Secret Anti-Piracy Treaty Turns ISPs into Pirates

Secret Anti-Piracy Treaty Turns ISPs into Pirates
November 04, 2009

" A leaked draft of the Internet chapter of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) reveals that ISPs will be held liable for the infringements of their customers, unless they disconnect those accused. The draft aims to strengthen the power of the entertainment industries and other copyright holders, at the cost of the public.

ACTA is an international agreement that aims to target piracy and counterfeiting globally. The degree of secrecy surrounding the negotiations is astonishing. Many institutions, the press and various individuals have requested that participating countries provide an insight into their plans, but none have succeeded thus far.

While the public is denied access to drafts of the controversial agreement, lawmakers continue to receive input from anti-piracy lobbyists such as the RIAA and MPAA. Today, the 6th round of ACTA negotiations have started in Seoul, South Korea, where representatives from the U.S, the European Union, Canada, Australia and several other countries will discuss the treaty’s content.

As happened previously, parts of the document have leaked out to the public and they reveal that the agreement’s scope is even more far-reaching than previously expected. The Internet chapter of ACTA has very little to do with counterfeiting, but adopts many of the same policies that anti-piracy lobbyists have been calling for.

Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid evidence or a court order. If ISPs won’t do so, they will be held liable for the copyright infringements of their customers.

Similarly, all participating countries have to adopt a ‘notice and takedown’ policy where copyright holders can request ISPs to remove infringing materials, again without having to provide solid evidence or proof that they actually own the copyrights. When ISPs don’t comply with the requests they will be held liable, which means that they will be seen as pirates themselves.

Unfortunately, all parties involved in the negotiations refuse to make the ACTA plans public, effectively preventing any constructive input from the public. Yesterday, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) petitioned President Obama to change this situation and be transparent about the agreement that will affect millions of people. Until that happens we can only fear the worst. "

:source: Source: http://torrentfreak.com/secret-anti-...irates-091104/:view: Homepage: http://torrentfreak.com

Quote:

---

policy to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid evidence or a court order

---

Sounds like that would run into some conflict with the U.S.'s due process of law.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Rart. I do have a bit of suspicion that this may be similar to some of the "the government wants to take away your guns" emails that go around from time to time.

I have made no attempt to hide my disdain for the MPAA and the RIAA, but a global treaty that puts legal liability on the ISPs is not too different from a "treaty" that would make car manufacturers liable for their customers. It just won't last no one will enforce such a silly law.

Even if true, the "Industries" would face a HUGE backlash from their remaining customers. Why? Because many of us would continue to do what we do, but using other people's IP addresses. The entire court system would be a mess.

Cable companies also have a lot of resources. They would know about and fight this.

Regardless, it is good to have a heads-up. Please let us know if there is more to this story.

"Cable companies also have a lot of resources. They would know about and fight this."

About two years ago, I was disconnected from the internet by a well-known cable company that rhymes with Comcast. I'm not the only one who experienced this as I have seen and heard many other similar circumstances. My violation was downloading 475 gigs in one month, which lied within the top 0.1% of downloaders. It took a week of going back and forth leaving messages because no one would directly take my call, but I eventually got it turned back on with only a "watch your internet downloads in the future" warning. Why the f*** do they let you download at 12-15+ Mbps if you can't take advantage of it???

This cable company is already on top of it and they would not fight this since they are already dc'ing users. I now have DSL and I only get 2.5 Mbps, but there is no limits as I have consistently d/l'd 750 gigs per month this entire year.

unclemilty74,

We are talking about liability, not bandwidth. Bandwidth is something that the cable companies want to limit since it benefits them to do so.

Liability is a whole different issue. This would give the record and movie industries a blank check anytime they wanted to demand money from the cable companies. The cable companies are not defending us, they are protecting themselves.

as for why would they advertise certain speeds and not allow anyone to use it, that is simply marketing. The speeds are designed for short-term "use" and not constant exchange of information.

I recently got one of those calls myself. :shifty: Until I find a better solution, I'm abiding by their limitations. As soon as there is a more agreeable/less offensive option, I'm gone.

You did bring up good points though. I thank you for them. :)