Book Reviews
Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:
- Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis Learn to turn Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude.(Jack Herrington's review.)
- Nagios 3 Enterprise Network Monitoring A great book for anyone using Nagios as more than a casual user.(jgoguen's review.)
- Schneier on Security Schneier argues that security is not something you can buy; it is something you must get.(Ben Rothke's review.)
Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
6784852
story
Comments: 380 +- Your Rights Online: Anti-Counterfeiting Deal Aims For Global DMCA on Tuesday November 03, @02:45PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday November 03, @02:45PM
from the by-whose-authority dept.
from the by-whose-authority dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px;
privacy
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
An anonymous reader writes "Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continue on Wednesday as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries secretly negotiate a copyright treaty that includes statutory damages, new search and seizure power, and anti-camcording rules. Now the substance of the Internet chapter has leaked, with information that the proposed chapter would create a 'Global DMCA' with anti-circumvention rules, liability for ISPs, and the possibility of three-strikes and you're out requirements."
Related Stories
Submission: Anti-Counterfeiting Deal Plans for Global DMCA by Anonymous Coward
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
butchery (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that if I butcher a human being, it's possible to get out of prison in a few years if I show that it was done in a mad emotional state or attributable to some psychosis driving me to attack, but if I butcher a book for a page or a CD for a song in a mad emotional state or neurotic urge to share, I'm likely to be fined into bankruptcy, and potentially imprisoned for *longer* than if I'd attacked a person?
Oh. Money. That's why.
Silly me.
also have to be made law? (Score:5, Interesting)
wouldn't any signed treaty also have to be made law in each respective country?
I've never understood how countries can be bound by a treaty through ratification (Kyoto protocol?) without it going through a country's law-making body...
Re:also have to be made law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it would.
It won't become law until the relevant legislative body approves it. In the United States, that would be congress. However, it has unconstitutional parts, so anyone in congress who would vote for it would be in violation of the constitution. So it will never become law.
Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT act was also unconstitutional, as courts have ruled, but it still passed the vote. So my point is completely invalid, because congress ignores the constitution.
Parent
Re:also have to be made law? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would still have to be voted on by the Senate. And since both parties are owned by big media, guess what?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wikipedia:
In the US, treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support fo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you've got the cart before the horse... An Ambassador has almost no decisionmaking authority. He/she represents his/her country in negotiations and serves as a proxy.
Ratification always goes through a country's law-making body. The Ambassador is given the document, which he then forwards to (in the case of the US) Congress, who ratifies or rejects the document like any other law, then gets the President to sign it (or not).
Of course, the negotiations to get to a version that every signatory can a
As far as Hollywood goes (Score:5, Interesting)
The brainiacs that run the movie houses continually fork over huge amounts of cash to persons who had one hit that made money, and who continually bomb after that.
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded? In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?
Re:As far as Hollywood goes (Score:5, Insightful)
Although they do indeed have a crappy business model, they can't really think that a "pirate" download results in a lost sale. The reason they want to kill p2p is the indies, who rely on it. It isn't Metallica they don't want you to hear, it's the indies who can't get on the radio. After all, I'm not likely to buy your CD or book if I've never heard of it.
It's not about obsolete business practices, it's about abusive business practices.
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?
Banking and insurance? You have heard about bailout money going to bonuses for the very people who drove their businesses to the ground, haven't you?
Parent
Re:As far as Hollywood goes (Score:4, Insightful)
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?
Well, in the US, most recently: banking and auto making. Elsewhere I haven't kept up with, so I can't answer for other countries.
In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?
The same schools that apparently taught many US politicians/senators and are currently trying to put many other "businesses" under the government... because if there's anywhere that bureaucracy is not tolerated, where failure is not rewarded, where money is not wasted, where decisions are based on the good of the customer, and where underperforming employees are fired, it's a government! ... yes, you do sense sarcasm (I hope).
Seriously. If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem. Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...
At least private businesses have to rely - presumably - on their product to make money. They can't just tax their non-customers.
It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.
Parent
I Wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests. It's even worse, as a Canadian, when I see my government bend over and take it for FOREIGN corporate interests. Were it at least for the betterment of Canadian corporations, I'd at least be able to justify it as "they're doing what they can to keep our businesses profitable" but when they sell out the people of my country so some corporation in another country can pad their bottom line, it simply infuriates me.
I keep holding out hope that somebody will eventually develop some morals and put a stop to this madness but I know that the money has spoken and thus change is coming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests.
In the US the corporate interests ARE the ones they represent. Money talks. Usually the candidate with the most campaign fundage wins. The political hacks know which side of the bread is buttered.
There are fewer than 12 million people in Illinois, and only those over 18 who are not felons can vote for Senator Durbin when he runs for re-elction. But there are over three hu
The best part? (Score:4, Insightful)
Secret meetings. (Score:5, Insightful)
These meetings are held in secret. Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands. But this isn't war against nations.
This is subjugation of the citizens. These meetings are secret simply so the populace don't find out what's being planned--for the same reason the American South made teaching slaves how to read illegal--the information is too much of a threat to let out. The whole myth of government for the people, by the people, is just that, a myth, a cultural fable told to instill flag-waving patriotism in the citizenry. Nothing shuts up dissent faster than "my country, love it or leave it" and the nationalistic fervor that accompanies it.
PEOPLE DO NOT REALLY CONTROL THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AND THE STRUCTURE OF LARGE-SCALE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS NATURALLY LENDS ITSELF TO OLIGARCHY. Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory" but it doesn't actually work. Whenever someone says "we just need more education!" or some other reform, they are trying to save democracy and insist it can run as planned just like the communists that claim that widespread communism can exist without degenerating into USSR-style totalitarianism. The only difference is is communism is generally someone else's myth and not your own, so you can't see it.
What works? Nothing works. You're on your own, buddy, you're gonna have boots stomping you no matter what. Such is life...
Re:Secret meetings. (Score:4, Insightful)
TL;DR:
- Winston Churchill
Parent
Return to sneakernet, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess this means a return to sneakernet? That might improve local communities, not a bad thing in itself...
Or, a move to darknets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_(file_sharing) [wikipedia.org]
Darknets, much like linux on the desktop, or linux in general, always bring out the extremists... "I know its not the same as the internet, but NO ONE will use a darknet unless its EXACTLY THE SAME as the internet" and so on.
who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every great new movement in any art (cinema, music, painting, etc.) is done by people who just do these things because they want to, not because they are looking for millions of dollars.
So the paid, restricted content will continue to suck donkey balls, as it has for years. And the next big thing will be given away or shared for free or for donations.
Sure, it will eventually be co-opted and sanitized by the corporate culture, but by then it will be time for the next new big thing.
So this is a good thing.
This is so open to abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine some malware which randomly downloads a dozen copyright mp3's - instantly making millions of unsuspecting users instant criminals - potentially with a 3-strikes liability. Insane.
I find it difficult to believe... (Score:5, Funny)
Ahem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing prevents the next president from revoking\backing out of a treaty.
Noting prevents the next congressional session from re-writing\repealing\altering existing law.
Nothing prevents a SCOTUS member from being removed from their position via an impeachment. Their life time tenure is contingent on "good behavior" and as such any high crime should apply including Treason, Sedition, Perjury, etc.
Anyone could levy a charge that signing secret Treaties with foreign powers is Treason, but that is a long shot at best.
Re:Ahem... (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that nasty old Constitution. The Congress can back out of a Treaty, the President can't.
True enough, they do it all the time. For instance, they did it when last they extended Copyright to essentially forever.
Other than the requirement that it can only be done by Senate and House acting in convert, with the appropriate super-majorities. Note that even now, neither Party has enough votes in House or Senate to do so, even if they were so inclined. (And neither would risk it, I think, for fear of retaliation during the next turn of the wheel).
BLOCKQUOTE>Anyone could levy a charge that signing secret Treaties with foreign powers is Treason, but that is a long shot at best.
They'd be wasting their time, since Treason is defined in the Constitution, and a Secret Treaty doesn't meet the definition in and of itself.
Parent
DMCA == liability for ISPs? (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't match up. In effect, the DMCA showed ISPs a clear path how to avoid liability. This is what makes services with rampant infringement possible (like Youtube).
Educating the public... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, maybe it's time to publicize the issue as much as possible. The easiest way is to do it by calling it stuff like "the anti-iPod law". (Let's not get pedantic with law/treaty/etc crap - it serves to divert attention).
There's a lot of things that ACTA makes illegal that common people do daily, so a big publicity campaign can cause people to get agitated. Stuff like singing in the shower (not too farfetched) or humming a tune. Recording a TV show to watch later. Ripping a CD for your iPod.
First we should call it something catchy. "The Anti-iPod Law" is pretty good since practically everyone knows what an iPod is and what it does. Then alert them to everyday activities that would be banned, or they can be sued for doing. Public doesn't care about RIAA suing filesharers. They do care if the RIAA starts suing people for ripping CDs to their iPods, though. Or if the MPAA sues people for recording that movie off of TV onto their VCR/DVR. Or singing in the workplace (sure it happend in the UK, but it isn't a big stretch in the UK). How about having your iPod searched at the border? They keep saying they won't force iPods to be searched, but there's no guarantee.
Start campaigning on how it will impact the common people. Pro-ACTA will have to campaign how it will benefit people, but that can be turned around quite easily ("poor starving hollywood actors need more money to pay for their gold faucets" and the like).
Heck, I've seen newspapers publish about the "Is your iPod illegal?" law.
We shall never surrender (Score:4, Interesting)
Even though large parts of Internets and many old and famous trackers have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Ifpi and all the odious apparatus of MPAA rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the ef-nets and darknets, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Internets, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the baywords.org, we shall fight on the
Signed
The Pirate Bay Crew – Now until needed.
Blatantly pirated from thepiratebay
One way to solve this (Score:4, Insightful)
STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.
If they cant afford to buy the laws, we the people get them back.
Re:One way to solve this (Score:4, Informative)
Additionally, I use the RIAA Radar to find out whether groups are connected with the RIAA. I've bought some CDs online that are fine by the RIAA Radar.
http://www.riaaradar.com/
What I'm trying to say is, there *are* alternatives out there, people! If you seek them out, you will enjoy your new music as much, and you'll have more chance of meeting the artists too if they're not mega-famous
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd blame the nepotism that puts media bigwigs into continual favorable positions (here's looking at you RIAA lawyers who got into the DOJ).
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more the fault of those who elect the lousy officials over and over.
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more the fault of the people for believing that their rights can be protected solely by the voting process. History has shown that belief to be ridiculous. The problem is that most people are completely convinced that they have no real option to change things outside of the voting process.
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called "revolution". The founding fathers of the United States claimed that right for themselves, and they also extended that right to following generations.
Record away.
And, while you're recording, bear in mind that we've had several revolutions in the United States since the founding fathers. The most recent that I can point to was the "Taxpayer's Revolution", in which the IRS was harnessed - for awhile.
There are bloodless revolutions, and there are bloody revolutions. The potential for a bloody revolution depends on how well the politicians listen to the civil disobedience and other measures that lead up to violence.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more the fault of those who elect the lousy officials over and over.
You make it sound like it would be so easy to fix this problem.
In most elections, the options have been carefully filtered before the people ever get to vote. So, the people get to pick one lousy official or the other.
The governments serve the interests of the rich and try to make it appear like they serve the interests of the majority. This artificial scarcity on intellectual property is something very greatly desired by all the ric
Re:Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, right! Like the rest of the world is voting out their corrupt politicians...
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, right! Like the rest of the world is voting out their corrupt politicians...
I'm telling you... blood is the only thing that will stop this. It's the only thing that matters more to the politicians than money. Blood. As in guillotines. I'm generally against violence. So I won't be the one shooting. But it's the only thing that can work now... Goldman Sachs execs and senators hanging from street lights.
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Every good government goes bad eventually. That's why we need a revolution once every few hundred years to keep society working.
Parent
Re:Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Our fault!? The rest of the world cheered when Obama was elected proclaiming that America had "finally done something right." This is as much everyone else's fault as it is America's. See what happens when you believe political propaganda!? They go and take your internet away!
Fixed that for ya.
Politicians are politicians. Which party doesn't matter.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:See ya, free Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
See ya, unencrypted Internet, good riddance.
Parent
Re:See ya, free Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
What are these Intranets you speak of? I hand deliver 80GB+ of iPod movies and TV Shows right to my friend's cubes on flash, hard drive, or burnt DVD files. Sneakernet, get to know it. Encode once, share many. RIAA/MPAA? Never heard of them. Do they make any good movies or TV Shows? HA!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because perhaps the "laws" that are bringing an end to the lawless period only represent the views of a very small and select group and are almost entirely out of phase with the established but non-codified norms?
Re:Meh, Not the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything it only brings the Internet under the rule of law and in line with most other social mediums.
And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world" complaints we get so frequently on Slashdot. Hell, I'd like to see Spotify in the US myself [t3.com]. But all too often you see labels balk at foreign markets and a lot of time (though not always) they cite lack of copyright control and enforcement in these countries.
So, yeah, it's horrible that we're getting ACTA/DMCA the world over but at the end of the day, the countries participating in this may actually think that they are doing something good for their constituents as consumers. And you know, they might be right. For people living outside the United States, would you put up with stricter DMCA-like rules if it meant massively more purchasing options for you? I can't say I would opt for this (as I'm living in the US) but I imagine if I were living in Korea I would support this if it meant I could purchase Amazon MP3s instead of relying on less than reputable sites for acquiring music.
While this global system for enforcing copyright may be initially overly harsh, I think we have to recognize copyright law enforcement in other countries needs to be increased before publishers, labels and film studios become comfortable with digital mediums as an equal and fair distribution method the world over.
To reiterate, I don't agree with some of these laws they are discussing. I hope that's why they're holding the discussions. But do not overlook the benefits and fail to weigh them against the costs as you consider this discussion.
However, I still feel that 75 years is way too long of a copyright term.
Emphatically agreed. While I'm being overly optimistic, hopefully the global community can influence the US positively in this respect.
Parent
Re:Meh, Not the problem. (Score:5, Funny)
And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world ... hopefully the global community can influence the US positively in this respect.
That has to be the longest "I welcome our new robot overlords" speech I've ever read.
Parent
Re:Meh, Not the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that this essentially allows corporations to write law. This is some real scary shit, and I'm amazed that it finds cheerleaders among ordinary people.
Parent
Re:Meh, Not the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Meh, Not the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
And, you know, this could alleviate a lot of the "bring iTunes/Amazon MP3/Hulu to the rest of the world" complaints we get so frequently on Slashdot. But all too often you see labels balk at foreign markets and a lot of time (though not always) they cite lack of copyright control and enforcement in these countries.
You are confused. The reason streaming services aren't globally available has nada to do with lax copyright controls and everything to with licensing rights. The system was created decades ago when information flow across borders was 100% physical and thus cumbersome. The copyright cartels exploited that fact by partitioning each country into its own licensing region and then created a market to buy and sell international distribution rights. In many cases there were no buyers for distribution rights in certain countries for reasons like the asking price being too high. The only people who felt inconvenienced by this arrangement were aficionados of foreign culture and ex-pats, everybody else didn't even know what they were missing.
The internet changed the awareness of the people so that today a hell of a lot more people are aware of what they are missing. The copyright cartels have not kept up with the increased demand, instead resting on the easy money of their monopolies, and the market for international distribution rights has not significantly changed. Stronger copyright controls won't enable increased foreign distribution, if anything it will just reinforce the status quo.
In contrast, piracy has actually provoked studios into more rapid foreign distribution - it is now common place for official DVDs of Hollywood productions to be released in countries like Russia, India and China day and date with theatrical release in the west - one recent example is District 9. [cnn.com]
Parent
Re:Meh, Not the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it won't. Global draconian copyright laws will allow them to do MORE of that sort of thing, not less. Piracy is not the reason those things aren't available to the rest of the world (or at least Europe). They simply feel (probably accurately) that they can make more money by distributing separately in each region.
Parent
Re:Meh, Not the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still a big load of crap using "national security" as an excuse to classify it.
Something that nefarious only means that someone's up to no good.
This is beyond run of the mill political corruption with politicians getting bought off.
For them to stoop so low as to invoke state secrets is downright scary, and is damn close to the sort of thing they do in China and the old USSR.
Parent
Re:Meh, Not the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:For A Modern (and almost anonymous) Sneakernet (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you seen footage of how a police state reacts to a lot of people in a park ect if they are doing something other than walking to work with their heads down?
An unmarked van or car picks up a spike in BT v 3.0
Too many people in one place just standing around?
The area will be surrounded and random people asked for ID, protest permits, bag searches.
Your in a park, children are around, you have a camera phone you might be a danger to others
"Can we see your media files?"
Then random snatches into buses and vans down side streets.
You drop your cellphone, is it found? Do they have your International Mobile Equipment Identity number and call record?
If you keep your phone on you, you where linking with bad people, if you drop your phone, your a terrorist.
When the van pulls up and your at booking, they will offer to look after your mobile too, real nice like.
http://tinyurl.com/y9lh6wq [tinyurl.com] [nydailynews.com] "NYPD tracking cell phone owners, but foes aren't sure practice is legal"
The best place to fight new this global DRM is in the courts before its passed in your country.
Expose any politician who supports it.
Go to their mall walks, town halls, sporting/community photo ops and be visual and vocal about their support for new search and seizure powers.
Have a few cams filming you, the supporters will get physical.
Then upload to yourtube a few 100 times.
Parent