[pp.int.general] ACTA documents leaked ?

[Charly]

This is basically what they've already done in Ireland. They saw that
bothering with due legislative process was too much work and had the
potential of bringing public scrutiny to their actions. Instead they sued
our biggest ISP, eircom, who folded pretty quickly and agreed to block TPB
and impose 'three-accusations-and-you're-out' without that pesky right to
presumption innocence and a fair trial. Organisations such as the RIAA, IFPI
etc. have enough financial and legal strength to reduce a resistant ISP to
bankruptcy.
Also worrying is the inclusion of the word "transmission" in that quote.
They want ISPs to be responsible for everything that passes through their
wires. I don't see that ending well.
Charly



On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Philip Hunt <cabalamat at googlemail.com>wrote:

> 2009/11/7 Laurent Le Besnerais <laurent.lebesnerais at pp-international.net>:
> > hi ,
> >
> > It appears that some documents have éescaped" to the vigilance on EU
> > Parliament, and are now available on the web
> >
> >
> http://www.numerama.com/magazine/14440-acta-des-documents-confidentiels-diffuses-sur-internet.html
> >
> > witihn the article (see at the end), you can find what seems to be the
> ACTA
> > contents..
> >
> > Maybe we should react on this officially..
>
> Having looked at it, it's clear they wish to impose 3-strikes, but
> doing it via ISP's contracts with their customers, thus circumventing
> the legal system. The text says:
>
> """to benefit from safe-harbours, ISPs need to
> put in place policies to deter unauthorised storage and transmission
> of IP infringing
> content (ex: clauses in customers' contracts allowing, inter alia, a
> graduated
> response). From what we understood, the US will not propose that
> authorities need to
> create such systems. Instead they require some self-regulation by ISPs."""
>
> Unpicking that:
>
> graduated response = RIAA/MPAA code for 3-strikes
>
> clauses in customers' contracts => so that consumers have no recourse
> to law or a fair hearing
>
> to benefit from safe-harbours => means if ISPs don't do it they'll be
> bankrupted with crippling lawsuits
>
> This quote is also revealing of their mindset:
>
> """USTR indicated that these internal discussions were sensitive due
> to different points
> of view regarding the internet chapter both within the Administration,
> with Congress
> and among stakeholders (content providers on one side, supporters of
> internet
> "freedom" on the other)."""
>
> They know what they are doing would cause a shitstorm if it got out,
> which is why they want to keep it secret. Oh and don't you love the
> way they put freedom in scare-quotes?
>
> I think we should publish this as wide and far as we can; doing so can
> only hlep our cause.
>
> --
> Philip Hunt, <cabalamat at googlemail.com>
> Campaigns Officer / Press Officer, Pirate Party UK
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091107/90118134/attachment.htm>