Buh bye DMCA - Welcome ACTA
 

Will secret copyright treaty restrict your digital rights?

Most Americans expect that their laws are only passed after some period of public debate between Republicans and Democrats or their news-channel proxies. However, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) may be an exception to this rule, and if it is signed, many United States laws concerning the Internet and ownership of data may become substantively different.

Various nations (including Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the U.S.) are said to be negotiating ACTA now, with the goal of passing a joint treaty to protect intellectual property sometime in 2010. I would like to tell you much more about what?s being written into the ACTA bill, but I can?t: the contents of the treaty are secret. What we know about it is pretty much based upon leaks of earlier documents, and heavily redacted versions which were ferreted out under the guise of national transparency laws. The University of Ottawa requested the text of the bill, and received a document with everything blacked out except the title. The Electronic Frontier Foundation received a copy with 159 pages intact, but an additional 1,362 pages redacted with the claim that the contents were crucial to national security.

What has been leaked is disturbing. Some reports state that customs officials at international borders would be empowered to search the contents of your laptop, cell phone, and iPod under the pretense that they're looking for ripped or downloaded music and videos, with confiscation of your devices as a potential penalty. Others state that Internet providers would be required to look through the data traveling over their networks for illegal transmission of copyrighted material. Various officials have denied both claims as being part of outdated drafts of the treaty?but obviously, without access to the text of the treaty and with no news of the negotiations, there?s no way to confirm any of this without waiting for a fait accompli announcement.

Civil libertarians (a group of which I?m a member) are disturbed by the treaty for obvious reasons, but there?s another issue at work here which should be of interest to anyone who uses a computer or the Internet. There are many people in media industries and law enforcement who think it would be much easier to police the world, if only there were One True Digital Rights Management Scheme to keep people from copying data they shouldn?t.

On the other hand, DRM tends to break stuff and has already been dumped by the music industry?but alive and well in the realm of digital video. Moving and transforming data is central to how we live today; technological or legal restrictions on moving data result in a different way of living with our data. Especially when someone suspects that the data in question isn't ours.

On to a short course in international law. Under the U.S. Constitution, when American representatives sign a treaty, it must be passed in the Senate; afterward, the language of the treaty has the force of law in the United States. However, some treaties can be negotiated under ?fast track? authority, which essentially states: ?if the President and the Executive branch have the authority to implement the treaty without Congressional action, they have the authority to sign the treaty.? (Lawyers, please note: I am not one.) If it later becomes necessary to pass a U.S. law to conform to the terms of the treaty, it?s pretty much a given that the treaty?s language is going to form the baseline of its text; make too many changes, and you have to send your diplomats back to the negotiating table.

ACTA is being negotiated under the fast-track authority, which means that it could be signed and enforced with the only notice being a buried headline in the New York Times. The EFF has published a law journal article with four extremely abstruse recommendations for how to open up the process to democratic debate; I recommend it to anyone who can make heads or tails of a law journal article.

For everyone else, though, it?s probably a good time to pay attention, and perhaps make some noise. Ironically, it?s going to be very difficult to report more on ACTA here, because so few facts are being leaked; I can report the process as news, but followup articles are hard to write without relying on rumor and innuendo. So get in touch with groups like the EFF which are lobbying on the issue, and perhaps read Boing Boing (where Cory Doctorow can be counted upon to provide up-to-the-minute coverage and leaks in informative but apocalyptic style). Call your Congresspersons and let them know you?re fond of the Internet and how it works. (Residents of Alaska, please note: Ted Stevens is not your Senator any longer, so it?s no longer a series of tubes.) Secret laws and closed-door negotiations have a track record of working well only when citizens are too apathetic or distracted to care much; if this is an issue that concerns you, let people know.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1439...ta_treaty.html

This is freakin GREAT news :thumbsup

If you get any more news on how file-sharers, pirates, and theives are gonna take it up the ass - please do share :thumbsup

"I'm loving it" - ?McDonalds

This is going to get interesting...

Consumers want shit for free and I dont think they are going to respond well to having their Ipods confiscated at JFK 'cause they have a couple of Beatle's song they didnt pay for on it.

This is going to be a major fight.

A few example cases will always be good to set a standard of what you tolerate ;-)

:2 cents:

Sounds pretty good.

even the dumbest politician by now knows what's going on on the Net and understands it to be exactly what it appears to be - theft. all the thieving wolves dressed in techno weenie clothing like gideon can cry but in the end nobody's going to listen.

eventually we all knew the government would realize that the DMCA does the exact opposite of what it was intended to do - it protects copyright thieves not copyright owners.

hopefully one day in the not too distant future if you want to be running a tube site or Rapidshare you'll have to go live in some shithole country to do it.

Interesting indeed. Who cares if consumers want shit for free - society is built upon selling things to consumers. I want some hot cars for free, I want some big houses for free - but it isn't going to happen. Digital products should be the same.

and as for 'responding well', again - too bad - rapists don't respond well when they get caught, murderers do not respond well when caught... etc. As a lawyer you know the rules - don't do the crime, you have nothing to fear (and yes, I am well aware that some innocent people get caught up in the system unfairly - been there myself - but the percentage is insignificant, so I am willing to live with it)


and this is a treaty - not a proposed law - it will spin off all kinds of local laws - but the treaty will stand, and be enforced (if passed) regardless.

to all those who think that ISP's and hosts are going to have to 'police' all the content - you are just stirring up shit and fearmongering - they will be obligied to, and given the rights to, terminate offenders as they are identified by various sources. They will not be required to actively police every bit of info that passes thru their wires. I am sure that there will evolve digital sniffing devices to help identify offenders - but 'actively policing' will not be required.

I for one welcome our (potential) new digital overlord rules. :thumbsup

.

Excellent post! :thumbsup

and moreso - hopefully after they move to their shithole country of choice - they will find that their IP's are blocked worldwide and only the citizens of that particular shithole country (and the other shithole countries that share their philosophies) can have access to their stolen digital product distribution empire - and the rest of the legit businessmen can go about selling their digital products to the rest of the world.

:2 cents:

What has been leaked is disturbing. Some reports state that customs officials at international borders would be empowered to search the contents of your laptop, cell phone, and iPod under the pretense that they're looking for ripped or downloaded music and videos, with confiscation of your devices as a potential penalty. Others state that Internet providers would be required to look through the data traveling over their networks for illegal transmission of copyrighted material. Various officials have denied both claims as being part of outdated drafts of the treaty?but obviously, without access to the text of the treaty and with no news of the negotiations, there?s no way to confirm any of this without waiting for a fait accompli announcement.

interesting, but...

2 things come to mind
- when traveling, no encrypted media will be allowed? and what if you refuse to provide access to it?
- internet traffic, does someone has masterkey to SSL?

1. Customs in many countries can already look through everything you have, including up your ass.

2. We wouldn't be here if Joe Blow surfer had just downloaded a few things here and
there amongst close friends instead of opening a "Walmart" full of stolen content.

you know how many times these type of treaties have been tried

do you realize how many time comsumer groups have rallied to make it clear to any politician that if they ratify such a bill they will never get another vote again.

every time these types of bill die quickly.

no matter how much you want fair use to be secondary to your exclusive rights they are not, and when such draconian laws can be explained to violate cede rights legitimate consumers can get behind defending not giving up rights they already have

Oh and btw it not wanting stuff for free
is not paying 3 or 4 times for the same right to view

it to stop bullshit like, you could have kept the tape for ever with a vcr but now that it digital you have to pay for the same right you used to have.

consumers ain't got a vote on this and show me a past treaty of this apparent seriousness involving all these countries that was being fast tracked and hidden from people like you.

i predict....nothing will change.

/cast vote for 'draconian' laws that
-only allow 'fair use' rights to supercede 'copyright holder' rights when the fair-use-user is doing so in a non-abusive, non-profitable and fair manner.
-Dictate that digital products are treated with the same laws that hard goods are.
-clarify that a 'backup' stored in a manner accessible to anyone other than the person who owns the backup - is deemed to be unacceptable in terms of 'fair use'.
-clarify that 'time shifing' stored in a manner accessible to anyone other than the person who owns the time shifted content - is deemed to be unacceptable in terms of 'fair use'.
-Lay down rules that ISP's and Hosts will be given the go-ahead and authority to 'disconnect' flagrant abusers, and will themselves be watched for supplying services to flagrant abusers and disconnected themselves if they do not comply.



:thumbsup :thumbsup




However, I fear that this will be true...


I'm backing ACTA fully anyways

i hope it will help fight that :Oh crap

This was big news awhile ago, specifically talking about scanning computers and other digital devices for illegal materials. Invasion of privacy, etc, etc.

Its kind of a big deal.

There are other widely reaching implications, some have suggested its a way to create a controlled internet to stop the freeflow of ideas and information.

how exactly do you think this get ratified by a country if the government's elected officials don't vote on it.

if an elected official realizes that he will never get elected again if he votes to ratify such a treaty how likely do you think that he will vote for it.

it will never pass in that form, just like the dmca it will be balanced (in fact given the abuses from the DMCA - like trying to do an end round around back up rights using the anti circumventation clause) it probably going to end up being weaker thent he DMCA.

so completely reverse the entire defined definition of copyright law

cool so i can sell my digital goods to other people after i am done using them, just like i can with my car

i can rent out my digital goods just like i can with my car

i would think you would consider that a step backwards, but cool.

wow so sms server will no be illegal since the install point is shared, the cost of corporate backup just went 100 fold, and multi million dollar business like microsoft sms server sales all have to disappear.


if you think your backup idea will be coded into law, no point it wasting time explaining why this one will not happen either.


and that has no possiblity of censoring the internet

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh



i have just shown you how legitimate business (like microsoft, etc) can argue against such a change in the law, how likely do you think it will pass when they start arguing how unreasonable it is.

don't forget the people hit hardest by that kind of changes like google and major telco.

hell if the cable companies can run free PSA against the broadcast tax in canada, asking people to right the crtc, how likely do you think it is that major companies are not going to do the same thing if the laws come down the way you are wanting them too.

all i ask for is the loop holes be closed :shrugs:

DMCA makes sense, but it didn't work.

Can you pick the guy that's into time-shifting .....


http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/x...ePackage-1.jpg



.

You and your kind are the ones trying to reverse the copyright laws as they are written and intended. Copyright holders are given exclusive rights to their works, and the dissemination of those works, except for the fair use entitlements provided for - but in NO WAY was it intended that anyone could use any copyrighted work in any way that they chose, and in a manner that they personally profited from. I'm all for fair use in the way the law details it - not in the way your fantasy prone mind envisions it.

yes - because when you sell your car you are deprived of it and someone else buys the right to own and use it as they wish. So the (new) laws would cover that you can sell your digital good(s) as long as you are deprived of it (your already installed copy is removed / your pics or vids are deleted from your system...) and that if you are found to still be using it (posessing it) after you sold it then you are legally and financialy responsible for the consequences that may befall you.

again, yes. But under the same terms as selling it - If you (rent/lease/assign..) it to someone else then you cannot use it and must remove it from your system.

as described above - it would be a step forward - and grant you your rights to sell/lease/rent/assign

don't be a tool - any sharing of any digital product by the owner of said products would be perfectly legal - SMS is quite safe - costs of corporate backup will remain exactly as they are - and legal users of the shared (protected) content will not rot in jail.

You constantly make this mistake - if Radiohead (or any band) want to give their stuff away - more power to them. If a porn producer wants to splash their stuff all over the internet for free, that is their choice and right, If you want to share your own creations with the world gratis... then have at it - be free. But if I don't want my stuff given away for free in its entirety in an environment where the 'giver' is making money from my work, or in an environment that impacts my ability to make a living from my own work - then FUCK THAT

Giving MY work away is solely MY choice, and not someone elses. If they want to use a bit of it for commentary, or make a mashup, or make a parody, or use it for purely research or educational purposes - then hell - I'm good with that. Siteripping me and placing it on a public torrent... well, I'm not so good with that.



easily coded into the law - for a backup to qualify under fair use the backup would have to be stored in such a manner that it is only accessible to authorized accessors (corporations are again safe) and that the public is locked out. If you want a backup online - make one - share it to the world - go to jail. Again, If you OWN full rights to the content (and I mean copyright holders rights - not 'fair use' users rights) and wish to make your 'backup' publically available - go nuts.

make up a propaganda campaign using all your own original thoughts flaming the government and you are immune from ACTA (and censorship)

copy/paste someone elses campaign and use it for your own without getting permission and/or obtaining the right to, or exerpting their works for discussion/commentary - then the ACTA act shuts you down - their original work will however be left up and fully uncensored and accessible to the public.

This is all about using OTHER peoples work as your own,for your profit - NONE of this is about 'censorship' of original thought. nor about censorship of the internet.


Microsoft and all other corporations and all legitimate users will be untouched by this treaty - so don't expect them to stand on your side.

Google will be completely unaffected, major Telcos will be unaffected. They will enforce disconnections (logical or physical) when required to - just as they are now for cp - their scope of jurisdiction will increase - so a few jobs will be created - good for everyone concerned ('cept for you - and I'm not crying over that)

Sometimes, by the way you structure your sentences, grammar, spelling, punctuation.... I really don't know what thought you are trying to convey - but then I just chalk it up to the blessings in my life and be thankful

.

That sounds like "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and the Big Brother stuff. Where the fuck is freedom and privacy? Although, I've got everything 100% legit on my laptop, I would never allow anybody to search through my personal data. Many people have got on their hard drives literally their lives - sensitive data, business plans, future plans, banking passwords, naked pictures of their wives.
Time to learn how to create TrueCrypt volumes?

and how exactly would you tell that i have it no longer on my machine without violating my privacy.



but 3m doesn't own the copies of microsoft windows they have installed on every machine they only licience them
that the point, your no shared backup solution would kill the sms market, or explode the cost of a corporate backup
becuase they would be forced to back up everything including the common os stuff that every machine shares.



and if the password was weak, or easily hackable, the corporation would be liable, considering the cracking tools now available that is going to get very messy


tell that to all the downfall parody creators who had their works ripped down from youtube before the EFF successfully defended their rights.

do you really think those types of parodies would be protected under the abusive laws you want written, especially when many people here argued that shouldn't be considered parody (even though it met all of the 4 fair use conditions and the eff parody proved it within the video itself).



oh really

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2...d-fair-use.ars

you just said you wanted to have them disconnected if they keep infringers online.
so either they will disconnect people without actual proof that they are guilty (ip address alone) or they will face loss of their own business from your side of the law, and on the other side the economic damage that was caused by wrongfully cutting off the falsely accused "infringer"

that a huge liability on both sides

talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place.

what really funny is that one of those pictures is a character in a tv show that is timeshifted 1.3 million times a week.

so what your really saying is i am a world class moron who can't even insult someone properly.

exactly, Canada and the U.S. included :2 cents:

:1orglaugh

Don't worry Gideon. There will still be 1.000 TV channels, 10.000 radio channels and 1.000.000 TGPs. ... and you do not have to buy another 1.000.000.000 KB harddisk.

"freedom and privacy" go out the window when it comes to borders, it is already that way and has been like that forever, border agents are not bound by the same laws that regular police are.... good luck with "never allowing" a border agent to search through something they want to :2 cents:

The depends how you define a border. My guess is anything like this will be implemented very differently on an international flight than it will be on a domestic flight across state borders.... and if you are counting on overworked customs agents who are trying to prevent terrorism and to also prevent drugs and weapons from coming in and out of the country, to suddenly take an interest in the torrented version of your porn video on some guy's Ipod at JFK you had best enjoy that fantasy deeply before reality sets in...

many many ways for apps - simple 'call home' technology on application launch - to see if more than 1 copy is 'calling home' from different locations. If you are on a laptop connecting from many locations the call home technology can ask you some 'prove who you are' questions.

As for 'data' - I clearly said that 'If you are found to still be in posession of...' - didn't say anything about actively hunting down the little fishes - just saying that if you are the object of an investigation anyways - your computers can be seized by a court order - and your 'perfect crime privacy rights' go straight out the window.

The object of this treaty is not to send every citizen to jail - but to take down the major offenders - the trickle down effect on the little fish will be huge




again, you show your desperation to grasp at any straw that justifies your fantasy - as per the license agreement between 3m and MS - business will remain exactly as it is now - two corporations, 1 the client, 1 the provider, will set the license up so that no infractions of treaty or law will happen - NO change to exactly what is happening now. NO extra business costs - NO changes to backup or distribution - NO liabilities (as long as both parties honor the terms of the agreement.


more desperate straw-grasping on your part. If it is hacked then the ISP gives up the information on the 'hacker' and the 'hacker' is liable - what exactly would the corporation be liable for anyways???? public distribution of their own property???? you aren't even trying anymore...

their stuff got hacked - they patch the hole - the hacker gets pursued by the law - only one liable here is the theif.


they would be protected just as much as they are now - nothing changes - guy in basement makes a parody - posts it - copyright owner complains - court decides if it is taken down or not - NOTHING changes.



weakest link you have given to-date

writing them a check is not the same thing as 'throwing their corporate support' behind them - its a PR trick used to make them look like they want to be 'fair to all parties'. But I don't blame the weak minded from drawing the inference that you have.

AGAIN - this is not about going after every surfer in their basements - this is about going after the mass providers - get a grip on the big picture - take out the rapidshares, take out the websites that steal content to sell, the hosts that host them - take out the people that continually post stolen digital product (no one said you will be disconnected for 1 infraction - but that you will be if you continually do it) - and the little fish will go back to small scale 'sharing with actual friends', not their merry band of 2 million 'internet friends'.



and life will be good.

.

And that is what we need... if the big fish were gone the little ones would be running scared!

yeah well we will see
i am betting this bill will never pass in the form that it is leaked

it will at worst be a milder form of the DMCA (without the anti circumvention statutes-- or wrapped in fair use like the original act)

there are groups who are actually counter arguing that any new rules should have a 3 times damage penalty codifed with any new power so since if those new powers were never intended to squash fair use, no copyright holder would fear such penalties.

i signed my name to one such petition (that where i got the 3x damages idea from we talked about in another thread).

"treble damages" is a term that has a long history in damages awarded, like not making good on a bad check, fraud, etc. Also Federal anti-trust violations carry treble damage penalties.


.

the latter is the point of petition since stomping over fair use with any such rights would be that type of anti-trust violating monopoly abuse.

oh and that was the same arguement that the copyright lobby made when they argued for the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA

and that law is being used to take away every day people right to rip the dvd they bought to media vault.

I cannot believe I am about to type these words, but here goes....


agreed

agreed

agree - but only that you "could" be right - not that I think you will be exactly

agreed



WTF did I just do?!?!?!?!

I know... I won't hit submit








ooops


.

wheres the link to all the cases involving this law being used in that manner?

must be a big list i'm sure

I'll take just one :thumbsup

Exactly. The fucking govt. is ALREADY taking people's laptops. And if the law comes to your house...they will take every computer you have and remove the hard drives to "investigate" them. And the guys I know who have had this happen have all told me that when they finally got their stuff back it was ruined.

But back to the borders and flying...they are already taking people's laptops to search for "dangerous" literature that could be "terrorist" related. Just in case any of us wanted to actually read what the crazed muslims are preaching.

So if they are already doing mind and thought control by searching our computers...then what the fuck? Why not use that shit to stop piracy too?

FWIW, I won't take my laptop on another plane. I'll ship it overnight to wherever I'm going.

I doubt most consumers will know what it is about and how it effects them personally. Old people vote so I doubt there will be any huge groundswell.

It would be hard to be weaker then DMCA.

we argued back and forth in when one of those cases was mentioned on this forum

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=921742

why pretend your not aware of it now ?

It's great seeing how everyone here thinks this is about making them money. lol The only people this is going to make money is very large corporations, lawyers and governments. If you want an example of what this will look like look no further than this

Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.

The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).

So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).

But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.

What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators.

Lobby organisation The Open Rights Group is urging people to contact their MP to oppose the plans.

"This plan won't stop copyright infringement and with a simple accusation could see you and your family disconnected from the internet - unable to engage in everyday activities like shopping and socialising," it said.

The government will also introduce age ratings on all boxed video games aimed at children aged 12 or over.

There is, however, little detail in the bill on how the government will stimulate broadband infrastructure.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20...w-interne.html

Why do you think so? The ones suffer most from piracy today, is not the larger companies... Tom Cruise... no, it's the small guy. The one-man programmer. The cleaning lady... all those working hard for a penny. Not to mention all the losses in taxes, and so on.
In the end it's always the small and poor who suffer most, when the richer is attacked. Even Robin Hood would shake his head today. He stole back - not from..
You have to accept that someone are richer, if you want development. If everyone steal, there will be no one left to support welfare... but of course laws, that also protect the consumer and the poor.

Boinboing.net? Looks like tinfoil hat propaganda. Why can't people just face the truth, admit what they did, and stop blaming all others but themselves? The thieves and those supporting/sponsoring it, have created this. Not governments... and now they have also the nerves to whine and scare others about something they created? pfff..

Who's going to support the poor? lol That's hilarious. I spent a good bit of time in upscale restaurants back in the days. The cheapest fuckers were always the rich folks. They don't give away shit. The only reason they setup up charities is so they can put their money in tax free trusts and pay themselves out of it.

Laws don't stop a damn thing. Do you really think anyone gives a fuck about you wearing a seat belt other than maybe your immediate loved ones? NO, then why do we have a seat belt law? To protect the insurance industry and generate revenue for the government. That's it. They don't give a shit about you. So whats going to happen? They will create laws, fuck up a bunch of peoples lives because they downloaded a song, and make the government and lawyers involved money. In addition to giving some wannabe dogooders something to do with their life while they follow you around on the internet and snoop through your computer trying to find some reason to fine or throw your ass in jail.

All this bullshit just opens up a whole can of worms you don't want opened. Next it will be the major sites wantng in on it for people linking to their artcles, NAACP, ADL, etc, etc. Before you know you want even be able to say "Go Fuck Yourself" ..

And don't forget that this is a "treaty" as in every country signed on will have say and participate in the "laws" including China and the likes. So if you break a "law" that China wants enforced then you can bet the US will enforce it because they want theirs enforced.

There is a lot of hypothetical support here for a mechanism to defeat copyright theft. However the secret parts of this treaty could contain outright bans on certain types of free expression.
Its also hard to see how we could rely on ISPs to properly ID a paid download vs a sharing download. They could easily throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Not to mention the probability of a segregated internet, where we would need ISP approval to distribute content, & ISPs deciding not to transmit legal material, just to be on the safe side.

Funny you say that, because Bill Gates are not only the richest, but also probably the most pirated. Still, he can afford to give billions to Africa... yeah, I know... some americans could also need the money, but I think the african kids need it more..

The small programmer, working on his own, risk taking his hole living form him, because some jerk decided to crack his software and distribute it. Or what about the solo model, working her ass off on her own? She's forced out of the job.. or just sell her work cheap to bigger companies, who can afford laywers and marketing... How can you "justify" that?

Well, I'm using seat belt because of my own safety, and I give a shit about they give a shit. What insurance companies gain from it, is not going to stop me, no matter the law.

Yes, unfortunately, there will be consequenses when crimes expand. It's already predicted long time ago. It's history repeatingn itself... And who do we blame? The one with the cookie or bomb in his hand - or the one telling him to stop?