The internet is almost over...
Thread Starter
VIP Member
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 17,617
From: pew, pew, pew!!!
Car Info: nonplussed
The internet is almost over...
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03...right-tre.html
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
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. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* 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. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
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. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* 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. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,316
From: Berkeley, CA
Car Info: 05' WRX (Dirty Black)
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and unlimited access to pr0n -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,301
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: http://kiva.org/invitedby/brett4254
I can't say I oppose the protection of copyrights... it's one of the only ways musicians get paid.
If people can't make a living producing art, they aren't gonna produce
If people can't make a living producing art, they aren't gonna produce
Hurray, it's Ian!!
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,612
From: on an airplane
Car Info: 2002 MBP WRX Sedan
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having whatever I desire at my fingertips at anytime, but I really wouldn't lose too much sleep if it disappeared tomorrow.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,504
From: Leg Humper
Car Info: '03 WRX wagon, faster than walkin'
I've read it too...I think if it was enforced, I suspect it is unenforceable, but if it was, then I suspect that all servers and server farms that deal with "content" would offshore.
Then the US company, say Google, would license a content window from the offshore company, YouTube. The contract would release Google from liability, because Google has no control over YouTube and has no way to determine if YouTube is broadcasting copywritten material. Google would in no way inform or control the content YouTube is providing...YouTube could also do the same thing..so that there are layers of layers..
The other way that a US company can be released of liability, in general if it is a smaller company, is that if they are served for copywrite infringement, the response is, "how do I know, I will gladly remove ANYTHING that YOU confirm is in violation, just supply me with a list, and I will compare it against my database and remove anything that matches"
An associate used this response and won in court, something to the effect that his open server can't be policed day and night by a total of 3 employees. It is an unreasonable demand since anyone can post anything, and it's not peer-to-peer, so it's purpose is NOT to encourage illegal use. The demand for a list of copy-written works from producer is legitimate.
He also had to put disclaimers and other things on the front page and warnings not to post copy-written material, but overall had no effect on his operation.
Generally though, this requirement is onerous and may start a new company keeping track of copy-written material...anyone want to go in to a startup with me? We can maintain a database of copy write material and sell it to everyone!
Then the US company, say Google, would license a content window from the offshore company, YouTube. The contract would release Google from liability, because Google has no control over YouTube and has no way to determine if YouTube is broadcasting copywritten material. Google would in no way inform or control the content YouTube is providing...YouTube could also do the same thing..so that there are layers of layers..
The other way that a US company can be released of liability, in general if it is a smaller company, is that if they are served for copywrite infringement, the response is, "how do I know, I will gladly remove ANYTHING that YOU confirm is in violation, just supply me with a list, and I will compare it against my database and remove anything that matches"
An associate used this response and won in court, something to the effect that his open server can't be policed day and night by a total of 3 employees. It is an unreasonable demand since anyone can post anything, and it's not peer-to-peer, so it's purpose is NOT to encourage illegal use. The demand for a list of copy-written works from producer is legitimate.
He also had to put disclaimers and other things on the front page and warnings not to post copy-written material, but overall had no effect on his operation.
Generally though, this requirement is onerous and may start a new company keeping track of copy-written material...anyone want to go in to a startup with me? We can maintain a database of copy write material and sell it to everyone!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post