RSS
Twitter
More ACTA Details Leak: It's An Entertainment Industry Wishlist
from the no-wonder-they-kept-it-secret dept
The latest round of "negotiations" over the ACTA treaty continue in secret due to as yet unexplained national security reasons (despite the fact that the entertainment industry lobbyists have had full access to the document) are kicking off in Korea. Once again is becoming clear that the claims by US trade reps that ACTA did not represent any kind of major change in copyright law, and thus didn't require public scrutiny, are nothing more than a myth. Despite ridiculous efforts to keep the document secret (some countries were given only physical, watermarked, copies of the latest drafts), some of the details are leaking out and it's not pretty at all.
The plan is modeled on the ridiculously misnamed "free trade agreement" between the US and South Korea from a few years back. It's misnamed because it wasn't about free trade at all, but massive protectionism for the American entertainment industry. The end results haven't been pretty. The treaty pushed South Korea to implement new copyright laws that are perhaps the most draconian around, getting the country to be the first to kick people off the internet based on accusations of file sharing, and putting so much liability on third parties that various user-generated content services have had to turn off the ability to upload all sorts of content (no videos on YouTube, no music on blogs) and has resulted in ISPs even banning any kind of advertising that might make them liable for copyright infringement.
It's Hollywood's dream. It would require signing countries to implement a more draconian version of the DMCA, including incredibly restrictive anti-circumvention wording that has no exception for fair use. It would put liability on third parties for the actions of their users (in other words, it wouldn't include current DMCA-style safe harbors). It would create incentives to kick people off of the internet for file sharing. This is not about free trade at all. This is an entertainment industry-written bill designed to recreate the internet in its image -- as a broadcasting platform, rather than one used for user-generated content and communication.
This isn't about free trade. This isn't about "anti-counterfeiting." This is the "Protect the American Entertainment Industry" treaty.
And, of course, it's not even close to necessary. As happy as the entertainment industry is about what's been happening in South Korea lately, before these laws passed, the industry there (though, not the local subsidiaries of stodgy American entertainment firms) were adapting in amazing and fascinating ways, that didn't require new laws, but embraced what was actually happening. Yet, because the American record labels and movie studios don't want to change with the times, they're pushing through these laws, outside the judiciary process, sneaking it through via a secretive international treaty they had a hand in writing.
There is simply no reason for ACTA, at all. It is nothing but an attempt by the entertainment industry to put massive restrictions on the internet, place liability on lots of third parties, and do nothing to push themselves to adapt to a changing marketplace with new business models.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
I cling to hope for Canada
Given that our Copyright Consultation so recently completed, with resounding public outcry to NOT adopt any sort of DMCA like law, I should hope our elected representatives will resist this trash on our behalf.
Acceptance of this treaty would spit in the faces of Canadians asked for what they want in copyright reform.
How can they major reforms be allowed to continue without public input, without judicial oversight, and without even public disclosure?
Disgusting.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I cling to hope for Canada
acceptance of this treaty would spit in the faces of anyone in the world, period.
I'm still confused as to where the "safety" aspect of this document resides.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
why is it secret
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: I cling to hope for Canada
Well, yes. Granted. But we were recently asked, and lots of people spent considerable effort drafting their individual opinions, and Geist (or, his students) have spent many more hours aggregating the results into tallies for/against certain provisions.
To throw that all out the window for the US copyright industry is beyond disrespectful.
Yea, how this is even remotely classified for security reasons is beyond me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: why is it secret
"and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
John 3:19
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Good eye, Mike.
This isn't about free trade. This isn't about "anti-counterfeiting." This is the "Protect the American Entertainment Industry" treaty.
Drudge Report has posted a few interesting articles that appear to support this:
"Chinese movie studio eyes NYSE listing..."
"Putin tells Russian filmmakers to conquer foreign market..."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: why is it secret
To avoid giving the public a fighting chance. Essentially get the countries deeply invested before the public outcry, making it a difficult uphill battle.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The superpower thing? It was fun while it lasted.
It won't be an uphill battle at all. Every last web site will simply move to a country that refuses to sign the treaty, killing what little market share the US has left in tech.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: I cling to hope for Canada
"To throw that all out the window for the US copyright industry is beyond disrespectful."
No, for THEM to draft laws like this without public consent is beyond disrespectful. We don't pass laws just because industry lobbyists supposedly spent hours thinking them up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: I cling to hope for Canada
and there is NOTHING disrespectful about rejecting laws that the public had no input in drafting. NOTHING!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And yet again Hollywood demonstrates its utter cluelessness, and its lack of awareness that the internet has no borders or boundaries - there's always somewhere else to go, somewhere deeper to dive, some new form of encryption to use. Their attempt to defy its very nature is like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Where are the companies?
Where are the companies that have a lot to lose with large amounts of people being removed form the internet.
Google makes much of it's money through advertising, if the population of the internet starts to shrink due to people being kicked off what happens to them.
ISPs make money by subscriptions to internet service. If one gets kicked off the internet that is another person not paying for internet.
Blizzard has 11 million people paying 15$ a month for a game. If all of those who are accused of file sharing get kicked off, I wonder how many of those users would cancel their accounts because they can't connect any more.
Amazon and iTunes make money by selling digital goods. If those who pirate also pay the most for goods, then what will happen to those revenue streams.
In all I just don't understand how companies like these would sit by and watch the entertainment industry do what ever it can to destroy the internet.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: I cling to hope for Canada
I'm pretty sure we're on the same side here... but it's hard to say.
I'm saying that Canada should not accept ACTA, because it is disrespectful to Canadian citizens. (In addition to all of the bad stuff it contains, being written in secret, etc.)
The bottom line: say NO to ACTA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This crazy Anti-Youtube Treaty sounds like an awful idea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
it is happening in the uk
mandys law
even Internet radio stations are classed as file sharers.!!!!
by the record companies THIS IS NOW A WAR our freedom or a useless snooped on Internet with ISPs scared to allow any one to do anything like share even our thoughts.
that is what ACTA| will do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Geist's article seems pretty light on specific details.
The third-party liability issues are interesting. What is your evidence that there will be no DMCA-style safe harbors?
Geist clearly mentions that there will be limited safe harbors. The DMCA safe harbors are also limited--you must abide by notice and takedown procedures, for example. The referenced "free trade agreement" has safe harbor provisions very similar to the DMCA's, although they seem somewhat more limited. Which of these potential additional limitations is bothering you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
this needs to be tested
I really wonder how well these new "kick your best fans offline" laws would hold up in a court fight.
Like if your ISP's terms of service aren't aligned with these new laws, but the copyright industry gets your connection cut anyway, can you sue your ISP for breaking their TOS? Tort law, breach of contract, right?
Even with that alignment, they're cutting your connection based on an accusation, not conviction. I don't know how much risk an ISP is willing to take on in that arena.
Besides, isn't breaking their business model, er, copyright infringement mostly just a civil issue?
IANAL so I'm not sure how all that would play out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
For starters, the fact that little of this has to do with national security yet it's still being kept from the public. If there is nothing bothersome in there then why should it be kept a secret?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Whether or not the businesses against which you constantly rail choose to adapt, the simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing in any law I have ever read that keeps anyone from creating their own original work and then using the business models you advocate to outcompete the aformentioned businesses.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why?
Because they can.. And they will.. And you will LOVE it or.. We'll cut your ass off forever.. Man, I love America these days.. We need to light this bitch on fire and watch it burn with all their plastic discs..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"there is nothing in any law I have ever read that keeps anyone from creating their own original work and then using the business models you advocate to outcompete the aformentioned businesses."
Take a look at the US patent system for a prime example of the type of laws you don't see.
The DMCA is another good example, where anyone can kill your business just on their solemn word that you're a dirty rotten infringer. Proof? Bah, we don't need no stinkin' proof.
All of the IP laws I've been seeing in the past 15 years can (and are) used to keep people from creating and using their own original work.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
At some point the terms of ACTA must be revealed; they are hardly enforcible unless folks see the rules. That it is so patently one-sided; that it is entirely to the entertainment industry's advantage will surely cause an uproar among all those expected to enforce it. ISP's will surely not take this lying down and surely the digital communications industry at the end of the day has more clout than Hollywood. I welcome the draconian features Mike has pointed out; the more incredibly this "treaty" toes the wildest dreams of a single point of view the less likely it is to succeed in fact.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Turning "pirates" into freedom fighters
I'm no "pirate," but this type of thing (if the report is accurate) is plenty enough to make me consider becoming one, because it will become an act of civil disobedience against unjust and tyrannical laws.
This will only make "pirates" into "the good guys."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
so what can we do about it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So, what happens when a country decides to not sign?
Do we invade?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Perhaps the difference is that you "see" laws whereas I "read and study" them.
BTW, patent law has has nothing to do with original works of authorship. Such works are within the province of copyright law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
"Perhaps the difference is that you "see" laws whereas I "read and study" them."
We see the types of patents that the patent office grants and the fact that even if the alleged infringer is not really infringing they would still often rather pay settlement fees than to fight expensive frivolous lawsuits.
"BTW, patent law has has nothing to do with original works of authorship. Such works are within the province of copyright law."
No one is confusing copyright with patents, I don't know where you got the notion that John Fenderson was doing any such thing.
Another example is the fact that cableco/telco corporations often have a government granted monopoly over the infrastructure and who can build new infrastructure which kills competition and causes cable and Internet prices in the U.S. to be artificially overpriced for no good reason.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
"Perhaps the difference is that you "see" laws whereas I "read and study" them."
Then you should know that intellectual property laws are ridiculously one sided. The penalty for infringement is ridiculous, especially if it's intentional, yet the penalty for fraudulently claiming someone infringed (on purpose) is much smaller. Intellectual property rights last WAY too long and the patent office seems to assume that all ideas that haven't yet been patented are deserving of a patent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
HAH, we should NEVER take our freedoms for granted. Nations have been and some nations are subject to tyranny, freedom is NOT something we should take for granted. Do not allow them to pass bogus laws, once passed it's much harder to overturn.
Just look at the laws in place, most of the laws in the U.S. are designed to serve the rich and the powerful at public expense. Don't assume that bad laws can't get passed and that those who allegedly represent us will even care about what the people want.
Never assume that your freedoms can't be taken from you, NEVER. It's a dangerous and WRONG assumption.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I cling to hope for Canada
And say YES to FREEDOM.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Simple. We lock the leader of that country in a room and force him/her to watch Battlefield Earth, The Hottie and the Nottie, and everything by Uwe Boll over and over and over.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
people wanting some respect will invade...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Cloak & ACTA...
I would list passages and quotes of wisdom from The Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, and the likes of great leaders from the 1st U.S. Congress, but today's U.S. government is deaf, dumb, and blind to the core foundations of what this country was originally built upon. Everything is now labeled as "State Secrets".
Remove public scrutiny. Remove the voice of the people. Eventually remove the peoples participation in the government all together. You know?.. the one that was founded BY the People? And in the end, you have anarchy.
Take a lesson from Ancient Rome. They had a democracy once...
;(
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The superpower thing? It was fun while it lasted.
Every last web site will simply move to a country that refuses to sign the treaty, killing what little market share the US has left in tech.
Nothing a few missiles can't take care of.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
For starters, the fact that little of this has to do with national security yet it's still being kept from the public.
Actually, security classifications are used for that purpose quite frequently.
If there is nothing bothersome in there then why should it be kept a secret?
Bothersome for whom? The public relations would be a "bother" for the entertainment industry, hence it must be kept secret.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
At some point the terms of ACTA must be revealed; they are hardly enforcible unless folks see the rules.
The purpose is to suppress public awareness, and thus opposition, until *after* it becomes law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
entertainment industry concerns are no reason to keep it secret. . i would go further and argue for that alone it should be public.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"so what can we do about it?"
Since discovering techdirt 2 years back, I have been thinking about what to do to counter the Big Media's attempts to further corrupt IP law. The solution is surprisingly simple. Create an open source system under the creative commons liscense. That includes "sales" and "free", accounting, distribution, contracts, promoters, managers, and everything else artists need to avoid the middle men. The system would also allow the artists to keep the copyright to their own work.
Setting the system up as a group of W3, IEEE, etc standards means anyone can use it. Now for the Really Important part. The media industry would either have to play by the rules, take their toys and go home, or create a set of standards of their own. The media industry being what they are, technophobic, afraid of change, having the need to maximize profits, would create a very restrictive, proprietary, and closed system.
Currently a few of us are putting together a set of web sites, blogs, msg boards, and wikis to crowd source the rules and standards. We are also going to crowd source the funding for the standards. When we are finished with the basics we will ask mike to post a link here so anyone who wants to can have a say in how this idea evolves.
This post is probably going to give some big media exec serious heart burn.... Big Ole GRIN
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps the difference is that I see how laws are actually used and the effects they have in the real world, where you treat them as some kind of pure intellectual abstraction.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Small Artists are Ripped Off Too
There are many, many artists who are ripped off every day when their photos, 3D content and other licenseable digital media gets posted to sites by pirates. These artists are not distributed through big corporations. They may get their creations resold through sites, like iStockPhoto, for example.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So who is representing "our side" in the latest round of "negotiations"? Has Mike's prose been pointed out to anyone there who can make a difference? The abuse and corruption is so blatent, how does it get so far? WHERE IS OUR (the world's internet-using community) REPRESENTATION? Outrageous!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps the difference is that you "see" laws whereas I "read and study" them.
HAahaaha. Says an anonymous coward that repeatedly trolls these forums without revealing himself or what he does. Yeah, you study the shill notes that are provided to you, that's about it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Write you Senators
For U.S. citizens, our Senate will have to ratify this agreement to make it go into effect. The text of the agreement should be public record when it is handed over to the Senate for debate.
I urge everyone to craft their own letter and write their senators (with your real name and mailing address, of course) to express your concerns.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Walk away
Give them what they want. In fact give them EVERYTHING they want.
Then walk away.
Reject what they are doing. Reject their content.
They can then kevetch just like newspapers and buggy whip makers about their past glory.
We have plenty of general purpose computers that we will bend to our own will and be devoid of them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
America is in trouble
America's #1 export nowadays is Intellectual Property. While the ACTA may not be the right approach, something has to be done in foreign markets if the US economy is ever going to be strong again. If they world can continue unfettered pirate our software, music, movies, and video games, the American economy will be in big trouble going forward.
Copyright in the Internet Age
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And it means war.
So who's gonna code something to change the color of 1 pixel & add 1 layer of 1% volume white noise on top of a MP3s/MP4s/AVIs so that it then becomes "original work"? If that's not enough, what's the minimum amount of "different" that must be?
Imagine if the Brothers Grimm had copyrighted their work -- Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, most of Walt Disney's work is simply a re-telling of stories written before he was even born.
Vanilla Ice "didn't steal" Under Pressure to make Ice Ice Baby because he added 1 beat to the 2 measure loop.
I think it could be done.
Also, as said 100x before: This is law, is trash.
(and it means war.)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Tweet it
Disgusting indeed.
The whole wide world needs to know about this, not just the tech-savvy ones.
Tweet it, retweet it. Fuck #ACTA
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Once again is becoming clear that the claims by US trade reps that ACTA did not represent any kind of major change in copyright law, and thus didn't require public scrutiny, are nothing more than a myth.
You mis-spelled "lie".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: America is in trouble
Ummm, you don't protect your digital goods by assuming that everyone is a criminal for having it first. That's not how it works, you know innocent before proven guilty.
So, our #1 export is digital goods, how do you combat priacy if all priacy is is making a copy without destroying the original? That can be accomplished in varying ways but I think the easiest would be to create the most simple distribution network for your products and charge resonable prices for those products. That way you can focus your full attention onto creating a better distribution system, rather than the legal ways of every single country in the world.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment