Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
News Your Rights Online

ACTA Document Leaks With Details On Mexico Talks 87

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This discussion has been archived.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

Comments Filter:
  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:56AM (#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.

  • by Monkeedude1212 ( 1560403 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:05PM (#31170352) Journal

    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.

  • by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:07PM (#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.
  • Solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:17PM (#31170542)
    A good counteroffensive to rebut these claims would be to remove all the secrecy and let us see what's going on
  • Same old stuff (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:19PM (#31170576)

    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.

  • Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:48PM (#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.

  • by schon ( 31600 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:57PM (#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?

  • by molo ( 94384 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @01:17PM (#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.


  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @01:39PM (#31172198)

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

    Anti-Consumer Trade Agreement

  • by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @04:26PM (#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.

  • Re:Solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xOneca ( 1271886 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @04:36PM (#31175442) Homepage
    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.'
  • by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @05:00PM (#31175898)

    Here's an easy fix. STOP STEALING SHIT! If people would stop stealing shit like a serial rapist, they wouldn't feel the need to lock things down as if it were their daughter's chastity.

    If people weren't pirating the shit the companies would still pretend they did because pirates are an easy way to claim that your product is appealing and you only need some technical measures to increase your revenue instead of admitting that the appeal of your product is limited and you need to branch out to see any further increase in revenue.

  • Treason (Score:3, Insightful)

    by syousef ( 465911 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @05:20PM (#31176236) Journal

    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 ironically, there are probably anti-terror laws that apply too.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.