Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.

[Dcat]

This has so many implications for the Internet, I can hardly get my head around the impact it would have! I hope Obama will be twarted in his attempt to sneak ACTA in the back door at the behest of his corporate controllers.


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)

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03...right-tre.html

[After Shock Media]

First arnt the ACTA talks still going on?
Next why would this be just an Obama issue when it appears to be world wide talks, actually latests talks are being held right now in Korea right? Plus I swore Canada is also very involved.

As for some secret leaks, sure thing. Nothing is 100% hammered down yet and most of it is trying to get international copyright laws (not counterfeiting) sort of on the same path.

[Dcat]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

First arnt the ACTA talks still going on?
Next why would this be just an Obama issue when it appears to be world wide talks, actually latests talks are being held right now in Korea right? Plus I swore Canada is also very involved.

As for some secret leaks, sure thing. Nothing is 100% hammered down yet and most of it is trying to get international copyright laws (not counterfeiting) sort of on the same path.

Yes, ACTA is currently being negotiated between the US, Europe and other states, including Japan, Australia, and Canada. The official cover story is always a good one isn't it? "International Copyright Laws" to protect "Intellectual Property Rights." Sounds good, however the real motives behind it are really quite the opposite. Think of the power it gives a centralized body (or world government) to eventually reach past and over local state and national laws of member countries and enforce "copy right laws" (read: censor) any website, blog, or contra work deemed against their rules simply by "accusing" that website, blog, ..etc of infringing on copyright. No due process, no trial, nothing. They just shut you down.

More good reading here:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/

[After Shock Media]

No tinfoil hats for me.
See your wording has killed the issue. You had to add in your own scary info about secret organizations, corporations controlling the president, cover stories, etc. To the actual facts. If you would of just posted actual information, without trying to link it to Obama and secret leaks, plus your own person thoughts. You very well could of gotten decent debate and people looking into the real issues, which I have.

[L-Pink]

So the pendulum swings in the other direction ....... GREAT, ABOUT FUCKING TIME !!!



.

[u-Bob]

Same thing's going on in France. Google: hadopi.

[Dirty Dane]

It's not bad if happening. It's bad that it has to that way.

[L-Pink]

Adapt to copyright laws or die

[BFT3K]

Billions are lost every year due to intellectual property theft. Something must be done, so I am happy that an international body is discussing this matter.

If the US makes a unilateral decision that no other country in the world is onboard with, then what's the point?

Until final laws and regulations are mutually agreed to, it is all speculation, but clearly SOMETHING must be done. I am hopeful that a reasonable solution is in the works.

[F-U-Jimmy]

Bad ? Its FUCKING AMAZING about fucking time something was done about ? theft. I for one hope ISPs start to implement this

[Va2k]

thatswhat I was thinking, why would this be bad?

[Barefootsies]

This is why only retards beg, plead, and rely on government to do something for their apathetic, lazy asses. They always over compensate.

Especially after lobbiest have cash in with some PHAT campaign contributions. You are never going to stop international copyright theft with U.S. laws.

[aniloscash]

this sounds like the same kind of disinformation that claimed obama was Muslim or the birthers that said he is not really a us citizen. It contradicts all the policies that the administration has put into place thus far. And it contradicts any and all the speeches I have heard from obama. I would disregard. There is no connection between copyright issues and fisa. I put money on this being fictitious.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

This is why only retards beg, plead, and rely on government to do something for their apathetic, lazy asses. They always over compensate.

Well, if you can't stop crimes commited against you, then some authoritity has to step in, don't you think?
Besides that, it is not longer only about civil cases, but also national economies and security.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Besides that, it is not longer only about civil cases, but also national economies and security.

I completely agree with you there.

However, DMCA needs to be tweaked. We do not need heavy handed government anything.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

I completely agree with you there.

However, DMCA needs to be tweaked. We do not need heavy handed government anything.

The loophole should be closed, and continuing and repeated infringements should be punished hard. But at the same time, any false accusation should face same punishment. In other words; fair game. No exceptions. Otherwise, there will be no win-win.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

The loophole should be closed, and continuing and repeated infringements should be punished hard. But at the same time, any false accusation should face same punishment. In other words; fair game. No exceptions. Otherwise, there will be no win-win.

You are a wise man.

[Billionaire]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Co...rade_Agreement

Furthermore the following countries have joined the negotiations: Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and the European Union.

-----

After Shock Media you idiot go find a hat that allows you to grasp the wording of the european union being a country. Hope your stupid ass enjoys north america and learning more the hard way. Support more control of the internet along with stopping terror. You scare a lot of people into not being afraid after shock media? Do you have a single critical thinking brain cell in your head? Of course not you Idiot.

[Gerco]

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.

GREAT! time to answer to the piper. No more fucking tubes/bbs etc hiding behind the user upload loophole.

* 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.

Sounds good to me. Time to put a little teeth behind it and maybe little johnny will get his ass taken out by his folks. If your doing illegal things on the net you should be shutdown.

* 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.

Still, sounds good to me... I'm in US and already have to live by these rules so no change there...

* 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)

Again...if the copyright owner wants to give the fucking disabled access he would... leave his shit alone Hence the name Digital RIGHTS managment.

I see nothing here I disagree with at all, and thing that this is LONG overdue.

what's that saying... adapt or die..... LOL!

[After Shock Media]

OK who is billionaire?
Funny how I keep getting singled out by the new nicks. Also weird how fucking odd every person on this board who choses a nick with some sort of money indicator in it seriously fails. Barring reps from actual programs, under a program name.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

OK who is billionaire?
Funny how I keep getting singled out by the new nicks. Also weird how fucking odd every person on this board who choses a nick with some sort of money indicator in it seriously fails. Barring reps from actual programs, under a program name.

[Nautilus]

Excellent treaty, about time to implement it world wide.

[SGS]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Excellent treaty, about time to implement it world wide.

[john FVC]

Quicker this happens the better.

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by Dcat

This has so many implications for the Internet, I can hardly get my head around the impact it would have! I hope Obama will be twarted in his attempt to sneak ACTA in the back door at the behest of his corporate controllers.


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)

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03...right-tre.html

And this is bad how?
Duke

[kane]

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker

And this is bad how?
Duke

* 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.

If you have a good spot on Google and I want that spot I just contact the ISPs and tell them you have an infringing site and poof. . . it is gone. Eventually you might get it put back up when you prove it is not, but how long will that take and how much money will you lose in the process? And once you are back up as soon as you update the site I can have a buddy report you and we get to play the game all over again.

[Bossman]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

This is why only retards beg, plead, and rely on government to do something for their apathetic, lazy asses. They always over compensate.

True

Anyone with more than 15 years in any business have seen ups/downs and what happens when goverment is called in - everyone gets hurt! If only the price entrance to the adult industry was more, then we would have alot more self-regulation to avoid the goverment shitload which is headed our way

[seeandsee]

every tube site should have dmca button with centralized copyright owners that can remove videos in second

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by kane

* 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.

If you're not using infringing materials, all you have to do is to file a counter DMCA. Big deal. And then they'll have to prove in court it is infringing if they still want it down, and will be liable for damages and have to pay all of your legal expenses if their takedown request was found a bogus one.

It didn't prove any disaster or a censorship tool in the US, that's just bs and scare tactic. But the piracy DID prove to be a disaster, undermining the whole industries, leaving lots of people uneployed or underpaid etc.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

If you're not using infringing materials, all you have to do is to file a counter DMCA. Big deal. And then they'll have to prove in court it is infringing if they still want it down, and will be liable for damages and have to pay all of your legal expenses if their takedown request was found a bogus one.

It didn't prove any disaster or a censorship tool in the US, that's just bs and scare tactic. But the piracy DID prove to be a disaster, undermining the whole industries, leaving lots of people uneployed or underpaid etc.

So you don't think big sites that want all the top rankings won't be outsourcing work offshore and hammering ISPs with these copyright infringement notices? Even if one does you now have to jump through the hoops of proving you are legal and if they are offshore and hiding, good lucking going after them.

I'm not saying nothing should be done, but they have to be careful to not make is so easy to take a site down that anyone with a grudge or in a bad mood can do so

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by kane

So you don't think big sites that want all the top rankings won't be outsourcing work offshore and hammering ISPs with these copyright infringement notices? Even if one does you now have to jump through the hoops of proving you are legal and if they are offshore and hiding, good lucking going after them.

I'm not saying nothing should be done, but they have to be careful to not make is so easy to take a site down that anyone with a grudge or in a bad mood can do so

You do not seen to understand - I do not have to go after them, I just need to file a counter DMCA and send it to my ISP. ISP is clean now and can go on hosting my stuff without any risk of being prosecuted, since it is now a matter between the two - if they're unhappy with my counter DMCA THEY have to go after me in court. Hiding offshore wouldn't help a bit if they want to sue.

DMCA has been around for more than a decade, and the course of actions you're concerned with was a theoretical possibility for all that time - yet none has done it, at least not at the wide scale, for exactly the same reason above.

[raven1083]

Really had a bad site about it...Why does it happen?

[Dirty Dane]

A requirement to establish third-party liability for copyright infringement.

I wonder if that also includes those sponsoring infringements?