Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks. It's Bad. Very Bad.

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.

Censorship 775

Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer. It says "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." You can read the original leaked document or the summary. If passed, the internet will never be the same. Thank goodness it's hidden from public scrutiny for National Security.

cancel ×

775 comments

So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977820)

Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer.

Well maybe Jamie should read yesterday's Slashdot [slashdot.org] .

I would just like to point out that everyone is getting their information from a single point: Michael Geist's blog. Granted, he's rarely wrong but blogs are blogs. So where is this "leaked document" that the summary alludes to? Every source I find online points back to Geist. Even the articles Geist cites at the bottom of his blog point back to him. Even Wikipedia points back to him [wikipedia.org] . I'm not saying that he's wrong nor am I trying to deflate the severity of this but Geist is even relying on other sources:

Sources say that the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement, focuses on following five issues...

Then following that even he says:

If accurate ...

Doesn't leave me a whole lot of confidence that we're getting all the unadulterated facts here. I would seek information better than third or fourth hand accounts of something before I went around screaming about the sky falling (trust me, I speak from experience [slashdot.org] of being fooled by a single blog post).

Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks. It's Bad. Very Bad.

So where is the leaked document so that I may judge for myself?

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29977882)

The real question here should be where's the original document and why is the Administration hiding behind 'National security' to avoid releasing it. I've had enough of that over the previous 8 years. Change!

This proves one thing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978120)

That Obama is just as bad as Bush. Should have voted for Nader folks.

Re:This proves one thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978276)

You mean so he could write a book about it, entitled: 'Freedom, Unsafe at any Speed.' :D

Re:This proves one thing (0, Troll)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978474)

*cough* yes, I voted Ron Paul *cough*

Re:This proves one thing (4, Funny)

ahankinson (1249646) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978620)

So *you're* the guy who did that! :)

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (1)

whatajoke (1625715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978374)

The real question here should be where's the original document and why is the Administration hiding behind 'National security' to avoid releasing it. I've had enough of that over the previous 8 years. Change!

Surely such a question can be asked. But only when democrat dogs stop chasing republican tails, and the republican dogs stop chasing democrat tails. Oh yes, bitter I am.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978696)

LOL you are one of the idiots who fell for a guy screaming a single word into a microphone for 2 years.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977906)

The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved, their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents.

*Everything* about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it's too late to do anything about it.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (2, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978302)

*Everything* about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it's too late to do anything about it.

Well you can stop using the Internet, right? I mean we weren't born with it. I guess I'll miss Slashdot and Google, but I'll be able to GO OUTSIDE!

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Insightful)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978328)

But Obama was to have the most open government in the history of humanity. WTF happened??

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978414)

Obama is still a politician and politicians lie, they lie to get in to power, they lie to stay in power, can you point to ANY politician in history whom upon rising to power actually DID what what was previously promised?

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978418)

uh, he was obviously lying? If you bought it, that's your problem. He's a politician, that's what they do.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (1, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978486)

Sigh. You kids today, unawares of your history. [slashdot.org]

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978438)

The real question is: do we let this sort of secrecy become a precedent? If this thing passes, no matter what it actually says, it will be used to justify the next attempt.

Informed public is the cornerstone to maintaining democracy, don't let it slip away. (By public I don't mean the redneck sitting in front of the TV drinking beer, but the experts who can at least comment on the proposal and its effects before it's too late.)

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978532)

Government + a few high paid lobby groups?

Really. ANYONE should be able to put 2 and 2 together here.

This stuff should be a surprise to NO ONE.

Really, what did you think they were doing? Of course this is why they were hiding from public view.

The "national security" consideration is that there are some countries (France) that still riot in the streets over this sort of stuff.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Funny)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978022)

Well, if all else fails, we can make this thing sound so horrible that any politician that touches it would be publicly shamed. They can't prove us wrong unless they publicize the details of the treaty... ...

I read part of the treaty, and the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" will allow American children extradited to Japan if they watch an animated Japanese video!

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Interesting)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978482)

I'd say 95% of the population can't be made to listen to a 90-second dinner party discussion of ACTA, IP laws, and internet freedom. How do you expect to whip significant numbers of people into an indignant frenzy?

The government(s) know they have a yawner on their hands here, and they can operate behind a cloak of indifference. Don't make the mistake of assuming prevailing opinion on a technology discussion board mirrors prevailing opinion in the population at large.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Insightful)

geeper (883542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978668)

How do you expect to whip significant numbers of people into an indignant frenzy?
Tell them this will shut down FaceBook?

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978606)

...and the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" will allow American children extradited to Japan if they watch an animated Japanese video!

I would love to see a _treaty_ override the laws that are already in place. Children aren't liable for their actions unless a court of lay deems them so, and I seriously doubt any judge will tell a family that their 8-year-old son is an adult and must go to Japan to pay a fine.

Oh wait, they don't have copyright laws in Japan, do they?

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Informative)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978184)

Even if it is all true, it is just a treaty.

Remember those "3 branches of government"?

The president can sign all the treaties he wants, but he can't force Congress to enact legislation to enforce it all.

We've been "signatories" to lots of IP treaties for decades while Congress drug its feet on actually coming into compliance with the treaty.

So don't worry, the internet will not be destroyed by a treaty.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (3, Informative)

Zcar (756484) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978324)

"The president can sign all the treaties he wants, but he can't force Congress to enact legislation to enforce it all."

Or even force the Senate to ratify it. Until it's ratified by the Senate, by 2/3 vote, a treaty has no legal standing in the United States. Thus, you only need to get 34 Senators to vote against ratification to prevent a treaty from coming into effect.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978596)

Its not really clear from TFA whether this is a "treaty" (which does require a 2/3 senate vote) or merely an "executive agreement".

But yeah, bottom line is the President can't do much to domestic ISPs without Congress.

Some background on the US President's treaty powers:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm [senate.gov]

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (5, Insightful)

whatajoke (1625715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978348)

So where is this "leaked document" that the summary alludes to?

To quote from Geist's blog:

selected groups granted access under strict non-disclosure agreements and other countries (including Canada) given physical, watermarked copies designed to guard against leaks.

I hope that answers your question. Unless you want to out the person leaking this document, he can't ever publish a photocopy of it as it will be traced back to him. And if you think such deception is beyond our autocrats, read up on this [wikipedia.org] and this [wikipedia.org]

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (1)

HeyBob! (111243) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978504)

So scan it and OCR it - watermark gone

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (1)

Apatharch (796324) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978546)

Unless you want to out the person leaking this document, he can't ever publish a photocopy of it as it will be traced back to him.

That doesn't preclude using OCR to extract the text of the document, since the watermark wouldn't be preserved.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978594)

but he could transcribe it's contents, leaving out the watermark.

Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document? (1)

saintsfan (1171797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978686)

i agree, why does the slashdot summary say "you can read the original leaked document or the summary"? thats an error, there is only a summary of information from his sources available.

Copyright (3, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977822)

Who owns the copyright on this document?

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29977862)

We, the people

Re:Copyright (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978016)

It's still "We, the people," right?

Re:Copyright (5, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978142)

No, it's money vs. the serfs. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Copyright (2, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978598)

No, they won't give us the memo, they say it's a matter of "national security" and that we should just trust them.

Re:Copyright (4, Interesting)

cHALiTO (101461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978396)

If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line.

But it better work this time...

Re:Copyright (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978012)

You don't have the level of accreditation required for this information.

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978322)

You know--that's ... an interesting request. IANAL.

But--if I understand correctly, in order to *REGISTER* a copyright--you've got to submit it to the library of congress. And I think it's only *registered* copyrights that have the ...really...really harsh penalties for distribution/infringement.

So if someone did get a copy--am I correct in my interpretation that damages would be minimal, or ...they'd have to publish it anyway?

So what's new? (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977844)

I still don't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and "national security" policies of the previous one. Democrats are just as much in the pockets of Hollywood as conservatives are in the pockets of big business (meaning BOTH support oppressive IP legislation). And Obama loves his presidential power just as much as Cheney did. So why anyone ever expected things to somehow be different with this administration, I don't understand. Cheney may not have been right about many things, but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush's national security policies in place (the same ones he criticized during the campaign) once he got a taste of that power for himself.

It also doesn't surprise me that they're using a treaty to quietly push this crap through. They did the exact same thing with the DMCA. A lot of people don't realize that the DMCA was just the formal ratification of a WIPO treaty [wikipedia.org] that had been debated and agreed to in secret. The powers that be know this shit would never stand the light of day with the electorate, so they quietly push it through with the kind of obscure international treaties that they know CNN, NBC, et. al. are never going to cover. By the time it actually makes it into Congress, it's already a fait accompli. The mainstream media only notices it when someone's already being prosecuted for violating it.

Re:So what's new? (2, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977938)

Democrats are just as much in the pockets of Hollywood as conservatives are in the pockets of big business (meaning BOTH support oppressive IP legislation).

It has nothing to do with being "conservative": it's all about money and power. The "liberals" are in the same boat, too.

Re:So what's new? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978124)

Cheney may not have been right about many things, but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush's national security policies in place

USA doesn't have presidents. They have president-like spokespersons.

Maybe Obama wanted genuinely to change some things, maybe he didn't, or maybe both. It's irrelevant, since his power is only on paper. You can't make a different choice, when you're given only the same options.

It's a really nice PR stunt, though, works fine for most people. It'll work again in 3 years.

Re:So what's new? (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978526)

Care to elaborate? I assume the people in this treaty discussion are either funded by the executive or legislative branch. And last time I heard, there are people who ultimately answer for their actions. One of those is the president.

Perhaps the real problem is that the government is too big for the good people we elect to control. Delegation only works so well.

Re:So what's new? (3, Informative)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978150)

Is it surprising that the mainstream media isn't reporting on this considering that their parent corporations are the ones pushing this? NBC News, MSNBC News = NBC Universal Fox News, WSJ, NY Post, etc = News Corp CBS News = CBS Corp/Viacom ABC News = Disney CNN = Time Warner

Re:So what's new? (1)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978676)

I always forget that Slashdot kills newlines unless you do them twice. NBC News, MSNBC News = NBC Universal Fox News, WSJ, NY Post, etc = News Corp CBS News = CBS Corp/Viacom ABC News = Disney CNN = Time Warner

Re:So what's new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978224)

Anyone else see that speech by I think Neil Portnow during the grammys where he praised Obama to bring a new era of protecting their music?

Re:So what's new? (5, Informative)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978312)

The mainstream media only notices it when someone's already being prosecuted for violating it.

I agreed completely until this statement. Mainstream media isn't that oblivious- they simply don't have YOUR best interests at heart.

I'm sure most news networks themselves do notice it, but their parent companies are the very entities lobbying/pushing for more legislation. CNN = Time Warner, NBC = Vivendi Universal, FoxNews = News Corp, ABC = Disney, etc... These news companies (either through affiliates or parent corps) own most of our music, movies, TV shows, and other media, so it's only natural for them to protect their interests by trying to distract us from the draconian laws they're currently pushing through the governments of the world.

Sadly, it seems that blogs and independent news are our only hope.

Re:So what's new? (0, Troll)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978430)

I think it is really funny that you separate Hollywood from big business. Hollywood/media companies in general are big business. I will admit that I am extremely disappointed in this. I didn't vote for Obama but I kept telling people to give him a chance. Well using national security as a reason to keep a copyright treaty secerate is just wrong. I really don't have a problem with going after file sharers since I think pirateing is wrong. What I will not be willing to over look is the destruction of due process.

Obama I am willing to give Obama a bit of pass on some national security policies. I would like to think that he is wise enough that when he got into office and found the world wasn't what he thought it was that he adapted. BTW I voted for McCain. I honestly think he was the better candidate picking Palin was stupid and I was hopping he would have picked Rudy for the VP but that is history.

Re:So what's new? (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978448)

WIPO should be WIPOed out. Its members are all traitors to their respective counties and should be lined up against a wall somewhere ane shot. In the groin. Before spending the rest of their lives in prison.

WIPO is pure unadulterated evil, the spawn of Satan.

Why is this meeting secret? Or rather, why do the respective citizens of its member states allow it to be secret? The world has returned to feudalism, it seems. Personally, I will continue to respect copyright -- under the old pre-20th century, constitutionally legal copyright laws. I won't download new music, but I have no qualms about downloading twenty year old music. Lessig was right and SCOTUS was wrong. When SCOTUS said that "limited time" meant whatever Congress says it means, they effectively said the Constitution is meaningless.

I still don't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and "national security" policies of the previous one.

The Governor of California stated on "This Week" that "there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats". Refreshingly honest, for a politician.

Re:So what's new? (4, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978472)

It's a popular and wrong sentiment that Republicans are connected with "big business" and Democrats are connected with Hollywood. Clearly both parties are in bed with big business (see Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama). Democrats just have the advantage of support from prominent figures in Hollywood and the old media, but that doesn't at all means that they somehow have no inclination to cater to big business any less than do Republicans.

Re:So what's new? (1)

ProzacPatient (915544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978694)

We need more third party participation in the federal legislative and executive branches.
I saw somebody once that said Democrats and Republicans are just two halves of the same evil, and that we will always be under the thumb of this duopoly.

We The People need to give a third party attention en mass so the media will cover it.. but then again if Ralph Nader or Ross Perot couldn't make it then I guess all hope is lost.

I warned you all (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29977854)

I was the one who warned that Italians would use their "copyrights" to steal our freedom and our manhood from us real Americans and enforce their devil-worship that they practice down there in Mexico. You all laughed at me and now look what is happening.

Re:I warned you all (4, Funny)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977934)

You all laughed at me

Yes...yes we did.

Devils avocate... (0, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977872)

The internet will never be the same...

You mean you no longer can download your copy of Photoshop from wares.

For the most part it is an attempt to curve software piracy globally. And it will basicly keep the internet running as it should just curve some deviant behavior.

Re:Devils avocate... (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977978)

It will supposedly mandate 3-strike disconnection laws in all signatory countries without any reasonable standard of evidence because any ISP who *fails* to disconnect you will become legally liable for anything you may have done.

I call that a bad thing.

Re:Devils avocate... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978208)

So by simply claiming someone has violated my copyright I can remove any IP address (or the machine/person behind it) from the internet for a while.

Thats never going to be abused is it.

83.138.172.210 www.bpi.co.uk
76.74.24.200 www.riaa.com

You could alter elections or worse you could shutoff the porn.

Hmm I wonder if this law will let me disconnect a router from the internet... or a Root name server.

Re:Devils avocate... (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978000)

BS post. All it will do is cause people who try to follow the law problems like every other attempt to regulate the Internet.

Trying to place regs on the Internet is like trying to get a drink of water with a fishnet.

Re:Devils avocate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978048)

Exactly.
Added to this we have to carefully defend ownership of intellectual property. If ownership of intellectual property would ever be undermined other kinds of property are next in line. Private ownership is the basis of democracy, regardless of the type of property in question. A worldwide communism where no private individual has ownership does not sound appealing.

Re:Devils avocate... (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978650)

What you call "property" was nothing of the sort a couple of short centuries ago.

It was typically a sort of monopoly granted by the King.

If anything "intellectual property" is the exact opposite of what Enlightenment sorts thing of as property such as personal posessions and real property.

Real property never "expires" and is subject to seizure due to abandonment.

Re:Devils avocate... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978496)

Right. Because blocking all communication between edge nodes, and moving it to a TV-style distribution network is not going to fundamentally change how the Internet works. Right.

It's bad (1, Offtopic)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977898)

The summary that is. Was it really too difficult to put a little information about what it is and why it's bad in the summary so I don't have to follow the links?

What are the chances of this being adopted? (1, Interesting)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977942)

Are people (the decision makers) taking this seriously? It reads like something from The Onion...

Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?

Above all, will it even work? So instead of a handful of very popular torrent sites (and video, picture, file, etc sharing) we get millions of small secret for-friends-only sites.... or we go back to CD/DVD trading

Re: Why trade CD/DVDs? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978200)

Why trade CD/DVDs when media cards and flash drives can store much more information and are far easier to conceal?

Re:What are the chances of this being adopted? (4, Funny)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978206)

To link a poster from the geniuses at Despair Inc: http://www.despair.com/government.html [despair.com]

Priceless.

Re:What are the chances of this being adopted? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978214)

Above all, will it even work?

You're making the fundamental assumption here that no legislature would ever pass a law that couldn't achieve the stated purpose of the law.

History tends to show that few, if any, laws achieve their stated purposes. Though they pretty much all tend to remove a bit of freedom....

OH NOES (2, Insightful)

PHPNerd (1039992) | more than 4 years ago | (#29977982)

And you thought this administration would be different from all the others? Silly you.

Re:OH NOES (2, Informative)

oh-dark-thirty (1648133) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978088)

And you thought this administration would be different from all the others? Silly you.

Seriously. As soon as I saw him stacking the deck with the same ol' Clintonistas from 15 years ago (Emmanuel, Panetta, et. al.), I knew our goose was cooked.

Re:OH NOES (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978394)

I didn't think they'd be any different. I just knew the alternative was even worse.

The only shocker to me is that it's gotten to the point where I can't hate politicians and large multinational corporations enough. Like there's not enough vitriolic words and energy contained within the human brains and body to express adequately what monumental bastards they are. They're fucking blights on society. They're massive drag on the intellectual and economic progress of a country. They are the arch-enemy of freedom and free expression. They are absolutely opposed to anything that advances the state of the average man that doesn't grant a pile of money to the elite in the process.

Fuck these people and institutions. To quote Joe Pesci in Casino: "Don't fuck me in the ass and tell me it's a blowjob!"

Re:OH NOES (1)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978410)

No. I didn't. But if I'm going to have to hear an asshole in the administration speak for four to eight years, I'd rather have to hear one who's articulate than one who can barely put two words together to make a coherent sentence.

Re:OH NOES (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978464)

While I do think that the current president should do something to kill this, ACTA started with the Bush II administration.

Call your senators folks. They are our last line of defense against this. Let them know unconditionally that they will not have a job next election cycle if they vote yes on this.

Take the time to explain the far reaching consequences of this treaty to your less tech oriented friends. Tell them that if this treaty passes they will eventually be under 24/7 internet surveillance & eventually they *will* come after their iPods.

Give them worst case scenarios. Scare them. Fear is a great motivator.

Re:OH NOES (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978516)

Yes. I thought it would be worse. So far I've been correct.

What do ISP's have to do with anything? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978018)

Why is all of the responsibility coming down to the ISP? Why should they make sure none of their customers uploads illegal content to e.g. YouTube and why should they remove it if noticed?

Is Google in this case the "ISP" or do they actually mean to folks providing you with an internet connection?

Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978160)

If this looks like it should pass then we should push for uniformity in the laws. Make telephone companies liable for anything illegal done using their lines and the post office liable for anything it carries and all manufacturers responsible for how their product is used. Send someone a letter bomb? The post office becomes an accessory to murder. Sing happy birthday into a telephone? The phone company is liable for copyright infringement. Kill someone with a gun or a kitchen knife? Murder charges for the gun or kitchen equipment makers too.

Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything? (2, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978402)

It's cheaper for the entertainment industry than doing it themselves.

Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything? (2, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978466)

They want the ISP's (the ones that are giving us the Internet connections) to block the content that we should not be seeing (whether it's for copyright or puritan reasons). Right now the liability lies with the content provider but the problem is that most of the content is hosted outside the jurisdiction of any of the lobbyist companies.

That's why it's such a bad treaty, because it would basically create an international agreement for copyright infringements and censorship with the RIAA, MPAA and it's friends (or whoever is the highest payer to the ruling class on either side of the pond) as the police, judge and jury. It's even worse than the DMCA because it doesn't allow for exemptions, it would allow surveillance, arrest and extradition for whoever goes against any copyright and 'intellectual' property law in any country signed to the treaty. It would also allow them to block you totally from the Internet if you infringe on their perceived property in any locale.

I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . . (-1, Troll)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978130)

I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose. Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former. But there's a good comment to the summary article saying that since corporations have been given citizen rights, citizens have lost them.

The thing is, I'm a corporation -- two of them actually. I produce copyrighted material every day, and I spend my time trying to protect it. Everything I use is from a supplier, and so I'm paying for things I use to begin with.

I certainly know many people in the opposite position. Most of my friends go home from work, and enjoy all of the freedoms they have with other people's copyright. They enjoy being able to create music mixes from other people's songs, or to use video clips in their school work. I don't. I don't have time for that sort of thing, and ultimately in that relationship I'd be the one creating those songs and those videos. If I'm not particularly interested in having them used in school work, I don't think they should be.

Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective? Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect?

Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (1)

Yosho (135835) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978280)

There's nothing wrong with the intention of protecting copyright -- the problem is the means by which they're doing so.

For example, I could e-mail your ISP and tell them that you've illegaly copied a song I created. Now they're required to suspend your account. It doesn't matter whether you've actually done anything; you're going to have to go to court and prove you didn't in order to get your internet access back. Even if I'm lying and using a fake identity to make that report to your ISP, how many days do you think it will take to get your access back?

And then after you get your access back, if I really want to mess with you, I'll just do it again...

Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978364)

(Posting Anonymously so my mod points don't disappear)

If this passes, then this is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Abuse the fuck out of these laws. Send email about every single person that you know, get every single account suspended. People will be so pissed off that these laws will have to be altered or thrown out entirely, and the people who wrote them booted out come next election season.

Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978290)

I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose. Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.

I'd gladly sacrifice you to protect fair use. And by sacrifice I mean put you up against a wall and shoot you.

Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978308)

So, what you're saying is that you really don't give a damn about the art and are simply doing it for the money? I mean really, saying that you don't want people to use your work for such things isn't really going to stop them once they have access to it. People want to take art that has been created, change it and make it their own. I mean, Shakespeare is one of the most celebrated playwrights, and most of his work is derivative. I understand that you need to live, and I can see why you would need the money, but taking money from kids is just pointless. Teaching them that they can't be creative, they can't use the tools that others have provided them with and things that they may even own a copy of by paying for it legally just seems wel, evil.

I partially understand what you want and at the same time do not understand you at all.

Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (4, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978316)

"I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose. Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former."

Sorry. You are a minority. A corporate drone without creativity and/or life. Please, move along. Don't let the door hit you.

And yes, I'm a corporate owner with intellectual property to protect. No, I do not support neither software patents (even though I hold some), nor this treaty. My software is sold as a service and as a product, I do lose some sales due to pirates (not much, really). But I would rather lose more sales than lose more freedoms.

Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978480)

Some would say that you're supporting software patents by holding some.

Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978514)

It's an attitude thing.

There are people like yourself who feel you should be able to produce something and continue to profit off freely/easily replicated copies of that effectively meaning you can over time make a fair bit of money for relatively little work.

Then there are those who realise that strong copyright isn't needed, they are the ones who accept that people should work for a living, they're the ones who produce IP as a service- musicians who perform, programmers who write bespoke software and so on.

Really, this is what the copyright battle comes down to- those who want to do very little work for a decent payoff against those who think that's a rather lazy viewpoint and so work for a living, whilst copying material of those who are too lazy to do so.

Effectively if you want an easy life, don't be suprised if those who accept that nothing is free disagree with you and pirate your stuff. If you haven't done much work to produce your IP other than the original work involved to create it, why should anyone pay you?

Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . (5, Insightful)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978586)

Yes, there are plenty of people who have filed to run their business as a corporation. You arent a 'corporate owner', that phrase drips with sanctimonious self-importance. I certainly hope you hire a lawyer very quickly to handle your copyright, as you obviously have zero idea what copryright law actually is.

When 'your friends' create a mix from someone elses music, or use video clips for school work, they are NOT violating copyright. If your friends took someone elses creation, did nothing, and then made a million copies of it to sell for profit, THEN they are violating copyright.

Seriously, get a lawyer. If you proceed in your misinformed thoughts you are going to find yourself on the receiving end of whats called a 'declaratory judgment' from someone who your all-encompassing ego sent a threat of copyright litigation.

How do I know this? Well some self-important ass clown tried to send me a cease and desist letter claiming copyright infringement [demystify.info] . So instead of backing down, I hit back harder and filed for a declaratory judgment against them. They obviously lost, as their understanding of copyright is about as accurate as yours. When you dont have any idea what the law is, you better not be making legal threats against people, or spending your time looking for people who you suspect of violating something based on your own inaccurate understanding of the subject.

If you ever crossed paths with me with that BS in public, I would hang you out to dry in the court system so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you.

Copyrights are immoral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978156)

Copyrights need to be done away with. Everyone else gets paid for the time they are actually working, so what makes writers, programmers, musicians, and movie stars any different.

A writer should only get paid for the time they are actually sitting down and typing stuff up. The same goes for programmers, or the companies they work for. These people should only get paid for the time they are producing new code. Musicians should only get paid for time they are actually performing, movie producers should only get paid for the time they are producing a movie.

Getting paid for copying stuff is not ethical. Anyone can copy stuff. This is silly. People need to get paid for actually doing something. If a person copies stuff, they should only get paid for the act of copying. Why should someone pay $25 for a copy of a movie they can copy themselves for $3?

Copyrights only slow down human advancement, limit freedom, and cater to the special interest of a small group of people, or corporations, who steal the work of the individual, and then use copyrights as an excuse to charge outrageous sums of money for a service that takes very little effort.

Why Obama must go (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978164)

This is but one of many many reasons why Obama must go. He has lied, gave money to terrorist like groups in the US who wishes to destroy freedom in our world, he has placed new legislation to remove possible way for citizens to retake freedom, and has degraded human life to where it is now almost worthless. Obama has to go.

Obama has attempted to remove freedom of the press, and is currently attempting to pas legislation to band any media which has him appear to be less than god like. There are independent news reporters being thrown in jail on silly charges, like unpaid parking tickets. These independent news reporters have done nothing more than question the current US President.

Obama bought his Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama has to go.

If Obama is not removed from office soon, the US will be nothing more than a Police state.

Obama has to go.

If Obama is not removed from office soon, there will be no freedom left.

Let's make gun shops liable for killing people. (1, Interesting)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978174)

Because if they didn't sell the guns to murderers, they wouldn't be able to murder!

Re:Let's make gun shops liable for killing people. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978422)

Too specific.

Let's make Wal-Mart liable for killing people by selling knifes to murderers.

Mirror It. Fast. (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978176)

Please copy the document. Fast. Before "the powers that be" have it removed.

This law wouldnt work in canada (1)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978202)

DRM violates the privacy act in Canada and the privacy act in Canada trumps. Canada can't sign it under current laws.

Re:This law wouldnt work in canada (3, Insightful)

Wolvenhaven (1521217) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978294)

The thing with US Federal law though is that treaties override constitutional laws. Laws Constitution Treaties. So any major unconstitutional idea that Has To Be Passed For Your Safety will be written and signed as a treaty with another country if it is too controversial for the public to accept.

say goodbye... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978220)

oh god...

it's do or die netizens, if this law passes (or some form of it) say goodbye to your beloved internets. say goodbye to collegehumour, goodbye to newgrounds, to youtube, facebook, myspace, the chans, irc, deviantart and message boards everywhere.
say goodbye to thursday nights spent browsing the tubes,
say goodbye to waking up and watching a new youtube video parody
say goodbye to happy days
say goodbye to autonomous collectives
say goodbye to piracy
say goodbye to the lawless freedoms and guilty pleasures

say hello to Big Brother

needless to say, if this passes, it won't work due to the sheer number of people who will resist it

Secret laws aren't legal... (3, Interesting)

Wooky_linuxer (685371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978244)

at least here. I don't know in the US, but here in Brazil (and I guess in most countries) it is simply impossible to have a "law" or treaty be secret and have any legal value. Of course, given enough money, these laws might be approved anyway, public scrutiny and all, and that is the sad part.

Re:Secret laws aren't legal... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978372)

Laws don't have to be legal. They simply have to be obeyed. Whatever the case is behind closed doors it is still up to the population to decide whether or not to obey it. It's always been like this in democracies. Prohibition in America, taxes in Italy... Look around.

Re:Secret laws aren't legal... (2, Interesting)

japhering (564929) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978558)

at least here. I don't know in the US, but here in Brazil (and I guess in most countries) it is simply impossible to have a "law" or treaty be secret and have any legal value. Of course, given enough money, these laws might be approved anyway, public scrutiny and all, and that is the sad part.

Well, the really scary part is that treaties via treaty supersede all national laws... so once approved they are almost impossible to change or nullify

This is just further proof (4, Informative)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978252)

Whenever you hear that something is being withheld or denied for "National Security Interests", you can assume you are being screwed. Pretty much without regard to context. This was true in United States v. Reynolds, and it's true today.

Dreadful. (4, Insightful)

Crookdotter (1297179) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978256)

This isn't the end of the internet when passed. But it may be the end of the open wild west attitude on the net. I hope it doesn't come to pass where everyone is afraid of uploading videos because they may have a coca cola logo in it and whatnot. What it won't do is stop piracy. It will move to darkets, or people posting massive gb thumb drives around. A bit of a backwards step but pirates will find a way. Hell, it might even increase it as you'd be generating a community spirit for pirates. All this fuss over Lily Allen CD's isn't worth it. Musicians should move to live performances to make money and accept that they shouldn't be millionaires for 1 album. They should work for a living like the rest of us. DVD's should be released much later after a film's release, and so move people to get back into the cinema. Live performance is where you make the money. Backup and copies should be let go for free (ish).

Re:Dreadful. (1)

darkmayo (251580) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978616)

"DVD's should be released much later after a film's release, and so move people to get back into the cinema"

Thats how it works now, unless its a straight to DVD film.

The next war. (3, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978366)

We should call this the War on MP3s. It will be about as effective as the War on Drugs.

Looks like /. may be on the same side as ISPs... (5, Insightful)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978400)

for once.

From TFA: "That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material." ISPs will be fighting this one pretty hard. There's no way they want to invest their resources to trying to patrol the internet. It's not their job, it's likely illegal and it's expensive.

I do, in fact, think that copyright holders have every right to defend their legal rights but they absolutely must not step on the rights of others in so doing. Take-downs without due process, ISPs acting as police and blanket anti-DRM-violation rules are all measures that stomp on the rights and freedoms of the public. This treaty will infuriate everyone other than the content producers and I think will spark some lobbying from groups that haven't previously been seen on the side of openness.

The general public (that means a broader public than /.) must become aware of the issues here. Most people simply aren't concerned with IP law even if it should concern them. That said, a threat to YouTube or Facebook or Twitter will spark a response. Here's what I propose: start a group that issues indiscriminate take-down notices of all sorts of media. If there is no punishment for frivolous DMCA notices then there's no risk. Start pissing people off, the service providers that have to deal with the requests and the content producers. Piss people off until legislation to prevent such action comes in, then we've own.

The whole world must... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978490)

"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"?

Looks like the worst that can happen is that the US-based Internet becomes a big, RIAA-patrolled LAN. I don't know how the Obama administration thinks this world works, but very few countries will sign treaties just because the American president says they have to. More likely, many countries won't sign it just to spite Obama.

In Pindostan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29978590)

Copyright treaty leaks YOU !

Yours In Gryazovets,
K. Trout

A Bill Like This Would Be Financially Impossible (2, Interesting)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 4 years ago | (#29978642)

Even if this did pass, and comcast was told they had to police their customers... so what? Comcast doesn't go out of their way to fix my service when I am paying for it. Why would they go out of their way to stop my service AND my payment? They would just end up putting together some bullshit task force that would expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...