Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates
IainB:
Interesting legal decision reported by arstechnica: MPAA "embedding is infringement" theory rejected by court
(The text of the post is in the spoiler below.)
-IainB (August 04, 2012, 06:51 PM)
--- End quote ---
...Ooops. Looks like someone in the MAFIAA forgot to buy off that judge... :P
-Renegade (August 04, 2012, 06:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
There's many a true word spoken in jest...
TaoPhoenix:
Interesting legal decision reported by arstechnica: MPAA "embedding is infringement" theory rejected by court
(The text of the post is in the spoiler below.)
-IainB (August 04, 2012, 06:51 PM)
--- End quote ---
Ooops. Looks like someone in the MAFIAA forgot to buy off that judge... :P
-Renegade (August 04, 2012, 06:56 PM)
--- End quote ---
It's Judge Posner again (Hooray!)
Someone should do an indie animated anime about him, he's on a RAMPAGE trying to stop the IP madness all by himself!
IainB:
Rather revealing post from arstechnica: MPAA leak: O'Dwyer, TVShack.net case "isn't about Internet freedom."
(Post copied below sans hyperlinks - which are worth reading also, so go to the actual post for further info.)
SpoilerMPAA leak: O'Dwyer, TVShack.net case "isn't about Internet freedom."
Memo suggests film org wants to remind its colleagues—paint this kid as a crook.
by Nathan Mattise - Aug 6, 2012 1:15 am UTC
Don't let the Mickey Mouse shirt fool you. As far as the MPAA is concerned, the public needs a reminder of who Richard O'Dwyer really is.
“Being 24, posing for newspaper photo shoots in a cartoon sweatshirt, and having your mother and Jimmy Wales speak for you, does not mean you are incapable for breaking the law.”
The reminder above comes from a supposedly leaked MPAA memo obtained by TorrentFreak. It outlines talking points when discussing the much publicized O'Dwyer case, involving the 24-year-old and the "link site" he used to run. TVShack.net didn't directly host possibly infringed materials, but the site did link to such videos. While this would likely be legal under UK law, O'Dwyer landed squarely in the crosshairs of US copyright enforcers. This spring, news broke that O'Dwyer would be extradited to the US for this alleged copyright infringement despite no locally illegal activities being performed in his UK home. O'Dwyer is currently appealing this decision, but the July timeline for an appeal decision was delayed without concrete rescheduling.
O'Dwyer's fight sparked Internet activism of the strongest kind, with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales pushing an online petition. Wales referenced the SOPA-PIPA derailment as the public's "first big victory" in the realm of Internet freedom, and sees preventing O'Dwyer's extradition as a potential second. To date, more than a quarter of a million people have signed the petition. But the MPAA takes a clearly different view (while reassuring all that they are pro-Internet freedom).
“This case isn’t about Internet freedom. It’s about a man profiting from theft. However, we do welcome a larger discussion about how best to protect intellectual property online while ensuring an Internet that works for everyone.”
In addition to some initial talking points, the memo contains a faux-Q&A to keep commentary along the party lines. These responses run the gamut, from thoughts on the Wales petition (“We think it’s presumptuous of Mr. Wales to claim to speak for the ‘general public") to the extradition itself ("Governments and law enforcement agencies make these decisions and we are not in a position to comment on the specifics of the extradition proceedings").
Ars will update this post if any additional information from the MPAA becomes available, and we'll continue to follow the O'Dwyer situation.
Previously on Richard O'Dwyer
* June 2012: Extraditing students for copyright claims? Jimmy Wales says it's wrong
* March 2012: Copyright wars heat up: US wins extradition of college kid from England
* January 2012: Copyright Wars escalate: Britain to extradite student to US over link site
* November 2011: British student fights extradition to US over TVShack link site
* July 2011: Big Content's latest antipiracy weapon: extradition
--- End quote ---
IainB:
It's Judge Posner again (Hooray!)
Someone should do an indie animated anime about him, he's on a RAMPAGE trying to stop the IP madness all by himself!
-TaoPhoenix (August 05, 2012, 03:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
I didn't know about that. Good on Judge Posner! :Thmbsup:
IainB:
Another news item here re the TPP draft, from arstechnica: Leaked: US proposal on copyright's limits
I am confused by this. Is this really how easy it is for commercial lobbies to write their own laws and bypass the Senate? That would seem to emasculate the relatively democratic Senate approval processes and effectively make the commercial lobbyists unelected "lawmakers" - wouldn't it?
(Post copied below sans hyperlinks - which are worth reading also, so go to the actual post for further info.)
SpoilerLeaked: US proposal on copyright's limits
A TPP draft looks more restrictive than some had hoped.
by Megan Geuss - Aug 5, 2012 7:30 pm UTC
Late Friday, a few short paragraphs of text were leaked that revealed something of the terms on fair use being negotiated in secret by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP is a treaty currently being negotiated by nine Pacific Rim countries seeking to establish a new free-trade agreement on many issues, including intellectual property. The next negotiating round is set for early September in Leesburg, Virginia.
Much has been made of the secrecy in which the TPP has enshrouded its negotiations for an international trade agreement. In May, 30 scholars wrote to the US Trade Representative (USTR) asking for more transparency in the decision-making process, and critics have routinely claimed that such processes cater largely to narrow rightsholder interests.
The TPP met last in early July in San Diego, CA for a round of negotiations, but none of the draft texts were made public. After that round of negotiations concluded, the USTR sent an e-mail to the press announcing that it was proposing language on fair use and limitations to copyright in the international treaty, a first for the generally conservative agency. But the leaked text, revealed by Knowledge Ecology International, suggests that these exceptions to IP rules won't be quite as open as some fair use advocates had hoped.
Back in July, a USTR spokesperson said the trade agency would push for rules "that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." But in the new leaked draft text, while very similar phrasing appears, there seems to be room to crack down on any anticipated broad terms of fair use.
The US and Australia, for instance, proposed what entities like the EFF and KEI fear could be a rightsholder-friendly three-step test to determine what exceptions to copyright are allowable. The leaked texts specifically say that the participating countries should confine these limitations "to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder."
It's important to note that the draft is just that—a draft. But the leak suggests that the US and Australia are pushing for more restrictive language, while countries like New Zealand, Chile, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam are in favor of more open rules to allow "a party to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in its domestic laws." The US and Australia opposed that wording, and sought to change the language to suggest, “that each party may, consistent with the foregoing, adopt or maintain... exceptions and limitations for the digital environment."
In other words, the US and Australia are saying a country can't just decide on "limitations and fair use" based on existing domestic IP laws, some of which may be quite broad. Instead, limitations must conform to international agreements, including the TPP, which can be more restrictive.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version