Beta
×

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!

Latest Version of ACTA Leaks

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the most-transparent-administration-ever dept.

Piracy 87

An anonymous reader writes "Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid points to a freshly leaked version of ACTA available on La Quadrature Du Net. While the text will need further analysis, the most recent look at the text suggests that there is no Three Strikes law, but anti-circumvention laws have a new twist to them with regard to exceptions in that 'they do not significantly impair the adequacy of legal protection [...] or the effectiveness of legal remedies for violations of those measures.' Overall, the text still hints at a global DMCA with notice-and-takedown."

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Leaks" (1, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32918910)

I'm beginning this document isn't meant to be as secretive as Geist makes it sound. There's been a leak about every 2 weeks for like months...

"Democracy" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32918956)

Of the people,
By the people,
And for the people*.

(*except when the issue involves people.)

Re:"Democracy" (5, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919086)

You misspelled "money". Four times.

Re:"Democracy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32919452)

You misspelled "money". Four times.

Thanks. I'll fix it.

Of money people,
By money people,
And for money people*.

(*except when money issue involves people.)

Re:"Democracy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32919666)

You misspelled "money". Four times.

Thanks. I'll fix it.

Of money people, By money people, And for money people*.

(*except when money issue involves people.)

Still wrong.

Of the money,
By the money,
And for the money*.

(*except when the issue involve money.)

Re:"Democracy" (2, Funny)

The name is Dave. Ja (845139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32927880)

Money

(formerly "Whoosh")

Re:"Leaks" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32919080)

Will you suck my dick for a nickel? CmdrTaco will.

you get it half assedly (4, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919418)

the document was meant to be that secretive as geist makes it sound. but, all countries do not agree on this acta thing, leave aside its secrecy. the ones which are vying for that are united states of america, which houses the private interests who got that treaty prepared in the first place to push their own interests, and uk, due to their lesser counterparts being in the same boat. all the others are less than positive to this thing, but they dont want to go without say in it, hence, participating. some are probably actively trying to sabotage the talks, as all should do. some, like india, are openly against it.

you owe the leakouts to sources that do not agree with american hollywood and media.

Re:you get it half assedly (1)

dj961 (660026) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919562)

So we either have a secret global uprising against ACTA, or the people involved don't care enough to keep the document a secret.

I think I'll go with apathy.

Re:you get it half assedly (4, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920492)

there is an uprising against acta already. eu doesnt like it. eu parliament banned various potential implementations of it. india openly opposes it.

all it needs more encouragement, for it to become a full fledged uprising.

Re:"Leaks" (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919428)

I'm beginning this document isn't meant to be as secretive as Geist makes it sound. I'm beginning this document isn't meant to be as secretive as Geist makes it sound.

The fact that they've failed to keep it secret doesn't change their goals of keeping it secret, nor does it change the fact that there should be no pretense of secrecy. There's no valid reason for the attempt at secrecy. The meetings should be available streaming online.

No, seriously, they should if they were smart. The fact that this is being drafted in secret is what will make more people pay attention to this even if there weren't leaks this big. I think far fewer people would be paying attention if the meetings were open.

Re:"Leaks" (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919662)

The fact that they haven't been able to keep the ACTA document secret demonstrates its futility.

Now we know why wikileaks exists. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922434)

In general most of the leaks are probably not stuff which influences the common man, but ACTA influences the common man in ways which hurt the common man to help the elite man. This is purely economic, there is nothing political or moral about ACTA.

So if you aren't set to profit from the royalties associated with ACTA, it's not in your interest and you have no reason to support it.

I ask the secretive ACTA people, what does ACTA do for me? What does it do for the consumer, and for the independent artist?

Re:Now we know why wikileaks exists. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32930270)

Well the content producers will put more movies and music on the market once they can be sure you won't be able to do evil dastardly things like play them back on different devices without buying them again (AKA STEALING WHICH IS JUST LIKE STEALING A CAR OR MUGGING AN OLD LADY BTW), and you, lucky consumer, can potentially buy those movies! ISN'T THAT GREAT!? Support ACTA and you'll be watching The Last Airbender on VOD* before you know it!**

*HDCP-capable TV and cable box required. Audience size limits apply. VOD playback license is non-transferrable between parties or devices and may be terminated at any time.

**This is the actual argument the MAFIAA puts forward in real life, and governments just nod approvingly.

Re:"Leaks" (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922720)

Such regularity suggests that the ACTA negotiations might very well have a mole.

I hope (3, Interesting)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32918942)

All of this crap explodes soon so we can possibly return to an era of reason. I'm dreaming, I know, but if we can just bottom out we stand a chance of bouncing back. As it stands now we are on full descent with no bottom in sight.

Re:I hope (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919372)

but if we can just bottom out we stand a chance of bouncing back.

I don't think you realize just how low the "bottom" is.

Further, the Internet may be the kind of thing for which once it becomes a completely corporatized, monotized entity, there may not be any going back.

Once cable television was going to represent the "democratization of media" with all sorts of public access and interactivity and localization. But once the cable business became monopolized it became nothing but "Pay TV", where you pay for basically the same product you used to get for free. Now that's the new normal, where people just expect to pay for television, even when it's got advertising.

If ACTA becomes international law, there's a very good chance that the Internet many of us love will be gone forever and it will become more "Pay TV". But even worse, Fair Use and public libraries will probably become a thing of the past. Even open source itself will be threatened by ACTA. Think about that all you people who love Linux.

Re:I hope (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919546)

> I don't think you realize just how low the "bottom" is.

Just to add an example: China hasn't hit the bottom. Consider how unlikely it is that they're on the verge of "bouncing back" toward freedom.

Re:I hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32923244)

Hello, you seem to have missed a few things like the Great Famine, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution.

Re:I hope (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920104)

Once cable television was going to represent the "democratization of media" with all sorts of public access and interactivity and localization. But once the cable business became monopolized ...

Your first sentence is absolutely correct. You lost it at "monopolized". They aren't, so it can't be the reason.

The reason is "large scale" and "centralized". Comcast, for example, has to deal with hundreds if not thousands of local jurisdictions. It is trying to save money by reducing the number of different cable systems it has to look like. I.e., Comcast of Albany, Comcast of Salem, Comcast of Bend, Comcast of Eugene, Comcast of Canby, Comcast of Lebanon ... they all have most of the same channel lineup, which makes it cheaper to advertise services ("Watch USA on channel 58...").

Now, I can't speak with authority for any of those cities, but for my own (Comcast of ...) Comcast is NOT a monopoly; the franchise is non-exclusive.

But once the cable business became monopolized it became nothing but "Pay TV", where you pay for basically the same product you used to get for free.

For the vast majority of users, this is not true. They've always paid for the cable specific content. I don't recall any time when cable was free.

Perhaps you are thinking of things like 'Rock The Ring 453', the latest and greatest WWF (wrestling, not wildlife) spectacular. That has nothing to do with the centralization or (non) monopoly status of cable, it's a realization that people will pay for things they want to see and adaptation to that. Or the fact that Big Brother 12 24-hour content is now only available for money, when BB1 was free. (But not free on cable.)

Re:I hope (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32921776)

I don't recall any time when cable was free.

But there was a time when it was distinguishable from regular network television.

That distinction is fast disappearing.

And my point was that we don't want to see the Internet become cable television, which it is in danger of doing, without net neutrality rules.

Re:I hope (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32924022)

You're absolutely right. The media industry's (and many governments') objective is not simply to stop any "counterfeiting", but to effectively correct the "anomaly" that is the Internet: a worldwide mass communication medium that can be used by everyone. This is not what governments and Big Money want, they want and need all mass media to be under control, so that the populace (consumers) will know what they want them to know.

Open source, freeware and other non-commercial ventures are also anathema to the industry, who tolerates no competition and especially cannot stand competition from entities that lie outside their economic sphere of control. You cannot buy out VLC. You cannot buy out Ubuntu. What is at zero cost for the user is ironically at infinite cost to the big players, and they cannot suffer this situation to be. Everything must be for sale, or it must not be.

ACTA will kill all opposition to the corporate-governmental entity in one fell swoop. If it happens, there is no going back. There won't be any going back possible. Political opposition to ACTA and all such proposals must be solid and relentless, but direct violent action must be considered and planned.

In the end, the media industry lobby must be destroyed utterly. Let's not kid ourselves. They will not stop, and must be killed.

They are monopolised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32924298)

They are monopolised. Compare how many TV stations there are and how many there WERE. Then check how many owners are different.

Syndication. Monopolisation.

Look at the radio, even. FRAMP Radio! (A ClearChannel Franchise!). Maybe 10,000 radio stations, but 9,900 of them are ClearChannel owned.

As to "I don't recall any time when cable was free." Ad-supported TV was free. Cable was Ad-free and this was why you had to pay for it. Then when cable became the monopoly way of getting TV, they put Ads on it. They didn't reduce the price.

But you don't like the word "monopoly" do you. It's scary to a libertarian, because your ethos cannot handle its problems. Ignoring them will not make them go away.

Re:I hope (1)

HanzoSpam (713251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32927468)

Further, the Internet may be the kind of thing for which once it becomes a completely corporatized, monotized entity, there may not be any going back.

Right. Because we were so much better off when the internet was entirely a government supported, non-corporatized, non-monitized entity, where no Evil Commercial Interest darkened our doorstep. We all long for a return to the days of Usenet, telnet, ftp, archie and gopher.

NOT!!

Re:I hope (1, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32930006)

Because we were so much better off when the internet was entirely a government supported, non-corporatized, non-monitized entity,

Of course we were better off when the Internet was entirely government supported, non-coporatized and non-monitized.

I'm surprised you would even raise such a question.

Re:I hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32928658)

DO NOT OBEY THIS LAW OR THE DMCA. Civil disobedience is required for times like this. Keep the press involved, keep the EFF involved, keep the ACLU involved, and keep the pressure on. They're going to pass this unreasonable law against our will, so our only defense against it is to not obey it. It's no longer about civil rights for races this time. This is the class war, 21st century style, and the fight has to start with civil disobedience and loss of control over the people.

Fight it every time you run up against it. We need to make it clear that we as the people that voted for these worthless bastards do not feel they're acting in our best interests, and reject their legitimacy as leaders on those grounds. We gave them the power they're now abusing. It's time to take that power away starting by just not listening to them.

Re:I hope (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32930088)

Civil disobedience is required for times like this.

I'm with you. We've long passed the point at which we can reverse the course corporate-government has taken us using traditional political means.

Fortunately, we've also long passed the point where something like ACTA can be enforced using traditional law enforcement methods. As China has found, tyrannies aren't quite as easy to maintain as they used to be. There are several genies who have fled their bottles.

Re:I hope (1)

ImprovOmega (744717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32926658)

All of this crap explodes soon so we can possibly return to an era of reason.

You say that as though we'd been in an era of reason at some point.

Re:I hope (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32927424)

That "we" may not have included you... :p

Software patent problem: ISP liability=C&D let (4, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32918980)

Software patent problems are also worsened by ACTA, but this problem's getting lost among the discussion of problems of transporting pharmaceuticals via Europe. The pharmaceuticals issue is bigger, but the software patents issue still exists (and the DRM issues, which is even worse).

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

Further Reading (5, Informative)

somaTh (1154199) | more than 4 years ago | (#32918984)

Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] recently ran a story on how non-transparent they've been since they gave out their official release in April, along with further links.

it's all snow. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32918990)

http://itsallsnow.com

Leaked again? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32919016)

Who protects these documents? Goatse security?

Re:Leaked again? (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920850)

Who protects these documents? Goatse security?

Actually, Goatse Security was competent enough to expose AT&T's gaping iPad email address vulnerability [slashdot.org] . I'd say they have a pretty good grip on proper security practices, and would not be caught with their pants down like the people who actually lost control of these documents. On the whole, I'd say that Goatse Security is probably more anal about privacy and security policies than most larger security firms. Prolapsed Anus.

Constitutional challenge? (4, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919044)

I'd like to hear how ACTA could survive some sort of Constitutional challenge. From what I hear, it's not a treaty, but an "executive agreement," and being able to skip ratification by the Senate was one reason mentioned when I heard that. (Don't know if there's a connection...) The Constitution talks about Treaties, ratified by the senate. The Constitution talks about Laws, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

What the heck is an "Executive Agreement" and what sort of force does it have. Moreover, what would its resistance be to any sort of serious legal challenge, given its rather odd legal status in the first place. This sounds shakier than Bush's use of signing statements.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (2, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919130)

An Executive agreement still requires majority support from both Houses to be implemented. But since the DMCA was passed with unanimous support in the Senate and with little to no opposition in the House there is no chance in hell that ACTA is going to face any real opposition from Congress.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922474)

An Executive agreement still requires majority support from both Houses to be implemented. But since the DMCA was passed with unanimous support in the Senate and with little to no opposition in the House there is no chance in hell that ACTA is going to face any real opposition from Congress.

That should tell you that the Democrat party is really the Hollywood party.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32923036)

That should tell you that the Replica* party is really the Hollywood party.

*I heard that dropping the last couple letters from political parties was the cool thing to do today.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32923358)

That should tell you that the Democrat party is really the Halloween party.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919172)

I would expect an Executive Agreement has the force of an Executive Order to his underlings in the Justice Department to put forth certain arguments in court until a judge agrees and they become binding precedent thanks to that oh-so-brilliant principle of Common Law. In the countries where they have Prime Ministers they can just go straight to the "this is now the law" phase.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920448)

Common Law. In the countries where they have Prime Ministers they can just go straight to the "this is now the law" phase.

The Brits have a Prime Ministers and Common Law, and those with more Roman legal heritage will still vote with their legislative organs.

Congress is fully compliant (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919216)

From what I hear, it's not a treaty, but an "executive agreement," and being able to skip ratification by the Senate was one reason mentioned when I heard that.

Noone will railroad this, as the true voters in this country vote with their dollar to the representatives' campaign warchests, and those voters want this passed.

I'm pretty sure if this is up for vote, aside from the stray voices on both the right and left, it will get passed (and probably via voice vote or closed chamber).

Re:Congress is fully compliant (0, Troll)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920068)

Noone will railroad this...

Holy crap, Noone has a lot of power! The rest of your post doesn't make any sense though, why would Noone railroad it because the voters want it passed?

I'm confused.

P.S. I hope you can read the sarcasm. Noone is a guy's name, dipshit. No one is what you are looking for, they are two separate words.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919228)

I'd like to hear how ACTA could survive some sort of Constitutional challenge.

I'd like to know how the rest of the world can stop this.

From my perspective, this is basically an export of a law the US already has -- the DMCA.

I feel that far too many things that are already legal for many of us (fair use for example) is being stripped to cater to the interests of the MPAA and RIAA -- who are largely formed of multinationals who have a vested interest in getting every country to settle on the most draconian of laws.

As to the legalities, who knows. We're talking about a treaty being done in secret with no room for public input. For reasons I've never understood, all of the information about the content and process of this needs to be kept secret -- likely because people would realize how badly they're getting railroaded all in the name of protecting US movies from being copied.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32919462)

I wouldn't call it an export of the DMCA. It's more accurately a combination of all worst parts of various copyright laws around the world.

Thus, you don't just have the bad parts of the DCMA. You have other things like 3 strike laws, border searches, etc etc.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920082)

I'd like to know how the rest of the world can stop this.

The rest of the world can stop it very easily. All it requires is for each of the governments of the rest of the world to do one of the following:

1. Don't sign it,
2. If you fail #1, and your system of laws requires a separate legislative ratification of treaties, don't ratify it.

Because it is so simple, if the "rest of the world" really was opposed to it, there wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32923644)

Because it is so simple, if the "rest of the world" really was opposed to it, there wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Being opposed to this isn't necessarily all you need. Fear of being the next Iraq if you get on the bad side of the US also has to be taken into account. I don't have a problem with envisioning a world where the US will willingly destroy (as in military strike) a country or two in the name of copyright. If we're not at that point yet, give it another 10 years tops.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919402)

But don't you know, the Constitution deserves a warning label [620ktar.com] ?

Just call it a "pretend treaty" then "pretend" it doesn't exist.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919696)

An Executive Agreement has the same force as an executive order, namely none. It instructs the White House on how to act in situations (telling the FBI which cases to pursue with what priorities, etc). In order to actually change the law you need to "implement" the treaty either as a regular law in all of Congress or as a capital-T Treaty in the Senate.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (2, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920258)

An Executive Agreement has the same force as an executive order, namely none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States) [wikipedia.org]

Executive orders have the full force of law unless an act of Congress specifically denies the power (Exec Orders are assumed to be based on acts of Congress), or the POTUS is not given such power in the Constitution.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause [wikipedia.org]

Executive Agreements (there are three types, we're talking about sole-executive agreements here) have exactly the same force as standard treaties, and as far as international law is concerned is just a treaty.

The real difference between them is how easily they are enacted and repealed, and what has to be done after they are signed. Most treaties are executive agreements of one type or another. If the treaty falls in line with US law, nothing has to be done. Occasionally, new laws need to be enacted or current laws need to be changed to comply with a treaty. In this way Congress can essentially repeal a treaty they don't like, as well, because domestic laws take precedence over treaties.

A sole executive-agreement is extremely easy for a President to enact, and just as easy for a president to remove. They are the weakest form of treaty, but unless there is something that contradicts US law or they are unconstitutional, they automatically carry the force of law - just like executive orders.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920418)

We're arguing semantics. Executive Orders have the full force of law unless the POTUS is not given such power. So they have force of law unless they don't. The Constitution or Congress has to bestow the appropriate authority on him (see the EPA, FCC, FTC, etc).

Re:Constitutional challenge? (4, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919894)

What the heck is an "Executive Agreement" and what sort of force does it have.

PoliSci grad student here. An Executive Agreement is exactly the same as an Executive Order (as in it has the full force of law) with one major difference: it is only in effect so long as the President that signs it is still in office. However, it can be extended by the next president through an executive order or another agreement. It seems to me that the whole point of this is to push it through by the easiest means possible, then when the government tried to push the terms of the agreement to a more permanent status, they are hoping we either won't complain, or won't pay attention.

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1)

Devoidoid (1207090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32925860)

And by that time, it won't matter. We will have been party to an international agreement making the worst parts of the DMCA international law. Say goodbye to any chance of rolling back the DMCA when doing so would violate an international agreement.

They don't represent us. (4, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922466)

The reason those ACTA people have to act in secret is because they don't represent any of us. This is like the oil cartel, and we see what kind of problem big oil has caused once we let them take complete control over energy.

When you let people make law in secret without debate, but they want to tax you and force you to follow laws which aren't debated, isn't that a dictatorship?

Re:Constitutional challenge? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32923954)

No force whatsoever, if everybody actively breaches it.

thanks ACTA (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919272)

for breeding the most industrial strength bomb proof P2P possible

oh, you had some other goal in mind? you really thought draconian legislation would somehow stop filesharing? you're that fucking stupid?

here's some intellectual charity for you assholes: making a fancy law is meaningless without enforceability. i will gladly make a bet on who wins this contest-

1. your legion of lawyer diplomats

versus

2. tens of millions of media hungry, technically skilled, and most importantly, POOR teenagers

ding, ding, ding!

round 1, place your bets

Re:thanks ACTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32919604)

oh, you had some other goal in mind? you really thought draconian legislation would somehow stop filesharing? you're that fucking stupid?

The answer is "no" to all those questions, and the fact that you ask them proves that they've already outsmarted you.

ok genius (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919908)

enlighten us

(crickets)

Re:ok genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32922418)

Here's a hint: Marijuana wasn't made illegal in order to cause marijuana to disappear. This is similar.

Re:ok genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32922436)

I'm not the OP
However you must be a fool if you are unable to see the applications that will be crafted.
Either that or you work for the government.

Re:thanks ACTA (5, Insightful)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919678)

Don't forget the tens of thousands of media hungry, 1337 skilled and most importantly, CYNICAL, 30-somethings who have been through all of this before.

Re:thanks ACTA (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919846)

Yup, all this would encourage me to do is to send encrypted packets around on a TOR network. At least with more people getting sued/banned from the internet, we can raise awareness in privacy and security.

Re:thanks ACTA (5, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920038)

Sometimes I think the whole draconian copyright thing is a trick by the EFF to get people to develop darknets which will then also be used for human rights purposes by third world dissidents. It has to be - there's just no way anyone can actually be this stupid.

Re:thanks ACTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32920426)

Having massive amounts of media sharing traffic flowing through a darknet *would* be a pretty effective way of making eavesdropping vastly more expensive.

Re:thanks ACTA (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922750)

Is that dark.net or darknets.com? I can't figure out how to get there...

Re:thanks ACTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32923366)

Never bet against the stupidity of politicians and their legal advisors, especially when the lust for money/ power/ etc. is a part of the equation.

And btw, YES, they really CAN be precisely THAT stupid.

Notice and takedown (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919474)

Overall, the text still hints at a global DMCA with notice-and-takedown

The safe harbour and takedown notice system in the DMCA is one of the few sensible aspects. There has to be some practical mechanism for copyright holders to enforce their legal rights, but it shouldn't be powerful enough for vested interests to abuse the system and suppress legitimate distribution. The takedown notice and counter-notice system is as fair a balance as anything I've seen suggested.

Re:Notice and takedown (2, Informative)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919630)

Uh, I think you might want to actually read the DMCA. It uses a notice and takedown system, not notice and counter-notice. That's the major problem with it; it's easily abused just by sending takedown notices in a dragnet approach, even if the content is being used under fair use.

Re:Notice and takedown (2, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920838)

Apparently, you need to read it as well.

The counter notice is sent to the company who took down the post, and under the safe harbor provisions as long as the poster sends them a counter notice the service provider can re-post the material.

It is then up to the two individuals to solve the issue in court.

This means illegal distribution of copyrighted material is easily removed with force of law, with only a slight and temporary inconvenience to fair use materials or otherwise legal distributions of copyrighted materials.

The only change I would make is to add a consequence for an illegitimate takedown notice. A legitimate poster should have the ability to recoup any losses caused by a frivolous takedown notice. I wouldn't go as far as a fine for frivolous notices, but some sort of consequence to make sure copyright holders only go after those that are obviously infringing copyright.

Re:Notice and takedown (2, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#32923202)

I would change the DMCA take down provisions in 5 ways:
1.Penalties for anyone who sends bogus take down notices
2.100% protection for any service provider for content that passes over their network (but is not hosted by them) including protection that gives ISPs 100% immunity for copyright violations carried out by their users (and without any legal requirement for the ISP to cooperate with copyright holders in order to maintain the immunity)
3.Protection for providers like YouTube where copyright holders cant argue that "YouTube isn't doing enough to deal with copyright violations" even though YouTube IS complying with the take down notices they get sent.
4.A requirement for anyone who wants safe harbor protection to respond to counter notices within a reasonable period of time ("reasonable period of time" to be defined in the law). This for example would mean that if Apple wants to maintain safe harbor protection for the App Store, then they need to restore Apps that have been taken down because of bogus take down notices (like all the times when Apps that copy the gameplay of another game but not the artwork or trademarked names and then get shutdown for it, the Tetris people are most known for this)
and 5.A ban on automated take down notice sending, i.e. it has to be sent by a human instead of computers (like the way some media companies are now doing to YouTube with automatic notices for content they own)

Re:Notice and takedown (1)

LihTox (754597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32933988)

5.A ban on automated take down notice sending, i.e. it has to be sent by a human instead of computers (like the way some media companies are now doing to YouTube with automatic notices for content they own)

I don't think #5 is necessary if #1 and #4 are in place: a notice sent by computer is no less annoying than a notice sent by a human, and anyone who uses an automated service is running the risk of false positives, which will trigger penalties via #1. In fact, #5 may skew more towards benefitting the larger companies, who can afford to hire people specifically to handle takedown notices.

Or am I missing something?

Re:Notice and takedown (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32924438)

Which requires the original poster to reveal their full identity in order to make fair use of the content. And even if they are using it under fair use, a rights holder with a large legal budget can easily overpower an individual user. I surely wouldn't call that a "slight and temporary inconvenience". It's guilty until proven innocent. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your personal privacy in order to use copyrighted material under fair use rights granted to you by law.

Re:Notice and takedown (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922650)

You are mistaken. The DMCA provides for both notification by the copyright holder to a hosting service and counter-notification by the person who put the content on the hosting service. Essentially, one of these negates the default safe harbour protections, and the other restores them (but at a price: the person responsible must provide their real identity, and therefore expose themselves to legal action if the takedown notification was justified).

Re:Notice and takedown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32919676)

re: practical mechanism, it's called the legal system. You file a lawsuit.

Re:Notice and takedown (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922562)

A full lawsuit is far too slow in the age of the Internet, unless there is also some mechanism to get a judge to make a temporary injunction within a matter of hours, preventing further potentially damaging distribution while any case with merit is heard.

It also requires knowing whom to sue, which is not a trivial problem if the host service does not require confirmed ID before people can upload files. Personally, I am of the view that on balance it should be possible to compel an ISP to reveal the identity of someone alleged to be committing copyright infringement for the purposes of legitimate legal actions, as long as the order comes from a judge who is satisfied that this really is the case and it's not just a fishing expedition, intimidation tactic, etc. The problem with a lot of the proposals for dealing with alleged infringers is not that it would allow people to be identified and penalised for breaking the law, it is that it would allow people to be identified and penalised by special interest groups, without due process and proper judicial involvement.

Re:Notice and takedown (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#32923148)

There IS. Its called a Courtroom.

If www.freemovies.org is hosting illegal copies of a film, the copyright holder can go to court and sue the owners of www.freemovies.org for copyright violation. (usually after asking them to take the content down first)

If you cant find the person who is violating copyright (e.g. all you have is an IP address) you go to court and file a "john doe" lawsuit, present the evidence and subpoena the ISP to provide customer details so you then have someone to sue.

Re:Notice and takedown (1)

Chowderbags (847952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32925526)

It would be fair if the people sending the take down notice specifically had to say they they owned the copyright involved or face perjury charges (and fines, etc), and then actually have that enforced in courts. Right now there's not much stopping lawyers from drafting up notices without even really caring if the material infringes anything they own or not.

Because that's worked so well in the US (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919600)

Let's see, Viacom vs Youtube was all about major media holders not being willing to file the takedown notices. They don't want to file, they don't want to allow anything under fair use, and they want everyone else to pay for the privilege of doing their work for them.

Re:Because that's worked so well in the US (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920940)

Apparently you never got the results of that case.

Youtube (Google, actually) won, with the federal judge confirming the current interpretation of the safeharbor provisions in the DMCA.

Re:Because that's worked so well in the US (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32921082)

  1. How much did Google pay to defend itself?
  2. Can you afford to pay that much?
  3. Viacom has vowed to appeal.
  4. Lobbyists are already pushing for updates that require a more active role in policing.

So yes, Google won, for now. At a cost that is sufficient to bankrupt most small internet companies. Yeah, let's really push the victory party there.

I won't be happy until a judge hands down sanctions against the lawyers for bringing a frivolous case. The lawyers are first and for most officers of the court. Before the interests of their bank accounts & before the interests of their clients, they are supposed to be officers of the court. These and so many others have failed that duty.

Some one should get in the background of a live tv (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32919884)

Some one should get in the background of a live tv show, newscast, sports event or other stuff and use the DMCA to get them shut down.

yes any thing can be infringement even stuff in the background of a video / photo.

DMCA (2, Interesting)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32920114)

Overall, the text still hints at a global DMCA with notice-and-takedown.

I hate the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, but isn't "notice-and-takedown" an improvement over what we had before the DMCA when we called the notices "cease and desist letters" and there were no safe harbor provisions for ISPs and sites like YouTube?

Re:DMCA (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32921644)

Notice-and-notice is better than a notice-and-takedown system. In notice-and-notice, the ISP simply passes any letters on to the subscriber, instead of taking down the content by default in response to the letter. The subscriber and the letter sender can then settle the issue. Notice-and-notice is harder, as far as I understand it, to abuse in the name of censorship [eff.org] than notice-and-takedown is.

Re:DMCA (1)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922964)

Notice-and-notice is better than a notice-and-takedown system. In notice-and-notice, the ISP simply passes any letters on to the subscriber, instead of taking down the content by default in response to the letter. The subscriber and the letter sender can then settle the issue. Notice-and-notice is harder, as far as I understand it, to abuse in the name of censorship [eff.org] than notice-and-takedown is.

I didn't post about what is ideal. I just said that I think what we have now, with respect to certain concerns, is better than what we had before.

I'm just saying that before DMCA the majority of ISPs were scared shitless of lawsuits and would freak out if they got a cease-and-desist relating to one of their subscribers and would take down content without any review process. The current procedure is less onerous than it used to be.

That people are currently using DMCA takedowns for silly things is irrelevant. All of these same people were using copyright related cease-and-desist letters for the same purposes before.

ACTA? (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32922804)

Does that mean "American Copyright Terrorist Agreement"??

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?