ACTA Draft: No Internet for Copyright Scofflaws
- By David Kravets
- March 24, 2010 |
- 4:33 pm |
- Categories: Digital Millennium Copyright Act, intellectual property
The United States is nudging the international community to develop protocols to suspend the internet connections of customers caught downloading copyrighted works, according to a leaked draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
The United States is leading the 2-year-old, once-secret negotiations over the so-called ACTA accord. The Jan. 18 draft, about 56 pages and labeled “confidential,” just surfaced, and follows a string of earlier, less comprehensive leaks.
The leak shows that the treaty, if adopted under the U.S. language, would for the first time on a global scale hold internet service providers responsible when customers download infringing material, unless those ISPs take action by “adopting and reasonably implementing a policy to address the unauthorized storage or transmission of materials protected by copyright or related rights.”
The specific ISP policy suggested in a footnote “is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts on the service provider’s system or network of repeat infringers.”
This so-called “three strikes” or “graduated response” policy, is the holy grail of internet-copyright enforcement, staunchly backed by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.
“This makes it clear that the U.S. has put on the table a mandatory ISP safe-harbor policy,” Michael Geist, an ACTA expert at the University of Ottawa, said in a telephone interview.
The leak, courtesy of the French digital rights group La Quadrature du Net, marks the first time the entirety of the ever-changing draft proposal has come to light, and it confirms suspicions that the Obama administration is laundering a U.S. policy change through the treaty negotiations. Under the current U.S. law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, internet service providers are responsible for the infringing material hosted on their networks if they fail to remove the content at the rightsholder’s request.
The ACTA draft comes two weeks after European Parliament agreed to oppose the measure if it contained a three-strikes policy.
Other negotiating entities include Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland. The ACTA negotiators are expected to meet next month in New Zealand for a new round of talks.
See Also:
- Europe Worries U.S. Bowing to ‘Industry’ in ACTA Talks
- Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a ‘National Security’ Secret
- Report: U.S. Fears Public Scrutiny Would Scuttle IP Treaty Talks
- Copyright Treaty Is Policy Laundering at Its Finest
- Details Lacking in Counterfeiting Treaty Paper
- European Parliament Rips Global IP Accord
Good! The sooner the better.
drop dead usa and riaa and mpaa you other countrys tell the usa to drop dead
you have no rifgt to do this you brib taken usa phony lawmakers
no “innards” for filthy cartoon bitches (Cootchy Cootie, 1970).
Well, might as well shut the internet down if this passes. This is being driven by corporate slugs who have issues with no longer being able to finance their Gulfstreams.
Thank you wired for continuing to post about this. Knowledge f this allows us to fight it. There is no need for this, and plenty of need to go without it. I run a coffeeshop, and it would be prohibitive for me to even attempt something like controlling my users. ..so it would be shut down soon after this went into effect through no fault of my own.
This is akin to shutting down a businesses parking lot because a thief parks his stolen car there. Rediculous.
I wonder if we could institute a three strikes policy for President Obama? You get caught not living up to that openness and transparency promise three times and you are out. Sounds fair to me.
Very nice — so this would be a demand for legal penalties without charge, trial, or conviction. And the US government thinks this agrees with their Constitution, how, exactly?
Secrecy is the enemy of the state. MPAA And RIAA have a sensitive spot it is the nature of copyright itself the reason for it has ceased to exist with the digital age sound funny? Do some research. Political action is thus bypassed by the use of secrecy. Time for real true political action now! The ignorant masses will never wake up but if you fancy yourself as aware its time.
What will be set up to deal with unauthorized copyright infringements on law abiding citizen’s networks? Hackers will just go around shutting everyone’s internet connection down. How will someone (high profile government officials, law enforcement, catholic priests, etc) prove they didn’t download that illegal copy of “One night in Paris” then permanently deleted it? This seems like it’ll put a lot of power in the hands of hackers. Bad idea law makers.
I often visit various sites hosting free music that is unavailable anywhere else, music that is no longer being sold, field recordings of indigenous music from all over the world, vinyl found in garages and the like - and I have a feeling this stuff is going to be covered too, in an effort by the record companies to round up the biggest captive audience possible to be addicted to the pure, unadulterated shit that passes for popular music nowadays and which they make their living on.
I hope this thing doesn’t pass. Because the people benefiting from it all really do deserve to be homeless.
The smells of a nexus of interests from the MPAA and RIAA to the mainstream media and the government.
.
The internet is the greatest platform ever created for free speech. What better way to start putting the genie back in the bottle than under the guise of copyright violations.
.
If Obama is pushing this 3-strikes policy he deserves a swift kick in the nuts with a pair of steel toed boots.
Um, under US Copyright Law the instant something is created it is “copyrighted material” so every word, every image, every recording is copyrighted unless the rights holder explicitly surrenders it into the public domain OR if it’s old enough to be in the public domain (but that probably doesn’t cover digital versions, since those can’t be old enough). How to define “downloading?” Is streaming downloading? Is a browser’s image cache a copyright violation? What if I click a link to copyright infringing material and the ISP shows the data was transmitted to my IP address, but my firewall blocked me from ever seeing it? Is the transmission record enough or does the file have to be written to my hard drive? What if it was and I delete it? What powers does the government get to seize and search my computer for infringing material? The way to combat copyright infringement is either in court (when you know of an actual theft has occurred), presume some theft will occur and cover those potential losses via your licensing fees to legit users, or make it really easy for someone to attain legit usage (make it easier to acquire from you, the rights holder, than the thieves. Make it so inexpensive to get legitimately it’s not worth stealing). This treaty sounds like overkill that’s going to ensnare a lot of innocent bystanders.
baconstangg: Totally agree with you, the sooner the better: sign everything and make believe stupid Obama that it will work in countries where ip adresses are shared by a hundred people and where internet providers will not want to waste money just in the name of the stupid USA and the fucking Hollywood shitty industry. Keep on downloading whatever the fuck you want, if you don´t live in the USA even if this fascist idea is signed it won´t affect anyone with a little knowledge of ip deviation.
its not that isp’s couldnt track who is downloading what, it is the fact that they are not idiots. who do you think buys the vast majority of the big, expensive high speed connections? while some are legitimate for sure most of them are pirates of some kind without a doubt. forcing the isp’s to police their lines will cause 2 things to happen: 1) the mpaa/riaa will win and pirates will downgrade of even cancel their internet services costing isp’s millions. 2) bit torrent will be replaced with a highly encrypted alternative that will greatly tax their lines. either way isp’s would lose so i wouldnt be suprised if some eventually protest this in a way
@poppy211
From what I can gather, it’s not actual representatives that are representing the U.S. It’s cronies from private entities that are negotiating on “behalf” of the American “people.” *CouRIAAgh* *HaMPIAck* Go ahead and attack the U.S.’ stance towards ACTA, it’s not like we are being properly represented in the talks. I’m right there with you bashing the government’s complete support saying its what we want. I doubt you’d find anyone but the big business puppets that actually want it.
I think those of you criticizing Barry (oops, Obama) are naive: who do you think financed his campaign and delivered the 11% lead (i.e. CA’s electoral votes) on Election Night? Don’t tell me you’re also surprised his magic Health Insurance (note I didn’t say health care) bill didn’t have any provisions to limit the silliness of Trial Lawyers.
Those from other countries: you should direct your lather at any of your pols/telco’s that might actually go for this. You can’t blame the US for trying. We have a huge export/import imbalance - but everyone knows it would be much smaller if not for illegal dissemination of copyrighted materials. And don’t give me the ‘it’s overpriced’ excuse - some people in other cultures wouldn’t pay for any material they can illegally acquire.
Can we say ‘Encryption’, kiddies??
.
Good, I knew you could!
.
(copyright 1990, Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood)
If, for a moment you believe this would pass Congress as is, it would immediately be challenged in court. The Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy and fair trial. You cannot make an exception and expect not to be called on it (e.g. Guantanamo).
Posted by: Groucho99 | 03/24/10 | 8:24 pm |
Very nice — so this would be a demand for legal penalties without charge, trial, or conviction. And the US government thinks this agrees with their Constitution, how, exactly?
_____________________________
It doesn’t, and everyone knows that it doesn’t. If this is pushed, it will be overturned in the Supreme Court (if it even gets that far) and this treaty will be declared illegal because it comes into conflict with the Constitution’s right to a trial.
Posted by: baconstangg | 03/24/10 | 6:22 pm |
Good! The sooner the better.
______________________
Only in your opinion, RIAA/MPAA/CRIA troll.