Slashdot Log In
Concerns About ACTA In EU, Canada
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 04, 2008 03:29 PM
from the back-rooms-and-dark-alleyways dept.
from the back-rooms-and-dark-alleyways dept.
Elektroschock writes "An EU document on the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty was leaked. The main purpose of the trade agreement is to impose the European enforcement measures for IPR infringements on the US and emerging economies, widen the enforcement measures to include criminal sanctions for patent infringements, and introduce internet content filtering measures. Civil society groups such as the FFII criticize the ACTA process because negotiation documents are not made publicly available by the governments. The EU document ('fact sheet') from the EU Trade Commissioner explicitly mentions: 'Internet distribution and information technology — e.g. mechanisms available in EU E-commerce Directive of 2000, such as a definition of the responsibility of internet service providers regarding IP infringing content.'" And an anonymous reader adds Michael Geist's push for more transparency around ACTA negotiations in Canada.
Related Stories
[+]
EU Council Refuses To Release ACTA Documents 145 comments
CaptSolo writes "The EU Council refuses to release secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement documents, stating that disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations, would weaken the position of the EU in these negotiations, and might affect relations with the third parties concerned. The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure requested these documents last week. FFII's response questions ACTA's secrecy saying: 'The argument that public transparency regarding 'trade negotiations' can be ignored if it would weaken the EU's negotiation position is particularly painful. At which point exactly do negotiations over trade issues become more important than democratic law making? At 200 million euro? At 500 million euro? At 1 billion euro? What is the price of our democracy?'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Why in the world (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know anybody who does. Maybe a CEO or two... certainly not the majority of the population. There is nothing here that benefits anybody but the already rich.
Re:Why in the world (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the population probably didn't want the DMCA. And yet it's still the law.
Parent
Re:Why in the world (Score:4, Funny)
I believe in American democracy. One dollar, one vote.
Parent
Call Joe. (Score:2)
"An EU document on the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty was leaked. The main purpose of the trade agreement is to impose the European enforcement measures for IPR infringements on the US and emerging economies, widen the enforcement measures to include criminal sanctions for patent infringements, and introduce internet content filtering measures."
I'm sorry you all have it backwards. Bad things are suppose to flow into other countries. Not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a call to war. Want to mandate that my behavior should be stupid, that's justification enough for me.
Resist IP, resist the government. (Score:2, Insightful)
The only way to save yourselves is to the industry where it hurts and not spend a dime on any sort of music or movie. Let them eat air!
Re:Resist IP, resist the government. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hello Senator Bedfellow's office"
"Hi, this is Bob from the RIAA. We need another new law. People aren't buying as much stuff from us as we would like since the last law we paid you for.."
Parent
criminal patent: holy crap! (Score:4, Funny)
Writing software seems rather foolish now.
Unless you're already in jail, you'd be nuts
to risk criminal charges.
About the only software development that might
be able to continue is Reiserfs.
The cure (Score:2, Insightful)
About time!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone knows that murder, assault, rape, theft of tangible goods, and even child pornography are just petty crimes that we waste a lot of money enforcing. The real crimes we should be targeting are those which involve Intellectual Property and may even possibly have an impact on company profit margins through such things as lost potential sales, or the inability to overcharge by virtue of an artificial monopoly, or restrict use to what is most convenient to a company. How can even a million human lives compare to a potential lost sale? IP crimes are so heinous we should be bringing back the death penalty and torture. I say anyone who backs up their DVDs should be put to death!!!
In case anyone has failed to detect the sarcasm above, I believe our society is becoming one twisted piece of SHIT and the IP legislators are leading the way to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be funnier if they weren't actually trying to force such reprioritization through Congress. But I guess that's why you wrote it.
Guess I'll just move to...oh wait. shit.
Embellishment of the submitter... (Score:4, Informative)
Submitter: "The main purpose of the trade agreement is to impose the European enforcement measures for IPR infringements on the US"
TFA doesn't say anything about the EU trying to enforce measures on the US - in fact, what seems to be happening is that the RIAA, MPAA etc. and the US government are pushing for the removal of ISP liability protections, and the use of criminal law for enforcement within the EU. After all, didn't the Copyright Czar law [slashdot.org] already "add new classes of felony criminal copyright infringement" in the US, with one stated goal being to "lobby foreign governments to adopt stronger IP laws"?
Only about commercial piracy??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really, really hate stuff like this. Why doesn't anyone call the industry on this? Whenever I hear "but it won't be used against small-scale infringers" I want to shout at them THEN FUCKING PUT IT IN THERE! Put it in writing, in the treaty / law / whatever, that it can't be used if fewer than 200 files are shared. Spell it out that you won't prosecute anyone who possesses less than a quarter of his whole movie collection as illegal downloads.
Two reasons why we should not accept wishy-washy talk like this:
Why can people like that get away with blatant lies like that time and time again?
Re:Only about commercial piracy??? (Score:4, Interesting)
I really, really hate stuff like this. Why doesn't anyone call the industry on this? Whenever I hear "but it won't be used against small-scale infringers" I want to shout at them THEN FUCKING PUT IT IN THERE! Put it in writing, in the treaty / law / whatever
Brilliant point. So brilliant that it bears repeating:
If they don't make the legislation read the way they claim it is intended to be used, then you know they are lying. As you point out, it would be trivial to add language to the legislation that limits the scope of the law to "large scale criminal activity". The fact that they have not done so is telling.
Parent
Another nail in the coffin (Score:4, Insightful)
Note the special pleading going on - we will not search your iPod, it's just an augmentation of existing regulations etc. No mention of the fact they are still presuming guilt on the part of the consumer and are asking for unprecedented intrusion into individuals personal data.
The fact is this is a treaty designed by copyright holders to give them more powers to protect their IP at the expense of everyone else. No doubt the provisions will be used against major traffickers of stolen IP but they will also be used against individuals by overzealous companies too.
ACTA is in Australia and New Zealand too (Score:3, Interesting)
ACTA is DMCA style legislation wrapped up into a Treaty. This treaty wishlist includes making ISPs liable for any copyright infringement that passes through their network.
Think about that... If you ISP lets copyrighted material through to your computer, without knowing for sure you're allowed to get that content, then your ISP is the one who will face prosecution as secondary-infringers.
How are ISPs to respond to that? By only letting you talk to sony.com etc? By blocking all encrypted communication where they can't see what you're sending? It's either shows a huge misunderstanding of how the internet works, or intentional malice to line the pockets of copyright collecting companies.
So while the treaty remains secret, several media companies (Time Warner, News Corp, Sony, Walt Disney Co) has been consulted.
The result of the treaty is to hand the worlds ISPs to Time Warner, News Corp, Sony, Walt Disney, etc. If you're indebted to another company just to be in business then you are owned by them.
Internet New Zealand has responded with this: Internet NZ submission [internetnz.net.nz] and there are many other responses here Coffee.geek [coffee.geek.nz]
So.......I'm kind of lost here....... (Score:4, Insightful)
It appears, to me, that somebody wants people to stop using the internet for various purposes that might be in contradiction to their financial goals. They claim they are losing money.
So, once they get what they want, and the internet is no longer a means of the free exchange of ideas, information, etc, what the FUCK do they think is going to happen?
Hmmm...maybe people will stop using it? And what happens to all the corporations that make THEIR money from the internet? Are they going to stand there and let it happen?
From my point of view, this "war" against copyright infringers is going to blow the whole damn boat out of the water. Right now, it is a war against "us", when it should really be a war between those corporations. A lot of people(read, companies) other then "us" supposed copyright violators stand to lose a lot of money, and I am not talking about the copyright holders.
Where are THEIR voices, on this matter?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
correction, US government, which is backed by big buisness interests. Citizens need not apply.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The USA is the patsy (Score:5, Informative)
This agreement is being pushed through in secret: there's no general support for this kind of treaty in the USA, in fact it sounds like a good deal of it is against the US constitution. If Australia or Brazil was the most powerful country in the world, the people who want these kind of controls would be spending their efforts to coopt and corrupt their governments instead.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The submitter got it wrong. The article is basically complaining about new regulations that would come into force IN THE EU as a result of ACTA. The main push for the IP parts of ACTA is coming from the RIAA/MPAA via the US government.
Again, the submitter got it wrong. The treaty will require the IP and copyright laws in the EU and Canada to be amended to be more in line with the already existing ones in the US.
Your concern about "socialism" and the UN is a strawman (and Islo-fascist socialism, besides b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Follow the link to Michael Geist's site, there's discussion of this on his blog. It's the US and Japan who are submitting drafts of the treaty to the other countries. The EU isn't forcing this on anyone, they just got there first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Citation please. It has a clause that allows foreign treaties to override chunks of state constitutions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Time Warner, News Corp, Sony, Walt Disney Co. made the largest donations to the US senators pushing this.