19 réponses à ce sujet

[MentalCha0s]

Category: News

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 ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together

[AutumnGhost]

Sounds rather fake.

[Sheylan]

I havn't heard of Geist, but the article lists half a dozen others, several of which ARE familiar (TorrentFreak, Gizmodo, and Slashdot).



If true, this is EXTREMELY disturbing. I choose to take the "Wait and see" approach however.

[wrexingcrew]

AutumnGhost wrote...

Sounds rather fake.

It does, but it isn't.  Unfortunately.  The treaty isn't brand-new, it's been in the works for over two years.  The lack of transparency has been astonishing, to say the least - or not astonishing at all, depending on your degree of cynicism.

[Quixal]

Geist is trustworthy and this is real. It is just so insane it seems fake.



I am not astonished at all, which I suppose gauges my level of cynicism pretty effectively.

[CymTyr2000]

EDIT: I don't feel like talking politics.

Modifié par CymTyr2000, 04 novembre 2009 - 10:43 .

[Lathaon]

I hope the public response tears this to shreds.

[the_one_54321]

Lathaon wrote...

I hope the public response tears this to shreds.

i agree and i'd like to be updated on it, regularly. please keep posting about this stuff here if anything else comes up. this is BS. quite frankly id be more inclined to see media producers i love go out of business before i'd be inclined to see something like this get passed. this is not the future, this is fascism applied to the internet.

[Ischkwezrn]

What is a copyright "treaty"?



As far as I knew "treaties" were made between sovereign entities and would not have any ramifications for the public unless legalized officially by a parliament or other institutions with lawgiving powers.

A "secret" "treaty" sounds a bit 19th century imperialist style..

[the_one_54321]

Ischkwezrn wrote...

What is a copyright "treaty"?

As far as I knew "treaties" were made between sovereign entities and would not have any ramifications for the public unless legalized officially by a parliament or other institutions with lawgiving powers.
A "secret" "treaty" sounds a bit 19th century imperialist style..

i can only assume that the purpose is to present to the UN and hope for relative global ratification. which doesnt seem terribly unlikely, since many nations have seemed to be following our lead in the Copyright trend. if that's the case, i really hope the UN throws it back in our faces. this is a huge step backward for the free exchange of information and ideas. id rather see a complete change in the face of "Intellectual Property" than see something like this stifle the expansion of the trade of information. it's just stupid profit fueled asphyxiation of progress. these companies are more interested in their revenue stream and their continued profit margin than whether or not the free exchange of information on the internet is a good idea.

[wrexingcrew]

Basically, it's a way to circumvent the normal process you're talking about, Ischkwerzn. Instead of a national debate within each respective country, the treaty process permits high-level negotiations between appointed representatives to shape national and international policy. Even to the extent that legislative ratification would be required, it would be an up-or-down vote on the entire document rather than the usual back-and-forth legislation-crafting process. In the U.S., even unilateral changes in executive branch policy/enforcement are made subject to extended periods of public comment (which is frequently disregarded - see FCC media ownership rule changes* - but it's still at least a superficial commitment to principle). Simply unbelievable and disgusting to make sweeping policy changes in this fashion, although not unprecedented.

*Sorry, caught this as soon as I posted.  The FCC isn't part of the executive branch, but follows a similar model despite being an independent agency.

Modifié par wrexingcrew, 05 novembre 2009 - 12:37 .

[the_one_54321]

in all seriousness, as much as i have loved the guy so far, if this get's passed under obama's watch, i will not vote for him next election. i wont vote for whoever the republicans put forward either, but i wont vote for someone who will support this kind of fascism.

[Sword For Hire]

Lathaon wrote...

I hope the public response tears this to shreds.

I agree, and i hope its not true, the future sure looks bright doesn't it

[GhoXen]

New Zealand already started doing that for almost half a year. So far I haven't heard of anyone being affected by it at all though, wrongly or not.

[Irx]

Same **** in Russia. Bye-bye internet freedoms.

[MOTpoetryION]

its basicly who owns the rights to a given piece of work be it written works . pictures or video and songs being the major ones. its all a bunch of bs right now there are descendants of writers that dont even know they own the rights to said works. but we cant reintroduce past info because of this. its crazy so where this is headed, they would rather let this info possibly fade away completely just because some grandchild owns it I think after a certain amount of years it should turn into public property to be freely used by all . All i see coming out of this is a new pack of hungry lawyer arising to feed off the common folk. And i have heard a buzz that the US Government is thinking of running the internet. i am an American and i laugh at the idea they don't realize that nobody can run the web anymore its has a life of its own .anyway they already got there hands in to much as it is .and failing at most of it .the only exception to the making things public after like 10 or 15 years is music but there should also be a point where you give up some of the ownership. or make it like patents where they have to keep buying the rights to whatever if they stop then its public property .because in my opinion patents are worth more then a couple pages from a book or a song or movie.But you can lose the rights to something that can save lives before a book or song or even a riff of 5 music notes put together . This is the information age stop restricting stuff so much . the only ones that will benefit will be lawyers

[MOTpoetryION]

opps

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 05 novembre 2009 - 03:25 .

[MOTpoetryION]

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 05 novembre 2009 - 03:30 .

[Moniiq]

Better to shut down the whole internet. Every word written here violates the copyright of the dictionary.