Secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement discussions conclude without any public input, and leaked details include a laundry list of entertainment industry demands.
The latest round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations wrapped up yesterday in Seoul, South Korea and by all indications it has little to do with combating counterfeit goods and everything to do with forcing ISPs to become copyright cops.
Instead of focusing on customs procedures and enforcement to fight large scale commercial piracy it has delved into the area of noncommercial illegal file-sharing.
By all accounts it’s bad – very bad.
First, ISPs would have to proactively filter copyrighted material from their networks and hand over the names of those accused of illegal file-sharing.
Second, ISPs, in order to benefit from safe harbor provisions, would have to disconnect the Internet connections of illegal file-sharers for up to a year. Copyright holders would be able to sue those ISPS that fail to stop customers from illegal file-sharing.
Third, it will force countries to prohibit circumventing DRM or the manufacture of traffic of devices that allow people to do so.
Fourth, it would create a “broad” global notice-and-takedown regime where ISPs will be forced to remove copyrighted material without first weighing evidence to the contrary.
“Big music and movie interests, and other content producers, are conducting a global campaign to put their interests ahead of citizens’ rights to use the Internet and to not be subject to unreasonable and arbitrary penalties that do nothing for the public interest,” says Jordan carter, Deputy Executive Director of InternetNZ, a New Zealand-based group that promotes a free and open Internet.
He says that govt’s like his ought to focus on the real economic problems caused by commercial piracy rather trying to warp the Internet and turn into a business arm of the entertainment industry.
Worse still, it’s all being done in secret with only the entertainment industry having full access to the treaty.
It’s literally Hollywood’s dream come true.
“This is not about free trade at all,” writes Techdirt’s Michael Masnick. “This is an entertainment industry-written bill designed to recreate the internet in its image — as a broadcasting platform, rather than one used for user-generated content and communication.”
The ACTA, again, seems to have very little to do about “anti-counterfeiting” or trade and everything to do about protecting the deep-pocketed American entertainment industry. It does nothing to address the heart of the matter, which is it’s refusal to adapt to the realties of digital distribution world.
Also troubling is the secretive nature of a treaty with such broad legal implications being conducted in private under the pretext of trade negotiations.
In negotiating agreements focusing on traditional trade matters such as tariffs and trade barriers, confidentiality regarding some negotiating positions may be appropriate,” reads a letter addressed to President Obama and signed by a number of civil rights and public interest groups. “But ACTA aims to set international legal norms, potentially driving changes to substantive intellectual property legal regimes on an international basis. Attempts to force a multilateral intellectual property agreement through trade processes unsuited for it does a disservice to citizens, public policy, and the USTR alike.”
Precisely. Since when did we begin allowing laws to be debated behind closed doors?
Intellectual property laws need to maintain a careful balance between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of the public to access and use content they create. What the ACTA proposes would create a draconian regime that too heavily favors copyright holders, risking society’s very culture in the process.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- MPAA Wants New Global Anti-Piracy Offensive
- US Proposes ‘Pirate Bay Killer’ Trade Agreement
- Congressional Anti-Piracy Caucus Unveils “2009 Piracy Watch List”
- China warns US over anti-piracy action
- Taiwan Passes “Three-Strikes” Anti-P2P law
Loading ...
There's one critical difference here between current copyright regimes around the world and the one being put forth by ACTA – that's changing these cases from a civil matter to a criminal matter. I'm not sure how the court systems work in other countries, but in Canada, that means the government would then be in charge of any copyright related lawsuits.
I personally find this quite offensive for this reason as well given that it should never be the governments job to tow the corporate line of Holleywood/record labels/software companies/etc.
Copyright is a monopol for a given time given from the public. the public owns what you need to produce your work: language, writing-system and so on. you take these to produce your work, so what would you do without them? consider writing a book when there is no language, no writing-system and of course no one that can read or write. what would you do? invent them yourself and teach all people to read and write?
so yes, the public actually owns your ideas, but gives you a period to make money with it. what copyright has to solve is how to offer an incentive to intelligent people to invent something.
Let me ask you one question before we get into the nitty gritty of the document. Why do you think the public, whoever that is, has a 'right' to access stuff that people create?
Guess who has the “‘right’ to access” to stuff put in public, for the public to “access”.
The public, obviously.
Also, it is obvious that you are intending to mean ’steal’ ($) when you write ‘access’, but unfortunately for you, access =/= steal.
That's not what I said. People access stuff all the time (like on imeem for instance) and there's no theft going on. I was asking jared why he felt the public had a *right* to access the creations of others.
Does the public require “a *right* to access the creations of others” if those creations are put in public by the creators in the first place? I am not even referring to physical objects.
Your false curiosity is out of place.
"Your false curiosity is out of place"
wtf?
It means that if you’re going to ask a meaninglessly stupid question while trying to feign curiosity, then you shouldn’t be here.
No it doesn't.
Coming from you that doesn’t know adequate vocabulary, I find it a waste of time explaining precise phrases. ‘Your’ and ‘false curiosity’ and ‘is out of place’ is self-explanatory.
Malcolm, I don’t think anyone has the right to steal from other people, neither do I think a corporation has the right to force an ISP to take punitive action against a customer based on nothing more than an accusation.
An accusation is not proof of misdemeanour, not unless I woke up in a totalitarian regime this morning.
I agree.
So you agree that you act based on accusation, malgre.
Malcom hume, you're a total idiot.To defend your shitty work that no one would buy anyway (who in the hell are you anyway???) you are ready to pay the price of transforming the internet to nothing more than a cable tv network. Taking away the opportunities of many artists who really care about culture to promote themself easily. I thought artists hade vision, but yours doesn't reach further than your wallet. Your are a ignorant unknown copyright holder and when the internet will die you will remain a ignorant unknown copyright holder.
Ummm, no?
Ignorant you are, malgre.
‘Why do you think the public, whoever that is, has a ‘right’ to access stuff that people create?’
Here are two answers:
Egoistic:
Might makes right. So long as I have the power to duplicate and enjoy what you have – I’ll do so. The public has the power – ergo the public has the right.
Communistic:
The individual can create nothing without the assistance of the community in a thousand and one ways, (for the community creates, raises, trains, cares for, provides solace to and also protects the individual). Thus, it is only fair that the creation of the individual is shared with society for free, given that the individual has benefited from society – generally for free. The mutual exchange of benefits is the foundation of a healthy society – and that is exactly what filesharing is about.
We all owe the rest of society a debt. This is one way of paying it off.
Well, the first one is mob rule and I think if we go down that road we'll have a lot more probelms than not being able to listen to someone's music without paying.
Now, the Socialistic approach makes some sense in a Socialist society. But I'd say that the share of others in a creative work is much less than that of other things. The collective labor that goes into a building or a house or a factory involves so many people and shared resources – resources that belong to everyone. Even ideas, nobody owns them, which is why copyright doesn't protect ideas, only expressions. But a creative expression is a really individual act, the individual makes the innovation, not society.
You seem to have the misinformation that file-sharers are part of one group. However, that is not true.
“Even ideas, nobody owns them, …”
Patents
“But a creative expression is a really individual act, the individual …”
Bands
“… makes the innovation, not society.”
You are confusing innovation and expression. Also, sharing an expression to society is another matter, but you seem to confuse sharing with exchanging ownership.
The other thing is, the basic system we have is Capitalist. Trying to change that by making artists conform to a seperate system just means there will be a lot of corporation owners who exploit artists even more. The artist in our society pays rent and bills like everyone else, has to pay for a car, equipment, microphones, school, health insurance (for now) you name it. Maybe there was a lot of art that influenced them but even still it's all somehow payed for. So I don't know what the free benefits are.
'The artist in our society pays rent and bills like everyone else, has to pay for a car, equipment, microphones, school, health insurance (for now) you name it.'
That's the key concern – and not just for artists. Technological development threatens the livelihood of those who happen to be in the wrong industry at the wrong time. So what's the solution – to subvert or distort the development of tech in order to satisfy some vested interests? Or to tell the artists – tough luck – go find another job? Or to establish a method of guaranteeing livelihood so that no one needs to fear for his future when a new invention or system of distribution is developed?
Option one – fighting technological change is what I'd call the reactionary option – and it's the one that the US and some other countries have taken.
Option two – shrugging one's shoulders and telling the artists – tough luck, find a new job, is the typical capitalist, free-market approach – i.e., if you can't make money in industry A, find a job in industry B – or starve to death if you can't.
Option three – securing livelihood, so that we need not fear technological change, is the revolutionary approach. This would involve something like a guaranteed income (or guaranteed access to the necessities, and increasingly, the luxuries, of life) to each and every person. We already do this with respect to the roads (everyone can use them, no one is charged) and the radio: let's see how far we can extend the principle.
Well, there are three ways out. Take your pick.
This isn't abotut the technology, it's about what people are doing with it.
As for guaranteed income, I've always like the idea, but it's not going to happen here. The bastards have so many people fooled into being serfs that we can't even get decent unions or health care.
“This isn’t abotut the technology, it’s about what people are doing with it.”
Wrong. Technology is application of science and that means it is being used by people, so this is indeed about the technology.
“The bastards have so many people fooled into being serfs that we can’t even get decent unions or health care.”
And who are those bastards?
The discussion about copyright has long ago transcended the question of whether anyone has the right to steal or copy or whatever of other's copyrighted work. The phenomenon of filesharing is so difficult to control technically and the numbers of people are so large that it cannot be policed except by creating a totalitarian state where the due process does not apply any longer, laws to combat filesharing are used for censorship and to extinguish competition and the public is made to pay for all of this massive infrastructure by putting all the burden on ISP:s. I don't think that any free-thinking artist would be against this kind of legislation. The "cure" proposed by the entertainment industry is way worse than the disease. Especially when it may be that the file sharers are the best customers the industry has. This does not demonstrate cause-and-effect between filesharing and buying more records but it does suggest it.
Exactly. The only way to fight P2P is to inspect each and every data packet. If I have to choose between totalitarianism and protecting entertainment industry profits I'll pick liberty every time.
Most people are too lazy to do what needs to be done to crack something. I couls steal sattelite TV right now, but I don't, partly because it's illegal and if I got caught I'd face fines, but mostly because it's a huge pain in the ass.
There is more than legality when it comes to real stealing. But I doubt you could fathom that as you think P2P is stealing.
“… the basic system [...] is Capitalist. Trying to change that [...] just means there will be a lot of corporation owners who exploit artists even more.”
So you think non-capitalist corporate owners exploit artists.
“The artist in our society pays rent and bills like everyone else, has to pay for a car, equipment, microphones, school, health insurance (for now) you name it.”
Just because you pay those things neither means that every other artist pays for the same things nor live the same way you do.
“So I don’t know what the free benefits are.”
As you don’t live in a communistic society, which is what you are attempting to refute.
I would love to get Ayn Rand's perspective on this situation.
The labels may have changed, but the selfishness, corruption and greed are still intact.
God help the people that believe in democracy and justice. Don't expect too much, you may well be disappointed, ultimately.
I despise her, but she would be on the side of the creators and the music companies, I think the Ayn Rand Institute has said as much.
Speculating about another person now?