Cory Doctorow, YouTube via BoingBoing.net; [Documentary] When Copyright Goes Bad:
"Ben Cato Clough and Luke Upchurch's "When Copyright Goes Bad" (from Consumers International) is a great, 15-minute mini-documentary on what copyright can do, what it is doing, and what it needs to stop doing. Appearances by Fred Von Lohmann - Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael Geist - University of Ottawa Law School; Jim Killock - Open Rights Group; and Hank Shocklee - Co-founder of Public Enemy."
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/21/when-copyright-goes.html
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright; TechDirt, 5/20/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright:
"A few months back, President Obama publicly stood behind ACTA despite tons of concerns about it from the public. It's disappointing that as more and more concerns and problems with ACTA have been highlighted, Obama has not reconsidered. He still seems to be taking the position that "more copyright must be good, and ACTA therefore is good." That's a naive position. The group Open ACTA points us to a statement made by Obama in Mexico, concerning better trade relations with Mexico, where he again insists that ACTA is a key part of better trade relations:
Innovation and investment in technology and human capital are keys to sustained economic growth and competitiveness in both Mexico and the United States. The protection of intellectual property rights is essential to promote such innovation and investment. With this in mind, the Presidents charged their administrations to work together to formalize and expand the efforts of the existing bilateral Intellectual Property Rights Working Group. These efforts will include industry training (including of small and medium size enterprises); work between Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to streamline patent reviews; and collaboration, training and increased intelligence sharing among law enforcement agencies to enforce intellectual property rights more effectively. The Presidents also reaffirmed their commitment to the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and charged their administrations to conclude these negotiations soon.
But, this blind assertion that stricter copyright enforcement without key exceptions and consumer protections that actually contribute more value to the economy than copyright restrictions, isn't just wrong, it goes against the very purpose of copyright law.
Hephaestus points us to a submission to the Australian government, by the Australian Digital Alliance, that does a great job highlighting the negative impact of ACTA (pdf) and how it goes against basic copyright law:
"The text of ACTA does not reflect one of the most important objectives of copyright -- to ensure access to information for the benefit of society. Protecting creators to encourage continued innovation is only one half of the copyright equation, ACTA fails to recognise the dual purpose of copyright." The whole submission is worth reading, as it highlights all sorts of serious issues with ACTA and the impact it would have:
ACTA might have a negative impact on individuals as Internet citizens and as consumers of digital technologies because some of its requirements go beyond Australian law. ACTA will facilitate excessive damages payouts by mandating the controversial 'lost sale analysis' for the assessment of damages and encouraging punitive style statutory damages that set arbitrary amounts for infringement. ACTA will also broaden the scope of commercial scale infringement to criminalise purely private acts that occur in the homes of some Australians....
ACTA might have a negative impact on intermediaries that will damage Australia's digital economy by diminishing Internet innovation, the free flow of information and legitimate commerce. ACTA provides for the unqualified award of injunctions against intermediaries, which creates new rights with significant potential for abuse and cost implications for ISPs. ACTA defines where third party liability will be imposed, which is a highly controversial issue that requires the flexibility of being dealt with at a domestic level. ACTA will burden intermediaries with more onerous requirements for safe harbour protection that may encourage three strikes.
What's most frustrating about all of this is that it really does appear that many ACTA supporters are simply going by the boilerplate myth that "stronger copyright protection" is "good for society," without ever once bothering to understand the details and why such a statement isn't just wrong, but dangerous."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100519/1615029494.shtml
"A few months back, President Obama publicly stood behind ACTA despite tons of concerns about it from the public. It's disappointing that as more and more concerns and problems with ACTA have been highlighted, Obama has not reconsidered. He still seems to be taking the position that "more copyright must be good, and ACTA therefore is good." That's a naive position. The group Open ACTA points us to a statement made by Obama in Mexico, concerning better trade relations with Mexico, where he again insists that ACTA is a key part of better trade relations:
Innovation and investment in technology and human capital are keys to sustained economic growth and competitiveness in both Mexico and the United States. The protection of intellectual property rights is essential to promote such innovation and investment. With this in mind, the Presidents charged their administrations to work together to formalize and expand the efforts of the existing bilateral Intellectual Property Rights Working Group. These efforts will include industry training (including of small and medium size enterprises); work between Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to streamline patent reviews; and collaboration, training and increased intelligence sharing among law enforcement agencies to enforce intellectual property rights more effectively. The Presidents also reaffirmed their commitment to the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and charged their administrations to conclude these negotiations soon.
But, this blind assertion that stricter copyright enforcement without key exceptions and consumer protections that actually contribute more value to the economy than copyright restrictions, isn't just wrong, it goes against the very purpose of copyright law.
Hephaestus points us to a submission to the Australian government, by the Australian Digital Alliance, that does a great job highlighting the negative impact of ACTA (pdf) and how it goes against basic copyright law:
"The text of ACTA does not reflect one of the most important objectives of copyright -- to ensure access to information for the benefit of society. Protecting creators to encourage continued innovation is only one half of the copyright equation, ACTA fails to recognise the dual purpose of copyright." The whole submission is worth reading, as it highlights all sorts of serious issues with ACTA and the impact it would have:
ACTA might have a negative impact on individuals as Internet citizens and as consumers of digital technologies because some of its requirements go beyond Australian law. ACTA will facilitate excessive damages payouts by mandating the controversial 'lost sale analysis' for the assessment of damages and encouraging punitive style statutory damages that set arbitrary amounts for infringement. ACTA will also broaden the scope of commercial scale infringement to criminalise purely private acts that occur in the homes of some Australians....
ACTA might have a negative impact on intermediaries that will damage Australia's digital economy by diminishing Internet innovation, the free flow of information and legitimate commerce. ACTA provides for the unqualified award of injunctions against intermediaries, which creates new rights with significant potential for abuse and cost implications for ISPs. ACTA defines where third party liability will be imposed, which is a highly controversial issue that requires the flexibility of being dealt with at a domestic level. ACTA will burden intermediaries with more onerous requirements for safe harbour protection that may encourage three strikes.
What's most frustrating about all of this is that it really does appear that many ACTA supporters are simply going by the boilerplate myth that "stronger copyright protection" is "good for society," without ever once bothering to understand the details and why such a statement isn't just wrong, but dangerous."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100519/1615029494.shtml
Axis of P2P Evil? Congress, RIAA call out six worst websites in the world; Ars Technica, 5/19/10
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Axis of P2P Evil? Congress, RIAA call out six worst websites in the world:
"This morning, the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus held a press conference along with RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol to call out the six worst websites in the world. Think of them as an "Axis of P2P Evil."
Who made the cut? The Pirate Bay, naturally. Canada's IsoHunt was no surprise. One-click download service RapidShare was less expected, as a German court ruled only two weeks ago that the site was not responsible for infringement by its users and that it had no duty to preemptively censor uploaded content.
More surprising were the last three sites: Ukraine's MP3fiesta, which operates like the now-shuttered allofmp3.com; Luxembourg's RMX4U.com, which bills itself as "the biggest community for black music in world!"; and Baidu, the Chinese search engine so popular, Google couldn't even make a dent in its ratings.
The IAPC is a bipartisan group of 11 senators and a huge number of representatives, and they are concerned that America's copyright industries are suffering at the hands of "lax or nonexistent enforcement by many foreign governments." That's why, they wrote in a recent letter (PDF), the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is so important.
But look at that list of websites and services for a moment. What's missing? Grokster, Demonoid, Oink, Allofmp3, LimeWire, Napster, Newzbin, Mininova...
That's because the copyright industries have in fact been remarkably successful in court within the existing legal frameworks of both the US and foreign countries over the last few years.
Newzbin announced its own closure this week after a long legal fight, while LimeWire lost in a US federal court last week. Even the Pirate Bay's ISP had to stop hosting the site this week, and a Swedish court has already ruled against The Pirate Bay's administrators.
Hold your children close
Still, even with such tremendous victories behind it, the RIAA can't resist a spot of over-the-top rhetoric.
"The global challenge in the years to come will be to win the battle for a civilized Internet that respects property, privacy and security," said Bainwol. "An Internet of chaos may meet a utopian vision but surely undermines the societal values of safe and secure families and job and revenue-creating commerce. Shining the spotlight on these websites sends a vital message to users, advertisers, payment processors and governments around the world."
Yes, that's right: a Ukrainian website called "mp3fiesta" is threatening the safety and security of your family. And a good chunk of Congress wants to do something about it."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/axis-of-p2p-evil-congress-riaa-call-out-six-worst-websites-in-the-world.ars
"This morning, the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus held a press conference along with RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol to call out the six worst websites in the world. Think of them as an "Axis of P2P Evil."
Who made the cut? The Pirate Bay, naturally. Canada's IsoHunt was no surprise. One-click download service RapidShare was less expected, as a German court ruled only two weeks ago that the site was not responsible for infringement by its users and that it had no duty to preemptively censor uploaded content.
More surprising were the last three sites: Ukraine's MP3fiesta, which operates like the now-shuttered allofmp3.com; Luxembourg's RMX4U.com, which bills itself as "the biggest community for black music in world!"; and Baidu, the Chinese search engine so popular, Google couldn't even make a dent in its ratings.
The IAPC is a bipartisan group of 11 senators and a huge number of representatives, and they are concerned that America's copyright industries are suffering at the hands of "lax or nonexistent enforcement by many foreign governments." That's why, they wrote in a recent letter (PDF), the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is so important.
But look at that list of websites and services for a moment. What's missing? Grokster, Demonoid, Oink, Allofmp3, LimeWire, Napster, Newzbin, Mininova...
That's because the copyright industries have in fact been remarkably successful in court within the existing legal frameworks of both the US and foreign countries over the last few years.
Newzbin announced its own closure this week after a long legal fight, while LimeWire lost in a US federal court last week. Even the Pirate Bay's ISP had to stop hosting the site this week, and a Swedish court has already ruled against The Pirate Bay's administrators.
Hold your children close
Still, even with such tremendous victories behind it, the RIAA can't resist a spot of over-the-top rhetoric.
"The global challenge in the years to come will be to win the battle for a civilized Internet that respects property, privacy and security," said Bainwol. "An Internet of chaos may meet a utopian vision but surely undermines the societal values of safe and secure families and job and revenue-creating commerce. Shining the spotlight on these websites sends a vital message to users, advertisers, payment processors and governments around the world."
Yes, that's right: a Ukrainian website called "mp3fiesta" is threatening the safety and security of your family. And a good chunk of Congress wants to do something about it."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/axis-of-p2p-evil-congress-riaa-call-out-six-worst-websites-in-the-world.ars
China and Canada among top on US piracy watch list; Sydney Morning Herald, 5/20/10
Chris Lefkow, Sydney Morning Herald; China and Canada among top on US piracy watch list:
"US legislators have accused Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain of "robbing Americans" by failing to crack down on piracy of movies, music, videogames and other copyrighted works.
Theft of intellectual property in the five nations was at "alarming levels," the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus said Wednesday, placing them at the top of the "2010 International Piracy Watch List" for the second year in a row.
The caucus, made up of 70 members of the US House of Representatives and Senate, said it was "greatly disappointed by their failure to make meaningful progress during the last year" in protecting copyrighted works.
"We are losing billions and billions of US dollars because of the lack of intellectual property protections," said Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah. "These five countries have been robbing Americans."
"Unfortunately, the United States is on the wrong end of the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of humankind," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. "This must be stopped, and soon."
The bipartisan caucus, citing industry estimates, said global piracy costs US firms over 25 billion US dollars in lost sales annually.
The US legislators also released for the first time what they called a "list of notorious offenders" -- websites making available unauthorized copies of the works of US creators.
The websites singled out were China's Baidu, Canada's isoHunt, Ukraine's MP3fiesta, Sweden's Pirate Bay, Germany's Rapidshare and Luxembourg's RMX4U.
The caucus called on US trading partners to "take action against websites based within their borders whose business models are premised on delivering infringing content."
Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents major record companies, said the "websites facilitate massive theft" and "undermine legitimate commerce."
"The question for us globally is 'Can we create a world in which the Internet becomes a place of order rather than a place of chaos?" he asked.
Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, said pressure needs to be brought to bear on US banks and credit card companies whose services are being used to pay for pirated material on "rogue websites."
"We not only have to put pressure on these countries that are tolerating piracy or encouraging piracy but we also have to put some pressure on companies here at home that are helping facilitate piracy," Schiff said. "We need to dry up that revenue stream as part of the attack on those sites."
"This includes companies like Visa and Mastercard that facilitate financial transactions on these sites," he said.
The caucus said Canada is a "leading host" of illegal file-sharing sites and its "enforcement record continues to fall short of what should be expected of our neighbour and largest trading partner."
"At one point in 2009, five of the world's top 10 illegitimate 'bit torrent' sites were registered, located, or operated out of Canada," it said.
In China, "copyright theft is viewed in some sectors of the economy as a legitimate strategy for Chinese competitiveness," the caucus said. "This must end."
Microsoft cited piracy as a major reason that the US technology giant's software revenue per personal computer purchase is 15 times greater in the United States than it is in China.
"We have a particular problem in China in our business, which is that piracy is sky high," Microsoft boss Steve Ballmer told a gathering of corporate chief executives on Wednesday.
Mexico is a leading source for illegal camcorder copies of US films, the caucus said, and "piracy of hard goods and unauthorized use of software also remain severe problems."
The caucus said Russia has made "inadequate progress in addressing Internet piracy" and needs to adopt "updated and uniform procedures for investigation and prosecution of copyright infringement."
As for Spain, the caucus said it hopes the Spanish government will move quickly to tackle peer-to-peer piracy. "Greater accountability and deterrence must be established in Spanish law," it said."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/china-and-canada-among-top-on-us-piracy-watch-list-20100520-vlc2.html
"US legislators have accused Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain of "robbing Americans" by failing to crack down on piracy of movies, music, videogames and other copyrighted works.
Theft of intellectual property in the five nations was at "alarming levels," the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus said Wednesday, placing them at the top of the "2010 International Piracy Watch List" for the second year in a row.
The caucus, made up of 70 members of the US House of Representatives and Senate, said it was "greatly disappointed by their failure to make meaningful progress during the last year" in protecting copyrighted works.
"We are losing billions and billions of US dollars because of the lack of intellectual property protections," said Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah. "These five countries have been robbing Americans."
"Unfortunately, the United States is on the wrong end of the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of humankind," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. "This must be stopped, and soon."
The bipartisan caucus, citing industry estimates, said global piracy costs US firms over 25 billion US dollars in lost sales annually.
The US legislators also released for the first time what they called a "list of notorious offenders" -- websites making available unauthorized copies of the works of US creators.
The websites singled out were China's Baidu, Canada's isoHunt, Ukraine's MP3fiesta, Sweden's Pirate Bay, Germany's Rapidshare and Luxembourg's RMX4U.
The caucus called on US trading partners to "take action against websites based within their borders whose business models are premised on delivering infringing content."
Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents major record companies, said the "websites facilitate massive theft" and "undermine legitimate commerce."
"The question for us globally is 'Can we create a world in which the Internet becomes a place of order rather than a place of chaos?" he asked.
Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, said pressure needs to be brought to bear on US banks and credit card companies whose services are being used to pay for pirated material on "rogue websites."
"We not only have to put pressure on these countries that are tolerating piracy or encouraging piracy but we also have to put some pressure on companies here at home that are helping facilitate piracy," Schiff said. "We need to dry up that revenue stream as part of the attack on those sites."
"This includes companies like Visa and Mastercard that facilitate financial transactions on these sites," he said.
The caucus said Canada is a "leading host" of illegal file-sharing sites and its "enforcement record continues to fall short of what should be expected of our neighbour and largest trading partner."
"At one point in 2009, five of the world's top 10 illegitimate 'bit torrent' sites were registered, located, or operated out of Canada," it said.
In China, "copyright theft is viewed in some sectors of the economy as a legitimate strategy for Chinese competitiveness," the caucus said. "This must end."
Microsoft cited piracy as a major reason that the US technology giant's software revenue per personal computer purchase is 15 times greater in the United States than it is in China.
"We have a particular problem in China in our business, which is that piracy is sky high," Microsoft boss Steve Ballmer told a gathering of corporate chief executives on Wednesday.
Mexico is a leading source for illegal camcorder copies of US films, the caucus said, and "piracy of hard goods and unauthorized use of software also remain severe problems."
The caucus said Russia has made "inadequate progress in addressing Internet piracy" and needs to adopt "updated and uniform procedures for investigation and prosecution of copyright infringement."
As for Spain, the caucus said it hopes the Spanish government will move quickly to tackle peer-to-peer piracy. "Greater accountability and deterrence must be established in Spanish law," it said."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/china-and-canada-among-top-on-us-piracy-watch-list-20100520-vlc2.html
Drew Barrymore to direct another Wizard of Oz film; (London) Guardian, 5/19/10
Ben Child, (London) Guardian; Drew Barrymore to direct another Wizard of Oz film:
"Another day, another Wizard of Oz reimagining. Drew Barrymore looks set to become the latest member of the Hollywood glitterati to travel down the yellow brick road after signing on to direct Surrender Dorothy, pitched as a loose sequel to the 1939 musical...
At least five films based on the Wizard of Oz have been reported in recent weeks...
Though all 14 of Baum's Oz books are now out of copyright, and therefore freely available for anyone to plunder, it seems unlikely that all of the above will make it into cinemas: often in these cases, one or more of the films will fall at the wayside at the development stage. If not, there are going to be more wizards in multiplexes over the next few years than at a Harry Potter convention."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/19/drew-barrymore-direct-oz-film
"Another day, another Wizard of Oz reimagining. Drew Barrymore looks set to become the latest member of the Hollywood glitterati to travel down the yellow brick road after signing on to direct Surrender Dorothy, pitched as a loose sequel to the 1939 musical...
At least five films based on the Wizard of Oz have been reported in recent weeks...
Though all 14 of Baum's Oz books are now out of copyright, and therefore freely available for anyone to plunder, it seems unlikely that all of the above will make it into cinemas: often in these cases, one or more of the films will fall at the wayside at the development stage. If not, there are going to be more wizards in multiplexes over the next few years than at a Harry Potter convention."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/19/drew-barrymore-direct-oz-film
Copyright: time to change the laws?; BBC News, 5/17/10
Stephen Evans, BBC News; Copyright: time to change the laws?:
"The issue of copyright has to strike a delicate balance between protecting the creators of music, words or photographs and the dissemination of such material to a wider public.
On the one hand, you want to ensure that the creators get paid for what they create. On the other, if copyright protection is too tight, then dissemination of material becomes too restricted.
In the 18th century the spread of knowledge was dependent on reprinting.
A book produced in London or Paris would be reprinted in Geneva, Edinburgh or Dublin.
"That led to arguments among publishers and authors about whether reprinting was immoral or illegal," says Adrian Johns at the University of Chicago.
Blurred boundaries
The concept of intellectual property was based around the distinction between mechanical invention, and literary or cultural creation.
That idea is now less appropriate to the ways in which creativity is carried out - software development, biotechnology and gene science all conflict between the mechanical and the intellectual.
The advent of the internet has changed the way copyright works.
Under the previous technology, going into a shop and stealing a music CD was theft, and yet down-loading tracks from the internet seems un-theft-like.
This attitude, that if it is on the web then it is free, is even more pronounced with photographic images. When pictures were printed on paper it was easy to control, but new technology makes those old laws out-dated or at least difficult to enforce...
Future solutions
A few companies in Silicon Valley are working on ways for copyright information to be an integral part of the image which cannot be removed.
William Fisher at Harvard University thinks copyright protection is too strict, so, for example, works of art derived from photographs are blocked.
"There needs to be more creative freedom," he believes.
"The current system is over-protective. It extends copyright protection to too every snapshot, every digital image - billions are being created every minute all around the world and they are all protected by copyright law."
He acknowledges that a system is needed that affords protection to photographers who wish to have control over their work.
"But too much copyright protection impedes cultural conversations and cultural usage," he says.
He says there should be a change of bias when protecting work.
"It would be better if the photographer registered any image be wanted to protect with an online registration system," he says, "and that any other work was in the public domain.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10118823.stm
"The issue of copyright has to strike a delicate balance between protecting the creators of music, words or photographs and the dissemination of such material to a wider public.
On the one hand, you want to ensure that the creators get paid for what they create. On the other, if copyright protection is too tight, then dissemination of material becomes too restricted.
In the 18th century the spread of knowledge was dependent on reprinting.
A book produced in London or Paris would be reprinted in Geneva, Edinburgh or Dublin.
"That led to arguments among publishers and authors about whether reprinting was immoral or illegal," says Adrian Johns at the University of Chicago.
Blurred boundaries
The concept of intellectual property was based around the distinction between mechanical invention, and literary or cultural creation.
That idea is now less appropriate to the ways in which creativity is carried out - software development, biotechnology and gene science all conflict between the mechanical and the intellectual.
The advent of the internet has changed the way copyright works.
Under the previous technology, going into a shop and stealing a music CD was theft, and yet down-loading tracks from the internet seems un-theft-like.
This attitude, that if it is on the web then it is free, is even more pronounced with photographic images. When pictures were printed on paper it was easy to control, but new technology makes those old laws out-dated or at least difficult to enforce...
Future solutions
A few companies in Silicon Valley are working on ways for copyright information to be an integral part of the image which cannot be removed.
William Fisher at Harvard University thinks copyright protection is too strict, so, for example, works of art derived from photographs are blocked.
"There needs to be more creative freedom," he believes.
"The current system is over-protective. It extends copyright protection to too every snapshot, every digital image - billions are being created every minute all around the world and they are all protected by copyright law."
He acknowledges that a system is needed that affords protection to photographers who wish to have control over their work.
"But too much copyright protection impedes cultural conversations and cultural usage," he says.
He says there should be a change of bias when protecting work.
"It would be better if the photographer registered any image be wanted to protect with an online registration system," he says, "and that any other work was in the public domain.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10118823.stm
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Copyright Law Could Get Ugly If ACTA Is Adopted as Is; IT Business Edge, 5/17/10
Lori Bentley, IT Business Edge; Copyright Law Could Get Ugly If ACTA Is Adopted as Is: Lora Bentley spoke to Jim Burger, an intellectual property attorney in the Washington, D.C., offices of Dow Lohnes, about the proposed Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the impact it would have on the tech industry:
"Bentley: I've read that Internet service providers are concerned about the ACTA treaty, but I'm unclear what in particular they don't like about it. Is it the secondary liability provision?
Burger: Device manufacturers are more concerned about secondary liability than ISPs. The ISPs are primarily concerned about secondary liability where the search engines are concerned. The ISPs are primarily concerned about the safe harbor issue - the section 512 issue.
Generally in their space, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was a very carefully negotiated piece of legislation, gives them a safe harbor for users posting [copyrighted] material on their websites. So their concern, on a macro level, is that the DMCA was a very hard-fought battle. Almost every word mattered. In the ACTA treaty, they have a Reader's Digest version of [the safe harbor provision]. It gives them great concern because liability is huge.
Couple that with a provision in the enforcement section that says, essentially, countries will have predetermined damages. In the United States, it's potentially $150,000 maximum per infringing title, which is significant. For example, in the Viacom YouTube case, Viacom is alleging 100,000 titles. Multiply 100,000 by $150,000 and that's real money even for Google. So that's the problem the ISPs have in a nutshell."
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/interviews/blog/copyright-law-could-get-ugly-if-acta-is-adopted-as-is/?cs=41213
"Bentley: I've read that Internet service providers are concerned about the ACTA treaty, but I'm unclear what in particular they don't like about it. Is it the secondary liability provision?
Burger: Device manufacturers are more concerned about secondary liability than ISPs. The ISPs are primarily concerned about secondary liability where the search engines are concerned. The ISPs are primarily concerned about the safe harbor issue - the section 512 issue.
Generally in their space, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was a very carefully negotiated piece of legislation, gives them a safe harbor for users posting [copyrighted] material on their websites. So their concern, on a macro level, is that the DMCA was a very hard-fought battle. Almost every word mattered. In the ACTA treaty, they have a Reader's Digest version of [the safe harbor provision]. It gives them great concern because liability is huge.
Couple that with a provision in the enforcement section that says, essentially, countries will have predetermined damages. In the United States, it's potentially $150,000 maximum per infringing title, which is significant. For example, in the Viacom YouTube case, Viacom is alleging 100,000 titles. Multiply 100,000 by $150,000 and that's real money even for Google. So that's the problem the ISPs have in a nutshell."
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/interviews/blog/copyright-law-could-get-ugly-if-acta-is-adopted-as-is/?cs=41213
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)