed making it legal for media companies to blow up the computers of accused infringers by remote control? Good luck. If Congress gets hold of it, we'll be lucky if downloading paid-for songs from Amazon or iTunes does't make you subject to the death penalty. The courts, maybe, yeah like the Supreme Court, which just essentially negated the laws regarding political bribery. Good luck, there, too.

+ 4 Informative.

There was no proof of distribution. Downloading songs without permission is copyright infringement and that is illegal. The fines assessed on Tenenbaum are are disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional. In what moral calculus do two wrongs make a right?

Well said... dead on.

Assuming that you are correct in the idea that the DOJ is supposed to be a Congressional lap-dog (or lick-spittle), Congress is not a party to this case. Let me see if I understand you: if the corrupt, degenerate Congress passes a law encouraging the torture-murder of accused file-sharers, your position is that the DOJ should defend it? Yes?

So, if Congress in its infinite desire to gratify the fat-cats should pass a law re-instituting slavery, you think the f*ing DOJ should support it?!

Thirteenth Amendment:1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Fortunately, the Constitution still trumps those butt-licking retards in Congress (of both parties).

they will try other approaches to take away freedoms that we should all have and cherish

I think you've hit the nail of the head. To see what they really want, 1) download ;-) and print a copy of your nation's Constitution and/or Bill of Rights. Then run it through a paper shredder. That's what they seem to want for starters. 2) Next get a REAAAAALLY BIG jar of petroleum jelly and a telephone pole ... bend waaaay over.... 3) Finally, send the RIAA and MPAA an extra copy of all your credit cards and tell them to charge whatever they want. Beyond that it probably gets ugly.

This kind of stuff would have made Winston Smith's day job so much easier. Rewrite history then push it out so as to override previous copies. And the rulers of the Fahrenheit 451 world could simply revoke the digital certificate of ... every book or every book with ideas they want suppressed. Sound like the media cartels' wet dream? It is, it is. And that of would-be tyrants? Even more so.

I was getting halfway interested in the Kindle until the 1984 debacle. That shows that DRM has a much darker potential than its proponents will ever acknowledge. Fuck all that shit. (Not picking on Amazon; I like it and have had an account there for years.) Corporations cannot be trusted to have any interest in freedom of any kind for the public. No doubt their accountants would show it as a negative (if intangible) item on their balance sheets.