India to WTO: Secret copyright treaty is illegal!

Michael Geist sez,

The Government of India came out forcefully against ACTA this week in an intervention at the World Trade Organization. The India position, which may well reflect the views of other ACTA-excluded countries, demonstrates that ACTA is emerging as a contentious political issue that extends well beyond civil society and business groups concerned with the agreement. Countries excluded from the ACTA process have to come to recognize the serious threat it represents both substantively as well as for the future of multilateral organizations.
This growing concern from countries such as India represents a major new pressure point on the ACTA discussions. The notion that ACTA countries could negotiate an agreement that would ultimately be used to pressure non-ACTA countries to conform without attracting opposition from those very countries was always unrealistic. If the April ACTA round of talks was marked by the mounting pressure for greater transparency, the late June ACTA round of talks will undoubtedly have developing country opposition as its core concern.

India Comes Out Swinging Against ACTA at WTO

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: Action

More at Boing Boing

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor

hassenpfeffer

<politically_incorrect>
Well, of course. How are they supposed to do our jobs for us if they can’t listen to our music? It’s not like they can afford to pay the media conglomerates’ prices for it on their wages…
</politically_incorrect>
Steve Schnier

Okay… So Secret Treaty’s are illegal and we shouldn’t do them.

Gotcha.

And illegal downloads are illegal, but we should do them – even though they’re illegal.

Gotcha.

So we should only obey the laws that we agree with?
- Cory Doctorow
  
  Creating laws that criminalize everyday activity: bad.
  
  Making worse laws, in secret, without regard to public interest: Even worse.
  
  Breaking ridiculous laws that criminalize everyday activity: Not bad.
- sabik
  
  So Secret Treaty’s are illegal and we shouldn’t do them.
  …
  And illegal downloads are illegal, but we should do them – even though they’re illegal.
  
  Bit of a strawman argument you have there…
  
  Very few people espouse the latter view. Generally, the arguments in favour of downloading are that certain kinds of downloads either aren’t illegal or should not be illegal â€” and that in the latter case the law should be changed, and in the former case the existing law should be better respected by people in the tv/movie/music/entertainment industries.
  
  Arguing in favour of (or against) amendments to the law is not illegal; indeed, it is fundamental to democratic society.
davenewman

Think back to the enclosure of the commons. Once land was shared by several users. The local elders would adjudicate disputes between the different users. But then lawyers and landowners put up fences and paid laws to make nearly all land private property. This led to increased agricultural production, environmental degradation and the marginalisation of native land users (indians, aborigines etc.).

We now face another enclosure movement – to privately appropriate all creative expression, and remove all rights to share in common our thoughts and ideas.

Up to now, copyright and patent laws have started from the assumption that sharing knowledge is a good thing. Copying a document does not destroy the original, so thousands of people can read the same manual on how to insulate their home. The faster information gets disseminated, the more new creative ideas get built on top as science stands on the shoulders of past scientists. But to encourage more people to think and write, at a time when information was expensive, the laws gave limited incentives to both the creators, and the aggregators or publishers of their work.

But now publishers like Rupert Murdoch, and lobbyists for ACTA and similar laws, are trying to build legal and technical fences across cyberspace. They want every bit of writing, audio or video to be privately owned, and never shared unless every single use is paid for.

It is currently legal on paper to quote work (if properly cited), and to criticise it or parody it. This is how all intellectual work is done. Without those rights, there is no science, and precious little art. But DRM prevents those uses, even when we have a licence to use the materials. My UK university has a licence to record any broadcast TV programme for use in teaching or research forever. But I can only use BBC iPlayer for 7 days, as the technology prevents me from enforcing my licence rights.

The ACTA agreement, and laws in the US, UK and maybe Canada, will make all laws about fair use as useless as the one against mispronouncing Arkansas – the technology will prevent legitimate uses, and the laws will prevent us using technologies to cut through these illegitimate fences.
Steve Schnier

Y r vry ngry lttl mn.
nd frnkly, y nd yr ngr br m.
Gd by.
S
- Sagodjur
  
  Steve,
  
  That is a great quote and I don’t think you appreciate how it applies to the situation. The media companies are dinosaurs and they’re trying to pass laws that make asteroids illegal. What they need to do is evolve and adapt to survive.
  
  Your 4th point is a poignant one. How do you propose we change the terms of a secret copyright treaty that even our own elected and supposedly representative legislators are not able to debate or vote on?
- zio_donnie
  
  Ignorant AND angry. I bow to your superior intellect and your well thought out arguments. Thanks for your time, your non replies were most illuminating.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  Goodbye, indeed.
Daedalus

“So we should only obey the laws that we agree with?”

Sure. There’s no moral imperative to follow laws. Sometimes the two line up (murder), sometimes they don’t (recreational drug use), but laws are only as valuable as the social good they create.

I’d like to think Rosa Parks was thinking the same thing when she didn’t give up her seat on that bus.

I mean, if murderers and white collar criminals are going to dodge even the moral laws all the time anyway, the least we can do is fight against the ones that don’t create much social good.
- AnthonyC
  
  I think the geeks among us take it for granted that everyone understands that there are two independent axes at work here; good/evil and law/chaos are separate. Many people have never had that pointed out to them.
  
  And @Steve Schnier: disagreement with a law is not sufficient; you must also believe it to be unjust. Disobeying the law in such a situation is called “civil disobedience.” You may have heard of it as the force behind the Civil Rights movement and Gandhi’s accomplishments, or from the writings of Henry David Thoreau.
  
  Making laws in secret from the governed is unjust, and ought to be opposed. (Il)legality is simply a convenient way to do the opposing. Laws restricting the downloading and use of copyrighted works are not inherently just or unjust, but disregarding them in those cases where they are written or applied unjustly is not wrong.
Church

It’d be fun if India and the other excluded countries negotiated their own ‘anti-counterfeiting’ treaty, and only invited consumer groups, et al., for input.
DarthVain

I am pretty sure the ACTA doesn’t give a crap because they figure developing countries are going to ignore whatever they come up with anyway. Do you know why it is a big deal in Canada and the US, etc? Because they think they can get paid. In places like India, China, Africa, even Russia, most people can’t afford the going rates they charge, and none of it is going to be legit. That’s why DVD’s have regions, and stuff costs wildly different in different areas. Do you think a copy of Windows 7 cost full retail what they pay in the US as opposed to China. Most can’t even afford that or refuse to anyway.

I think it is crap that the ACTA is doing what it is doing, but being non-inclusive is for practical reasons really.
Steve Schnier

Replying to Cory Doctorow:

“Creating laws that criminalize everyday activity: bad.”

Please define “everyday activity”.

YOUR everyday activity? Because illegal downloading, file sharing, etc., are not part of my everyday activities, nor are they a part of the everyday activities of most people in the tv/movie/music/entertainment industries who’s livelihoods are impacted by your “everyday activities”.

So if its good for Cory Doctorow, its good for everyone. Just because you say so, that makes it true. Is this what we’re to believe?
- Brother Phil
  
  You’re good with those strawmen, aren’t you?
  
  The illegal downloads are already illegal – the clue’s in the name. (And by the way, speaking of illegal activities, accusing Cory of them is called libel, and yes, it’s illegal).
  
  What the MAFIAA are trying to criminalise is everyday activities like taping a TV show so that you can see it when you get home from work. Everyday activities like pressing that button on iTunes that copies the CD that you paid for onto your iPod.
  Everyday activities like recording a mickey take version of a song without getting the record company’s permission (and paying several thousand for the license).
  Everyday activities like having a sing-song round the campfire.
  
  Which of the Big 4 do you work for, by the way?
  - Sagodjur
    
    A quick Google search finds a Steve Schnier who works for a Canadian entertainment company, possibly the same Steve Schnier who has an entry in IMDB with various credits as producer and sound editor, et al. One of the credits (as an animator) would match what he claims he did during art school on another comment thread (“I worked my way through art college as a cel painter in an animation studio.”). So I’m guessing that’s who he is.
- boingaddict
  
  sure sure defend acta, and watch your rights being stripped away. Fair copyright should be in place, but not something that is draconian and will only benefit organizations like MPAA or RIAA. Do you think artists see any of the money, big no.
Antinous / Moderator

I think the significant point to make is that IP companies are playing by different rules than regular people.

If laws in general followed this standard, your car would be permanently impounded and your license permanently revoked for failing to signal a turn.
- Anonymous
  
  (wait, what? a car analogy? is this slashdot??)
  
  Actually it’s more along the lines of losing your car and license for “stealing” gas, in a world where gas can be ‘grown’ from itself (think kombucha) but the existing network of distribution is still in place and hasn’t yet been paid off (or maybe it has – obviously the owner of the network wants monopoly rents rather than market..).
  
  Not sure where I’m going here, but it has something to do with gas companies’ infrastructure and transport costs and the fact that they have amortized costs that are sunk & anyone coming into the gas business can undercut them because most of the infrastructure isn’t required anymore or is just dirt cheap and ubiquitous.
  
  Cory, have you ever seen a comparison between self-renewing things like kombucha or yeast & downloading/bandwidth? I guess the same comparison could be made with ‘the commons’ as well, but that analogy is far too commonly bastardized.
  
  D.
Rogue_Leader

Does anyone commenting here actually know what ACTA is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

“The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit goods, generic medicines”

This isn’t about a few films or music downloads. It’s about anti-retrovirals, anti-malarials and rehydration therapy to stop people dying from cholera and dysentry and manufcatured by Indian and Chinese pharmacists to avoid the ruinous costs of licensed medicine.

It’s about life or death.
- Anonymous
  
  Do you realize that you’re admonishing people for not knowing what’s in a secretly negotiated treaty?
Steve Schnier

@Sagodjur – Yes, you’ve identified me. Big deal. So what? I’m a film/TV producer trying to earn a living. And your point is?

As you write, “Cory produces quality creative works AND lets his fans remix it, thus enhancing the appeal of his works.”

That is fine. That is Cory’s choice. I wouldn’t dream of preventing Cory from distributing or profiting from his work in any way that he sees fit.

HOWEVER, Cory advocates that I don’t have the same rights or choices with regards to my own work and creations. He wants to dictate how I distribute or profit from my creations.

Furthermore, Cory has other revenue streams besides his writing. For example, he makes money from BoingBoing’s advertising – and with the daily number of hits that BoingBoing generates, this must work out to a substantial income. Most creative types don’t have this to fall back on.

Cory can AFFORD to give away his work. To advocate that everyone do the same is foolishness, because Cory isn’t on a level playing field.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  he makes money from BoingBoing’s advertising…with the daily number of hits that BoingBoing generates, this must work out to a substantial income.
  
  You can always identify non-bloggers by this particular fantasy.
- zio_donnie
  
  Excuse me but i grew up believing that i have to follow the law even if i don’t like it. I stand by this principle as Socrates did. But (and it is a big but) i also grew up knowing that laws are made by my elected government and subjectible to change through elections and dialogue. That’s because i believe in democracy and i stand by it. Corporations are not people they do not get a vote.
  
  International treaties signed behind closed doors that do not even include every single UN country are not LAW in my book. So the US of A can do all the lobbying it wants and can pass whatever “trade regulation” big corporations want but it still will not be law in my country or in my mind. I think americans say “no taxation without representation”. So there you have it.
  
  ACTA is an agreement between members of a closed club. I do not and will not happily comply. India is just expressing what the rest of the world thinks but cannot say.
  
  You do not want to sell or ditribute your product in my country? Fair enough, just don’t. Go after your fellow citizens that break your laws and do it illegally. But do not expect compliance by foreign citizens.
  
  Thanks.
- Brother Phil
  
  Nice to see someone else with a real stake in the issue from the creative industry joining the debate – why not say so clearly, though? It’d give your arguments more weight.
  
  Something like “I’m a producer, and I feel that ACTA will encourage people to buy my product because…”
  
  The problem is that the common perception is that the distribution industry is profiting massively by enforcing unfair deals on both consumers, and on creative artists such as yourself. If your experience is something different, then please tell us how; hiding your position as a creative artist turns something that could have reinforced your argument into what appears to be a shameful secret.
  
  “…Cory advocates that I don’t have the same rights or choices with regards to my own work and creations. He wants to dictate how I distribute or profit from my creations…”
  
  Not at all. He just doesn’t want your employers to dictate how he distributes or profits from his, and doesn’t want basic justice and civil rights to be set aside to ensure their profits.
  - Steve Schnier
    
    Okay. I’m a creative artist working in the entertainment industry. I earn my living by licensing and/or selling my creative work(s).
    
    It is widely believed amongst my peers, that Cory’s model of “giving it away” simply doesn’t work. Maybe it works for Cory because he has alternate revenue streams – but it doesn’t work for most people in the entertainment/arts business.
    
    Should a dentist be expected to give away his services for free? If so, how can he afford to keep his office open?
    
    Why should I give up my livelihood because Cory wants to give his away?
    
    Second – Cory’s model doesn’t work. Proof? Mark Frauenfelder, Cory’s BB partner (and also a successful writer) doesn’t give his work away for free. You would think that someone with an intimate knowledge of Cory’s “successful” business model would be the first person to buy into it. But Mark hasn’t – therefore, why should I?
    
    I have to admit, the idea is nice. “Give your creative work away and people will love you.” But sadly, this doesn’t work in the real world.
    - zio_donnie
      
      Excuse me (again) but where did you see someone proposing giving away your work for free? Even Cory that is the most vocal does actually sell his books. And anyway nobody said that you personally or anyone in general have to follow the same promotion tactics.
      
      What some of us are asking (even if you insist in dodging the question) is
      
      1) Why the secrecy of ACTA?
      
      2) Why do you think that your right to sell your product gives you the right to cripple my devices and my civil liberties.
      
      3) 700.000$ for 24 songs. Explain why anyone should pitty the industry that twists the legal system to this abomination.
      
      4) Who cares about your business model? if it does’t work find something else. We are talking about laws. Are you arguing that the law should bailout your failed business?
      
      Will you reply? Probably not.
      - Steve Schnier
        
        Wll, ys – Cry Dctrw prpss tht rt b gvn wy frly. Y’v bvsly mssd sm f hs wrtngs.
        
        1) N d
        
        2) Nvr sd t dd – whr dd vr sy ths?
        
        3) Jprs. nly py bt $1.25 pr sng n Tns. Y shld fnd nthr src fr yr msc dwnlds.
        
        4) ‘m tlkng bt byng th lw. f y dn’t lk th lw, wrk thrgh th systm t chng t. nd n, ‘m dng wll n my wn thnks.
        
        Bckmnstr Fllr sd, “Y nvr chng thngs by fghtng th xstng rlty. T chng smthng, bld nw mdl tht mks th xstng mdl bslt.”
        
        Thn gn, dbt y’d vn knw wh Bckmnstr Fllr ws. ntrstng mn.
      - zio_donnie
        
        Cory can propose whatever he wants but i do not think that he ever proposed that art should be free by law.
        
        1) You have no idea yet you defend it
        
        2) The laws that are trying to pass include making bypassing DRM illegal thus prohibing uses of my property (also region unblocking, de css etc). i think that something similar is already law in the USA under the DMCA. We don’t want this in Europe.
        
        3) This is not a reply and is completely irrelevant. Your industry is poisoning the justice system to a degree that limewire is fined more than BP. Also i buy Vinyl, Cds and DVDs only. Never digital content. And i am entitled to pass my paid content to all my devices thank you very much.
        
        4) We are talking about obeying the law. ACTA is arguing that we should change it just because some corporations do not think that the law as is protects their interests.
        
        Also I am glad that you are doing ok but i don’t understand why do you care if others give their shit for free.
        
        I knew Fuller the architect and inventor of the geodesic dome but i was unfamiliar with this quote. Anyway take a hint from it and stop fighting the existing reality which is file sharing and make a new model. Or don’t.
- Anonymous
  
  HOWEVER, Cory advocates that I don’t have the same rights or choices with regards to my own work and creations. He wants to dictate how I distribute or profit from my creations.
  
  This is an interesting way of looking at it. But with physical creations, you don’t have the right to distribute or profit from them as you see fit; you have to find something that works with physical reality and the legal system.
  
  ACTA wants to dictate that system. It sounds like Cory just wants to let everyone do whatever works best, and let people profit from it as they’re able.
- Anonymous
  
  “…Cory advocates that I don’t have the same rights or choices with regards to my own work and creations. He wants to dictate how I distribute or profit from my creations…”
  
  I disagree.
  
  I believe Cory’s efforts are first and foremost to acknowledge reality and to share his understanding thereof with others.
  
  Beyond that, I hope his goals are to stop YOUR efforts to bullshit the issue, spread (perhaps unwittingly) propaganda and help push through laws which restrict HIS (and MY) abilities to license and distribute works contrary to the standard business model of a small number of very large corporations which oftentimes fuck artists and creators so badly that the notion of a successful artist in our culture (North America – I’m generalizing) is a bad joke and the possibility of becoming that person is quite analogous to winning the lottery (but with collusion and payola. So more like when the corner store owner’s son’s girlfriend wins ten grand on a scratch ticket seven times in a year).
  
  But that’s just my opinion.
  
  D.
andreinla

Corporations’ powers are growing bigger than nations’. Our rights are being bought and sold openly, and the details are kept secret from us.

Next big war will likely be between corporation states. Scratch that. Wars are already being waged by corporation-owned states.
Steve Schnier

Reply to Antinous/Moderator:

“You can always identify non-bloggers by this particular fantasy.”

Actually I am a blogger, but its quite niche. That said, you ask me to believe that the people on the BoingBoing masthead, doing this full time – are in it for the good of their health?

We’ll pretend that I didn’t see Federated Media Publishing under advertising. A quick look at their site… Let’s see… a banner ad has a CPM of $36. With BB’s 10,000,000 hits per month – a single banner ad costs $36K. Per month.

S’not chump change.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  S’not chump change.
  
  It does, however, cost money to host the site. To pay for upgrades. To pay a business manager, managing editor, sysadmin, moderator, accountant, web developer, legal, etc. And those banners ads happen via Federated Media, who take their slice. And the economy is crappy, so ad revenue for everybody everywhere hasn’t been so great for several years. And their are eight, count em, eight people blogging.
  
  Cory makes money because Cory is a best-selling author. His books make the NYT best seller lists. He hauls ass all over god’s creation to do book tours. Your tone makes it sound like blogging on BB is somehow like having inherited wealth. To the extent that he makes money, it’s because he works his ass off. And his books still sell well even though he gives them away.
  - zio_donnie
    
    I would add that Cory’s income is irrelevant. Say he is a successful blogger that writes books for a hobby or a successful writer that blogs for sport. That makes him successful and good for him.
    
    What does this have to do with passing “laws” that make copying my cds from my pc to my phone or my dvds to my iPod illegal? Or giving the right to corporations to intercept my IP adress and acting as judge and jury to cut my line? Sharing my drive with friends? Lending my ebooks? Cracking my phone to unblock the carrier SIM? Circumvent region blocking and ripping my DVDs to avoid adds? Exactly. Nothing.
    
    Pseudo IP law is a direct assault to my rights, badly covered under the banner of justice towards the artists.
Steve Schnier

@ AnthonyC – I agree with what you’re saying, but there is a huge difference between denying a group or race of people their basic human rights and taking something that simply doesn’t belong to you.
- Sagodjur
  
  Steve,
  
  I think the significant point to make is that IP companies are playing by different rules than regular people.
  
  IP companies have lobbied for years to have copyright become perpetual and for enforcement of those “properties” to become easier and more profitable. They believe they own the content, the same way they can own a car.
  
  The problem is that copyright is not ownership. It’s a state-granted monopoly on the right to reproduce a work. You don’t own what you create unless you never share it with anyone. And what’s the point of not sharing the product of your creativity?
  
  Yes, artists and writers and sound engineers and cell animators need to get paid for their work. I’m not advocating for so-called “piracy.” Protecting the livelihoods of one group of people at the expense of the rest of society’s well-being is not just. IP “content” is not the reason the internet exists. IP “content” created by those working for large corporations is not the only “content” around.
  
  You’re fighting for your own and that’s understandable. The rest of us are fighting not to have to pay fees for our blank media onto which we copy our own creative works. We’re fighting not to be illegally searched by border patrol guards looking for copyrighted content and then forcing us to keep track of receipts to prove that we’re not guilty of copyright violation. We’re fighting to not have our livelihoods destroyed because one group of people simply had more money to buy more rights than the rest of us and thus undermine our entire democratic process.
  
  So yeah, I’d rather break an unjust law than give more money to an industry that lobbies to have my rights taken away. Instead, I just turn to independent and free as in speech media.
  
  Cory produces quality creative works AND lets his fans remix it, thus enhancing the appeal of his works.
  
  What concessions have the IP industries made to consumers that weren’t five years too late and only forced upon them by technology trends?
Steve Schnier

@Antonius – I never suggested that BB was inherited wealth, but it is a secondary revenue stream.

Quick question – is Mark’s new book also available as an online freebie? I did a quick search but didn’t see it. If Cory’s model works…
- zio_donnie
  
  Quick question – is ACTA all about your obvious BB envy or is it about a corporate consortium that tries to make law behind curtains?
  
  Do you care to explain why i should have my line cut off because some corporate drones intercepted my IP adress and decided that i was illegaly filesharing? And do you believe that 700.000$ is a fair price to pay for 24 shared songs?
  
  And how do you make money by this?
zio_donnie

And as Rogue_Leader said ACTA is about much more about sharing mp3s and movies. We are talking about people that try to copyright gene sequences and molecules and hold the rights forever. India (and Brasil and pretty much all Africa) cannot afford to pay the exorbitant fees of big pharma so they bootleg medicines and stand much to loose if corporations get a for life copyright.

And what about “patent portfolios” where corporations get a monopoly on ideas without having a working prototype thus stiffling innovation?

Practically corporations want more rights and protection but without any government regulation on prices or practices. And they use people like Steve Schnier to create sympathy for the “poor artists” in order to pass laws with far greater implications. The old FUD tactics like terrorism/paedophiles/crime that were used in other sectors to perpetrate abominations like the war on terror the war on drugs and large scale cenhorship.

And i am guessing that my simple question will go unanswered: Who stands to profit by making illegal copying, cracking or otherwise manipulating my legally bought products?
Anonymous

Let’s take the argument down to a simple level, then, Mr. Schnier. Answer, as best you can, Zio_Donnie’s question.

What does this have to do with passing “laws” that make copying my cds from my pc to my phone or my dvds to my iPod illegal? Or giving the right to corporations to intercept my IP adress and acting as judge and jury to cut my line? Sharing my drive with friends? Lending my ebooks? Cracking my phone to unblock the carrier SIM? Circumvent region blocking and ripping my DVDs to avoid adds? Exactly. Nothing.
Anonymous

zio_donnie: It’s odd, but I find a huge similarity between people who wave the ACTA banner in your face, and those who hide behind a cross. Ask them to explain – without buzzwords and with demonstrable proof – how personal use duplication hurts their bottom line, or how, for example, Jesus would approve of taking health care from hypothetical homosexuals, and they cannot.
2k

W00tificidationariness.
JesseH

Go India!
Daedalus

I like these guys. China? Brazil? Where you at, you scrappy upstarts, you?
- AnthonyC
  
  I don’t know about Brazil, but China doesn’t seem to care about *any* IP laws, and it hasn’t hurt their growth yet, so why should ACTA bother them?