EU Proposes Criminalizing Inducing Infringement In ACTA Draft; Could Outlaw Google
from the third-party-criminality dept
While the EU Parliament has decisively denounced ACTA -- both in terms of the process and the substance of the (still secret) draft agreement, it appears that the EU negotiators are still pushing to include draconian provisions in ACTA. KEI has discovered that the EU is proposing to make inducement a criminal offense, rather than just a civil one:KEI has learned that the European Union has proposed language in the ACTA negotiations to require criminal penalties for "inciting, aiding and abetting" certain offenses, including "at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting and copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale."Of course, definitions matter here. In this case, the question is what constitutes "rights piracy on a commercial scale." Beyond the troubling notion that these negotiators are using such an inaccurate and imprecise word as "piracy" in such a big agreement, the commercial scale definition is quite broad:
"significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain"Consider this the "let's criminalize The Pirate Bay" clause. Of course, it could also be read as the "let's criminalize the VCR clause" as well -- which is why this is so troubling. It's one thing to add civil penalties and liability to third parties through some sort of misguided secondary liability policy -- but it's really pushing to dangerous extremes to add criminal liability to that as well.
Now, let's look at the potential unintended consequences of such language. It effectively could outlaw Google. Google, without a doubt, can be used to "aid" or "abet" "copyright... piracy on a commercial scale... that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. Now, those in support of this bill will quickly insist that no one is going to use it to shut down Google. And they're probably right, given Google's brand recognition. But the fear is that they would almost certainly use this to shut down the next Google-like company before it had a chance to get very big. This is what happens when you have technologically, economically clueless bureaucrats trying to protect a dying industry. You get bad regulations that have massively dangerous unintended consequences.
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, eu, inducement, secondary liability, third party liability
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Grrr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grrr
Espouse Elucidation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grrr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
someone forgot to take their medication...
Don't get me wrong, I consider that third party civil liability and first party criminal liability are insane proposals in their own right, but third party criminal liability is completely off the charts insane.
The problem is that under these conditions, I am seriously considering emigrating to South America or Africa or some fucking island in the middle of the ocean, because there's no way you could survive as an entrepreneur doing anything technology-related in an ACTA country under these terms.
It is probably one of those "let's ask for ridiculous terms and they'll settle for third party civil liability" ploys, but that doesn't make it any better. Who are they kidding? Let's play the following game: How many of the people who can actually grow these countries' economies are going to stay and how many are going to emigrate to some saner pastures? Do they actually think that the US or the EU are such wondrous places than nobody even considers emigrating and just giving them the finger on the way out? I'd like to see who is going to pay their salaries, pensions and bonuses when most of the people who aren't just plain sheep without any capability of independent thought have emigrated to Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, or, heck, even New Guinea or Fiji or something like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: someone forgot to take their medication...
Sorry about the slightly offtopic response, everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: someone forgot to take their medication...
But I disagree with the fact that there's nowhere to go. Fortunately, there are countries that aren't a part of this charade, and they're looking more and more appetizing.
You know, you can sense something's not right when you start thinking that Russia, South America or Africa might be a better place for business than the US, UK or France.
Most sheeple will say "B...bb..but you can get kidnapped or stuff in these places... You don't have safety and security and Big Brother to take care of you..." and my answer is "I'd rather have to sleep with a shotgun under my pillow but be free to conduct my own business than live in a gilded cage so that I don't get a boo-boo."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: someone forgot to take their medication...
(HINT: It has to do with leaving...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: someone forgot to take their medication...
There is a less technologically demanding alternative, though: seasteading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading and http://www.seasteading.org). Not there yet either, but I think it has promise and it is definitely easier to achieve than off-world habitats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: someone forgot to take their medication...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is silly though to compare google to the pirate bay as google is very good about addressing dmca style complaints and the pirate bay gives everyone the finger. i dont think that google has much to worry about as long as they remain responsive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"i dont think that google has much to worry about as long as they remain responsive."
The point Mike was making, which I agree with entirely, isn't that Google would have to worry about (even though they should, because things can change quite rapidly if something like this comes into effect), but that there won't be another Google-like company coming up as long as this king of law is in effect because any company getting big enough to challenge the status-qvo would be clobbered into the ground. Clobbered into prison, to be more precise... But, then again, the US seems to be very big on using inmates as slave labor, so I can one direction in which this thing might be going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...which makes ZERO difference to whether they commit the crime of "inducement".
"i dont think that google has much to worry about as long as they remain responsive."
So, The Pirate Bay (or any other service that "enables" infringement) can continue their activities legally as long as they respond to takedown notices? So, what's the point of the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is the real 'chilling effect' of the proposal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law in the making
I made a point at that time in comments (not here) that it was a federal law being made which meant anyone could use it, not just the RIAA.
We've now seen what a quagmire that has become with the latest method to do takedowns. No one can really figure out which is infringing and which is not but everyone has to jump through their butt to make sure it gets off line or be responsible if it is actually infringement. Even the IP holders aren't really sure and the latest case of Viacom, suing Utube for infringement, still having to remove some of the titles claimed after three years is a good example of just how bad things are in figuring that out.
This is the same sort of setup on global scale that will lead to such a mess that ten years after it goes into effect, it will make a total disaster of the internet, it will supply the fodder to kill innovation and startup companies that actually do supply jobs, and will lower the economical standards for all countries involved.
It's yet another example of how governments (especially the US) is not serving the needs of it's citizenry and instead is serving the needs of those that will pay the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Photocopy machines inducing copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Photocopy machines inducing copyright infringement
Every time you look at an internet page, you downloaded the page to view it. To do so, you made a copy. Without seeing the page, how would you get the author's name to obtain permission?
There is also in all this one little dark secret no one is talking about and happens everyday and has for a long time. Do you think for one minute that anytime a lawyer makes a copy of his written evidence for court, that he first gets permission from the author of the text involved? Not a chance. Yet no one bothers the methods that have been used in courts over the ages to pass information pertaining to courtroom needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where does it begin? Where does it end?
Google is the search engine, but what about the hardware makers like Cisco? Are they obligated to abide by the law and prevent file sharing? Are they to make their product less valuable because their routers could be used to abetting violating copyright? They can include deep packet inspection, after all; would not having it in their products could expose them to criminal charges?
Twitter and Facebook fall under Google's category. What about URL shorteners? What about software as a service like WordPress.org/com (there is a difference)? Web hosting companies could be held liable. What about Microsoft, Apple, and the open source OS makers? If they don't include protections against unauthorized backups, distribution, and publishing in their software, could they be held liable? I'd argue, yes, they can under such broad language. The Internet would crumble and we'd be sent back to the cultural and informational dark ages.
And for the naysayers who think it would never come to that, I say take a look at the recent Google decision in Italy where, effectively, a 3rd person is liable for the actions of its users without knowing the video’s contents. Look at the filtering régimes and the oppressive laws which make it a crime to own or play a violent video game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what can they sell? Ephemeral stuff like entertainment and IP.
But what I don't understand is why any other country would buy into such a lop-sided deal. How can the US 'persuade' everybody else to do something that only benefits the US.
Oh, yes, I forgot they do have a rather large military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
actually this sound familiar somehow...
(Godwin's law doesn't apply here... yet)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the over-broad way is the safe way, dudes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dont your eyes induce then a form of copying?
FOR ACTORS SAKES
THINK OF THE CHILDREN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, clearly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]