Slashdot Log In
Leaked ACTA Treaty to Outlaw P2P?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Jun 06, 2008 04:37 PM
from the coming-at-you-from-every-side dept.
from the coming-at-you-from-every-side dept.
miowpurr writes to tell us that a draft of the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has been posted on Wikileaks. Among others, Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow has weighed in on the possible ramifications of this treaty. "Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 390 comments
SpaceAdmiral writes "The Canadian government is secretly negotiating to join the US and the EU in an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The agreement would give border guards the power to search iPods and cellphones for illegal downloads, as well as to force ISPs to hand over customer information without a warrant. David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, characterizes ACTA this way: 'If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty close.'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: A Look At ACTA Wish Lists For RIAA, BSA, Others 69 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property brings us an analysis of several organizations' goals for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which we've discussed previously. In particular, he points out the anti-privacy views of the Business Software Alliance: "While the ACTA itself is not public, the US Trade Representative has at least released the ACTA comments. While many of them are to be expected, such as the RIAA & co. wanting copyright filters, one item on the BSA's wish list really stands out: 'In a number of European countries one of the biggest impediments to efforts by rights holder to enforce their IP rights on the Internet is the overbroad interpretation of privacy laws by some European authorities.' They want ACTA to 'fix' that by neutering the privacy laws. Given the BSA's other questionable activities, it couldn't hurt to tell their member companies what you think of their participation. After all, organizations like the BSA exist in part to shield their members from bad PR."
Full documents of comments from the various organizations are available at Public Knowledge.
[+]
News: Wikileaks Releases ACTA Negotiations As "0-Day" 105 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has released a new document about the ACTA negotiations occurring in Washington over the next three days. This might be the shortest time between authorship of a document and its publication on Wikileaks so far. The brief 3-page memo, dated today, could add quite a bit of oil to the fire of the ACTA debate. It is titled Business Perspectives on Border Measures and Civil Enforcement and it contains a set of proposals to the 'ACTA negotiators' issued by 'Concerned business groups operating in ACTA nations.' Among many highly invasive methods and approaches proposed in this memorandum, the reader can find detailed demands for: full disclosure of relevant information by Customs to trademark holders so that they can mount private investigations; disclosure of identities and other information about copyright infringers; and increased inspection of goods. This document is especially important to raise public awareness on these negotiations and their implications for the future." We've been watching ACTA develop for a few months now.
[+]
News: Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty 223 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "One hundred groups of concerned citizens have united to demand a look at the secret ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) treaty and have drafted a letter to their representatives asking for information. We've discussed ACTA before, including what are believed to be parts of ACTA that lawmakers are trying to get a head start on."
[+]
Your Rights Online: EFF, Public Knowledge Sue Over Secret IP Pact 104 comments
Cowards Anonymous writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge have filed a lawsuit against the Office of the US Trade Representative in an attempt to get the office to turn over information about a secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty being negotiated to step up cross-border enforcement of copyright and piracy laws. ACTA could include an agreement for the US, Canada, the European Commission and other nations to enforce each others' IP laws, with residents of each country subject to criminal charges when violating the IP laws of another country, according to a supposed ACTA discussion paper [PDF] posted on Wikileaks.org in May."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, just like all those students from the 60s and 70s voted to legalise marijuana.
Society changes, but it's often much slower than one might expect.
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Informative)
US Census 1970: 203,302,031 inhabitants
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Interesting)
And while I would be happy to vote for an Independent that had even the tiniest of snowballs chance in hell,I just don't see us getting a real third party anytime soon. Not unless we can get someone like Ron Paul or Jessie Ventura to run and build up a buzz. But that is my 02c,YMMV
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'll settle for a second one.
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of lamenting your "two" choices, make use of your ballot to go with Option C. If you don't care which of the two major party candidates gets elected because it's all the same to you, instead of sitting on your ass, throw your vote away on someone you care about. Those numbers can add up. Your conclusions are contradictory. "Why bother voting if you only have two choices?" and "I wish I had a third choice" don't mesh: you DO have a third choice. Not voting at all isn't a form of protest; it's not resignation to a fate out of your hands. It's just lazy.
What difference does it make to you whether the independent candidate has a chance? If there's no point in voting for Corporate Candidate A or B, don't. Candidates have a chance when voters give them a chance. Stop bitching and do something about it. The worst that could happen is that your vote has no impact--but if you don't vote, that's a certainty regardless.
Parent
Re:Gotta say it... (Score:4, Interesting)
The government only represents the people when the people vote. Guess which age group is least likely to vote? It's exactly the same age group that's most likely to use P2P and play WoW.
99.999% of politicians aren't politicians because they love helping people and doing the right thing. They're in it for the money and the power. As far as politicians are concerned, people who don't vote don't exist. Non-voters have no say in whether the politicians keep their cushy jobs, so why cater to them when they can cater to actual voters and keep their jobs? If you ignore politicians, the politicians will ignore you.
Even if the corporations are buying off politicians left and right, the voters are still ultimately responsible for continually re-electing the corrupt politicians.
It's really hard to feel bad about all of this political bitching when the people most upset are also the ones least like to vote.
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or that, if you really want to get technical, everything that takes place over the internet exchanges information between two or more parties. How does one quantify p2p as opposed to simply transfer of information between two people, two servers, etc?
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
One man's patriot is another's insurgent.
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem, as I see it, is that our current corporate 'free market' system allows an end run around the checks and balances. A free market contains no checks or balances against the consolidation of power.
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
When I was in school (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was in school, we were taught about Francis Cabot Lowell, who heroically copied machine plans in England to use in the US for textile mills.
England was so worried that their monopoly on their mill technology would be taken that they would search ships, cargo and passenger for hidden plans.
Fortunately for the US, Lowell memorized the plans and was able to build his own plants in the New World. His business was the beginning of the industrialization of the New World. Without which, the United States would have continued to be merely agrarian in nature. Does anyone know if they still teach this lesson in gradeschools, or was it killed when they started teaching kids to respect copyrights more?
Parent
Re:When I was in school (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
p2p == !DNS (Score:5, Informative)
The defining characteristic of what people call peer-to-peer systems is that the peers find each other without relying on the Domain Name System. A service that relies on the DNS--like a web server--can be shut down by removing its address from the DNS. Wikileaks had a problem like that recently. If you can force everyone to go through the DNS, then the DNS become a single point of control for the entire internet, and you can easily shut down anyone you don't like.
The tricky part is establishing the legal principle that forces everyone to go through the DNS. You have to make it illegal to send a packet to an IP address unless you have obtained that IP address through a DNS lookup. Or something like that...
Parent
Bad summary. (Score:5, Informative)
"For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet. This clause would also negatively affect transparency and primary source journalism sites such as Wikileaks. "
Basically, not just a pirate bay killer, but a wikileaks killer all rolled in one. Legitimate P2P is completely unaffected. except that there will never be 'open' trackers after this law goes through, in member nations. it's really easy to have a closed tracker, as WOW uses for distributing patches... now if WOW or say, SC2 uses P2P for 'user created content' (custom maps, sprites etc) then they might have to 'kill' those features in a patch, after all you can easily infringe on copyright (especially with custom sprites)
Parent
Re:Bad summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
EXACTLY. It will criminalize unauthorized information exchange on the internet. Sounds all fine and good until you start thinking about who gets to define what constitutes "unauthorized." A legislative body with proper representation drafting the definition after careful consideration, input from constituents, and an informed debate on the issue? Hardly. "Unauthorized" will be at the sole whim of the MAFIAA and whatever political party is in power at the time. This will be used to squash differences in opinion from those in power. It may take down Wikileaks first, but who is to say if it will stop there? What they're trying to do with this is no less than pulling the wool over everyone's eyes until it's too late to do anything about it. They're going to try and present it fait accompli because they know it won't stand up if they actually ask people what they think.
Face it, power no longer rests with the people, and hasn't for some time. It all resides in the hands of the corporations with money to buy votes. The oil, content, and software industries are the ones ACTUALLY running the US. So when does everyone decide to use what little power they have left to say "That's it, you're ALL fired. Every single one of you. Get the HELL out of Washington and find a REAL job, while we vote in people who actually have a spine to stand up for those that they represent!"
I know, I know. It's a pipe dream that won't happen in my lifetime, or even in my grandchildren's lifetimes (I'm 26, single, no kids. Typical Slashdotter, but there's an idea of the timescale I'm talking about), but can't a man dream?
Parent
Re:Guess they don't play WoW... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Im glad our collective governments have all the real issues of the world solved ( like famine, disease, terrorists , etc ) and can focus on such important things as saving some corporate entity from having to adapt to the future.. ( and make us all criminals in the process )
Can you say 'one world government by proxy' ?
Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about music and/or copyrights, thats just a smoke screen for what they are really doing which is controlling the flow of information that they cannot watch. People in power get into power because they seek power over others. They fear the loss of power and so they want to control as much as they can. They fear any spread of information outside of their control as it can undermine their positions of power. This is all about constructing a global information gathering network. They want power over the internet and what flows on it. Most of us who don't seek power don't think like the people who seek power. The power seekers spend decades learning to gain and hold onto power. They are always looking at new ways to control and so far the Internet has grown up largely outside of their control and they dont want that.
Parent
Re:Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)
Can you say 'one world government by proxy' ?
No. Proxies are now outlawed too.
Parent
Treaties do NOT trump federal law or Constitution. (Score:4, Informative)
Treaties do NOT trump federal law or the Constitution.
When a treaty requires some internal law change to implement its provisions, that can only happen if congress passes such laws. Congress is not obligated to pass such laws or refrain from repealing them. Laws implementing a treaty are just as subject to being struck down as unconstitutional as any other law.
The idea that treaties are a way to effectively amend the Constitution by an easier procedure comes from a common misreading of the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution. What the clause ACTUALLY means is that the Constitution, federal law, and treaties, each trump state/county/local law when they conflict (and the laws or treaties are constitutional).
The supremacy clause from article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.
But see also article III Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Note how, in both, the treaties are subordinated to the Constitution and how in article III they're also clearly subordinated to federal law.
Parent
Just as with anything... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just as with anything... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hrm, DPI was in preparation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hrm, DPI was in preparation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Canada (Score:4, Funny)
I swear to God, if Harper signs this, I am going to skull fuck him.
Bring it on CESIS, I'm ready and waiting!
Re:Canada (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Canada (Score:4, Informative)
Remember that though treaties are used by lobbyists to do end-runs around the laws of various countries, treaties cannot escape ratification by signing nations. Ratification still has to be voted on in the commons and given Royal Assent to be put into law before they can be enforced in Canada.
Sometimes that isn't even enough. The Kyoto treaty was ratified, then pretty much ignored by the Liberal government of the time, the Liberal government following it and the present Conservative government.
I don't even think a draconian copyright treaty would even get as far as Kyoto. Canada has been under some degree of pressure for a decade to "update" its copyright law to include DMCA-like provisions. It isn't an issue that resonates with the electorate like the environment, the Industry and Heritage committees have reviewed copyright law ad-nauseum, and copyright reform bills have died on the order paper.
With it being a minority government run by a Conservative party that can only claim to live up to the name by the slimmest of margins as it tries to lure voters with policies scattershot all over the centre and right of the ideological spectrum, and a Liberal party with no principles to speak of and an ineffectual leader yet very eager to dig up all the dirt it can, I cannot see the government stepping up and pushing through a contentious copyright bill that would outlaw all forms of P2P (something even legitimate content providers are toying with, including the CBC--so such a law would even make criminals out of government-owned institutions).
Parent
Wow, this makes great sense. (Score:5, Funny)
"Exactly. We make legally trading content illegal, then we'll catch those copyright infringers."
"But if you outlaw legal file-sharing you set a dangerous precendent and risk a horrific backlash from the populous."
"Look, you want this kickback or not?"
Who is going to foot the bandwidth bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
It might well put a damper on piracy efforts that rely on decentralized distribution to stay afloat, but it will seriously hurt the (few) legitimate uses of peer-to-peer distribution. Imagine the strain on software development if the the good will and bandwidth of end users disappeared from their distribution model. At the end of the day somebody has to pay for the $n$ million downloads at 700MB apiece; I seriously doubt the paid development, marketing, sales, and support staff want to see it reallocated from their budgets.
\end{comment}
Re:Who is going to foot the bandwidth bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
So don't say that this is a bad side effect. I see it very much as an INTENDED side effect.
Parent
If your congress critter is on this list (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA
Thank you also to the Members present, who have done so much to advance
the cause of IP protection, including:
- Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)
- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Re:If your congress critter is on this list (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:If your congress critter is on this list (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know any of those names but one: Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA). The only 'constituents' that she gives a rat ass about are those that work for the content industry.
This is the woman that pushed the Copyright Term Extension Act through Congress. This is a telling quote: (emphasis mine)
WTF is wrong with our elected officials? IANAL but I've read the Constitution enough times (and paid enough attention in civics class) to understand that the power of Congress to grant patents/copyrights is time limited. Let me help you Congresswoman:
I also love the bit about what the MPAA President wanted. Care to tell me why his concerns should carry anymore weight then those of any American citizen?
In short, she's a bitch and I wish I lived in her district so I could vote against her. Since I wouldn't live in California if you paid me a million bucks a minute (sorry to my friends on the west coast!) I'll have to be content with donating money to the campaign of whomever runs against her.
Parent
Re:If your congress critter is on this list (Score:4, Insightful)
Soon we'll know who's running against these dicks. PLEASE DONATE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN TO THEIR OPPONENTS IN THIS YEARS'S ELECTION!!
In the Congress, money talks; bullshit walks. All this discussion about "IP rights" and "Constitution" is pure bullshit to these leeches. All they care about is money. Well, put your money where your mouths are and donate liberally to their opponents come November. If we can just kick a couple of these bloodsuckers out of Congress, then we'll send a message to the others that these shenanigans won't do.
On the other hand, if they win again, then you might as well kiss the Internet (as we know it) goodbye....
Parent
technologically feasible? (Score:4, Interesting)
otherwise, if the status quo is two way traffic flow, p2p traffic can be obfuscated in such a way that it is hard to detect and hard to isolate from "acceptable" traffic
so i think all these laws do is breed stronger p2p apps
The one-world corporate state (Score:4, Insightful)
And like I've said before, there's no bribing going on: the people writing these laws and treaties believe with all their hearts that the good of the nation -- nay, all humanity is served by maximizing corporate profit through physical force.
I wasn't always like this. And in fact, lest you mistake me for a turtle-suit-wearing WTO protester, I'm actually all in favor of free markets. It'd just be nice if we ever actually saw an actually free market in my lifetime.
I'm a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
If I use P2P of any kind for any reason, legal or not, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I get for free, legally or not, what I could PAY for, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I don't spend every last penny I make on what corporate America tells me to, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I don't purchase a gas-hogging SUV every three years, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I ride a bicycle because gas is so expensive, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I don't consume, consume, consume, and CONSUME, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
I object to having to live in a fucking nanny-state, so OBVIOUSLY I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
If I don't live exactly like EVERYONE ELSE, then I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
Know what? The fucking bastards can fucking drop me in an oubliette in Gitmo then, because I guess I'm a fucking terrorist. I don't do everything I'm told to do, believe everything I'm told to believe, and keep my mouth shut because my opinions aren't "politically correct", so that makes me an "undesirable", worthy only of societies' scorn, and I should be treated like a dog.
Let them sign their fucking little treaty. It's all paperwork bullshit anyway. I say it over and over again like a mantra: You can't stop the signal, goddamnit! Outlaw BitTorrent? Let's see them try, and if they do, someone will re-tool it into something completely different. Make the public internet unusable for anything other than their corporate bullshit? We'll find a way to subvert it into doing what we need it to do, or we'll tell them to go fuck themselves and go back to SneakerNet -- or maybe we'll just start creating a mesh network of our own and SCREW the ISPs!
</SOAPBOX>
Re:The First Amendment to the Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
Problem is, the Constitution doesn't give a ranking for treaties when they're unconstitutional, and it's been treated that they supersede it.
Parent
Re:The First Amendment to the Constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It doesn't say treaties trump the constitution, or even are peers of it. It says that the hierarchy is Constitution -> Federal law -> Treaties -> state law.
It's even clearer in article III section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Treaties themselves have no power internally without enabling legislation. Congress is not obligated to pass enabling legislation, to make it conform to the actual treaty language if they do pass it, or to refrain from repealing it. Courts can strike the enabling legislation (or any attempt at direct application of treaty language to the international activity of US citizens or entities) for unconstitutionality, interpret it into impotence, or set up impossible enforcement roadblocks, as easily as they do the same to federal law.
Parent
Re:The First Amendment to the Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)
Parent
Re:If P2P is outlaws (Score:4, Informative)
Parent