ISP International Copyright Treaty. We get screwed.
polycounter lvl 18
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
* * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
Replies
I mean do we really need to have the latest Shakira music video in HD on Youtube? I wouldnt mind if copyrighted music video material was all uploaded by the owners for free viewing at good quality. (i mean no one buys music videos anyways). As for feature length movies I'd rather Netflix-stream something for a small fee rather than clicking through 15 split parts for free on youtube. But it would have to work internationnally ... and that's where it all breaks lol
Only concern would be for classic gems that cannot be found anywhere. Maybe there should be a special case for that?
I mean not everything should be copy-pasted, copyright is copyright, right?
If one day stuff like Netflix streaming ends up covering much more than what it does right now .... I'd use it over pirated torrents, anytime.
Problem is we are nowhere close to that so this text is a bit silly...
I'd pay for a site like that.
To freedom of speech it is. Say I find something that needs to become public. I post it, and the original company who doesn't want it to be seen claims copyright. (Probably Song of the South would fit this bill somewhat). More scary, say I have something up that is not actually owned by the company claiming such. The video would be removed immediately without any proof needed to be given.
As stated, in example flicr would be unsustainable with legality. This would literally kill the openness of the internet. It would be become a corporate media outlet where things are fed to us, versus one another.
This clearly smacks against net neutrality.
If you find something that needs to be public, and that you want to talk about openly ... I don't think anything would prevent you from doing so even if that new ISP thing was enforced? One can talk about something without posting the actual material. And if you 'find something' thats not public and post it to denounce it ... well you are breaking privacy anyways ... so I guess you should be ready to take full responsibility for this action, right?
Sure, it'd be easy to isolate copyrighted material on sites like YouTube, but that doesn't mean that every site would be so easy to police. Surely 'they' would need the equivalent technological muscle of someone like Google to make this happen? Personally, I think Google would be more than compliant with something like this for the sake of profits (remember 'don't be evil', anyone?), but still....
C'mon!
[edit]
WAIT Kristen Stewart ... is that the girl from panic room??? I remember thinking she would grow up pretty eventually, back then.
Maybe I should do a fanvid or two HA!