Posted on 04/08/2010 12:34:11 PM PDT by day21221
Leaked documents reveal draft text of secret global copyright deal
)
OTTAWA — As negotiators from 37 countries prepare to meet in New Zealand on Monday to discuss a top-secret trade agreement, a draft text of the document has found its way onto the Internet.
While bits and pieces of the agreement, called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), have been leaked in the past, this is the first time a full draft is available to the public.
The agreement, negotiated privately for the better part of two years, aims to create a global organization to oversee worldwide copyright and intellectual property issues, which are now the responsibility of the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the United Nations.
The release of the draft text comes at a time when the Canadian government is holding cross-country consultations to collect public input for new Canadian copyright laws. Agreeing to the treaty would require Canada to meet certain legal requirements. Many of the legal requirements mimic laws already in place in the United States.
"To Canada this would require quite a change from domestic laws," said Gwen Hinze, international director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "That's a good question to be asking of the Canadian negotiators: 'Is this going to leave a lasting legacy that effectively moots any domestic consultation process on copyright issues?'"
The draft text of the treaty includes enhanced search powers for border-crossing guards, allowing them to comb through the personal computers and iPods of travellers.
It also prohibits the use of products which could be used to circumvent the digital locks on media, such as DVDs. The practice is not illegal in Canada and is used by many to create backup copies of movies.
The agreement will also place more responsibility on Internet service providers, such as Rogers and Bell, to become content police and prevent users from sharing pirated content over the Internet.
Punishment for repeat offenders includes a ban from the using the Internet for up to 12 months.
A spokeswoman for Industry Canada, which is responsible for Canadian copyright laws, said the federal government is moving ahead with new copyright legislation and the trade agreement would have no impact on the bill. However, she would not comment on changes that would have to be made to legislation if Canada adopts the trade agreement.
Peter Van Loan, minister of international trade, said Wednesday in an e-mail that the Canadian government would not sign on to the agreement unless it "reflects the best interest of Canadians."
"Negotiations are continuing and there is not yet an agreement," he noted.
The agreement is being structured much like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), except it would create rules and regulations regarding private copying and copyright laws. Although federal trade agreements do not require parliamentary approval, large trade agreements such as NAFTA have been brought before Parliament for debate.
The agreement is being pushed forward by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
In early March, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke in favour of the agreement, saying it was necessary to protect American businesses and technologies.
David Fewer, director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa, has been following the development of the treaty closely and believes it provides little benefit to anyone but large U.S. content producers such as record labels, software makers and technology companies.
"Early on I described ACTA as a Christmas wish list for rights holders and I'll be damned if that doesn't look like what it is," he said. "It's obviously not made in Canada. This doesn't reflect any kind of domestic agenda."
The leaked text of the trade agreement came from officials in France, who are unhappy with the cloak and dagger techniques being employed to keep the contents of the trade agreement secret.
Earlier this month, parliamentarians in the European Union voted to open the negotiations to the public and allow consultations on its contents. The vote passed with 633 EU parliamentarians voting in favour of opening access, only 13 voted against it.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Leaked+documents+reveal+draft+text+secret+global+copyright+deal/2774774/story.html#ixzz0kXMLcK71
I’m not sure. The DRAFT agreement has Section 4: Special Measures Related Technological Enforcement Means and the Internet. See Page 24.
“Fair Use” is mentioned in Para 3 on Page 26. As best I currently understand this DRAFT agreement, the prevailing country’s law would be the key determination in deciding the IP infringement and/or any enforcement.
This article mentions that that Canada’s fair use of backing up DVDs for personal use is not recognized internationally.
Bwahh! Ha! Ha! I would like to see them enforce that, since you can get on the internet with most cell phones or game systems and most coffee shops and restaurants provide free Wi-Fi.
PS, if you don't want border guards snooping through your files, encrypt them with a freeware program such as truecrypt, which prides it's self on being virtually uncrackable and NOT providing any form of back door to governemnt or law enforcement
All except the 1611 King James version.
This translation of the Holy Bible is in the Public Domain, except for in Great Britain. http://www.searchgodsword.org/info/copyright/bible/kjv.html
“Ah, one can copyright a typesetting of a text, and even a font! New printings of old books always retypeset them then copyright the combination of text and font. (I am not kidding.)”
The lawyers do it again.
ping
Ain't technology grand!
I feel as you do (#14) - the right belongs to the individual, not a corporate entity. You can thank a scummy clerk in the US Supreme Court for setting up the mess.
bump for later..........
so somebody invents a scrubbing tool.
Eventually copyright will become so draconian and disconnected from reality (not that it already hasn’t, mind you), that we’re all just going to completely ignore it. There is no legitimate reason for a copyright that extends beyond 30 years. Screw Disney and the rat.
Actually, yes it is and yes they could.
Some versions of the Bible are under copyright. Others, like the KJV is not. You can download a copy of the KJV from Project Gutenberg.
Not so. I write the books; the publisher does everything else. Perhaps some day I will want to do everything myself. Until then, the publisher and I have a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I see no reason why an author should not be able to sell his copyrights to a publisher. Nor do I see why the copyrights purchased by a publisher should not be protected by law just as if the author had retained them.
I just gave you one. The publisher will suppress uses of content from your books long after you are dead. Maybe the kind of book you write isn’t the sort for which that matters. In the case of Frost’s poetry, it does. Copyright and patent law as currently instituted impedes rather than promotes progress in the sciences and (useful) arts. I’m glad you’re happy with how your publisher treats you.
Back in the 1920s, Walt Disney used to work for Paul Terry of Terrytoons fame (most famous for Mighty Mouse).
While working for Paul Terry, Walt Disney created Oswald The Rabbit. A successful cartoon character with marketing tie-ins.
He did not own his creation, he said “screw this”, and quit the company to found his own.
There Ub Iwerks created a character called Mickey Mouse which Walt Disney owned and exploited.
Somehow we have to keep extending the copyright expirations so that Mickey Mouse never goes public domain.
Encryption software goes back to wartime use (think WWII and earlier).
It is considered a ‘weapon’ of sorts and at least in the 1990s, some particularly strong methods of encryption were prohibited from import into this country.
Governments want a back door key to your files.
My estate would probably do the same. (After all, I have a young family to support.)
Either way, it seems to me that the real issue is how long copy protection should last. Many people are saying that the current law has extended copyrights too much. I think that is a conversation worth having.
Maybe the kind of book you write isn’t the sort for which that matters.
Probably not.
In the case of Frost’s poetry, it does. Copyright and patent law as currently instituted impedes rather than promotes progress in the sciences and (useful) arts.
I have heard the argument, but remain unconvinced. I can point to instances where the ready availability of public-domain work appears to hinder creative activity rather than promote it. (Notice how many on-line information sources merely repeat what Wikipedia has, rather than write anything original of their own.)
But let's suppose you are right that copyrights and patents impede progress. Some would argue that we would be better off without any kind of IP protection. Others (including the framers of the Constitution) would argue that such protection is necessary.
Once again, it seems to me that the issue is how long copy protection should last.
I’m glad you’re happy with how your publisher treats you.
So am I.
It’s not just length of copyright, but the bizarrely narrow construction given to fair use. Film a demonstration at which someone sings a song that’s under copyright, and you’ll get DMCA takedown notices if you try to circulate the film, no matter how incidental the song was to the event, or how newsworthy the event was.
There are surreal instances in which copyright infringement has been alleged against online discussions the fair use doctrine because one of the discussants quoted from works to provide examples of fair use.
Author Marc Aronson recently took to the pages of the NY Times to complain about how copyright is massively stifling non-fiction works, due to the difficulty of getting permission:
The hope of nonfiction is to connect readers to something outside the book: the past, a discovery, a social issue. To do this, authors need to draw on pre-existing words and images.
Unless we nonfiction writers are lucky and hit a public-domain mother lode, we have to pay for the right to use just about anything — from a single line of a song to any part of a poem; from the vast archives of the world’s art (now managed by gimlet-eyed venture capitalists) to the historical images that serve as profit centers for museums and academic libraries.
The amount we pay depends on where and how the material is used. In fact, the very first question a rights holder asks is “What are you going to do with my baby?” Which countries do you plan to sell in? What languages? Over what period of time? How large will the image be in your book?
Quoted from here.
The Bible proper, as in the papyrus and codices, is in the public domain.
Certain Bible translations are public domain, such as the King James Version and the American Standard Version. Although the translations themselves are public domain, accompanying footnotes, introductions, maps, etc. of a given print edition may not be.
Other Bible translations are copyrighted and will be for the near future—such as the NIV and NASB.
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.