ACTA Internet Chapter Leaked — Bad For Everyone

roju writes "Cory Doctorow is reporting on a leaked copy of the 'internet enforcement' portion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. He describes it as reading like a 'DMCA-plus' with provisions for third-party liability, digital locks, and 'a duty to technology firms to shut down infringement where they have "actual knowledge" that such is taking place.' For example, this could mean legal responsibility shifting to Apple for customers copying mp3s onto their iPods." Adds an anonymous reader, "Michael Geist points out that the leaks demonstrate that ACTA would create a Global DMCA and move toward a three-strikes-and-you're-out system. While the US has claimed that ACTA won't establish a mandatory three strikes system, it specifically uses three-strikes as its model."

Comments

Tyranny vs Liberty

[Afforess]

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

Which is true today?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[NeutronCowboy]

To see this at work, just watch the French. It is the one country in the world where the government is genuinely worried about the population. The French have a habit of instigating work actions that would result here in the National Guard being called in. The French government, not being quite as quick to shoot at its own population (unless they live in the poor suburbs....) is constantly forced to cave to populist demands.

How is it working out for them? I don't know about you, but Time Magazine recently rated France the best place to live. On the other hand, be ready to plan your vacations around predictable strikes that cripple the nation's transportation system.

I wouldn't go so far to say that such a government would be weak and ineffectual, but it certainly comes with its own set of challenges.

Why isn't China a Partner?

[BlueBoxSW.com]

Seriously. You want all the world to abide by an anti-piracy measure and don't include the biggest pirate on the planet?

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[BountyX]

Too late already done.

been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

[Joe The Dragon]

been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

Do like what you market competition is doing just a accused them and watch how they can't do any work any more then they get shut off.

some get's layed off then to get back they just accused them.

You make your own art / music and you trun down a deal and they just trun around and accused you

You give a bad review of a moive / game / any other thing and they just accused you and shut down your web site.

You say that x is doing a bad job and he shuts you down.

This like a red light cameras with no court that goes off on yellow and goes off right before you hit the stop line.

Treason, and terrorism

[syousef]

Can't think of anything that fits with the definition of treason better than a system that passes laws that the citizens aren't permitted to know. That immediately removes the incentive for being law abiding since you can't know if you're breaking the law. Anyone enacting or enforcing such laws should be covered by treason laws.

Can't think of anything more terrifying than threatening to take away a person's ability to communicate, possibly their livelihood without having to PROOVE a crime in court. Enacting such laws is the very definition of terrorism. Where's the anti-terrorism legislation now?

Disproportionate punishment

[mudshark]

People have been using the postal service to commit fraud for decades, but even repeat offenders are not banned from sending or receiving mail. And when was the last time you heard of someone getting kicked off the telephone network? Just because the medium has evolved, the right of people to have access to common means of communication does not change.

Law vs law?

[gmuslera]

This implies no privacy, as whoever that provides us connectivity with others (ISPs, cell/line phone companies, postal service, web services like email/chat/voice/webcams/etc) as could held liable for what their customers do, that must follow all we do using their services. And privacy is an human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, plus probably most governments constitutions. Will that be enough to stop them or we will not have human rights?

It makes the worse totalitarian governments in the world in history look like the land of the free.

Not sure it's even good for them.

[einhverfr]

Here is the letter I sent via regulations.gov:

BTW, here was my comment submitted to the USTR regarding the treaty.

RE: 2010 Special 301 Review
Docket Number USTR-2010-0003

Jennifer Choe Groves
Senior Director for Intellectual Property and
Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee
Office of the United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508
Filed electronically via Regulations.gov

Dear Ms. Groves:

I am a software engineer and developer here in the US. I own copyrights to a number of software programs and published papers, some jointly with corporations or other natural persons. I have also authored two ebooks which are distributed online and one printed book which is available through major retailers. Software I produce is distributed world-wide.

I am deeply concerned about the rush towards greater liability for neutral service providers where copyright infringement is alleged. Holders of copyrights (including myself) should not be able to make end-runs around our traditional system of legal protections by threatening third parties into shutting off services which may be vital for conducting lawful business. This is especially dangerous where very fact-centric elements of copyright and trademark infringement accusations may need to be adjudicated by courts. These cases can occur where questions of fair use or derivation occur.

Thus I am concerned that the rush towards greater protection and greater third party liability will become a sword of Damocles hanging not only over the head of the average citizen but most especially over the head of the copyright holder. After all, if a set of mere accusations is enough to insist that material be taken down or internet access denied, then those who produce copyright-worthy materials will be the most exposed.

Instead, balance is needed, and consumer protections must be a major part of the equation. These consumer protections don't just protect consumers against rights-holders. They protect rights holders against unfair competition, and they protect innovators against entrenched market interests.

Instead of dictating how foreign countries should make laws ensuring elements well outside the traditional boundaries of copyright law (circumvention device control, etc), we should instead be interested in looking at ways to make claims more easily adjudicated when they come up. The emphasis on third-party liability is a major step backwards.

Please reconsider.

Sincerely,
Chris Travers

Re:Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

I think part of the problem is that it usually comes up when prosecuting alleged bad guys.

For example, it's really hard to have sympathy for Jeff Skilling or Lori Drew but some of the charges in both their cases illustrate this problem perfectly. I have no problem with the securities fraud charges against Jeff Skilling, but the wire fraud charges? The idea that Jeff Skilling engaged in a fraud to deny Enron the "intangible right" to his "honest services?"

Yet I have known people who were railroaded in these sorts of things for political purposes. They don't make the news. It was a nice republic while it lasted.....

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Larryish]

If this looks like it will actually come to pass, stock up on ChiPods. As many as you can buy, buy them. When new hardware _requires_ DRM and locked-down transfer channels, those things will be golden.

This insanity wont stop...

[CondeZer0]

until so called 'intellectual property' is exposed for the oxymoron that it is.

Who leaked?

[fyoder]

From the article:

Someone has uploaded a PDF to a Google Group that is claimed to be the proposal for Internet copyright enforcement that the USA has put forward for ACTA, the secret copyright treaty whose seventh round of negotiations just concluded in Guadalajara, Mexico.

I wonder who that someone is who leaked it. It could be part of a strategy to scare the crap out of people so that when they come out with something no more than an international DMCA people will breath a sigh of relief instead of getting all up in arms. What they've leaked is so bad as to almost seem not credible.

From the computerworld.co.nz article:

The chapter on the internet from the draft treaty was shown to the IDG News Service by a source close to people directly involved in the talks, who asked to remain anonymous. Although it was drawn up last October, it is the most recent negotiating text available, according to the source.

So is this a real leak, or something they want disseminated? /paranoia

Concerning

[symbolset]

I'm actually kind of concerned that there's a shadowy group of corporate advocates purporting to be agents of US policy negotiating international treaties which must remain a secret from the citizens of the respective countries, and the practice is getting serious play in the halls of large governments. I'm not the tinfoil hat type usually, but there's something about this that makes me slightly uneasy.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ltap]

I hate to be the person to Godwin this, but it is reminiscent of the regret of German intellectuals. They were intelligent, educated people who could have swayed the German public early in Hitler's rise but were too apathetic to do so, convinced that they would be left alone as long as they toed the line.

Which is ultimately the perfected method for slowly eroding liberties - to at first use it on "criminals" (catching more people who break existing laws), then creating new laws to support it, then revising it to suit the new laws... continue ad nauseum until you end up with a legal system in shambles that has been filled to over-capacity and can punish anyone just for living their daily life, if it so chooses. This is by far the most sneaky way of governments dealing with political dissidents - either find them committing a crime, frame them for a crime, or turn what they do into a crime to make it easier to lock them away. Then they have a pretext, an excuse to get rid of them without it being too obvious.