Once Again, Entertainment Industry Looks To Force Massive Copyright Changes Via Int'l Treaties

from the how-the-game-is-played dept

By now you should know that one of the entertainment industry's favorite tools for forcing ever more draconian copyright laws around the world is to use international treaties. Such treaties are not put together by elected officials, but appointed diplomats, often with tremendous input (to the point of allowing them to write the details) from industries that are protected. Then, once those treaties are in place, copyright maximalists just get to sit back and say "but we must make our copyright laws stronger if we ever expect to live up to our international obligations..." The latest such attempt is the infamous ACTA bill, which the entertainment industry has had a heavy hand in crafting -- but the public is told that the treaty negotiations are matters of national security and cannot be revealed. Uh huh.

Apparently, in a recent "Working Group" on intellectual property issues in Washington DC, one area of "concern" is Canadian copyright law -- because Canada appears to be one country where (thank you Michael Geist!) the public has been galvanized to speak up and explain that copyight law is a deal between the public and content creators, and the public shouldn't be ignored in the process. But, no worries. Apparently, one lobbyist said that perhaps the best way to deal with those rebellious Canadians thinking for themselves is just to use ACTA to force Canada to implement its own DMCA-like law, something that Canada has (thankfully) rejected in the past few years. So here we go again...

Filed Under: acta, canada, copyright, dmca, treaties

Disappointing: Obama Administration Won't Support Treaty For Helping Blind Get Digital Books

from the shame dept

JJ points us to an unfortunate story that the Obama administration appears to be siding against an intellectual property treaty agreement that would have helped blind and visually impaired individuals by allowing "the cross-border import and export of digital copies of books and other copyrighted works in formats that are accessible to persons who are blind, visually impaired, dyslexic or have other reading disabilities, using special devices that present text as refreshable braille, computer generated text to speech, or large type." As the article notes, exceptions to copyright law for the production of books for the blind is common, and effectively this would expand that to ebooks. Many had hoped that the administration would support it... but:

Assurances coming into the negotiations this week that things were going in the right direction have turned out to be false, as the United States delegation has basically read from a script written by lobbyists for publishers, extolling the virtues of market based solutions, ignoring mountains of evidence of a "book famine" and the insane legal barriers to share works.

It continues to be a massive disappointment that politicians keep bowing down to corporate pressure when it clearly goes against the very purpose of copyright law.

Filed Under: blind, copyright, obama administration, treaties

Broadcasting Treaty Back From The Dead (Again)

from the it-just-won't-die dept

While the negotiations on the awful ACTA treaty are getting more attention these days, another awful treaty seems to be coming back from the dead. WIPO's Broadcasting Treaty has been out there for years. The idea is to add more new copyrights for content that's "broadcast," even though it's usually already covered by copyright. The end result would actually do significant harm to the public domain, because a broadcaster who broadcasts public domain content could then claim a "broadcast right" over that content -- basically reclaiming it from the public domain. The entire treaty is based on the faulty idea that ownership of content is somehow socially beneficial, when there's little evidence that this is true.

Some powerful entertainment industry folks have been trying to push this treaty through, as a way to force various governments to pass new laws that grant them these new copyrights, that will really be useful in keeping competitors from broadcasting certain content. So far, the treaty has repeatedly stalled out. Last year, we were encouraged when the Senate Judiciary Committee admitted that it was greatly troubled by the proposed treaty, noting that it would significantly harm consumers' rights. Soon after that, the treaty died, though we warned that certain interests would keep on pushing it.

And, indeed, that's exactly what's happening. At a recent WIPO meeting, it appears that the Broadcasting Treaty is back on the table, and doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. There are considerable disagreements over what it should include, so it might not move forward, but it's disheartening that it appears the US representatives at WIPO seem to have reversed their earlier position, and are now saying that webcast content should get this totally unnecessary and damaging "broadcast right" as well as content broadcast on other media. Hopefully the wrangling over terms will cause this treaty to die again -- but considering how much of an effort big media companies have put behind it, you can bet it won't go down without a fight.

Filed Under: broadcasting treaty, copyright, intellectual property, international trade, treaties, wipo
Companies: wipo

EU Continues To Give Bogus Reasons For Keeping ACTA Secret

from the transparency-please dept

One of the most disgusting displays of an industry crafting laws to benefit their industry in backrooms is the secret negotiations over the ACTA treaty. This is the international agreement on copyright that's basically been written by entertainment industry insiders, and will effectively force governments around the world to change copyright laws in favor of the entertainment industry. Yet, the actual negotiations are being held in secret. When confronted about it, various government negotiators have basically said it has to be secret because that's the way things are done. A few months ago, in defending the secrecy, one of the negotiators noted that it was being kept secret because negotiators had agreed to keep it secret. That's not a defense; that's a cop out.

Plenty of organizations around the world are pushing for more transparency and (*gasp!*) the actual inclusion of others who would be impacted by ACTA, but they're not finding it easy. Slashdot points us a press release from The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure. FFII had filed a request to the EU Council to release some of the secret documents related to the ACTA negotiation, and the EU Council flat-out refused to do so. It would appear that when the government seeks to put in place an industry's preferred legislation, it doesn't like being called out on it.

However, the more that individuals and organizations around the world speak up and demand that the details behind ACTA be made public, hopefully the more politicians will realize that they can't sell out society's overall best interest in favor of a few industries who are abusing the treaty process for their own interests.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, eu, intellectual property, international trade, treaties

Entertainment Industry Continues To Try To Sneak Copyright Expansion Through ACTA

from the more-sunlight dept

We've been pointing out how there needs to be a lot more sunlight shone on the discussion surrounding the new "ACTA" treaty, which is basically a way for the entertainment industry to sneak through new copyright laws without getting Congressional approval. Basically, the entertainment industry writes this international treaty, and the US Trade Representative gets it approved. Then, suddenly you get stories from lobbyists for the industry about how we need to change our copyright laws to live up to international agreements. Sneaky, right?

Now, according to William Patry, the US Trade Rep is resisting calls to open up the process by which ACTA is written, by claiming that ACTA is really pretty minor and won't require any substantive changes in US law. Of course, that's turning out not to be true at all. At that link, Patry looks at the RIAA's suggestions for ACTA, many of which would substantially change copyright law, in rather astounding ways.

It's a laundry list of an ideal world for the RIAA. Basically, everyone else would be responsible for policing any form of unauthorized usage for the entertainment industry. Things that are now civil offenses would become criminal, and the RIAA would have much lower burdens of proof. ACTA is turning into an agreement designed to prop up the RIAA by forcing everyone else to try to force the market to pretend that technology doesn't do what it was designed to do, and to try to hold back the more efficient market innovations that impact the established industry's business model. And they want to do it all in secret and without letting Congress even have a say in the process. And, to make it even better, it's apparently now on the fast track for approval.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, intellectual property, international trade, treaties

A Little Sunshine Brings Out Rapid And Well Deserved Anger Towards ACTA Treaty

from the spreading-the-word dept

Last week, I wrote a post highlighting the faulty premises behind a secretly negotiated treaty between the US and many other countries, the so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Since then a bunch of news articles have been written about ACTA, with most of the focus on how it will have border guards going through your iPod and computers to see if you have any infringing content. A bunch of folks have been submitting stories on this all week, despite the fact that we wrote about it last week. However, what's most interesting to me is how quickly this turned from a little story -- first posted to Wikileaks and a few blogs, into something that's been in major newspapers (oddly, mostly focused in Canada).

Even more interesting, however, is how this has so quickly turned into activism, with some newspapers already already calling for people to stand up against ACTA to protect our privacy rights. Think about that for a second. This was a treaty on the "boring" topic of copyright, that was basically pitched by the entertainment industry to politicians who wrote it up in secret. It leaked out to a single website, and within a week there were major newspaper editorials calling for people to stand up against it, and thousands, if not millions, of people informed about the potential harm this treaty could cause. So much for slipping it under the radar.

This is really the culmination of a few different factors, including the entertainment industry's misguided and rapidly backfiring battle against consumers, that has catapulted copyright from a boring "wonkish" issue into one that people recognize effects so many aspects of their daily lives. Combined with the wonderful communications ability of the internet, it makes it harder for the entertainment industry to simply pull one over on people like this. Of course, as we've noted, the industry keeps on trying, and they love sneaking through legislation and treaties before anyone recognizes it -- but the rapid response to ACTA (which is far from over, of course) suggests that some of the industry's advantages are slipping away. Hopefully, this issue will continue to receive the attention it deserves so that there's a real debate on whether or not such a treaty is needed (it's not).

Filed Under: acta, canada, copyright, counterfeit, trade agreements, treaties

Debunking The Faulty Premises Of The Pirate Bay-Criminalization Treaty

from the this-again? dept

The entertainment industry's lobbying efforts for stronger intellectual property laws is incredibly sophisticated. The more you follow their efforts, the more impressive you realize they are. Every time one aspect is somehow blocked, another almost immediately pops up somewhere else that has been simmering below the surface for months. While many more are aware of efforts to directly lobby politicians to change copyright laws, what gets less attention is the work that's put into various "international trade" treaties. Two years ago we wrote about how this was a favorite tactic of the copyright lobby. They basically write up a treaty for the government, who then signs the treaty with a bunch of countries, without anyone realizing all of the details. Then the copyright lobby starts using the crutch that all of the countries involved have to strengthen their copyright laws in order to "comply with our international treaty obligations."

Kevin Stapp writes in to let us know about the latest such proposed treaty that has been leaked to Wikileaks. The document is (not surprisingly) a wishlist for the entertainment industry and, as Wikileaks notes, it was distributed only to pro-stronger-copyright lobbyists for comment, and not to any consumer rights groups or those who recognize that stronger copyright can be quite damaging. Slashdot talks about what Wikileaks calls the "Pirate Bay Killer" clause that would force countries to criminalize significant facilitation of infringement, even if it's not for profit. Why countries should be criminalizing what is, in actuality, a business model question is never explained.

However, there are many more problems with the paper, including the fact that many of its most basic assumptions are either untrue or unproven. When you base an entire international trade treaty on questionable (or outright incorrect) assumptions, bad things will result. It starts out by noting:

The proliferation of infringements of intellectual property rights ("IPR") particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy poises an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable development of the world economy

Except that two recent government studies have shown no such thing. Both the GAO and the OECD have noted that both the magnitude and the impact of counterfeiting is greatly exaggerated by lobbyists. The paper goes on:

The consequences of such IPR infringements includes (1) depriving legitimate businesses and their workers of income; (2) discouraging innovation and creativity; (3) threatens consumer health and safety; (4) providing an easy source of revenue for organized crime; and (5) loss of tax revenue.

Let's go through those one by one. On point (1), this is simply untrue. As we've pointed out in the past, there's no such thing as "depriving" someone else of income -- otherwise convincing someone to go to a pizza shop instead of a deli would be considered a crime (you've "deprived" the deli of income). Where money goes is a marketing issue, not a legal one. If companies are having trouble convincing people to pay them for their products, that's their business model problem. Nothing is being taken from them.

On point (2), this is also simply untrue. Study after study have shown no corresponding decrease in innovation or creativity when intellectual property laws are weakened (or even removed entirely). In this day and age when so much creativity takes place outside of traditional intellectual property realms, it seems ridiculous to even suggest that creativity is somehow impacted.

The closest the paper comes to having a reasonable point is on point (3), but that really only applies in very narrowly defined cases (specifically involving dangerous counterfeit products that may not be safe). Yet, that's an extremely narrow area, and can be dealt with via other means, including anti-fraud law. And, when dealing with international trade issue, it seems like the sort of thing that ought to be handled by customs, rather than with some big intellectual property treaty.

Point (4) is a favorite claim by the industry, but it's never been backed up with any significant evidence. I'm sure there are some organized crime groups that traffic in counterfeit products -- but again, that can and should be dealt with by other laws. Strengthening intellectual property laws to combat organized crime is a misuse of intellectual property laws.

The question of tax revenue (5) is also a favorite of the industry that relies on only counting the ripple effects in one direction. That is, it assumes that the lost tax dollars come from things like the sales tax on software products that would be bought, but fails to count the economic growth and additional tax from businesses who are able to more rapidly grow the economy through the use of cheaper software.

So the entire underpinning for the argument in favor of these "trade agreements" is a house of cards (if that much). But for those who aren't all that familiar with the space (or whose political campaigns are funded by the entertainment industry), these claims are all taken as a given. That should be seen as a serious problem.

Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, international trade, treaties
Companies: pirate bay