News

MPAA: ACTA Must Include Internet Provisions

MPAA Chair Dan Glickman appeared before a Congressional committee last week and left little doubt that ACTA is all about the Internet and copyright provisions.  According to Glickman:

We firmly believe that for the ACTA to address the enforcement challenges our industry confronts today, it MUST include robust protections for intellectual property online. Practical secondary liability regimes for online infringement are essential to motivate stakeholders to cooperate in implementing the reasonable practices that promote legitimate consumer options and make the online marketplace less hospitable for infringers. ACTA parties should refine their secondary liability regimes to reflect current realities and adopt modern, flexible systems where they do not exist.

Talk of "refining secondary liability regimes" is not so subtle code for the establishment of a global three-strikes and you're out policy.

9 Comments

  1. Those three strikes?
    They’d best be referring to three actual-proven-in-court convictions as opposed to mere accusations.

  2. We already know you firmly believe that (or at least pretend to). That is one of the reasons you have so many chearleaders.

  3. Take Back Copyright
    It is time for citizens to take back copyright from the corporations. I propose a 10year copyright on all works including software after such time the work goes into public domain. DRM is to be made illegal and not conducive to electronic exchange.

    It must be ironic that one of the key words below is khomeini.

  4. Two comments
    1) “We firmly believe that for the ACTA to address the enforcement challenges our industry confronts today, it MUST include robust protections for intellectual property online.” Huh? How do you figure?

    2) “ACTA parties should refine their secondary liability regimes to reflect current realities and adopt modern, flexible systems where they do not exist.” Was that quote cut off? Because it should have read, “ACTA parties should refine their secondary liability regimes to reflect current realities and adopt modern, flexible systems where they do not exist. So we don’t have to.”

  5. Frankly I’d love it if the 3-strikes and your out policy took effect.
    I can think of a bazillion people with wireless I could hack into, download monitored pirated movies on, and consequently have booted off the net.

    Who’s this supposed to stop, ’cause it certainly won’t stop me?

  6. It will be great when some government employee downloads an MP3 and the federal or provincial government is removed from the internet

  7. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    A.C.T.A. is BAD
    Obviously we disagree on what “legitimate consumer options” should be. http://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/personal-use-copying-vs-bootlegging/

    And of course “robust protections for intellectual property” include jailing people for “innocent” non-commercial infringements. http://stopusagebasedbilling.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/a-c-t-a-is-still-bad/

    None of the 3 strikes laws (or any variation of notice and take-down laws being floated anywhere around the world) or A.C.T.A. will actually do anything to curtail bootlegging (that is to say commercial copyright infringement).

    So why is the copyright lobby really doing this? So that governments will do their dirty work and be the bad guys?

    And why are governments going along? Is it because they are being pressured by the American government (who are in turn being pressured by the MPAA et al) or is it because will give them unprecedented license to spy on the citizenry? Since it’s all secret it is most probably the worst case scenario.

    I’ve been a movie junkie all my life, but I just threw out a money off admission coupon to the movies. Someow I really don’t feel like giving thm more money with which to war on us.

  8. Is this the MPAA…
    …whose members are having a record-breaking 1009, despite the recession ?
    Yeah, we clearly need to help them out.

  9. Martin Luther King said…
    “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.