ZeroPaid.com » acta

Fight Back: Speak Out Against ACTA, Sign the Petition

Jon Kaykin — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:21:46 +0000

Learn more about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and sign the petition against it. If you don't know what the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is please see this: [embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoW26CwhcR8[/embed] ACTA can be more dangerous than SOPA and PIPA and can potentially create new legal standards of intellectual property enforcement, meaning that Internet distribution and information technology would be highly monitored and constantly reported to law enforcement agencies. We must not let this bill pass, we must continue to preserve the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution. Please sign the below petitions and speak out against this bill, stand up and protest while we still have that freedom. Learn how to act against ACTA. Petitions -

U.S. anti-ACTA White House Petition: sign it
Canada - Petition: sign it
Canada - Take 1 minute to send a letter contesting Bill C-11: here
Ireland - anti-SOPAIreland Petition: sign it
Poland - ACTA Referendum: here
Global anti-ACTA Petition: sign it

Attend a local Protest -

Pan-European Map of anti-ACTA protests: here
Denmark
Netherlands (Amsterdam)
Czech Republic (Prague)
England (London)
England (Nottingham)
Ireland
France
Scotland (Glasgow)
Germany (Berlin)
Germany (Bremerhaven)
Germany (Hanover)
Germany (Hamburg)
Germany (Mainz)
Germany (Minden)
Germany (Munich)
Germany (Trier)
Germany (Regensburg)
Germany (Stuttgart)
Sweden (Stockholm)
Sweden (Helsingborg)
Sweden (Goteborg)
Poland (Gdansk)
Poland (Wroclaw)
Poland (Katowice)
Poland (Krakow)
Poland (Bialystok)
Poland (Szczecin)
Poland (Lodz)
Poland (Bydgoszcz)
Italy (Porto Vecchio)
Portugal (online)
Malta (Valletta)
Slovenia (Ljubljana)
Bulgaria (Sofia)
Romania (Bucharest)
Romania (Bucharest)
Romania (Cluj)
Romania (Timisoara)
Latvia (Riga)
Austria

Stand up, Speak out. Learn more about ACTA here. Jon@zeropaid.com | @jkaykin

Mexican Congress Rejects ACTA

Drew Wilson — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:21:29 +0000

The Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement has certainly been the most famous and controversial international agreements surrounding copyright. It left many stakeholders anywhere between unsatisfied to vehemently opposed. Now, one country involved in the negotiations has had their congress rejected the trade agreement outright.

ACTA is a very long running story that is continuing to this day. It was first exposed by Wikileaks in 2008 - one month and three years ago to be more precise. Over the years, it became notorious for things like a global DMCA, a global three strikes law and making law enforcement use substantially more resources at their borders strictly for intellectual property related enforcement. It was essentially a wish-list by record labels, major game manufactures and Hollywood before they focused on web censorship (as seems to be a popular for them these days) For many, the secrecy surrounding this agreement was one major point of objection. Over 100 consumer rights groups from around the world jointly demanded ACTA be made public in 2008. Trying to pry ACTA out of secrecy wasn't easy and, in fact, there were lawsuits against governments solely to make ACTA officially public. It wouldn't be until the end of 2010 before ACTA was finally made public. While a lot has changed, a lot remained the same within ACTA and many, to this day, still want to see ACTA scrapped. Proponents say that it's up to the governments around the world to implement the trade agreement and how they choose to implement it is strictly up to them. With plenty of organizations pressuring these governments to implement things like ACTA, many see this as partly why these laws are outright bi-passing democracy itself. The only hope is that governments around the world reject ACTA. Well, we can report that Mexico has done just that. Techdirt notes that the Mexican congress has officially rejected ACTA. The report referenced a Tweet which is linked to the government website (Spanish, Google translation) The translation states the following:

The Standing Committee of H. Congress, respectfully urges the Federal Executive Power for the scope of its powers, instruct the ministries and agencies involved in negotiating the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), not to sign the agreement.

It was apparently one bill rolled up into a package of bills because the government was running out of time. As Techdirt points out, the only way Mexico will sign ACTA at this point is if the executive branch defies the will of congress and signs anyway. No doubt this is another blow to the agreement. How much of a blow remains to be seen, but it is, no doubt, encouraging to see. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Editorial: Digesting the Canadian Election Results and Subsequent Possible Online Policy

Drew Wilson — Wed, 04 May 2011 04:28:58 +0000

Most Canadians and many around the world are waking up to the reality of what happened during the election - that is a Conservative majority government. The question remains, how will digital policies shape up now?

Let's point out something very obvious: Bill C-60 during the Liberal government, Bill C-61 of the later Conservative government, and Bill C-32 of the previous Conservative government. What are a few things these bills had in common? They all dealt with copyright. They all had American style copyright reforms in them (earlier ones more than the later ones), and they all died on the order paper because each government was under a minority government situation and they dies on the order paper as a result. Now, what makes this government different than the others in the past? It's a majority government meaning that Canadians won't have their say on issues until 2015 because there are more Conservatives then there are all other political parties combined. This means that the one thing protecting Canadians from bad copyright policy is gone and that has a lot of people very nervous for the future of Canada in an online world. Michael Geist has weighed in on this saying that there are pitfalls and opportunities on the horizon because of privacy reform and the more progressive copyright law seen in the previous session. Russell McOrmond watched the election and offered up some advice including this: "Don’t blindly follow the protectionist demands of the US democrats". While others have yet to weigh in, there's that sense that somehow, politicians within the Conservatives can be swayed to table sound policy - especially on issues like copyright. I can't say I'm that optimistic because the Conservatives have primarily been a "my way or the highway" type of party to begin with. Since they have the majority of the seats, they hold all the keys, and thus, they are accountable to no one. They don't have to listen to Canadians any more at this stage for the next four years. I really almost don't want to run through what is up at the cutting block because it sickens me just thinking what can happen in the next four years, but it is, nevertheless, the informative thing to do to begin with. Removal of Funding from Opposition Parties When the Canadian Pirate Party managed to joined the political process in Canada, it was seen as a major victory for those who focus on online issues because if any party understood issues like copyright and privacy online, it would be the Pirate Party of Canada. Now, the Conservatives have vowed to end public subsidies to political parties. Normally, parties receive 2 dollars for every vote. With the Conservatives vowing to end that, it will mean smaller parties will be substantially harmed including, very likely, the Pirate Party. What this will do is essentially Americanize the political system in Canada so that only parties that have the backing of large corporations can be heard. That could mean that, in the future, online rights will have a very hard time trying to survive a corporate sponsored political system because political parties then have to go to multi-million dollar companies to get funding or risk being drowned out on the airwaves and the teams of publicisits online. Conservatives have vowed to gut this policy, so it's very unlikely it'll be around by 2013. Privacy Online on Life Support? The Conservatives did suggest that they will create an omnibus anti-crime bill soon after coming in to political power. Bundled in that will very likely be the surveillance legislation that online advocates have been fighting against for years. In past iterations, this legislation has been about gathering information on unsuspecting people online without a warrant. Realistically speaking, if it gets any worse now than before, it'll essentially be the same thing as the warrantless wiretapping going on in the US. Since Conservatives are famous for their jet's n' jails policy as far as opposition parties are concerned, this is just about a guarantee that we'll have that. So, maybe researching VPN services would be the next best option for Canadians at this point and the moment such legislation is tabled, take up such services because the government will very likely be watching your communications whether for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. The Canadian DMCA This should be just about self-evident to most copyright watchers. Bill C-61 was pretty much the Canadian DMCA at its worst under the Conservative governments of the past. They tried a more moderate approach to appease voters with Bill C-32 in the last session, but with the pressure of being accountable off of their shoulder, chances are, the Conservatives will simply revert to the worse of the two laws. We certainly know from Wikileaks that when Conservatives are in power, American corporations write our laws - especially on copyright issues. What are corporations pushing throughout the world right now? Just ask New Zealand where Wikileaks revealed, much to the dismay of some political parties there, how Hollywood dictated to New Zealand that they are going to have a three strikes law. So, at this stage, I personally think that it's a very real possibility that Canadians will be fighting a three strikes law in the future. There are also a few other options plausibly on the table on copyright. In the US, there was the push to pass something called the "INDUCE" act that outlawed "inducing someone to infringe. Some critics felt that any piece of technology that could theoretically be used to infringe could also be inducement. One offshoot possibility that I can say is too early to tell is whether or not copyright could be so strict, that even discussing infringement could be a crime. That possibility isn't as likely as a copy of the INDUCE act, but I can say that this would be a worst case scenario. There is also the matter of international agreements. With ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) and TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement), there's really no barriers now to stopping some of the worst kinds of international pressure to change the criminal code at this stage should they both be finalized in the next four years. TPP in particular would worse ISPs to become copyright cops and create the much reviled three strikes law in case the Conservatives don't create one on their own. Conclusion Yes, this is entirely speculation and yes, there needs to be a continual reminder that Canadians want better lawmaking in these areas, but I can't say I would be surprised if Canadians are ignored on these important issues. I should know being in a Conservative stronghold myself. I know how much (lack) of representation a constituent gets first-hand if they live in a Conservative riding. When Harper runs the Canadian Charter through a Conservative branded shredder made in China, he'll do it with a smile and assurance that it's for our own good. Don't like this outlook? Prove me wrong. I seriously hope, above all else, that I am completely wrong on this and the Canadian government doesn't choose to enact half of this, but I personally wouldn't count on a positive outlook in the future. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Homeland Security: ”ACTA Negotiations May Harm National Security”

Drew Wilson — Sun, 01 May 2011 02:01:48 +0000

Was the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) a national security risk in 2008? According to one letter sent by the Department of Homeland Security, it potentially was.

With the overwhelmingly large story of Sony's PlayStation Network being the major story of the week, even the ACTA story is starting to seem like a small issue in comparison these days. Still, there was a rather interesting development recently. KEI Online, one of many organizations following the ACTA story, received a rather interesting batch of information last week. This was in regards to ACTA way back in 2008. Back then, was just surfacing as a news story. If it wasn't the largest story of 2008, it certainly was right up there. When ACTA was first being discovered, it was also in its worst form. The treaty had a global three strikes law, demanded that all laptops, cell phones, MP3 players and other digital storage devices be seized at borders to checked for potentially infringing or "confusingly similar" content and also had DMCA-style anti-circumvention provisions. What was worse was the fact that these negotiations of the agreement were entirely secret. The only reason ACTA was even known at the time was because Wikileaks blew the lid off the agreement. Who knows what the agreement would have looked like had global outrage not been directed at the negotiations when the agreement was leaked. There are many criticisms of ACTA. One of these criticisms was that this would be a national security risk. Indeed, ACTA had a three strikes provision (AKA graduated response) in it at one point. Such a law was very concerning to the intelligence community as seen in France when the NSA "yelled" at France for imposing a three strikes law. Since ACTA had a three strikes law as well, it's not difficult to imagine that the same criticism could have been levelled against it while it still had that provision in the text. With the three strikes provisions more or less removed from ACTA, is ACTA still a national security risk? Homeland Security might say so. Acording to documents recieved by KEI Online as part of a Freedom of Information Act request, back in 2008, the Department of Homeland Security sent a letter (PDF) to the US ambassador expressing concerns over the ACTA negotiations. The concern specifically was about border security under ACTA. Why is border security named a concern? It was all about priorities of border security - namely, the priority Intellectual Property Enforcement in relation to other national security threats. For those like us who watched the ACTA debate from the beginning, this actually makes a lot of sense. If you read ACTA, there are plenty of lines in ACTA detailing how border security would tighten to fight copyright infringement. There would be an emphasis of seizing anything deemed suspicious. Suspicious items would be stored for evidence against anyone potentially importing infringing material to another country. The question is, where would all the extra resources come from to do all of this? Not exactly clear - at least, at the time. What is more substantial about it was when this letter was sent - August 7, 2008. This was a little over a month before the stock market crashed. In other words, even before governments around the world including the US was considering tightening the belt and even before George W. Bush sent out the first bailout. If Homeland Security was concerned about limited resources then, one can only imagine how those concerns are affected now that spending is the subject of cuts these days. A quick look for budget cuts to Homeland Security does yield results. It's not hard to see Homeland Security having less resources now than when that letter was sent. In short, it sounds like ACTA is wanting to get Homeland Security to do more with less resources. So, it's not hard to see why making more demands on border security would potentially put national security at risk. Knowing this, it's not hard to envision the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) having a similar position now to the position expressed in this paragraph in the letter then:

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is leading an effort, co-sponsored by the Government of Japan (GOJ), to negotiate a multilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) supports this effort, but is concerned that some possible outcomes of the ACTA negotiations may harm national security and the ability of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to exercise managerial discretion in setting priorities for intellectual property-right (IPR) enforcement.

It sounds like there is a choice between big national security risks and counterfeiters, especially after this paragraph:

Given these significant concerns, DHS suggests that, as ACTA is reduced to a written proposal, a preamble be included in the proposal clearly stating that ACTA does not obligate the U.S. government (or other nations) to act in any way that might infringe on national security priorities.

KEI had an additional interesting comment on this:

The 2008 DHS concerns about ACTA are relevant today, both as regards ACTA, and as regards the new proposals on the same issues presented in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, which is designed as a binding enforceable agreement.

I certainly agree that there is something disturbing about choosing corporate interests over issues of national security. If we start getting to the point where public safety is second only to what organizations like the RIAA wants, I think we've gone way too far in this whole war on copyright infringement. Does the DHS raise a valid point on ACTA and does it hold true to this day to you? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Trade Rep Says US Congress, Courts “Not Bound by ACTA”

Jared Moya — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:48:48 +0000

United States Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk tells US Senate Finance Committee the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was "drafted to reflect both the general principles and specific provisions of US law in the areas the agreement covers," thus meaning US courts can still apply US law as is and stay compliant, and no constraints are placed on "Congress’ authority to change U.S. law."

Thanks to testimony given by United States Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk to a US Senate Finance Committee it seems one can now safely say that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) really is all about reshaping the copyright world in our own image. The ACTA's stated purpose is to establish international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement, and it just so happens that not only are US laws already compliant with the agreement, but it also apparently "does not constrain Congress’ authority to change US law" as it sees fit. "The ACTA was drafted to reflect both the general principles and specific provisions of U.S. law in the areas the agreement covers," Ambassador Kirk said early last month at a hearing on the the 2011 Trade Agenda. "As a result, U.S. courts can continue to apply U.S. law and remain in conformity with the agreement. As noted above, ACTA does not constrain Congress’ authority to change U.S. law." The answer was given in response to a question from Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) who pressed Kirk in a number of areas to determine how the ACTA will affect US citizens. Kirk pointed out that "Article 6.2 of ACTA provides that “[p]rocedures adopted, maintained, or applied to implement the provisions of [Chapter II] shall be fair and equitable, and shall provide for the rights of all participants subject to such procedures to be appropriately protected.” The discussion later turned to the topic of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) whereby Sen Wyden hinted at the much-despised US "Operation in Our Sites" domain seizure campaign. He asked Kirk if the White House will make sure that any websites accused of infringing activities and in violation of TPP will be guaranteed "meaningful due process." "Transparency and due process are important aspects of the U.S. IP enforcement regime," he said in response. "We are seeking commitments in the TPP that are fully consistent with these principles; in this regard, if there are any concerns with particular TPP partners, we would appreciate any suggestions that you or other members of Congress might have." Kirk adds that TPP will also ensure the "integrity of the Internet as well as the fundamental principle of free speech" because it too is modeled on US law. Moreover, Kirk's answer to all of Wyden's concerns seem to be that the agreements will be okay for US citizens because they are based on US law, but what about the fairness to citizens of other countries mulling these agreements? Back in 2009 Brazil and Pakistan criticized the US for negotiating a separate Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) outside the World Intellectual Property Organization system. In particular, Brazil criticized the “one size fits all” approach to piracy, noting that copyright violations do not take place in a vacuum, they are not “disconnected from concrete political and social variables.” It recommended anti-piracy strategies that are proportionally tailored to the specific social and technological realities of each developing country. Pakistan took a more direct approach, expressing skepticism of piracy and counterfeiting statistics in general that, as we all know, our compiled by the very groups they are intended to benefit - copyright holders. It said they are “generally with little transparency regarding the raw data and the methodology used to derive those figures.” Without credible and impartial figures it said there is no way countries can even begin to build a higher standard of enforcement. Pakistan also noted that oftentimes developing countries are "expected to enforce higher levels of IPRs, regardless of their socio-economic conditions and challenges." Moreover, even though Ambassador Kirk can gleefully tells Congress that anti-counterfeiting agreements like ACTA and TPP won't require any changes to US law it does, inversely require changes by other signatories. The real question is then one of fairness. If copyright holders decide to sell DVDs and CDs at a price well out of reach of citizens in a developing country is it really ethical to squander precious law enforcement resources to protect what is an inherently poor business model? The real problem is likely Kirk's insistence that it won't hinder Congress' ability to change US law. Once the agreement's in place you can rest assured it will be cited if Congress tries to make any changes to US copyright law that would conflict with the ACTA, like decreasing the length of copyright protection from the current 70 years after the authors' death. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

New Secret Trade Agreement Could Create Global Three Strikes Law

Drew Wilson — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:53:48 +0000

ACTA May not have gone over as well as the US would have hoped, but that doesn't stop any new secret agreement from forming. Among the provisions inside the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) are increasing the copyright term to a minimum of 120 years, force ISPs to become copyright cops and effectively puts a three stirkes law in place.

The document was leaked recently and says that "The text is marked to be "protected from unauthorized disclosure," and the USTR is seeking to classify the document until four years from entry into force or the close of the negotiations." One of the controversial provisions is as follows:

3. For the purpose of providing enforcement procedures that permit effective action against any act of copyright infringement covered by this Chapter, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and criminal and civil remedies that constitute a deterrent to further infringements, each Party shall provide, consistent with the framework set out in this Article: (a) legal incentives for service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials; (b) limitations in its law regarding the scope of remedies available against service providers for copyright infringements that they do not control, initiate or direct, and that take place through systems or networks controlled or operated by them or on their behalf, as set forth in this subparagraph (b) [...] (iii) Qualification by a service provider for the limitations as to each function in clauses (i)(A) through (D) shall be considered separately from qualification for the limitations as to each other function, in accordance with the conditions for qualification set forth in clauses (iv) through (vii). [...] (vi) Eligibility for the limitations in this subparagraph shall be conditioned on the service provider: (A) adopting and reasonably implementing a policy that provides for termination in appropriate circumstances of the accounts of repeat infringers;

It gets even worse. It also compels ISPs to start censoring websites too:

(viii) If the service provider qualifies for the limitations with respect to the function referred to in clause (i)(A), court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions shall be limited to terminating specified accounts, or to taking reasonable steps to block access to a specific, non-domestic online location. If the service provider qualifies for the limitations with respect to any other function in clause (i), court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions shall be limited to removing or disabling access to the infringing material, terminating specified accounts, and other remedies that a court may find necessary, provided that such other remedies are the least burdensome to the service provider among comparably effective forms of relief. Each Party shall provide that any such relief shall be issued with due regard for the relative burden to the service provider and harm to the copyright owner, the technical feasibility and effectiveness of the remedy and whether less burdensome, comparably effective enforcement methods are available. Except for orders ensuring the preservation of evidence, or other orders having no material adverse effect on the operation of the service provider’s communications network, each Party shall provide that such relief shall be available only where the service provider has received notice of the court order proceedings referred to in this subparagraph and an opportunity to appear before the judicial authority. [...] (xi) Each Party shall establish an administrative or judicial procedure enabling copyright owners who have given effective notification of claimed infringement to obtain expeditiously from a service provider information in its possession identifying the alleged infringer.

In short, as long as there is proceedings in a court, then the ISP must censor a given website - not necessarily that a website is found guilty of copyright infringement, but merely is accused of copyright infringement. What this opens the door to is rights holders accusing a massive number of websites of copyright infringement, forcing ISPs to censor all the websites in question. Of course, a proxy would be one way of getting around censorship, but the thought of an accusation of infringement can disable access to a website should be disturbing for those who support free speech given that false accusations aren't uncommon to begin with. Added to this is that claims of copyright infringement are, if this agreement goes in to effect, completely bi-passing the legal system. Even the DMCA in the US didn't go this far. In the US, an IP address needs to be subpeonad by a court before identifying information can be retrieved from an ISP. Under the IPP, that legal step wouldn't be necessary. All the rights holder has to do is demand the identities of alleged copyright infringers and the ISP must comply with the rights holder. It's merely the removal of a layer of due process. What's worse is that this agreement would increase the length of a copyright term to over 120 years or 70 years after the authors death:

5. Each Party shall provide that, where the term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram is to be calculated: (a) on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death; and (b) on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term shall be: (i) not less than 95 years from the end of the calendar year of the first authorized publication of the work, performance, or phonogram, or (ii) failing such authorized publication within 25 years from the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram, not less than 120 years from the end of the calendar year of the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram.

For a number of countries, the life plus 50 years wouldn't be long enough, so a number of works that are falling in to the public domain would be ripped back out of the public domain again because of the 20 year extension. Personally, what I find offensive more than anything else in this agreement is the fact that this lawmaking is considered classified. Why are these negotiations that would change criminal codes being kept in secret? Are these laws so bad that they must be hidden from public view to avoid public scrutiny? It's really little more than circumventing democracy. One of the points of democracy is that everyone has a say in any lawmaking issue. If a person wants to be critical about a copyright law, they are free to do so. Censoring people outside of agreements like this has the potential to cut off dissenting voice, thus turning such laws into a dictatorial process. Looking at what is happening in some countries in Africa, that isn't exactly the most popular kind of thing in the world. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Hollywood Does Not Take Piracy Seriously

Bruce Lidl — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:29:15 +0000

The Hollywood film industry, or at least its official representatives in the MPAA, likes to talk tough about efforts to combat movie piracy on the internet. They rabidly support DRM systems to supposedly keep their content locked-down (CSS, AACS, etc.), they push hard for new laws to control how video moves around online (like ACTA and COICA) and they will happily sue sites or individuals they feel to be contributing to mass copyright infringement (too many to name). Nonetheless, a more objective examination of how movies get onto file-sharing networks, and then how those video files get distributed, would clearly show that the movie studios’ anti-pirate endeavors are fundamentally off-target. Widespread DRM systems, like CSS on DVDs and AACS on Blu-Ray discs, have absolutely no bearing on how or whether movies end up online, as the primary leaks invariably come from within the production process. DVD and Blu-Ray sourced files appear online *before* the date those discs are actually made available for sale. And not just a few days before, but usually weeks if not months before the official DVD release to the public. Someone in the production chain of Hollywood itself actively puts the video files online for anyone to download for free, and does so *before* any DRM protection can be applied to the film. It strains credulity to think that the film studios that contract out these services could not increase pressure on their employees and partners to prevent this kind of leak. Yet, in the decade or so since large-scale online copyright infringement began, they have never done so effectively. Even more telling as a demonstration of Hollywood’s lack of seriousness about piracy, however, is the annual decision by the film studios to distribute DVD “screeners” to members of the film community in the period before and during “award season” leading up the Oscar ceremony. Despite explicit knowledge that these critically acclaimed films will immediately be uploaded for mass distribution, and even while the movies themselves are still in theaters, and months before they are scheduled to come out on DVD, the studios continue the practice. There have been half-hearted attempts in past years to devise a more secure system for distributing these screeners, but they proved unwieldly and ineffective. Yet the crucial point is that according to Hollywood’s own cost-benefit analysis, the supposed lost sales from the piracy of its own best films is overwhelmingly out-weighed by just the mere opportunity of these films receiving a publicity bump from winning awards. In their own calculations, Hollywood values the increased revenue an Oscar traditionally generates far more than they fear what a leaked copy loses them. Such a decision is at minimum an admission by the people who should know movie finances best that what is gained by the screener policy is vastly larger than any fear of possible losses. And just to underscore the point, I looked at a few of the highest profile films from the recent Golden Globes, that had screeners leak long before their DVD release dates. In the case of Black Swan, a good quality version of the film from an awards screener appeared on file-sharing networks barely two weeks after the initial limited opening on December 3rd. The film has nevertheless earned over $73 million in box office revenue and is likely to receive a great deal more publicity when Oscar nominations come out. Another high profile film, The Fighter, had a screener copy leaked three weeks after its release on December 10th, something that the producing studio, Paramount in this case, had to know would happen if they chose to make screeners available. The MPAA and its member studios are quick to bemoan their fate in a piracy-riddled internet, seemingly robbed of “billions” of revenue (at least according to the statistics they cite). Yet it is hard to take their arguments seriously when they routinely chose to engage practices like sending out award screeners that has proven repeatedly to foment illegitimate distribution of high-profile films. The possibility must exist therefore that Hollywood does in fact realize that the supposed damages from piracy are actually not as substantial as they so often claim.

European Parliament Passes Resolution “Welcoming” ACTA

Jared Moya — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:31:17 +0000

Approves controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), but only with the condition that the European Commission confirm that its “implementation will have no impact on fundamental rights and data protection, on the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise intellectual property rights enforcement measures, or on e-commerce.” Adds that "three-strikes" is off the table and that anti-camcording laws are "optional." It’s been a long and winding road for the controversial international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which, after having been finalized just last month after years of negotiations, has passed an important hurdle in the European Parliament. Today MEPs passed a resolution effectively approving the ACTA with 331 votes in favour, 294 against, and 11 abstentions. The "negotiated text reflects the main concerns expressed by Parliament over recent months," says the resolution, tabled by Christian Democrats (EPP) and European Conservatives and reformists (ECR) who welcome the European Commission's repeated statements that ACTA will not go beyond or require any changes in the existing EU intellectual property rights legislation. They point out that in this area, "EU law is already considerably more advanced than the current international standards" The MEPs have also asked the European Commission "to confirm that ACTA’s implementation will have no impact on fundamental rights and data protection, on the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise intellectual property rights enforcement measures, or on e-commerce.” They admit that the ACTA “will not solve the complex and multi-dimensional problem of counterfeiting,” but they do consider it a “step in the right direction.” The approval is a reminder that a number of its earlier objections to the treaty have been addressed. Of particular importance was that “no ACTA signatory, and particularly not the EU, may be mandated to introduce 'three strikes' or similar regimes, as an internet disconnection penalty for three online copyright infringements.” The European Parliament also “hails” the fact that ACTA signatory countries aren’t required to make camcording a movie in a theater a criminal offence, that it’s “merely optional". Several other things that the European Parliament wants to make clear with the resolution is that the it ACTA should not “impose harmonisation of EU copyright, patent or trademark law,” and that it should not “harm global access to legal, affordable and safe medicines.”

Report – US Unsure of Signing ACTA

Drew Wilson — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 06:12:23 +0000

ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has had its share of bumps on the road towards its final agreement. Sometimes it looked like it was on track and other times, it looked like it could very well fly completely off the rails. It seems the latter is very present right now.

When it came to ACTA when it first appeared online back in 2008. There was a lot of well-placed fear about the agreement. A group of people secretly meeting in various places around the world that would side-step various governing bodies to pass legislation that would be thrust in to various countries around the world with great pressure to implement it. Throughout 2008 and 2009, ACTA was the stuff conspiracy theories were were made of. Rumors about iPod searches at the borders of different countries, a world-wide DMCA and a mandatory three strikes regime throughout the world were some of the more dramatic revelations that came out of the agreements that were leaked online by Wikileaks. For supporters of ACTA, it appeared to be a major stepping stone to ramping up copyright laws around the world to be even tighter than ever. Judging by the two sides, it looked like it was human rights versus corporate interests fight and many knew it was going to be an extremely tense battle. That was then. 2010 appears to have been a turning point in the stability of ACTA. The threat of ACTA becoming law in many countries around the world eased not because of external outrage, but internal struggle. Internal tension and differences between countries might turn out yet to be the biggest enemy to the survival of the hotly debated agreement. The biggest source of tension that most likely would cause a breakdown in the agreement comes from the differences between the United States and the European Union. This first surfaced back in February of this year and the tensions became even more apparent as time went on. February was the first appearance of cracks within the seemingly impenetrable fortress of ACTA and while negotiators tried to assure everyone that ACTA was on time and ready to sign almost immediately, deadlines being set came and went without all the countries signing - and this included the most recent "sometime in September" deadline. It's now October and the treaty has yet to be signed and the differences between the US and EU remain. As the joke goes, "I love deadlines - I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by!" The tension, however, isn't exclusively between the US and EU. India and Brazil are already dismissing ACTA with Brazil questioning the legitimacy of ACTA while India says that they have other priorities and see nothing to gain from ACTA. Meanwhile, there is pressure from the domestic side of Mexico - namely from a politician - to walk from ACTA. It's not hard to see the cracks now getting to the point of dividing many countries and stakeholders on the inside of ACTA. We already know there have been multiple times now where Europe threatened to walk from ACTA, but the US didn't seem to express too many doubts about ACTA outside of a couple of politicians expressing concern over the transparency of ACTA. That was, until today according to a well respected observer of copyright issues, Jamie Love. According to Love, the US is currently only considering signing the treaty. Some observers are, to put it bluntly, surprised because it seemed that the US was practically a shoe-in for signing the treaty. The thing is, the US has been trying very hard to get ACTA signed and signed quickly. To do this, they have been conceding on several key positions including the internet chapter. With so many concessions, ACTA may be becoming a bitter pill to swallow for the US which might explain the hesitation. Still, with so many sides not budging on key issues, you'd almost think that simply having a large tomato food fight for an hour amongst the negotiators would be more productive - at least that would likely be rather enjoyable for those on the inside and the only people that would be upset would be those trying to wash the red stains out of dry clean only tablecloths and dry clean only silk suits and ties. At this point in time, it seems that the only country that has expressed full support all the way up to this point was Singapore. So, at this point, if ACTA is going to be saved at this point, it would be through a major salvage operation with negotiators putting Humpty Dumpty ACTA back together again. ACTA is too big with too many players with too big of a scope with an excruciatingly tight deadline being set that would be tight for an agreement that actually focused exclusively on what the agreement name actually suggests (physical piracy). So many countries are either under pressure to walk, or are already threatening to walk from the table. The EU already threatened to walk multiple times and even the United States is unsure whether or not it wants to sign. The only way I personally see this treaty going through in spite of the divided negotiations is to draw out the negotiations over years and years so that each and every individual piece of the agreement can be worked out in painstaking detail. If key negotiators carry through on their threats to either walk or simply refuse to sign the agreement, it could be game over for ACTA after, so far, three years of negotiations. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ACTA Text Released, Risks ISPs Becoming Copyright Police

Jared Moya — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:55:13 +0000

Latest draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been released, and although most of the controversial items like "three-strikes" have been removed, many still remain.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations have been ongoing for some time now, culminating in a supposedly final round that concluded last week in Tokyo, Japan. The text of the near final agreement has now been released, and although it lacks the more unpalatable requirements like mandatory "three-strikes" and scaled back "safe harbor" protections for ISPs, it nonetheless still contains many troubling provisions that will require, in some case, substantial legislation action in most of the signatories' countries. "This text reflects tremendous progress in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy – a global crime wave that robs workers in the United States and around the world of good-paying jobs and exposes consumers to dangerous products,” said US Trade Representative Ron Kirk in a press statement. Part of the problem is the way the treaty starts out, all parties agreeing that the "proliferation of services that distribute infringing material" - i.e. P2P - somehow "undermines legitimate trade and the sustainable development of the world economy." P2P hardly does either, and according to some studies, does exactly the opposite. This would not matter in an ACTA world. In fact, when it comes to calculating the damages copyright holders have allegedly suffered at the hands of an accused file-sharer "judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value submitted by the right holder, which may include the lost profits, the value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, the suggested retail price." If the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, wasn't even able to come up with a reasonable figure, why should we assume that an obviously biased party would be able to do any better? How exactly does one measure lost profits? There's no such thing. You either make a sale or you don't. The text adds that with respect to copyright infringement of works, movies, and music each Party shall establish or maintain a system that provides for one or more of the following penalties:

pre-established damages, or
presumptions for determining the amount of damages sufficient to compensate the right holder for the harm caused by the infringement, or
at least for copyright, additional damages.

Note that it allows for additional damages on top of the damages already awarded to compensate for the harm suffered by the infringement. Non-commercial file-sharing seems to be of a lesser concern, the text calling for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied "at least in cases" of willful copyright infringement on a "commercial scale," but you can rest assured they'll still be prosecuted under the guidelines in order to establish a "deterrent" effect. As for CAMs, it says that each Party "may" establish criminal procedures and punishment for the accused. It appears as though ISPs could become unofficial copyright police, each Party obligated to enforcement procedures that include the "unlawful use of means of widespread distribution for infringing purposes." It also asks that each Party "may provide" that govt has the authority to order ISPs to "disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement." The RIAA calls the latest ACTA draft a "blueprint" that it likely thinks establishes a baseline for a global copyright treaty that could be ratcheted up in the future. Critics however, abound. "The release of this near-final version of ACTA does not satisfy the transparency requirement of democracy, since citizens and their elected representatives are put before a 'fait accompli'," says Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson of the citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net. " If this agreement were to be implemented, the rights and freedoms of citizens across the world as well as democratic processes would be severely undermined. Ratification of ACTA must be opposed by all means." If that wasn't enough, the Mexican Senate has already taken steps to withdraw from the ongoing ACTA negotiations unless steps are taken to conduct future negotiations in public. Being that they are designed to create measures that will regulate the Internet, and "therefore knowledge and information," Senator Carlos Carcia Sotelo (PRD) thinks it's important that the govt "safeguard fundamental rights" and it can't do so if it has no part in the negotiations. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com