Posted on 03/20/2010 8:27:28 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
the EU has proposed to add third-party CRIMINAL liability to the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA). This essentially outlaws the entire Internet....
Background: Third party civil liability for copyright infringement is an emerging, but still controversial, doctrine as applied to the Internet. A site may be liable if it has incited and/or facilitated the violation of copyright, see Grokster. The limits of this doctrine are still being tested: it is not clear what level of hosting or facilitating actually triggers liability. For an example of this endemic uncertainty, the § 512 of the DMCA creates a safe harbor for ISPs, provided that the ISP expeditiously removes infringing content after the ISP is put on notice. However, it is unclear what material is so obviously infringing that its very presence should put the ISP on notice (this is the controversial “red flag” test).
Commentators have argued for and against third party civil liability. And it may turn out that civil liability will actually be codified in US law (previous attempts to do exactly that have failed, see the failure of the INDUCE act.) But the EU has taken it up a notch by not only attempting to codify third party liability for copyright infringement but also asking that criminal penalties be imposed.....This would sweep in not only torrent trackers but also search engines and aggregators....
introducing criminal penalties to a volatile field like intellectual property is a recipe for disaster. The law has to adapt to new media, new markets, and and evolving concepts of fairness and public interest. We certainly do not want to thrust our crude, relatively static criminal law into this dynamic environment.
(Excerpt) Read more at citmedialaw.org ...
Interesting to see how Aldoux Huxley is more the prophet than George Orwell.
An EU citizen can get on the dole, go to Amsterdam, get some hash, visit a whore, and blissfully disregard what his unelected elite are deciding. I’ll bet the porn on the Internet will still be available under this regulation.
The Internet is what has given FReepers power;
this is what they will take away if they can.
Be wary
I warned you;
They hate the Internet with a passion and hope to regulate it, then to outlaw it.
Watch out.
Is pornography intellectual property though???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
In the same instance...Does my opinion become someone elses property (intellectual or not), even though they may agree or dissagree with my opinion expressed on this and other discussion websites???
Good morning,
My sarcasm aside... my understanding of intellectual property law (which might be waaaay wrong) is that once you produce something in writing, video, art, music, or anything that is communicated publically, it is yours and yours to decide what to do with and how to make it public.
So, yes, porn is intellectual property. So are the posts we make here. We own what we write.
I was just saying that the shepherd state wants their sheep docile.
Have a great Saturday - up here the sun is shining and it’s -14 degrees. Another beautiful day by the Arctic Circle.
.
Cue the Foghorn Leghorn voice — “De-ays too much cah-municatin’ goin on...”
Its somewhere around 70 degrees here, and a little cloudy...
Wishing you warmer temps very soon...
I’m doing my best to get global warming up to a level suitable for your area...;-)
When I first joined FR, Senator Feinstein (D-ouchebag) and dozens of other lawmakers sponsored the The Child Online Protection Act which Clinton signed into law, this law finally died in the Supreme Court late last year.
Then they passed another law in the USA which made third party hyperlinking to bomb making instructions a criminal offense. A link to the Anarchist’s Cookbook would be a mandatory several year Federal prison sentence under that law.
Camel’s nose under the tent, dozens of states followed suit, several of these laws are still on the books... almost all of which impose criminal penalties for third party hyperlinking to sexual content or content harmful to minors...
Last year. 2009, the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act was passed and is worse than all of the prior bills.... the amendments created Pre-Crime Units in the FBI...
http://www.infowars.com/hate-crime-bill-is-a-trojan-horse-against-free-speech/
There is more:
State Laws that Regulate Speech on the Internet
California
Assembly Bill 132, enacted 7/97.
Sponsor: Rep. Bladwin.
Requires schools to adopt an Internet access policy regarding student access to sites with material that is harmful to minors.
Connecticut
House Bill 6883, enacted 6/95.
Sponsor: House Committe on Judiciary.
Creates criminal liability for sending an online message “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person.”
Florida
Senate Bill 156, enacted 5/96.
Sponsor: Sen. Burt.
Amends existing child porn law to hold owners or operators of computer online services explicitly liable for permitting subscribers to violate the law.
Georgia
House Bill 1630, enacted 4/96.
Sponsor: Rep. Don Parsons.
Criminalized the use of pseudonyms on the Net, and prohibits unauthorized links to web site with trade names or logos.
Overturned, in ACLU v. Miller
House Bill 76, enacted 3/95.
Sponsor: Rep. Wall.
Prohibits online transmission of fighting words, obscene or vulgar speech to minors, and information related to terrorist acts and certain dangerous weapons.
Kansas
House Bill 2223, enacted 5/95. Expands child pornography statute to include computer-generated images.
Minnesota
House Bill 575/Senate Bill 585, enacted 7/97 (as part of the compromise education bill). Directs the Commissioner of Education to recommend computer software products to schools in order to block Intgernet access to speech that is indecnet or intended to promote violence.
Montana
House Bill 0161, enacted 3/95. Expands child pornography statute to prohibit transmission by computer and posession of computer-generatged child pornographic images.
New Mexico
Senate Bill 127, enacted 3/98. Criminalizes the transmission of communications that depict “nudity, sexual intercourse or any other sexual conduct.” The ACLU has vowed to file a legal challenge to the law before it becomes effective on 7/1/98.
Nevada
Senate Bill 13, enacted 7/97. Creates an action for civil damages against persons who transmit unsolicited advertising over the Internet.
New York
Senate Bill 210E, passed 7/96.
Sponsor: Sen. Sears; Rep. DeStito.
Criminalized the transmission of “indecent” materials to minors.
Overturned, in ALA v. Pataki.
Oklahoma
House Bill 1048, enacted 4/95.
Sponsor: Rep. Perry.
Prohibits online transmission of material deemed “harmful to minors.”
House Concurrent Resolution 1097, passed 5/96.
Sponsor: Rep. Paulk
Directs all state agencies, including educational institutions, to remove all illegal obscene materials from their computer systems.
Virginia
House Bill 7, enacted 3/96.
Sponsor: Rep. Marshall.
Prohibits any government employee from using state-owned computer systems to send or access sexually explicit material.
Overturned, in Urofsky v. Allen.
Senate Bill 1067, enacted 5/95.
Sponsor: Sen. Calhoun
Expands existing statute to criminalize electronic transmissions of child pornography.
Arbitrary and capricious laws passed only to criminialize all human activity so they can tax control and destroy the serf population at will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.