[Darius]

(05-14-2015 09:14 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:59 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

uhh. . .you guys should Look at the TPP, that this is BAD news, the sexist thing is just a distration.

Tell us about it, then.

Here's a summary of what the US is trying to get out of this agreement:

https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives#

Getting Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam to eliminate tariffs and other stuff on our exports sounds like a good thing to me.

Quote:

http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013...provisions

Copyright and Intermediary Liability

The TPP negotiating partners appear particularly split with regards to intermediary liability and this split relates to the role and responsibility Internet intermediaries should acquire. Should Internet intermediaries be proactive in removing and filtering content or should they retain their original role of not ‘checking’ content? What should be the legal framework intermediaries should adhere to?

The issue of intermediary liability is not new and it has no easy answers and no easy solutions. ISOC has been consistent in suggesting that intermediaries should not be held liable for the traffic that runs through their channels; they should not become the ‘police’ of the Internet.

If the law requires Internet intermediaries to be proactive in removing or filtering content, then these same intermediaries will be in the position to make a determination of which type of content is legal and which is not. This is an intense exercise that requires the ability to produce recommendations that follow certain standards of due process. Private bodies do not possess the legitimacy nor the tools to make such determinations; expecting them, therefore, to do so on the basis of liability will inevitably create an environment of fear, as they seek ways to comply with this regime. Additionally, considering that intermediaries are essentially businesses with occasionally strong ties to content providers, we should also bear in mind how this direction might encourage an environment of anti-competitive and/or discriminatory practices.

Moreover, there is the issue of costs. Even if we were to legitimize the ability of Internet intermediaries to ‘review’ and determine what type of content should travel through their channels, this would require investment in identifying the best mechanisms and practices to do so. This investment will most probably be a combination of technical tools and human capital. Who will bear these costs? Will it be just intermediaries? Will it be users? Or, a combination of both?

Which brings us to the issue of symmetry. How will a strict liability regime fit within the existing copyright system? How does it fit within the Internet ecosystem as a whole? In the first case, there has been an extensive debate and effort to make sure that copyright does not subject intermediaries to a regime of fear where they need to perform certain tasks they were never meant to perform. In the second case, since its inception, the Internet has worked on an organized structure where each participating actor is assigned a specific role. In this instance, the role of intermediaries is to provide the platform for traffic to travel and not to ‘police’ that traffic or determine to whom it will be visible.

There is a provision that might hold ISP's responsible for policing what their customers do.