Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by iheartmemcache on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @10:14PM
(#920859)
As I understand it, you'd still have to buy transfer from a tier 1 provider, who'd cut you at the first sign of pressure from the federal government. Logistically, how would one go about doing this?
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by tumult on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @10:17PM
(#920864)
You could start another internet. Wouldn't be very useful at the beginning, though.
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by stse on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @01:26AM
(#921185)
I don't think you guys get that this law affects how you provide access to a communications network. It doesn't matter if you have your own service provider or network, you are still going to have to comply with the laws. The entire point of this treaty is to hold the provider accountable for how people use their services.
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by vorador on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @04:24AM
(#921367)
Well, what if this new network has no notion of provider ?
I mean, would it work with a peer-to-peer network ?
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by forensic on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @07:42AM
(#921546)
sure, how are you going to link computers together?
the only way that i can see this working is a NCLB improvised device-to-device network, which is actually a great idea that the tech giants are terrified of because they want to keep their proprietary lockdowns on everything
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by gloob on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @09:32AM
(#921711)
sure, how are you going to link computers together?
One Big Mesh.
Mind you, getting it set up would be a, um, non-trivial exercise.
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by forensic on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @01:54PM
(#922316)
isn't that what i said? :) Maybe I was vague in my NCLB description
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by Raphael on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @10:17PM
(#920865)
Encrypt everything, and disguise it as public domain work?
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by tumult on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @10:20PM
(#920869)
Works great until encryption outside of "safe harbor"-approved banking sites is outlawed.
Re:Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
by lallysingh on Wednesday November 04, 2009 @05:00PM
(#922704)
We'll have to steganographically-encode our data in a nearly infinite set of exchanged lolcat jpegs.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_int...
Maybe it's worth toying with the idea of setting up a private ISP—a pre-emptive underground? This situation is absolutely ridiculous.