ZeroPaid.com » europe

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

School Teacher Could Take HADOPI to Court Over False Accusations

Drew Wilson — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:18:35 +0000

He is a 54 year old school teacher. He is also one of the first number of people to receive multiple notices from HADOPI for copyright infringement. He also doesn't know how to download pirated copies of copyrighted works and says that he was the victim of WiFi hacking.

Throughout our coverage of the three strikes law being developed over the world, we've noted repeatedly that false accusations will happen. It is very likely that people who don't download copyrighted works will find themselves disconnected from the internet because a number of these system being put in place in different countries is guilty until proven innocent. That is what makes this, perhaps, one of the most predictable stories we've covered all year. A 54 year old school teacher is now finding himself with multiple notices from HADOPI for copyright infringement. The problem? He never downloaded copyrighted works online. Now, he is going to be fighting an organization that only started issuing these notices back in October of last year. According to Numerama (Google translated, original), he says he is even prepared to take this issue to the European Justice court if need be to clear his name. The sad part of all of this is that he is fighting this at great expense. Not only will he fight these charges, he will have to move from the countryside at his own expense should the matter be escalated to going to the European court. How did this happen? Apparently, his internet connection was hacked. After the second false accusation, the school teacher apparently took steps to secure it. Apparently, his efforts proved fruitless after hackers still managed to break in to his internet connection and get caught downloading Iron Man 2. He told Numerama that he is being accused of downloading that movie and he doesn't even know how it is done. This is really no surprise whatsoever. With such a highly publicized new law and organization, people were bound to start covering their tracks by doing things including breaking in to other people's WiFi connection and using their access to the internet to avoid detection. The result? Innocent people will be accused of copyright infringement. This is clearly what is happening here and I guarantee that this secondary level school teacher won't be the last either. 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.

Police Raid Spanish Performing Rights Organization Headquarters – Assets Seized

Drew Wilson — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:53:48 +0000

News is circulating that the Spanish anti-corruption police have raided the SGAE (Sociedad General de Autores y Editores) headquarters recently, seizing computers, company laptops and other pieces of property on the premises. Amid the allegations are embezzlement of royalties that were suppose to go to performers.

One of the media outlets reporting on the news is Thereader.es which has in-depth coverage. The head of the organization has insisted that no arrests have been made, though police have sealed off the building to the public while they investigate, posting two officers at the buildings entrance. From the report:

Early in the morning, officers sealed the building to the public. At 12 o'clock, they permitted some workers to leave the building to go home. For now, the Civil Guard has seized all computers and company owed mobile phones in the building, and issued instructions to workers to hand over their company laptops. According to sources, the investigation is looking into how the SGAE was raising money by way of copyright among those artists residing outside of Spain. These artists did not receive their fair share of the money, and it is alleged that those involved were diverting the money to personal accounts in Switzerland.

The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor has filed in the High Court a complaint directed against the SGAE for alleged misappropriation of funds in their activities, according to Europa Press legal sources. The brief of the Public Ministry, which was presented a few weeks ago to Dean of the High Court, requested the opening of a preliminary investigation by the department following a complaint filed in November 2007 by the Association of Internet Users, the Spanish Association of Small Business Computing and New Technologies (APEMIT) and the Spanish Association of Innkeepers Victims of the Canon (VACHE). The complaint, which was seen by Europa Press, was based on the appearance in various media of several "alleged illegalities committed in the economic management of the resources of the SGAE."

This is far from the first time large organizations related to the entertainment industry have been in legal hot water. It was only yesterday that the IFPI boss and a CEO in Germany was accused of tax evasion. In 2009, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) was sued got $6 billion for commercial music piracy (some considered that as potentially the biggest copyright infringement lawsuit in Canadian history) to which CRIA was forced to settle for $45 million in 2011. Also in 2009, Sony was accused of music piracy, having assets seized by police in Mexico. In 2008, Sony BMG was sued for software piracy in France - assets were seized by bailiffs. Also in France, HADOPI (effectively, France's law that enforces their three strikes law there) was busted for copyright infringement in 2010. In 2006, the MPAA was busted for making pirate copies of "This Film is Not Yet Rated". In 2007, BASCAP, an anti-piracy organization, was accused of piracy in 2007. In 2004, the music industry was forced to settle a case when they were accused of price fixing. What this appears to be is just another story in a saga of entertainment industry organizations not having a picture perfect record with the law. This might very well be just another black eye that the entertainment industry has to deal with for the time being. [Hat Tip] 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.

IFPI Boss and CEO Accused of Tax Evasion in Germany

Drew Wilson — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:16:29 +0000

The IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) may be quick to denounce others for breaking the law when it comes to downloading copyright infringement, but now the shoe is on the other foot. After incriminating documents surfaced about the organization, some very interesting questions about the IFPI are being raised.

High ranking members of the IFPI might be a little more red-faced these days, but not because someone is downloading KISS albums. According to Heise Online (Google translated, original), the IFPI (like a European version of the RIAA) are being accused of tax evasion. Late last month, incriminating documents surfaced (Google translated, Original) about IFPI "boss" Ivo Sacchi and IFPI CEO Beat Högger may have been involved what some are calling "tax fraud". From the translated Heise article:

The reason for the investigation of German tax investigators, the suspect that it is located in the German-owned corporation is a shell company, which primarily served the purpose, the German tax authorities unlawfully withhold income. Should not involve manipulation of documents and business books have arrived, this would also punishable in Switzerland. That IP gate actually a shell company, there are several clues to Swiss media reports: The company was reported, for example, by 2009, as the IFPI in the Zurich Toblerstrasse 76a. Since then, it resides in the power Strasse 30 - an address that refers to the same building. And the next two Högger only employees of the company are two secretaries who work strangely well with the IFPI.

These revelations are largely seen as a black eye for the organization and some wonder if the scandal is isolated to the two higher ups or if others in the IFPI are involved in this scandal. The reports don't suggest that German authorities are investigating, but given how cash strapped some European countries are these days, it might not be too far fetched to think that authorities might be interested in pursuing the case. The IFPI has been known for pushing for things like a three strikes regime in Britain amongst other anti-piracy efforts across a number of countries. 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.

Government to Blame for US Living in Stone Age of Internet Connectivity – Report

Drew Wilson — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:48:32 +0000

What could possibly be the reason why the US has such (loading article, please wait...)

There's a fascinating piece on Engadget that discusses at length why many Europeans are paying less for faster internet connections than US citizens on average. The reason why this is the case, says the report, is one simple word: government. As a case in point, the article discusses the situation in the UK because it was, at one point, like the US - little competition, high costs and poorer quality services. It wasn't until the government forced the incumbent industries to participate in "local loop unbundling" and pushing competition in to the market that allowed internet speeds to rise and costs to fall. While not easy, the government took to embarrassing the company into submission before competition could be allowed in to the market place. What I like in particular about the article is that it tackles on of the biggest reasons big telecom companies won't allow people to have faster and better connection speeds - the land mass excuse:

AT&T takes a different tack: The firm says it supports competition, but notes that, "There is no 'one-size fits all' regulatory regime" that will work worldwide. AT&T cites two main differences between the UK and U.S. markets: First, more U.S. homes have the option of buying broadband service from cable companies. Second, the U.S. is more spread out -- the technical term is that those "loops" are longer. But again, the facts in the UK suggest otherwise. Many homes in Britain's largest city -- London -- have cable access, but cable prices have fallen alongside that of DSL service. Meanwhile, the size of the U.S. may be a red herring. Most of the region between Boston and Washington is as densely populated as most of Europe and the UK. So is the California coast between San Francisco and San Diego. And so is the region of the Midwest centered on Chicago. Those areas are home to about a quarter of all Americans. In other words, we live in a big country, but a lot of it is relatively empty space. The argument that the U.S. is too spread out is nonsense, according to Herman Wagter, one of the Netherlands' most prominent evangelists for next-generation broadband. He thinks there's something else going on in Verizon's and AT&T's opposition to competition at home: They're afraid of it.

What I find really depressing about al of this is that it's the same situation in Canada and even people in the US can feel the effects of no competition and high prices just by the horror stories of roaming charges on cellphone bills alone. I've personally seen 130kbps down, 60kbps up for over $70 Canadian be considered the norm in some places. By European standards in many cases, that's probably considered bordeline farcical. Government will does make sense both in the US and in Canada. In the US, there is no shortage of people who think that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a sad joke when it comes to ensuring competition in the US. Meanwhile in Canada, there is growing calls to have the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) disbanded for numerous reasons including favouring the big players in the market over smaller competitors and having former big telecom bosses be part of the board. While a href=http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/ target=_blank>the Engadget article is long, it's certainly well worth the read. 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 Leaks Again – Our Review of the August 2010 Copy

Drew Wilson — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:27:15 +0000

While the US is doing everything they can to block transparency of the text, the draft text has, once again, been leaked. We reviewed the text and are commenting on the provisions of this controversial text.

There's a number of discussion points surrounding ACTA. They include whether or not police can seize your iPod at the border on suspicion of copyright infringement, if police enforcement is being diverted to serving corporate interests and if this would usher in a three strikes law. We reviewed the leaked document (PDF) and tried to answer some of these burning questions lingering out there. If you don't want to read through out detailed analysis, you can simply skip to the bottom of the article for our summary. Damages and Fees The first interesting provision we found comes from article 2.2 where paragraph one says the following:

1. Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer who knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity of {intellectual property rights} {copyright or related rights, or trademarks}, to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement.

2. {At least} in cases {EU/CH: of intellectual property rights} {of copyright or related rights infringement and trademark counterfeiting}, each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer to pay the right holder the profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement. A Party's legal system may presume the profits of the infringer to be the amount of damages referred to in paragraph 1.

Judging by these two paragraphs, damages include all profits made off of alleged copyright infringement and statutory damages over top of it. So if you downloaded Photoshop and created a piece of artwork from it, then made 10 dollars from it and Adobe finds out about this, you would be liable for 10 dollars plus statutory damages.

5. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities, where appropriate, shall have the authority to order, at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings concerning infringement of {intellectual property rights} {copyright or related rights, or trademarks}, that the prevailing party be awarded payment by the losing party of court costs or fees and appropriate attorney's fees or any other expenses as provided for under that Party's domestic law.

This is an interesting provision because it appears to go both ways in terms of court costs. If the RIAA sues an individual and loses, they are obliged to pay for court costs and attorney fees. Before, lawyers would have to argue for these costs (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to be reimbursed by the losing party. Now it would be enshrined in law if this were to go through. Border Measures This was one of the more controversial issues in the agreement, so it's interesting to see how it has evolved:

1. This section sets out the conditions for action by the competent authorities when goods are suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, within the meaning of this agreement, when they are imported, exported, in-transit or in other situations where the goods are under customs supervision. 2. For the purposes of this section, "goods infringing an intellectual property right'' means goods infringing any of the intellectual property rights covered by TRIPS.12 However, Parties may decide to exclude from the scope of this section, certain rights other than trademarks, copyrights and GIs when [not protected exclusively by copyright and trade mark systems and] [protected by [non-product- or sector-specific [registration] sui generis systems.]}

While surprising, a later section related to personal luggage reads as follows:

2. Parties may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travelers' personal luggage.

I think supporters who say that border officers won't search your iPods under this agreement is not being honest judging by the language of this agreement. If this agreement wraps up this month like they say they will, then this provision is ultimately to the discretion of each individual country. As far as the US is concerned, for example, the RIAA may say that this exception is not necessary to satisfy compliance with ACTA, and thus, usher in an era where you could have your laptop, iPad, iPhone, iPod, cell phone, MP3 player, etc. searched at the border. If you think ACTA will do nothing to the US, this provision alone says otherwise. For further clarification of the scope mentioned TRIPS agreement, one can find the following in the TRIPS scope:

Article 14 Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms (Sound Recordings) and Broadcasting Organizations 1. In respect of a fixation of their performance on a phonogram, performers shall have the possibility of preventing the following acts when undertaken without their authorization: the fixation of their unfixed performance and the reproduction of such fixation. Performers shall also have the possibility of preventing the following acts when undertaken without their authorization: the broadcasting by wireless means and the communication to the public of their live performance. 2. Producers of phonograms shall enjoy the right to authorize or prohibit the direct or indirect reproduction of their phonograms.

So music is, indeed, covered in the scope of the TRIPS agreement. So, overall, the so-called "myth" that your iPods will be searched at the border is confirmed. Criminal Enforcement This is another hot button topic with regards to ACTA, so what does this section (2.14) say?

1.22 Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale.

So, it sounds like criminal enforcement applies to commercial related infringement which isn't so bad because few people find physical commercial piracy acceptable. Is it limited to that? The answer is "no".

3. [US/J/Kor/Can: Each Party shall [Mor/NZ/Mex: may] provide criminal procedures and penalties in appropriate cases for the unauthorized copying of cinematographic works from a performance in a motion picture exhibition facility generally open to the public.]

So, while this section is still in dispute amongst negotiators, this agreement says that if you download a movie, rather than this being a civil issue, it's now a criminal issue. This is way more strict that what the US law provides where non-commercial copyright infringement in general is a civil matter, rather than a criminal factor. ACTA changes that. Europe, New Zealand, Singapore and China argues that this paragraph should be deleted. ISP Subpoena's I found this a bit concerning:

4. Each Party may provide, in accordance with its laws and regulations, that its competent authorities have the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously the information of the relevant subscriber to the right holders, who have given legally sufficient claim with valid reasons to be infringing their {US: copyright or related rights}{J/EU: intellectual property rights}. [US/J/NZ: Each Party may provide, in accordance with its laws and regulations, its competent authorities with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder, or to a person authorized by the right holder,31 information sufficient to identify an alleged infringer, where that right holder has filed a legally sufficient claim of infringement of {US: copyright or related rights}{J/EU: intellectual property rights} and where such information is being sought for the purpose of protecting or {enforcing the right holder's {US: copyright or related rights}{J/EU: intellectual property rights}.]

The part I found concerning was towards the beginning where the language says specifically, "competent authorities". So the question is, what does ACTA mean when it says "competent authorities"? Looking up the definition at the beginning, ACTA states:

competent authorities includes judicial, administrative, or law enforcement authorities as may be appropriate in the context and in the laws of each Party;

Why are we suppose to devote local enforcement resources towards enforcing the commercial interests of a few industries when the alleged harm due to copyright infringement is, at worse, in dispute and completely inaccurate at best? Shouldn't police be allowed to pursue real crime like murder instead? I can't think of one instance where police have unlimited resources. I personally think that it's inappropriate to legally force law enforcement to tow a specific corporate line - especially after police expressed reluctance to enforce non-commercial internet copyright law. Anti-circumvention This is a section that suggests the exportation of the DMCA to the rest of the world:

5. Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures32 that are used by [Kor/US/CH/Aus/J/Sing/NZ: at least] authors, and [US: performers] and producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their [US/Kor/NZ: copyright [US/KOR: or related] rights [Can/EU/CH: under the WCT and WPPT] and that restrict acts in respect of their works, [performances] [Can: fixed in phonogram], and phonograms, which are not authorized by the authors, the [performers] or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law. [6. US/NZ/J: In order to provide such adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies, each Party shall provide protection at least [EU/J/CH: in appropriate cases of the following activities] [J/EU: to the extent provided by its law]33 against: (a) the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure [US/Sing/Aus: that controls access to a protected work, performance or phonogram and is] carried out knowingly [US: or with reasonable grounds to know]; and [NZ/EU/CH: propose to keep chapeau, delete(a)] (b) the manufacture, importation, [or] distribution [US/NZ: of, or provision of] a device, product, [US/Sing/Ch [US: technology] or service] [J/EU: that is capable of circumventing an effective technological measure and is either:] (i) primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing an effective technological measure; or (ii) has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an effective technological measure.]; and (c) the offering to the public by marketing of a device, product, or [US/Sing/CH: [US: technology] or service] as a means of circumventing an effective technological measure.] [J: propose to delete (c).] [Note to legal reviewers: (a), (b) and (c) are meant to be three separate items for which protection should be provided.] [EU reserves its position on article 6.]

It's nice to know that there is definite signs of dispute over this because one proposition is to have anti-circumvention laws with absolutely no exceptions (so even the US anti-circumvention laws would be significantly altered to be much more strict) I also note that ACTA has no one proposing some of the exceptions previously enjoyed by several countries like circumvention for archival purposes and computer security purposes. ACTA appears to lack such exceptions, only to say that exceptions can be made so long as it doesn't interfere with those provisions. If anyone says that ACTA restricts human rights, they are definitely correct. It only gets worse:

7. [US/Sing/NZ/Aus: Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing paragraph (5 and 6) is an independent unlawful activity that does not require [J: any other] [US/Sing/NZ/Aus: an] infringement of copyright {US/Sing/Aus: or related rights}.34] [EU proposes deletion of paragraph 7.]

Again, it's comforting to know that this is in dispute. What this would do is effectively reverse a court decision in the US which says that the mere act of circumvention is not an infringement:

"Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act's) anti-circumvention provision," Judge Garza wrote for the New Orleans-based court.

ACTA would reverse this, overriding what has been ruled in a legal court of law. Chapter 3 To further burden police, ACTA contains the following:

1. Each Party shall encourage the development of specialized expertise within its competent authorities responsible for enforcement of intellectual property rights. 2. Each Party shall promote collection and analysis of statistical data and other relevant information concerning infringements of intellectual property rights as well as collection of information on best practices to prevent and combat those infringements. 3. Each Party shall, as appropriate, promote internal coordination among, and facilitate joint actions by, its competent authorities responsible for enforcement of intellectual property rights. 4. Each Party shall endeavor to promote, where appropriate, the establishment and maintenance of formal or informal mechanisms, such as advisory groups, whereby its competent authorities may hear the views of right holders and other relevant stakeholders.

Again, I don't see why we should be diverting police resources from their efforts to solve real crimes towards towing the corporate line. Why is the system before not good enough where all rights holders have to do is complain about copyright infringement and action takes place as a result? Technical Assistance There's a theme in all of this continuing here:

1. Each Party shall endeavor to provide on request and on mutually agreed terms and conditions, assistance in capacity building and technical assistance in improving enforcement of intellectual property rights for Parties to this Agreement and, where appropriate, for prospective Parties to this Agreement. Such capacity building and technical assistance may cover such areas as: (a) enhancement of public awareness on intellectual property rights; (b) development and implementation of national legislation related to enforcement of intellectual property rights; (c) training of officials on enforcement of intellectual property rights; and (d) coordinated operations conducted at the regional and multilateral levels.

Basically, ACTA is practically trying to create an international copyright police force. How is copyright infringement more important than, say, human trafficking? Creation of an ACTA Committee I found this to be interesting:

1. The Parties hereby establish the ACTA Committee and each Party shall be represented on that Committee. 2. The Committee shall: (a) review the implementation and operation of this Agreement; (b) consider matters concerning the development of this Agreement (c) consider in accordance with Article 6.4 any proposed amendments to this Agreement; (d) approve in accordance with Article 6.5.2 the terms of accession to this Agreement of any Member of the WTO seeking to become Party to this Agreement; and (e) consider any other matter that may affect the implementation and operation of this Agreement. 3. The Committee may decide to: (a) establish ad hoc committees or working groups to assist the Committee in carrying out its responsibilities under paragraph 2, as well as, upon request, to assist prospective parties in joining this Agreement; (b) seek the advice of non-governmental persons or groups; (c) make recommendations regarding implementation and operation of the Agreement, including endorsing best practice guidelines related thereto; (d) share with third parties information and best practices on reducing intellectual property rights infringements, including techniques for identifying and monitoring piracy and counterfeiting; and (e) take such other action in the exercise of its functions as the Committee may decide.

Judging by the wording, if ACTA isn't sufficiently bad, rights holders can pressure this committee to make ACTA worse than what the text can be. In other words, this is the backdoor to an international three strikes law which has failed so spectacularly in France so far. So while a three strikes law isn't explicitly in this agreement yet, it can be in the future. This provision is particularly relevant in that case:

6. The Committee shall convene at least once every year unless the Committee decides otherwise. The first meeting of the Committee shall be held within a reasonable period of time after entry into force of this Agreement,

Escaping ACTA This is somewhat interesting. If a country decides that ACTA just isn't working out for them, it'll take 180 days after written notification to get out of ACTA a per the following provision:

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by means of a written notification to the Depositary. Such withdrawal shall take effect 180 days after the notification is received by the Depositary.

Our Summary We set out to find out for ourselves whether some of the rumors we are hearing about are true or not as per the latest leaked document. A lot of them have been confirmed: 1. ACTA would have border security search your iPod - Confirmed dependent on the discretion of a given party 2. ACTA would divert police resources to enforcing copyright (both commercial and non commercial related) - Confirmed 3. ACTA would force countries to enforce a three strikes law - Confirmed via a backdoor provision 4. ACTA would send you to jail for downloading copyrighted material for non-commercial purposes - Confirmed for movies based on the criminal enforcement language 5. ACTA would push a global DMCA - Confirmed 6. ACTA would further restrict even American copyright laws - Confirmed 7. ACTA goes beyond the DMCA and further restricts copyright law - Confirmed 8. ACTA severely hampers human rights - Confirmed 9. ACTA goes beyond counterfeiting and deals with the much broader concept of copyright and intellectual property - Confirmed 10. ACTA representatives have mislead the public - Confirmed Ultimately, it boils down to, "What awful things have you heard about ACTA?" and chances are, it's true. Further reading: Michael Geist - ACTA Text Leaks: U.S. Concedes on Secondary Liability, Wants To Go Beyond DMCA on Digital Locks Slashdot: ACTA Text Leaks; US Caves On ISPs, Seeks Super-DMCA 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 – Working Out Differences Between US and EU Tops Agenda

Drew Wilson — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:56:56 +0000

Tensions between the US and Europe have been rising all year this year. Recently, it was revealed that trying to work out the differences between the US and Europe is front and center in the secret negotiations. Currently, ACTA runs the risk of falling apart due to the new divide between these two major players in the negotiations.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement's (ACTA) survivability was in deep question lately due to the differences showing up between the US and Europe. As early as the first part of February, cracks between negotiators were forming from within the negotiations. Things since went downhill for the negotiators. The European Parliamentarians officially declared opposition to ACTA by the end of February. By July, one of the more firey exchanges between the US and Europe came with Europe saying that they refuse to "swallow" US hypocrisy on ACTA. Some wondered if Europe would even walk away from the negotiations. Without Europe involved in ACTA, the functionality of ACTA would be severely compromised which is really bad news for supporters of the secret agreement. Recently, TACD revealed that round ten of the ACTA negotiations would involve working out the differences between the US and Europe. Not really a surprise considering how close ACTA has come to failure. From the blog posting:

The scope of the agreement is expected to be a main issue of discussion since both governments have reached a deadlock on whether products with geographic indications (GIs) should be included in the agreement, sources said. The EU wants the infringement of GIs to be protected and enforced the same as infringements of trademarks and copyrights. For example, in the ACTA border measure section, the EU wants the ACTA to require signatories to empower customs officials in each country to be able to seize goods suspected of infringing GIs protected by that country. The U.S. is opposed to this for fear of U.S. exports being seized abroad at the border in third countries. The EU-proposed text would not require countries to recognize specific GIs, however. An industry source said other ACTA countries at the end of the June 28 to July 1 round of negotiations in Lucerne, Switzerland called for the EU and U.S. to work on resolving their disagreement over the scope of the agreement. These countries feared that a continued stalemate on the issue could lead to a failed agreement or a much less influential one if either government were not a signatory, this source said.

A failure of this agreement would most certainly mean total disaster for copyright organizations hoping to ramp up copyright laws around the world by getting as many countries as possible to enforce a US DMCA style copyright law. As usual, it seems that one of the biggest faults in ACTA is that it tried to take on too many issues all at once in one agreement. It's this fact that could ultimately cripple the negotiations and cause a complete collapse of the agreement. Years and years of international lobbying from groups like the RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, BSA and others down the drain. While the government said that this would be part of the next round of negotiations that some call round ten of negotiations, this isn't the only issue to be discussed during negotiations as KEI Online notes. International co-operation is only one issue of many that is going to be tackled. The issues KEI notes that are to be discussed are:

1 Enforcement Practices & International Cooperation 2 Digital Issues 3 Criminal 4 Civil 5 Customs 6 Next Steps 7 Transparency 8 Press Release

Whether or not this list means international cooperation is on top of the agenda, the threat of a breakdown in the agreement, one would think, would be sufficient motivation to make this issue front and center. What would make sense is to simply break down what topics that are currently in the negotiations, pick one that makes sense for the agreement - being physical counterfeiting - and say, "Look, we are asking for the world here with this agreement. We have to simplify these issues or else we will either be perpetually deadlocked in these negotiations or these negotiations are going to fall flat completely. Let's just take the core issue that this agreements name suggests and simply tackle that so we can come to a consensus." So far, if there is any indication that suggests some people within the negotiations are saying this, then the direction would indicate that they are being overruled. It's difficult to say if the US and EU can stop the stalling of the agreement the way things are going, but it still looks like it'll be a while, at the very least, before much progress can be made on this agreement. 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.

EU Data Retention Implementation Deemed Unlawful By EU Authorities

Drew Wilson — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:00:18 +0000

Civil rights advocates have achieved a key victory in the fight against the European-wide data retention policy. A short report from EU authorities says, "European Data Protection Authorities find current implementation of data retention directive unlawful"

It's been a while since we've heard much about the EU data retention policy. Even the group against data retention, "Data Retention is no Solution" seemed to have stopped reporting on news as of 2007 if the Wiki is anything to go by. That doesn't mean the story is dead completely though. An announcement has been made (PDF) by EU authorities saying that the implementation of the data retention policy in Europe was unlawful. "The report that results from a joint inquiry carried out by the data protection authorities," the announcement says, "concludes that the obligation to retain all telecom and internet traffic data resulting from the directive is not applied correctly in the EU member states." "Most importantly," the announcement continues, "service providers were found to retain and hand over data in ways contrary to the provisions of the directive. The provisions of the data retention directive are not respected and the lack of available sensible statistics hinders the assessment of whether the directive has achieved its objectives. The European Data Protection Authorities therefore call on the European Commission to take into account the findings of the report when taking the decision on whether or not to amend or repeal the Directive." Katitza Rodriguez of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls this a "landmark announcement" and summarized the important findings:

* "Service providers were found to retain and hand over data in ways contrary to the provisions of the [data retention] directive." * "There are significant discrepancies regarding the retention periods, which vary from six months to up to ten years, which largely exceeds the allowed maximum of 24 months." * "More data are being retained than is allowed. The data retention directive provides a limited list of data to be retained, all relating to traffic data. The retention of data relating to the content of communication is explicitly prohibited. However, it appears from the inquiry that some of these data are nevertheless retained." * Regarding Internet traffic data: "Several service providers were found to retain URLs of websites, headers of e-mail messages as well as recipients of e-mail messages in "CC"- mode at the destination mail server. * Regarding phone traffic data: "it was established that not only the location of the caller is retained at the start of the call, but that his location is being monitored continuously." * "Member states have scarcely provided statistics on the use of data retained under the Directive, which limits the possibilities to verify the usefulness of data retention." * "The provisions of the data retention directive are not respected and the lack of available sensible statistics hinders the assessment of whether the directive has achieved its objectives."

European Data retention, or Directive 2006/24/EC, has been a hugely controversial policy that contains surveillance measures on internet users. According to the Wikipedia entry, "According to the directive, member states will have to store citizens' telecommunications data for six to 24 months stipulating a maximum time period. Under the directive the police and security agencies will be able to request access to details such as IP address and time of use of every email, phone call and text message sent or received. A request to access the information will be able only with a court order." Data retention was just one of many issues the Freedom, Not Fear campaigns targeted in their many European-wide protests. Where will things go from here? That's difficult to say. If the announcement is anything to go by, anything from amending or even repealing the EU data retention directive could occur. Clearly, there are problems with data retention in its current form, one of the most obvious is the implications of basic civil liberties. 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.

Swedish Judicial System Scrutinized After Pirate Bay Trial

Drew Wilson — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:06:24 +0000

There were plenty online who were arguing that the judicial system in Sweden was corrupt after accusations flew over bias in both the original judge and the judges deciding the bias charge. Now, a debate is re-emerging in Sweden over whether or not judge affiliations should be checked before they tackle cases.

There are no shortage of Swedish citizens irate over what happened with the admins of The Pirate Bay during the “spectrial”. Even though the admins cannot appeal the judicial review that decided that the judge in the Pirate Bay spectrial was not biased, the story is far from over at this point in time. It seems that a debate has re-emerged where many key players in the Swedish justice system are debating whether organization affiliations should be questioned prior to a case. It’s interesting to know that this debate isn’t new, and the high profile case has re-energized that debate.

While the debate is going on, the admins of The Pirate Bay are currently considering pressing charges against Sweden in the European court of Human Rights.

“And it should also be noted that Anders Eka,” The Pirate Bay wrote in their blog, “the guy with the final decision that is not appealable, heads in an immaterial rights organisation as Peter Drowsky and Monique Wasted, the MPAA and Ifpi-lawyers. However, he does not feel that working together with the lawyers that enjoys this decision the most has an impact on his decision or that he might be biased himself…”

“Tomorrow,” they added, “we will probably file charges against the swedish legal system to the european court of human rights.”

One admin from The Pirate Bay said at one point that he simply Googled the judges for their affiliations and found them to be affiliated with pro-copyright organizations within minutes.

We haven’t yet found any formal documents that suggest that charges have been filed yet.

Still, while the trial of the Pirate Bay admins is a high profile case, that isn’t the only one fuelling anger. Another key case in the copyright debate in Sweden is also making some waves as well. According to The Local, publishers have recently tested the new anti-filesharing law by demanding that customer information be handed over from the ISP. Ephone resisted, so the Publishers took the issue to court and got the Swedish court to force the ISP to divulge the information.

Having the legal means to force an ISP to divulge customer information via an IP-address is a key step in the waves of lawsuits seen in the United States (which has seen over 35,000 lawsuits against alleged file-sharers) If that weren’t possible, the United States would not have seen all these lawsuits against file-sharers in the first place. It’s unclear whether or not waves as seen in the United States or Britain will be seen in Sweden, but this case suggests that it is now possible to sue alleged file-sharers en-mass in Sweden now.

Two court cases later and now the whole Swedish justice system is now under the gun by many. Imagine what would happen if more file-sharers receive legal threats.

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.

Masthead Editorials Critical of Canadian Surveillance Legislation

Drew Wilson — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:59:31 +0000

There’s a pair of editorials found in two major news outlets in Canada that are critical of the new surveillance legislation the Conservative government of Canada tables in parliament. Both seem to agree that the potential for abuse exists with the new “tools” that would be granted to police. We look at a number of international cases that show that the potential isn’t just some philosophical stance, but a reality.

There’s an international movement afoot to get ISPs to more closely monitor their networks and the traffic that flows through it. On the international stage, questions are being raised over ISP or DNS blacklists, ISP level surveillance and data retention. Since no human is perfect, does these new expansions in powers around the world also increase the potential for abuse as well?

The editorial in the National Post comments on the repeated themes on how legislation like warrantless wiretapping was pushed forward in the past. In Canada, it’s the repeated themes of how this is suppose to help save the children from online predators. In North America, there’s also that theme of how it’s suppose to somehow help fight terrorism. The editorial article comments on how such arguments are weak while defending the broadening of surveillance in Canada.

Meanwhile, the Ottawa Citizen echoed those sentiments and also notes how in any given gathering, there are those who are present for less than ideal reasons. Not only this, but also puts forth the question, since when do judges block a police investigation on a regular basis and prevents them from getting a warrant in the first place? The editorial suggests that apologists for the surveillance legislation has yet to provide such evidence and concludes that given another Conservative member had issues with the Google van taking pictures around neighbourhoods for their Street View project (they were definitely questioned in committee over privacy concerns) and given that the Safety Minister is pushing for surveillance legislation that would diminish privacy much more severely than any fleet of vans with 360 degree cameras ever could, the party that argues for small government is sending mixed messages to the public.

There was another theme both editorials conveyed which has been an underlying issue ever since the legislation was tabled, the fact that the minister who tabled the legislation was the same minister who, in a different time, promised to not expand surveillance powers and have such surveillance laws forgo the need of a warrant. Was this part of the political deal when Canadians saw their election postponed to at least the Fall? Who knows. At the very least, though, a backtrack is a backtrack and for the months leading up to the tabling of the legislation, the Liberal party has continually pushed to have surveillance legislation tabled in the House of Commons (Just use Google to search through the Hansard for things like ‘modernization’, ’2008′, ’2009′ and ‘investigation techniques’) With support from both the Liberal party and the Conservative party, the legislation is pretty much guaranteed to pass save for another election.

But what of the fears that this opens the floodgates for abuse? The legislation does, indeed, call for the installation of surveillance technology on the ISPs in Canada. We’ve looked through Bill C-46 and Bill C-47 to find that out. While the editorials have pointed to evidence in Canada that police are actually prone to doing less than legal things (one pointed to unauthorized plate checking for one) However, we also know that, internationally speaking, when things like ISP level wiretapping occur, not only has it opened the floodgates for abuse in the legal and law enforcement sphere, but it also opened the floodgates for abuse in the commercial sphere as well.

We begin our look at the country that is geographically closest to Canada. The neighbours to the south. The United States where it has appeared that the debate on such things looks as though security trumps privacy, an ironic turn of events considering that famous quote from Benjamin Franklin that rings true today, which says “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”, actually comes from the United States in the first place. The NYTimes unearthed quite a lot recently about the Bush promoted AT&T wiretapping program recently. Among the evidence was commentary on how, probably millions of, Americans were wiretapped that went far beyond the legal restraints surrounding such activity. One of those Americans who was illegally wiretapped? Former president Bill Clinton. One can get the impression that the unauthorized wiretapping is starting to get out of control.

It is important to note the differences between the case in the United States. In Canada, the proposed legislation would grant eavesdropping to police without a warrant. In the United States, the eavesdropping permits a copy of the traffic flowing through ISPs like AT&T and connects that information directly to organizations such as the NSA. While an important difference, when it comes to privacy concerns for many, that is little more than a clerical difference rather than a significant difference. In the end, police obtained unfettered access to details of your activity online.

Of course, an increase in state powers have gained the interest of commercial entities as well. The most vivid also happening to be the most recent. Austria is a member of the European Union. In the European Union, there is a law that makes ISPs retain data of all of it’s users – also known as Data Retention. While there was a movement to stop the data retention directive, data retention ultimately became law. It appears that an organization of Austrian newspapers have been eyeing that data retention and have called upon the government to use data retention to enforce copyright. There was a stunning quote from the organization that seemed to cap off this attempt which says, “Privacy should not be used as a cover for rights abused.” Forget child abuse. Forget the terrorists. Forget identity thieves. The debate, judging by that development, has shifted to whether or not commercial entities should have access to that data retention for their commercial interests. The real question is, where do these surveillance demands end? What interests should be brought up to the level of access enjoyed by entities interested in, say, national security? As we’ve noticed, this kind of thing isn’t an isolated incident either in Europe.

Last year, in Germany, Deutsche Telekom was raided over spying allegations. In essence, the telecommunications company was worried that insiders were leaking information to reporters, so they monitored their employees – illegally. Since the Canadian case is about installing surveillance infrastructure, it’s important to note how installing such technology would open up potential abuse precisely like this. Legal or not, the potential is there.

Recently, Germany passed legislation that would bring in mandatory censorship legislation. While not wiretapping or surveillance, it does force ISPs to grant new powers over the internet – in this case, blocking a whole list of websites. Isn’t it interesting that just three months earlier, German book publishers wanted to add Rapidshare to that blacklist?

Even further back into January of this year, there were things that happened that forced the German government to say that data retention is for terrorists, not copyright infringers. In response, the IFPI said that it would be contradictory for the government to not hand over all the information over to them for copyright legal pursuits.

What about free speech? A government mandated blacklist in many countries is said to stop child pornography. Australians know all too well how web censorship like that can go too far after the ACMA blacklist leak showed perfectly legal sites on them. While the governing body denied the authenticity of the leaked list, there have been suggestions that the blacklist did come from an ISP in the first place and some of those sites have been added on there because of commercial reasons. Over in Britain, a similar incident happened where British ISPs blocked Wikipedia.

Going further, these aren’t the only cases where new surveillance or censorship measures were attempted to be used for reasons beyond what the legislation was promoted to be stopping in the first place. Already, the copyright industry, along with a few other companies, have tried multiple times to use surveillance or censorship for commercial gains or interests. Legal websites have been put on national blacklists in the past in other countries. The question many Canadians should be asking over top of other questions that have already been raised is where would these intrusions on internet users rights end? Is this legislation in Canada merely an update or modernization and that would be the end of it or would further demands be raised if the currently proposed legislation is passed? All this given multiple international examples.

It certainly, from this standpoint, that this surveillance legislation is not only bad for users privacy, but also the tip of the iceberg as well.

[Hat Tip: Michael Geist 1 and 2]

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.