Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Medicine Patents Science

India Attempts To Derail ACTA 162

Posted by timothy
from the derail-defang-deny dept.
Admiral Justin writes "Ars Technica is reporting that India is attempting to gather support from other large countries that have been intentionally left out of the ACTA process to actively protest it. India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries that were given no chance to be a part of the process of drafting it. Among the primary concerns are the possibility of medical shipments being seized if they use a port in transit that is controlled by a country with a patent on the pharmaceuticals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India Attempts To Derail ACTA

Comments Filter:
  • I can relate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:10PM (#32438088)

    India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries who were given no chance to be a part of the process drafting it.

    As a US citizen, I can relate to that.

    • Re:I can relate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by siloko (1133863) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:18PM (#32438172)

      [India] fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it.

      I find that quite sweet actually. The whole point of excluding the next economic power house is precisely to frame laws which may delay their rise to the top. It is not if ACTA gets used against India but when.

      • Re:I can relate (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Weezul (52464) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @10:50PM (#32440114)

        So how do we help them derail it?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Clueless Nick (883532)

        Some EU countries are already seizing shipments of cheap generics being sent from India to other developing nations, if they happen to transit through European ports.

        It just goes towards exposing the hypocrisy of such countries that keep on shrieking about aid convoys being attacked and privacy being trampled upon elsewhere.

        What is the cost in terms of human lives when right to medicine and right to cheap medicine are denied?

      • by uncoveror (570620)
        The worst part is that countless people will die when it is used to seize shipments of unauthorized generic versions of still patented drugs that would cost more than a years salary per dose if bought "legitimately".
    • Re:I can relate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:22PM (#32438212)

      As a citizen of any of the countries that are in it, we can relate.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mcgrew (92797) *

        I think he was referring to the insanely high cost we Americans pay for drugs compared to other countries. For example, after an eye surgery I was prescribed some eyedrops (Vigimox IIRC) that ranged in price from $65 to $85 depending on the pharmacy. My co-pay, what I pay after insurance, was $26.

        The same drug retails for $24 in Canada.

  • by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:15PM (#32438136) Homepage

    They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that :-/ I do have info on ACTA and software patents:

    FWIW

    • by unix1 (1667411) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:29PM (#32438286)

      Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO

      DRM is not a problem; criminalizing talking about DRM is.

      • by shentino (1139071)

        DRM is still a problem.

        Especially when chicken shit companies abuse it to revoke rights we already have.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by unix1 (1667411)

          Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.

          The real problem is when governments come in and single-handedly criminalize certain speech when such speech doesn't agree with corporate interests that got them elected in public office.

          • by laughingcoyote (762272) <barghesthowl@NospAm.excite.com> on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @08:02PM (#32439160) Journal

            Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.

            I will agree with that statement if and only if one concurrently has the right to write and distribute software that easily cracks said DRM. "However you like" goes both ways, in such a case. If my rights to break it can be restricted, yours to use it can be too. If either of us can write software however we like, you can write your DRM, and I can crack it. The problem occurs when that "right" only applies to one side.

            • by unix1 (1667411) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @08:32PM (#32439436)

              That was the point in both of my previous posts. You've said nothing that disagrees with it.

              OP (of this thread) said: "DRM is actually the most worrying problem."

              Again, DRM is not a problem. The erosion of rights of free expression and speech is. The solution should not be to outlaw DRM, or place some legal restrictions on its implementations. This could have many unintended consequences. The solution should be to not restrict everyone's rights w/respect to DRM in the first place (i.e. cracks, discussion, research, etc.).

            • I will agree with that statement if and only if one concurrently has the right to write and distribute software that easily cracks said DRM.

              This is precisely what GGP meant when he said that "criminalizing talking about DRM" is a problem, rather than DRM itself.

        • by Ash Vince (602485)

          Especially when chicken shit companies abuse it to revoke rights we already have.

          You do not have any right to use a piece of software until the creator publishes it and then they decide what rights they want to give you. If they say you cannot transfer the licence from one machine to another and your local laws allow those licensing terms then that is their right as the creator of the software. Your only legal option is to refuse to use it on moral grounds. Using it anyway is not a legal right.

          So for this reason DRM cannot be used to revoke rights unless they can force it into software

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Hurricane78 (562437)

        DRM is a problem.

        (See, you did not say why. So I also don’t, to refute your statement. But I can add arguments on top anyway, to make it an actual argument. Like:)

        DRMed information is lost, when the server or decoding system is gone.
        Criminalized circumventing DRM also is why it is a problem.
        I’d go so far as saying that being a problem is the point of DRM.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by unix1 (1667411)

          DRM is a problem.

          (See, you did not say why. So I also don’t, to refute your statement. But I can add arguments on top anyway, to make it an actual argument. Like:)

          It's not a problem because it's your right to write whatever software (DRM or otherwise) you please - that is your right. Outlawing DRM would take away your freedom to write such software.

          DRMed information is lost, when the server or decoding system is gone.

          Writing with disappearing ink also causes information to be lost. Let's outlaw disappearing ink.

          Encrypting information and throwing away decryption keys would also cause information to be lost - let's outlaw deleting encryption keys and passwords.

          Criminalized circumventing DRM also is why it is a problem.

          Then you didn't read my (oh, so short and to the point) post. Because that is

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by AK Marc (707885)
            It's not a problem because it's your right to write whatever software (DRM or otherwise) you please - that is your right. Outlawing DRM would take away your freedom to write such software.

            That's a strawman argument. No one has ever said it should be illegal to write DRM. However, it would be reasonable to not allow copyright protections to content under DRM. Something "protected" by DRM is not released to the public as is required for copyright. It's purposefully crippled and often laden with a time b
            • by unix1 (1667411)

              it would be reasonable to not allow copyright protections to content under DRM.

              Aha, so that's your main point. This is a much larger issue; and pretty much any such regulation would have way too far-reaching consequences.

              Did you password-protect the zip file you sent over e-mail? DRM!
              Did you use PGP/GPG to encrypt your e-mails? DRM!
              Are files on your computer username/password protected? DRM!
              Do you lock your car with an electronic remote? DRM!
              Did you use encryption (scp/sftp/etc.) to download copyrighted software? DRM!

              Pretty much anything that has an electronic "key" to open/enable cop

              • by AK Marc (707885)
                No, my issue is with people that use licensing and DRM to have the effect of a Trade Secret, then use copyright protections when they've never released an unencumbered version in the wild. Every example you gave is one I'd agree with. My email is not published for human consumption. It's the physical property of the recipient, and anyone else that intercepts it between came on it illegally. I may protect it from some illegal interception, but that doesn't change the fact it's a personal communication be
                • by unix1 (1667411)

                  I use a password and possibly encryption on my computer. But no files I create are copyrighted until they are published. Until then, they are Trade Secrets of works in progress. Again, irrelevant to my "no DRM and copyright on the same work" statement.

                  No, it is relevant. There is no black and white distinction between the two. What if you send a novel you wrote to 20 of your friends with an encrypted e-mail, or password-protected zip file. Is that a trade secret, or a copyrighted work?

                  My car isn't copyrighted. It's patented, trademarked, but you don't copyright the formula for rubber in the tires.

                  Your car isn't copyrighted but it acts as a DRM system for "works" in it.

                  The closest to the point I made is "Did you use encryption (scp/sftp/etc.) to download copyrighted software? DRM!" And again, it's an issue of whether there was ever a published work. If you download a copy of 1984 over encryption, that wouldn't count because the work has been widely published unencumbered for many years. If you are downloading a game off Steam that has never been available without DRM and there is no unlocked copy in the halls of the Library of Congress or such, then yes, that's DRM that's preventing the work from being "published" so it wouldn't be covered under copyright.

                  Several problems with these statements:

                  1. "Widely" published is as vague as it gets; it doesn't have any clear meaning with which you can differentiate what is copyrightable and what is not. The work s

  • Yep. Yer boned. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:17PM (#32438162)

    Agreed. As a us citizen i can say for sure we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone.

    In both real world terms and on the net.

    We like pushing our laws on other countries.. But theres no way we will allow it to work the other way around.

    America is like the largest group of hypocrites on the planet... Who put us in charge anyway... That wasnt too smart.

    • Re:Yep. Yer boned. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:49PM (#32438452)

      We like pushing our laws on other countries.. But theres no way we will allow it to work the other way around.

      Question is, are these even your laws? How many elected officials have insight into these negotiations, let alone the public?

      The whole trade agreement thing is mostly just a way to get countries to commit to laws without letting the democracy thing getting in the way. Just sign here mister prime minister, it's good for business!

      • by hedwards (940851)
        Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.
        • Re:Yep. Yer boned. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Jaysyn (203771) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (todhsals+nysyaj)> on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @08:10PM (#32439214) Homepage Journal

          Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.

          No they aren't. This is the lie they want you to keep repeating until it becomes the truth.

          The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.

          http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm [lexrex.com]

          http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm [uhuh.com]

          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1 [findlaw.com]

          • Re:Yep. Yer boned. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by cenc (1310167) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @09:36PM (#32439930) Homepage

            Yea, you are going to want to spend some time digging through all the supreme court rulings in that last 40 years or so regards Indian treaties. Granted, the Indian treaties are a very different legal animal from say treatise over copyrights with other countries, but treatise do in fact carry more weight than the constitution in at least very important cases.

            If you are not up for the time to do that here is the basic legal theory upheld by the supreme court on the subject (and I am sure there are better ways of putting it):

            The territory that the U.S. occupies was found by recognition of a set of treaties that in many cases predate the territorial space of the United States. Thus, the existence and enforceability of those treaties makes everything else contained in the constitution possible. The most important of which is the territorial definition of the U.S., along with lots of nice things like mining rights, water rights, hunting rights, and so on.

            For example, this is why Indians have casinos and the individual States in most cases can not really do a whole lot about it. Essentially, most of the United States is under some sort of lease to another government, and if you ignore those "rental" agreements the whole legal mess called the U.S. starts falling apart. Even when the U.S. breaks those treatises, they still have to pay up in court for the damages. One that comes to mind would be things like the Black Hills land claim at the moment. There are hundreds if not thousands of other rulings, and why the U.S. government tends to get its rear eventually handed to them in a court room over breaking those treatise sooner or later.

    • Re:Yep. Yer boned. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:59PM (#32438554)
      While I agree that we are exporting America's laws (for better or for worse) I refuse to lay claim to them. Just about every politician out there is a lawyer or former lawyer with absolutely no connection to their respective constituencies. They live privileged lives and pass laws that only benefit themselves. Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing. When there is so little difference between D and R who can blame people for simply letting themselves get railroaded.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by d34dluk3 (1659991)

        Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing. When there is so little difference between D and R who can blame people for simply letting themselves get railroaded.

        Uh, me? The people have the power to vote in whoever they want. The fact that they choose not to use it is their own fault.

      • Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing.

        No, it's because the two parties both do a satisfactory job at running the country, and they don't really mind which one gets in.

        Think about it. Ideally, votes are used as a tool for actively changing between governments and government policies. Ideally, politicians maintain their beliefs, present their policies, and we choose between them, thus giving us maximum poss

      • Where you could vote for either D or R but they both turn out to be ET bent on enslaving earth ? I always took that episode to be chillingly too near the reality.It may be more subtle than it was in europe middle age, and more class chane may be allowed than it was, and we are afforded a bit more freedom, but we really have a population of a few % "master" and a 95+% of serf.
    • by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @07:10PM (#32438644) Homepage

      we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone

      Heh, "we". Who are you? A top executive in the MPAA? Major share holder in Big Pharma?

      Otherwise, you're not in the "we". Whether you're in the USA or not, you're at the other end of the stick.

    • by yariv (1107831)

      Who put us in charge anyway... That wasnt too smart.

      You did, so it makes sense.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      Honestly, it’s not America. It’s not even the USA. It’s the US government (and|,) a bunch of criminals.
      And in this case also the EU fake government (as it’s not legally an actual government).
      The people of our unions are mostly OK. I don’t have a problem with them.

      I have a problem with some dicks who are full of themselves thinking that they deserve to be in charge and to profit trough abuse. I have a problem with them intentionally dumbing down the population (or letting it dum

    • Who put us in charge anyway

      Two mushroom-shaped clouds.

  • Pleasepleaseplease (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dasdrewid (653176) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:23PM (#32438216)

    Ars Technica is reporting that India is attempting to gather support from other large countries which have been intentionally left out of the ACTA process to actively protest it.

    Please let this mean they're planning an all-out media blitz here in the US. I can see the commercials now, something between between a Tea Party "the government's gonna get you!"/"One World Government is coming!" campaign booster and a Broadview Security "THEYRE GONNA RAPE YOU AND STEAL YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" commercial.

    Seriously, plan the message carefully and you could run the same commercial on Fox News and PBS/NPR 24/7 and *everyone* would freak out and, hopefully, do something about this filthy excuse for a treaty.

  • by elucido (870205) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:29PM (#32438280)

    So expect ACTA to pass and expect medicine to remain patented and restricted only for use by the richest 1%. It's the way society is designed, whether ACTA is instituted or not.

    The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?

    Corporations have chosen profits but what do individuals choose?

    • by OrwellianLurker (1739950) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:45PM (#32438414)
      We're not a capitalist country anymore; we're corporatists.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @10:53PM (#32440126)

        we're corporatists

        Which is just a nice word for fascism

        • Ummm... Corporatism is the exact *opposite* of fascism. It's even more insidiously bad, but it's not just another word for the same thing.

          In fascism, the government takes control of the operations of corporations for the benefit of the state, while nominally leaving the ownership of those businesses in private hands.

          In corporatism, the corporations take control of the operations of the government for the benefit of the corporations, while nominally leaving ownership of the government in the hands of the

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Considering it took deaths at Apple's iPhone manufacturing plant to get a 20% pay raise that caused a 0.7% increase in cost of making the iPad, I would have to answer your question: profits.
    • by Renraku (518261)

      Profits, of course!

      We elect officials.
      Some officials are corrupted.
      We elected corrupted officials.
      Corrupted officials take bribes.
      Bribes are given by corporations.
      Corporations expect the support of the officials.
      Corporations exist to profit.
      Officials take bribes and support the corporations.
      We elect officials to help corporations profit.

    • by v1 (525388)

      The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?

      The answer is C: the size of the retirement nest eggs of the congresscritters. (aka "B")

    • The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?

      That has been answered by law:

      - Corporate officials have a duty to run the corporation, within the constraints of the rule of law, to attempt to maximize the value to the stockholders. "Value to the stockholders" is usually financial, though stockholders may decree that other values are to be primary or considered in the mix. (i.e. Hershey's, Goo

    • Well, as an individual, I think that maintaining IP is, in general, good practice, not just for corporations, but also individuals as well. Making medicines available to poor people when they're invented seems like a good idea (and it is), but instituted poorly, you can end up hurting everyone: poor people, rich people, corporations, etc. If we make medicine X available for free (or cheap) today, then that jeopardises the future existence of medicine X v2, or X v3. Corporations are the ones who hold the bud

      • heya,

        I have to agree. Say what you like about your conspiracy theories on pharameceutical firms, but there's little doubt that drug research is expensive. And they're the only ones big enough and with enough courage and resources to invest in it. It is *incredibly* expensive, both to do the research, then to run through the various clinical trial stages.

        And if they don't think they can make money, they're just not going to do the research into it. For example, look at malaria - it's largely erradicated in d

    • What the? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @02:32AM (#32441416) Journal

      Any capitalist will answer: profit.

      If you want someone to care about people find a socialist or a communist. Capitalist are not nice people, it is in their motto:

      "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."

      -- Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776)

      Read it and try to understand its true meaning. Not the meaning for when you are well off and society is running smoothly but when there is some problem. Like say a disaster.

      Adam Smith says that in a disaster, it is perfectly reasonable to charge a premium for emergency supplies and only a beggar would expect a fair price. For a capitalist, profits are the only thing that counts and the butch, the brewer and the baker under Adam Smith will let people die who can't pay the prices they charge. Of course, this also means that if ever something was to happen to them, they would be the ones doing the dying.

      And it works, when society is doing well. You can life your entire life as a baker and never be faced with someone who is on the edge of starvation. I was a baker in my younger years and I never had someone beg for bread.

      In practice supermarkets charge a "low" price for food and accept truly minuscule mark-ups on essential items. Eating in the west can truly be cheap, eating healthy is another matter. But this doesn't mean the Adam Smith way is a nice way. It is not for nothing that the poorer people often eat unhealthy, go and check the prices for healthy food (fresh vegetables) with the cost of absolute bottom line food. 50 cent frozen pizza etc. You can live on that for a day, no way you can cook a decent meal for that. So, the delivers off cheap food for all also deliver unhealthy food. Not so nice of them after all is it? Their profits are more important then the health of their customers.

      Free choice? yes, you are free to eat bad. YOU are free to eat bad, because you can probably afford to eat better. But with ever lower wages and ever higher costs of living, a lot of people cannot. It is already well known that Africa is a dumping ground for western food that is no longer sellable in the west. Chicken refrozen a dozen times over is flooding the market, ruining the local industry. Profits of western capitalists again more important then decency.

      Read up on the true effects of free market economy and you will see just how badly real capitalist are for people who do not belong to the elite. And you like me are most likely part of that elite or at least close enough not to be harmed by them to much. For now. Until something goes wrong. Like the economic crisis. Notice how the truly rich are not hurting at all. No, loosing 1 billion when you got a dozen is NOT hurting.

      • Re:What the? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mdielmann (514750) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @11:25AM (#32445200) Homepage Journal

        And this is what makes me chuckle at free-market economists. The invisible hand only works when people have an informed choice, and give a damn. What tends to work better for managing the market is a big fucking stick and the warning, "You can make as much profit as you want, but when you start treating humanity as a source of profits and nothing else, we're going to start spanking." That's what any reasonable government would do, but governments are made of people, and people tend to be greedy...

  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:51PM (#32438464)

    what about Antigua's free ip that the WTO GIVE them? What if they get locked out under the ACTA? can they use to for there on line gameing to not be blocked?

  • It's a shame... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by divisionbyzero (300681) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @06:53PM (#32438484)

    that we (the good ole USA) need to rely on other countries' governments to protect us from our government and its corporate puppet masters.

    • Re:It's a shame... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @07:08PM (#32438630) Journal

      It's a shame, but it's not unprecedented.

      We won the Revolution only because we had copious assistance from the French.

      And despite what the militia fucktards think, armed insurrection is not going to topple the U.S. government if it gets out of hand. If you need to revolt, you're either going to need the military behind you (probably not the revolution you're looking for), or bring a tougher one. Hint: a tougher one don't exist.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by couchslug (175151)

        "And despite what the militia fucktards think, armed insurrection is not going to topple the U.S. government if it gets out of hand."

        They need only be part of a mass movement that sustains them.
        The government doesn't have enough personnel to secure the whole US against serious _popular_ resistance. The thing about modern armed forces designed to destroy other sophisticated modern armed forces is that they aren't capable of putting all that many boots on the ground. Iraq and Afghanistan are difficult enough,

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by blair1q (305137)

          We get "popular revolution" every 2, 4, and 6 years. So there's no pressure for the masses to join the militias.

          But that's beside the point. The point is, yes, there is enough military power in the military to stop any military attack on the military from any militia or military on this planet. So as long as that military is protecting the government, this form of government is not going to be revolved by military action. We, or anyone else, would need to get a lot of countries together to accomplish an

      • When/if a revolution comes, it will come from the people. And the military is made of those people. The VAST majority of our military is young men and women on the lower end of the social strata. They won't necessarily work together for a common goal, but they won't really fight off the citizens that are, expect in some small percentage. Unfortunately, our military is fast becoming capable of operating without these people, for at least limited time frames. The revolution will be interesting, if noth
  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @07:01PM (#32438572) Homepage Journal
    that will constitute approx half of world population.

    versus, hollywood.

    who do you think will win ?
  • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @07:40PM (#32438940) Homepage Journal

    how do these assholes actually expect to enforce acta?

    you can pass all the laws you want. but in terms of actually stopping the spread of pirate media, they would have to fundamentally alter the internet in such a way as to also negate any value anyone attaches to the internet. in other words, they would start a revolt. not an armed revolt, just a sort of utter rejection of their vision of complete centralized control

    it would also be extremely expensive, and they would also have to somehow control the internet internationally AND completely. they would, paradoxically, turn those outsider countries that aren't on the usa's bff list, into outposts of internet freedom

    acta, to me, it seems like a completely desperate ploy, or clueless (or both)

    really, in terms of enforceability, acta is a fucking joke

    • by melikamp (631205)

      We all know that people are free to congregate and exchange information on the Internet, and they cannot stop that. But they can stop cheap drugs from being shipped to a poor country and use patents as an excuse.

      • india already flouts laws on hiv drugs. no one is stopping them because it pits humanitarian ideals versus craven corporate interests. the negative pr hit is far larger than any pittance they'd get from a poor country (nevermind the moral argument of lives in the balance, we are talking about corporations here)

        so acta can be as draconian as they want. again, i'd like to see them actually try to enforce the bullshit

        • by oiron (697563) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @12:09AM (#32440502) Homepage
          Flouts is too strong a word. Indian law allows the government to license other manufacturers to produce any drugs deemed to be "life saving"...
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by victorhooi (830021)

            heya,

            Yes, but the end result is, India is just being short-sighted. They're flouting their obligations, to get some short-term gain, at the risk of damaging them and the rest of the world in the long term.

            Put it this way, pharmaceutical research is one area where the old argument that patents help innovation really holds water. It's damn expensive to develop and trial a drug, and if there's no gain or the company thinks it's research will just be taken by some dirtbag like India and used then they're just n

            • what a douchebag (Score:4, Insightful)

              by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Thursday June 03, 2010 @04:49AM (#32442130) Homepage Journal

              morality check: which is more important?

              1. saving human lives
              2. enforcing ip law

              if they pirate the drug design and make the drugs without a license, guess what happens? THEY SAVE HUMAN LIVES

              i think that pretty much trumps every goddamn thing you wrote, no?

              poor countries can't afford to abide by ip law, genius

              so they have my blessing and the blessing of everyone else with a simple moral compass, to rip off a rich country's pharmaceutical research TO SAVE LIVES

              corporate profit is not important than human life, despite the fact that so many douchebags like yourself think otherwise

              • by beanyk (230597)

                It may be in the poor country's interest to ignore IP laws to save lives now, but that doesn't make the GP wrong. The cost of depriving pharmaceutical companies of profits -today- may be fewer improved drugs -tomorrow-.

                Sure you can treat HIV/AIDS with drug cocktails now, but you can't -cure- it. And without lots more research -- paid for by those huge profits -- perhaps we'll never see a cure.

                • a poor country doesn't have money. they can't pay. the drug company with the ip won't be making money from that country, ever. if they give poor country drugs for free, they won't make money. if they deny the poor country the drugs it needs, they won't make money. getting a poor country cheap drugs, or not, makes no difference to the financial bottom line

                  meanwhile, they'll make plenty of profit from rich countries. the fact that the rich will pay and the poor won't pay does not in any way change the pharmac

                • by melikamp (631205)
                  Why would a for-profit pharma company ever develop a cure for anything? They are totally set selling you the AIDS relief drugs for the rest of your life. If they make a cure, then AIDS will simply go away and they will loose that entire market.
                  • heya,

                    Err, because it's not one single pharmaceutical company, but many? And if they don't do it, another will? The pharmaceutical industry is *fiercely* competitive, as well as requiring ludicrous amounts of money to fund.

                    It's a basic competitive market, with your normal supply-demand laws. Also, it's a bit cynical to think they'd never develop a cure - why the heck would they string you along for? The good PR for having developed *drumroll* the cure *drumroll* is benefit alone to any company, and a good wa

                • Your faith in big pharmaceutical companies is amusing. The U.S. government funds close to a third of medical research, much of which ends up being patented and marketed by a large pharmaceutical company.
              • heya,

                I'm sorry, but it's silly childish people like you who get us into messes like these.

                If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, I said they were seeking short term gain (in this case, saving lives, as you say), for long-term harm (i.e. not saving many more lives in the future). Sorry, but at the end of the day, all your hyperbole about "THEY SAVE HUMAN LIVES" is useless.

                By your same logic, these drug companies that invent these drugs, gosh, they should be put up on pedestals and worshipped, because

          • If I recall correctly there is a provision in the WTO (or some subsequent treaty) that in case of medical emergency the IP law can be circumvented. Many country have declared such an emergency for AIDS, and therefor are fully legally allowed to produce cheap anti viral despite not having the patent. The *flouting* is on the side of the patent holder which protest against such treaty because it destroy their bottom line.Another such a country IIRC are in south east asia. Can't rememebr which.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rahvin112 (446269)

      What Hollywood wants is active policing of the internet by all world governments with prison terms handed out to infringes. If governments did go to that step I guarantee they would succeed, at the cost of imprisoning a few million more people while paroling truly violent criminals.

      This is the reason the US government hasn't pursued it, but you should be very afraid of the influence the MPAA can exert, before it was just the RIAA, but now with Hollywood behind it there is a very good chance ACTA will force

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      how do these assholes actually expect to enforce acta?

      Requiring filters in the US to block "bad" content passing through the US. Even though the Internet is global, often you'll find the US to be a hub. Most all the hubs are "rich" countries, and if they all get together and block something, it will block it, if not actually, then in practice as the bulk of capacity being off limits to some service or such will greatly limit bandwidth for users.

      Or, as said elsewhere, ACTA members will be barred from do
  • There are two sides to this argument, if you ever visit Africa the place is flooded with cheap fake drugs with a 10-20% true dosage mostly coming from!!! yep you guessed it INDIA. The question for me is, is the Indian government complaining because the ATA may restrict real sales or are they using this argument as a trojon horse as they are being bribed by the fake drug industry. It is hard to say when dealing with India as corruption at the official level is so endemic.
  • Eventually? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted.slashdot@org> on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @07:59PM (#32439126)

    I quote:

    “Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”

    meringuoid (568297) [slashdot.org] @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454 [slashdot.org])

  • by TuballoyThunder (534063) on Wednesday June 02, 2010 @09:13PM (#32439750)
    I'm glad India is taking a stand that supports its national interests and that position coincides with my belief that intellectual property rights have gone to far. The big "however" is that India does not have a great success rate of stopping a treaty. They did not sign the NPT nor the CTBT and the NPT is in force and the CTBT would be if it was not for the Annex II requirement.

    The only thing that will kill the ACTA treaty is if a significant number of countries refuse to sign it or reject it during ratification. Unfortunately, I fear that any US administration would gladly sign the treaty and the US Senate would readily ratify it. If only the treaty would harm the gay unborn whales...

  • by pankajmay (1559865) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @07:01AM (#32442602)
    A point many people probably didn't notice is that India is not really pissed off at the whole ACTA treaty.

    The major reason for India's tirade seems to be the fact that (in addition to Pharmaceutical situation, of course) it was left out of negotiations. In a multi-polarized world, India increasingly sees itself as an important node in the global market. Had the negotiations proceeded in an all-inclusive manner, I am pretty sure most countries' governments would have happily and silently signed oppressive laws into place.

    In a way, this "unfair" tactic by western countries, I believe did push India over the edge, but surely the humanitarian, people-friendly position is not why India and other countries are opposing this law. It benefits the Indian Pharmaceutical companies and it is in India's benefit to fight this both for trying to keep its industry alive and asserting its influence.

    For the record - I am Indian. And yes, I am opposed to many tough measures in the ACTA -- but I have this sneaky suspicion that just to appease India and other countries, the other countries will throw a ball in their direction -- give them some special concession in a very limited area -- and then all these countries will happily climb on to the ACTA bandwagon!

    For all those expecting a showdown between India/China vs. the rest of the world -- chances are that it will never actually develop into something more than a few provocative statements here and there -- fervent negotiations will go on to give them some choicest concessions, so they can all start oppressing people everywhere asap... of course, this will be marketed heavily as something "amazingly good" for the people of the world!
  • EFF (Score:4, Informative)

    by Misch (158807) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @08:02AM (#32442948) Homepage

    EFF is looking for people to contact their representatives [eff.org] in the US, especially if you are in a state with a senator on the Finance committee, or the House Ways and Means / Trade subcommittee.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Someone please mod the parent up! Gees, the comment's been there a while and it's still at 1. It's informative, interesting, and insightful unless you think ACTA is a good thing.

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp

Working...