ACTA's Internet Chapter Leaks; And, Now We See How Sneaky The Negotiators Have Been

from the sneak-that-right-in-there... dept

Reports spread this weekend that the ACTA’s all-important internet enforcement chapter had leaked. You can download the PDF from that link, or check it out below:

From here, you can see why this is still quite a dangerous document — and why there’s been so much misinformation from its supporters, insisting that it “can’t change US law,” or even (as stated by the USTR) that it won’t include three strikes. It doesn’t. Sort of. But it does make it very very difficult for any online service provider to get safe harbors without doing something along those lines. Let’s explore deeper…

Sections 2 and 3 are the key ones to be concerned about here. First, they talk up the importance of making sure that third party liability is in the law. Now, technically, they are right that this wouldn’t change US law — as current case law does have a third party liability standard. But the actual text of the legislation does not. Now it is entirely possible that Congress could decide the courts were mistaken in their decision to blame third party service providers for actions of their users, and clarify the law to get rid of third party liability. After all, Congress did look at a bill to add third party liability to copyright law a few years back (the so-called INDUCE Act) and did not pass it. Thus, it could come to pass that Congress feels an inducement standard does not make sense, and goes ahead and corrects the courts for interpreting current copyright law to include such a standard.

But if ACTA passes, that won’t be possible. The first thing you’ll see is that the same copyright defenders who are saying ACTA is no big deal and we’re worrying about nothing, will immediately start screaming at the top of their lungs about our “international obligations” such as ACTA, which prevent us from removing third party liability from our copyright law.

This is a big deal, because third party liability is a mess, and a perversion of justice. It’s a way to blame a third party for actions they did not commit, just because it’s easier. From a pure position of properly placing liability on the party who did the “wrong,” third party liability is a perversion.

However, ACTA then gets worse. In section 3, it tries to set up the “safe harbors” by which a service provider might avoid liability. In the US, we already have this, with the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown provision, which is widely abused. Yet, to qualify for the safe harbors in ACTA, the bar is set much higher. This is hidden pretty deep, and you might miss it (this is done on purpose) if you’re not reading carefully. It’s in section 3(b)I and in footnote 6. Basically, it says that for a service provider to get safe harbors, it must implement a policy to deal with infringing works — and in footnote 6, it gives the concept of “termination” of service in the case of repeat infringers as an example of the type of measure. That, of course, is three strikes rules.

So, no, three strikes laws aren’t “mandatory,” but the only example given of a proper policy that would qualify a service provider for safe harbors, is three strikes. Guess what everyone’s going to implement?

And, of course, if some country is so bold as to not implement such a thing, and to point out that ACTA says they do not need to implement three strikes, you can bet that the very same ACTA defenders will complain, and point to ACTA as a reason why they must do so. You can see this already in the way those same ACTA defenders treat Canada, in claiming that its current treaty agreements obligate it to put in place DMCA-like notice-and-takedown provisions, along with anti-circumvention rules — despite the fact that the agreements say no such thing directly.

Speaking of notice-and-takedown and anti-cirumvention, both make their appearance in the ACTA document. The following subsection, again, highlighting what a service provider must do to get safe harbors, discusses takedowns:

an online service provider expeditiously removing or disabling access to material or activity, upon receipt of legally sufficient notice of alleged infringement, and in the absence of a legally sufficient response from the relevant subscriber of the online service provider indicating that the notice was the result of a mistake or misidentification.

Michael Geist points out that this is a notice and takedown provision, though you could argue that it could be read as just notice-and-notice — where the person uploading content has the right to respond before the takedown occurs. Still, the document is telling: note that the takedown is to occur on alleged infringement rather than on actual evidence or conviction of infringement. This should be seen as problematic as well. Given how often the notice-and-takedown system is abused, and given any judicial system that believes in innocence until guilt is proven, you would think that it should not be allowed to require a takedown without conviction.

Section 4 then discusses anti-circumvention and would lock in many of the mistakes of the DMCA that are causing serious problems today and need to be fixed — not forced to stay due to “international obligations.” The issue here is that it again will place the blame on the tools provider, since it includes just the manufacturing of tools for circumventing DRM or other technical protection measures. It’s a bad law that blames those who make the tools, rather than those who use them. Furthermore, it makes no exceptions for the lawful use of the tools. You can use circumvention tools to make a perfectly legal backup of content that you bought. But, under the DMCA, the act of making that perfectly legal backup copy is illegal due to the circumvention. That’s a huge problem that not only would be further locked into US law and blocked from change, but would then be forced on other countries who have (smartly) recognized how problematic this is.

In the end, the leaked document appears to show exactly what people feared it would (and, again explains why the USTR and the lobbyists, who helped draft the document, wanted to keep it so secretive). It takes a very fluid and evolving situation in copyright law and tries to lock it in place, despite tons of evidence of the harm done by certain aspects of that law, and to then spread those same mistakes to other countries. Furthermore, it ratchets up what is required to qualify for “safe harbors” to make it such that, while three strikes may not be required, no other option is presented. It’s a multiple choice question with “A” as the only answer. And the USTR and entertainment industry lobbyists want to tell us that makes it not mandatory.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “ACTA's Internet Chapter Leaks; And, Now We See How Sneaky The Negotiators Have Been”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
JerryAtrick (profile) says:

Re: That is a lot to take in!!!

A lot of times consumers are mis-represented though, like is the case with Public Knowledge supposedly taking up for us… Their arguments against the MPAA’s on-going negotiations with the FCC are convoluted and remind me of watching fahrenheit 9/11.
In some cases, the sellers are trying to give the consumer the best possible way to enjoy technology (of course while at the same time protecting themselves), but people are scared of the unknown and are nervous about being duped (somewhat understandably so). Research is really key to the whole process.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: That is a lot to take in!!!

“Research is really key to the whole process.”

After going through Rupert Murdochs quotes and a couple e-mails. I was wondering if someone could help with this. I was told that ACTA would contain something along the lines of …

“no reuse of copyrighted material without express consent of the copyright holder”

After going through the “Leaked” document several times I dont see it. Can someone point out to me where that is spaced out in the wording. Or is that just the UKs digital economy bill and the ability to change the law on the fly?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“I agree it will end in revolution (it must!), but I’m not sure if it’s going to be the “traditional” sort of revolution, or some new-age internet-based thingy…”

Hence the real reason for all this IP mess! The next revolutionary war will be fought electronically, where the best the government and The People have to offer will all get together on a Modern Warfare 2 battlefield and duke it out for the rights and freedoms of mankind EVERYWHERE!!!!

….except the armies of The People will be locked out of the server by DRM. Govt. wins again!!!!

kyle clements (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“I’m not sure if it’s going to be the “traditional” sort of revolution, or some new-age internet-based thingy.”

In the past, during revolutions, Streets were stained red with the blood of the slain oppressive aristocracy.

Today, during a revolution, we ask our friends to “become a fan” of a facebook petition.
The truly bold among us may even write a polite letter to our member of parliament.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Maybe this is like the EA DRM.

“They intentionally leak a document that’s really, really bad and when everyone complains they “capitulate” and revile the less nasty, but still over the line, document and pretend it’s all better.”

There’s actually a very specific name for this type of legislative technique, but for the life of me it’s escaping me at the moment. I’ll have to crack a history book when I get home and find it…

Henry Emrich (profile) says:

Re: Re: Maybe this is like the EA DRM.

FAC (the “Featured artists coalition) did exactly that kind of dance, which is one reason (of many) that I stopped contributing to p2pnet.

Billy Bragg kept claiming that his organization had taken some kind of really big stand “against the corporate lobbyists and labels”, even though they had voted in support of 3-strikes legislation (which the corporate megaliths also support).

Where was his “big stand”, you might ask?
Well, while the LABELS’ LOBBYISTS wanted 3-strikes and then DISCONNECTION, FAC “only” advocated 3-strikes, and THROTTLING (on the specious notion that radically slowing-down the “offender’s” Internet connections would somehow make them “less” of an enemy of corporate lobbyists pimping for draconian bullshit.)

The sad part is (as we all know by now) corporate lobbyists get *whatever they want*, irrespective of whatever delusions “we, the subjects” may still cherish, in regard to “the popular will”.

Richard Corsale (profile) says:

Re: Maybe this is like the EA DRM.

Exactly, I’ve been saying this from the get go. This is not a new tactic 🙂 It’s just a ploy to pony up a few disingenuous “compromises” on the last leg of the sprint. It works every time.

The politicians say “we stood up to them!” and everyone cheers. It’s like the exemption for the blind thing.. a total farce.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

This just gets better and better .....

“5. Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing paragraph (4) is a separate civil or criminal offense, independent of any infringement of copyright or related rights.”

Notice the “criminal offense” part … Make a backup copy of a DVD go to jail. Format swap a file, go to jail. Rip a DVD for the vaction flight, go to jail.

I havent dug far enough into this to see if infringement is going to be a criminal offense … if its not that will be the next step.

The unintended consequences are going to be funny to watch.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: This just gets better and better .....

“Sounds pretty sad to me. “I may be going to hell in a bucket but I’m going to enjoy the ride.””

You dont seem to understand, its not the fact that people are going to be hurt I find amusing. Its the fact that these Media executives dont seem to look at what they have already done and see if it actually has worked. Here is what we have learned so far from the actions of the media distribution industry …

1) After laws are passed to counter copyright infringement, a temporary drop in infringing downloading occurs. The network utililaztion drops substantially. (see Sweden, South Korea)
2) After 3-6 months people begin using encryption, VPN, set up encrypted shared distributed file systems. (again Sweden, South Korea)
3) A short while after the network utilization of the country in question increases above what it was before. People actually download more because they now feel secure. (again Sweden, South Korea)

Here are some of the possible unintended consequences …

– More bad publicity for the media companies causing a drop in sales.
– More alternative competition popping up
– More Encryption being used to hide what people are doing P2P wise
– An acceleration of the failure of these companies due to the fact they now believe they have the tools needed to “stop piracy”
– More harsher laws and punishments (Criminalization of infringement) when they realize that they need a bigger stick to threaten people with.
– A major public out cry as three strikes gets implemented
– A major public out cry as people realize that due process is being circuvented.
– A major public out cry as people are arrested for infringement.
– A major public out cry as people complain about private communications being monitored with out a warrant. This one has all sorts of secondary consequences.
– a rework of patent and copyright law moving way to the minimalist side.
– The failure of the news papers after someone puts together a “Paper boy” app that collects the information you are interested from alternate news sources, blogs, etc and feeds it to you. All customized and based on your interests.
– The failure of the record labels as people shun them for their actions, find alternatives, as they dont even try to follow basic economic theory. A simple app to recommend CC and alternative music based on what you like in the main stream music area could accelerate this.
– Failure of streaming music services as a revenue stream as people go alt and CC to aviod paying the streaming fees.
– The failure of the TV studios as new technology begins to show up allowing anyone to do professional videos, new business models begin cropping up, and they also fail to follow basic economics.
– etc.
– etc.
– etc.

I could go on for hours about what could happen. I will leave you with this … This attempt to stop the tide will fail miserably. The psychology of the media executives will cause it to happen. They are seeking a magical fix for their problems, jumping from one vaporous hope of salvation to another. This time its ACTA and the iPad. They ignore any nay sayers, surround themselves with people that tell them “Everything will be fine”, and believe their own hype reports and numbers.

It doesnt bode well for them …

Anonymous Coward says:

The best way to use this act is to ban content producers from the internet by claiming the content there selling is really yours, bonus points if you do this from outside the US.

On a side note, it will never pass the Supreme court, Its quite clear that you can not get a state punishment with out a court saying so, as such the court will ask why your doing a 3 strikes program, you point to the law as the reason, and the court says the law blocks due process.

But lets go with the first point, create as much damage as possible to the people who ask for the insane laws. Kick them off the net and we can have our electronic wild west back 🙂 And thanks to them, its 100% legal because I thought lady gaga’s song was mine, my mistake.

Henry Emrich (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Y’know, personally, I’m really tired of this “Electronic Wild West” mindfuck they’re trying to put over on us. The *real* intention behind that is to sell us the idea of an Orwell-style “Ministry of Information”, on the (specious) premise that they’re “protecting” us from: porn, kiddie porn, “hate speech”, online “piracy”, etc. etc.

Fuck that. (This is also one of the reasons I don’t shy away from using what *some* might view as “profane” or “vulgar” language — once they sell you on the notion that some forms of censorship — *EVEN* “self”-censorship — are “good”, it’s a really small step from there, to unleashing the forces of Bowdlerization.

The only *real* “obscenity” is CENSORSHIP.

Brooks (profile) says:

On the bright side...

…the more draconian and reactionary ACTA turns out to be, and the greater the proportion of everyday internet usage it criminalizes, the more people will disregard it.

Peoples’ behaviour isn’t going to change. And while ISP’s might be willing to cut off 0.1% of their subscribers, they’re simply not going to terminate 20% or 50% of their subscribers. So let industry over-reach and go after every instance where someone emails an MP3 to a friend.

All this is going to do is push people to anonymous network layers like TOR, and to further hide their activity from their ISP. That, in turn, complicate network management and increases expense (by preventing compression, for instance).

They might as well pass laws against gravity, for all the good it’s going to do. And if they push hard enough, it’ll just hasten the day they drive themselves out of business, making more room for your companies willing to work within the bounds of reality.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: On the bright side...

“Peoples’ behaviour isn’t going to change. And while ISP’s might be willing to cut off 0.1% of their subscribers, they’re simply not going to terminate 20% or 50% of their subscribers.”

In an attempt to intimidate, and “educate” people on the hazards of copyright infringement. They will be willing to make examples of a select few. Which will backfire on the ISP’s and the record labels.

You are right that this wont change what people do, just how they do it. People dont change, alcohol, drugs, cheating on your spouse, etc, the numbers dont change even with laws making them illegal. People just get sneakier about it.

Hulser (profile) says:

Beware of the Leopard

Yet, to qualify for the safe harbors in ACTA, the bar is set much higher. This is hidden pretty deep, and you might miss it (this is done on purpose) if you’re not reading carefully. It’s in section 3(b)I and in footnote 6.

I’m not sure what the problem is. This section has been available for weeks in a dark cellar with no stairs in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.

Anonymous Coward says:

Neither does the US Copyright Act specifically invoke the “staple article of commerce” provisions of the US Patent Law as was done in Sony by the Supreme Court.

So, it seems:

“Staple article of commerce” is just fine even though it results from a decision by the Supreme Court (5-4 decision).

“Vicarious liability” is not fine even though it results from a decision by the Supreme Court (8-0 decision).

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Staple article of commerce” is just fine even though it results from a decision by the Supreme Court (5-4 decision).

“Vicarious liability” is not fine even though it results from a decision by the Supreme Court (8-0 decision).

I did not say whether one was fine and one was not. I said that if the determination is made in the case law, then Congress should be free to amend the law if it feels the courts got it wrong. Binding Congress to stick with the case law through international treaties is a problem.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Here is another troubling line ....

“6. In implementing Article 12 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Article 19 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty on providing adequate and effective legal remedies to
protect rights management information, each Party shall provide for civil remedies, as well as criminal penalties in appropriate cases of willful conduct, that apply to any person performing any of the following acts knowing that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any copyright or related right:”

Correct me if I am wrong but the section that reads “enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any copyright or related right”

Seems to be targeted at using encryption to get around being spied upon by the ISP.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Here is another troubling line ....

” they pass laws criminalizing any form of encryption that cannot be snooped by “authorized parties”. “

Yeah it didnt work then and wont work now. Funny thing about that a central store to hold all encryption keys. First time it gets hacked, it will be the end of this plan until another 10 years go by and it is requested again.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Reading through this ....

I just realized that no matter what they put in ACTA, no matter how repressive, its not going to change the outcome of the situation. Efficiencies have come to the media distribution industry, Music , Video, e-books, News, etc. The media companies are failing to adapt and become more efficient, for that simple reason they are going to fail.

Camel back meet straw ….

Henry Emrich (profile) says:

Re: Reading through this ....

More than that:

1. By getting their cronies in government to put stupid/evil shit like this on the books, they’re going to make the entire notion of copyright look even *more* like the cultural cancer that it already is. Runaway term extensions are bad enough, but turning the issue of “copyright” into an excuse for *increasing* the “digital divide” isn’t going to go over well at all.

On the topic of encryption, has anybody seen THIS:

They are “failing to adapt”, in the same way as Southern planters “failed to adapt” to abolitionists, and the Roman Catholic church “failed to adapt” to the rise of Protestantism (which was and remains, from their point of view, nothing more than mass “heresy”, beyond their ability to crush.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Reading through this ....

On the topic of encryption, has anybody seen THIS:

After ACTA the inability for them to prove that you’re infringing won’t be a real problem for them: You can be punished on the basis of accusations that you can’t *disprove*. So while OFFSystem might keep them from *proving* infringement, that won’t really matter.

jfgilbert (profile) says:

Mike, I am surprised you did not see the bigger picture.
This is not about controlling piracy, DRM, or DMCA, it is not a US initiative, and it is not even a negotiation. It is about governments and multinational companies taking control of the Internet. This will be pushed through under the usual pretenses of fighting piracy, controlling pornography, preventing terrorism, and, of course, protecting the children – but it will really be used to monitor free speech and intimidate those who challenge or disagree with governments and big business (that includes churches).
Historically, Governments, the Press, and Business have had opposing interests, and, most times, this has provided some sort of balance. The Internet is special in that it took away power from all of them, and thus united them in finding ways to control it. The Internet is also global, so putting in place the proper controls requires international coordination, that’s what ACTA is about.
Chinese rulers saw the Internet threat right away and put in place immediately what restrictions they could; Australia, New Zealand, France, and the UK are busy changing their laws, Italy is trying to interpret their laws differently to take away safe harbor, and now the rest of the world is catching on.
Don’t think the Internet is different and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Of course, the Internet can be regulated. Governments only have to regulate the ISPs and force them to implement filters, block urls, or report specific activity. And that’s already happening.
The glorious decade of Internet freedom is over.

Paul (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“What about monitoring that doesn’t necessarily record activity as much as it does prevent piracy?”

What does that even mean? How do you prevent piracy, when piracy is indistinguishable from a legitimate exchange of data?

If I encrypt a data exchange with another person, am I passing along a pirated copy of Avatar? Or just passing along a home movie? Is it a home movie, or a discussion of the results of an Olympic event? Does the home movie include an entire Beatles song playing in the background?

Or perhaps it is the last will and testament in video I intend to send to my lawyer.

Nobody can tell without monitoring the contents of exactly what the data exchange holds.

Prevent piracy == no privacy. Of course, we know that if the content is media content produced in the U.S. than it IS copyrighted content. All content is copyrighted!!! So to prevent piracy, the following MUST be done:

1) Identify both parties of any data exchange.
2) Determine what rights are required for both sending and receiving the data (Either party may possibly validate or invalidate the exchange).
3) Consult some database to determine if either of the individuals involved have the rights necessary to validate the data exchange.
4) If they do, allow the data exchange.

With this ‘simple’ algorithm, we can do that “monitoring that doesn’t necessarily record activity as much as it does prevent piracy” of which you speak. Note that none of the four steps above require us to record the data exchange. They simply reduce the effective through put of our biggest data pipes to about 300 Baud…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Sure, I’ll turn over my hard drives in an investigation, no problem. Just remember though, there’s nothing that says they have to be functioning or in one piece. I mean, accidents DO happen you know.

Most courts look very unfavorably on destroying evidence. So much so that it almost ensures conviction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Yes, but nothing stops an alternate network that works on some basic level like the one in place now form being used. The wild west could be connected by massive amounts of VPNs used to talk to each other thus making spying much harder form the outside.

You could take it a step worse and instead of encript just use a differnt type of packet system, the physical level could continue to be used and groups could use there “internet 2.5” that wont directly talk to internet 1 and 2.

Quite frankly any set of laws that get as insane as this one will just bite them in the ass anyway when we figure out who to target because they supported the insane laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This is why the “wild west” analogy always fails for me. The “wild west” was an actual place and if one wanted to go more west then they would run into the ocean.

Where is the ocean on the internet?

“Oh, they wrecked the “wild west” internet. I guess the people are incapable of making a new “wilder and more western” internet. You know, because of that internet ocean that’s blocking all that westward movement.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I guess the people are incapable of making a new “wilder and more western” internet. You know, because of that internet ocean that’s blocking all that westward movement.”

Yes, they will be unable to do so because they will not have access to the right-of-ways. This is the same thing that is keeping from building competing networks today.

Emo the Libertarian (profile) says:

Just a thought

Thermite on the HD, 5 bad passwords on the laptop, hits the magnesium fuse, and wow how did that happen… what do you mean the data’s gone? must be a fault with Sony 🙂 plus the person checking it is now running around with their pants on fire…

Anarchy will live long on the internet as the geeks, crackers, haxers, and now the average citizen looking for ways to screw with the powers that want to control it…

And lets be totally honest… ACTA horrible horrible piece of garbage, but when it comes down to it who really knows the internet… Big Media… Nope.. the Government… Nope… those same Geeks, Crackers, and Haxors… I say we just post up the ACTA to 4chan and let them at it: EPIC i tell ya…

WG (profile) says:


After reading, and rereading, the biggest question I have is: how do we, as an internet community, combat this obvious wolf in sheep’s clothing? Another question comes to mind as to whether anyone at the upper echelons of government ever read this blog? And, why aren’t the millions of internet users out there uniting and demanding our government put a stop to these kinds of devious manipulations of our legal system? I’m losing any and all respect for our elected officials, especially when I see crap like this being foisted on the masses….against our collective will, no less. I, for one, will be emailing my congressman, and senator, to let them know exactly how I feel about this – and that I will NOT vote for them ever again if they don’t make an effort to expose these kinds of evil being negotiated in backroom deals (and they will also know that I will make it a passion to tell everyone I know about how corrupt I see them in this regard). What a crock!

Henry Emrich (profile) says:


Bigger question:

1. How do we “stop” corporations out-right buying what passes for “government” in the wake of the Citizens United supreme court decision?

2. How do we “stop” the use of (nominally) “private” corporate-mercenary outfits like Blackwater — or whatever the hell it calls itself, now — to aid in our latest military-industrial quagmire over in Iraq?

3. For that matter, how do we “stop” invasions based on false pretenses (such as Iraq), in the first place?

THAT’s what makes the whole “work to get the law changed”, bullshit so terrifyingly wrong-minded: the notion that “We, the subjects” actually *do* have anything other than a completely false and masturbatory “participation” in the poltical system to which we are subject.

You think “the vote” counts? Not so long as the Electoral college can cast the “deciding” vote — or they can just screw with the recounts long enough for the Supreme court to step in and DECLARE the winner.

So, yeah: how do we “stop” stuff like that?



DOn’t worry this treaty is never going to happen. ITS too vaguely written and in affect if makes car doors and locks on your homes fall under the anti circumvention laws, and if stephen harper had bill c61 this is exactly how the law would work to get ACTA in gear

20000 $ fine to tamper with my own car door , or home lock you say? Can’t pay a fine in canada …max time in jail hten for you is 1 day per 10$( 2.7 years per lock tampered with) ALL XVIDS about 90% are dvdripped and thus are not only the harper 500$ fine for downloading BUT a 20000 $ fine for breaking the dvdr lock…..2.7 years per download is a direct constitutal violation of section 12 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Bill C61( ACTA attempt )

ant anti mike says:

example of cruel and unusual punishment

lets say you download 2 movies
get caught thats max 5.4 years and say they give you 4
manslaughter in canada has a term range of 3-7 years
that would equate to killing someone in a rage with downloading 2 movies wich is a perfect example.

ten movies you say, thats if consecutive and it mentioned not that fines cant be served ONLY concurrently for time served in payment thus it could be consecutive run.

thats 27 years for ten movies
WELL i might as well kill the bastards when they come to the door to take me away for downloading Bambi and the little mermaid for my kids because i am poor.

i could break into your house BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU
steal several thousand dollars a stuff and maybe gt 2 years in prison.
AGAIN this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that in Canada at least ACTA would be unconstitutional in its enforcement.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Desperation and Desperado's in a time of infinite goods...

The world is at a point where the knowledge available to people is growing at an exponential rate. That knowledge includes hundreds of TV stations, video, music, news, games, social networking, e-mail, and many more things to distract us from big media. People now want interaction and they dont want to be spoon feed information. They want their opinions to be heard and responded to. This is something that big media refuses to do.

In a monopoly system the news, books, TV, music, etc, could be given out on the schedual determined by the monopoly. But people now have a say. E-book consumers are giving one star to authors who dont follow their wishes wants and needs, music lovers are saying you charge to much and are infringing, music lovers are listening to alternative music, TV viewers are saying we want this subtitled now and are not willing to wait 6 months and doing the subtitling themselves.

Everything these companies are doing is to increase quarterly profits at the cost of alienating their customer base. It has become an us against them mentality on both sides. The business side wants its windows and thinks people are thieves and are willing to do anything to stop them from stealing. The consumer side wants what it wants when it wants it.

The lines have been drawn. One side wont change its ways, will dictate what it is entitled to, and will not stop until it crushes all resistance. The other side will muddle along, ask why cant I watch this online, why cant I read the news, why cant I … then find alternate sources.

Desperation : abandonment of hope; extreme recklessness; reckless fury.

Desperado : a bold outlaw (Not so much in this case. Just a kid or grand mother downloading music or video)

Personally I think this will end badly for both sides.

ACTA cant change that. The market in the end will define itself.

Karl (profile) says:

More restrictive than ANY nation's copyright law

This is more restrictive than any nation’s copyright law, including America’s.

The “third party liability” section clearly contradicts the “safe harbors” provisions in the DMCA.

Furthermore, there are provisions in the DMCA (revised as of 2006) that allow DRM circumvention in certain cases (educational use, obsolete technology, security). These exemptions are not in ACTA.

And of course, nowhere in ACTA is there any mention of “fair use” or “fair dealings.”

The United States currently has the most stringent copyright laws on the planet, and ACTA is even more stringent than ours. So much for ACTA not requiring its members to change their laws.

Tom says:

I fear the worst

I fear that if ACTA is signed riots, violence, and/or revolution will take place! Resistance parties would be formed! Pornography will be gone and perverts will turn to raping women and children! I believe that whoever came up with ACTA whether it’s a person or organization is trying to take away rights. All they want is for the Internet to be as “clean” possible by banning pirating, pornography, violent text, info, and pictures as possible.

The Truth is its impossible because no matter how many people you put in jail, ban from the Internet, fine, or take down there website and stuff for good. It will still be available in other forms and formats. It’s the same with crime you can’t get rid of all of it; the only thing you can do is try to minimize it.



Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...