Article

2009-12-04 International-UN-NGOs

Plans For Global DMCA, Encourage 3 Strikes Model

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-12-04 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 executed for listening to music you composed yourself on an unapproved speaker?

Posted by 3dc 2009-12-04 00:14|| 2009-12-04 00:14|| Front Page Top

#2 ION TOPIC > GINGRICH: OBAMA'S VISION FOR AMERICA PROMISES BIGGER GOVT, LESS EMPLOYMENT [ much-redux private-commerc sector].

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-12-04 00:23|| na]">[na] 2009-12-04 00:23|| Front Page Top

#3 My limited understanding is the proposed law fills in the "holes" in copyright infringement law which effectively modifies the Safe Harbor provision in copyright, where an ISP, for example, can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement if it fails to fulfill requirements under the new law.

This change could change the exemptions some tech companies enjoy as carriers. For instance Infolink, ( a company which hosts my server ) can be held civilly and criminally liable if it fails to transmit a DMCA takedown to a customer, or if it impedes such procedures in any way, even if the carrier was unaware of any violation of its own rules.

As I understand it enforcing an AUP is not sufficient remedy to the issue of ongoing copyright infringement.

That would presumably include a requirement transmitted by a copyright holder to a carrier that a suspected copyright infringer be taken down without benefit of trial if the copyright holder shows sufficient ground exists to prevent further copyright infringement.

Under current law Infolink has zero liability based solely on the fact it is a carrier, in that it cannot control what gets transmitted; currently its only issue is bandwidth.

Every carrier under the new law would not only be required to enforce an acceptable AUP, but could also be required to go even further to mitigate its third party liability in copyright infringement actions.

The proposed changes fundamentally change the nature of current US communications law, making carriers effectively enforcement arms of any copyright holder.

At least that's how I understand it.

Posted by badanov 2009-12-04 01:29|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-12-04 01:29|| Front Page Top

#4 http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2009/11/draft-of-secret-copyright-treaty-should-give-you-chills.html

Contains a breakdown of some of the things wrong with the ACTA draft. It's some pretty bad stuff.

Posted by Bisa 2009-12-04 07:50|| 2009-12-04 07:50|| Front Page Top

#5 Time to return to the original intent of the Founding Fathers - thirty years, no extensions. Tough, Mouse. The object was to end royal patents which were inheritable and to reward the individual. Now mega-corporations have bought both parties and returned us to royal patents.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-12-04 08:02|| 2009-12-04 08:02|| Front Page Top

#6 Don't allow Corporations to own copyrights? Or at least limit them to, for example, 15 years.

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-12-04 08:12|| 2009-12-04 08:12|| Front Page Top

#7 Procopius2k: I've long held the idea that copyrights and patents should be much like the General Mining Act of 1872.

In short, it said that anyone could stake a mining claim, but they had to improve that claim to a certain amount by every year, or lost that claim. This meant either spend $500 on improving your mine, or earn $500 profit from your mine, or a combination of the above to $500.

In copyright or patent, it is very possible to create something that is very unique and valuable, and have a company that makes only that, for far longer than 30 years. So under this scheme, if you were still making good money off of it, you would still be protected from things like cheap foreign knock-offs.

But if you made something, say a piece of music, and you marketed it for a while, but then refused to sell it any more, you would lose your copyright protection, so that anyone else could market it.

As an example, look at Disney Corp. It still makes millions every year off of Mickey Mouse, even after 81 years. It should be allowed to continue to do so, without others appropriating it for their own use.

However, Disney also created and marketed the movie, Song of the South, which it now refuses to sell any more, because people like Al Sharpton call it "racist". Well, fine, it is their right to not sell it. But they should also lose their copyright protection that prevents others from selling it.

This truly matters, because there are vast libraries of movies, books, music, etc., that their owners refuse to sell, but legally prevent others from selling as well. By stripping them of their copyright unless they are sold, the market will get a huge boost.

Another problem are companies that buy patents with no intention of ever producing anything with them. They hold the patents for their licensing rights to other companies; or worse, they wait until someone else has a similar invention, then they sue them for infringement when they try to use it.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-12-04 09:34|| 2009-12-04 09:34|| Front Page Top

#8 You could organise a copyright tax along the same lines as a land value tax (as liked By Adam Smith).

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2009-12-04 16:38|| 2009-12-04 16:38|| Front Page Top

23:23 trailing wife
23:16 trailing wife
23:12 trailing wife
23:08 Angleton9
22:25 USN, Ret.
21:59 Glenmore
21:57 Skunky Glins****
21:55 Mike N.
21:38 trailing wife
21:32 Penguin
21:31 trailing wife
20:56 Frank G
20:53 Frank G
20:39 lotp
20:32 trailing wife
20:28 lotp
20:09 phil_b
19:57 Pappy
19:56 JosephMendiola
19:49 JosephMendiola
19:40 JosephMendiola
19:36 JosephMendiola
19:32 JosephMendiola
19:28 Frank G