Entertainment Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses

from the yeah,-that's-convincing dept

Fri, Nov 20th 2009 4:44pm — Mike Masnick

Sherwin Siy (one of the few people who actually was allowed to glance briefly at parts of the proposed ACTA treaty, though under strict NDA) has written about yet another letter sent by the entertainment industry to the government in support of ACTA. This letter includes pretty much everyone who benefits from abusing copyright laws and is afraid of the internet:

Advertising Photographers of America
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI)
Commercial Photographers International
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Evidence Photographers International Council
Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)
NBC Universal
News Corporation
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Professional Photographers of America (PPA)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Stock Artists Alliance
Student Photographic Society
The Advertising Photographers of America
The Walt Disney Company
Time Warner, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Viacom Inc.
Warner Music Group

Funny... isn't it, that all these companies and industry groups are supporting a deal that no one's seen yet? Oh wait... that's because many of them have seen it and actually have had a hand in creating it. But what's really damning is that no where in the letter do they explain why this is actually needed or how it will do anything valuable. Instead, it's a pure faith-based letter saying "if you pass this secret treaty, good things will happen." I don't know about you, but generally, I prefer there to be actual proof and evidence that restricting consumer rights around the world actually leads to some sort of real benefit.

Tellingly, they don't respond to any of the points we raised earlier. This is not a treaty to help people or the economy. It's a deal to try to sneak through a system for propping up an obsolete business model by companies who don't want to adapt.

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, counterfeiting, evidence, lobbyists, secrecy
Companies: a2im, aap, aftra, ascap, asmp, bmi, disney, gda, iatse, ifta, mpaa, nbc universal, news corp., nmpa, paca, ppa, reed elsevier, riaa, siia, time warner, viacom, warner music group

44 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 5:04pm

If only these groups spent all that money on trying to innovate instead of attempting to bribe, sorry, lobby various government officials around the world. In secret, no less.

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yano, 20 Nov 2009 @ 5:45pm

it's frightening and maddening because there is little than can be done, all those industry representatives have enormous power and influence and they are going to ruin my internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 5:56pm

They can use and abuse their power and influence all the want. Until it becomes easier for me to buy and use stuff how I choose, I’ll keep pirating it!
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!
Attempt to strong-arm me into doing it your way, and I’ll keep doing it my way just because you’re trying to force me to do it your way. Let me have the freedom to make a choice, and ill support you and your product!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 6:53pm

Just out of spite, I will never stop pirating, you've lost me forever people. Those groups can all go to hell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 8:01pm

Why do you keep picking on these companies ??
How do we know that this isnt a special interest group using the 30 companies listed above and just sending form letters? You have pointed out how lobbyist do this on many an occasion.

How could you pick on these poor companies? They are just trying to make a living. They are all looking out for our best interests. They love and respect us. They want whats best for the american people and wouldn't try to manipulate the system.

/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 8:03pm

Re: Why do you keep picking on these companies ??
I really have to take a shower now .... that was distasteful even with the /sarcasm tag...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:01pm

Re:
FIXED: "Just out of greed, I will never stop pirating, you've me forever people."

You're welcome!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:06pm

The letter is little more than milquetoast with no substantive content. It is hard to get lathered up about the letter.

As for the treaty, as Ben Sheffner has explained in detail access to those involved in negotiations includes a wide spectrum of interests. Moreover, no matter what comes out of the negotiations, which at this point are far away from achieving concensus among the negotiating countries, the proposed treaty would still have to be submitted to the Senate for approval. History teaches that treaty approval by the Senate proceeds at a pace approaching "glacial". Heck, the US finally signed up to the Berne Convention almost 100 years after it was initially promlgated.

This is not exactly a "hot button" matter, so why the preoccupation with "but it's being done in secret" (precisely how treaties are negotiated) eludes me.

Importantly, and contrary to what many alarmists are promoting, there is nothing to suggest that the eventual treaty provisions will even remotely result in changes to federal law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:07pm

Has anyone actually read this thing .....
Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members:

The United States is currently engaged in discussions with many of its major trading partners to negotiate a new secret agreement: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) -- to enhance and strengthen our global government granted monopoly on music, images and film. When concluded, the agreement will hopefully complement the work you have championed in the Congress to build in the U.S. an intellectual property rights system necessary to maintain our monopoly and jobs that will allow us to fund your re-election campains through out the 21st century. ACTA has the potential to: preserve the jobs of high paying attorneys, and create new legal positions; monopolize our countrys leading position in the creation, publishing and distribution of software, videogames, films, music, books, television programs, journals, visual materials and other works protected by copyright; and strengthen the ability of U.S. businesses to crush competition, prevent the distribution of intellectual property, quash competition and innovation worldwide.

We strongly support the Administration's efforts to negotiate a sound and comprehensive ACTA that codifies best practices for copyright enforcement, imprisonment for copyright infringements, and we urge you to do so as well. The need for this new agreement is clear. The enforcement standards in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), drawn up nearly 20 years ago, forms an essential foundation for copyright enforcement. But over the past two decades, our inovation has stood still and technology has not, and copyright infringement has expanded on an unprecedented scale, depriving copyright owners and those they employ of the return they deserve they and are entitled to on the crucial investment in legal expertise, lobbying, and copyfraud. Online infringment is a critical challenge for each of the diverse copyright-based sectors represented by the signatories to this letter. In this regard, it is essential that ACTA include an Internet chapter that, among other things, provides legal incentives for cross-industry cooperation to quash all competition.

You in Congress have defined adequate and monopolistis intellectual property protection under U.S. trade law as the extent to which the country provides protection of intellectual property rights consistent with or greater than the protection afforded under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(5)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). As you have recognized, it is long past time to expand on the foundation that TRIPS provided, and to raise minimum global standards to reflect our inability to change and the lessons learned from lobbying, bribery, and extortion efforts in many countries. That, in essence, is the thrust of the ACTA negotiations: to codify best enforcement practices that add to the framework provided by TRIPS, and monopolize legitimate commerce in copyrighted works that satisfies our shareholders, provides creators with no options to continue creating and distributing original works except through us, and contributes to an overall healthy, global monopoly.

Of course, we know the ACTA negotiations will live up to their potential and produce a world wide draconian copyright system, an agreement that delivers no real benefits to creators or consumers. But we do know it is an effort well worth supporting, as we will continue supporting your re-election campains. We urge you and your Congressional colleagues to continue supporting ACTA.

Respectfully submitted by:
Advertising Photographers of America
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI)
Commercial Photographers International
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Evidence Photographers International Council
Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)
NBC Universal
News Corporation
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Professional Photographers of America (PPA)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Stock Artists Alliance
Student Photographic Society
The Advertising Photographers of America
The Walt Disney Company
Time Warner, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Viacom Inc.
Warner Music Group

Chairman Patrick Leahy, Senate Judiciary Committee
Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Max Baucus, Senate Finance Committee
Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley, Senate Finance Committee
Chairman John Conyers, House Committee of the Judiciary
Ranking Member Lamar Smith, House Committee on the Judiciary
Chairman Charles Rangel, House Committee on Ways and Means
Ranking Dave Camp, House Committee on Ways and Means
Chairman Henry Waxman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Ranking Member Joe Barton, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
cc. Ambassador Ron Kirk

..... Big Ole GRIN
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:46pm

Re: Re:
I like how you fixed it into a sentence missing a verb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2009 @ 9:48pm

Re:
"This is not exactly a "hot button" matter, so why the preoccupation with "but it's being done in secret" (precisely how treaties are negotiated) eludes me."

Yeah, drastically rewriting international copyright law to suit the interests of industry lobbyists is nothing to worry about.

"Importantly, and contrary to what many alarmists are promoting, there is nothing to suggest that the eventual treaty provisions will even remotely result in changes to federal law."

Yeah, this treaty, unlike every other treaty ever passed and signed by the US, will do absolutely nothing.

I know the economy makes it hard to find a job, but since your shilling is so transparent, you may be better suited to McDonald's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 12:45am

Re:
It's not a treaty. It's an Executive Decision. The more you know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Nov 2009 @ 9:49am

Re:
As for the treaty, as Ben Sheffner has explained in detail access to those involved in negotiations includes a wide spectrum of interests. Moreover, no matter what comes out of the negotiations, which at this point are far away from achieving concensus among the negotiating countries, the proposed treaty would still have to be submitted to the Senate for approval. History teaches that treaty approval by the Senate proceeds at a pace approaching "glacial". Heck, the US finally signed up to the Berne Convention almost 100 years after it was initially promlgated.

Weird. I addressed almost all of those points and why they are wrong in this post: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1904177017.shtml

You don't even answer any of them, and instead take the word of Sheffner, who is employed by one of the companies that signed the above letter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 21 Nov 2009 @ 11:40am

You pass laws, downloading increases with media coverage and continues like nothing even happened. You'd think shutting down The Pirate Bay and it having no effect whatsoever on downloading would send a clear message to them. That message being, you will work with the internet community to find a amicable solution or the internet community will continue on it's merry way despite what laws are passed. They've spent A LOT of money in the past decade in a fruitless pissing contest with the internet. Big business just can't seem to get the past the there's nothing that can be done unless they want to play nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 11:44am

Re: Re:
Yeah, but you're not employed by one of those companies, so, uh, that means, I guess, you obviously have an axe to grind?

And why is this ACTA less about counterfeiting, which is very bad, and more about copyright infringement?

Which is not nearly as bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 12:30pm

Re: Re:
No, I do not take the word of Ben Sheffner. I vet what he says and what others say, both pro and con, before forming my own opinions.

I have read the what both sides of the aisle have to say and find that the pros present a much more compelling case than the cons given the particular subject matter that is being discussed with our international trading partners.

Perhaps the most important point of misinformation making the rounds over the internet is that these negotiations will result in the alteration of US law. On this point they could not be more wrong. In fact, to even suggest this will be a necessary result of whatever comes out of the negotiations is misleading at best and plainly dishonest at worst.

You are free, of course, to express whatever opinion you may have, including a call for more "transparency", but to dismiss out of hand what is said by those with whom you disagee suggests to me that the issue is not more "transparency", but a continuation of your views regarding copyright law in general.

Quite frankly, if anybody should be calling for more transparency it should be those in foreign countries that are being actively encouraged to conform their national laws to the international norms earlier established by multi-national treaties to which they are signatories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
>>And why is this ACTA less about counterfeiting, which
>>is very bad, and more about copyright infringement?
>>
>>Which is not nearly as bad.

No, I think it's worse. It clearly paints a picture that these companies lack the inhouse technology and creative marketing expertise needed to evolve their business model away from "selling IP" to "selling a product people want". They seem to have placed more value in a legalistic sales process than creative salesmanship, and desire to take consumer rights away to support their position.

Watch "Good Copy Bad Copy" if you get a chance this weekend. In the final 20 minutes, Larry Lessig makes some very valid points that the legislators need to hear and understand.

http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Nov 2009 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps the most important point of misinformation making the rounds over the internet is that these negotiations will result in the alteration of US law.

Wait, how do you know that this is misinformation? Almost all of the leaked drafts include rules that are plainly beyond what current US law is, and thus would certainly result in the alteration of US law.

But, of course, the bigger problem is that the whole thing is being done in secret, so we don't even know for sure. Yet, you are positive that it won't change US law? How?

You are free, of course, to express whatever opinion you may have, including a call for more "transparency", but to dismiss out of hand what is said by those with whom you disagee suggests to me that the issue is not more "transparency", but a continuation of your views regarding copyright law in general.

I did not "dismiss out of hand" what was said. I went through a detailed explanation -- which you clearly did not read -- of what was being said was a flat out lie, by those employed by the industries that benefit from stricter copyright laws. Did you even read it? Clearly, you did not.

The rules are based on what South Korea agreed to, which resulted in massive changes to South Korean laws. The word choices in the leaked copies suggest similar requirements here, placing significantly more burden on third parties and service providers. I am greatly concerned about this, because it has the possibility of representing a massive change in policy.

I find it stunning that you are so sure it wouldn't require any legal changes -- and declare it "dishonest" of folks who HAVE been through these sorts of negotiations to declare that it will. Are you a part of the negotiating team? What is your experiences in negotiating these sorts of deals?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian (profile), 21 Nov 2009 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
So you find it good that a treaty is being discussed in secret? With pretty much no input from those outside the entertainment industries? And I suggest you review your history and Mike's earlier post on this and if you could please provide me with EXAMPLES of treaties which were discussed in total secret except for those who have something to gain from that treaty. If we have nothing to worry about then why not let everyone view what is being done and said? What is so terrible and evil in there that the eyes of the public should not be allowed to view if it is such a good thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? I thought that one guy represnting the public's interest got to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement?

How much more transparency do we need?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The legislators need to hear."

It's incredibly difficult to hear anything with all that lobbyist money shoved in your ears.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 4:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
>>It's incredibly difficult to hear anything with
>>all that lobbyist money shoved in your ears.

You must have me mistaken for someone else. Have you watched the video yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, their ears, the legislators. And no I haven't watched it yet but I will.

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 5:14pm

Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of transparency, which company is being you to be a moron? I'd like to know so I can avoid giving them money even more than usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 5:20pm

Let me try this a different way. In your post you provide:

"Almost all of the leaked drafts include rules that are plainly beyond what current US law is, and thus would certainly result in the alteration of US law."

Are you able to provide one or more examples of US law that would be altered as a result of these discussions? Personally, I cannot think of any, but I am always willing to listen to others who may have a different view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 6:47pm

Re: Re:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steal_this_comic.png

Pirates win
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 8:18pm

Re:
You guys, this is supposed to be a secret. I wish you would stop talking about it. Weren't supposed to tell anybody about anything. It was a secret, then you guys had to go and ruin it, thanks alot guys. Do you guys want to tell me what I got for Christmas too?

Shouldn't tell secrets. Secret secrets that the public's not supposed to know about.

And it has to be secret. National security is at risk. The lives of millions. Could you live with yourself? All those billions of people.

IT'S A SECRET FOR A REASON! GOD, GUYS, CAN'T YOU GIVE IT A REST! YOU'RE DOOMING US ALL, I HOPE YOU KNOW THAT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2009 @ 8:22pm

Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm with this guy. President Obama said that this secret treaty was protected by National Security™ and that's really important and you should listen to the president.

He's just trying to protect us from the counterfeiters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Nov 2009 @ 11:50pm

A little off topic ...but it is history ...
To bring things into context ....

In the mid 1800's the phonograph was invented. Before that artists only made money when they actually performed. Progress occured and performances could be sold on cylinders and disks. That was the beginning of the recording industry. Most artist of that time wanted to just be heard by a larger audience and sold their souls to do so. This is where the creative accounting record labels use began. Inflated recording studio fees, distribution fees, accounting fees, and advertising fees all added up to a form of indentured servitude for the artist.

100 plus years later the recording industry still scams artists into sell their souls to get a record deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 22 Nov 2009 @ 3:15am

you don't say
You must have me mistaken for someone else.
Really? Might it be related to the fact that you're using a generic nickname instead of a pseudonym, dumbass?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alanbleiweiss (profile), 22 Nov 2009 @ 6:41am

ACTA - the media version of NAFTA
Well, okay, not really. But just like NAFTA and CAFTA, the mere concept of ACTA smacks of big business looking for one more way to generate massive sums of revenue on a global scale by screwing us especially by being able to go after off-shore Internet hosted content.

And the list of signers shows a much bigger issue. I have a feeling that this secret document will also cover anything "entertainment" related in print as well. News Corp and Reed Elsevier Inc have both been losing huge amounts due to the dying print publishing industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2009 @ 9:18am

Re: ACTA - the media version of NAFTA
Thats a great observation. Thinking of ACTA as NAFTA/CAFTA for Entertainment/Media is a radical step, But now that you have mentioned it, it seems to be very rational strategy.

Yes, there are a number of big names in the ACTA treaty, and I doubt they collectively came up with the same idea at the same time. In fact, it seems another, shall we call it a "facilitator" group of people is involved in ACTA authorship. To claify, if the NDA allowed sharing of information that wasn't "common knowledge", who required the NDA? It seemed that the solution was looking for a problem. Now, they are actively engaged in selling these companies a map to the land of milk and honey instead of evolving their business for the 22nd century.

It would be interesting if there are any people involved in ACTA, or ACTA facilitation that were involved in NAFTA/CAFTA conversations. NAFTA has been a resounding failure and nearly bankrupted the US auto industry, and the Auto Industry was behind NAFTA.

Taking this further, what industries outside of media and entertainment would stand to benefit if they (like the auto industry in NAFTA) were collateral damage from this legislation ten to fifteen years from now?

Is this the type of "successful" legislation desired and encouraged?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2009 @ 10:54am

Re: Has anyone actually read this thing .....
One commonality between a number of these companies is that they are primarily distributors of content.

Maybe we're looking at the problem the wrong way. Maybe instead of strengthening their exclusivity rights, these companies should relinquish their copyright/IP back to it's inventor/artist/writer or to the Public Domain after it's no longer economically viable.

As an example, newspapers may relinquish their "work made for hire" back to it's writer after a period of one to two years. Rights for musical work are relinquished back to the artist/writer after a period of five years. Inventions/Patents are re-assigned to it's inventor after five years of inactivity.

There exists a great deal of content that is "locked up" and isn't economically viable in it's current state while it exists under the current system. Strengthening exclusivity doesn't seem to be the right direction for economic prosperity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2009 @ 3:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oops. Being should be paying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2009 @ 3:41pm

Re:
Ask your superiors. They can provide you with information beyond mindless talking points, you know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Nov 2009 @ 11:01pm

Re:
Are you able to provide one or more examples of US law that would be altered as a result of these discussions? Personally, I cannot think of any, but I am always willing to listen to others who may have a different view.

The leaked draft included information on setting up 3rd party liability for infringement, which went beyond existing DMCA liability, including requiring 3rd party deterrence of infringement.

Earlier drafts clearly included criminal sanctions for non-commercial internet file sharing as well as clauses for seizing computer equipment of those involved in non-commercial file sharing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 23 Nov 2009 @ 9:18am

Re: Re: Re:
"""
Perhaps the most important point of misinformation making the rounds over the internet is that these negotiations will result in the alteration of US law. On this point they could not be more wrong. In fact, to even suggest this will be a necessary result of whatever comes out of the negotiations is misleading at best and plainly dishonest at worst.
"""

You're certainly not the brightest candle in the box, are you? Let me break this down for you kindergarten-style:

Country A: Copying stuff is bad, I propose a treaty wherein we agree to stone anyone we think is copying stuff.

Country B: Good idea, we agree to the terms of this treaty. We will enact laws to enforce this immediately.

Country A: "People of Country A, Country B is doing the right thing by stoning anyone we think is copying stuff, and we are not upholding our international responsibilities unless we pass laws to do the same!" (Passes law for stoning anyone they think is copying stuff).

Country A and Country B: Huzzah!

Oh, and before you give me any garbage about "this (is/is not) a (treaty/executive order/some other thing)", STFU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2009 @ 9:30am

Re: Re:
Title 17 already addresses these issues.

See, e.g.:

17 UCS 512(i)(1)(A) re termination of account to retain safe harbor by service provider.

Third party liability already an integral part of US Copyright law via contributory infringement and inducement to infringe. Cases such as Napster and Grokster are cases of note.

17 USC 503(a)(1)(B) provides for "impoundment" during legal proceedings.

17 USC 506(a)(1)(A) addresses "private financial gain", with "financial gain" being defined in 17 USC 101.

Forfeiture, versus impoundment as noted above, is provided in 17 USC 506(b).

The only point I am making is that at least with regard to the examples you note there are various provisions under current US law that address these.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2009 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re:
Importantly, I did not include reference to the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008" because the structure of Public Laws does not easily admit to direct citation to provisions in the United States Code.

Lest there be any doubt about the difficulty in doing so, one need only read the current bills re health care reform pending in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I have tried to read each of these competing bill to try and figure out what goes where within the United States Code. About three pages into each I became hopelessly lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 23 Nov 2009 @ 10:20am

Re: Re: Re:
you've = you have. you have me forever people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Nov 2009 @ 10:42am

Re: Re: Re:
Title 17 already addresses these issues.

No, it did not. The description used in the drafts and notes included third party liability that went significantly beyond what is in the DMCA now, including their responsibility to prevent infringement. Yes, there's some legal wiggle room for the RIAA and their lobbyists to claim it's no different, but if you've seen how this game is played, you would know that's not how this works in practice.

Within days of this being agreed to the lobbyists start pointing to the treaty and demanding stronger laws. Or, more typically, they'll push on other countries that don't yet have a DMCA type law, and get them to pass one that includes more draconian terms, a la "three strikes" and then go back to the US to say we are not "harmonized" with the other countries of ACTA, and thus need to change our laws.

I mean, we've done this before... and you want to pretend it hasn't happened? That's either incredibly ignorant or simply dishonest on your part. I'm trying to decide which is worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2009 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike,

Third party liability concepts under copyright law were recognized by the judiciary many years prior to the DCMA. The Betamax case is my first recollection where the Supreme Court in 1984 incorporated such concepts from patent law into copyright law.

I believe your second comment is overbroad, which might lead to confusion by some of your readers. These negotiations are not about international harmonization. From the perspective of the US negotiators the goal is to secure agreement from other nations that certain concepts embraced in US copyright law receive equal consideration in the laws of those other nations.

Lastly, I am disappointed by your negativity towards my comments concerning the ACTA negotiations. It is certainly not my intent to engage in one-upsmanship. but merely to contribute my understanding about some of the issues associated with the negotiations. I understand your concerns about secrecy, but in my view that standing alone does not suggest to me that something nefarious is at hand.

Regards,

Mike Slonecker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dorp, 24 Nov 2009 @ 7:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These negotiations are not about international harmonization. From the perspective of the US negotiators the goal is to secure agreement from other nations that certain concepts embraced in US copyright law receive equal consideration in the laws of those other nations.

How do you know? Just because you think that secrecy is not of concern, doesn't mean it's true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
goldleaf, 8 Apr 2010 @ 12:15pm

Can't remember the name they came from now, and I deleted them as spam - if they're the same ones, they're definitely spam, not PR. From some guy's full name, in all caps, all about those overhyped Promotional Chocolates flaptops that have just released a new family that apparantly enjoys a threesome? Gold, silver, Hollywood, sort of things?
[ link to this | view in thread ]