Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Full ACTA Leak Online 201

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the change-yer-pants dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Following months of small Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement leaks, the full consolidated ACTA text has now been posted online. The consolidated text provides a clear indication of how the negotiations have altered earlier proposals (see this post for links to the early leaks) as well as the first look at several other ACTA elements. For example, last spring it was revealed that several countries had proposed including a de minimus provision to counter fears that the border measures chapter would lead to iPod searching border guards. The leak shows there are four proposals on the table."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Full ACTA Leak Online

Comments Filter:
  • by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @08:55AM (#31596344) Homepage

    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_text [swpat.org]

    I'm typing up the whole thing, for easier reading, searching, copying

  • by kemenaran (1129201) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:03AM (#31596420)
    By the way, the file was released by the french association "La quadrature du Net", which is quite active as a defender of Net freedom and neutrality in France (they fought against HADOPI and the LOOPSI-pedo-filtering-and-blocking laws).

    I don't know if they got the file themselves or if they just released it.
  • by Cimexus (1355033) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:16AM (#31596546)

    As I understand it, it can be both.

    Full = the entirety of it (i.e. not missing any sections)

    Consolidated = in one piece, with up to date edits and amendments included.

    The latter is typically used with legislation that undergoes amendment. You have the amendment itself, which says thing like "in section 3, omit the words blah and replace with blah" or "section 82(b) is hereby repealed". The amendment is what gets passed, and either a ~consolidated~ version of the full legislation is made (with the changes from the amendment effected), or it's not, and you have to read the original text + the amendment ~together~ to get the full meaning.

    So in this case we have the consolidated version (no reference to external modifying documents needed), which is also the full text.

  • by mariushm (1022195) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:24AM (#31596634)

    Here's some mirrors of the original document, in case the original site is slashdotted:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28853862/201001-acta [scribd.com]

    http://www.mediafire.com/?wdnjg2nrmne [mediafire.com]

    http://rapidshare.com/files/367572656/201001_acta.pdf [rapidshare.com]
    http://hotfile.com/dl/34373604/038b957/201001_acta.pdf.html [hotfile.com]

  • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:26AM (#31596658)
    Link: http://www.laquadrature.net/ [laquadrature.net] They also have a great political memory section [laquadrature.net] plus current news:

    Brussels, March 22nd, 2010 - With the current debates surrounding the Gallo Report on "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR) enforcement1 and rumours about an imminent revival of the IPR criminal enforcement directive (IPRED2), a holy war is taking place in the European Parliament. Members of the Parliament are being flooded with false figures and statistics from the entertainment industries' intensive lobbying. They are also being heavily pressured by the French authorities.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:53AM (#31596886)

    If you're referring to the health care bill, it went online last Thursday at the latest, and he signed the bill on Tuesday. That's five days on my calendar.

    I just thought you'd want to be accurate.

  • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:58AM (#31596958)

    Searchable text mirror: http://www.exstatic.org.nyud.net:8080/201001_acta.pdf_as_text.html [nyud.net]

    Rehosted on my website and then put into the nyud system, should be able to handle it.
    I just hate hotfile and rapidshare type sites. No I don't want to wait 30 seconds or become a premium member.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:00AM (#31596980) Homepage Journal

    https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do?language=EN [europa.eu]

    if you are living in an Eu member country, Eu member candidate country, or a resident of an Eu member country, or working for a company that has its quarters in an Eu member country, you have the right to petition European Parliament.

    This is not your ordinary online petition page - this is an official petition page, petitions of which are each processed by real bureaucrats and acted upon, if you give your credentials correctly. (Name surname and so on). Its serious shit.

    As of this moment, the affiliates of american media cartels are flooding Eu parliament members with the falsified and baseless statistics they have been using to fool the senators in united states. Eu parliament members are generally much more informed than u.s. senators, however it is much better not to leave anything to chance.

    So, if you fulfill any of the above conditions, you should fill a petition urging European Parliament to side with the people rather than the corporate interests, and you should inform them about the falsified statistics that media cartels are using. If you have any links to the various realistic statistics that were made by independent organizations, you can also forward the information to them. (like the p2p research done in netherlands a while ago).

    Eu parliament already basically blocked some draconian items in the acta treaty. they did it with great majority. so they DO listen and heed people. If Eu parliament shoots acta down totally, then there is no way in hell that it can come into being, because since china and russia would never accept and enforce it, (and noone can force them to do so), if you add europe to that it basically makes approx 4/7th of world population.

    Go for it. time is now.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:09AM (#31597096)

    You are not the only one, the telecomix/werebuild cluster has started up a transcription effort together with la Quadrature at this faxpad [faxpad.org] as well. The finished pages are available at the wiki. [werebuild.eu]

    In thruth, it is almost finished, with only about 5-10 pages left.

  • by Comboman (895500) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:15AM (#31597158)
    Border guards have always had the right to dig through your luggage and look at your underwear, even strip search you if you look at them the wrong way. How is there ANY expectation of privacy at a border crossing?
  • Re:Capable? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jenming (37265) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:16AM (#31597166)

    Section 2 Options 1,2,3 state that personal baggage of a non-commercial nature do not need to be searched.

    Later in that section the only things Border Guards would have control over are items where they have been provided with accurate enough descriptions in order to identify them.

    It doesn't look to me that this guards searching your iPod for illegal mp3s. Rather I think this is a truck full of burned DVDs, knockoff designer items, etc.

  • by Spyware23 (1260322) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:19AM (#31597202) Homepage

    This works, people. I've used the EU parliament's petition page before (regarding pricing issues with Valve) and I got a three-page semi-personal response. Like OP says, take the time to fill out a petition!

  • by cmiller173 (641510) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:22AM (#31597258)
    Actually the Senate bill, which is what he signed, has been up for weeks. The House reconciliation bill which is now in the hands of the Senate is nowhere near signing. What remains to be seen is if the Senate, which actually likes the Senate bill (they passed it after all), will actually pass the reconciliation bill.
  • Re:Capable? (Score:4, Informative)

    by geegel (1587009) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:27AM (#31597334)

    No you wouldn't. Usually I'd say RTFA, but given the size of the thing, it would be a bit inappropriate.

    Please look over Section 2 (all the options have a similar provision)

    Where a traveler's personal baggage contains trademark goods or copyright materials of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance {Aus: or where the copyright materials or trademark goods are sent in small consignments} and there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement.]

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:33AM (#31597422) Homepage Journal

    If we, as Americans, had a lick of sense, we would stop buying things made in China, Pakistan, India, etc. Everything made in China, and half of everything made in the rest of the third world is junk. Hell, half of what comes from China is actually deadly. But, we keep buying. DUHHH!!!

    That would be sensible if we weren't in the worst recession since the great depression. Nobody has as much money as they used to; most of us are just getting by, people are losing their jobs, etc. The choice is third world junk or nothing.

  • holy crap (Score:3, Informative)

    by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:59AM (#31597782) Homepage Journal

    of course it would work. it is the official page to submit a petition. its in equal status as if you went there, and presented a petition on paper. its official, governmental, bureaucratic as it can be.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:04AM (#31597856) Homepage Journal

    how they occupied entire europe back in 1792 ?

    fyi, any serious scholar of military history would be able to say that what befell on france would befall any contemporary nation that happened to be placed geographically same with france. germans gambled on untested military technology, and won their gambit. such gambles cost many nations their freedoms before when tried. however this time it worked.

    northern france, poland, western soviet union had geography that was most accommodating to this new kind of war, blitzkrieg, with their open wide fields that allowed big mobility. because it was a fast tactic, until allies were able to develop a counter tactic, germans were done away with northern france, and even later soviets in 1941.

    due to geography, blitzkrieg didnt work well in south france, yugoslavia, balkans.

    let me break you another fact - by 1940, united states didnt even have a proper medium battle tank, hell they didnt even have light tanks. had germany been a neighbor of usa, all americans would be talking german now. i know this will come as distasteful to a lot of you nationalist americans out there, but its a brutal historic fact.

    and on a sidenote, im not french. im just a hobbyist of history.

  • Not too bad (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jenming (37265) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:07AM (#31597906)

    After reading through the entire thing it actually doesn't look too bad.

    The only major problem I see in it is trying to make 3rd parties liable for people who use their services. I'd recommend pestering your elected representatives and tell them to follow NZ lead on those articles.

    The rest of it basically says:
    1) make sure its illegal to copy and distribute pirated works.
    2) make sure there are tools to enforce those laws.
    3) provide these legal tools to foreign copyright holders.

    These seem like pretty logical steps. I think the real fight here should be to shorten the absurd copyright lengths currently in use.

  • by Artemis3 (85734) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:11AM (#31597954)

    http://skipscreen.com/ [skipscreen.com]

  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted AT slashdot DOT org> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:18AM (#31598088)

    Well, you are loud, but typically for loud people, not very well informed and ignorant of that fact.

    Yes, they did. but you omitted that the current situation is, that the EU rejects ACTA as a whole. There even was an article here on Slashdot about it.

  • by GasparGMSwordsman (753396) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:42PM (#31599488)

    Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty - in effect, you've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law. Those "rights" holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow, Washington, London, and Beijing, just how "intellectual property" will be handled in the future.

    A treaty does NOT supersede a nations sovereignty. A treaty is an agreement between one or more countries (there have been single nation treaties signed) where all parties agree to do something. There is not force behind that agreement, each country has to decide that they want to follow the agreement and then do so.

    There is no force behind the treaty other than the other nations would be upset. Japan ignored several treaties (and then broke them) prior to WWII. The United States ignored many, many treaties dealing with Indian nations. Both Britain and France have a long list of treaties that were ignored.

    The most famous treaty not worth its own paper, would be that acknowledging Belgium's neutrality, signed by Germany (Treaty of London 1839).

    If you are a US citizen there is a concern that a signed treaty is a way to side step Constitutional protections. Under the Constitution a treaty has more weight under law than one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights for example. This is of course subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS.

    However even in this situation you would still have to have agents of the Government choosing to act on those treaty items. There would be no force of law requiring them to do so. If the President issued an executive order to not-enforce that provision of the treaty there would be little to no consequence (barring political backlash).

    In addition, at any time, a nation can withdraw from a treaty. It is sort of like standing up and saying, "hey fellas, I don't care anymore."

    I would suggest at least reading the Wikipedia page on treaties for a better understanding of them:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty [wikipedia.org]

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @01:51PM (#31600614) Homepage Journal

    at that point (ie up to 1941) united states didnt have any solid combined arms to stand up to what germans had invented.

    aircraft were subpar (not totally inferior, but subpar) tactics were obsolete, bombers were inferior, (b17s didnt come into being until 1941 proper), no tanks, outdated infantry tactics, no close support. you can count many things.

    usa had taken a lot of lessons from what befell on france, britain and russia up till the time she joined the war. and even in 1941, allies were still not on par with germans.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @02:39PM (#31601390) Homepage Journal

    rather appallingly, u.s. didnt do enough for those oceans. it had some battleships, many obsolete, and only 2 aircraft carriers. japanese totally outclassed united states in generaly capability.

    however pearl harbor didnt do much to prolong the war. actually, by the time it happened, so much construction was put into motion that even if japanese sank every single floating battleship and a/c usa had, they would still be outnumbered 2 to 1 in 1 years' time, and 4 to 1 in 1.5 years' time.

    i read a research published on a navy enthusiast website once. it compared manpower and manufacturing power of countries, and found out that u.s. approx tripled all allies, axis combined itself. so the result of the war was a foregone conclusion in that regard.

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Working...