ECA Responds to ACTA Text

April 21, 2010 -

The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) has issued a response to the officially released text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

While expressing excitement “for the proliferation of digitally-distributed products and services,” and respecting the fact that governments and industries are concerned protecting intellectual property, the ECA said that it remained “concerned about the rights of consumers being diminished or marginalized in the process.”

Decrying the lack of input from the public, or from consumer interest groups , the ECA wrote, “Any decisions made by signatory nations must not only be made with the input from the public, but also carefully balance the interests of intellectual property content owners with the rights and interests of consumers.”

Three specific parts of the current ACTA text were called out as points of concern by the ECA:

•  Deeming it illegal to bypass Digital Rights Management (DRM) locks.

•  Allowing rights holders to obtain injunctions by merely showing that infringement is "imminent," even if any crimes have not yet occurred.

•  Implying, without clarification, criminal penalties against “willful copyright infringement,” as well as infringements, “that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain.”

The ECA also offered some “fundamental principles” that could foster a stronger relationship between content creators and consumers, including:

• Copyright laws should seek to protect consumers and the public interest, as well as content creators — not just the technology limiting access to content, which shifts the law in favor of the content creator.

• Modifying copyright laws to modern technologies should not undermine consumer rights or constrain common consumer practices that have been enshrined in signatory nations for many years.

• While signatory nations should be encouraged to further define penalties for copyright and trademark violations so that the courts will have a common, shared threshold of consequences for violations, the public must have a say in how such laws are formed so that common standards for intellectual property enforcement are adhered to.


Disclosure: GamePolitics is a publication of the ECA.


Comments

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Agree on all points. Only the coperations will benifet from ACTA.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Obligatory we need to reform copy right spewage

http://forums.theeca.com/showthread.php?p=121884#post121884


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Zip, what you want isn't reform.  You want the rights of IP holders stripped from them, and absolutely nothing less than such will ever make you happy.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

No, I think zippy just wants people to be able to do what they wish with what they legally purchased so long as they aren't selling work they didn 't create themselves.

With how it is the kid who just downloaded a song to sample a band id treated as badly or worse than someone who is selling bootlegs on the street

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

You're right, but look at the extension - I have 250 gigs of music.  According to how Zip wants it, I could transfer all of that to six and a half billion different external harddrives and send them to every person on the planet, with no penalty.  The people who own the rights to that music would receive no compensation for it whatsoever, and would have no way to punish me in any way.  Don't believe me?  I asked him about just such a scenario, and he believes that should be okay.

Just to give you an idea, Styx, REO Speedwagon, Megadeth, Metallica, AC-DC and Black Sabbath would no longer receive any compensation for their music, because their entire libraries would be owned by the entire population of this planet.  Should someone lose their harddrive?  Not a problem, just go to your neighbor and copy theirs, with no reason to worry about any problems.  Not only that, but movies would be able to feature songs for free, since they aren't making money off of the dissemination of music, but by the movie that happens to feature it.  Radio stations would no longer have to pay to play music, because they don't make money off of the dissemination of music, but by the advertising space that they sell.

You don't think that this is a problem, or that, somehow, this would erode the rights of IP owners under the guise of "protecting the rights of consumers" that aren't consumers - since they didn't BUY anything in the first place?

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

You fail to understand the process and then say you understand it enough that it can not work.

 

Yes you can share a file but only if you are not making any money off it,  this cripples online trackers and any site to have more than a few hundred veiwers, why? BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH BANDWIDTH AROUND. Most ISPs do not allow you to become a server or host web pges from your PC.  All they have to do it add a clause of uploading data for X amount of time straight without being on the other plan and charge them as a server or halve thier upload speed when it hits certain amounts.

 

Even if they do not make this change read what I post it allows tons of room for CP owners to sue people for questionable profit making schemes basically making most large sites a target for profit scrutinizaion while most normal people can not be so easily targeted. Try thinking beyond your own little world and understand if you allow the copyright owner to control copy and distribution then you can kiss you freedom of expression rights good bye! Along with any consumer rights that remain......

 

PS:Most bands don't make real money off album sales, the most popular do but thats a given due to the nature of popularity.

 edit Part 1 of fair use seeks to protect partially derived content from infringement claims from copyright owners…which kind of goes against fan projects or mix tapes as they tend to seek to create derived content. It can also meet commentary or minor derived works both raving and ranting about the copy righted item in a blog or in a video or a clip and such. Part 2 of fair use covers facts and truths as pure information that cannot be copyrighted IE its well known news/information. Part 3 vaguely tries to cover amount and proportion of a “clip” or segment which in general is ignored by copy right owners. The courts is where this and more other fair use issues are sorted out. Part 4 deals with the profit nature of a of fair use. IE you take a copy righted picture and copy it substantially and then resell it for a profit, IE is it fair use or not most of the time it’s not.

 Edit

=====================================

Ya know fair use only protects the public a tiny bit, 

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b...

 Part 1 of fair use seeks to protect partially derived content from infringement claims from copyright owners…which kind of goes against fan projects or mix tapes as they tend to seek to create derived content. It can also meet commentary or minor derived works both raving and ranting about the copy righted item in a blog or in a video or a clip and such(boil it down more it looks at if a use of a copyrighted item makes a new item or not).


Part 2 of fair use covers facts and truths as pure information that cannot be copyrighted IE its well known news/information.

Part 3 vaguely tries to cover amount and proportion of a “clip” or segment which in general is ignored by copy right owners. The courts  is where this and  other fair use issues are sorted out on a case by case baisis.

Part 4 deals with the profit nature of a of fair use. IE you take a copy righted picture and copy it substantially and then resell it for a profit, IE is it fair use or not most of the time it’s not.

Mmm i think what we need is a consumer media rights act...mmmm yyeessssssss

 

But regaurdless of what you call it you can not keep copyright focused on copies and distrobusion not in this day and age.


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

"But regaurdless of what you call it you can not keep copyright focused on copies and distrobusion not in this day and age."

Considering the fact that copyright laws are SUPPOSED to be focused on copies and distribution, this sentence proves you want nothing less than to remove all rights an IP owner has to their IP. 

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

*sigh* You just do not get it to scared to look outside your small pathetic box....

What I'd like to do is remove their rights to control it in inane non profit settings like file shearing,lending physical goods,making and operating legal backups(and operating region locked items on modified hardware), all of whtich right now are made practically illegal.

 

Again I will try and make this as simple as I can for your shriveled up soul to understand.

Legal unlicensed distribution may happen as long as no profit or no attempts at profit is derived from the chain of links,files and sites surrounding the copyrighted item in question.

Understand the scope of this it kills most large sites dead right from the start and the rest of the medium to large sites will have to fight in court and prove what they are doing dose not gain or attemp to gain a profit from anything involving unlicensed distribution.

No donations,no ads, no money from somewhere else "just for the site" its either run "out of pocket"(what the owner/owners make from their income) or its not run at all.

 

Everything else in copyright is left as is.

 

Hell from looking at profit distribution used sale should be giving a percentage of what they make back to the copyright owners since the net has changed the world so much.

 

To say this harms the copyright owner is down right madness it never hurt them when we could return media when it was junk,it didn't hurt them when we could tape and record broadcasts,it did not hurt them when we could store and back up massive amounts of data, it did not hurt them when mix tapes became popular, it gives a reasonable and legal vent for the public that outweighs whatever is potential profit is lost. Also by focusing so much on potential profit you might as well get out the thought police because preemptive strikes on non criminals sinks to the level of thought police. Also CP/IP laws are moving into a drug war direction, if the public is not protected soon we will slide into a full blown war on infringement that neither side will be happy with.

 

I said nothing when they took from us the right of return.

I said nothing when they took from us the right to make and use a legal backup.

I said nothing when they took away out right to format shift.

I said nothing when they took our right to post away.

I said nothing when we where taken away because we did not repurchase all the media we owned when the license ran out.

 

That is the world pro IP/CP people want and its becoming a reality. While the other side wants no IP/CP rights I want a amendment that will protect common people when they do common things.

 

If we had this then we could move to criminalizing CP/IP infringement, have misdemeanor changes filed on people not keeping proper backups of legal items owned, say 50$ for a audit of your archive and 25cents per file, media from questionable sources are 20$ a hit, or a 250$ charge to skip the auditing process if it can be skiped. Sellers of unlicensed media will be hit the hardest online or bootleg an instant 5K charge and a year of community service if they have made over 5K in profit off it they get 2 years in jail and 3 in parole, if more than 10K everything they own is taken and they have to pay back either 10K or 25% of what they made from unlicensed profit, which ever is higher.  

 

It may sound silly but CP/IP crime is something law enforcement and the court system will be faced with enforcing and adjudicating with nothing to protect the people with it shall be grim times when as law enforcmeent finds easy prey to levy fines and jail time upon.....


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

What your idea not only does nothing to prevent, but also wholly supports, is that distribution of SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT can be done legally by anyone, with that person getting nothing for said distribution.  Just because the distributor is making no money, that doesn't mean that the actual owner isn't being harmed in some way.  Can you think of a way for free file sharing to make money for the IP owner?  I can, and have posted it on here multiple times, and it doesn't require expanding fair use laws to a point where it decimates all rights for IP owners.  

Make digital download sites - from iTunes and the Zune Store to LimeWire and The Pirate Bay - pay a digital download "guild" a set amount of money every month, based on traffic, very similar to how radio works in the United Stated.  This "guild" gives that money to the IP owners, based on the popularity of their downloads.  What would Limewire have to do to pay the guild?  Advertise.

There, file sharing made legal and free, without having to erode the rights of IP owners.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Distribution and copies without a profit chain is inane and beyond the scope of law and order to reasonably enforce, the guild system dose nothing to protect the individual. Fail, try again.


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Just a quick note, while I understand and agree with you, your example of bands is off. Music Bands generally dont make money off of albums they sell, very little infact, they make most of their money on the concerts they do.

 

The ones who do make the money from the albums are of course, the publishers.

╔╦═╣Signature Statement╠═╦╗

If you don't like something I said in a post, don't just hit the dislike, let me know your thoughts! I'm interested in knowing everyone's opinions, even when they don't mesh with my own.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Yes how dare I want rights and protection for the public HOW DARE I !!!!

If you see this as stripping rights from the copyright owner you need to lay off the kool aid and get a life that dose not envole shilling for the indutry.....

 


Quote:
Fair use needs to be made clear.

1a.Expanded fair use overrides the DMCA and any law new or old that circumvents the public's right to make and or operate a legal backup of the media they own.

2b.In order to be protected under the umbrella of expanded fair use, a link or chain of links(more than one link) or a file or a file to a chain of files is the same as the copyrighted item in question and unless exempted under strict educational and or informational guidelines may not be protected if anywhere in the operation of the site any money is gained from a source that is involved in the distribution of unlicensed copyrighted items, the owner(s) or backer(s) to the site shall be held to this same rule.

3c.As sated in 1a no law shall overdrive the public right to modding paraphernalia, software cracks or hacks, mod chips, ripping tools, format shifting tools and other utilities to modify or backup with. Software code, bios's, firmware,ect is however protected under the individual license or patent of the copyright and may not be sold without a license and if disturbed with sold goods it must be handled separately.

Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

You keep citing fair use, when you don't even know what fair use protects.  It protects people who use PARTS of an IP for a project which will generally earn no money on the project itself, such as a book report or a critical piece.  You want to EXPAND fair use far beyond it's bounds to include outright piracy as protected under federal law.

Fair use can't be expanded in the way that you want and still maintain constitutional muster.  What you desire also completely fails to address the fact that the works you want to be disseminated at no charge were created for the sole purpose of being distributed for profit.  When all musicians, game programmers, sculptors, painters, poets, novel writers, actors, scriptwriters and other artists have no desire to make money for their efforts, then you'll possibly be able to create a realistic framework for what you desire.  Until then, you are going to argue a point that cannot and will not come to pass.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Well-said, though the ECA refers to "content creators" in its response when it actually means "content publishers".  It's generally not the content creators who are pushing DRM.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Usually the creators are just happy you're enjoying the exprience, it's the publishers that lose their shit when they aren't making money off of it.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

All this does is force the pirates to entrench themselves deeper and then the media cartels will have ZERO chance to catch anyone other than dumb home users which are really small fish in the much bigger pond. Just like the airlines TSA, ACTA only offers the illusion of protection. Suing your customer base is lunacy. Go after the real pirates not the low hanging fruit.

Re: ECA Responds to ACTA Text

Agreed on all points.

Were this a less...formal forum, I would have a few more choice words to say about the ACTA.

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Have you visited a video game arcade in the last year?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
james_fudgeThere aren't many left in America08/21/2014 - 1:50am
MechaTama31I sure have. Dorky's barcade in Tacoma, WA.08/20/2014 - 5:56pm
Matthew WilsonI have not been to a arcade in years. I know arcades are still big in japan.08/20/2014 - 5:38pm
Sleaker@AE - Ah no it's called GroundKontrol - I was just referring to it as a Bar-Arcade.08/20/2014 - 4:39pm
Andrew EisenStill looking for confirmation that High Moon Studios (dev behind the PS3/360 versions) isn't working on it.08/20/2014 - 4:38pm
ZenGotcha.08/20/2014 - 4:37pm
Andrew EisenI already updated the story with it!08/20/2014 - 4:36pm
Zenhttp://www.gonintendo.com/s/235574-treyarch-isn-t-working-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-for-wii-u-either08/20/2014 - 4:36pm
ZenLet me send the link for the Tweet as well...they state Treyarch is not working on it. Grabbing it now.08/20/2014 - 4:34pm
Andrew EisenWhere does it say that "NO dev is working on it"?08/20/2014 - 4:33pm
ZenHere's the link for my last comment: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/20/call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-not-coming-to-wii-u08/20/2014 - 4:24pm
ZenWell, Call of Duty is skipping Wii U completely it seems...they updated that NO dev is working on it. Great way to just skip a market.08/20/2014 - 4:24pm
Andrew EisenYeah, Dave and Busters back in 2011 was the last time for me.08/20/2014 - 4:16pm
ZenWell, I tried lol. We just got a Dave and Busters on the beach but haven't been there yet...may go this weekend.08/20/2014 - 3:52pm
Andrew EisenIt's called The Bar-Arcade? Missed opportunity. I would have gone with Barcade.08/20/2014 - 3:25pm
SleakerThe Bar-Arcade however did have a lot of good pinball machines, they were however always taken as the place was packed..08/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakerso I've been to an Arcade-Bar, not that great of a place has some okay machines, but generally over-packed. And then all the kid-friendly ones have is ticket-games nothing actually good unfortunately :(08/20/2014 - 1:14pm
Andrew EisenIf it has an area dedicated to arcade machines, I'd say it counts. Arcade machine in your house though, nope.08/20/2014 - 12:16pm
ZenDoes it count if you have actual arcade machines in your house?08/20/2014 - 12:01pm
E. Zachary KnightWith the current poll, I guess it all depends on how one defines "arcade". If Chuck E Cheese or similar multipurpose businesses count, then that is a yes for me.08/20/2014 - 11:59am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician