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.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, criminal, non-commercial use, secrecy, sunlight, trade agreements

FBI Apparently Has Nothing Better To Do Than Arrest GNR Album Leaker

from the what,-no-more-phones-to-tap? dept

Back in June, we were bothered by the fact that the FBI was wasting its time investigating a blogger who had posted some unreleased Guns N' Roses tracks on his site. Music gets leaked all the time, and it's difficult to see why this is an FBI matter in any form. Turns out that the FBI takes its GNR leaks seriously. They've now arrested the blogger for posting the songs to his website. This seems questionable for a variety of reasons. First, why is the FBI involved at all in what should be a civil matter, not a criminal one? Why is it so important to track down this particular leaker, given how many music leaks happen all the time? And, how, honestly, is this going to hurt the band in any way? The music was going to get leaked sooner or later anyway. It's not going to change who will and who will not buy the CD. And, most importantly, doesn't the FBI have more important things to be working on?

Filed Under: civil, criminal, fbi, guns and roses, leaks

Flirting Over Email Or Text In Scotland Could Land You In Jail

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

It appears some Scottish politicians are putting forth a bill that could put people in jail for up to 10 years for sending a text or email with "sexual content." The goal of the bill is to discourage sexual harassment over email or text messaging -- but it appears to be worded quite broadly. The bill defines the crime as "committed if someone sends an unsolicited text message to someone else which a court finds was designed to give the sender sexual gratification or to humiliate, distress or alarm the receiver." How the court determines what gives the sender "sexual gratification" isn't entirely clear. Does a flirty email count? You can also run afoul of the law by "causing a person to see or hear an indecent communication." Forgot that NSFW tag? You might be in trouble. While you can understand the desire to cut down on harassing messages, this law seems problematic as worded.

Filed Under: criminal, email, harassment, scotland, text