The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
* * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
The copy and paste posting of Op/Ed articles will be prohibited as of 10-29-2004 unless subsequent commentary and facts are added by the initial poster/thread starter to defend the article.
This isn't some Obama conspiracy. It's an international extension/expansion of copyright law that's been in talks for several years now. It's not "Secret" from the USA, it's simply outside the jurisdiction of the USA for now. As an ISP worker, I can tell you right now that it sounds like a massive heaping pile of bull**** being served up by the international cartel portions of the RIAA/MPAA... but then again we're already used to having "fair use" ****ed in the ***.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral trade agreement which is claimed by its proponents to be in response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."[1] The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit physical goods, as well as "internet distribution and information technology".[2]
In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan announced that they would negotiate ACTA. Furthermore the following countries have joined the negotiations: Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and the European Union.[2][3][4] The ACTA negotiations have been conducted in secrecy until on 22 May 2008 a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded to Wikileaks, and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.[4][5][6][7]
Negotiations were originally anticipated to conclude by the end of 2008,[1] however in November 2008 the European Commission stated that negotiations were likely to continue in 2009.[8] The next (sixth) round of negotiation is scheduled for South Korea in November 2009.[9] At the fifth round of negotiations, in Morocco in July 2009, participants indicated their intention was to conclude the agreement "as soon as possible in 2010".[9] According to New Zealand ACTA would "establish a new international legal framework" and "the goal of ACTA is to set a new, higher benchmark for intellectual property rights enforcement that countries can join on a voluntary basis."[1]
Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies. Similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty,[10] and critics have argued that the anticircumvention provisions of Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were similarly passed after policy laundering via treaties negotiated through the World Intellectual Property Organization. [11]
EFF and Public Knowledge filed suit on September 17, 2008 against the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), demanding information about a secret intellectual property enforcement treaty that the government has put on a fast track to completion.
The United States, Canada, the European Community, Switzerland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates are currently negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The full text of the treaty remains secret, but a document leaked to the public shows that ACTA could include criminal measures, increased border search powers, and encouragement for Internet service providers to cooperate with copyright holders. Despite the significant impact ACTA could have on consumers and the lack of official information available to the public, treaty proponents want a deal signed by the end of the year. Because of the questions raised by ACTA, EFF and Public Knowledge filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in June for records on the treaty and the negotiations surrounding the deal, but the USTR failed to respond, prompting the suit.
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
its not really an op ed article. the only thing that can be considered op/ed is the fact that it is bad.
Boingboing isn't exactly known for their adherence to factual journalism standards. At best boingboing is a great rumor blog. That Newscred article is strictly an op-ed piece.
If you're really unable to piece together some supporting words, feel free to quote-edit my post into yours.
apunkjunkie - "Sorry to burst your bubble, but less than 1% of the southern citizens owned slaves and out of that, most were treated fairly well. So no, slavery wasn't a big issue."
Since I don't want to grave dig the thread that Furious made a while ago, I will just post this here.
The market-anarchist perspective on intellectual property is that a claim on intellectual property is a claim on the pens, paper, blank CD's, speakers, and even lives of everyone. I believe I understand that correctly. Thus, in order enforce intellectual property, you would need a state, etc, etc. If I misunderstand this, please let me know.
The argument I have come up with against this position is that if a record company, for example, sells a CD to someone, and it is understood by both parties that in selling that CD, they are not selling the rights to the music itself, they are selling the rights to play that music from some device that can play from a CD, then to copy that CD and give it to someone else to play is theft, or at least a breach of contract. If it is accepted by both parties that buying a CD is only buying the right to play the music from that CD, then creating a copy of the CD and giving it to someone else is beyond the scope of what you contractually should be able to do. While the company has no right to seek redress from just any people who copy the CD, the company would indeed be wronged by those who originally bought the CD and made it available to others.
Can anyone respond to this?
__________________
Originally posted by Frank112916: "what makes an initiation of force 'illegitimate'? Why can we not initiate force is some ways but not in others if it makes us better off?"
"Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost." - F. A. Hayek
It's late and I'm not exactly sober, but as I see it unless an actual contract is signed a mere promise cannot be held legally responsible (in the market anarchist setting). Not to mention the fact that once one person has leaked one album it will be everywhere making the "promise" worthless.
I'll look at this tomorrow morning, hopefully it isn't too bad.
