Slashdot Mirror
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."
This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.
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?
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
Seriously. You want all the world to abide by an anti-piracy measure and don't include the biggest pirate on the planet?
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.
It was incredibly good for the economy, if by "economy" you mean "campaign funds."
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The fact is that each of us probably commits three felonies a day as it is, or so says Harvey Silverglate of the EFF, ACLU, and FIRE (see his book "Three Felonies a Day.") Heck, it's probably a felony (under wire fraud statutes) to surf Slashdot while you are at work. And given that it's a felony there, it's probably also a felony under the CFAA. So if you surf Slashdot at work, you are already two thirds of the way there.....
The fact is it doesn't matter if you have done anything wrong. The current state is that the government can prosecute just about anybody on vague laws and make it extremely difficult to fight (try hiring a lawyer will all your assets frozen).
I am of the opinion that the Constitution is in shambles anyway. I oppose this treaty but I am too cynical to think that will make a difference. Prosecutors can ALREADY go after anybody they want to.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
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
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It's a matter of national security. As the American manufacturing sector withers away and we become a service economy, our creative content* will remain our largest export, and we have to protect our country's cash cows. I'm not joking.
* Of course, I don't agree with bullshit like ACTA and the DMCA. The content providers haven't produced anything worth a shit in decades so the best solution to this is not to buy their shit and instead donate that money to the EFF and The Pirate bay.
*some time in the near furture*
Due to ACTA, everyone now listens to CC music, watches youtube, and uses only GPL software. Copyright is considered a very large liability by companies and people. All of Microsoft's servers have been shut down due to ACTA accusations made by GPL developers. Microsoft uses thepiratebay (which is still online) to distribute copies of the new Windows 10. These copies are infected with a malicious software that downloads bootleg Disney movies and reports the end-user to Disney for affliate revenue. The malicious software developer also sues the end-user directly for copyright infridgment. Meanwhile, the RIAA and MPAA are the single source of all remaining pirated musics and movies since they need pirates to survive. They eventually all go to jail for downloading illegal copies of "The Little Mermaid". NewYorkCountryLawyer is now in the Supreme Court trying to overturn ACTA; however, the Supreme Court judges have been replaced by drones provided by the airfoce. NewYorkCountryLawyer uses a legal loop-hole in the constition that allows a EULA to trump every US law ever made. Guns are no longer needed, becuase you can just throw a EULA into someones face demanding they kill themselves. The world finally achieves universal peace.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How? Will I have a chip in my arm that keeps my router from working? Even if they were somehow able to blacklist me from every ISP how would they stop me from using freely available Wifi? How will they shut down Freenet? How will they stop me from burning CDs and just handing it to my friend?
This isn't going to change anything.
(In my best Morpheus impression when speaking to Neo during training). What makes you think these laws have anything to do with enforcement? You think they care about what numbers they change on this Internet?
Remember NO law is ever suggested without it ultimately meaning money and/or power to someone.
until so called 'intellectual property' is exposed for the oxymoron that it is.
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
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
Loose lips lose spit.
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.