Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Counterfeiting Deal Aims For Global DMCA
An anonymous reader writes "Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continue on Wednesday as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries secretly negotiate a copyright treaty that includes statutory damages, new search and seizure power, and anti-camcording rules. Now the substance of the Internet chapter has leaked, with information that the proposed chapter would create a 'Global DMCA' with anti-circumvention rules, liability for ISPs, and the possibility of three-strikes and you're out requirements."
This is your fault.
See ya, unencrypted Internet, good riddance.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Why is it that if I butcher a human being, it's possible to get out of prison in a few years if I show that it was done in a mad emotional state or attributable to some psychosis driving me to attack, but if I butcher a book for a page or a CD for a song in a mad emotional state or neurotic urge to share, I'm likely to be fined into bankruptcy, and potentially imprisoned for *longer* than if I'd attacked a person?
Oh. Money. That's why.
Silly me.
I think not...(*poof*)
Because perhaps the "laws" that are bringing an end to the lawless period only represent the views of a very small and select group and are almost entirely out of phase with the established but non-codified norms?
What are these Intranets you speak of? I hand deliver 80GB+ of iPod movies and TV Shows right to my friend's cubes on flash, hard drive, or burnt DVD files. Sneakernet, get to know it. Encode once, share many. RIAA/MPAA? Never heard of them. Do they make any good movies or TV Shows? HA!
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
I wonder how much the RIAA/MPAA and their international brethren had to pay to buy that many countries... I mean, seriously - not a single one of the delegates sitting at the tables is willing to speak up and point out how these concepts are not good for the populace of their country? You know, the people our politicians supposedly represent.
I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests. It's even worse, as a Canadian, when I see my government bend over and take it for FOREIGN corporate interests. Were it at least for the betterment of Canadian corporations, I'd at least be able to justify it as "they're doing what they can to keep our businesses profitable" but when they sell out the people of my country so some corporation in another country can pad their bottom line, it simply infuriates me.
I keep holding out hope that somebody will eventually develop some morals and put a stop to this madness but I know that the money has spoken and thus change is coming.
Yes, it would.
It won't become law until the relevant legislative body approves it. In the United States, that would be congress. However, it has unconstitutional parts, so anyone in congress who would vote for it would be in violation of the constitution. So it will never become law.
Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT act was also unconstitutional, as courts have ruled, but it still passed the vote. So my point is completely invalid, because congress ignores the constitution.
If anything it only brings the Internet under the rule of law and in line with most other social mediums.
And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world" complaints we get so frequently on Slashdot. Hell, I'd like to see Spotify in the US myself. But all too often you see labels balk at foreign markets and a lot of time (though not always) they cite lack of copyright control and enforcement in these countries.
So, yeah, it's horrible that we're getting ACTA/DMCA the world over but at the end of the day, the countries participating in this may actually think that they are doing something good for their constituents as consumers. And you know, they might be right. For people living outside the United States, would you put up with stricter DMCA-like rules if it meant massively more purchasing options for you? I can't say I would opt for this (as I'm living in the US) but I imagine if I were living in Korea I would support this if it meant I could purchase Amazon MP3s instead of relying on less than reputable sites for acquiring music.
While this global system for enforcing copyright may be initially overly harsh, I think we have to recognize copyright law enforcement in other countries needs to be increased before publishers, labels and film studios become comfortable with digital mediums as an equal and fair distribution method the world over.
To reiterate, I don't agree with some of these laws they are discussing. I hope that's why they're holding the discussions. But do not overlook the benefits and fail to weigh them against the costs as you consider this discussion.
However, I still feel that 75 years is way too long of a copyright term.
Emphatically agreed. While I'm being overly optimistic, hopefully the global community can influence the US positively in this respect.
My work here is dung.
Here in Canada we recently finished a national copyright consultation. I can't wait to see how our government fucks this one up.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to how the DMCA has been used in the U.S., rarely has it been used to stop actual theft, more used to control. You know those science fiction books and how they paint the future as being very dim, well that future is already happening and this would give it a real big push. Personally as a Canadian if the PC government signs this in anyway then good luck on them ever being re-elected again.
These meetings are held in secret. Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands. But this isn't war against nations.
This is subjugation of the citizens. These meetings are secret simply so the populace don't find out what's being planned--for the same reason the American South made teaching slaves how to read illegal--the information is too much of a threat to let out. The whole myth of government for the people, by the people, is just that, a myth, a cultural fable told to instill flag-waving patriotism in the citizenry. Nothing shuts up dissent faster than "my country, love it or leave it" and the nationalistic fervor that accompanies it.
PEOPLE DO NOT REALLY CONTROL THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AND THE STRUCTURE OF LARGE-SCALE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS NATURALLY LENDS ITSELF TO OLIGARCHY. Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory" but it doesn't actually work. Whenever someone says "we just need more education!" or some other reform, they are trying to save democracy and insist it can run as planned just like the communists that claim that widespread communism can exist without degenerating into USSR-style totalitarianism. The only difference is is communism is generally someone else's myth and not your own, so you can't see it.
What works? Nothing works. You're on your own, buddy, you're gonna have boots stomping you no matter what. Such is life...
Hahahaha. Do you seriously think that the corporations will let that happen? Watch for a new section banning "unlicensed" use of encryption software to be added to the treaty.
It would still have to be voted on by the Senate. And since both parties are owned by big media, guess what?
There is a war going on for your mind.
I guess this means a return to sneakernet? That might improve local communities, not a bad thing in itself...
But do not overlook the benefits and fail to weigh them against the costs as you consider this discussion.
You do realize that this essentially allows corporations to write law. This is some real scary shit, and I'm amazed that it finds cheerleaders among ordinary people.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Although they do indeed have a crappy business model, they can't really think that a "pirate" download results in a lost sale. The reason they want to kill p2p is the indies, who rely on it. It isn't Metallica they don't want you to hear, it's the indies who can't get on the radio. After all, I'm not likely to buy your CD or book if I've never heard of it.
It's not about obsolete business practices, it's about abusive business practices.
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?
Banking and insurance? You have heard about bailout money going to bonuses for the very people who drove their businesses to the ground, haven't you?
Free Martian Whores!
The problem is that all of the media industries concerns are being met, yet consumers are ill represented, which only guarantees we will not abide by their treaty. What about protections for fair use? Or protection against drm locking legitimate customers out? Or how about portability of our files between devices? We, the consumer, are far ahead of and laws they can legislate. We can break DRM, we can file-share, we can encrypt. They can try and stop us with these three strikes laws and whatnot, but I'll just run down to the library and read a nice book while I download the newest movie. I sure as hell can cover my tracks better than they can uncover. Respect is a two way street. If they want us to respect their IP, they need to respect us as their consumers.
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?
Well, in the US, most recently: banking and auto making. Elsewhere I haven't kept up with, so I can't answer for other countries.
In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?
The same schools that apparently taught many US politicians/senators and are currently trying to put many other "businesses" under the government... because if there's anywhere that bureaucracy is not tolerated, where failure is not rewarded, where money is not wasted, where decisions are based on the good of the customer, and where underperforming employees are fired, it's a government! ... yes, you do sense sarcasm (I hope).
Seriously. If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem. Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...
At least private businesses have to rely - presumably - on their product to make money. They can't just tax their non-customers.
It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.
Nothing prevents the next president from revoking\backing out of a treaty.
Noting prevents the next congressional session from re-writing\repealing\altering existing law.
Nothing prevents a SCOTUS member from being removed from their position via an impeachment. Their life time tenure is contingent on "good behavior" and as such any high crime should apply including Treason, Sedition, Perjury, etc.
Anyone could levy a charge that signing secret Treaties with foreign powers is Treason, but that is a long shot at best.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
This doesn't match up. In effect, the DMCA showed ISPs a clear path how to avoid liability. This is what makes services with rampant infringement possible (like Youtube).
No, it won't. Global draconian copyright laws will allow them to do MORE of that sort of thing, not less. Piracy is not the reason those things aren't available to the rest of the world (or at least Europe). They simply feel (probably accurately) that they can make more money by distributing separately in each region.
Unless they also make non-commercial art illegal. Given all the crazy shit they tried so far, it wouldn't surprise me.
Does this mean our government will stop counterfeiting 'money'?
You know, maybe it's time to publicize the issue as much as possible. The easiest way is to do it by calling it stuff like "the anti-iPod law". (Let's not get pedantic with law/treaty/etc crap - it serves to divert attention).
There's a lot of things that ACTA makes illegal that common people do daily, so a big publicity campaign can cause people to get agitated. Stuff like singing in the shower (not too farfetched) or humming a tune. Recording a TV show to watch later. Ripping a CD for your iPod.
First we should call it something catchy. "The Anti-iPod Law" is pretty good since practically everyone knows what an iPod is and what it does. Then alert them to everyday activities that would be banned, or they can be sued for doing. Public doesn't care about RIAA suing filesharers. They do care if the RIAA starts suing people for ripping CDs to their iPods, though. Or if the MPAA sues people for recording that movie off of TV onto their VCR/DVR. Or singing in the workplace (sure it happend in the UK, but it isn't a big stretch in the UK). How about having your iPod searched at the border? They keep saying they won't force iPods to be searched, but there's no guarantee.
Start campaigning on how it will impact the common people. Pro-ACTA will have to campaign how it will benefit people, but that can be turned around quite easily ("poor starving hollywood actors need more money to pay for their gold faucets" and the like).
Heck, I've seen newspapers publish about the "Is your iPod illegal?" law.
STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.
If they cant afford to buy the laws, we the people get them back.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
would you put up with stricter DMCA-like rules if it meant massively more purchasing options for you?
Stricter protection of monopolies always lead to fewer options, not more, just as it leads to higher prices. Piracy is essentially the only thing that acts as competition in this market, and the last few years piracy has already shifted, for example, TV shows from being broadcast two or three years after the US broadcast, to virtually synchronized release (because otherwise everyone's seen it already).
The best way to ensure rapid evolution of alternatives would be to simply discard copyright law altogether, then we'd get any number of easy and cheap delivery forms.
It's still a big load of crap using "national security" as an excuse to classify it.
Something that nefarious only means that someone's up to no good.
This is beyond run of the mill political corruption with politicians getting bought off.
For them to stoop so low as to invoke state secrets is downright scary, and is damn close to the sort of thing they do in China and the old USSR.
If someone sells me an invisible pink pony, I expect to receive an invisible pink pony.
How they deliver it is their issue, not mine, and why I need one is my issue, not theirs.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Seriously. If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem. Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...
Ah yes, the good old "government is corrupted by private interests, let's just let private interests run everything" argument. I guess we can cure disease by draining ourselves of our blood while we're at it. Have you noticed that the reason those same people are in charge is that we live in a money/greed/capitalist based system? It doesn't function worse than a system where those same people are in charge, it is that very system. When a company donates campaign contributions to a politician and in return gets bailed out, they aren't relying on their product to get money. They're getting paid by the taxpayer, and those companies cannot be voted out of office. Conversely, people in government don't have to be less greedy or more efficient than the people lobbying them - they just generally happen to have an interest in getting re-elected by their constituents. They still have that interest, even while being pressured by lobbyists. Businesses who expect the government to bail them out with taxpayer money have far less incentive to do anything to benefit their consumers - all they have to do is pander to the people those consumers elect. I'd rather have the corrupt elected middle man than a direct route to getting pounded in the ass (metaphorically speaking). Without government intervention, we'd all be working in excess of twelve hour days for less than currently stagnating and falling wages. It's a crude and imperfect system, but it's a lot better than the direct alternative. Naturally, if you're not a crackpot far-right 'libertarian,' none of this applies.