Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News Your Rights Online

ACTA Document Leaks With Details On Mexico Talks 87

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the tinfoil-hat-engaged dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A brief report from the European Commission authored by Pedro Velasco Martins (an EU negotiator) on the most recent round of ACTA negotiations in Guadalajara, Mexico has leaked, providing new information on the substance of the talks, how countries are addressing the transparency concerns, and plans for future negotiations. The document notes that governments are planning a counter-offensive to rebut claims of iPod-searching border guards and mandatory three-strikes policies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACTA Document Leaks With Details On Mexico Talks

Comments Filter:
  • by Whalou (721698) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:05PM (#31170350)
    Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then thou become naughty in my sight, and thy internet connection shall be snuffed.
  • by camperdave (969942) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:38PM (#31170930) Journal

    ...to help qualm all the clammer about it.
    Two non-words in the same sentence, not bad.

    Um... Those are all words (although they are verbing one of them).

    They are obviously trying to make every part of the person who harvests clams have apprehensions.

  • by Znork (31774) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @02:17PM (#31172988)

    And ACTA is fundamentally about protecting monopolists from competition. Does that make ACTA a counterfeit trade agreement? As IP can certainly be considered a kind of fraud it certainly would be somewhat fitting.

  • by KDR_11k (778916) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @05:07PM (#31176006)

    They don't make that many guns.

  • by shermo (1284310) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @05:25PM (#31176312)

    New Zealand recently proposed our own version of the anti file-sharing law. It had a 3-strikes and you're out provision, but it was so convoluted that it would never actually get to disconnecting someone as it is currently written. I figured that it was just included to appease our American overlords, and it seems as if I was right.

    I wrote this letter

    Dear [New Zealand Prime Minister]

    I notice that our country has joined the latest international fad and is implementing our own version of the three strikes policy to deter potential file-sharers.

    However, as I'm sure you're aware, no one in New Zealand plays baseball. So, I propose the following changes:

    The word "strike" is replaced with the word "wicket".
    You only have one "wicket". So if you are accused of file-sharing once, you are 'out'.
    You don't actually go to jail until 9 of your good friends have also been accused of file sharing.
    There is a neutral party which can review any decisions. (I think this may have been called a 'judge' at some point, but I would rename it to 'third umpire').

    These changes satisfy the intention of writing laws based on popular sports rules, but they add a nice "kiwi" touch.

    Yours Sincerely, ...

    I never got a reply :(

Too much is not enough.

Working...