ACTA Could Make Nonprofit P2Ps Face Criminal Penalties

dan of the north writes "Based on sources and leaked documents, Knowledge Ecology International now asserts that ACTA drafts are in fact 'formally available to cleared corporate lobbyists and informally distributed to corporate lawyers and lobbyists in Europe, Japan, and the US.' — The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter. Both KEI and Canadian law professor Michael Geist, who has been working his own sources, say that the current proposals require all signatories to 'establish a laundry list of penalties — including imprisonment — sufficient to deter future acts of infringement.'"

Comments

With such a clear definition of the scale required

[AvitarX]

There is no way this could be misapplied.

"Criminal Matter"

[nurb432]

The ultimate goal of all the "industries". This shifts the burden ( and cost ) to the government ( tax payers ) and even further stigmatizes a 'non societal' act.

It also introduces jail times, long term detention during proceedings and a life time of persecution after prison..

All they will have to do is randomly accuse people with and sit back and watch the show and collect money.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[aurispector]

This the other shoe dropping now that the RIAA claims they have stopped filing suits.

The problem here is that citizens of signatory countries will have no recourse within the laws of their own countries since it's a treaty. This will get very ugly if the bastards get their way - and they probably will. This makes me physically ill.

It works!

[mangu]

Ah, nothing like learning from experience! Make everything a crime. Let's use some tried and tested methods.

Re:It works!

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to realize that this is different. They're not making possession or use of music, films or movies a crime. In contrast to prohibition and the war on drugs, there is and will be a legal alternative, so raising the price of the illegal method of acquisition is exactly what they want and will have the desired effect. How many people are going to work or pay their way into clandestine file sharing clubs when they can get their fix legally at $1 a pop?

ACTA will have extremely undesirable side effects too, but that is of no concern to the people pushing it.

this would kill

[ionix5891]

the internet as we know it :(

Re:this would kill

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's what they want...

Re:this would kill

[IronChef]

The internet as we know it has been on borrowed time since we first got it.

Geeks unite! (in prison...)

[jimbudncl]

I wonder if they've considered the consequences of jail time... throw a bunch of pissed off computer geeks in the slammer together (I know not everyone who shares copyrighted data is a geek, but just employ your suspension of disbelief for a nano second). Hell, throw in some geeks who haven't downloaded a single "illegal" thing in their life, just for good measure (no innocent people have ever been convicted of a crime, that's unfair to all those guilty people!). Now, simmer on medium heat for 3-5 years, good behavior.

I predict a huge swell in the number of computer criminals actually doing harm to society in the next, say... 10 years. Those geeks are going to get out of prison and wreak havoc. And all because someone couldn't adapter their business model. Hope those media companies and their lawyers have no fear of identity theft ;)

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that bad. We have similar law here in Finland. That part has only ever been applied once: When Finland's largest bit torrent tracker was busted a few years ago. The people who ran it got charged with criminal charges.

In all lesser cases the courts have been sure that individuals downloading music for some personal use and sharing some files hasn't been enough to cause commercial level profit loss for massive record companies. I have heard (from Teosto's - our RIAA - lawyers though that it could be applicable in other special cases. Such as sharing movie before it came to theaters, etc.)

That said, we haven't had those "These 7 songs meant 2 000 000 dollars of profit loss for our company" type of lawyers.

So?

[EdIII]

They are going after non-profit P2P's. You mean like Shareaza, Kaza, Limewire? Who cares? All that stuff is absolute malware riddled crap. Those networks are not worth anything anyways. While outlawing them is problematic for preserving freedom, it would ultimately protect people. I don't support protecting the stupid out of principle, but we won't miss those networks too terribly. At least I won't have to spend so much effort blocking their installations anymore.

I don't think that this applies to the bittorrent protocol and any of those clients either as that is decentralized. The easy solution is for the client to remove all search abilities. Problem solved. Trackers are another issue, but it's not like any country has had great success shutting down tracker sites and blocking access to them.

In any case, this is moronic. The DMCA prevented companies from manufacturing and selling mod chips in the U.S. The result? Canada gets all the business and it never slowed its pace for a second. You would think that mod chips and pre-modded systems get stopped at the border. Nope.

There will be at least ONE country connected to the Internet that is not a signatory of ACTA. Guess where the repositories and websites will be located? Anyone? Anyone?

Anti-Competitive Harassment.

[plasmacutter]

What is not covered in this article, but buried deep in the links, is that this treaty calls for nations to act immediately upon accusations without any burden of proof, and to absolve copyright companies from any responsibility if they engage in false accusations.

Imagine DMCA takedown notices for the physical world. Talk about a cudgel for anti-competitive harassment with impunity.

Re:Anti-Competitive Harassment.

[Anne Thwacks]

and to absolve copyright companies from any responsibility if they engage in false accusations.

I cant see that being possible to enact in Europe.

Also, in Europe, the loser pays the court fees. That will not change for one particular treaty. It would require a change in the European Law of Human Rights. (On a par with chanigng the US constitution for the publicity it would get).

In the UK, for the state to bring a prosecution, it has to be virtually certain of a conviction before starting (to avoid tax payer's money being sqandered on litigation when there are better things to squander it on). A mere suggestion that the evidence might fall to pieces if challenged by experts will normally crush a criminal charge.

Only if the mass media convince their readers/viewers to believe that CD pirates are worse than Somalian pirates will this to work. Since most of them seem more willing to buy pirate DVDs for $3 in the Asda (Walmart) car-park than buy a newspaper, I would not hold my breath.

This will die if exposed to the light

[mbone]

They are trying to keep this secret because it would be politically poisonous if revealed.

As I think our friends in Europe have begun to realize, laws based on treaties prepared in secret by bureaucrats without democratic accountability are inherently corrupting of democracy itself. They are also an invitation for the corrupting influence of special interests, who will try and accomplish in secret what they cannot in public.

If these restrictions are worthwhile, let them be proposed and debated in public, as normal laws are. Otherwise, I think this whole process should be shut down. It has been going on far too long for any good that we have been getting from it.

Re:This will die if exposed to the light

[meist3r]

Otherwise, I think this whole process should be shut down. It has been going on far too long for any good that we have been getting from it.

I whole heartedly agree, I also think it should be stopped immediately but what you're not realizing is that the people proposing these legislations don't give a rats ass about what you and me think. They will do that anyway, the politicians are suckered into compliance by payolas and the promise of future support for their ideas so there is no actual way of stopping this. The only way to have a say in the ACTA negotiations would be for a large part of the userbase and public to cry out about the foul play here. Trust me, I tried requesting ACTA documents through my EU parliament people and they all refused on grounds of secrecy laws that don't actually apply to the proceedings and other baseless bullshit.

If you haven't realized it, we are governed. There is no such thing as a people-led democracy, at least in no state that I know of. They're all aristocratic dictatorships that make the appearance of democratic proceeding so there is no civil war. Unless more people realize this and stop paying attention to the farcical sharade that is sold to us as citizen participation there will be no way to stop these people from getting where they want to be.

Prove me wrong, I dare you, prove me wrong. I'd LOVE to see proof that there is actually stuff done in the name of the people and not just in the name of money. Right now, people are sold these ACTA treaties as a means of fighting economy degrading piracy ... what it is in reality is a competition stifling set of rules that will tighten the grip of the industry on the freedom of choice of people and means to make non-compliers obey.

Today the Piratebay, tomorrow independent music labels.

We need to write our governments

[jonwil]

If you live in the US, write to your congressmen and senators. If you dont, write to your local elected official (in Australia, you can write to your local MP). Write a physical letter (politicians are a lot less likely to listen to an email than to a physical letter although the anthrax scare in the US may have changed things there). Say that you do not support piracy/copyright violations and that you are not arguing that it should be OK to violate someone else's copyright but that you believe that too much power is being given to large copyright holders to take down content/shutdown distribution methods even when that content or those distribution methods do not violate copyright law. Say that you think that copyright holders should be going after individual people who are violating their copyright as long as there is clear proof that a violation did take place. (remember that in most of the lawsuits to date, the proof hasn't been up to snuff which is why the RIAA keeps dropping them rather than risk a precedent against them) Say that you believe that if these new copyright protection measures are introduced that they should be available for ALL copyright violations regardless of the size of the violation, the size of the holder of the copyright or the financial status of the violator (if they are available for everyone and not just the big boys, then they could be used for GPL violations) Say that you do not support their position on the increasing powers being given to large copyright holders and that this issue will affect how you vote at the next election in your country (thats assuming that the relavent local representitive is in fact supporting such increased powers, if they dont support increased powers, tell them that you support their position on this issue and that their position on this issue will affect how you vote at the next election in your country)

Another option is to get a real petition going (on real paper with real people signing it) and send this to your local representitive. Come up with real world examples of how increased powers for large copyright holders will affect normal people.