Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Your Rights Online

Anti-Counterfeiting Deal Aims For Global DMCA 380

Posted by kdawson
from the by-whose-authority dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Counterfeiting Deal Aims For Global DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • Americans (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is your fault.
    • by Itninja (937614) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @02:55PM (#29967244) Homepage
      Especially you Canadians and Peruvians! Oh wait, you meant US citizens didn't you? Never mind than.
    • Re:Americans (Score:5, Insightful)

      by poetmatt (793785) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @02:58PM (#29967282) Journal

      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).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's such a great idea for each country to give up it's sovereignty for copyright infringmement.

  • butchery (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xeno (2667) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @02:53PM (#29967224)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      I agree that it's ridiculous, but there are alternatives. For example, consume and create Creative Commons-licensed media. Boycott media not provided on your terms, and you simply won't have this problem.

  • by BigHungryJoe (737554) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @02:54PM (#29967236) Homepage

    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...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:00PM (#29967320)

      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.

    • by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot@ ... m minus math_god> on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:05PM (#29967388) Homepage Journal

      It would still have to be voted on by the Senate. And since both parties are owned by big media, guess what?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by andymadigan (792996)
      In the United States, in order to ratify a treaty it must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate. We're not bound by treaties which we have not ratified.

      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
      • It's a good thing the Senate needs to vote on these things, too, because when the Senate does ratify a treaty, its legal weight is second only to the Constitution itself.

        This is also why giving Presidents "fast-track" treaty negotiation votes is a Big Deal.

    • You would think so but remember that the US government as well as many other governments have grown beyond being bound by their original restrictions... That and I doubt the copyright lobby would fail to get their own legislation passed.

    • So it does go through the legislature.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by natehoy (1608657)

      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

  • by al0ha (1262684) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @02:58PM (#29967276) Journal
    their complaints against filesharing eroding their bottom line basically amounts to a coverup for what is the real problem, a crappy business model.

    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?
    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:25PM (#29967630) Homepage Journal

      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?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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?

        Heh heh. So instead of letting them go bankrupt like they probably should have (unfortunately)... "the government" bails them out (with "their" money, I'm sure) and then tries to annex them to the government. That way they don't have to "bail them out" anymore; now it will just be a part of operating costs.

        Of course, we all know that it'll save money by making it government run, because then they won't be driven by the need to get money/need to have a profit. And if you don't need a profit, you're much m

    • by CannonballHead (842625) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:26PM (#29967650)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Nytehauq (1670664)

        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...

        Ah yes, the good old "government is corrupted by private interests, let's just let private interests run everything" argument. I guess we can cure disease by draining ourselves of our blood while we're at it. Have you noticed that the reason those same people are in charge is that we live in a money/greed/capitalist based system? It doesn't function worse than a system where those same people are in charge, it is that very system. When a company donates campaign contributions to a politician and in return g

  • didn't 3-strikes get striked out in France or something (I just remember it was some country in Europe and it got a "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag here on slashdot).

    I wonder how this will fair with Finland, where Internet access (1Mbit/s now, 100Mbit/s by 2015) is a legal right.

    • by poetmatt (793785)

      simple, it doesn't.

      People just get the "oh, you signed this, you're constrained by it" irregardless of if it's legal, enforceable, or logical. Remember the berne convention?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by chill (34294)

      You'd be AMAZED at how far you could over-subscribe data connections if there were no multi-media files flying around. Funnel the music & video thru "approved" delivery channels and edge cache them at the mega-ISPs and you'll find that the rest of the Internet hums along nicely at 20-50:1 oversubscribed endpoints.

      Look at hard drive usage. Take your average PC, remove any music, video and installed games and they'll probably have less than 2 Gb of total data. Probably FAR less. The same thing goes fo

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dr_Barnowl (709838)

        Take it a step further ; who can actually use that much data (again, with the exceptions). I see people whining on about being unable to use their 20Mbit/s connections at full speed 24/7 ; so let's try and extrapolate what they are using it for.

        20Mbit/s 24/7 is 216GB per day.

        Music? Even FLAC is only ~ 1.4 Mbit/s, so even if they have found an internet radio station founded by a generous billionaire who doesn't have to concern himself with his bandwidth charges, there's no way one domestic subscription needs

  • I Wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @02:59PM (#29967310)
    I wonder how much the RIAA/MPAA and their international brethren had to pay to buy that many countries... I mean, seriously - not a single one of the delegates sitting at the tables is willing to speak up and point out how these concepts are not good for the populace of their country? You know, the people our politicians supposedly represent.

    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.
    • They may not have had to buy any of these politicians to get this passed. I mean, the way most politicians talk about "stimulating the economy" through spending you wouldn't think it'd take much to convince them that protecting copyright with an Iron fist would be a good thing... sigh...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      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)

    by Abstrackt (609015) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:03PM (#29967362)
    Here in Canada we recently finished a national copyright consultation. I can't wait to see how our government fucks this one up.
  • Secret meetings. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MindlessAutomata (1282944) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:04PM (#29967378)

    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...

    • by icebraining (1313345) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:33PM (#29967734) Homepage

      TL;DR:

      It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

      - Winston Churchill

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      Exactly! The short version: Humans that are in power have a basic conflict: 1. Every human works only for himself, and everything he does either directly or indirectly (family, friends, etc) benefits himself.* And 2. He is supposed to work for the good of us all.

      This is why communism failed. And it is why democracy is forced to fail. No exceptions.
      The only thing that can comply with those rules, is a automatism (like a computer) that is a true combination of the ideas of the people that it governs over. Mor

  • three-strikes will need to have due process for it to work in the us and many other places.

  • by noidentity (188756) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:07PM (#29967418)
    I guess this means a return to sneakernet [wikipedia.org]? That might improve local communities, not a bad thing in itself...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vlm (69642)

      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)

    by boristdog (133725) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:08PM (#29967428)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Yvan256 (722131)

      Unless they also make non-commercial art illegal. Given all the crazy shit they tried so far, it wouldn't surprise me.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Kiss it goodbye.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pwizard2 (920421)

      I've been hearing about stuff like that (scenarios of some future drmOS) for a long time. Years ago, I heard how Vista (then called Longhorn) was supposed to be totally locked down with all kinds of TPM-enabled features, but it didn't happen in the finished Vista and it didn't happen in Windows 7.

      If you thought the Vista backlash was bad, just wait and see what happens when people have to put up with drmOS if it ever gets developed. People don't like it when their computer doesn't obey them. (I don't care i

  • by mrbill1234 (715607) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:20PM (#29967578)

    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.

  • by GuidoOfCanada (1670474) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:20PM (#29967580)
    that our elected officials would do something that isn't in the best interest of their citizens while handing over the keys to the castle to the corporations...
  • Ahem... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kenp2002 (545495) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:28PM (#29967672) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:48PM (#29967940)

      Nothing prevents the next president from revoking\backing out of a treaty.

      Except that nasty old Constitution. The Congress can back out of a Treaty, the President can't.

      Noting prevents the next congressional session from re-writing\repealing\altering existing law.

      True enough, they do it all the time. For instance, they did it when last they extended Copyright to essentially forever.

      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.

      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.

  • by Florian Weimer (88405) <fw@deneb.enyo.de> on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:32PM (#29967724) Homepage

    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).

  • by zmollusc (763634)

    Fantastic news! In your face, terrorism! We just need a few more directives like this and the war on terror will be won!!!! (sarcasm-meter catches fire)

  • by tlhIngan (30335) <.slashdot. .at. .worf.net.> on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @04:02PM (#29968124)

    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.

  • by whatajoke (1625715) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @04:15PM (#29968316)
    We have, ourselves, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Internets, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

    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 /. and on the digg, we shall fight in the courts; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, the Internets or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the Anon Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in Cerf’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

    Signed
    The Pirate Bay Crew – Now until needed.


    Blatantly pirated from thepiratebay
  • Sure, why not. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @04:22PM (#29968444) Homepage Journal

    Just make everyone a criminal, search everyones houses on demand. We don't need any personal freedom or rights anyway do we? Some stupid *media company* is more important, right?

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @04:25PM (#29968478) Homepage Journal

    STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.

    If they cant afford to buy the laws, we the people get them back.

    • by wayland (165119) <wayland@NOSPaM.wayland.id.au> on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @05:13PM (#29969258) Homepage
      I decided to do this.  But I still like music.  My solution in the end was to attend the National Celtic Festival here in Australia every year, buy a pile of CDs, and then get out one new one every month.  Sure, that means that the music is limited to Traditional Music, Celtic Rock, Celtic Punk, and the like, but I'm sure there are alternate solutions for those who like different kinds of music.

      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 :). 
  • Who owns culture? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Simonetta (207550) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @07:28PM (#29971498)

    Who owns culture? That's what this is all about. The five global entertainment companies claim that they do. They own all the recordings. They own all the video, all the film, all the books, all the comic books, all the whatever. Sooner or later, they are going to claim to own the ideas and stories behind the 'product'. Then they will claim to own things like the C#minor chord or the plot device of a simple hero driven to vengence by a dastardly crime.

        So their lawyers tell them. And their lawyers will have no trouble buying politicians to pass laws supporting these fantasies. Especially in countries that are totally corrupt and owned by corporations, like the USA.

        But owning culture is like owning air. The ability to enforce ownership is dependent on the ability to use violence to force people to give you their money. Sooner or later, everyone will realize that all copyright is nothing but extortion. And they will realize that they have done nothing to morally justify the extremely harsh verdicts imposed upon them for so-called copyright crimes.

        Historically in situations like this, people fight back. Someone gets a notice that they 'owe' $100000000 for being overheard humming a copyrighted tune in the park by a secret microphone. They track down the person who sent the notice, pay a fee to get background on this person and his family, and kidnap one or all of this bozo's children. Ransom being equal to the amount 'owed' for humming a tune in the park.

        All you end up with is a lot of dead children and lawyers who aren't worried any more about making child support payments. What? You assumed that an entertainment industry lawyer had the ability to actually love somebody, like a family? No way.

        All copyright is stupid with the technology available to us in the 21st century. Accept it. Don't let these assholes steal your money. Don't give them any of your money. And don't kidnap and kill their children because it's bad for your karma.

        Stupidity passes in time: evil remains. Don't let entertainment lawyers trick you into transforming yourself into an evil person. I keep telling myself this over and over.

        Hope that it works.

Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. -- Berry Kercheval

Working...