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."
No, evidence that there is a movement afoot by the US government to undermine the freedom and liberties of citizens of the world. You already have a corrupt copyright regime, now you're trying to foist it on the rest of the world.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I don't think this treaty would pass in the US Senate. I would forsee the unlikely coalition of far rightists and far leftists actually collaborating to defeat this, just as they actually have on some other things.
This is my sig.
That's a bit unfair.
The goal is undermining the freedom of all people.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
Dear Rest-of-the-World:
I realize that you have already had to deal with an invasion of Iraq to eliminate imaginary "weapons of mass destruction" and a world-wide financial collapse (although, to be fair, you bear some of the responsibility for that one... after all YOU believed our our uncritical rating agencies). And we're still stumbling around on that ruining-the-planetary-climate issue. So I know it's a big favor to ask, but would you please, PLEASE restrain my country's insane leaders?
Thanks...
-- A Sane American.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I would think that after all that has happened in the last decade, people would stop being so surprised when our bloated government abuses its power *again*.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
People like you are as much a problem as Big Media's absurd power grabs. You are unashamedly breaking the law, which makes you the poster boy for Big Media when they are pushing for ever more extreme laws. And while you will deserve it if you ever get screwed by those laws, lots of people will wind up suffering through no fault of their own if these measures go through.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
ROW is already just as corrupt as the US.
get your head out of your patriotic ass. corruption knows no country or ethnic boundaries. if you are human, you are corruptable.
its a wave right now. all countries are joining in. they love it! their leaders, that is. the citizens all hate it. but their needs were NEVER important. any illusion of that was just that, an illusion.
you are either in power or not in power. and those in-power right now are enjoying a huge rape-fest of those that are not in-power.
but this is WAY beyond any one country. its a WAVE and all leaders are enjoying the anti-freedom wave right now.
sorry for the wake-up call. you can go back to your disney view of the world if you really want to, I guess...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
By 2025 (at the current rate of advance sustained over the last 30 years) a TB of disk storage will cost about a penny. For $100, you will be able to buy a hard drive that will hold 2.5 *centuries* of HD video. While that might not be enough to hold all of mankind's copyrighted media, it will be more than enough to hold more media of whatever format will be in use in 2025 than a person could reasonably consume in their lifetime.
http://brownzings.blogspot.com/2009/11/disruptive-change.html
The point is, if we copyright any and every scrap of content produced, and maintain the same sorts of restrictions on such content that we enforce at the current time plus all the restrictions of the ACTA.... We will have no legal way to use a storage card we might get as a prize in a Cracker Jack box, much less a drive we actually buy.
And if people can carry around cheap storage sufficiently large to simply clone everyone's media libraries who they might meet, to sort out what they want later, who needs the Internet to "pirate"? (Thus what would be the real use of "Three Strikes"?)
When I write a joke, it is copyrighted. But jokes are so easy to repeat, and so hard to track that there isn't any way I can be paid for each time my joke gets retold. When media becomes easier to pass along than a joke, how can anyone require a payment for each retelling? There are other ways to be compensated, and the entertainment industry is going to have to learn to live with Moore's Law just like any high tech company does. Learn to leverage the efficiencies they gain with better technology to offset the loss of revenue that occurs as technology eliminates sources of income.
Live Concerts, Movie Theaters, endorsement deals, Shirts, and other value adds (plus who-knows what value adds might arise in the future) may be where the entertainment industry will have to go. Cheap (and I don't mean $10, or $5, or even $3) downloads of non DRM movies would bring in plenty of income from those that simply don't want to bother with other services.
Life is tough as technology takes away your income. But we are not going to kill the advance of technology, as much as the entertainment industry would like us to.
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.
Once something is ripped, you don't need any special tools to copy it.
That is the core of why DRM is so absurd. It only takes one guy with a cracking tool to give access to the other 6 billion of us.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I think you underestimate the pacifism of most Americans. They just don't care anymore.
240 years ago the men that founded the USA were running away from what we have become. Freedom has given way to corporations needs and our ever more difficult struggle to maintain our standard of living. We need a revolt, but I just don't see that happening. Just look at even more repressed countries like Iran and North Korea.
The time has come and gone to make peaceful change, but the country will have to descend much farther into the depths of hell before people will get off their ass and make a change.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
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.
You mean like artists and entertainers before copyright came along and current artists and entertainers whose works are not covered by copyright?
I seriously doubt we'll here anything negative on the mainstream media about ACTA.
I share this doubt. The only major TV news outlet that's not MAFIAA-owned is PBS. All the rest share a corporate parent with an MPAA member: NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC are with Universal Studios, ABC is with Disney, CBS is with Paramount in National Amusements, and Fox News is with 20th Century Fox in News Corp.
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.
Blame the corrupt entertainment industry that lobbies our lawmakers into betraying the very people who elected them.
One can't get elected without the exposure that the news media offers. Look at how the press buried Ron Paul, for instance. I'd blame the lack of separation of news media and fictional entertainment: NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox News are all owned by MPAA members.
The Fashion Industry.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
So, why don't you see if you can do better? 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, and I'm sure the sceptics like me will be interested in what you have to say.
It's called "not having copyright," and it was good enough to give us Shakespeare and Milton. ...why? Hollywood comes up with maybe two worthwhile ideas a year. Before I fight you on that one, I'd like to hear your explanation of any system that will actually cause people to produce and share high-quality movies, since it sure isn't happening now.
Really, what's the problem here? Are we worried about musicians? The vast majority of popular musicians would make more money working at a 7-11 than they do during their time on the market under the major labels.
Are we worried about books? People have been writing books without copyright for as long as there's been books. The publishing industry is collapsing under its own weight, because of the abundance of free content out there (since the Internet appears to prove that people prefer "free" to "good").
Are we worried about movies?
Really, for someone with a sig protesting the power of the state, you seem awfully chipper about "property" that's been wholly invented by the government.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Now is the time to start financing the guys who work on the TOR and Freenet protocols
No sig for the moment.
Much of what you said is wrong, even if I don't, necessarily agree with the OP's rabid rant.
"I own my home and the ground its on so I can do what I damn well please."
This depends, entirely, on where in the US you live. Many, many parts of this country (especially in and around cities) have zoning laws that restrict what you can and can't do on your land (examples: no cars on blocks, no loud noises at all hours, building size limited based on lot size, zoning board final approval over what you want to build, etc.). You can get away from much of this by living way out in the country, but even that isn't a gaurantee. Then (as mentioned by someone else in this thread) there are eminent domain laws which say that the government can take your land at any time as long as they pay you for it. You may not like it, but they are the law.
"Pet regulations aren't just for rabies, they are humanitarian so we don't have streets teeming with unvaccinated starving wild dogs and feral cats like Calcutta. Car insurance is so you don't get hit by a deadbeat who won't pay to fix your car, and is a common protection."
both true enough.
"Emissions tests are really only in California so you give yourself away as being against liberalism simply to be contrary since you have the choice to live where you will, but then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about, no?"
Thanks, I'll have to remember to let them know that the next time the state of Illinois tries to fine me for not bothering to submit to their mandatory emissions checks. Also, someone should write a letter to the New York State DMV to let then know about the typo on their website where it says "All vehicles registered in New York State must get a safety inspection and an emissions inspection every 12 months. " (http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/vehsafe.htm). Let's see, that's two examples of you being, outright, wrong in your facts (representing, might I add, a very large portion of the population and, by extrapolation, a large portion of this country's economic opportunity with which to support yourself and your family). How much you wanna bet we can find more if we look?
This, of course, brings us to the sheer BS of your basic premise of "you have the choice to live where you will, but then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about, no?". We all live in what I like to call "the real world". Of course it's possible to move if you don't like your states laws, but in the "real world" moving is often a harsh economic/social hardship on you and your family especially if you happen to own you house outright like you just got done advocating in your previous sentence. I think it's, more than a little, condescending to try and write off his argument with that kind of, flippant, response.
"Your tax info is just wrong. You have to file one return for State (that includes your whole family), one for Federal, and possibly a local/COUNTY"
That's only true if you are either young (and don't have all the complications of a full family and investment portfolio) and/or are willing to pay much more in taxes than the system is designed to charge you. When you start to have kids, houses/condos, investments, businesses, you start to have to file multiple extra tax forms at the state and federal level to declare everything and (more commonly) to claim tax credits/deductions. Before you start going on about how no-one if forcing him/her to claim all the credits/deductions, remember that the tax rate is calculated assuming that the people eligible for those credits/deductions will claim them. Without them, a person will be subjected to much higher taxes than they are supposed to (I'm talking about people who, honestly, have a claim to them, not to people that game the system to claim credits/deductions they don't, really, deserve). US taxes are not the simple, one form per government level, system you are trying to claim they are.
"Airline security is theater to make sure people don't stop (as I have) using the
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
I'm not sure we'd have had a Shakespeare if he had lived in an age in which anyone could record and distribute plays at near-zero cost. You don't need so much copy protection if it's already hard to copy your work.
You mean like artists and entertainers before copyright came along
Before copyright came along, it was very expensive to make copies of works anyway. As someone else already pointed out, copyright followed only a few years after the invention of the printing press.
It's odd that people are so quick to point out the changing world when saying copyright should be abandoned, yet so slow to notice that the evidence they give for the viability of alternatives predates those same changes.
current artists and entertainers whose works are not covered by copyright?
And who are they, and how much material do they produce and of what quality, relative to artists whose works are covered by copyright?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's not the two party system that is the problem it's something that both parties (and even hypothetical 3rd parties) have in common: greed.
Our politicians are almost all for sale to the highest bidder - typically rich Corporations with agendas that will usually harm Americans.
For a million dollars or more the politician becomes the full time servant of their new Corporate masters and stops serving the Citizens.
Note that this problem is insolvable since the politicians would have to approve of any solutions!
As far as support for the MAFIAA, it all depends on how much cash they have doesn't it?