Slashdot Mirror
EU ACTA Doc Shows Plans For Global DMCA, 3 Strikes
An anonymous reader writes "The European Commission analysis of ACTA's Internet chapter has leaked, indicating that the US is seeking to push laws that extend beyond the
WIPO Internet treaties and beyond current European Union law. The
document contains detailed comments on the US secret copyright treaty
proposal, confirming the desire to promote a 'three-strikes and you're
out' policy, a Global DMCA, harmonized contributory copyright
infringement rules, and the establishment of an international
notice-and-takedown policy."
On this point I am really saddened by the Obama administration. The 3-strikes-and-out is hugely unpopular including amongst artists. It is "lobbying for special interests" at its finest and really should not belong to the 21st century. There are already some countries who recognized access to internet as an opposable right.
I thought now there were progressives in the White House and in Senate ? Does nobody want geeks' votes anymore ? How many pirate party will be necessary in order for this madness to end ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
So say you get kicked off the net - how do they enforce this? Just off the top of my head I can think of a dozen ways to browse the net semi-anonymously (coffee shop, library, college, neighbors wi-fi etc etc). Not to mention having internet access at work - does that mean I'd be denied employment world-wide for messing around on the net?
versus
millions of teenagers who are
1. technologically astute
2. media hungry
3. POOR
let them pass any goddamn law they want. who fucking cares?
its nothing more than damage to route around, like the internet was designed to do
Consider the war on drugs before you boast. The US is willing to damage millions of people even if the outcome they want is virtually impossible. (And like the war on drugs, the people will favor harsh treatment for "pirates" also.)
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
The little guy who sells bootleg dvds in order to support terrorism. Damn pirate bay have been cutting into his profits.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
your random grandmother or soccer mom will lose their internet access for what leachers on their insecured wifi do or what their children's friends do
and all the while the real action will move further underground, further encrypted, steganographed, obfuscated, made sparse, and otherwise evolved to be more and more resistant to any sort of inspection, interception or even tracking
thank you, governments of the "free" west, for breeding the ultimate untraceable file sharing network due to your overzealous protection of your corporate executive friends in dead media industries. fucking blind fools
it does you no good, assholes, to be the losers in the game of technological progress, and not even know it
one should know when they are defeated
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As a self-employed game developer, I own the copyright on all the stuff I sell. While I can recognise the need for a unified global copyright system (and unified global laws on sales and export/import tax), my sales model assumes I can sell any given product for 10 years, and I would be perfectly happy if copyright durations were reduced to that. That said, 10 years may well be optimistic, and I doubt I would have any problems if it was reduced to 5 years. Anyone in a who must make their money back quickly is in the same boat — the rest of the profits are just "keeping score".
From what I've seen, this treaty is not going to make the world a better place, it's going to make it worse, especially given how little most people know about IP law (patent != copyright != trademark != database right != industrial design right != geographical indication != trade secret). Short duration IP-monopoly-rights are non-issues for rapidly moving industries, and shorter durations make it easier to move faster.
Describe a credible system in which anyone can copy anything without restriction but there is still sufficient incentive for people to produce and share high quality work in the first place
Assurance contracts. The author specifies a bounty amount, fans pledge money, and if the sum of pledges meets the bounty amount, the author is contractually bound to publish the work under a free license.
If, and only if, devices continue to be built in the "default allow" mode.
Consider the xbox360 or the PS3: Unless the hardware is subverted, one unit at a time, they will refuse to execute code that hasn't been cryptographically blessed by their respective overlords. Now, because the games are pressed onto disks for retail sale, this system would still be vulnerable to bit-for-bit disk clones; but in the (very likely) future download-heavy environment, this will likely be replaced by signed unique-per-device binaries, and devices that will execute only binaries that are designated for them, and signed.
Audio and video would be harder; because of the market pressure created by the large amounts of legacy material; but that is nothing that buying the right law couldn't fix.
As long as DRM is based on trying to build uncrackable systems, it is(as you say) absurdly impossible. Any one crack means a plaintext copy circulating freely. If, however, you create a DRM scheme that is "default deny" instead of "default allow", it suddenly becomes a great deal more plausible. If a device will only interact with material signed by a trusted party, a plaintext copy is useless. If some trusted party does sign a pirated copy of something, they can simply be revoked.
Sure, there'll still be hacked devices(or built from scratch devices) floating around that can read plaintext copies of things) and people who play cat-and-mouse by stealing signing keys and signing pirated material and circulating it until those keys get burned; but it will be radically harder than it is now. Even worse, depending on how exactly you design the crypto key hierarchy, you could even use it as a means of punishment. Say, for instance, that (because of strong pressure from holders of legacy non-DRMed material) our hypothetical DRM system allows users to sign previously plaintext material themselves, in addition to automatically signing future documents they create. If material you have signed ends up circulating P2P and your key is revoked, all your documents become unreadable. Any number of unpleasant elaborations are possible.