Thread: ACTA = Global Internet Censorship – Foreign Govt Can Shut Down US Websites

ACTA = Global Internet Censorship – Now Even Foreign Governments Will Be Able To Have Your Website Shut Down

January 27th, 2012
24 comments

Global Internet censorship is here. SOPA and PIPA have been stopped (at least for now) in the United States, but a treaty known as ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is far worse than either of them. ACTA was quietly signed by Barack Obama back on October 1st, 2011 and most Americans have never even heard of it. But it could mean the end of the Internet as we know it. This new treaty gives foreign governments and copyright owners incredibly broad powers. If you are alleged to have violated a copyright, your website can be shut down without a trial and police may even show up at your door to take you to prison. It doesn't even have to be someone in the United States that is accusing you. It could just be a foreign government or a copyright owner halfway across the world that alleges that you have violated a copyright. It doesn't matter. So far, the U.S., the EU and seven other nations have signed on to ACTA, and the number of participants is expected to continue to grow. The "powers that be" are obsessed with getting Internet censorship one way or another. The open and free Internet that you and I have been enjoying for all these years is about to change, and not for the better.
So how come the U.S. Senate never voted on ACTA? Doesn't the U.S. Constitution mandate that all treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate?
Of course it does.
But Barack Obama has gotten around this by calling ACTA an "executive agreement", which is a load of crap.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of nonsense we are getting out of Obama on a regular basis now. He has shown endless disdain for the U.S. Constitution.
Some members of Congress are expressing deep alarm over ACTA. For example, U.S. Representative Darrell Issa is calling ACTA "more dangerous than SOPA".
There are some members of Congress that are even demanding that ACTA be submitted to the U.S. Senate for a vote. Unfortunately, their voices are very few so far, and ACTA is getting next to no coverage in the mainstream media.
But this new treaty is very, very serious. It basically mandates that all Internet communications be constantly monitored for copyright infringement. Sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter will have to monitor accounts for copyright infringement 24 hours a day.
If you are alleged to have committed a violation, you might not just lose your social media account or your website.
You could potentially be sent to prison.
Yes, seriously.
What we are talking about is Chinese-style Internet censorship for the entire globe.
The following comes from a recent Forbes article....

“Why does ACTA matter to the media and citizens?” writes Alex Howard. “Consider the phrase “intermediary liability.” That’s the principle that websites on the Internet, like YouTube, Internet service providers, web hosting companies or social networks, should not be held liable for the content created or uploaded by their users.”
The new rules proposed in ACTA essentially transform Western ISPs into something more along the lines of ISPs in China and other more restrictive nations.

One of the worst elements of ACTA is that it would allow accusers of copyright infringement to completely and totally bypass judicial review.
If you don't think that ACTA will change the Internet, just check out the following excerpt from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson....

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

Big sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter may just decide that it is too much of a hassle to monitor millions of pieces of content. Allowing users to constantly post content on their sites would be a huge risk. In fact, if they are found to be allowing "copyright infringement", those sites could be permanently shut down.
The American people need to get educated about this new treaty before it is too late. There is still a chance that we could get the U.S. Congress to take action against this new treaty.
Under ACTA, Internet service providers will essentially be required to become the police of the Internet. This was explained in a recent article by Cory Doctorow....

New revelations on ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a secretive global copyright being privately negotiated by rich countries away from the UN: ACTA will require ISPs to police trademarks the way they currently police copyright. That means that if someone accuses you of violating a trademark with a web-page, blog-post, video, tweet, etc, your ISP will be required to nuke your material without any further proof, or be found to be responsible for any trademark violations along with you. And of course, trademark violations are much harder to verify than copyright violations, since they often hinge on complex, fact-intensive components like tarnishment, dilution and genericization. Meaning that ISPs are that much more likely to simply take all complaints at face-value, leading to even more easy censorship of the Internet with nothing more than a trumped-up trademark claim.

One of the big problems with ACTA is that it is way too broad and way too vague.
Vague language allows authorities to "interpret" the law any way that they see fit.
This can often lead to selective enforcement. Websites that authorities like will be left alone, while those that they don't like will be harassed or completely shut down.
ACTA was written in secret and it has been pushed through very, very quietly. The following comes from a recent CNN article....

Like many trade agreements, ACTA is a confusing mess. Even its signatories don't agree on how it's supposed to work. The way it's been pushed forward has also been unruly -- talks have been held in secret, without any kind of legislative oversight or input from citizens or public-interest groups. The public only became aware of it in 2008, a couple of years after discussions began, when Wikileaks published a discussion paper. Since then, drafts of the pact have been released to the public, each successively less onerous to critics. Reportedly, though, big media and pharmaceutical lobbyists have been privy to the talks all along

Of course - this is a chance for big media and big corporations to take control of the Internet.
The way ACTA has been pushed on us has been absolutely disgusting. In fact, one key EU official that was in charge of investigating ACTA has resigned in protest over how this whole thing has gone down. He says that ACTA is basically being crammed down the throats of the European people....

I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament’s demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly.
As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens’ legitimate demands.”
Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications.
This agreement might have major consequences on citizens’ lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade.

For much more on ACTA, please watch the remarkable video posted below. It does a great job of explaining exactly what ACTA is and why we need to be so concerned about it....




The world is changing and the Internet is changing.
If you don't speak up now, the Internet as we know it today may soon be gone for good.


Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere:


ACTA = Global Internet Censorship – Now Even Foreign Governments Will Be Able To Have Your Website Shut Down

[QUOTESo how come the U.S. Senate never voted on ACTA? Doesn't the U.S. Constitution mandate that all treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate?
Of course it does.
But Barack Obama has gotten around this by calling ACTA an "executive agreement", which is a load of crap][/QUOTE]

There is a bigger issue here than ACTA. Obama is usurping the Senate's Constitutional authority to decide whether to ratify or not ratify a treaty. This is another blatant example of his determination to undermine the US Constitution. Two thing should happen here:

1. The US Senate should soundly deny ratification of the treaty
2. The US Senate should formally rebuke the POTUS for exceeding his authority.

In the meantime, if a US Web site is arbitrarily shut down, i.e. without due process, the Web site should sue on the basis that the action is unconstitutional. If this happens, I have no doubt the US Supreme Court will throw ACTA out.

I hope that whoever gets the GOP nomination for POTUS this year keeps an ongoing tabulation of the number of times the Obama administration has deliberately violated its constitutional authority (e.g., ACTA, "recess appointments without recess", Gunrunner, failure to enforce immigration laws [i..e., cherry picking what laws to enforce], enabling federal agencies to establish "rules" that exceed their authority because the take on the form of lawmaking [a prerogative reserved for Congress], etc.)

When it comes to copyright laws I have often questioned whether to copy or paste an article onto our forum. There are laws and rules that apply. I do pay attention and have noticed more and more red flags on articles and have chosen not to post these articles.

To the everyday person these laws now seem like an attack or censorship and everyone is outraged, but in truth it is nothing new. I worked in Research and Development in the Electronic Industry. I remember when the internet, cell phones, etc. were dreams. When Engineers brought you diagrams of their dreams on napkins.

In this world copyright laws were enforced. I have seen cubicles sealed off from lawsuits over copyright disputes. I have seen personal notes and items seized. How many times did I have to send my documents to legal to make sure I was not breaking any law.

I have watched and wondered as I have seen these laws violated on the Internet and I knew it would only be a matter of time until it was reigned in.

My only suggestion to everyone is that they learn copyright laws

VHS tapes, audio cassettes, player/recorder etc. They lost those fights and they should lose this one. The only people who should ever get arrested for copyright infringement are those who profit from selling dups.

My whole LP collection was transferred to cassette tapes for my personal use. Now it's possible to transfer LP's to CD's and even MP3's using devices THEY SELL TO US.

Copyright 2012 The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

.

This is an example of what I have been noticing lately on certain news articles. When I see this I don't copy and post on our forum.

Montererysherry, thanks for the heads up on what to look for, I have honestly not paid attention in the past. When we copy and paste even a link I assumed since it was in a public paper, it was ok to do so, but apparently now some do not want it like that. Does this apply to links of that article? I would think posting the link is not copyright infringement since you are just linking people to the original article?...

AmericanElizabeth I am going to do some research, I know Copyright laws were changed last September. At one time we used copyrighted material as long as you stated it was copyrighted and gave credit to the source. But these new comments attached to the copyright is what is new and different. My concern is "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redisbributed".

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

.

This is an example of what I have been noticing lately on certain news articles. When I see this I don't copy and post on our forum.

I have noticed this as well and I thinkI have been but think I will do the same until we can find out for sure...I would have brought it over partially with a link but not sure if that apply's anymore either...maybe we need to further check this copyright thing out.

I have been trying to research all of the copyright laws and it get's really fuzzy. Infringement laws, fair use laws, and safe harbor laws all apply. Today I came across another copyright with the added text and noticed at the bottom of the screen the word share. Seems contradictory to me. I placed this in the hands of someone that can give us a definite answer until then I think we are safe to proceed as usual until we get a definite answer since from what I read we would have to be warned and given a chance to take down the article.

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

I have been trying to research all of the copyright laws and it get's really fuzzy. Infringement laws, fair use laws, and safe harbor laws all apply. Today I came across another copyright with the added text and noticed at the bottom of the screen the word share. Seems contradictory to me. I placed this in the hands of someone that can give us a definite answer until then I think we are safe to proceed as usual until we get a definite answer since from what I read we would have to be warned and given a chance to take down the article.

Thanks MontereySherry we really need to keep up on these changes