Christian Engström, Pirat

28 januari 2012

ACTA Stipulates Increased Damages For File Sharing

Filed under: ACTA,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 15:02
Tags: ,

What the copyright lobby never wanted to see: Elected members of the Polish parliament protesting against ACTA

”ACTA changes nothing” has become the favorite mantra of those who want to push the agreement through at any cost. This in itself is of course a strong signal that there is something very suspect about the whole issue. If ACTA really changes nothing, why are they spending so much effort on getting it through?

The answer is that those who are saying that ACTA changes nothing are either lying, or have been misled themselves. The whole purpose of ACTA is to increase the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including on the internet. Of course it changes things.

One example of a very concrete change that ACTA will bring if it is adopted, is the damages that you will have to pay to the film or record company if you are convicted of illegal file sharing.

According to ACTA, the damages for illegal file sharing will be higher, in some cases absurdly high.

In Article 9.1 of the ACTA agreement, it says that

… In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a [signing country's] judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

(emphasis added)

In other words: to calculate the damages for having a disk full of illegally copied songs, you would multiply the number of songs with the suggested retail price for a song. But although this may look pretty harmless at first glance, it will lead to very drastic consequences in practice.

A two-terabyte disk can hold roughly half a million songs. If you calculate that at the market price of 1 euro per song, which is quite normal, then the damages for having a 2 TB disk full of music would be half a million euro.

Would that be proportionate or not? Remember that this is not an extreme example, it is something that lots of teenagers do. Would it really be proportionate that the family would have to sell their house and all their possessions if they were found out?

Under current European laws, damages are (at least in principle) limited to actual losses that the party that wins can show that he has actually suffered. They have to be proportional. Not even the lawyers for a film or record company would be able to convince a European court that they have actually lost half a million euro in non-purchases from a teenager who has never seen that kind of money in his life.

But according to ACTA, the film or record companies would no longer have to prove that they have actually lost the money. All they need to do is to multiply the number of songs with the price for one song to get the amount of damages measured by the suggested retail price.

A half million euro claim against a teenager with a 2 TB disk would be considered disproportionate and absurd by any European court today. With ACTA, awarding those damages becomes mandatory.

The copyright lobby knows this, or course. They have been deeply involved in the ACTA negotiations since day one. It is only the citizens and the elected members of parliaments that have been kept in the dark for as long as possible. The plan was to get ACTA signed, sealed, and delivered before too many elected politicians in parliaments knew the real consequences of ACTA as well.

We must now make sure that that plan does not work.

…………

More on ACTA and damages: FFII.org,

51 kommentarer

  1. It only becomes more and more painfully obvious how absurd an idea artificial scarcity is.

    Kommentar av Magnus Holmgren — 28 januari 2012 @ 17:19

  2. And so what if the fines is going to be higher, you just have to stop download illegally, then you don´t have worry about the fines. It still doesn´t threaten the internet or freedoom of speech, this is what pirates are scaring the public with. So stop scaring people for things that aren´t true !!!

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 28 januari 2012 @ 17:40

  3. @King Eguren
    It’s like saying it is no problem to introduce the death penalty for speeding.
    You just need to stop speeding to avoid the problem.
    The point is proportions. Proportions is a fundamental issue in law-making.

    Kommentar av JohJoh — 28 januari 2012 @ 18:27

  4. King Eguren, you’re completely missing the point! Why not make all crimes, however minor, punishable by death (or life imprisonment)? Everyone would ”just” have to refrain from committing crimes. The reason we don’t do that is spelled proportionality.

    More to the point: If artificial scarcity would be strictly enforced, everyone would be worse off (except the big media corporations). In this digital world, where everyone almost literally can have everything, expecting the pay per play or per copy to remain the same or higher than before the Internet boom is ridiculous. In fact, charging for digital copies at all is silly. (What you can charge for is the _service_ of providing copies (at, say, 1-5¢ a song instead of 99¢).)

    Kommentar av Magnus Holmgren — 28 januari 2012 @ 18:28

  5. But still it was not that, that the pirates had as a scare tactics, it was that ACTA was going to censor the internet and the freedoom of speach, now when that is not an issue any more the pirates have to take plan b and to scare the people who hasn´t read the ACTA agreement, I just say, let them read it first before the pirates starts with their scare tactics.

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 28 januari 2012 @ 18:57

  6. Eguren. I don’t follow your logic (this time either).
    So if it is a big problem with proportions (do you agree?), does that mean that there isn’t other problems, for example concerning the openness of the Internet?!
    This post handles ONE aspect of ACTA.
    Since you seems to know that ACTA does NOT affect anything regarding freedom of speech I take for granted that you have read and analyzed the treaty yourself?!

    Kommentar av JohJoh — 28 januari 2012 @ 20:02

  7. Everybody is so negative about SOPA and PIPA and ACTA, Nobody sees the opportunities! In the US legal system, plaintiffs who can prove willful infringement are entitled to up to $150,000 per work in damages. Let’s make a conservative estimate that a million Americans have downloaded 100 songs each. This would mean potential damages of $15M ($15,000,000) per person. Across a million people, that’s 15 million million, or 15 trillion US dollars in damages.
    What does this number remind you of? You’re right, the US gross public debt. So hear me out on this modest proposal. Use this money to pay back the public debt. Then give each of the million people a 400 year prison sentence (not unheard of in the US) and let them work their asses off to pay back the debt that is now on their shoulders. Putting another million people in prison won’t even double the US prison population, so the relatively small increase would hardly be a strain on the American correctional supervision system.
    It’s doubtful whether anyone could object to this modest proposal which would instantly solve the two biggest problems America is facing today, copyright infringement and rampant public debt.

    Kommentar av nitro2k01 — 28 januari 2012 @ 20:07

  8. JohJoh

    YES I have both in swedish and in english.

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 28 januari 2012 @ 20:13

  9. If a problem won’t be solved by the use of violence, use more violence.

    Brilliant.

    Kommentar av viktualiebroder — 28 januari 2012 @ 21:34

  10. Rubbish.

    ARTICLE 6: GENERAL OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT

    item 3:

    ”3. In implementing the provisions of this Chapter, each Party shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties, and the applicable measures, remedies and penalties.”

    Proportionality will apply to the laws in each country, no matter what you’re trying to deceive the pirates with, ”Pirate MEP”.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 28 januari 2012 @ 22:49

  11. [...] MEP” Christian Engström fortsätter sin skrämseltaktik i ett nytt inlägg, nu verkar det inte finnas några gränser för den panik han känner inför att bli av med jobbet [...]

    Pingback av ACTA betyder inte världens undergång « Nej till pirater och Piratpartiet — 28 januari 2012 @ 22:57

  12. @Eguren
    I am impressed. I would be interested in your view. What is important with ACTA, e.g. what does it add that is not covered in legislation today in your view?
    And I also wonder: do you remain the view that half a million euro could be a suitable punishment for a teenager with a harddrive full of pirated music? Or did I misundertand you?

    Kommentar av JohJoh — 28 januari 2012 @ 23:01

  13. File sharing is just a thing that become unproportionally important in styling the way most of ones whom love, depend or sees internet as a forum where the law, the constitution, should be the same as everywhere else, want the internet to be, become.
    It’s not about getting free music or movies. Maybe it is for some, in a minority like Gary Glitter. hehe

    Kommentar av Only Me — 29 januari 2012 @ 0:04

  14. JohJoh

    In my opinion ACTA is not so relevant for Sweden because we have a good legislation regarding combating intellectual property crime, but if we look at the bigger picture this agreement can ease up the cooperation between countries regarding combating intellectual property crime. The harmonisation of the regulations in different countries is the idea behind ACTA, thats my two cents.

    I have to correct myself, there is difference in ACTA and Swedens legislation, through ACTA the police can start up its own investigation without an complaint from rightsholders (this is for pirated goods only), that is huge advantage if you want to combat this sort of crime.

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 29 januari 2012 @ 0:08

  15. http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.429235/vad-ar-acta-och-varfor-ska-jag-bry-mig

    You should read this to and get a better picture, in my opinion Daniel Westman is much more thrustworthy and cunning regarding ACTA then this MEP ever going to be.

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 29 januari 2012 @ 0:14

  16. Jag blir snurrig… Det stämmer nog att det mesta redan täcks in av de senaste EU-direktiven. Det låter mycket som en blandning av IPRED och USA:s lagar. I bästa fall innebär ACTA inget nytt för oss i Sverige, men väl för andra länder, och cementerar det senaste decenniernas utveckling åt fel håll. Egentligen borde TRIPS och allt därefter rivas upp per omgående.

    Artikel 31 gillar jag inte. Enligt den ska fördragsstaterna producera propaganda så att folk förstår hur jätteviktigt det är att respektera immaterialrättsliga monopol.

    Kommentar av Magnus Holmgren — 29 januari 2012 @ 0:20

  17. Magnus

    I think you misunderstand that paragraph, it´s not propaganda, it´s information regarding what can happen if you buy a copied jacket or some fake shoes or some fake drugs. I think it´s importent to get this information out to the public, dont you think ?

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 29 januari 2012 @ 0:27

  18. And what ”can happen” if I buy a pair of fake shoes, that the public needs to be informed about? ;o

    Kommentar av JohJoh — 29 januari 2012 @ 0:31

  19. Alltså, nejtillpirater
    Det handlar inte om fildelning alls i stort sett. Folk är upprörda för att genom ACTA kommer meddelandefriheten kunna köras över i länder som är anslutna.
    Du har verkligen fastnat vid fildelning. Det är bara en bisak. Det handlar om hur vi vill att framtida internet ska vara. Ska diktaturer kunna censurera motståndare med lagar vi har, eller ska vi ha ett öppet internet. Fildelning är bara bisak.
    Jag gissar att du är för ett ganska totalitärt samhälle där brottsligheten är mycket låg, såsom i Polen 1975. Om inte så förstår jag inte hur du kan försvara att regeringar ska få censurera och kolla vad folket gör, alltid. Fildelning är verkligen en parentes, och du verkar hakat upp dig just det av allt.

    Kommentar av jatillpiraterisyrien — 29 januari 2012 @ 2:11

  20. @jatillpiraterisyrien

    ”Jag gissar att du är för ett ganska totalitärt samhälle där brottsligheten är mycket låg, såsom i Polen 1975.”

    Jag är för totalitära samhällen, jag vill att det ska vara så fritt som det är möjligt. Med detta menas att om nivån på kriminaliteten är låg så kan samhället vara fritt och även på internet.

    ”Om inte så förstår jag inte hur du kan försvara att regeringar ska få censurera och kolla vad folket gör, alltid.”

    Det försvarar jag inte heller. Du överdriver.

    ”Fildelning är verkligen en parentes, och du verkar hakat upp dig just det av allt.”

    För dig kanske men vi ska inte glömma bort att PP skapades runt fildelningsfrågan och mycket av den andra argumentationen har varit olika sätt att försöka legitimera den illegala fildelningen. PP bandbredd till TPB – fildelning. Och Ung Pirat (via Gustav Nipe) har t.o.m. registrerat en religion för detta, Kopimismen. Det är tydligt att fildelning fortfarande är den stora frågan, låt vara att det inte är den enda frågan.

    Om du skulle fråga folk på gatan om man anser att frihet på internet är viktig så skulle nog de allra flesta säga ja. Mitt svar är också ja på en sådan fråga.

    Tar man sen upp den brottslighet som förekommer på nätet och förklarar hur det hänger ihop, hur upphovsmännen drabbas av fildelningen, hur det ser ut med Anonymous attacker, barnporren, droghandel osv och på nytt ställer frågan så blir svaret snarare – ja men vi måste också ta hand om kriminaliteten, helt fritt kan vi inte ha det. Det handlar alltså om att hitta en kompromiss som säkerställer allas rättigheter och då väger piraternas behov av att för ren lyxkonsumtion tanka ner gratis kopior och låta någon annan betala väldigt lätt.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 29 januari 2012 @ 7:47

  21. @#20

    ”Jag är för totalitära samhällen, jag vill att det ska vara så fritt som det är möjligt.”

    Felskrivning, skulle förstås vara att jag är emot totalitära samhällen.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 29 januari 2012 @ 7:48

  22. @King Eguren: ”Each Party shall, as appropriate, promote the adoption of measures to enhance public awareness of the importance of respecting intellectual property rights and the detrimental effects of intellectual property rights infringement.”
    This can of course be interpreted in various ways but is definitely not about the detrimental effects that buying fake drugs or other fake goods can have on the _buyer_!

    Kommentar av Magnus Holmgren — 29 januari 2012 @ 9:54

  23. Det är ju inte precis så att en försvagning eller t.o.m. avskaffande av den (ekonomiska) upphovsrätten enbart är en nödvändig följd av kravet på bibehållna mänskliga fri- och rättigheter, utan det är det att upprätthållandet av den artificiella knappheten inte är värt priset i form av både övervakning, kostsamma rättsprocesser o.s.v., om det över huvud taget är värt _något_ pris.

    Jag skulle vilja önska att partiets ansikten utåt vore lite mer nyanserade och pålästa i sina uttalanden och inte förhastat helt oreserverat fördöma varje rättslig åtgärd och lagstiftningsbeslut. För att behålla trovärdigheten bör det inte finnas några sakfel utelämnade fakta att angripa, även om dessa egentligen är oväsentliga.

    Nu handlade det dock ursprungligen om orimlig beräkning av ersättning, och här håller jag helt med, även det nu skulle vara så att ACTAs artikel 9.1 inte går längre än den befintliga 54 § upphovsrättslagen.

    Kommentar av Magnus Holmgren — 29 januari 2012 @ 13:11

  24. ””Jag är för totalitära samhällen, jag vill att det ska vara så fritt som det är möjligt.”

    Felskrivning, skulle förstås vara att jag är emot totalitära samhällen.”

    Freudian slip anyone?
    lol

    Kommentar av YesToPP — 29 januari 2012 @ 13:30

  25. JohJoh

    ”And what ”can happen” if I buy a pair of fake shoes, that the public needs to be informed about?”

    Well dont complain if you get sick from bad fabrics used in your shoes, has happened before !.

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 29 januari 2012 @ 15:21

  26. Magnus

    ”but is definitely not about the detrimental effects that buying fake drugs or other fake goods can have on the _buyer_!”

    Why not ? Thatas exactly what it says, ”detrimental effects of intellectual property rights infringement”

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 29 januari 2012 @ 15:25

  27. King Eguren, are you for real? If the public awareness measures were to be limited to the things you say, the article text would have had to say so. Of course it’s about the supposed detrimental effects to the rightsholders.

    Kommentar av Magnus Holmgren — 29 januari 2012 @ 19:02

  28. There are several points about ACTA.
    1. It is a law imported from the USA whose system permits so-called ”lobbyists” (actually brokers of bribes) to effectively allow anybody rich enough buy laws whilst ignoring the general good. The amounts spent by ”lobbyists” are significant to individual politicians (even to parties) but peanuts to the entertainment industry. This is a blatantly corrupt system.
    2. The present intellectual proprty and copyright laws have also been bought by this tiny section of the community for its own profit, and not, contrary to the propaganda, for the protection of creative individuals (the original intention) even though it may work this way for many of them.
    3. It is difficult to understand why Europe should endorce corrupt USA law until you realise that ”lobbyists” abound in Europe as well!
    ACTA is a law bought by a small number of the very rich against the common good. While this is disgusting, the real problem is something else:
    4. ACTA allows methods for obtaining evidence which would be laughed out of court in any normal criminal trial. This is closely paralelled by anti-terror legislation.
    5. It has a strong element of ”guilty until proved innocent”.
    6. It gives rich organisations, who can afford astronomically expensive legal fees, enormous bullying power over indiviuals.
    7. By the provision for ludicrous fines, based on totally ficticious ”losses” the offending oganisations (and trolls!) are encouraged to use it maliciously.
    8. It effectively gives legitimacy to government oppression on ANY subject, and this will rapidly be accepted as a fact of life by the general public.

    A scenario: The EU crashes financially (like the USA in 1929) The New Arise from Zero Initiative (NAZI) party comes into power in a popular landslide election. And stays there. It has ready-made anti piracy and anti terror laws to circumvent any normal concept of justice for anyone it dislikes. Do not think for a moment that this could never happen – it could. I am so old that I can afford to die – can you?

    A few more things: I am not a Holy Leftie, I am crusty old conservative. I am a total believer in Adam Smith but his marketplace no longer exists, it has been usurped by a handfull of supercompanies. The stockmarket is now mostly there for gambling, not investment. I don’t have time to watch TV let alone the latest Ace-T film and I don’t like pop music.
    Finally I appoøogise for the excessive lenth of this post.

    Kommentar av Iddly — 29 januari 2012 @ 19:35

  29. [...] ACTA Stipulates Increased Damages For File Sharing « Christian … [...]

    Pingback av 28 ianuarie: Informare ACTA | "World War III will be a global information war with no division between civilian & military participation." Marshall McLuhan — 29 januari 2012 @ 21:35

  30. Magnus

    I dont undertstand, my response to you was an answer to what you wrote.

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 29 januari 2012 @ 22:53

  31. That’s awesome, even elected members of a parliament starting to understand the pirates. Seriously considering moving to Poland. ;)

    King Eguren: You say ”stop scaring people with things that aren’t true!”. I’d say: You’re doing a terrific job scaring people yourself already.. If you want to stop scaring them… these IP interests should stop keeping important pieces of politics like ACTA secret and hidden from the public eye for so long. When people realize you are trying to go behind their back… they will be PISSED. Difficult to understand..?

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 30 januari 2012 @ 9:44

  32. @King Eguren

    Any law needs to be considered from the viewpoint of proportionality and reason. ACTA says, in practice, that one person allowing another person to make a copy of a file is to be considered in the same light as violent crime and grand larceny as far as judicial mandate of enforcement and penalty is concerned.

    This is, to be honest, utter bulls**t. ACTA fails already in that regard.

    Secondly, ACTA’s provisions regarding ”circumventing DRM and providing tools enabling such circumvention” will in practice declare the personal computer itself illegal, unless there is a very large plethora of exceptions written into the treaty. I haven’t seen any such exceptions so far.

    Thirdly, ”fair use” is effectively abolished in all practice. Although you may still be able to create copies for friends and family or backups, the very act of circumventing the DRM in order to make that copy is now illegal.

    Fourth, ACTA will according to the wording be under the control of a committee which will be able to amend or change ACTA itself without any further parliamentary process. What this basically means is that there will be a small bureaucracy able to alter and amend national laws in europe without any input by the democratic process. You see no problems with this?

    Fifth, ACTA mandates that ISP’s have to ensure no copyrighted material is illegally shared between their clients. As this is impossible for the ISP’s to manage but they still stand as liable under ACTA, this in effect makes even running an ISP illegal unless said ISP has manpower and technical resources comparable to the NSA. There is no ”safe harbor” provision in place which turns this entire statute into an effective ”guilty until proven innocent” scenario.

    I only had to read two or three paragraphs in detail in order to realize that ACTA, if it has any real correlation to the leaked material, is far worse than SOPA. In effect, this ”treaty” abolishes common jurisprudence on all levels as fasr as digital information is concerned.

    The irony lies in the fact that although ACTA will be a disaster for ordinary and fully law-abiding citizens, I see no possibility at all that it will impact non-commercial infringement in any way. That being the case I’m looking at a future where the ordinary citizen will come to embrace ordinary pirate methodology just in order to continue using the internet and digital media the way s/he always has.

    If anything, a great many of the ACTA provisions will motivate the citizen to become a pirate – as the demands made on the ISP’s, much like the vaunted data retention directive, will increase the unavoidable overheads by the ISP’s by an order of magnitude. Which in turn will make bandwidth that much more expensive. When a commodity surges in cost, every ordinary person by default seeks to make the most of what he gets.

    ACTA is a disaster. Not for pirates. For ordinary citizens and by extension for the copyright industry misguidedly pushing for this legislation. And it sets a very very ugly precedent when it comes to setting the lowest stringent criteria an international treaty needs to meet in order to be considered ”serious”.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 30 januari 2012 @ 9:56

  33. @Scary

    Have you actually read it? I’m pretty sure you haven’t since your incorrect on every single point.

    ”Any law needs to be considered from the viewpoint of proportionality and reason. ACTA says, in practice, that one person allowing another person to make a copy of a file is to be considered in the same light as violent crime and grand larceny as far as judicial mandate of enforcement and penalty is concerned.”

    ACTA does NOT say that. This is what ACTA says:

    ”In implementing the provisions of this Chapter, each Party shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties, and the applicable measures, remedies and penalties.”

    ”Secondly, ACTA’s provisions regarding ”circumventing DRM and providing tools enabling such circumvention” will in practice declare the personal computer itself illegal, unless there is a very large plethora of exceptions written into the treaty. I haven’t seen any such exceptions so far.”

    It will not. This is no change at all relative to the existing Swedish law and the PC has not been declared illegal as far as I know…

    ”Thirdly, ”fair use” is effectively abolished in all practice. Although you may still be able to create copies for friends and family or backups, the very act of circumventing the DRM in order to make that copy is now illegal.”

    No change relative to the existing Swedish law.

    ”Fourth, ACTA will according to the wording be under the control of a committee which will be able to amend or change ACTA itself without any further parliamentary process. What this basically means is that there will be a small bureaucracy able to alter and amend national laws in europe without any input by the democratic process. You see no problems with this?”

    Also incorrect:

    ”Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 4, during the first five years following the entry into force of this Agreement, the Committee’s decisions to adopt or amend the rules and procedures shall be taken by consensus of the Parties and those Signatories not Parties to this Agreement.”

    ”Fifth, ACTA mandates that ISP’s have to ensure no copyrighted material is illegally shared between their clients. As this is impossible for the ISP’s to manage but they still stand as liable under ACTA, this in effect makes even running an ISP illegal unless said ISP has manpower and technical resources comparable to the NSA. There is no ”safe harbor” provision in place which turns this entire statute into an effective ”guilty until proven innocent” scenario.”

    It does not.

    The problem with many of you pirates is that:
    1. You are not able to read and understand by yourselves
    2. Some of the leading pirates like Christian Engström and Henrik Alexandersson spreads incorrect interpretations that are then seen as facts but they are just incorrect interpretations
    3. You should demand a lot more from the leading pirates. They’re actually deceiving you with their incorrect picture, probably to ensure their future at the next EU election.
    4. You should be more self-critical within the group of pirates, don’t believe everything. Read the details and decide for yourself.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 30 januari 2012 @ 19:20

  34. Even more interesting. ”Nejtillpirater” systematically clanks down on any ACTA comment made by a pirate as if he were a true expert ( or self-proclaimed expert ). Yet he claims to…

    1. Not work with anything copyright-related as his ordinary job.
    2. Actually, not have any personal gains from copyright whatsoever.

    Something’s just not right here… In the case this is not your job… then your health would probably benefit from taking it a little bit easier on all this pirate hunting, or (a Little bit more probable) – you are lying to us on this…

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 31 januari 2012 @ 0:23

  35. @nejtillpirater
    Pretty much like the Social Democrats, then eh?
    And I bet you’re well pleased with the secrecy and non-transparancy that’s been surrounding the ACTA agreement. After all, that’s democracy, innit?

    You’re so hell bent on making ”pirates” look bad that you will accept anything from the chosen few. All of your (sometimes) valid arguments fade away in your quest to discredit pirates. ACTA ftw and all that, eh?

    Kommentar av mindmaze — 31 januari 2012 @ 0:25

  36. [...] background-position: 50% 0px; background-color:#222222; background-repeat : no-repeat; } christianengstrom.wordpress.com – Today, 5:51 [...]

    Pingback av A European Perspective: ACTA Stipulates Increased Damages For File Sharing | Stack O' Copyrights | Scoop.it — 31 januari 2012 @ 0:51

  37. @ nejtillpirater and @King Eguren I find it rather insulting you keep referring to anybody rejecting this bill automatically as a pirate! In turn I shall refer to both of you as ”stupid trolls” as it only seems fitting. Although you may have read the agreement you seem to of failed to understand half of it. Yes people have been misinformed in some regards, but that’s because they might of gotten hold of older versions which actually said the thing that they are talking about.

    People are using the wrong terminology when referring to the drugs part of this bill, this bill is not against ”fake drugs” it’s against manufactures producing generic drugs, which is a completely different thing. It means that instead of being able to go to the chemist and buy some cheap $1 aspirin or ibuprofen you have to buy the branded $5-6 stuff. It will allow pharmacological companies to monopolize drug prices to unprecedented levels. They already take the piss as it is, anything that gives them more power is just asking for trouble.

    Kommentar av Luke — 31 januari 2012 @ 9:11

  38. Well then it seems like I and others on this world have been misunderstandig everything. The only one that understands ACTA are you and rest of the pirates, what a fucking joke.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in-inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars

    Kommentar av King Eguren — 31 januari 2012 @ 9:28

  39. @nejtillpirater

    I can only surmise delusion on your part:

    ”In implementing the provisions of this Chapter, each Party shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties, and the applicable measures, remedies and penalties.”

    After which ACTA goes on to recommendations. I suggest you stop using only a third of what a treaty discusses before you use it as reference material.

    ””Secondly, ACTA’s provisions regarding ”circumventing DRM and providing tools enabling such circumvention” will in practice declare the personal computer itself illegal, unless there is a very large plethora of exceptions written into the treaty. I haven’t seen any such exceptions so far.”

    It will not. This is no change at all relative to the existing Swedish law and the PC has not been declared illegal as far as I know…

    Swedish law, as stated above, has some very specific definitions of what constitutes anti-circumvention ”technology”. ACTA lacks all these. Had Swedish law indeed been absent such provisions then the PC would be illegal as it in itself constitutes a technology whose primary purpose regularly involves enabling DRM circumvention.

    Here’s a little treat since you seem glaringly unaware of it – every ”tool” on the market meant to circumvent DRM thus far is nothing more than a relatively simple script run through a standard OS. You are arguing that a blanket ban on screwdrivers would not constitute an effective ban on owning a complete toolbox. You would know this if you knew what a functional computer actually is. Which obviously you do not.

    ””Thirdly, ”fair use” is effectively abolished in all practice. Although you may still be able to create copies for friends and family or backups, the very act of circumventing the DRM in order to make that copy is now illegal.”

    No change relative to the existing Swedish law.

    Excuse me? Swedish law has very specific criteria on what can be considered ”circumvention”. It is completely legal under swedish law to make a backup copy and to share copies with friends and family.

    Once again, ACTA lacks all such provisions, meaning that ”fair use” is abolished entirely in practice. But I take note that in your opinion, ”fair use” does not exist in Sweden.

    ”Fourth, ACTA will according to the wording be under the control of a committee which will be able to amend or change ACTA itself without any further parliamentary process. What this basically means is that there will be a small bureaucracy able to alter and amend national laws in europe without any input by the democratic process. You see no problems with this?”

    Also incorrect:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 4, during the first five years following the entry into force of this Agreement, the Committee’s decisions to adopt or amend the rules and procedures shall be taken by consensus of the Parties and those Signatories not Parties to this Agreement.”

    Kindly note the words bolded in your response. Now go and read paragraph 4!. Yes, it says perfectly well that ACTA shall be under the command of a concensus of parties except as excepted. Now go and read the wording on the duties and responsibilities of the ACTA committee:
    the ACTA Committee may adopt rules that ‘include provisions with respect to granting observer status,’ as well as for ‘any other matter the Committee decides necessary for its proper operation.’

    What is quite clear to all the analysts who’ve taken a look at ACTA is that this means the committee in effect could rewrite the treaty more or less from scratch if they felt it necessary for the continued operation of ACTA.
    What is quite clear to me is that you lack the relevant reading comprehension skills. In legislation and in a bureaucracy, any stipulation only contains exceptions if such exceptions are specifically written in. No such exceptions exist. In fact – the part under exception is the ability of the signatories to vote, withdraw, or amend the treaty by mutual cooperation as their ability to do so is overruled by the ACTA commission.

    ””Fifth, ACTA mandates that ISP’s have to ensure no copyrighted material is illegally shared between their clients. As this is impossible for the ISP’s to manage but they still stand as liable under ACTA, this in effect makes even running an ISP illegal unless said ISP has manpower and technical resources comparable to the NSA. There is no ”safe harbor” provision in place which turns this entire statute into an effective ”guilty until proven innocent” scenario.”

    It does not.

    Yes it does.

    And I have some news for you – we ”pirates” by and large take our information from the assessments which have been made by law professors, universities and independent think tanks who have made it their job to investigate international treaties.

    All of the hazards highlighted by Christian Engström and Henrik Alexandersson are taken directly from the assessments made by experts in the field of interpreting international law.

    The fact that you as usual are trying to obfuscate the issue by lying about what ACTA says or not and then use said falsehoods as basis for siome straw man argumentation about what ”pirates” lack in the form of reading comprehension does not alter established reality.

    And established reality is that the written cautions regarding ACTA haven’t been created just by pirates – but by civil rights activists and tenured professors whose field of expertise it is to make such judgements. Given that you insist they are all talking nonsense you must be very certain of your own opinion. Or you are, as usual, blowing a load of hot air.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 31 januari 2012 @ 12:32

  40. @King Eguren

    ”Well then it seems like I and others on this world have been misunderstandig everything. The only one that understands ACTA are you and rest of the pirates, what a fucking joke.”

    No, we’ve read the ars technica article well enough. Along with the other ACTA assessments. Here’s the problem – Ars Technica fails in the regard that they aren’t looking at the final draft of ACTA.

    They are looking at the latest publicly released version. Even if the leaked versions we see on the net today are all wrong, we can still fall back on the fact that publicly released previous version of ACTA also did not look like the version which was eventually displayed.

    Even should ACTA as detailed by Ars Technica be the proper one to hit the legislative body of parliament, the ramifications are bad enough. The part about executive power and unrestricted post-signing amendment carried out by the ACTA-committee stipulated to be created is quite bad enough.

    Even if we discard absolutely everything written by pirates, civil rights interests including everything written in this thread and choose to go only by your provided link we still see that ACTA is a disaster which circumvents everything relevant to the democratic process. In some respect that link puts ACTA in even worse perspective as it sets a precedent for removing democracy entirely from the equation of international treaties.

    I find it highly interesting that you in defense of ACTA still only come up with a document which says this treaty is a very bad idea. Should I interpret this as meaning that you are in fact also anti-ACTA and that you are still sticking around merely to argue semanticism?

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 31 januari 2012 @ 12:53

  41. @ForskarGurra

    ”Even more interesting. ”Nejtillpirater” systematically clanks down on any ACTA comment made by a pirate as if he were a true expert ( or self-proclaimed expert ). Yet he claims to…”

    I’m not an expert but I can read and decide for myself, instead of doing like most pirates – blindly quoting the incorrect conclusions drawn by other pirates.

    @Scary

    Who are those experts and professors you’re referring to? The misinterpretation Christian, Henrik and you do can’t be traced to such experts or professors, it’s your own wrong conclusions.

    ”””Fifth, ACTA mandates that ISP’s have to ensure no copyrighted material is illegally shared between their clients. As this is impossible for the ISP’s to manage but they still stand as liable under ACTA, this in effect makes even running an ISP illegal unless said ISP has manpower and technical resources comparable to the NSA. There is no ”safe harbor” provision in place which turns this entire statute into an effective ”guilty until proven innocent” scenario.”

    It does not.

    Yes it does.”

    In what way, why did you avoid explaining this? Since you’re wrong obviously.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 31 januari 2012 @ 19:06

  42. I hope you don’t mind http://youtu.be/ErexnKuwam8

    Kommentar av Estländare — 31 januari 2012 @ 23:42

  43. [...] Kollegen Christian Engström (MEP der schwedischen Piratenpartei) suchen würden, der Acta mit einer Reihe guter Argumente sehr ablehnend gegenüber steht. Wenn Ihnen die Ansichten der Piratenpartei in diesem Thema zu [...]

    Pingback av An meine Abgeordnete! — Georg Holzer — 1 februari 2012 @ 17:27

  44. Nejtillpirater:

    You say:
    ”I’m not an expert but I can read and decide for myself, instead of doing like most pirates – blindly quoting the incorrect conclusions drawn by other pirates.”

    You still dodge my questioning of your self-proclaimed expertise in this area and that you spend this enormous amount of time on learning about ACTA or fooling people into believing that you actually know something about it. Therefore I should not even bother answering you… but alright, here goes…

    So what’s your source that these incorrect conclusions are actually drawn by real pirates? Might as well be drawn by corporate employees wanting to discredit the pirate movement as unserious…

    FUDen, Fear Uncertainty Doubt… that’s your game.

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 1 februari 2012 @ 22:34

  45. Here’s an interesting article about what the suffering of the entertainment industry looks like in reality. When you read the papers you imagine the producers rotting in dirty rags under a bridge and you want to give some money to the Red Cross to help them, but in fact it looks like this: http://torrentfreak.com/what-piracy-the-entertainment-industry-is-booming-120130/

    Kommentar av Jarda — 1 februari 2012 @ 22:42

  46. @Urban/NTP

    ”I’m not an expert but I can read and decide for myself, instead of doing like most pirates”

    So, you are more used to reading and interpret EU directives, legislation, non-laymen terms and propositions than a MEP that has been in Brussels for more than two years? Can you say delusions of grandeur? Even the French MEP Kader Arif resigned in protest over ACTA. But, but. I guess he must have been a ”closet pirate” or a ”pirate hugger” in accordance with your view of the world.

    Kommentar av YesToPP — 2 februari 2012 @ 8:18

  47. So why do the world need ACTA anyway? What’s going to be better for us? I can only see a few large companies gaining money and power from ACTA.

    Thanks Christian Engström and all the rest of you ”pirates” trying to give us all some freedom! It’s much appreciated!

    Kommentar av ademokrati — 3 februari 2012 @ 11:06

  48. [...] sån här dag är det naturligtvis många som skriver. Här är ett axplock: Anne, Anna, HumbleBee, Christian, Futuriteter, Rick, Henrik [...]

    Pingback av Stolt och glad — Flickus flackus flum — 4 februari 2012 @ 23:40

  49. Today, I went to the beach with my kids. I found a
    sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said ”You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the
    shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear.
    She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but
    I had to tell someone!

    Kommentar av Regena — 20 september 2012 @ 9:14


RSS-flöde för kommentarer till det här inlägget.

Theme: Rubric. Get a free blog at WordPress.com

Följ

Få meddelanden om nya inlägg via e-post.

Gör sällskap med 1 962 andra följare

%d bloggers like this: