Slashdot Mirror
Secret Copyright Treaty Timeline Shows Global DMCA
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist, a leading critic
of the ACTA secret copyright treaty, has produced a new interactive timeline
that traces its development. The timeline includes links to
leaked documents, videos, and public interest group letters that should generate
increasing concern with a deal that could lead to a global
three-strikes and you're out policy."
If one follows the link in TFA to Michael Geist's interactive timeline, there's an element that leads to a short video of a debate in the Canadian Houses of Parliament-- one member says ACTA is a tool of US corporate interests and will lock millions of users out of the net; the government minister who responds says anything in ACTA is "subservient to the acts of this Parliament". What he DOESN'T say, and what the member is not sharp enough to pick up in the swift give-and-take of debate, is that *once the treaty is in place*, there is NO more subservience to *anything* (short of something on the order of a US Constitutional Amendment". This is the point: the people and even those of their representatives who want to derail this blindsiding juggernaut *will be able to do nothing* once the treaty is signed, and *saying the treaty is subject to US or Canadian law* is a pure, cynical smokescreen. An ounce of prevention here can accomplish what no amount of cure can fix. ACTA negotiations must be transparent. If we don't fight for that the corporate interests will do an end run around our rights.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Question is, will they care? Most folks consume content, not create it. Also, as we've seen in the whole Microsoft vs. FOSS wars, the closed-source guys seem to have better, slicker marketing.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Currently, OSS distributions cannot send out - for example - CSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System) code in many countries due to things like the DCMA. However, it can easily be downloaded from other countries, where the DCMA is not in effect. This allows one to play DVD's using MPlayer or VLC without worrying about the local authorities knocking on one's door.
Given this bastard law, one wouldn't be able to download code regardless.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Sorry, no.
As admirable as you believe the goal is (and I agree with you on that), the means is just *wrong*.
You're talking about organizations that think nothing of sending infringement notices for things that are in the public domian, or copyrighted by the people who post them. "Artist's" groups that send DMCA notices against the wishes of the authors they represent for material that is published by the authors themselves under a CC license.
These are people who send infringement notices based on nothing more than the author's name being similar to one they represent.
They are people who send infringement notices to the wrong place, or "link" infringement to IP addresses that are assigned to printers.
You get three of these? You're off the net. Period. Doesn't matter if the stuff is CC'ed or not. Doesn't matter that the notices are invalid. You're guilty until proven innocent. You have to prove you're innocent, and do it without access to the tools necessary to do so.
THIS IS WRONG
"Bring it on" is entirely the wrong way to approach this - we need to stop it before it happens, not try to fix it after.