Tweet
Brought this up on CS.com and Raps mentioned that I should do a thread on this as he has never even heard of it. Personally, I'm not surprised that he hasn't, as that is part of the deal. The only way you could properly know what's going on is if you sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Great way to start a global treaty, huh?
At current, of the several dozen people in the discussions on this treaty, only 2 represent consumers. The rest consist of Copyright protection agencies, such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), The Movie Production Association of America (MPAA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
On the surface of the name it sounds to be a good thing, right? No one apart from the pirates want to circumvent the law, right? Well, no. Because at current, the ACTA treaty is equating any consumers as potential thieves. Some examples from leaked documents in past deliberations:
-Border control agents in all signing countries are required to conduct searches of any electronic device for potential copyright protected work and upon discovery of said work, all potential storage devices must be seized and criminal charges applied as outlined in the treaty (the criminal charges aspect has not been discussed yet). The seized item then is permanently the property of the appropriate government until turned over to the representing copyright holder for civil action to be applied.
In short, if you have a MP3 player out in the open at a border checkpoint, the border agents get to usher you into the drug control area and proceed in a search of your vehicle. If they find one song that MAY be pirated, they will take all your electronic equipment and place you under arrest. Then they get to turn over the stuff to the appropriate group so they can sue you after you go to jail. Even if you are found innocent, you don't get anything back without one hell of a fight. Apart from the criminal charge aspect, this is actually being enforced in the US and there have been several incidents of legal items being seized and never returned.
- Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities on application of the injured party shall have the authority to order the infringer who knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity of intellectual property rights to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the actual prejudice the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement, taking into account all appropriate aspects, inter alia, the lost profits, the value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, the suggested retail price, unfair profits and elements other than economic factors or other legitimate measure of value submitted by the right holder.
This one means if you are caught with potential copy protected work. the copyright holder can sue you for any amount they deem appropiate and have full legal backing. If they want to sue you for several thousand dollars per song you have on an iPod, they can. The reason this works is because the complaint holder is also the expert on the market value. with the ACTA treaty, there is no conflict of interest.
-Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer to provide, for the purpose of collecting evidence, any information [Option J: in the form as prescribed in its applicable laws and regulations] that the infringer possesses or controls, [Option J: ,where appropriate,] to the right holder or to the judicial authorities. Such information may include information regarding any person or persons involved in any aspect of the infringement and regarding the means of production or distribution channel of such goods or services, including the identification of third persons involved in the production and distribution of the infringing goods or services or in their channels of distribution.
Remember the McArthy era in the US, of arresting someone as a possible communist supporter and ordered to turn over other people wo might also be the same? Guess what? this is a global version of it but instead of communist supporters, it's piracy and there's no incentive for naming names.
-Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied against any person who, without authorization of the holder of copyright or related rights in a motion picture or other audiovisual work, knowingly uses an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of or transmits to the public the motion picture or other audiovisual work, or any part thereof, from a performance of the motion picture or other audiovisual work in a motion picture exhibition facility open to the public.
The act of taking a camcorder into a theater and recording the show has now become a criminal act. So the person will not simply be tossed out of the theater, they will be arrested.
These are officially released items. New stuff leaked out is as follows:
- ISPs will be required to actively police their traffic for copy protected material.
- ISPs will be required to employ a gradiated removal system (three strikes policy)
- ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability (note the "accused" I'll come back to that)
- That 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. (there's that accused part again)
- Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (this is a fun one, I'll detail this later)
What do these new info points mean? Well, it means that if you put something on the net, the ISP is required to view it and if it contains any potential infingement (regardless of whether it does or not) it will be blocked and the person will be warned. Further, if a copyright holder finds their work on the internet, they can file a complaint that the ISP has to acknowledge on par of it coming from a law enforcement agent. After a third warning or accusation, the ISP HAS to shut down the user's connection and remove the broadcasted content. This is all done without recourse or ability to defend oneself, and in the case of an accusation, no warning either. (a further leak was revealed that the ISP has to share the removed person's personal information with other ISPs to prohibit them from signing on with them.
As for the last point, Fair use? Gone. Modifications for physically handicapped people? Yup, that's illegal too. Certainly can't change it to an archival format. (for the track record, all of these activities are legal at current)
So, to summarize. Take the current Digital Millennium Copyright Act, remove any provisions of consumer security, add criminal penalties in addition to the civil penalties, throw in counters to current prior rulings that are not in favor of the copyright holder, give it legal power in every country that wished to trade with the US, make sure it's being drafted in such a way that does not require any legal procedure to make it law (for the track record, copyright holders have been trying other means to get equivalent systems in place through standard channels in Canada for years to no effect) and then you have the ACTA treaty.
Please voice your opinions on it here.
Links:
BoingBoing's Article on the new leaks: http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/sec...right-tre.html
The EFF's section on the ACTA treaty: http://www.eff.org/related/6160/blog
Michael Geist's blog on the ACTA: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php...cta&Itemid=408
Michael Geist is a Canadian law expert who has taken a considerable interest on this treaty.
At current, of the several dozen people in the discussions on this treaty, only 2 represent consumers. The rest consist of Copyright protection agencies, such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), The Movie Production Association of America (MPAA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
On the surface of the name it sounds to be a good thing, right? No one apart from the pirates want to circumvent the law, right? Well, no. Because at current, the ACTA treaty is equating any consumers as potential thieves. Some examples from leaked documents in past deliberations:
-Border control agents in all signing countries are required to conduct searches of any electronic device for potential copyright protected work and upon discovery of said work, all potential storage devices must be seized and criminal charges applied as outlined in the treaty (the criminal charges aspect has not been discussed yet). The seized item then is permanently the property of the appropriate government until turned over to the representing copyright holder for civil action to be applied.
In short, if you have a MP3 player out in the open at a border checkpoint, the border agents get to usher you into the drug control area and proceed in a search of your vehicle. If they find one song that MAY be pirated, they will take all your electronic equipment and place you under arrest. Then they get to turn over the stuff to the appropriate group so they can sue you after you go to jail. Even if you are found innocent, you don't get anything back without one hell of a fight. Apart from the criminal charge aspect, this is actually being enforced in the US and there have been several incidents of legal items being seized and never returned.
- Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities on application of the injured party shall have the authority to order the infringer who knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity of intellectual property rights to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the actual prejudice the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement, taking into account all appropriate aspects, inter alia, the lost profits, the value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, the suggested retail price, unfair profits and elements other than economic factors or other legitimate measure of value submitted by the right holder.
This one means if you are caught with potential copy protected work. the copyright holder can sue you for any amount they deem appropiate and have full legal backing. If they want to sue you for several thousand dollars per song you have on an iPod, they can. The reason this works is because the complaint holder is also the expert on the market value. with the ACTA treaty, there is no conflict of interest.
-Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer to provide, for the purpose of collecting evidence, any information [Option J: in the form as prescribed in its applicable laws and regulations] that the infringer possesses or controls, [Option J: ,where appropriate,] to the right holder or to the judicial authorities. Such information may include information regarding any person or persons involved in any aspect of the infringement and regarding the means of production or distribution channel of such goods or services, including the identification of third persons involved in the production and distribution of the infringing goods or services or in their channels of distribution.
Remember the McArthy era in the US, of arresting someone as a possible communist supporter and ordered to turn over other people wo might also be the same? Guess what? this is a global version of it but instead of communist supporters, it's piracy and there's no incentive for naming names.
-Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied against any person who, without authorization of the holder of copyright or related rights in a motion picture or other audiovisual work, knowingly uses an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of or transmits to the public the motion picture or other audiovisual work, or any part thereof, from a performance of the motion picture or other audiovisual work in a motion picture exhibition facility open to the public.
The act of taking a camcorder into a theater and recording the show has now become a criminal act. So the person will not simply be tossed out of the theater, they will be arrested.
These are officially released items. New stuff leaked out is as follows:
- ISPs will be required to actively police their traffic for copy protected material.
- ISPs will be required to employ a gradiated removal system (three strikes policy)
- ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability (note the "accused" I'll come back to that)
- That 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. (there's that accused part again)
- Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (this is a fun one, I'll detail this later)
What do these new info points mean? Well, it means that if you put something on the net, the ISP is required to view it and if it contains any potential infingement (regardless of whether it does or not) it will be blocked and the person will be warned. Further, if a copyright holder finds their work on the internet, they can file a complaint that the ISP has to acknowledge on par of it coming from a law enforcement agent. After a third warning or accusation, the ISP HAS to shut down the user's connection and remove the broadcasted content. This is all done without recourse or ability to defend oneself, and in the case of an accusation, no warning either. (a further leak was revealed that the ISP has to share the removed person's personal information with other ISPs to prohibit them from signing on with them.
As for the last point, Fair use? Gone. Modifications for physically handicapped people? Yup, that's illegal too. Certainly can't change it to an archival format. (for the track record, all of these activities are legal at current)
So, to summarize. Take the current Digital Millennium Copyright Act, remove any provisions of consumer security, add criminal penalties in addition to the civil penalties, throw in counters to current prior rulings that are not in favor of the copyright holder, give it legal power in every country that wished to trade with the US, make sure it's being drafted in such a way that does not require any legal procedure to make it law (for the track record, copyright holders have been trying other means to get equivalent systems in place through standard channels in Canada for years to no effect) and then you have the ACTA treaty.
Please voice your opinions on it here.
Links:
BoingBoing's Article on the new leaks: http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/sec...right-tre.html
The EFF's section on the ACTA treaty: http://www.eff.org/related/6160/blog
Michael Geist's blog on the ACTA: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php...cta&Itemid=408
Michael Geist is a Canadian law expert who has taken a considerable interest on this treaty.
Comment