More ACTA Details Leak: It's An Entertainment Industry Wishlist

from the no-wonder-they-kept-it-secret dept

The latest round of "negotiations" over the ACTA treaty continue in secret due to as yet unexplained national security reasons (despite the fact that the entertainment industry lobbyists have had full access to the document) are kicking off in Korea. Once again is becoming clear that the claims by US trade reps that ACTA did not represent any kind of major change in copyright law, and thus didn't require public scrutiny, are nothing more than a myth. Despite ridiculous efforts to keep the document secret (some countries were given only physical, watermarked, copies of the latest drafts), some of the details are leaking out and it's not pretty at all.

The plan is modeled on the ridiculously misnamed "free trade agreement" between the US and South Korea from a few years back. It's misnamed because it wasn't about free trade at all, but massive protectionism for the American entertainment industry. The end results haven't been pretty. The treaty pushed South Korea to implement new copyright laws that are perhaps the most draconian around, getting the country to be the first to kick people off the internet based on accusations of file sharing, and putting so much liability on third parties that various user-generated content services have had to turn off the ability to upload all sorts of content (no videos on YouTube, no music on blogs) and has resulted in ISPs even banning any kind of advertising that might make them liable for copyright infringement.

It's Hollywood's dream. It would require signing countries to implement a more draconian version of the DMCA, including incredibly restrictive anti-circumvention wording that has no exception for fair use. It would put liability on third parties for the actions of their users (in other words, it wouldn't include current DMCA-style safe harbors). It would create incentives to kick people off of the internet for file sharing. This is not about free trade at all. This is an entertainment industry-written bill designed to recreate the internet in its image -- as a broadcasting platform, rather than one used for user-generated content and communication.

This isn't about free trade. This isn't about "anti-counterfeiting." This is the "Protect the American Entertainment Industry" treaty.

And, of course, it's not even close to necessary. As happy as the entertainment industry is about what's been happening in South Korea lately, before these laws passed, the industry there (though, not the local subsidiaries of stodgy American entertainment firms) were adapting in amazing and fascinating ways, that didn't require new laws, but embraced what was actually happening. Yet, because the American record labels and movie studios don't want to change with the times, they're pushing through these laws, outside the judiciary process, sneaking it through via a secretive international treaty they had a hand in writing.

There is simply no reason for ACTA, at all. It is nothing but an attempt by the entertainment industry to put massive restrictions on the internet, place liability on lots of third parties, and do nothing to push themselves to adapt to a changing marketplace with new business models.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, counterfeiting, lobbyists, secrecy

ACTA Negotiations Back On... White House Shows Small Group Proposed Text Under NDA

from the but-what-about-the-public dept

With the next round of negotiations on the ACTA treaty -- which may require the US and other countries to make significant changes to copyright law that favor the entertainment industry -- set to get underway, the White House still refuses to release details to the public, but did show the text to 42 Washington "insiders" under NDA. The good news is that the list includes a fair number of folks who recognize the problems with copyright law and the ACTA proposal -- including people like Gigi Sohn, William Patry, Sherwin Siy, David Sohn and Michael Petricone. Many of those people will push for the public's best interests. But, still, it's a bit troubling that the whole conversation remains secret for "national security" reasons. If we're talking about changing copyright laws that effect everyone, why not let everyone know? Sherwin Siy, from Public Knowledge, told KEI (in the link above) about his experience viewing the document, which sounded greatly limited, and notes that while the document has been adjusted, "the most troubling aspects" have not been "resolved."

In the meantime, it's worth asking why this is necessary again. First of all, in a world where trade agreements are supposed to be about breaking down trade barriers, ACTA seems designed to be putting up protectionist policies. Protectionism doesn't work and only creates more harm. But, much more importantly, much of the push for ACTA is based on lobbyists' claims of the "harm" done by counterfeiting. Except both the GAO and the OECD have put out independent reports showing that counterfeiting isn't that big a problem, and that whatever problems there are seem to be significantly exaggerated by lobbyists. Yes, those same lobbyists who were given much earlier access to the document and, records suggest, had a hand in shaping the document itself. So why do we need ACTA again? And why are we allowing those who the government has already found to have exaggerated the problem drive the negotiations?

Filed Under: acta, consumer rights, copyright, counterfeiting, evidence, lobbyists, privacy, secrecy

Instead Of Nasty Lawsuit Against Counterfeiter... Why Not Look At Partnership Opportunities?

from the not-everything-needs-a-lawsuit dept

It's all too common for IP lawyers to go to the legal nastygram first, rather than recognizing that perhaps the "infringement" is an opportunity. Take, for example, this (amusing) story about how when Prada, the famous design company, first got started, Miuccia Prada got angry about someone making knockoff products. Except... rather than sue Patrizio Bertelli, who was making the knockoffs, she was convinced by him to make use of his manufacturing capabilities, and the two teamed up... even to the point of eventually getting married to each other. Obviously, that's a pretty extreme example, but the key point is worth repeating: sometimes the better solution is not to freak out and sue over infringement, but to see if that infringement can be used to your advantage.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, infringement, opportunity, partnership
Companies: prada

Consumer Group Wants ACTA Discussions Stopped Until Consumer Rights Are Represented In Negotiations

from the would-be-nice,-but-seems-unlikely dept

We've discussed in great detail how the current ACTA treaty has been mostly driven by corporate interests as a way to sneak in more draconian copyright laws through international treaty, rather than through legislative means. When consumer groups have requested a seat at the table, they've been rejected, even as industry lobbyists have had no problem being active participants in the process.

Now, a group called the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue has demanded ACTA negotiations be put on hold until consumer groups have a real seat at the table, or at least are given access to documents being negotiated. TACD raises a number of important issues, such as respecting privacy rights and the rights of developing nations, who are often trampled over when it comes to IP protectionism from developed countries. But best of all, it points out one of the most annoying things in all efforts by copyright holders to extend copyright protection: they never, ever present any evidence for why it's necessary. It's an evidence-free zone. TACD specifically requests that real evidence be used:

Public policy on the enforcement of intellectual property rights should be informed by creditable evidence, transparent and realistic assumptions and objective peer reviewed analysis. Multiple approaches to addressing the legitimate concerns of right owners and consumers should be considered.

• Statistics on counterfeiting and or infringement must be objective, accurate, and presented in the appropriate context.
• Statistics on counterfeit and substandard medicines should not be combined when this misleads policy makers about the extent of either problem. The solutions to counterfeit and substandard products are often quite different.
• Estimates of losses from infringements of intellectual property rights should be based upon realistic demand and usage parameters.
• Governments should collect and analyze statistics on the relationship between infringement and affordability of products.

Here's TACD's full proposal:

Filed Under: acta, consumer rights, copyright, counterfeiting, evidence, lobbyists, privacy, secrecy
Companies: tacd

Obama Administration Reiterates Its Support Of Secretive, Industry Written ACTA

from the this-is-a-problem dept

We've been bothered by the incredibly secretive (except if you happen to be in the entertainment industry) ACTA Treaty negotiations for quite some time now. This is the industry-led effort to get a bunch of nations to agree to draconian and damaging new copyright laws by sneaking them through as a secretive "international treaty," such that countries are then compelled to change their copyright laws to "be in compliance with international agreements." It's a really sneaky trick that Hollywood has used for years. And then it acts all innocent when people accuse it of pushing draconian laws on consumers, claiming "it wasn't us... we needed to be in compliance with our international agreements." They just leave out the part where they're the ones who write those agreements for the various trade representatives. The early drafts of ACTA are no different. They were clearly written by industry lobbyists, and are now being pushed by various trade representatives, and then our elected officials will have "no choice" but to change copyright laws to be in compliance.

Perhaps the most troubling part of all of this is that the negotiations are happening in secret, and when consumers rights organizations ask to be given a seat at the table, they're denied. When those same consumer rights organizations ask to at least be told what's being negotiated, they're told it's forbidden because of "state secrets." However, for all that national security, the administration has absolutely no problem giving industry lobbyists access to the process. Funny how that works.

Either way, it should come as no surprise that Michael Geist alerts us to the news that the US Trade Rep, Ron Kirk, is eager to get ACTA moving forward again. In response to all that secrecy, he claims:

As we proceed with these negotiations, we will ensure that the public is kept well informed and has further opportunities to give input.

Of course, the next meeting will take place in Morocco. How many consumer representatives will be there?

In the meantime, Kirk claims:

"The ACTA negotiations provide an opportunity to toughen international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, making it harder for counterfeit and pirated products to enter our country, and making the world safer for the innovation and creativity that are so critical to the U.S. economy."

But... wait. Is it really true that this is a big problem? Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have taken a close look at the numbers thrown around about the "problem" of counterfeiting, and found them to be wildly overblown by lobbyists -- the same lobbyists writing ACTA, not surprisingly. So why is the US Trade Rep agreeing to let this go forward? It's not about "making the world safer for the innovation and creativity." It's about granting special protection to a few powerful US industries with lobbyists.

Isn't that a problem?

Filed Under: acta, copyright, counterfeiting, lobbyists, secrecy

MPAA Cheers On Totally Useless Piracy Crackdown

from the pat-yourself-on-the-backs-now dept

The MPAA (or, rather, its international arm, the MPA) is proudly cheering on the "success" of "Operation ZoomOut," a 10-week crackdown of movie piracy in Asia. The group talks about how various retail outlets were shut down, raids on counterfeiting shops seized a bunch of DVD-burners and counterfeit movies -- and that the overall number of counterfeit DVDs coming out of Asia declined. That's great. Except for a few small facts. You can bet that if the demand is out there, plenty of others will jump in and fill the gaps pretty damn quickly and (more importantly) none of this stopped the same movies from being available to download online.

And that, of course, is the number one problem with ridiculous and costly publicity stunts by groups like the MPA. They're useless and have no actual impact on the problem. They're trying to deal with a digital issue by using an analog solution. Once a single digital copy gets online, it really doesn't matter how many DVD-burners you seize. The movie's out there, and copies are being made at an unstoppable rate. These types of raids may make for fun headlines and gives the MPA a chance to go back to the movie studios, show them they're "doing something" and ask for more money. But it hardly does anything to deal with the new digital reality. That would require actually understanding both technology and business models -- both of which seem to be well beyond the MPA (and the MPAA's) skillset.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, crackdown, piracy
Companies: mpa, mpaa

Should DVD Counterfeiters Fear Police Or The Internet More?

from the just-saying... dept

A bunch of people have sent in this story about UK Intellectual Property Minister, David Lammy claiming that by the 2012 Olympics, London will be a "fake-free zone" as he begins to crackdown on counterfeit DVD sellers. Not surprisingly, this move involved a variety of public and private parties, including the Motion Picture Association, UK Film Council, UK Intellectual Property Office, Federation Against Copyright Theft, London Councils, Trading Standards and the London police. Of course, the whole thing seems sort of yawn inducing. For a few years now, there have been stories noting that internet file sharing has been putting the counterfeit street sellers out of business. And, over the course of the next four years, you have to imagine that pace is only going to accelerate. So, congrats, David Lammy, for spending taxpayer money on stomping out something that was naturally dying out anyway.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, dvds, london, olympics, piracy

Is Selling Counterfeit Software Worse Than Bank And Identity Fraud?

from the equivalencies dept

There's a story making the rounds about a guy who's apparently going to jail for selling unauthorized copies of software on eBay, and the software industry is trumpeting what a huge victory this is over "counterfeiting," by claiming: "The Mondello case demonstrates that these pirates won't simply get a slap on the wrist when caught. They very well may end up doing serious time in federal prison." Right, but if you read the details, the conviction wasn't just for copyright infringement, but for identity fraud and mail fraud. That is, as part of his operation, he illegally obtained peoples' bank account info. That would appear to be a lot worse than copyright infringement, but the press seems to focus only on the "counterfeiting" angle, because that's the story the software industry association seems to be feeding the press. They want people to think that they'll go to jail for piracy, when that's quite unlikely.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, ebay, identity fraud, mail fraud, software

Should Printer Companies Tell You Your Printer Leaves Secret Identifying Info?

from the disclosure-seems-appropriate dept

Every few years or so, the press picks up on the story that laser printers leave some dots that are invisible to the naked eye on every print. These dots are included for the purpose of anti-counterfeiting efforts. Each printer leaves a unique mark that can be read with special blue LED light, and interpreted with a decoding system that only the printers and the secret service are supposed to have. The story is getting some press again as the EFF is pointing out that laser printers have become cheap enough that many people have them and it's possible that the identification dots could be used for other purposes, meaning that people who print stuff out on the assumption that the documents would be anonymous, may be wrong. Officials in the article scoff at the idea that the codes would be used for anything other than anti-counterfeiting efforts. And, indeed, it does seem unlikely that the codes could be used for very much (not only would you need to interpret them, you'd also need the means of tracking down who owns a specific printer). But there is a good point in all of this: why shouldn't the printer providers be forced to at least disclose that their printers mark every document with a unique identifier?

Filed Under: counterfeiting, disclosure, identification, laser printers, printers

eBay Has To Pay $63m Because A French Court Doesn't Know A Platform From A User

from the bad-ruling dept

A few weeks ago, we pointed out that a French court had made a very bad ruling, blaming eBay for actions of its users. The case involved the sale of counterfeit goods from LVMH. Rather than recognizing that eBay is just a platform and has no way of knowing whether products put up for sale by its users are legit or counterfeit, the court somehow ruled that eBay should know. Now the court has ruled on the fine, making eBay pay up $63 million for this exceptionally bad ruling. If you provide any sort of platform, a ruling like this should make you very, very afraid of doing any business in France. You can now be blamed and fined for the actions of your users. Update: As pointed out in the comments, this ruling is even more ridiculous than it at first appears. Apparently, eBay is even responsible for people selling legit versions of some products, because LVMH claims that no one is allowed to resell those goods without a reseller agreement.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, france, liability. platform, safe harbors, user
Companies: ebay