* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. - * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability - * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused - * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM. - Travis Koger from Bookmarklet

I am not a filesharer or (as far as I know) a copyright infringer, but this whole disconnect if *accused* thing is just pathetic. Someone could accuse me regardless of whether I have done something or not and I could be disconnected without any comeback. Pathetic. - Travis Koger

If this goes through there is a great way to prove how ridiculous it is. Start a web campaign to 'accuse a friend day'. Get around 10 million people to join up, accuse a friend (without any foundation) and you have just proven how ridiculous this concept is. - Travis Koger

Nice idea, Travis! I like it! :-) - Andrew Terry

In my legal studies class at school, I think I was taught that laws have to be enforceable to actually stay as laws, ie no point in having a law if you can never enforce it. So if around 10million people suddenly were accused of copyright infringement forcing the ISPs to disconnect them with no proof, then the ISPs would probably be pretty hard pressed to remove 10million paying customers. It would pretty well prove that the law was unenforceable right? - Travis Koger

Perhaps, but risky. For now, sunlight and protest are in order. We don't know the actual terms of ACTA or how it be will enacted, but if it's anything like the DMCA (which the articles seem to suggest), but most services operating under the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions will remove content immediately based on a DMCA takedown notice. That's where the fun starts... "you can submit a "counter-notice". In order to be valid, however, the counter-notice must include your contact information, a signature, a statement under penalty of perjury that the "material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification," and your consent to the jurisdiction of your local federal court (if the copyright owner elects to sue you). Unless the copyright owner files a copyright infringement lawsuit against you within two weeks of receiving your counter-notice, your video will be restored and the "strike" removed from your account. If the copyright owner does sue, your video stays down until the lawsuit is resolved. Sending a DMCA counter-notice is serious business, as it leaves the copyright owner with few options (other than suing) in order to keep the video down. We recommend that users research copyright law and consult a qualified attorney before sending DMCA counter-notices." []http://www.eff.org/issues...] - LogEx

But yes, this agreement is particularly nasty not only because of the terms and the heavy media industry influence, but also for the complete lack of transparency and the "national security" bullshit. - LogEx

Yeah it was but a silly solution. Having said that, looking at recent examples of the trigger happy flickr where they didn't even bother to validate the original take down, I would say that there will be a lot of companies that will have the same trigger happiness in order to just wash their hands of the whole thing. - Travis Koger