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This discussion has been archived.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 dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @08:55AM (#31596336) Homepage

    All your files are belong to us.

    • by inKubus (199753) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:58AM (#31598786) Homepage Journal

      This has the hallmarks of an acid test. Global law negotiations done in secret, under the guise of treaty...exactly the way we don't want it to go. From here there will be more laws in secret and the only way you'll find out you've violated them is that you don't have the required permit on your passport and you're accosted at the border. This is exactly how the global fascists (corpratists) want it. Without control over global travel, they cannot control the flow of goods and information. Each intersection of borders is a profit gradient. If goods are allowed to pass by osmosis, they lose all the leverage they could use to pump wealth back and forth between countries while taking a cut off the top. Sooner or later, they have it all.

      There are basically two forks in this road: one, where there is a single world democracy with the corporations below that rule of law and the other where there are separate country laws (like there are now) and the corporations flit above them BUT prohibit the individual. That's where we're headed now.

  • 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

  • Capable? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by symes (835608) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:00AM (#31596368) Journal
    It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content even if they were allowed access. Seriously, would I have to carry receipts, license docs, original packaging and so forth?
    • Re:Capable? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:39AM (#31596748)

      no no.

      all your content should of course be DRM'd.
      No need for receipts then.

      (who wants to bet someone actually proposed this at some point)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jenming (37265)

      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.

    • 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.]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TubeSteak (669689)

        Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement

        "may consider" doesn't sound legally binding.
        If the treaty doesn't explicitly say "don't do XYZ" or "you can only do XYZ" then it'll get used to the full letter of the law.
        That's usually how these things go.

    • Re:Capable? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bob9113 (14996) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:00AM (#31597792) Homepage

      It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content

      "Article 2.7: Ex-Officio Action" [presenting just the US version here]

      "1. Each party shall provide that its customs authorities may act upon their own initiative, to suspend the release of ... suspected pirated copyright goods..."

      The content need not be illegal (nor easily discriminated as such), the guard merely needs to posit suspicion.

      • by shentino (1139071)

        And being in a hurry and having business to attend to at the border often makes it profitable to surrender your goods and just move on.

  • 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 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 Aceticon (140883)

        I actually used their political memory section in deciding who to vote for in the last EU Parliement elections ...

  • One Small Leap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sonicmerlin (1505111) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:09AM (#31596472)
    I'm just happy *someone*, *somewhere* had enough moral integrity to defy their corporate-led masters.
  • is clearly not a government's problem. The ACTA needs to be stopped.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      "clearly"? ... considering how far this has already gone, I am guessing it's not quite clear enough.

  • by Rivalz (1431453) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:26AM (#31596662)
    On page 6, article 2.3 paragraph 2: Where it says materials and implements does that mean if i use a infringing line of code or part to make a product like a Ferrari, then the whole item can possibly be forfeited?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HungryHobo (1314109)

      if it's brutal enough I might not be against this one :D
      Some Microsoft programmer grabs a small chunk of GPLed code and well...
      But it probably doesn't mean that since that would be the most dangerous to companies which create large monolithic expensive projects.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      As I read this, not only the product in violation, but also the means of production which are predominantly used to produce the product in question can be forfeited. This is not exactly new, at least in the area of patents. If you build a machine the primary purpose of which is producing something that is patented by someone else, you are indirectly violating that patent. The weird thing is that every other paragraph of this article contains the provision "at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings", w
    • That is how I read the thing. All your "poisoned fruits" are belong to us!

    • That would be entertaining if Microsoft or Apple added GPL code without sharing derivative work and ended up handing over their entire products to the writer.
  • by Pitawg (85077) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @09:55AM (#31596924)

    Someone with some music talent should put out a song with the text of the agreement used as lyrics, and charge the negotiators with international copyright infringement and distribution! NOW!

  • 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 SwedishPenguin (1035756) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:09AM (#31597100)

    Well, it's great to know what our corrupt EU politicians over here have been up to. EU citizens: remember, this is what your government ministers have agreed to, it's not just some faceless EU bureaucracy. Hold them responsible for their actions in the EU, don't let them hide behind the bureaucracy.

    Article 2.x, option 2 (EU)
    "Each party shall ensure that, where a judicial decision is taken finding infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. The parties shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by the third party to infringe an intellectual property right."

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      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.

      • The "EU as a whole" did not reject ACTA, the European Parliament did. The council of ministers and the commission are the ones propagating ACTA, and the ones involved in the negotiations. Unfortunately, the European Parliament has a tendency to fold when it come down to it, and the council of ministers usually wins. The council of ministers is composed of national government ministers. The national governments are however rarely held responsible for any of the decisions of the council of ministers, hell mo

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by unity100 (970058)

          The "EU as a whole" did not reject ACTA, the European Parliament did. The council of ministers and the commission are the ones propagating ACTA, and the ones involved in the negotiations. Unfortunately, the European Parliament has a tendency to fold when it come down to it, and the council of ministers usually wins. The council of ministers is composed of national government ministers. The national governments are however rarely held responsible for any of the decisions of the council of ministers, hell most people probably have no idea what the council of ministers is. That needs to change.

          dear swedish penguin,

          as of last year, european parliament has the power to ratify any treaty that is made by european commission, including ALl the ministers and bureaucrats and whatnot. furthermore, no treaty, decision can come into being without being ratified by european parliament. AND european parliament can also cancel treaties made prior to acquiring that power. (that was the power they used to cancel SWIFT agreement in which bush&co coerced europe into disclosing bank transfer details europeans

          • I know the parliament now has the legal power to not ratify it, but do they have the willpower? The proportion of parties in the parliament is presumably quite close to those in their home parliaments, and since the majority of their home parties are obviously in favor in one way or another (if they weren't, the council of ministers would have put a stop to this a long time ago), do parliamentarians really care enough about the issue to stand up to their parties when it comes down to it? I wouldn't count on

            • by unity100 (970058)

              man, they made the resolution, which includes the declaration to go to court if it is ignored, with 669 to 13 or so majority. and they all voted in line with their parties in their home countries too.

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Not too bad, huh?

      Even if the treaty was blank pages I would be against it. The content of ACTA is irrelevant. The process used to create ACTA goes against what I believe are cornerstones of our society and the treaty should be killed for that alone. Any non-negative or even overtly positive terms of ACTA would not balance out the long term damage to our society caused by allowing ACTA to live.

      I might sound like some kind of hardliner who is unwilling to compromise, but that's not true at all. Here is
    • Re:Not too bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 2obvious4u (871996) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @03:19PM (#31602022)
      What if your country only believes in 7 year copyrights? What if your country believes that copyrights stifle innovation?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jenming (37265)

        Then you probably shouldn't be entering a trade treaty designed to protect IP...

    • by HiThere (15173)

      What if the investigating official suspect that something is in violation of copyright, but doesn't know?

      What proof is required?

      What "due process" is required?

      I wouldn't say it as "not bad". I'd say it was terrible. But I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

  • I've started reading the text through, and all I can say is: GO CANADA!

    As a Canadian I've been dreading our role in these negotiations. I feel that we really haven't pressed our position sufficiently in bilateral treaties with the US when it comes to commerce (this goes back decades). This is exasperated by the current Federal party in power in parliament (though it's a minority), which demonstrably follows the US lead in many areas.

    However, it seems that at least in this case, our government (as distinct f
  • Where's the part that justified the secrecy? I don't see it here. Somebody obviously edited out the part requiring the US to sell puppy shredders to Iran in exchange for releasing hostages. If they edited that out, then who knows what else is inaccurate?

    But seriously: let's see who is now going to "walk away from the table" now that the big secret is out of the bag. If we don't see countries withdrawing from the treaty now, then Kirk was lying.

  • First off, anyone under 30 that has ever downloaded music or a movie is never going to accept anything that forces them to pay for crap. This is pretty much everyone under 30 with a computer. Call is 1/10th the population of the planet. And most people under 30 believe that all music, movies, books - media in general - today is crap. So they aren't going to pay.

    Governments, on the other hand, look at two things: taxes and GDP. On a tax basis if everyone universally stops paying for media, there will be

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Andorin (1624303)

      First off, anyone under 30 that has ever downloaded music or a movie is never going to accept anything that forces them to pay for crap.

      Generalization. I can just as easily say that most people who use p2p regularly are more active collectors who are more likely to buy something, despite the fact that they can get it for free, because they know that creators have to eat too.

      On a tax basis if everyone universally stops paying for media, there will be a huge hit in revenue collected by governments.

      Nope. If someone downloads a movie, the money they could have spent on it is more likely to go somewhere else than just sit in their wallet. Net financial effect: Zero.

      The rest of your post is pretty much invalidated by the above.

Thus spake the master programmer: "When a program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...