PDA

View Full Version : Almost-final, much weaker ACTA draft published



Sporkman
October 7th, 2010, 02:16 PM
Almost-final, much weaker ACTA draft published

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is this close to escaping its protracted, mostly secret negotiations -- and now that the Office of the United States Trade Representative has posted a copy (PDF) of the nearly finalized text, we can see how much of this accord has shriveled away...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2010/10/latest_acta_details--still_lea.html

Lucradia
October 7th, 2010, 05:12 PM
First, ACTA no longer exports the worst aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- the 1998 law that, among its other flaws, makes it a crime to unlock a DVD to back it up to your computer. Although it has a loosely worded ban on tools used to unlock "digital rights management" technologies, a footnote frees states from requiring gadget manufacturers and software developers to ship products that obey DRM restrictions.

1. This means it's still not allowed to use codecs that break DRM for free.

2. This means that Microsoft probably bribed the people who made ACTA so they can continue to provide DVD decoding software, etc.


Second, ACTA no longer demands that countries hold Internet providers responsible for copyright infringement committed by their subscribers. A densely worded, still-disputed provision in its Article 2's fifth section, "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Environment," suggests that they enact such rules -- but it also offers enough wiggle room for future legislators to gut that mandate. (I'm assuming that they don't need an international agreement to draft bad laws; some DMCA restrictions exceed those that the U.S. agreed to implement as part of an earlier copyright treaty.)

Hooray! inb4politicalock

Dustin2128
October 7th, 2010, 05:33 PM
well at least they're not hiding it anymore. Hopefully because of that, it won't pass. DMCA is one of the worst things imo about living in the states, giving copyright holders an almost police like status. I don't want it to become worldwide.

KiwiNZ
October 7th, 2010, 07:12 PM
1. This means it's still not allowed to use codecs that break DRM for free.

2. This means that Microsoft probably bribed the people who made ACTA so they can continue to provide DVD decoding software, etc.



Hooray! inb4politicalock

Now there is a Gold Medal record , it only took until post #2 for the Microsoft bribed someone post to appear :rolleyes:

formaldehyde_spoon
October 7th, 2010, 08:59 PM
1. This means it's still not allowed to use codecs that break DRM for free.

2. This means that Microsoft probably bribed the people who made ACTA so they can continue to provide DVD decoding software, etc.



Hooray! inb4politicalock

1. Yes, cracking for legal purposes (eg fair use, personal backups, etc) is legal, but the tools to do the cracking may not be!

2. Much more likely to be the recording industry pushing for this. Say what you will about MS's copy protection methods, but you have to admit that it's not as bad as getting laws passed to protect you, like the recording industry are.

rhcm123
October 7th, 2010, 10:59 PM
Article 2.5, section 3:


3. In civil judicial proceedings concerning at least copyright or related rights
infringement and trademark counterfeiting, each Party shall provide that its judicial
authorities shall have the authority to order the seizure or other taking into custody of
suspected infringing goods, materials, and implements relevant to the act of
infringement and, at least for trademark counterfeiting, documentary evidence, either
originals or copies thereof, relevant to the infringement.

READ: If they say you've counterfited something, enjoy your computer being taken.

KiwiNZ
October 7th, 2010, 11:15 PM
Article 2.5, section 3:



READ: If they say you've counterfited something, enjoy your computer being taken.

If you have been found guilty the Courts may order the seizure. Such clauses are appropriate and are present in current border control laws in most countries now.

rhcm123
October 7th, 2010, 11:21 PM
If you have been found guilty the Courts may order the seizure. Such clauses are appropriate and are present in current border control laws in most countries now.

In a civil case though. It's not a criminal case, where the burden of evidence is much greater. If, for instance, your ISP says a bittorrent of some movie went to your home (i know thats not in the current version but tihs is an example), that would prove your guilt in a civil case. Not so in a criminal case, but then again i only know US laws regarding burden of evidence.

KiwiNZ
October 7th, 2010, 11:25 PM
In a civil case though. It's not a criminal case, where the burden of evidence is much greater. If, for instance, your ISP says a bittorrent of some movie went to your home (i know thats not in the current version but tihs is an example), that would prove your guilt in a civil case. Not so in a criminal case, but then again i only know US laws regarding burden of evidence.

ISP are no longer responsible under the amended ACTA accord proposals ..."Second, ACTA no longer demands that countries hold Internet providers responsible for copyright infringement committed by their subscribers."

rhcm123
October 7th, 2010, 11:26 PM
ISP are no longer responsible under the amended ACTA accord proposals ..."Second, ACTA no longer demands that countries hold Internet providers responsible for copyright infringement committed by their subscribers."

I know but Im still uncomfortable with it... does anybody know if they can still search your computer/iPod in airports and the like? I didn't really see that anywhere in the legalese

KiwiNZ
October 7th, 2010, 11:31 PM
I know but Im still uncomfortable with it... does anybody know if they can still search your computer/iPod in airports and the like? I didn't really see that anywhere in the legalese

In theory that would be up to individual signatory nations as to if they consider it contraband goods at the border and subject to their border controls.

Question is , are you prepared to risk $1,000's of equipement and travel costs to find out? I know I would not.

formaldehyde_spoon
October 7th, 2010, 11:59 PM
If you have been found guilty the Courts may order the seizure. Such clauses are appropriate and are present in current border control laws in most countries now.

It says during civil proceedings your gear may be seized. Nothing about being found guilty first.
Edit: and let me point out that copyright infringement is *not* a criminal act in any western country (or anywhere else, AFAIK). You may be breaking civil law, but not criminal law - so there will be no 'guilty' or 'not guilty'.

I know but Im still uncomfortable with it... does anybody know if they can still search your computer/iPod in airports and the like? I didn't really see that anywhere in the legalese

These are just bizarre rules :D
Data is trivially moved across borders online.
It'll be interesting to see what they do when travelers carry laptops with petabytes of data :p Time and money needed to inspect the data will go through the roof.

KiwiNZ
October 8th, 2010, 12:08 AM
I won't need to worry I am 100% LEGIT

KiwiNZ
October 8th, 2010, 12:15 AM
Edit: and let me point out that copyright infringement is *not* a criminal act in any western country (or anywhere else, AFAIK). You may be breaking civil law, but not criminal law - so there will be no 'guilty' or 'not guilty'.
.

If Article 2.14 is adopted by individual signatory states then that will change.

formaldehyde_spoon
October 8th, 2010, 12:19 AM
I won't need to worry I am 100% LEGIT

Unless someone sues you even though *you* know you didn't do anything, because they have reason to think otherwise. Or your ISP cuts you of because you've been *accused* (not proven in a court) of copyright infringement.
If Article 2.14 is adopted by individual signatory states then that will change.

Yes, that is a horrible blow to peoples rights, straight from the meeting rooms of the recording industry. People who've been threatened into paying a few thousand dollars for a movie (allegedly) downloaded to their IP could go to jail for it!
I suspect actually jailing someone for copying data would cause a huge PR backlash against the recoding industry though - like the publicity they got when whats-her-name was whacked for millions of dollars for sharing 20 songs, only many times greater.

Dustin2128
October 8th, 2010, 12:25 AM
Unless someone sues you even though *you* know you didn't do anything, because they have reason to think otherwise. Or your ISP cuts you of because you've been *accused* (not proven in a court) of copyright infringement.

Yes, that is a horrible blow to peoples rights, straight from the meeting rooms of the recording industry. People who've been threatened into paying a few thousand dollars for a movie (allegedly) downloaded to their IP could go to jail for it!
yes, some ISPs are swapping to a three strikes system. The strikes? DMCA Accusations! I kinda liked the idea that 4chan would start swamping users of these ISPs with accusations until the ISP didn't have anyone left. They already DDOS'd the RIAA and the MPAA.