A link would be nice, sure.
That said, I'm assuming you're referring to "Section 4: Special Measures Related to Technological Enforcement Means and the Internet", starting on pg. 25 of the linked PDF, which is the only bit I see directly addressing ISPs.
Sifting through all the back-and-forth -- the US proposes something, Japan proposes deleting it immediately after, the EU chimes in with another option, etc -- it does not appear that this has any more teeth than current US copyright infringement laws already support. True, it would extend this to signatory countries -- assuming those bits make it through, which NZ and Switzerland seem opposed to, as well as Japan -- but it does not that I can see specify that the ISPs are responsible for policing their traffic, unless the country they are in decides that is the best way to implement this.
It -does- imply pretty strongly that an accusation is all that is required... however, I note that this is the current state of affairs in the US as-is. If someone claims that I am violating their copyright on my personal website, it is taken down and I then have to defend it if I want it to stay up. It's already a case of guilty until proven innocent.
While this is a deplorable state of affairs, it's hardly the groundbreaking revolution that some are claiming it to be.
At any rate, unless I'm reading it wrong, the US tried to specifically introduce exceptions for fair use and other such acts, other countries are proposing striking that as redundant, which implies to me that this is not meant to stamp out our current ability to engage in said acts.
Frankly, Section 4 should be chopped from this entirely, because the rest of it all seems to be about physical counterfeiting, not digital. But that's unlikely to happen.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs
That said, I'm assuming you're referring to "Section 4: Special Measures Related to Technological Enforcement Means and the Internet", starting on pg. 25 of the linked PDF, which is the only bit I see directly addressing ISPs.
Sifting through all the back-and-forth -- the US proposes something, Japan proposes deleting it immediately after, the EU chimes in with another option, etc -- it does not appear that this has any more teeth than current US copyright infringement laws already support. True, it would extend this to signatory countries -- assuming those bits make it through, which NZ and Switzerland seem opposed to, as well as Japan -- but it does not that I can see specify that the ISPs are responsible for policing their traffic, unless the country they are in decides that is the best way to implement this.
It -does- imply pretty strongly that an accusation is all that is required... however, I note that this is the current state of affairs in the US as-is. If someone claims that I am violating their copyright on my personal website, it is taken down and I then have to defend it if I want it to stay up. It's already a case of guilty until proven innocent.
While this is a deplorable state of affairs, it's hardly the groundbreaking revolution that some are claiming it to be.
At any rate, unless I'm reading it wrong, the US tried to specifically introduce exceptions for fair use and other such acts, other countries are proposing striking that as redundant, which implies to me that this is not meant to stamp out our current ability to engage in said acts.
Frankly, Section 4 should be chopped from this entirely, because the rest of it all seems to be about physical counterfeiting, not digital. But that's unlikely to happen.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs