Stealth Treaty Seeks Strict Controls Over Internet
-
The treaty requires: That Internet Service Providers (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 U.S. and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright. Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM [Digital Rights Management systems], 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). http://www.infowars.com/stealth-treaty-seeks-strict-controls-over-internet/[^]
Wouldn't this all be based on a leaked version of the treaty, most likely the one proposed by the various content holders to inept to realize that most of it just turns into promotion for their product. Either that, or the stealth bit is entirely out the window.
-
Wouldn't this all be based on a leaked version of the treaty, most likely the one proposed by the various content holders to inept to realize that most of it just turns into promotion for their product. Either that, or the stealth bit is entirely out the window.
-
The treaty requires: That Internet Service Providers (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 U.S. and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright. Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM [Digital Rights Management systems], 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). http://www.infowars.com/stealth-treaty-seeks-strict-controls-over-internet/[^]
What the hell is wrong with you? You're supposed to be copy-pasting conspiracy theories, not factual information! Ok, well, you did copy-paste it from a conspiracy site, which completely exaggerates both the "secrecy" and the internet cut-offs, but this is actually a real issue. I read about this on several sites a week or two ago... Basically it's an international version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that they're trying to push... But allow me to dispute a few points... 1) It's not a "secret" or "stealth" treaty. It's a matter of public record. It just isn't being marketed, so it's not in our faces. The trick is that I don't think it would affect the US very much, since we're already operating under something similar... Therefore the public outcry is limited so far. Edit: Ok, after viewing the EFF's article about it, I can see why it would be considered "secret"... Not secret to the rest of the world, but they're using loopholes here in the US with the excuse that it's not changing much... Could be an issue. 2) I don't remember reading anything about requiring ISPs to do their own monitoring. I think they tried to put something like that into the DMCA, but it was thrown out for exactly the reason you pasted. The general process flow is, I believe, like this: a) Bob uploads Super_Cool_Movie to YouTube. Studio X spots it and sends an official DMCA takedown notice to YouTube. b) YouTube immediately takes down the content, and notifies Bob of the reason c) If Bob believes that the item should be permitted, he requests to have it reinstated, and they go through some sort of arbitration or court process to decide whether to put it back up. It's not a perfect system, but the goal is to prevent widespread piracy by getting the possibly-infringing content away from the public BEFORE the lengthy evaluation process, instead of having it available for download while they investigate whether it's illegal. 3) People getting cut off from the Internet is probably another clause that won't make it into the final treaty. I think the UK is trying or recently tried a "three strikes" law, and I don't remember it going over very well... Would have to look that up. Anyway... Speaking as both a consumer and a producer of copyrighted content (I do sell a DRM-free-but-copyrighted electronic version of my novel), I'm generally opposed to DRM... And I think a DMCA-style treaty is a bit too idealistic (Too easily exploited/abused)... Hopefully if this
-
The treaty requires: That Internet Service Providers (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 U.S. and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright. Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM [Digital Rights Management systems], 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). http://www.infowars.com/stealth-treaty-seeks-strict-controls-over-internet/[^]
There are real issues here, but this post is the usual over reaction, and assumption of conspiracy where none exists. Have never created anything of value to society, I can see how you'd not recognise the real issues that the internet poses for people who make their living out of creating forms of IP. I agree that ISPs are the wrong ones to hold accountable, but the real issue is that people are being stolen from on a daily basis, and no-one can figure out how to resolve it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
There are real issues here, but this post is the usual over reaction, and assumption of conspiracy where none exists. Have never created anything of value to society, I can see how you'd not recognise the real issues that the internet poses for people who make their living out of creating forms of IP. I agree that ISPs are the wrong ones to hold accountable, but the real issue is that people are being stolen from on a daily basis, and no-one can figure out how to resolve it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
assumption of conspiracy where none exists.
Climategate, peon.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
assumption of conspiracy where none exists.
Climategate, peon.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Climategate, peon.
-5, Offtopic
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
assumption of conspiracy where none exists.
Climategate, peon.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Climategate, peon.
And as usual, you don't have any real, logical answers.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Climategate, peon.
-5, Offtopic
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
In his mind, climategate proves that ONE conspiracy exists, so that proves they ALL exist. It's all connected. By the Illuminati.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
What the hell is wrong with you? You're supposed to be copy-pasting conspiracy theories, not factual information! Ok, well, you did copy-paste it from a conspiracy site, which completely exaggerates both the "secrecy" and the internet cut-offs, but this is actually a real issue. I read about this on several sites a week or two ago... Basically it's an international version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that they're trying to push... But allow me to dispute a few points... 1) It's not a "secret" or "stealth" treaty. It's a matter of public record. It just isn't being marketed, so it's not in our faces. The trick is that I don't think it would affect the US very much, since we're already operating under something similar... Therefore the public outcry is limited so far. Edit: Ok, after viewing the EFF's article about it, I can see why it would be considered "secret"... Not secret to the rest of the world, but they're using loopholes here in the US with the excuse that it's not changing much... Could be an issue. 2) I don't remember reading anything about requiring ISPs to do their own monitoring. I think they tried to put something like that into the DMCA, but it was thrown out for exactly the reason you pasted. The general process flow is, I believe, like this: a) Bob uploads Super_Cool_Movie to YouTube. Studio X spots it and sends an official DMCA takedown notice to YouTube. b) YouTube immediately takes down the content, and notifies Bob of the reason c) If Bob believes that the item should be permitted, he requests to have it reinstated, and they go through some sort of arbitration or court process to decide whether to put it back up. It's not a perfect system, but the goal is to prevent widespread piracy by getting the possibly-infringing content away from the public BEFORE the lengthy evaluation process, instead of having it available for download while they investigate whether it's illegal. 3) People getting cut off from the Internet is probably another clause that won't make it into the final treaty. I think the UK is trying or recently tried a "three strikes" law, and I don't remember it going over very well... Would have to look that up. Anyway... Speaking as both a consumer and a producer of copyrighted content (I do sell a DRM-free-but-copyrighted electronic version of my novel), I'm generally opposed to DRM... And I think a DMCA-style treaty is a bit too idealistic (Too easily exploited/abused)... Hopefully if this
They are working on all fronts to shut down the web, because its the only place where information flows freely. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAJBQ80&show_article=1[^] http://www.dailypaul.com/node/88621[^]
-
They are working on all fronts to shut down the web, because its the only place where information flows freely. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAJBQ80&show_article=1[^] http://www.dailypaul.com/node/88621[^]
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy to dominate the world? This is not a government conspiracy. This is the result of a lot of campaigning/funding from groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and their international counterparts. This is an economic move, not a political move. No one country can shut down the Internet (Not even the US), and the chances of enough countries working together is pretty much nil. It's grown beyond the control of any one organization, and that's the way we like it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy to dominate the world? This is not a government conspiracy. This is the result of a lot of campaigning/funding from groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and their international counterparts. This is an economic move, not a political move. No one country can shut down the Internet (Not even the US), and the chances of enough countries working together is pretty much nil. It's grown beyond the control of any one organization, and that's the way we like it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy to dominate the world?
Why does power corrupt? Power is a very potent and extremely addictive drug.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy to dominate the world?
Why does power corrupt? Power is a very potent and extremely addictive drug.
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's happening. Take off the tin foil hat for five minutes and realize that most governments are too flooded with bureaucracy, political arguments, and general inefficiency and stupidity to actually accomplish any of these vast conspiracies.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's happening. Take off the tin foil hat for five minutes and realize that most governments are too flooded with bureaucracy, political arguments, and general inefficiency and stupidity to actually accomplish any of these vast conspiracies.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
People conspire for money and power, get that through your head. One only has to read the news to figure out that tyrants are in power, and they are seeking to expand and strengthen their power. Those are two facts.
-
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy to dominate the world? This is not a government conspiracy. This is the result of a lot of campaigning/funding from groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and their international counterparts. This is an economic move, not a political move. No one country can shut down the Internet (Not even the US), and the chances of enough countries working together is pretty much nil. It's grown beyond the control of any one organization, and that's the way we like it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Hell, look at Russia and China. They pretty much refuse to follow any western coroporations attempts to police their infringement. If it was some sort of global conspiracy you would think 2 of the 3 biggest powers (at one point or another) would be working with them... And if I remember there is actually a provision in there were some idiot record company started being stupid about songs and got nailed, hard.
-
People conspire for money and power, get that through your head. One only has to read the news to figure out that tyrants are in power, and they are seeking to expand and strengthen their power. Those are two facts.
Strawman. You present opinions as fact. Tyrants are in power, maybe, depending on the place. But even then, opinion. Expanding their power, same thing. Come on, how about using real facts? Should I bother starting a count today?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Climategate, peon.
-5, Offtopic
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
and another strawman. equating "climategate" with a conspiracy when it is not in fact one. oh and namecalling, but we can't expect that to count.
-
Strawman. You present opinions as fact. Tyrants are in power, maybe, depending on the place. But even then, opinion. Expanding their power, same thing. Come on, how about using real facts? Should I bother starting a count today?
Think he's looked up the term 'Strawman' yet?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Think he's looked up the term 'Strawman' yet?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Someone linked to the wikipedia page for it. Which means it is on the internet... SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!! :wtf:
-
Someone linked to the wikipedia page for it. Which means it is on the internet... SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!! :wtf:
Nah, I'm sure the next Alex Jones show will be all about the "Strawman Conspiracy"... How the Federal Reserve is using a propaganda campaign to redefine logic itself in its favor.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)