New Draft of "Secret" Copyright Treaty Leaks

[RathBandu]

"It's bad. Very very bad."

* * 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)

What the fuck.

[ElCapitanAmerica]

What the hell?

[The Closer]

Outstanding.

[Snaieke]

Fuckin Bush.

Oh.. wait.

[Master Shake]

I really wish the Obama administration would just stop giving a shit about the desires and opinions of the fucking money-grubbing bastards that run telecoms and media labels.

[Rheokhu]

As commenter "flwombat" points out in the story linked, Obama just signed off on a treaty outlawing the social networking infastructure that got him elected. And he ran on Net Neutrality, not that most Americans know what Net Neutrality even is.

At this point I'll be curious to see if he even runs for reelection in 2012. He's run out of promises to break in what has to be some sort of record.

[The Prankster]

Um. Source?

[Blueharvester]

so that is why all the mega-moguls and bloodsuckers met this summer?
Their lobby powers must be formidable if they can build up their digital jail that fast.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by The Prankster

Um. Source?

Ha, I was wondering when someone would mention that.

"ISPs have to.." Don't they "have to" now?

[DerekT]

Originally Posted by Phil

Ha, I was wondering when someone would mention that.

"ISPs have to.." Don't they "have to" now?

No they don't. Most ISPs like youtube as of now have been going on a "you complain and we will take it down for you". But making it proactive that would mean that basicly youtube would have to check the copywright status of each and every individual video and then only allow those that don't break copywright to come online.

[BillyG]

Gizmodo link with EFF link

[The Prankster]

That's a little better, but you'll excuse me for being a tad skeptical about passage of a treaty that could effectively wipe out YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, and who knows what else with the stroke of a pen. As one of the articles I reached through that link mentions, the telecoms are against this treaty, and they're actually much bigger than the content providers who want it passed.

Not to say we shouldn't be concerned, and I'm emailing everyone I can about this, but I'm not about to go into hysterics either.

I wonder what would happen if it did pass, and had the effects that the various articles are suggesting. It seems to me the American public will sit still for a lot, but take away their internet and I figure there'll be a massive backlash...

[Graynadian]

Wow, it looks like America is about to be cut off from the international online community. Watch every major net-based company move out of the States.

The young/not ancient need to make net rights a key voting issue, it's the only way to change this garbage.

[ElCapitanAmerica]

Originally Posted by DerekT

No they don't. Most ISPs like youtube as of now have been going on a "you complain and we will take it down for you". But making it proactive that would mean that basicly youtube would have to check the copywright status of each and every individual video and then only allow those that don't break copywright to come online.

YouTube is not an ISP.

Also, YouTube already has to be proactive on some content, like music. That's why they have a program that automagically removes your audio if it detects there's a copyrighted song in your video.

[sunwukong]

Originally Posted by Graynadian

Wow, it looks like America is about to be cut off from the international online community. Watch every major net-based company move out of the States.

The young/not ancient need to make net rights a key voting issue, it's the only way to change this garbage.

Canada is a signatory and full participant as well -- current and past governments have been willing partners in this.

[BillyG]

Originally Posted by Graynadian

Wow, it looks like America is about to be cut off from the international online community. Watch every major net-based company move out of the States.

The young/not ancient need to make net rights a key voting issue, it's the only way to change this garbage.

Yea, definitely not a USA only thing, this is a worldwide treaty. And if this was to happen the entire internet would shut down. There's just no way to enforce it and the internet still be in operation.

[DerekT]

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica

YouTube is not an ISP.

Also, YouTube already has to be proactive on some content, like music. That's why they have a program that automagically removes your audio if it detects there's a copyrighted song in your video.

If that is true, well the audio removal program is faulty then.

I think the point was that if this was done, then youtube would go kaput because the ISP that provides youtube their service would defently be at fault for copywright violations.

[ElCapitanAmerica]

Originally Posted by DerekT

If that is true, well the audio removal program is faulty then.

"If"?
http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

And they did it because they were being threatened or actually sued by some content providers.

I think the point was that if this was done, then youtube would go kaput because the ISP that provides youtube their service would defently be at fault for copywright violations.

Actually I think these bozos want to sue your ISP that provides access to an illegal video.

[RathBandu]

YouTube's scorched earth policy isn't fair, either, as a number of videos that are automatically pulled qualify for fair use or under an exception to the copyright clause.

[stelios]

That is fucking bullshit. This is the big media companies taking advantage of greedy/stupid/ignorant politicians in a last attempt to delay the inevitable. Fuck them and fuck everyone who dares put his name under this nonsense.

Isn't it kind of funny how you're presumed innocent for a crime as major as murder but with a mere notice for fucking copyright infringement you're automatically guilty.

[Renn Brown]

Originally Posted by RathBandu

YouTube's scorched earth policy isn't fair, either, as a number of videos that are automatically pulled qualify for fair use or under an exception to the copyright clause.

Fair Use is not a policy though, it's only a legal precedent.

[Gio Angles]

"Fair use" is way more than just a legal precedent. It was originally a common-law tradition that's since been codified in the Copyright Act.

The problem is that even though there are some generally accepted examples of fair use (quoting snippets for academic use or literary criticism), it's a four factor test that needs to be applied case-by-case, as opposed to a bright-line rule.

[Jan]

Originally Posted by stelios

Isn't it kind of funny how you're presumed innocent for a crime as major as murder but with a mere notice for fucking copyright infringement you're automatically guilty.

Hence I salute our Constitutional Court. Even if signed, these provisions are bound to be utterly destroyed by that court. No way this provision will pass. Which is not to say that it will be implemented beforehand if this treaty will be signed. But our Constitutional Court has the unthankfull job of constantly reminding politicians of doing their job right for once by shooting down such laws.

[RathBandu]

For example, I used to work at at YMCA doing summer camp videos/teaching kids about digital media. The YMCA, which is an educational institution, qualifies under the Fair Use clause. We actually had to switch our video provider as a result, because YouTube kept pulling their videos.

[stelios]

Originally Posted by Jan

Hence I salute our Constitutional Court. Even if signed, these provisions are bound to be utterly destroyed by that court. No way this provision will pass. Which is not to say that it will be implemented beforehand if this treaty will be signed. But our Constitutional Court has the unthankfull job of constantly reminding politicians of doing their job right for once by shooting down such laws.

Yeah, I don't see this passing through the high courts in Europe except for England and maybe France.

[Khaunshar]

Even if this went through, it would just cause a total and utter collapse of every participant countries legal system which would be flooded with insane numbers of trials and paperwork when everyone suddenly wants to make a killing by sueing ... well, everyone else.
Esp. in the USA, where you can happily play "sue your neighbour and get rich" lotto, this will get out of hand fast. The ship has sailed. Nothing in human history was ever taken back once it was invented, and the internet sure as hell wont either.
Adapt.

[Martianman]

Originally Posted by Rheokhu

...And he ran on Net Neutrality, not that most Americans know what Net Neutrality even is.

You know when that disappeared from his website? When Joe Biden signed on as VP. Biden is anti-net neutrality. As soon as Biden was announced as VP, they removed the pro-net neutrality stuff from Obama's website. G4 reported on it when it happened. I really had no problem with Obama, but I really disliked Joe Biden.

[dontEATnachos]

In the US, the FCC has been quite pro-net neutrality though. So I'm kind of surprised at all of this stuff.

[MissZooey]

Originally Posted by Khaunshar

Adapt.

You're typically a flaming bag of semi-coherence, sir, but this is so important to note. I would imagine that these policies and proposals are being hatched by people who have no life on the web and who do not understand the shifting nature of copyright and communication. Those of us who do get it are obligated to explain and defend our rights. "Fair use" isn't going to be enough anymore.

[mr_adam]

something like this, which hits EVERYONE is bound to be turned over. chances are that they are just putting in extra draconian measures which they can drop so that they can get away with the slightly less (although very) offensive stuff.

Still, It's nice to see the US adopt a Chinese style censorship program.

Let's hear it for Albania - they used to have no enforcement of copyright law but thanks to US bribery they now have a thriving local film industry. Taste the propganda here.

[Khaunshar]

Originally Posted by MissZooey

You're typically a flaming bag of semi-coherence, sir, but this is so important to note. I would imagine that these policies and proposals are being hatched by people who have no life on the web and who do not understand the shifting nature of copyright and communication. Those of us who do get it are obligated to explain and defend our rights. "Fair use" isn't going to be enough anymore.

Uh oh, I think we have a misunderstanding here, possibly due to failure on my part to utilize the english language in order to express a rather more complicated thought than "I want fries with that."

I am utterly and completely against this Copyright Treaty. I have had my fill, and another 2 helpings or so, of old, internet-ignorant regressive talking heads in germany, and I know full well how much that crap can encroach on personal freedom.

What I intended to say is that while this treaty is looking quite bad, I do in fact believe its SO bad that it wont work. Its just completely over the top that I cannot really see how anyone would even begin to try and implement it.

For all intents and purposes, its a try to roll back time and undo many developments that happened in part due to the spreading of the internet, and the subsequent copyright problems, but that will not work.
No invention has ever been "rolled back" especially not one with such widespread use.
My call to "adapt!" was intended to be aimed at the (hypothetical) politicians/businessmen trying to get this crap into law.

One of the most important, IMO, pieces of legislature that the global community has to deal with in the next two decades is how we treat copyright, but this is exactly the wrong way to do it.
I got no clue how it ll end up being, but the idea of widely cutting off access to stuff is a surefire way to NOT get it done.