The reaction to revelations about the Internet provisions of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continue. Notable articles include:
- Canada: Still-murky copyright treaty could change web as we use it
- New Zealand: New Zealand should not sign international piracy agreement
- Australia: ISPs Focus of Piracy Talks
- Australia: Fighting Piracy – three strikes and you're out?
- Spain: La negociación secreta de un acuerdo mundial sobre el 'copyright' alarma a los internautas
- United States: Obama's Hollywood Sellout
- United States: New Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Looks to take DMCA Globally
strikes? what strikes?
I don’t know why they always say “three infringements” or “three strikes” it’s just 3 allegations and your out that is proposed isn’t it?
@crade
Good question. Three convictions (infringements) at least could be defensible. Three accusations, on the other hand, is at the very least begging for abuse, and may, in fact, not stand up to a challenge in the courts, here or in the US. Of course, one could easily turn this around on the RIAA, MPAA, etc, member companies and accuse them three times, shutting them off for a year. And when they get back access, they get accused again, and again, and again…
In a sense I can see why the treaty negotiations are being held in “secret”, or rather why the draft treaty/proposals are not being publicly released. Publicly releasing them, or worse, parts of them, gets a proposal/draft played up in the press and blogosphere without putting them into context, with “analysts” putting their own spin on it. It also allows someone who proposes something that is ludicrous the opportunity to back down while saving face. In the modern world people want access to everything that their government is doing, whether or not it is in their best interest. Sometimes it is better to let things play out and react later. After all, in Canada, for instance, if the government signs off on a treaty, we can always turf their butts out the door for a party that promises to renounce the treaty… of course, if they do or not is another question (for instance Jean Cretien’s promise to scrap the GST during the 1993 election… the promise during WW1 that income tax would be temporary).
That the US is attempting to push DMCA+ onto the world shouldn’t surprise anyone; one simply needs to look at the TR301 report to see that the current Congress is in line with the DMCA as was Congress under the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. Also look at the conditions that have been placed onto free-trade agreements that have been negotiated in the past 10 years to see the same thing. So frankly, I can’t see why people are surprised.
It’s more like so someone can propose something ludicrous and get it written in stone before it is subjected to any scutiny. Reaction afterwords certainly won’t do much.
I’m not surprised. I know the U.S. is run through bribery (or campaign contributions, or whatever they like to call it) and I know Canada basically always does what they demand…
I’m just depressed. I don’t want corps to be given all that power over people. It sucks.
@crade
Written in stone? More like written in set Jello. Governments can, and do, refuse to ratify treaties that they have signed once agreed to; it is ratification that legally binds them to the treaty terms, not simply being a signatory. The US, Israel and Sudan were all signatories to the International Criminal Court, but have since revoked their signing.
I don’t see us repudiating such an agreement while under US pressure, but maybe I am just pessimistic.
The trouble with treaties
Look at the rhetoric surrounding the 1996 WIPO treaties. Because we signed them and haven’t (yet) ratified (because, let’s face it, Canadian’s don’t want these laws), we keep hearing that we “haven’t lived up to our obligations”. International treaties give a means to bypass democracy – the negotiators sign the treaty, then the lobbyists and MPs say “we have to ratify the treaty we signed”, and our only chance to have our say is if there happens to be an election and the treaty becomes an election issue. The history of the DMCA is a great example – that approach was originally rejected in the US, so the people pushing for it got it written into the WIPO treaties instead, and the US politicians then implemented it domestically (I suspect that a lot of politicians don’t understand the difference between signing and ratifying a treaty, and the ones that do trust that the electorate as whole doesn’t).
It would be much better if we were to withdraw from the ACTA negotiations altogether.
another piece from New Zealand: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/9D00790AC8E633E7CC257669006B5CC2
Virtual Hosting
Very good post. It really helped me a lot, will be referring a lot of friends about this. I never come across such a lovely post which is very well written, to the point and have every thing which a target customer is looking for.keep bloging.