Secret copyright treaty leaks! Complete Insanity! | INFJ Forum

Secret copyright treaty leaks! Complete Insanity!


Permanent Fixture
Sep 4, 2008
"Secret copyright treaty leaks! Complete Insanity!

You are not going to believe what you are about to read. Negotiations on the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement start today in Seoul and some of the details of the treaty are starting to leak.

This treaty is Hollywood’s dream come true. Countries that sign the treaty would require each country to have DMCA type provisions that include some pretty incredible language.

It would require Internet users be barred from the Internet in a universal 3 strikes rule. It would require that ISP’s Police their users for copyright violations and to include user-generated content. It would include worldwide rules preventing DRM circumvention. ISP’s would have to adopt US style take-down notices.

This is not a trade agreement it is a gift to the entertainment industry. One things for sure it was a industry hack that wrote these provisions. It is not surprising they want to stifle user-generated content and regain control of the vast media distribution system they once controlled but have pilfered.

The folks over at Boing Boing and EFF use much stronger language than I do but this secret treaty is not good for the signing countries citizens and the overall freedom of speech which we have on the Internet today.

An Article at PCWorld sums it up nicely “ISPs around the world will be forced to snoop on their subscribers and cut them off if they are found to have shared copyright-protected music on the Internet, under an international agreement being promoted by the U.S.”"-Geek News

"The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)"-Boing Boing

"Leaked ACTA Internet Provisions: Three Strikes and a Global DMCA
Commentary by Gwen Hinze
Negotiations on the highly controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement start in a few hours in Seoul, South Korea. This week's closed negotiations will focus on "enforcement in the digital environment." Negotiators will be discussing the Internet provisions drafted by the US government. No text has been officially released but as Professor Michael Geist and IDG are reporting, leaks have surfaced. The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations. The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.

As expected, the Internet provisions will go beyond existing international treaty obligations and follow the language of Article 18.10.30 of the recent U.S. – South Korea Free Trade Agreement. We see three points of concern.

First, according to the leaks, ACTA member countries will be required to provide for third-party (Internet Intermediary) liability. This is not required by any of the major international IP treaties – not by the 1994 Trade Related Aspects of IP agreement, nor the WIPO Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. However, US copyright owners have long sought this. (For instance, see page 19 of the Industry Functional Advisory Committee report on the 2003 US- Singapore Free Trade Agreement noting the need for introducing a system of ISP liability). (Previously available at

Second and more importantly, ACTA will include some limitations on Internet Intermediary liability. Many ACTA negotiating countries already have these regimes in place: the US, EU, Australia, Japan, South Korea. To get the benefit of the ACTA safe harbors, Internet intermediaries will need to follow notice and takedown regimes, and put in place policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of allegedly copyright infringing content.

However, contrary to current US law and practice, the US text apparently conditions the safe harbors on Internet intermediaries adopting a Graduated Response or Three Strikes policy. IDG reports that:

"The U.S. wants ACTA to force ISPs to "put in place policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content (for example clauses in customers' contracts allowing a graduated response)," according to the [leaked European] Commission memo."

Let's reflect on what this means: First, the US government appears to be pushing for Three Strikes to be part of the new global IP enforcement regime which ACTA is intended to create – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European Parliament and by national policymakers in several ACTA negotiating countries, and has never been proposed by US legislators.

Second, US negotiators are seeking policies that will harm the US technology industry and citizens across the globe. Three Strikes/ Graduated Response is the top priority of the entertainment industry. The content industry has sought this since the European office of the Motion Picture Association began touting Three Strikes as ISP "best practice" in 2005. Indeed, the MPAA and the RIAA expressly asked for ACTA to include obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes policies in their 2008 submissions to the USTR. The USTR apparently listened and agreed, disregarding the concerns raised by both the US's major technology and telecom companies and industry associations (who dwarf the US entertainment industry), and public interest groups and libraries.

How does this fit with the oft-repeated statement of the USTR that ACTA will not change US law, which justified the decision to negotiate ACTA as an Executive Agreement outside of regular US Congressional oversight measures? That remains to be seen.

The safe harbors in the US Copyright law require ISPs to adopt and reasonably implement a policy for termination of "repeat infringers" "in appropriate circumstances". US law currently gives ISPs considerable flexibility to determine what are "appropriate circumstances" justifying the termination of a customer's Internet account. If the leak reports are correct, this would no longer be true. Instead, ISPs would be required to automatically terminate a customer upon a rightsholders' repeat allegation of copyright infringement at a particular IP address. Could the USTR be relying on the somewhat specious distinction between a Three Strikes law, and its implementation by a policy adopted by ISPs as part of a gun-to-the-head self regulation regime?

According to IDG, the leaked European Commission memo also states that the US Internet chapter is "sensitive due to the different points of view regarding the internet chapter both within the Administration, with Congress and among stakeholders (content providers on one side, supporters of internet freedom on the other)."

That's hardly surprising, given that the ACTA text appears to leave the door open for major changes to the existing national Internet intermediary liability regimes that have been the global status quo since the mid 1990s, and which have underpinned both tremendous Internet innovation, and citizens' online freedom of expression and the rich world of user generated content that we take for granted today.

European citizens should also be concerned and indignant. As reported, the ACTA Internet provisions would also appear to be inconsistent with the EU eCommerce Directive and existing national law, as Joe McNamee, the European Affairs Coordinator of EDRi notes:

"The Commission appears to be opening up ISPs to third party liability, even though the European Parliament has expressly said this mustn't happen," McNamee said, adding that ACTA looks likely to erode European citizens' civil liberties."

Last, but by no means least. ACTA signatories will be required to adopt both civil and criminal legal sanctions for copyright owners' technological protection measures, in line with the US-Korea (and previous) FTA obligations. They will also be required to include a ban on the act of circumvention of technological protection measures, and a ban on the manufacture, import and distribution of circumvention tools. This will reduce the flexibility otherwise available to countries drafting these sort of laws under the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The majority of WIPO's Member States rejected the circumvention device ban sought by the US delegation in the draft Basic Proposal for the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty. Because ACTA is intended to create new global international IP enforcement standards, including these provisions will allow US negotiators to achieve what they have not been able to do to date – ensuring that the US's overbroad implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaty TPM obligations becomes the global standard.

This should give all citizens - and the ACTA countries negotiating in their names - pause for thought."-eFF.ORG
Heh, and BenW thinks that all FTAs are nothing more than agreements opening trade...
The entertainment industry has never offered lower quality, aiming for quantity. They are so much in the artistic gutter right now, that I won't miss them, if they are just gone.

Moreover, people make their own multimedia, on all levels, easy and cheap. Poor old and ugly Hollywood, they'll have to transfer lots of raw material back to the Silicon Valley.
Time to buy some guns and start a revolution!

Figuratively speaking of course. Big Business is going to replace government soon.

Big business already owns the government. They want us to die so we peons will stop using up the natural resources. This is what happens when people go threw life chasing a dream and ignoring the reality of what is going on around them. If you are surprised I am not. We have to vote the people out who are doing this too us. The time of being polite is wearing thin...
Time to buy some guns and start a revolution!

Figuratively speaking of course. Big Business is going to replace government soon.

Big Business doesn't need to replace government, they are in a perfect spot as they are.

They lobby and contribute, government makes the biased decisions. No accountability. We are already in hell my friends. :p

The internet is full of freedom, it was only a matter of time.
The Internet forms a brain of itself.

I wonder when will some company decide to put a price and copyright control on my own neuron transimissions?

It's very easy: engineer a disease that can only be treated with their neurological products, which are paid by the traffic of neuro-transactions. Ahahaha.

Sorry, you are too poor to have the right to think anymore this month. Work harder to earn it!
They already have chips in the brain that allow paraplegics to control a mouse.

Not far off!!

Coming soon! Advertisements straight to your brain!!!

Don't take this the wrong way, I think it is BRILLIANT that this technology was discovered. I just never underestimate the exploitation abilities of the scum in this world.

There is also technology that uses a blind person's tongue to see, have you heard of that?
Last edited:
I wonder if you can call it capitalism when big business wants to use the government to effectively stifle internet innovation.
I wonder if you can call it capitalism when big business wants to use the government to effectively stifle internet innovation.

I don't believe civil rights belong to corporations in a truely capitalistic society. Just my opinion though.

I think capitalism died with the implementation of corporate personhood.
I don't believe civil rights belong to corporations in a truely capitalistic society. Just my opinion though.

I think capitalism died with the implementation of corporate personhood.

I have a friend who makes that exact same claim.
  • Like
Reactions: enfp can be shy
What is your opinion?

I have none. In all frankness, the founding fathers designed the Constitution in such a way that it seems clear that they wanted the most powerful merchants, military leaders, and politicians to maintain control over the masses. The military industrial complex is the end product, and the fact that most of our discretionary spending is channeled into national defense is proof. Issues like corporate personhood just seem like symptoms of that larger issue.
I wonder if you can call it capitalism when big business wants to use the government to effectively stifle internet innovation.
I'd call it fascism.

The larger a governmental body is, the more incentive exists for exploitation thereof.