US signs ACTA - Obama admin claimed it was a "national security" secret until EU leaked it:

[cyberpj]

More evidence of Corporate America dictating US (and now Global) law --this time without requiring Congressional approval.

Hey, anyone remember how easy it used to be to record on a VCR or cassette player and give copies to friends. Well, no more my friends... no more. Ever wonder why we all have to rent DVRs from the corporate cable overlords but you can't buy one on your own? It's because they don't want anyone sharing anything anymore - everyone must buy, buy, buy!


snip-
Rashmi Rangnath, a staff attorney with Public Knowledge in Washington, DC, said the deal "clearly, is an attempt to foist US law on other countries."

snip-
The accord, which the United States says does not require Congressional approval, also calls on participating nations to maintain extensive seizure and forfeiture laws when it comes to counterfeited goods that are trademarked or copyrighted. Most important, countries must carry out a legal system where victims of intellectual property theft may be awarded an undefined amount of monetary damages.

In the United States, for example, the Copyright Act allows for damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. A Boston jury has dinged a college student $675,000 for pilfering 30 tracks on Kazaa, while a Minnesota jury has awarded the Recording Industry Association of America $1.5 million for the purloining of 24 songs online.

snip-
Until European Union authorities began leaking the document’s text, the Obama administration was claiming the accord was a "national security" secret.


--Wow. I wonder what kind of campaign contribution they got for that one!

entire article and details here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/us-signs-international-anti-piracy-accord.ars

[truebrit71]

1. "national security" the blanket catch-all for "we're going to do whatever the fuck we want"...clause

...of all the things to get worked up about they choose this....:wtf:

[panzerfaust]

2. Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a ‘National Security’ Secret

"President Barack Obama came into office in January promising a new era of openness.

But now, like Bush before him, Obama is playing the national security card to hide details of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated across the globe..."

This from a 2009 Wired article ( http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-declares/ ) which has the following as the lead banner:


Showing Wired as one of those early to recognize what we had elected.

[cyberpj]

5. Wow. That morph of photos is scary. And sad. nt

[Arctic Dave]

6. Damn, I was wondering when someone was going to do one of those.

Yeah, I totally agree with the morph.

[Raster]

10. Same ol' horse, just a different color.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. This is on of my major disappointments with the Obama administration

And it really does not sit well.

[david_vincent]

4. They're simply trying to do what Microsoft did through programming

MS never brought any action in court against people for selling, or giving, their copy of Windoze 98 to someone else. The reason is that they knew they'd lose. Instead, they decided to get what they wanted through programming, by making it impossible to share the item in question. So, as a result, even if you paid for it, it doesn't belong to you.

The recording industry's attempt to accomplish the same thing retroactive of legal precedent will be followed eventually by the publishing industry, who will try to make it illegal to give or sell a book to anyone else. That will, of course, mean overturning legal precedent established a century ago.

The lesson is simple: they don't want anyone to be able to share anything unless they get paid. KEEP THIS IN MIND AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS. Don't for a second think that they wouldn't try to prevent citizen A from being able to sell an audio or video recording to citizen B -- they can't stand the idea that someone buys an artifact and can then sell or give it to another party without them getting a cut.

I realized a long time ago that there are people on this planet who would charge you to breathe if they could get away with it.

[cyberpj]

7. Agreed. The first thing I said to my spouse was "Next comes downloaded books".

And charging us to breathe is inevitable when we'll have to pay with our taxes to clean up the unbreathable air that is allowed to spew freely from the various corporate sites and automobiles that contribute to both the Earth's pollution and Global warming (and no, I won't call it climate change).

[GodlessBiker]

8. So, this would make libraries illegal?

[cyberpj]

9. No. Libraries sort of RENT you books - they don't sell them or give them away.

At least that's how I believe it works - and why DVD and video rentals were always ok.

[GodlessBiker]

11. But the copyright infringement is in the reading or listening, not in the owning or renting, no?

You read a book without paying something to someone for the right to read it. At least that's what media companies appear to be saying.

There has to be some clarification with whether the infringement is in the experience of the media (reading a book, listening to music, etc.) or obtaining some possessory interest in the media (owning it vs renting it, etc.).

[cyberpj]

12. I don't think so. Due to: "SCOTUS lets stand ruling that downloads are not performances":

So you can pay to download and not have to pay performer royalties but as long as you pay for the download you have paid for the song, movie, book, whatever, for your own personal use.

It used to be that once you bought it you could copy it (vcr tapes, cassette tapes, etc.) and share it -- THAT is what the various industries want to stop. They're saying any COPY one makes and distributes (whether for pay or not) is an illegal product now.

They're trying to enforce this point by going after people who 'steal' media from illegal download (sharing) sites --although why they're going after the people who do it as opposed to the people who rip it and offer it I don't know.

So basically the manufacturers want their money per item sold and/or downloaded and they are making it illegal for anyone to copy that item. Meanwhile, the performers on the item sold and/or downloaded are not entitled to royalties for their performance.

At least that's my take so far.

=========================================================================
SCOTUS lets stand ruling that downloads are not performances

snip-
The Supreme Court left in place a ruling by a New York federal appeals court, which determined that song downloads are not "public performances" under copyright law. The ruling represents a victory for Yahoo! and RealNetworks, which have been locked in litigation with the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers for several years over royalty payments. And it has potentially far-reaching implications for the digital music industry.

Musical works are subject to two distinct forms of copyright protection: a recording copyright and a songwriter's copyright. ASCAP is an association of songwriters that collects royalties when their members' songs are performed in public. The ASCAP royalty rates for terrestrial broadcasting and live performances are well established, but the rates due to songwriters for online music is still under dispute.

Also under dispute is exactly what counts as a "public performance" of music online. In ASCAP's litigation with Yahoo! and RealNetworks, both sides agreed that music streaming is a public performance, and that songwriters are therefore entitled to royalties for their streaming services. But ASCAP also argued that songwriters are entitled to compensation for music that users download.

A lower court ruled against ASCAP in 2007, and that ruling was affirmed last year by the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit held that to count as a public performance, an electronic music transmission must be "contemporaneously perceived by the listener." Simply downloading a music file so it can be played back at a later time doesn't count.

more, here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/scotus-lets-stand-ruling-that-downloads-are-not-performances.ars

[arcane1]

13. Kicking

:kick:

[LiberalAndProud]

14. The National Security blanket is getting really really big.

Covers up a whole lot of shenanigans, doesn't it?

[Indydem]

15. I have a DVR I own.

I pay nothing for the service, and I am able to record up to 4 programs at the same time.

Windows Media Center for the WIN!