ACTA Proposal Would Criminalize Substantial Non-Commercial Infringement
from the consumers-have-no-seat-at-the-table dept
With various governments still insisting that ACTA negotiations must be done in near total secrecy, various folks are working hard to at least shine some sunlight on the details. Michael Geist discusses what he's been able to piece through, and it's not pretty. The only good news is that everything is still in the early stages, and there's some disagreement among the participating trade reps concerning how certain things should work. However, that's about the only good news. The bad news is that many of the provisions are clearly being submitted with significant "input" from industries who stand to benefit from greater IP protectionism -- and no effort has been made to see what impact the resulting output would have on everyone else.Even more troubling are the specific details supplied by KEI, who includes some draft text, including a proposal pushed by the US and Japan to use ACTA to make certain forms of personal, non-commercial infringement a criminal offense as a "deterrent." Yes, this would include potential jailtime, even if the infringer had no intent to profit. Notice that this is happening in backrooms among trade representatives, rather than in public among elected officials -- especially as various countries have been increasingly open to the idea of exempting personal, non-commercial infringement from being subject to legal punishment. This "treaty" would force countries to put a halt to that, and then we'd hear all sorts of big-time IP defenders insist that we absolutely had to make these changes to the law to "live up to international treaties" which they helped write.
KEI also points out another downside to all of this being negotiated in secret. It appears that many of the trade representatives are ignorant of certain laws already in place in their own countries, as well as other legislation that is currently under consideration. For example, KEI notes the current debates over copyright laws concerning "orphaned works" which is a big issue in Congressional copyright discussions. Some of what's being pushed in ACTA would mess up those discussions -- but who cares, apparently, trade representatives, pushed on by industry representatives, seem to have no problem determining for themselves what copyright law should be all about.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, copyright, criminal, non-commercial use, secrecy, sunlight, trade agreements
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Paper Dragon
The ACTA is beginning to sound like one big circle jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paper Dragon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the 'consumer'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Geist is getting drunk on his own wine. I never realized that taking a videocam into a movie theater and filming the movie being shown has ever been held by any court of law to be "A-Ok".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Meanwhile, substantial non-commercial infringement is so vague it could be treated as downloading a single song. Substantial by itself has no guidelines. When will people stop using adjectives in bills to try to sum things up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a section on “Unauthorized Camcording.” This provides that
Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied against any person who, without authorization of the holder of copyright or related rights in a motion picture or other audiovisual work, knowingly uses an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of or transmits to the public the motion picture or other audiovisual work, or any part thereof, from a performance of the motion picture or other audiovisual work in a motion picture exhibition facility open to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lock down creativity? YES WE CAN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
Last January, Obama wanted to filibuster it. I agreed with him (and I'm often on the conservative side of things).
Somewhere between there and May-July (I can't remember), Obama became the front-runner. Suddenly, a filibuster to stop warrantless wiretaps wasn't in the cards.
So Obama won't stand up to this as long as it's a small time issue. How do issues get big time? Airtime on commercial media. Who's writing this treaty?
You see the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
hell yes. why do you think all those copyright goons are being appointed to positions in the DOJ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for a Tea Party...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for a Tea Party...
are you kidding? miss 'american idol' to take a stand for something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for a Tea Party...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Good Use For Spam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACTA
What is ACTA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACTA
ACTA is the number one return, you dont even have to scroll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACTA by Anonymous Coward - Feb 4th, 2009 @ 8:58pm
Just because something is at the 'top of the page' or the "number one return" does not necessarily make it the one thing that you are looking for!
Google results for ACTA (Page ONE)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority
ACTA Inc.
ACTA Publications
Acta, the classic outliner
ACTA: Assertive Community Treatment Association
Aldrichcimia Acta
Searches related to: ACTA
atca, acta fuel cell, acta holding, acta materialia, acta cryst, electrochimica acta, acta horticulturae, acta cytologica
My original posting still stands. What 'ACTA' is, was not mentioned anywhere in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]