Slashdot Log In
EFF, Public Knowledge Sue Over Secret IP Pact
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Sep 19, 2008 08:02 AM
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.
Cowards Anonymous writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge have filed a lawsuit against the Office of the US Trade Representative in an attempt to get the office to turn over information about a secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty being negotiated to step up cross-border enforcement of copyright and piracy laws. ACTA could include an agreement for the US, Canada, the European Commission and other nations to enforce each others' IP laws, with residents of each country subject to criminal charges when violating the IP laws of another country, according to a supposed ACTA discussion paper [PDF] posted on Wikileaks.org in May."
Related Stories
[+]
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 390 comments
SpaceAdmiral writes "The Canadian government is secretly negotiating to join the US and the EU in an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The agreement would give border guards the power to search iPods and cellphones for illegal downloads, as well as to force ISPs to hand over customer information without a warrant. David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, characterizes ACTA this way: 'If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty close.'"
[+]
Technology: Leaked ACTA Treaty to Outlaw P2P? 387 comments
miowpurr writes to tell us that a draft of the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has been posted on Wikileaks. Among others, Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow has weighed in on the possible ramifications of this treaty. "Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty."
[+]
A Look At ACTA Wish Lists For RIAA, BSA, Others 69 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property brings us an analysis of several organizations' goals for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which we've discussed previously. In particular, he points out the anti-privacy views of the Business Software Alliance: "While the ACTA itself is not public, the US Trade Representative has at least released the ACTA comments. While many of them are to be expected, such as the RIAA & co. wanting copyright filters, one item on the BSA's wish list really stands out: 'In a number of European countries one of the biggest impediments to efforts by rights holder to enforce their IP rights on the Internet is the overbroad interpretation of privacy laws by some European authorities.' They want ACTA to 'fix' that by neutering the privacy laws. Given the BSA's other questionable activities, it couldn't hurt to tell their member companies what you think of their participation. After all, organizations like the BSA exist in part to shield their members from bad PR."
Full documents of comments from the various organizations are available at Public Knowledge.
[+]
News: Wikileaks Releases ACTA Negotiations As "0-Day" 105 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has released a new document about the ACTA negotiations occurring in Washington over the next three days. This might be the shortest time between authorship of a document and its publication on Wikileaks so far. The brief 3-page memo, dated today, could add quite a bit of oil to the fire of the ACTA debate. It is titled Business Perspectives on Border Measures and Civil Enforcement and it contains a set of proposals to the 'ACTA negotiators' issued by 'Concerned business groups operating in ACTA nations.' Among many highly invasive methods and approaches proposed in this memorandum, the reader can find detailed demands for: full disclosure of relevant information by Customs to trademark holders so that they can mount private investigations; disclosure of identities and other information about copyright infringers; and increased inspection of goods. This document is especially important to raise public awareness on these negotiations and their implications for the future." We've been watching ACTA develop for a few months now.
[+]
News: Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty 223 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "One hundred groups of concerned citizens have united to demand a look at the secret ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) treaty and have drafted a letter to their representatives asking for information. We've discussed ACTA before, including what are believed to be parts of ACTA that lawmakers are trying to get a head start on."
Submission: EFF, Public Knowledge sue over secret IP pact by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Show us the money! (Score:5, Informative)
Why hide it if it's beneficial to the elected people? Isn't that your argument for trampling our rights, each and every time? If you have nothing to hide...
Shine a light on these roaches! Protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
ACTA is something that has not seen public debate and that's remarkable for such sweeping and draconian legislation. Because the U SAP at RIOT ACT was passed without time for legislators to actually read it, and torture is AOK bills, I'm not surprised by much the US does anymore.
What, exactly do they tell EU and Asian officials to make shit like this happen? It looks like they convinced/bribed key legislators that this is all dry technical stuff best handled by subject matter experts and then stuffed the panels with copyright/IP warriors. The sad fact is that most legislators are too old to realize the implications of the laws they are producing. John McCain, who has never used email, may be sadly typical. Protest will surprise these legislators and start to convince them there's more to this than dry technical details.
Parent
Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Government everywhere are always extremely corrupt, it's just the US government lately hasn't been covering their tracks. Don't worry, they'll learn soon and start covering their tracks again.
Re:Shine a light on these roaches! Protest! (Score:4, Informative)
Wow... Not to go too off-topic here, but I'm surprised people are still parroting that. It's been rather clearly shown that McCain understands and uses email he just can't type it himself. Here's an article from 2000 [forbes.com]; ctrl-f "Vietnam" to jump to the relevant paragraph.
Back on topic, age has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that most Americans do not care about these copyright issues. Most are only barely aware of their existence. It's therefore not too surprising that most people in office don't really care either. If this became a hot issue than you can damn well expect that the politicians would start caring, but right now things like health care and what-have-you are what count.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that several millions of americans are breaking the law in this area, one would think they'd look at it.
OTOH, that never made anyone reconsider drug policy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Politicians make laws in the same way that PHB's manage people. They make the laws and if you break them it's because you're a criminal. After all, they made the laws to protect you, don't you want to be protected?
The trouble is that they make the laws with (mostly) good (but very ignorant) intentions. When they see people frequently breaking the law they think it's more a matter of law enforcement not having the right tools to stop the crime. Therefore they increase law enforcement's power. It would b
Re:Show us the money! (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly what I thought. This day and age, virtually anything our government keeps from it's people is due to some sort of corruption.
Even military secrets aren't a very big deal any more because nobody can do much to counter them anyway.
There still is certainly time-sensitive information like specific troop tactics and attack locations, but nobody's going to question that (Yet whenever you question secrecy of some government project, that's the straw-man that is thrown up)
Parent
ACTA (Score:5, Informative)
ACTA is TRIPs+. Who wants to understand what it is really about should read the Susta draft report of the European Parliament Trade Committee [europa.eu].
Obviously (Score:2, Insightful)
There are too many old people waving money around, not enough young people to do the work to keep society operating, and not enough cheap oil to cover the missing labour. The old people have a sense of entitlement, and they lack the sense of interconnection that would preclude them from sacrificing our future on the alter of their comfortable old age.
So, the agenda is going to be, deprive the young of more and more, paying particular to attention to young immigrants who haven't been indoctrinated into the
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Malachai: What has the Lord commanded?
Isaac: In the dream the Lord did come to me, and he was a shape, it was He Who Walks Behind the Rows, and I did fall on my knees in terror, and hide my eyes lest the fearfulness of his face strike me dead! He told me all that has since happened, he said, "Joseph has taken his things and fled
Speaking as an old person... (Score:5, Interesting)
...but minus the fistful of dollars...
To put it succinctly: we're pissed off, too.
I'm not at all happy about what's been happening to our civil rights, our constitution or our country's image in the world. The last eight years have been a boon to the corporations and a disaster for the rest of us. Our elected officials are either too lazy, too stupid, too scared or too much beholden to the corporations. It is on their watch that the PATRIOT act, the TSA and the DMCA have been passed.
So, it's not just the young who lose, it's all of us. Some of us old geezers feel just like you do.
And by the way, you're damn right we have a sense of entitlement. Entitlement to do what we want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Entitlement to human rights and fair use of copyrighted material. Entitlement not to be treated as suspected terrorists every time we board an aircraft.
Bitter? No, just angry, and hoping more people get that way. Democracy only works if you make it work.
Parent
Re:Speaking as an old person... (Score:5, Insightful)
That statement is so true and its not something I fully realized, even just a few years ago. I had thought that as my ancestors and people like them had fought so long and hard to finally win Democracy. Then surely as we now have Democracy, we therefore much now just keep Democracy. I didn't realize there are people constantly trying to undermine Democracy for their own gain and so over time, Democracy has to be constantly defended against these people.
The people trying to undermine Democracy for their own gain are almost by definition people without empathy towards others. They actually choose to violate Democracy for their own gain.
Its good to see that there are still groups around that will stand against the people who undermine Democracy. I have never been that interested in politics until this year, but the almost constant news in 2008 has shown me that 2008 should go down in history as the start of a massive move towards a global Big Brother. This year has finally shown me the danger of letting this minority of powerful people undermine Democracy. Its sad that in every generation, we have to suffer this minority of power seekers constantly trying to dominate others and undermine Democracy for their own gain.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken (September 12, 1880 - January 29, 1956)
Parent
Re:Speaking as an old person... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Speaking as an old person... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that this comment perfectly demonstrates the problem. Warmongering, corruption, ever more absurdly draconian copyright laws, the slow decay of democracy, violations of human rights - all those are minor things compared to how closely the leaders of the country follow some particular economic ideology in the middle of an economic crisis. It's just insane.
Nothing matters as long as the Invisible Hand can work unhindered, come Hell or high water. It's the current western equivalent of Sharia law: absurd, and most people don't want it, but there's always a vocal minority which wants to pass it anyway.
Parent
Re:Speaking as an old person... (Score:4, Insightful)
That might be the most dangerous thing of all. The belief that 'it can't happen here'. It's quite safe to pass all these laws allowing all manner of abuses, because no villain will ever arise who will use them to implement a true police state and become a dictator. That can't happen, because hey, the constitution!
The Weimar Republic had a constitution too. Constitutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on once powerful people stop caring about them. As I recall my history, when it happened in Germany, the problem was that their politics had become totally polarised, fairly equally between the Communists and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, with shifting alliances of smaller parties providing the balance of power. With no stable overall government, the executive under Hindenburg got into the habit of ruling by decree (that's 'executive order' to you, chum), pretty much bypassing the constitution. Once the aforesaid National Socialists finally got their man into a position of power, he was perfectly happy to continue ruling in just the same manner. Goodnight, democracy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The last eight years have been a boon to the corporations and a disaster for the rest of us....It is on their watch that the PATRIOT act, the TSA and the DMCA have been passed.
Bush has screwed up a lot of things, but you can't blame him for the DMCA:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA [wikipedia.org] ...signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998,.."
"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention, it won't be too long till we lose the last generation of people that lived under and know what it was like to live before the current times of expected loss of privacy, sanctioned ovt. spying, and going to the airport before there were strip searches or metal detectors. (I remember the days of always going to the gate to greet incoming guests, and to see them off fr
Re: (Score:2)
Waving money around isn't going to accomplish squat. The things that need to be done run contrary to the things that create scarcity, control and profit, so people motivated by money aren't going to be interested. Save your money to buy the raw mat
Means nothing in the UK - they could do it anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
When will we get a government that cares about our people more than appeasing the playground bully?
Re:Means nothing in the UK - they could do it anyw (Score:4, Insightful)
The Labour party is shafted anyway. Gordon Brown's desperate clinging to power is exacerbating the mess left in the wake of Tony B.Liar. The Tories are at the highest popularity since Maggie's heyday and Labour are too busy fighting each other to do anything about it.
So we end up being at the mercy of EU bureaucrats who just rubber stamp anything to make their lives easier and wonder how we got in this mess.
Parent
Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Organized crime?
Re:Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... (Score:5, Funny)
Organized crime?
You have playlists, don't you? That's pretty organized right there.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm. (Score:4, Funny)
Ignorance of the law isn't a defense.
So all you need to do after you make the laws. Is put them on display in the Cellar, where the lights have gone out and so have the stares, in a locked filing cabinet, in a disused bathroom, with a sign on it saying beware of the leopard. And you are liable for breaking a law.
Ignorance of the law should be a defense if you can prove the government tried to make it so you wouldn't know it.
Re: (Score:2)
be sure you put it in the bottom drawer of the cabinet, just to be sure.
Executive Agreement (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the most worrisome part of it all. No oversight, no public control.
The only advantage is that it isn't technically constitutional and can be corrected with a more "pro-rights" legislature.
The Bush Administration (Score:4, Interesting)
I am so pissed off at this administration. They just simply don't care, regardless of what they say, about the constitution or the laws of the country, or even the intensions of the founding fathers.
They make "law" by executive order, which are held as valid unless challenged by the courts or the legislature, then stall the legislature with fillibuster so that no corrective action can take place. Then fight every challenge up to the supreme court, which takes years.
So, in essence, the president is a king because although there is "balance of power" the time between executive order and any sort of push back is years, and the span of time, they have reaped the benefits of the unjust actions.
Disgraceful, but effective, this needs to be stopped some how. I think that, unfortunately, means passing laws that limit the effectiveness of the presidency.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
sounds like you think there should be some legal document written to force the president to accept that his decisions should be bound by common law and to explicitly protect the rights of citizens.
I think the right of habeas corpus should also be reinstated for all....
hang on, this reminds me of something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta
Re:The Bush Administration (Score:4, Interesting)
Executive orders are an affront to the constitutional principles of the US Constitution.
This is NOT a power of the President as enumerated by the constitution. It has been tolerated by congress and the judiciary because they see it as useful. If very fast response to some issue is needed an executive order can be made in hours, as opposed to days, weeks, months or years if it has to be passed by congress. From that point of view, it is reasonable to allow this power.
What is wrong with it is that the orders are permanent. IMHO, it should work like this:
Executive orders should automatically expire after one year or at the end of the presidency, whichever comes first. A president *may* renew an order, but only one he has issued. No president may renew an order issued by a predecessor, either in word or effect (no re-writing it in his own words) - if congress thought it a good idea, there has been time to convert it into (real) law.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would go further:
executive orders last 6 months, then they must be approved as if they were laws by simple majorities of both houses.
Re: (Score:2)
That was effectively what I was saying.
We could argue over whether its 6 or 12 months, but the principle is the same -- the order will expire, but may be renewed (how many times?) by the same president - no games by changing a few words, if any part of the effect is the same as a previous order - its invalid.
They will ALL expire permanently when the presidential term expires (4 years max)and the effect of the order may not be incorporated in any new order, ever again.
To become permanent, it must be passed i
Re: (Score:2)
One of my other thoughts was that these orders should probably be provisional for (say) 30 days. During that time the Supreme Court *must* review them and declare them constitutional.
If they are not reviewed, or if found unconstitutional after 30 days, they are void, and any convictions or penalties on individuals are rescinded - with appropriate compensation.
Write to your representative! (Score:2)
It is vitally important that people write letters [rocknerd.co.uk] - actual paper letters, with a stamp - to their MPs, Congressmen or equivalent. MAKE NOISE.
How ACTA kills your job (Score:5, Informative)
Intellectual Property" is called the The Oil of the 21st Century". Workers here are told that strong protection of that the protection of this so called property" is necessary for our economy and a means to protect jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth.
With the ACTA-negotiations, the protection of this IPR should be made stronger once again. What is really behind it?
Global corporations need to maximize their profit. One way to do this is to offshore production into countries with lower wages. There is one problem with this approach. By transferring know-how into these countries there is the risk that these countries will produce product on their own and this breeds competitors [1]. And competition is bad for profits. Thus the global corporations need to find a way where they can utilize the cheap labor while protecting them self from competition.
Where the enforcement of copyright only protects them from direct clones the protection of trademarks ensures that only those who have the financial power to run a marketing campaign on a global scale can sell products at inflated prices. The most important tool is the enforcement of patents. This allows to protect" abstract ideas which potentially cover a wide range of similar products and technology.
So while it is true that IPR protection is good for the european economy" the workers here will not benefit from it. It will increase the profits of the global corporations but it will increase the trend towards offshoring protection. Your boss will get rich but you will loose your job.
It will not help the developing countries neither as it ensures that the profits are extracted out of this countries while access to cheap medicine and other goods is prevented. Most developing countries now oppose the WTO-TRIPS treaty as they are now forced to implement it. This is why ACTA was started. Now that the developing countries are ware of the neo-colonial effects of IPR it is not possible to conduct the IPR protection within the WTO anymore. So the rich countries decided to take it in their own hands.
ACTA is a way of economic warfare that is pursued against developing countries and against the working people in Europe, the US and Japan at the same time.
This should help to explain why the negotiations are held in complete secrecy.
Franz Schaefer, September 2008
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
yawn.
since when does copyright only defend huge evil global corporations? I'm a one man company and without copyright, I'd be out of a job. Don't spin such bullshit to pretend that all IP is TEH TOOL OF TEH SATAN, in some lame attempt to excuse mass copyright infringement.
If you are Chinese and own factories, it makes sense not to care about IP. If you are educated and in the west, only a suicidal maniac tries to undermine IP, it's what your economies are built on these days.
Re:How ACTA kills your job (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you are educated and in the west, only a suicidal maniac tries to undermine IP, it's what your economies are built on these days."
Not all of it.
"IP" is multifaceted and in some forms (masses of trivial software patents) starts to strangle the very industry it's supposed to serve. There are companies that patent these useless "inventions" and sue others as there sole business model, there are many companies that feel they have no choice but to keep patenting every little thing so that when they inevitable step on someone else's patents they have something to trade or countersue with.
Patents are granted too easily and are getting in the way of progress, they need to be undermined.
Copyright now extends far too far, it is supposed ot be a limited term, it is a social contract between producers and consumers, such that both parties win. One side has recently pushed their powers far too far.
Trademarks, as applied to internet addresses, have resulted in rulings where people with legitimate uses for domain names have been walked all over by companies that decide they want it for their new product.
The economy of the west and individual IP holders would not be badly affected by reduced copyright terms, weakened trademark rights (or weakened trademark enforcement) and restrictions on what is and is not patentable.
Parent
Bleh (Score:4, Insightful)
feudal overlordship provided a system that those serfs living under it had been assured of jobs. even though it was little short of slavery.
you think that you are happy you have a job. and maybe, you may be happy with what you get, and it may make you live a comfortable life - or so you think - . but, i assure you, you are very probably getting WAY lower than what GNP (or any assessable value) you produce.
its due to bad distribution of wealth, monopolization - corporatism, basically.
IP laws of this date protect this. not protect you at all. you dont have the power to market any copyrighted stuff you may hold efficiently, nor you have the cash to protect your interests, and it wont be any different when shit like ACTA, or copyright cops come. they will be so busy protecting prioritized, big corporations that, you, as citizen or small business, will have to shove your copyrights up in your ass, at best.
so dont even think that there is anything for your interest in such bought-out laws.
Parent
Re:piggy backing (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, because as sovereign nations the people in each nation should be deciding their own laws, surely?
If I have to abide by US law, or French law, I want a say in their elections too.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, because as sovereign nations the people in each nation should be deciding their own laws, surely?
A nation state can have national sovereignty without being a democracy (sarcasm: just look at iraq). A sovereign state should be free to decide its laws without interference from other states, subject to the conditions that the sovereign state has put in place.
Whether the sovereign state has its laws made and enforced by a king who is king through the mercy of god (or through the magic power of cleanliness and the launching of blades by well-hydrated bitches) or by a trinity of mutually distrustful watchme
Re:piggy backing (Score:5, Insightful)
My argument against that:
Country A and Country B enter into this agreement.
Country B makes it illegal to teach a black person to read.
Now, you are prosecuted in Country A, because of Country B's law.
I would NEVER agree to be bound by a law of a country in which I have no representation.
Parent
That is fine (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that country USA makes its law a law in country Everywhere.
I don't mind if they 'export democracy', the problem is when they start to export their corporate laws which don't even have a wide consensus in the USA.
Re:piggy backing (Score:4, Insightful)
Ridiculous. I shouldn't be able to go around and violate the laws of the country a live in, since I have full democratic rights within that legislature. Any other country is not my business. I can't vote there, so they have no right to put me under their law (except when I'm on their soil).
The exact same reasoning is applied to countries with oppressive regimes, because we find that their population has the right to oppose the government.
If the population is stupid enough to support a government that enforces bilateral treaties that enacts the law of foreign states on its population, so be it. But it sure as hell shouldn't be so because it sounds logical to someone.
Parent
Re:piggy backing (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume you'll be giving up alcohol, then, as is the law in certain Middle Eastern states? And also giving up the practice of your religion, as is the law in North Korea? You'll certainly be surrendering your gun, as is the law in the UK. And according to the rules of various legislatures, you'll not say anything disparaging about Ataturk, the king of Thailand, Mohammed the Prophet, or beef.
Seriously, did you even think this through at all? Of course you should be able to violate the laws of other countries, as long as you're not in that country. A nineteen-year-old in England can drink all the beer he likes, and the Yanks have no fucking say in the matter. Neither do the English have any say in the matter when a man in America carries a gun around the place. The Sharia laws against apostasy from Islam hold no force in Japan. And American laws forbidding linking to copyrighted material do not apply in Sweden.
When you're visiting another country, of course you obey that country's law. But in your own land, you shouldn't have to give a damn what the idiot politicians of some foreign place decide to ban or not to ban.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Did you have any say in those other countries' laws?
You shouldn't have to live under Sharia just because a bunch of Muslims somewhere else have decided that you should. If anything, we need to further fragment jurisdictions and let people choose their own societies. I don't even want to live under the laws of my next-door state Texas, much less Iran.
And I'm pretty pissed off that even though my state's voters chose to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's assinine - have you seen the USA's laws? As a non-american, I have no desire to be subject to their insanity.
As an American I don't want to be subject to our insanity.