Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
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This discussion has been archived.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 More

ACTA Document Leaks With Details On Mexico Talks

Comments Filter:

  • Three strikes policies? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Monkeedude1212 ( 1560403 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @10:51AM (#31170124) Journal

    Man, that buzzword just keeps coming up. Can you imagine if baseball was based around 4 strikes instead of 3?

    • Re:Three strikes policies? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Whalou ( 721698 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:05AM (#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.
    • "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." - Auric Goldfinger

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sconeu ( 64226 )

      I refer you to the Sept 16, 2009 game [go.com] between the Angels and the Red Sox, where Nick Green got 5 strikes before walking?

  • Uniformity of procedures.

    Guess we were all worried for nothing.

    • Re:Sounds on the up and up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by russotto ( 537200 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @10:56AM (#31170196) Journal

      Uniformity of procedures.

      Guess we were all worried for nothing.

      I wouldn't relax yet. A controlled leak to discredit critics is quite likely.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Monkeedude1212 ( 1560403 )

        That's the problem with conspiracy theories - there is no real way to tell about these until more evidence surfaces or the entire thing is revealed.

        I mean, I agree, it would make a lot of sense for them to 'leak' this kind of info, to help qualm all the clammer about it.

        However, the only evidence to support them doing so is just that it would be a good idea for them to do so.

        So you can never really tell. I'm not betting on one or the other just yet.

        • That's the problem with conspiracy theories - there is no real way to tell about these until more evidence surfaces or the entire thing is revealed.

          I agree, that is why the sensible people who founded the U.S. Federal Government did so in an open manor, subject to outside scrutiny and criticism. My question is why is our government not handling the treaty negotiations in a similar manor? Regardless of what is in the treaty, there is no excuse for not being an open process.

      • Speaking of leaks...do federal judges need security clearances?

    • Re:Sounds on the up and up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by schon ( 31600 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:57AM (#31171350)

      Really? What exactly does "ACTA" stand for again? Oh right - "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement". Which means that they should be talking about counterfeiting, right?

      So tell me - in a trade agreement that is supposed to deal with counterfeiting, why are they talking about penalties for file sharing?

      Now, if it was dealing with mass for-profit media duplication with the intent of passing off the product as the original, that would make sense.. but they're not. The discussions are about "three strikes" and other bullshit to combat file sharing.

      What exactly does file sharing have to do with counterfeiting?

      • Re:Sounds on the up and up (Score:5, Insightful)

        by molo ( 94384 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:17PM (#31171756) Journal

        They equate it all under the umbrella of IP enforcement. They're talking about counterfeit goods (trademark violation), not counterfeit currency.

        In my opinion, if you consider getting digital material from a non-official source, its still the same material. Its copyright infringement, not counterfeiting.

        They want to label it all counterfeiting because it is much harder to take a reasonable stance against counterfeiting. Its victory by redefinition.

        -molo

      • Re:Sounds on the up and up (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:39PM (#31172198)

        Really? What exactly does "ACTA" stand for again?

        Anti-Consumer Trade Agreement

      • Simple.

        They both compete with entertainment industry profits.

      • They're trying to use weasel words to lump file sharing and counterfeiting together so they can take advantage of preexisting laws and treaties involving siezing goods that are "about" to have counterfeit logos put on them, property forfeiture, and the like.

        Not to mention that it's far easier to make a case for counterfeit goods (think food, medicine, etc) to be a matter of national security (and thus above hte rule of law) than it is for a little unlicensed copying.

        It's bullshit, of course, since a bit-ide

      • oh c'mon .. trade agreement is just a broad umbrella for all kinds of laws that often have nothing to do with the name.. just like any other acts (ie patriot act)

  • show me what's on the table (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:07AM (#31170372)
    Until they show me what's on the table, I will not consider anything rebutted. The politicians can say all they want that xyz is not in the proposed treaty, but until they show me what is actually in the treaty, I won't believe them. Politicians often say that something is not in a bill or treaty or other document imposing government regulation and when you read the document, sure enough it isn't there. However, when you analyze what is there you discover that, while what they told you wasn't there isn't, the stuff that is there allows for them to just implement it at any time in the future that they choose without any further public notice.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by VShael ( 62735 )

      Yeah, same thing applied to the Lisbon treaty. The politicians kept insisting that x,y,z, wasn't in the treaty.
      They ignored the part that said the Treaty could be modified IN ANY WAY in the future without the need for re-ratification.

    • Treason (Score:3, Insightful)

      by syousef ( 465911 )

      Secret laws are a slippery slope that eventually encourage lawlessness and act against the interests of the citizenry. Why should any citizen obey the laws they do know, if they can always be punished severely for breaking laws they aren't permitted to know about? It's unconstitutional in most places, and especially the US that is founded on rule "by the people for the people". Anyone enacting these laws should be brought up on charges of treason, as should anyone attempting to enforce them. Quite ironicall

  • Solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:17AM (#31170542)
    A good counteroffensive to rebut these claims would be to remove all the secrecy and let us see what's going on

    • Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:48AM (#31171158) Journal

      I think the thing here is this is a copyright treaty, they talk about secrecy being required for national security and I just don't see how debate about copyright law being public could possibly pose a clear and present danger.

      The opacity of this whole process is proof enough that its not expected to be a popular body of law and probably is does not promote the general welfare but rather those of specific few. I don't think we need to see whats in to be opposed.

      • IThe opacity of this whole process is proof enough that its not expected to be a popular body of law and probably is does not promote the general welfare but rather those of specific few. I don't think we need to see whats in to be opposed.

        So..., business as usual, then?
        If you have enough money, you can buy from a government anything you want; business contracts, regulations, exceptions from regulations, even war (a real, "shooting" war) on "enemies" whose policies threaten your profitability. In the U.S. no individual would get away with such "tyranny", but corporations can and do, all the time, because "What's good for business, is good for the American people. Anything else is socialism. Now shut up and grab your ankles..."

    • If my own government is anything to go by (Netherlands) then the counteroffensive will be "you just don't understand it". The time politicians felt accountable to the public has long gone.

      Mind you, the public keeps voting for the same guys over and over.

      The biggest scammers are the media, in Holland you got something called to "kiez wijzer", a site that records the various parties (yes America, you can have more then 2) election PROMISES and ask you how you feel about various issues and then gives a recom

      • Who else are we supposed to vote for?

        Corporate america has them all in their pockets from the get go.

        If there ever was an honest politician he'd never even get to the primaries before getting the living crap smeared out of him by special interests hell bent on protecting their political might.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xOneca ( 1271886 )
      They say 'downloading is killing music.' A few days ago I heard someone that said 'it's like saying that downloading porn is killing sex.'

  • Same old stuff (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So its still a one sided document being written up by those in the big industries and no input from anybody this document will most likely effect, the people. They are trying to control and impact technologies they don't understand in the least. I mean if they actually had real knowledge of the technology they were trying to control they would realize that they should be using this to their advantage instead of trying to stop it.

    • The problem is that they understand the technology all too well. They know what it could mean for their control on media production and distribution, so they want all these lovely harsh penalties. And to anyone who brings up independent media, please. Very little of that stuff makes an impact. People want their big-name productions like Transformers 2 and the latest Britney Spears album.

  • Make a backup. We don't want another case like Wikileaks, where a leaked draft goes online and then the site comes down for planning and doesn't come back up.

    Whatever's in there about patents, please make notes here:

    * http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement [swpat.org]

    Thanks.

    • How much bandwidth was wikileaks even using?

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by H4x0r Jim Duggan ( 757476 )

        Bandwidth wasn't the problem. They need funding to keep going, so, to show how essential they are, they took everything off line and said they'll keep it off line until they receive enough donations to keep going. They hoped to be back on line by January 18th, but they're still off line.

        I think it's a tactical blunder. They even broke all their links - instead of being redirected to a "we need donations", you just get a 404! Messers.

    • Actually, this is the ideal sort of thing for bittorrent. Collect everything, pack it up, and start seeding. Post links. I'll be pitching in at 5:20pm.

  • They are "committed to conclude ACTA in 2010" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phypsilon ( 140518 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:54AM (#31171278)

    The document is very sparse on details. They seem to be negotiating four topics:
    1. civil enforcements
    2. customs
    3. internet
    4. transparency (wtf??)

    But the most interesting quote is: "Parties remain committed to conclude ACTA in 2010."

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bruha ( 412869 )

      So you're saying Republicans do not pirate content?

      If so I got some shore front property to sell ya.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No, he didn't say anything even faintly resembling that. WTF happened to make you so defensive, that you had to dishonestly twist his words?

        At worst, he said that some lefties violate copyright for some bullshit reasons, and IP holders have reacted to this by purchasing laws that fuck everyone (everyone includes bullshit righties, non-bullshit righties, bullshit lefties, and non-bullshit lefties). So get your panties out of a bunch, asshole, because he's right.

        As long as it's illegal (thanks to DMCA) for m

  • ... I'll start investing in MicroSD chips... lets see border guards search me for those!
    Bastards...

  • Rebut? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "The document notes that governments are planning a counter-offensive to rebut claims of iPod searching border guards and mandatory three strikes policies."

    A) so, are the claims true or not?

    B) if they released the fricking document in the first place, they wouldn't have to "rebut" (supposedly) false claims. They could just refer people to the document.

    C) until I see the actual document I won't believe whatever "rebuttal" they are cooking up anyway.

  • Like an analysis as to whether ACTA will block evidence discovery in support of foreign trials.

  • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:why wont this one world order (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @03:26PM (#31175242) Homepage

      The biggest problem with 'one world order': Where does one go when they don't agree to the policies set forth by the one world order? What if I want to smoke a joint but it'll mean the death sentence if I do? What if they start basing their laws on Christian teachings, but I'm not Christian? What if I want to start a business somewhere the won't require me to hire equal numbers of all different races? I can't, because if the one world order decides it should be, then the world will be just that.

      I don't mind countries forming defensive pacts or trade agreements. What I do mind is letting the people that can profit from those laws decide what should go in them.

  • New Zealand situation (Score:4, Funny)

    by shermo ( 1284310 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @04:25PM (#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 :(

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )
      Nice, I much prefer the AFL solution.

      The blood rule is the only thing that can pull you from the field. You also get to abuse the judge (umpire) and hip and shoulder the other file sharers.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by LuNa7ic ( 991615 )
      Oh, if I had mod points...

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close