European Parliament unites against 3 strikes, ACTA secrecy. The European Parliament is fed up with the secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Today, representatives from all the major parliamentary coalitions introduced a resolution demanding that the European Commission release all negotiating texts, inform Parliament about the negotiating process, and absolutely refuse to countenance any sort of "three strikes" Internet disconnection penalty for online copyright infringement. The measure comes up for a vote tomorrow and looks set to pass—it has the support of all the important groups in Parliament, including the EPP, S&D, ALDE, and the Greens/EFA.
One notable supporter: Christian Engström, the Pirate Party's lone MEP in Parliament, who aligns with the Greens/EFA group. The resolution doesn't take long to get to the point. Engström, the jolly pirate The resolution does not call for ACTA to scrapped, however. New ACTA leak shows major resistance to US-style DRM rules. The leaks keep coming for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). A new leak from Europe has revealed the inner workings of the negotiating process through a 40+ page document showing each country's positions on key provisions of the treaty. While most of the negotiating is quite technical, what stands out most sharply is the international resistance to the US-drafted proposals on DRM "anticircumvention" rules.
Let's take a look at some of the key differences among parties. Hey, isn't this an IP treaty? As part of a fairly technical discussion on ISP liability for copyright infringement, the US laid out its main reason for supporting "safe harbors" for Internet companies: "in order to facilitate the continued development of an industry engaging in providing information services online. " New Zealand expressed displeasure, noting that the point of ACTA was not to boost the "information services online" industry.
Changing the laws About those WIPO treaties... So much secrecy. European Parliament unites against 3 strikes, ACTA secrecy. Europe trashes ACTA as Obama praises it. Earlier this week, we noted that the major parties in the European Parliament had all agreed on a resolution trashing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the secret process that has been hashing it out. That resolution has passed Parliament by a huge margin—633 yes votes, 13 no votes, and 16 abstentions. The Greens/EFA coalition praised the vote. Greens MEP Carl Schlyter of Sweden said that “ACTA risks becoming known as the Absence of Commission Transparency Agreement… The EU cannot continue to negotiate on ACTA if the people are not allowed to take part in the process. It is also a totally absurd and unacceptable situation if MEPs, behind closed doors, have to ask the Commission about the content of the agreements we are supposed to vote on.”
Christian Engström, the lone Pirate Party rep in Parliament, summed up the vote as an “epic win” that showed “the European Parliament is not a doormat.” The Commission speaks. Your life will some day end; ACTA will live on. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) isn't just another secret treaty—it's a way of life. If ACTA passes in anything like its current form, it will create an entirely new international secretariat to administer and extend the agreement. Knowledge Ecology International got its hands on more of the leaked ACTA text this week, including a chapter on "Institutional Arrangements" that has not leaked before.
The chapter makes clear that ACTA will be far more than a standard trade agreement; it appears to be nothing less than an attempt to make a new international institution that will handle some of the duties of groups like the WTO and WIPO. Why bother? Well, from the perspective of countries like the US, the existing institutions have problems. For one, they feature a huge number of nations, some of whom have blocked some of the anti-counterfeiting provisions desired by the US and others. The new ACTA secretariat won't be a mere administrator. Harvard profs trash ACTA, demand oversight, threaten lawsuit. Harvard Law School professors Lawrence Lessig and Jack Goldsmith took to the op-ed page of the Washington Post today to slam the Obama administration's approach to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)—and to threaten a lawsuit if ACTA is signed without Congressional oversight. The US has positioned ACTA as an executive agreement rather than a treaty.
Such a move means that ACTA doesn't need Senate approval, but it also means that the agreement should not alter US law, either. If you want to change the law, you go to Congress. Lessig and Goldmsith argue that ACTA, at least it its current leaked form, does involve "ideas and principles not reflected in US law. " As we've noted before, though, the language here comes from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—already US law. The more fundamental complaint is that the president simply doesn't have the power to negotiate executive agreements on IP law and communications policy. ACTA arrives (and it's gotten a tiny bit better) We've been covering the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) for two years now, and in that entire 24 month period no official text of the agreement has been released. Remarkable, really, given the intense scrutiny, but there you have it.
Today, that all changed as the countries behind ACTA finally released a consolidated draft text (PDF) of the agreement. Though billed as a "trade agreement" about "counterfeiting," ACTA is much more than that: it's an intellectual property treaty in disguise. New to this draft is an option, clearly targeting European law, that would explicitly allow Internet disconnections Tucked inside the draft are provisions that will prevent people from bypassing digital locks on the items they buy, that will force ISPs to shoulder more of the burden in the fight against online piracy, and that bring US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules to the world.
Well, not to the world, exactly. The EU has already made its case that ACTA won't affect ordinary citizens. Praising, cursing ACTA: reactions roll in. Ars has already dived deep into the bowels of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and our findings were about as pretty as that metaphor suggests. The agreement has already been improved under public pressure, so what's the broader reaction to its release? We rounded up some of the most interesting reactions. If you want a sense of how the debate over ACTA will play out over the rest of this year, consider these talking points a sneak preview. Hollywood: The MPAA likes ACTA, of course. "We think it represents a solid building block, an important step forward in the work of like-minded governments to strengthen protection against Internet piracy, the fastest growing threat to filmed entertainment and other segments of the copyright industries.
Recording industry. "Online theft is a critical challenge for each of the diverse copyright-based sectors represented by the signatories to this letter. CEO Ed Black was more blunt. "Those defending ACTA insist it doesn’t change US law. Cyber Privacy Act not specific enough, opens door to abuse. No one likes having their personal information posted online by someone else, and a new bill introduced by House Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) aims to give users a way to send DMCA-like takedowns in order to get it removed.
This bill suffers from some vague language that seemingly opens the door for abuse by those looking to take down criticism instead. The bill is H.R. 5108, also known as the Cyber Privacy Act. The premise seems innocuous enough—it would allow individuals to ask websites to take down their personal information and, if they don't, the FTC could get involved with potential fines. The devil, as usual, is in the details (or in this case, the lack thereof). The bill's brief description leaves open the possibility that users could begin sending takedowns en masse—either as a massive, coordinated troll or simply out of their own frustration—in an attempt to target criticism on topics they don't like. Net neutrality: would it have killed the iPhone? Now here's an interesting claim: had net neutrality been the law of the land several years back, we might not have the iPhone.
It's an idea buried in Bret "Exacloud" Swanson's recent comments to the FCC on net neutrality. We've already noted his use of the new term "exacloud," but there's another surprise buried in the short document. "The Apple iPhone may never have emerged if we had blocked or discouraged the type of 'exclusive,' 'discriminatory' deals like the one Apple (a new entrant to the mobile market) struck with AT&T," writes Swanson. "Apple’s entry was a move fraught with uncertainty, and the partnership with AT&T allowed both sides to make the investments of time and money necessary to execute a monumental project. The iPhone unleashed wave after wave of innovation in the mobile arena—like 'app stores'—thus pushing all competitors at many layers of the wireless value chain towards more dynamism and openness than ever before.
" What does this mean? AT&T wants 3 strikes tribunal, government website blacklist. Verizon makes the same observation. In a separate letter, Verizon tells the government that it has “implemented a notice forwarding program as part of our commercial relationships with several content owners that we believe strikes an appropriate balance between the legitimate interests of rights holders in protecting their copyrights and the important privacy and other interests of our wireline Internet access customers.” The voluntary program was in place for all of 2009, and it has “proven very effective in not only notifying customers about allegations of infringing behavior involving their Internet connection, but also, importantly, at educating customers about copyrights and the importance of stopping any potentially infringing behavior, all with minimal adverse customer reaction.” (Verizon also refuses to pass subscriber information to rightsholders without a court order, so this is merely an informational notice.)
The program has been hugely successful. Senators: 'Net privacy law for children in need of overhaul. Speaking before a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) warned that Congress needs to take a "hard look" at whether the nation's privacy law for children on Internet sites "should be updated to cover new kinds of information and new businesses. " Rockefeller was referring to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which requires websites to obtain parental approval before gathering or using personal information about kids younger than 13.
Senators and witnesses debated whether COPPA's age limit should be raised to 18, as well as the confidentiality of GPS data identifying the immediate location of youngsters. Amen, declared Rockefeller. "We passed COPPA, but the whole world has changed since that happened. The meeting came just days after three Senators sent an open letter to Facebook protesting the social networking sites' privacy policies, especially its automatic opt-in practices for user data. Facebook attended the hearing, as did Microsoft. Is it high noon for net neutrality at the FCC? The net neutrality troops are up in arms over a Washington Post report suggesting that the Federal Communications Commission wants to throw in the towel, more or less, when it comes to regulating ISPs like Comcast.
Sources at the agency have told the Post's Cecilia Kang that FCC Chair Julius Genachowski "wants to keep broadband services deregulated," presumably standing pat following a DC Court decision striking down the agency's 2008 rebuke of Comcast for P2P throttling. Genachowski "is leaning toward keeping in place the current regulatory framework for broadband services but making some changes that would still bolster the FCC's chances of overseeing some broadband policies," according to the article. Git along little doggies The report brought a quick and alarmed response from the reform group Free Press. How old is that clock? But that's just one prospect.
We've outlined this option in various posts. That is, until the cable industry asked for an exemption from this requirement. New privacy bill makes your location, sexual orientation "sensit. Major Internet privacy legislation was unveiled today (PDF) by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL). Under the bill, companies would be forbidden from using your cell phone's geolocation information without your consent, and the same goes for information on your race, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. For most other information, a simple opt-out will keep that data—even data already collected—from being used. Boucher chairs the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, and he has dealt with Internet issues for years (he was a driving force behind the doomed attempt to patch the worst parts of the DMCA, as well); Stearns is the ranking member on the committee.
Covered and sensitive The bill isn't particularly long, and compared to laws in other countries, it's not particularly strict. According to the bill, covered information includes: Aggregate and anonymous information can be collected without any privacy policy at all. FCC gives Hollywood control over your home theater. After almost two years of deliberation, the Federal Communications Commission has granted Hollywood and cable companies permission to shut down analog streams to HDTV equipped home theaters. The geek term for this is "selectable output control" (SOC)—until now forbidden by the FCC. The Motion Picture Association of America requested a waiver on the SOC ban in May of 2008, arguing that without it, Hollywood studios could not securely offer consumers pre-DVD released movies on television. "We conclude that the service that MPAA proposes would serve the public interest and that providers of first-run theatrical content are unlikely to offer the service absent the ability to activate SOC," the agency's Order, released on Friday, explains.
"While a waiver of the SOC prohibition will prevent consumers who rely on unprotected audiovisual outputs from accessing this service, we are convinced that in the absence of a waiver the service will not be offered at all. " Strings attached Reactions. 73 Democrats tell FCC: drop net neutrality rules.
A slew of House Democrats have sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission warning the agency not to go forward with its plan to partially reclassify ISPs as common carriers, a move needed to impose net neutrality rules. "The uncertainty this proposal creates will jeopardize jobs and deter needed investment for years to come," wrote Texas Congressman Gene Green on Monday. "The significant regulatory impact of reclassifying broadband service is not something that should be taken lightly and should not be done without additional direction from Congress.
" Plus, the "controversy surrounding that approach" could "serve as a distraction from what should be our Nation's foremost communications priority: bringing broadband to every corner of America, getting every American online," the letter continues. It's co-signed by 73 Democrats. The Green letter seemed heaven-sent by the anti-net neutrality group Americans for Prosperity, host of the website NoInternetTakeover.com.