ACTA chapter on internet leaked

[zerospinboson]

The current ACTA proposal chapter on what actions will be required of participating countries in order to defend intellectual property rights has been leaked, and it looks far from pretty. 3-strikes laws for most of the modern world, without due process clauses (why that would be legal is beyond me), 3rd party liability, expanded use of takedown notices.. Imagine something bad, and it will turn out to be worse.

See here for Doctorow's article on boingboing

Someone has uploaded a PDF to a Google Group that is claimed to be the proposal for Internet copyright enforcement that the USA has put forward for ACTA
I've read it through a few times and it reads a lot like DMCA-plus.
This also includes takedown procedures for trademark infringement, as well as the existing procedures against copyright infringement. Since trademark infringement is a lot harder for a service provider to adjudicate (and since things that might be trademark infringement take place every time you do something as innocuous as taking a photo of a street-scene that contains hundreds or thousands of trademarks), this sounds like a potential disaster to me.
Also buried in a footnote is a provision for forcing ISPs to terminate customers who've been accused -- but not convicted -- of copyright infringement (along with their families and anyone else who happens to share their net connection).

See here for Geist's analysis

Three Strikes/Graduated Response

The draft chapter finally puts to rest the question of whether ACTA in its current form would establish a three strikes and you're out model. The USTR has recently emphatically stated that it does not establish a mandatory three strikes system. The draft reveals that this is correct, but the crucial word is mandatory. The draft U.S. chapter does require intermediaries to play a more aggressive role in policing their networks and the specific model cited is the three-strikes approach. In other words, the treaty may not specifically require three-strikes, but it clearly encourages it as the model to qualify as a safe harbour from liability. The specific provision, which is another pre-requisite for intermediary safe harbour from liability, states:

an online service provider adopting and reasonably implementing a policy to address the unauthorized storage or transmission of materials protected by copyright or related rights except that no Party may condition the limitations in subparagraph (a) on the online service provider's monitoring its services or affirmatively seeking facts indicating that infringing activity is occurring;

And what is an example of a policy provided in ACTA? The treaty states:

An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider's system or network of repeat infringers.

This leaks shows how deceptive the USTR has been on this issue - on the one hand seeking to assure the public that there is no three-strikes and on the other specifically citing three strikes as its proposed policy model. Given the past U.S. history with anti-circumvention - which started with general language and now graduates to very specific requirements - there is little doubt that the same dynamic is at play with respect to three strikes.

From a process perspective, leaks coming out of the Mexico ACTA talks revealed that the ISP provisions were discussed, but the anti-circumvention provisions were not. This suggests that the anti-circumvention provisions from the U.S. are the only proposal currently on the table. According to a New Zealand official, there may be alternate proposals for the three-strikes model, all of which will presumably be discussed during the next round of negotiations in April in New Zealand.

In the EU, the EuroParliament will eventually have to sign off on this, so perhaps finding out who your parliamentarians are, and pointing them towards this book (Amazon) may be of help, but basically all we can do is hope that enough people figure out in time that granting monopolies to companies only discourages innovation, because of a lack of competition.
But nobody seems to actually care about what does and does not stimulate creativity/innovation, preferring to stick his head in the sand and imagine that "protecting monopolies" will work.

[Greg Anos]

Looks like about what I expected. I have only a cryptic response for the MAFIAA groups backing this quasi-treaty. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it...

[sabredog]

AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) attempted to force a major ISP in Australia to cut off internet services for accused (IP based accusation via letter). After nearly twelve month court trial, the judge shredded AFACT's case and awarded iiNet four million dollars damages.

The government indicated it was not considering forcing legislation for three strikes and there would be a huge uproar here if it did, as the opposition to Senator Conroy's "great firewall of Australia" internet filter is growing in size. All major ISP's in Australia are opposed to three strikes as they all firmly believe that AFACT and similar are standing on shaky ground when it comes to third parties with agendas accusing internet offenders of piracy based on the IP model. The recent court case iiNet won is solid legal support to that notion.

All this proposal does is force the ISP's to do the dirty work for the the entertainment industry. Depriving a person of a service (internet access) because they are accused of something is simply wrong.

This seems another bandaid solution to an ailing distribution and rights model. Dinosaur stuff.

[wallcraft]

From Ars Technica: World, get ready for the DMCA: ACTA's Internet chapter leaks. This includes:

If the bill sounds much like existing American law, it should; the US delegation drafted the Internet section of ACTA, and the entire document is being negotiated as an executive agreement, meaning that it can be adopted without Congressional consent but may not alter US law. Thus, unsurprisingly, the leaked document takes the DMCA worldwide.

In places like Europe, there's also huge concern about how these American-pushed policies would interact with existing privacy law. Just today, European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx issued an extraordinary opinion (PDF) in which he "regrets that he was not consulted by the European Commission on the content" of ACTA.

I assume Peter Hustinx will be fired as soon as practical, but this is another indication that ACTA secrecy may end up being counter productive.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

From Ars Technica: World, get ready for the DMCA: ACTA's Internet chapter leaks. This includes:

I assume Peter Hustinx will be fired as soon as practical, but this is another indication that ACTA secrecy may end up being counter productive.

Sadly, you are probably right. I would hope that people who are used to some freedom wouldn't give it up so easily, but the example of Spain hasn't been particularly encouraging. A lot of folks just don't know what is being done, and whether or how it affects them.

[zerospinboson]

Weeee...

The European Parliament is preparing to take on ACTA. A joint resolution (DOC) has been tabled by the major EP parties that threatens to go to court unless things change. The EP is calling for public access to negotiation texts and rules out further confidential negotiations. Moreover, the EP wants a ban on imposing a three-strikes model, assurances that ACTA will not result in personal searches at the border, and an ACTA impact assessment on fundamental rights and data protection.

[asjogren]

So - if I accuse MicroSoft of infringing on my copyright or invention, without court procedure, I can force them off the Internet? Or, is this only one sided?

[sabredog]

Australia finally reveals its position.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/169254...acta-role.aspx

[frozennorth]

Originally Posted by sabredog

All this proposal does is force the ISP's to do the dirty work for the the entertainment industry. Depriving a person of a service (internet access) because they are accused of something is simply wrong.

Not only that but it would punish the ISP's along with their customers since they would lose the income from that customer.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by asjogren

So - if I accuse MicroSoft of infringing on my copyright or invention, without court procedure, I can force them off the Internet? Or, is this only one sided?

While I like that idea ("I do not give permission for this blog to be carried on MSN or AOL servers; if the contents of this blog are transferred to machines owned by Microsoft or AOL, the uploader is guilty of copyright infringement; if Microsoft or AOL distributes this content, they are likewise guilty"), I have doubts that anyone without a squad of lawyers on retainer is going to get any use out of the 3-strikes rule.

I suspect it's a way for corporations to punish the public, not the other way around. Of course you can't accuse "Microsoft" of copyright infringement... you'd have to sue *the one office worker* whose computer was found guilty of copying your content without permission.