The opposition to ACTA: Li hu tiegħi, tiegħi; li hu tiegħek, tiegħi wkoll – għax mhux sew li għandek iżjed minni.
Somebody I know through publishing sent me the following email message. He gave me permission to upload it here, as long as I left out his name, for the reasons he describes in the message itself.
———-
Dear Daphne,
Just a short note (not for publication please – I’m tired of arguing about ACTA, all over Facebook and elsewhere, with people who haven’t even bothered to read the proposed treaty or at least read suitably around it) to say it’s a relief to finally see someone bothering to discuss the underpinnings of it all.
I’ve seen some of your comments in your ACTA thread about the right to private property etc, and at last someone is pointing out coherently that just because ‘we all do it’ (illegal downloads) doesn’t make it right, still less a right.
What we’re all doing is stealing. Fullstop.
And all the fancy talk about the unprecedented freedom of the internet bla bla is all a roundabout way of saying we’d rather enjoy our free access to copyrighted material, thank you very much, and don’t want such petty bothers as ‘legality’ or ‘respect for private property’ to alter our comfy habits.
As to the argument ‘the ACTA provisions might be abused of by [insert totalitarian state of choice]’, well in that case we should outlaw police forces, because in totalitarian states the police force is used to arbitrarily arrest and torture.
As someone said, just because I object to the – say – greed or unethical practices of a fashion manufacturer, it doesn’t give me the legal right to walk into a high-street store and help myself to their clothing.
And if I have a bricks-and-mortar establishment where I’m allowing third parties to sell stolen goods, and keep on allowing it in spite of official warnings, then yes, I shouldn’t be surprised if the authorities take action and close down my establishment.
You choose to make your blog available for free. That’s your decision and you will have your reasons for it. But if other authors/publishers/musicians/artists/producers choose to make their work available against payment, it’s their choice.
They own the rights to it, and any use in breach of that is illegal. I feel silly stating the obvious, but that’s what we have been reduced to.
A published author tried to argue with me against ACTA, saying ‘ACTA is the equivalent of this: if I were to submit a manuscript to a publisher, not telling the publisher it was a translation of someone else’s work, and then the published went ahead and published it, why should the publisher be held responsible?’
Of course the publisher is legally responsible, civilly and possibly criminally, for stealing the original author’s work. That’s actually an argument in favour of ACTA. The publisher is responsible and so is the person who fraudulently sold the translation.
But we’re – as you’ve often pointed out – an incurably socialist nation, and the concept of private property and respect thereof is at best an acquired taste for us.
Li hu tiegħi, tiegħi; li hu tiegħek, tiegħi wkoll għax mhux sew li għandek iżjed minni.
Apologies for the rant. Back to work …
43 Comments Comment
Reply to Anonymous Click here to cancel reply
The ISP surveillance issue could be overcome by using SSL connections. Facebook already supports it and so do hosting companies like Rapidshare.
SSL cannot be hacked mid-way so the surveillance operation then needs to be shifted towards the user (which is illegal without a warrant) or towards the website/service provider.
Case study – Youtube:
–> Youtube is already obliged to delete copyrighted material so this doesn’t directly effect them.
–> The viewers of copyrighted material on Youtube aren’t exactly doing anything wrong as they cannot be sure whether the content is available with the consent of its owner or not.
–> The uploader of the content on the other hand IS in the wrong – even presently. ACTA gives greater powers to prosecute people who share or make available copyrighted material. Uploads of course could be anonymous – via proxies/VPNs.
Case study – downloading of copyrighted content:
–> ALREADY ILLEGAL
–> P2P networks (like bit-torrent) can make use of SSL to avoid surveillance – but they are still susceptible to sting operations.
–> File lockers such as Fileserve and Hotfile are obliged to remove copyrighted material
–> People who download should be in the clear, but the uploaders…well…
The ANONYMOUS video on Youtube mentioned emails and chats being scanned/searched. ACTA is very vague on this but such activity is an invasion of privacy and may only be conducted after a warrant has been obtained. Again, if we can upgrade such services to use SSL connections there is NO WAY they can be checked somewhere along the way to their destination.
Something like BBM for example cannot be hacked or surveyed.
SSL – Main Port 443, Closed = Problem solved.
“Please note that this Privacy Policy may change from time to time. We will not reduce your rights under this Privacy Policy without your explicit consent.” – Google Privacy Policy
The language vagueness ACTA is intentional, in fact it is also stipulated that the treaty that each nation may draw up it’s own interpretation.
The end does not justify the means.
While data transfer of bit torrent from client to client can be disguised, tracker announces and peer discovery is carried out over HTTP in plain text format – ISPs can tell you are using bittorrent just by LOOKING at your packets.
They are shooting from the hip. (quoted from The Times)
If they expect us to believe that Simon and his sidekick (quoted from the same article in The Times) are in favour of destroying Malta’s pharmaceuticals cluster.
I must disagree with your acquaintance who wrote the above letter.
If all ACTA did was limit or halt internet piracy, it would not be so much of an issue, and even though some individuals are arguing against ACTA because it will effect how easily they download pirated moves/songs, it does not mean that there aren’t also good reasons to oppose the bill.
If you talk about the aspects of ACTA that relate directly to the internet, there is a massive imposition on ISPs to make sure individuals can be held liable for their on-line activity. This may result in at least one of the following scenarios:
1) Excessive logging of internet usage which may easily be abused of. To use the analogy of law enforcement; this would be like the police installing cameras and microphones everywhere with the excuse that if a crime is committed, recordings can be reviewed to determine the perpetrators or the extent of a crime.
This is not an exaggeration or a paranoid scenario – unlike the “bricks-and-mortar” establishments, this level of surveillance can be implemented with technology already in place. The only reason it is not already done is because it may be costly for ISPs and possible viewed as illegal under the DPA.
Although we believe in law enforcements and the police, this level of surveillance would be viewed as an incredible breach of privacy.
2) Restriction of services – keeping track of all the activity of all of an ISPs clients may not be feasible financially or time-wise, for this, ISPs may restrict access to certain services or protocols which make it harder to track.
Different on-line applications use different ports and protocols some of which are harder to maintain logs. ISPs may choose to simply disallow these protocols in order to facilitate adhering to the requirements put forward by ACTA.
The view that the Maltese public’s reaction was nothing but the result of selfish and socialist behaviour is very short-sighted as it can easily be observed that a world-wide anti-ACTA sentiment has been forming for a while and is growing. Opponents of ACTA include liberals and greens not just socialists.
The above only concerns the IT aspect of ACTA which is my area of expertise. From what I have been reading, there are aspects which control generic drugs and types of crop seeds.
I found this link to a TED talk today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2dF-IsH0I
They talk about the SOPA and PIPA bills in the US which are essentially the US version of ACTA. Although experts are agreeing that ACTA, as a concept is a lot worse SOPA or PIPA.
ACTA does not describe using the “domain name service” as a mechanism to control content (as described in this video). ACTA, in fact, does not detail the mechanism used to control content. Part of what makes ACTA alarming to those of us who care about civil liberties, is the fact that it is extremely vague when it comes to methods of enforcement or determining who content is copyrighted or otherwise.
Please take some time to watch this video, even though it was intended for SOPA and PIPA the main concepts discussed also apply to ACTA.
Of course they’re absolutely right – something does need to be done about large-scale copyright infringement. But if you want to be completely rational about the issue, border searches and individual requests for disclosure to ISPs are no way to solve the problem.
Google’s argument is that the most effective and efficient way to deal with organised copyright infringers like Megaupload is to cut off their means of funding. If it can be done for Wikileaks then it can certainly be done for Megaupload.
Not to mention that it’s completely immoral for Visa, Mastercard and Amex to cream off transactions to copyright infringers before law enforcement shut down the operation, then get to keep their profits afterwards.
Just to add on to what Andrew just said, here is a detailed description of how ACTA would effect negatively generic drugs (from the Journal of Current Pharmaceutical Research):
http://jcpronline.com/final/2.%20REVIEW%20ARTICLE%20.koyal%20saini.pdf
First of all, I beg to differ with the author: piracy is not theft. Theft removes the original, while piracy simply makes a copy. Making copies of copyrighted work was never a criminal activity in the past, provided the copy was not sold.
Today online file-sharing is a crime for the mere reason that it is so widespread, eating away a rather large chunk (or so they say) of the profits.
But that’s besides the point. Piracy is already illegal. That’s not the issue.
ACTA would create a situation where any website that hosts any kind of copyrighted material, or even links to a website that hosts copyrighted material, would be guilty of an offence.
This means, for instance, that if I post a link to a video of a mass meeting that happens to illegally make use of the song We Take The Chance, Daphne’s website could be shut down.
Making multiple copies of copyrighted work is illegal. Remember the bundles of stapled photocopies distributed during lectures?
Is it possible that a website/blog be closed simply because it carries a link to another?
ACTA opponents, you’re arguing against this treaty with weak or inaccurate arguments. In doing so you’re shifting the debate to the moral high ground of those who support much tougher proposals than those agreed in ACTA.
Arm yourself with facts and sway away from myths before embarking on an Internets freedom jihad. This article from Ars is a good place to start:
http://goo.gl/z3G31
Dear anonymous, that article is as purposefully vague as the bill currently called ACTA. I’d encourage enterprising readers to also read the rest of the comments after that article and to be better informed.
arstechnica is a good site and has a lot of past articles on SOPA, PIPA and ACTA.
Daphne, your headline does not accurately portray why everyone is up in arms about ACTA. Yes, there are people who want to be able to copy and pirate stuff at will, and no amount of laws and enforcement will stop those guys.
This misses the real problems with ACTA, however, which start with the way the agreement was discussed, and signed behind closed doors without any public consultation of the affected or interested parties or their representatives. Everything was done in secret at the behest of the truly formidable US corporate (anyone who things Malta is the world capital of political influence, friends and favours, think again!). Is that the way you think democracy should be done? I think not.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation published a post a couple of days ago explaining very clearly why “We Have Every Right to Be Furious About ACTA” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/we-have-every-right-be-furious-about-acta
Read it and understand why even, and I quote “The Member of the European Parliament who was appointed to be the rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament, Kader Arif, quit yesterday in protest. In a statement he said:
I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament’s demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly…
…This agreement might have major consequences on citizens’ lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade.”
Illegal downloads have nothing to do with stealing. If you steal something from me then I don’t have it any more. If you download a song from me you just own a copy and I still own the original. So what did you steal?
[Daphne – Drawn breath here: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. THERE IS A WHOLE FIELD OF LAW DEDICATED TO IT. I’ll just try to keep things simple. You write a novel. It takes you a year of hard work, barely sleeping, etc etc. Then there is your creative input, your unparalleled skills and gifts. All that goes into your book. You find a publisher, get it published. You start receiving royalties. Then somebody scans your entire novel and uploads it on the internet for free download. What have they stolen? After all, you still have the manuscript.]
Royalties are a thing of the past. There are other ways for artists to make even more money today.
Let us say there’s a talented musician.
He/she can choose to go through the laborious process to get endorsed by a music label with their own terms so that he/she can have his/her music promoted with a chance of success, fame, and a chance to sell records from which he/she can derive some profit from royalties.
This is the traditional system and this had its fair share of success.
But ultimately it was the greedy music labels that pocketed most of the money. Moreover, this system gave and is still giving success to undeserving talent-less musicians because music labels have the ability to mask their lack of talent behind highly edited music etc.
Nowadays, thanks to the internet, really talented musicians can choose to promote their music themselves for free on websites such as youtube.
They can become famous this way because millions of people, who recognize their talent, listen to their freely available music. When they become famous they start having concerts or gigs where people pay a lot of money to listen to their music live.
Then come the music labels. Ah! But now the musicians and their music are already famous and highly sought after so musicians have the freedom to negotiate on their own terms only. This is happening right now and I can cite many musicians who took this course to fame and success.
Music labels are terrified of this new system because this puts them at the bottom of the food-chain and rightly so. Moreover, talent-less musicians cannot achieve success through this system.
By that same logic I would likewise be guilty of theft if I make a number photocopies of your article in The Independent, and distribute them among my friends for free.
Times have changed and business models must be updated. These laws will do jack.
Piracy is not so bad after all.
http://torrentfreak.com/best-selling-author-turns-piracy-into-profit-080512/
Sigh. Your argument is irrelevant. Royalties have nothing to do with the case you mentioned. If I, as an author or illustrator, own the royalties of a work that I created, you do not have the rights to distribute it without my written authorisation, even if you do so for free as those downloads affect the sale of my work. Simple.
Creatives who make a living out of these royalties, even if they are insignificant due to the size of the market, depend on these sales but unfortunately if you live in a bubble you cannot understand this.
I can see you being all creative and sharing the sweat of your brow for free. Bet you do voluntary work as a day job and help grannies cross the road in the evenings. Can I send you some donations of bread and water?
Rampant piracy undermines the economy but this blanket, hysterical approach is going to undermine important and legal practices that underlie modern business.
Take a look at this clip. I saw it some time ago, but now it makes more sense.
http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html
It’s based on the “user generated content”, but isn’t all media “user generated”?
Actually you made my point. Intellectual property is a different field of law because it is not theft. Otherwise it would be covered by the laws against theft. As for the royalties, they don’t go to the author but to the publisher in the same way that they don’t go to the artists but to the record companies.
[Daphne – Not true at all. Royalties go to authors/songwriters etc. PROFITS go to publishers, record companies and so on.]
“You write a novel. It takes you a year of hard work, barely sleeping, etc etc…” then you charge 80 euros for it. In a couple of years, you change a couple of sections and you charge 80 euros again in a new edition.
People resort to piracy because they have no other option. If the book had a much fairer price, people would actually buy it.
[Daphne – ‘Legalise theft’: if producers don’t charge what you consider to be a fair price, you are allowed to steal the product. Products are products. You have no actual right to them.]
When was the last time anyone ever downloaded a book for casual reading (I’m not talking about e-book readers )? And this is because casual reading books are usually affordable in price. In addition, people prefer the convenience and ‘feel’ of books.
But then why is it that students routinely download or photocopy academic works? Because they don’t want to fork out 200 euros every semester (luckily in Malta there is the smart card and stipend that somewhat alleviates this).
[Daphne – No, it’s because they can’t be fagged to actually use the library for WORK, Patrick. That’s why. Students don’t have to buy books. That’s why universities have libraries.]
I used to download pirated video games quite regularly. Then came the program Steam (look it up), which provided games at a fair price and also offered an excellent service. Because of this, I haven’t downloaded a pirated game in years.
And why do people download movies? Because they don’t want to pay an exorbitant amount of money on a DVD. 30 euros and I get SPECIAL FEATURES! Who the hell actually watches that? Or you could pay 8 euros to go and watch the movie -once- in a smelly, damp theatre! Ahhh excellent value for money.
Honestly, the movie and publishing industry are so backward it’s incredible. What’s funny is that they argue that they’re losing “billions” due to piracy. Honestly, do you think that people who download movies for free would EVER pay the exorbitant fees for the ‘legitimate’ copies?
Imma msieken, all the rich actors and producers need to eat hux.
[Daphne – Try living in a communist state, Patrick. I’m told the film industry is really fascinating there.]
But what’s most ironic is that Hollywood was set up to escape punitive licensing from Thomas Edison’s Motion Picture Patents Company. Funny, no?
If the movie industry offered their product at a fair price and with an excellent service, they’d see their profits increase significantly.
” ‘Legalise theft’: if producers don’t charge what you consider to be a fair price, you are allowed to steal the product. Products are products. You have no actual right to them.”
I’m not saying that its right or that you should legalise it. However, it happens because of the price. If bread cost 10 euros a loaf, people would certainly resort to stealing it. Rather than trying to solve the problem at the source (i.e. changing their business strategy), what the entertainment industry does is lobby to impose tough penalties. So continuing with our bread example, it would be like chopping someone’s hand off for stealing a loaf of bread.Remind you of any countries in particular?
“[Daphne – No, it’s because they can’t be fagged to actually use the library for WORK, Patrick. That’s why. Students don’t have to buy books. That’s why universities have libraries.]”
Daphne, at most there might be 5 copies of one book, perhaps not even the latest edition. How can this serve courses with scores of students in? I study in a different country, and the situation here is the same. I have to buy around 3 books a semester. That is not to say the libraries are not a good resource of knowledge: the lack of quantity of books is made up by the variety of books. However, sometimes you still need that one specific book.
“[Daphne – Try living in a communist state, Patrick. I’m told the film industry is really fascinating there.]”
No but I live in Sweden, an arguably semi-socialist state that, despite its relatively small population, has a solid film tradition. Ingmar Bergman alone is one of the most influential individuals in the history of cinema.
The issue here is the method of control.
I enjoyed reading this piece and agree wholeheartedly with the writer’s comments. My problem is with parallel trading.
It can take a few years to establish a brand, and once the market accepts the brand any Tom, Dick or Harry can waltz in and cherry pick some of the brands items and literally flog them with cut price antics.
This is deemed desirable by the EU.
Somebody please enlighten me to the merits of this practice, and kindly shy away from saying the end price comes down because there is enough pressure exerted by competing brands.
W.E. Gladstone explaining the difference between a Christian and a Socialist: “A Christian says “What’s mine is thine”, a Socialist says “What’s thine is mine””
I have a better explanation; A Christian would say “Give to Caeser what is Caeser’s and what is God’s to God”.
A socialist parasite (aka suldat tal azzar) would say “Give to me what is Caeser’s after you give to Caeser what is God’s.”
I’m all against abusing IP and copyright but just because I’m against it doesn’t mean that one possible solution is the best solution. This is like when Norman Lowell correctly points out that we have a problem with illegal immigrants but thinks that the one possible solution of “shoot them” is the way to go.
[Daphne – Correctly points out?]
ACTA is barely anywhere near a sensible solution against IP and copyright abuse, for one, people already know how to anonyimize themselves to go about a lot of things it will restrict. So how about we start thinking of smart ways to protect copyright etc.?
Apple is one of the companies who has started to think about how to prevent users from illegally downloading software and entertainment content for their products, the world should join them in making the situation *actually* better not the let’s pretend we have a law (which everyone bypasses) better.
[Daphne – Correctly points out?]
It depends on when you consider something to be a problem. To me, that the authorities take ages to put them through a system, holding them in a detention center while they do so and them rioting and injuring members of the police force, is a problem. The system needs fixing, yes.
But this isn’t about illegal immigration. The point that sentence was trying to make is that because there is one possible solution doesn’t mean that it’s sensible or by any means, the best one. I’m not interested in discussing illegal immigration on this thread in particular.
In laymen’s terms, does it mean that when this ACTA legislation comes into force, I cannot download a film or a piece of music for my own personal enjoyment?
If this is so, then I might as well downgrade my internet connection to one with just enough bandwidth to brouse. And so will plenty of other people I guess. What do Maltese ISPs have to say about this ACTA stuff?
Downloading a film or piece of music for your own personal enjoyment is already illegal. ACTA will simply take everything to a whole other level. This could happen to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
@ Dee:
“In laymen’s terms, does it mean that when this ACTA legislation comes into force, I cannot download a film or a piece of music for my own personal enjoyment?”.
No, it just means that you will find it harder to illegally download a film or music, but you will still be able to legally download films or music for your own personal enjoyment, be it at a charge, or for free, as the case may be.
It is already illegal to download a film or a piece of music.
That is why the government, the Commission and the PN MEPs are insisting that Acta won’t change the law. But as things stand right now no matter how much you download you are never going to be prosecuted or sued for damages.
This is what will change with ACTA. You will be prosecuted for downloading films and songs while record companies and movie companies will be able to sue you for ridiculous amounts. This is already happening in some countries such as Germany.
A friend of mine who lives there received a letter asking for €400 in damages for downloading one song. This is the basic issue at play.
Dee, it is already illegal to download a film or music (unless it is intended to be free), whether for your own enjoyment or not.
What ACTA does mostly is to make it easier for the authorities to catch you, or at least that is what it’s claimed purpose is.
So you are already breaking the law but you’re just not being caught.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120130/local/acta-will-not-censor-websites-finance-ministry-insists.404610
What I grasped about ACTA is that it is legislation that should better protect copyrighted material and information. Well and good. However, I suspect that it could be a step towards eliminating the real threat to copyright holders; sharing: a concept which is intrinsic to human nature and one of the reasons why human-kind is so successful.
Now listen to this. If I buy a book, I find that it’s brilliant and I lend it to friends and family so that they can read it too. Am I committing an offence? A publisher would rather think I am because according to him I should recommend a book not share it. But, correct me if I’m wrong, legislation doesn’t exist to fight real humanly sharing because it is next to impossible to reinforce it. Also, it would be preposterous. Does it make sense that policemen come knocking on my door to make sure that I didn’t lend the book that I bought to my mother or my friend? No, I wouldn’t think so. Sharing things is in our nature and it would be inhumanely to make it illegal.
The same can apply to online sharing. If I have a piece of music, a digital book, whatever, why should it be an offence to share them? For example, I am a member of a site called pianofiles.com. This is a site where members list, not upload, all the music sheets one has and his contact details. When one wants to play a piece of music on his musical instrument, in my case the piano, one simply searches for someone who has the piece of music one wants, sends him/her an email with one’s request, and if that someone accepts your request, he/she sends one the music sheet one wants. It is very common that he/she asks for a swap. Why should this sharing of information be branded as piracy, theft, copyright infringement or whatever fancy term you like? Isn’t this simple humanly sharing? I don’t get why it might not be!
What I get, however, is that the internet is one of the greatest things, possibly the greatest, that humankind ever created. It has made human contact between different people in different parts of the world super efficient. In itself, it is nothing more than a virtual mega public square with billions of people communicating between themselves, getting information, sharing it etc. with super efficiency.
Now, some people are uncomfortable with this super efficient virtual world and want to do everything they can to limit it.
They want to create laws which govern the virtual world that don’t and can’t exist in the real world. Why? Because they see the virtual world differently than the way the general public see it. They see the virtual world as a platform that can be very easily controlled and supervised. They see the virtual world as a possible platform where they can put all their information, charge everyone for using that information and prohibit everyone from sharing that information with someone else. They see the virtual world as a possible platform where they can finally eliminate human sharing. They see a virtual world where it can indeed become possible for virtual policemen to come knocking on our virtual door to stop us from sharing information with our friends and family! This is unprecedentedly preposterous!
So the statement, ‘’Li hu tiegħi, tiegħi; li hu tiegħek, tiegħi wkoll għax mhux sew li għandek iżjed minni’’ can be used as an argument to counter the act of stealing someone’s ideas/information, make them your own and profit from them. This is copyright infringement and theft and should be rightly condemned. But it cannot be applied to counter the act of sharing information without profit, even if that information is copyrighted.
I end by saying that if the caveman that invented fire so many thousands of years ago didn’t share his idea with others, but instead kept his idea for himself and charged everyone for every pot of fire they needed, humankind wouldn’t be where it is today.
I see two main flaws/problems for us mortal Maltese beings in ACTA.
1) There is little use in arguing that ACTA will protect European jobs because it strikes against the illegal networks which thrive on producing counterfeit luxury items if China remains outside this framework. China is not only a producer of such items, but the Chinese population is also a growing major consumer of such items.
So it’s useless hoping that more D&G bags will be sold because of ACTA. Most of those who can afford a D&G bag at the moment are in China anyway. These people are producing counterfeit Bentleys for crying out loud!
2) Online piracy has been flourishing, particularly in Malta for two reasons:
(a) Local suppliers of DVD/Bluray movies, software and music sell their products at too high a profit margin compared to their foreign counterparts and usually start selling their products weeks after these are available abroad. Online piracy makes a product available at a cheaper price at virtually the same time that it becomes available abroad.
(b) The music industry has answered to this problem with online download services. Steve Job’s vision in iTunes contributed significantly in that it removed Digital Rights Management (DRM) from downloaded tracks.
This gave users the flexibility to use the content they’ve purchased wherever they want. Despite the fact that purchases content can be given to other persons (which is also an act of piracy), the profits of music companies have been soaring exponentially in recent years. This proves that if content is made available easily and at a cheap price, people will buy it readily.
Unfortunately, the movie industry is not following suit, particularly with the fixation that it has with limiting access to certain content according to the region. Just look at the movies available for purchase on the Maltese iTunes store with those on the UK store. There’s no comparison. Look at Netflix which is still unavailable in Malta.
We are simply ignored because we’re tiny and are on the fringe. The movie industry needs to wake up to the fact that it is not immune to globalisation. So, in my view, many Maltese internet movie buffs resort to downloading movies off the net because there is no real alternative. Not to mention TV shows which are even more heavily regulated. I’m still struggling to find a copy of the second series of the excellent BBC production Sherlock.
ACTA only exacerbates the above issues because it attacks the principle of fair use. It extinguishes the little hope that things would be moving in right direction following the advent of legal content download services.
Blatant piracy is a crime and cannot be justified obviously.
But there’s a grey area when talking about fair use; parodies, song covers, etc are all legal legitimate ways to make use of other people’s intellectual property.
If people’s creativity becomes stifled because of totalitarian copyright laws then we can only end up with a dearth of culture.
As to the issue of Internet piracy, the answer is not stronger enforcement. It is the creation of services better than what pirates offer. Steam (video games), iTunes (music), iBooks and Kindle (eBooks) have all shown this to be the case.
Well said.
ACTA or no ACTA an ISP has no way of determining a file’s contents if it is stored in encrypted form on a server or if it is transmitted over the Internet in encrypted form. Of course, there are ways and means to break the encryption but unfortunately those ‘ways and means’ lie in the hands of government security agencies like the NSA and MI5.
I guess these agencies have better things to do (like tracking down terrorists) than finding out whether Mr. Joe Bloggs is downloading pirated music and films on his computer.
While I am in agreement with copyright and patent law I just pointed out that people will always find innovative ways to steal information, knowledge and ideas from others without being caught.
dear daphne mela qeda tibza igibomli il kitbiet tiji?ghax miniex insibom?
[Daphne – Joseph, il-kummenti tieghek ma ntellaghhomx ghax bilkemm jaghmlu sens. Il-kummenti pastasi u bla sens tal-Mintoffjani gibthom ghal ftit biex in-nies ikunu jafu x’tip ta’ kummenti tibaghtuli. Imma issa ergajt bdejt inhassarhom biex ma jhammgux post.]
“il kitbiet” – made me laugh out loud