First off, I am having a hard time discerning what this treaty is in scope.
Is it something that intends to limit "fair use" as you have mentioned? Open-source? Yada, yada, yada...
Or is it something that is trying to protect against the China's of the world who dont observe copyrights at all (and make a killing doing so)?
Me too.
Nobody knows.
That sounds like a good guess to me, but it would be impolitic for us to say so in just that way. I don't doubt the treaty aims at at some worthy end, but the devil is in the details, and these are all classified.
Perhaps there will be a period for public input after the draft is submitted to Congress, but if the draft itself is secret what meaningful input can there be?
Little to none, indeed. One way or the other, its certainly an imperfect fit for copyright law finding itself sighted for national security relevance.
Having the requisite "Big Dogs" present and accounted for doesnt surprise or offend me, particularly. What does, however, is this seeming side-step by the Administration...and what that means about the importance and scope of this new treaty.
Totally Wild Thought:
You know, the Federal government has gotten awfully involved in private industry lately. One of the sure-fire methods of recovering an investment is their newfound shared interest in lucrative patents.
Just saying...
(sidenote; i had to cringe to read my "China's" mistake)
Nice. Understatement is underappreciated.
Astute. It may turn out to be related to a rosy forecast on government receipts.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-19-2009 at 11:40 PM.
EFF on ACTA. There is a form letter there for the civically inclined.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-19-2009 at 11:42 PM.
While little information has been made available by the governments negotiating ACTA, a do ent recently leaked to the public en led "Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement" from an unknown source gives an indication of what content industry rightsholder groups appear to be asking for – including new legal regimes to "encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing material", criminal measures, and increased border search powers. The Discussion Paper leaves open how Internet Service Providers should be encouraged to identify and remove allegedly infringing material from the Internet. However the same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens' Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the "Three Strikes" /Graduated Response), so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers. While mandating copyright filtering by ISPs will not be technologically effective because it can be defeated by use of encryption, efforts to introduce network level filtering will likely involve deep packet inspection of citizens' Internet communications. This raises considerable concerns for citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights, and the future of Internet innovation.
maybe he's just trying to save this town (country).
prevent the pirates from stealing revenue that ultimately cost jobs.
If clambake is not bothered by *deep packet inspection* and having his electronics taken away for inspection at the border, but presumes instead the bona fides of a deal devised in cahoots with multinational companies, that is his option. WH23 does not so presume.
wikileaks
The do ent reveals a proposal for a multi-lateral trade agreement of strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods hiding behind the issue of false trademarks. If adopted, a treaty of this form would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon internet service providers, including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. The proposal also bans "anti-cir vention" measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players.
My previous comment was sarcasm. I guess no one here understands rot13.
Some details about ACTA can be found here:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/acta
Absolute complete and utter bull . I tried my hardest to think around the obvious Big Brother scenario, but alas, I should have known better. This administration is no better than any other before it.
It is actually looking like this administration sees government involvment everywhere in everyday citizen's lives. Why? Why task ISPs with enforcement of law? Since when are private companies in the law enforcement business?
By the sounds of it, they had better be or the governments who signed this treaty will prosecute them to the fullest extent. This sounds quite similar to the requirements placed on telecom companies and the subsequent immunity granted to them when the public found out theyre spying on us for the government.
Now its the same with the internet? WTF, I hate this ing world.
Don't look at me. I like Obama, but this is a bit puzzling.
There is probably some reasoning for this at some level.
I would guess that the details are probably unpalatable for a lot of people, and might not even be those in the US.
If some deal say, does something that we might like, but that would anger some other countries' population/industry/companies because those other companies are essentially stealing our copyrighted material.
We could assume that if details of the treaty were to get out in OUR press, it would probably reach the people in the other country who have the power/influence to pull their country out of the negotiations to protect those intellectual property theives who happen to be lining the coffers/pockets of that government.
Just a thought. It would then be fully within our interests to try and keep that secret, because it would end up benefitting us, if their government could side-step some of the corruption that leads to the theft of intellectual property.
I have no real direct knowledge of this however. Personally, I think the negotiations should, on principle, be open.
In any event, the treaty WILL be public knowledge when it comes before a vote in the Senate. I can live with the negotiations being secret as long as the final treaty is brought out into the open for public debate.
Honestly, besides GTMO, it seems that Obama's going to grab power as much as Bush did.
Deep packet inspection can be damn useful, but it has some horrible implications if it's used for 'evil'.
I think there are many reasons for treaty negotiations to be confidential for the diplomats, but it's clear in this case that big business has had a major say, while opposing interests don't get to look. Both the secrecy and the one-sided influence of special interests are counter to what Obama campaigned on.
Thanks for the link. Even though I missed the sarcasm, it worked well enough as a straight answer, and it sent the thread in the right direction.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
