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."
Three strikes policies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Man, that buzzword just keeps coming up. Can you imagine if baseball was based around 4 strikes instead of 3?
Re:Sounds on the up and up (Score:2, Interesting)
Or just stop correcting people. all you trolls really should find something better to do with your time. Find a life, meet a girl, go out and do something like see the sunlight. Shitheads.
They are "committed to conclude ACTA in 2010" (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
A good one yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 recommendation. It is actually fairly fair, except that the attentive reader will have noticed I said PROMISES. It does NOT base its advice on YOUR preferences and a parties PAST behavior. So the advice in on what parties say they will do, not what they have done. And almost every falls for it.
Re:show me what's on the table (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Rebut? (Score:1, Interesting)
"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.
Re:Property rights for me, none for thee (Score:1, Interesting)
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 me to play or otherwise use (in a way that doesn't violate copyright) a disc that I bought instead of pirated, the laws are bullshit and the big content companies deserve jack shit in terms of sympathy. I'm going to pirate until it's legal for me to buy+use, and if the companies don't like that, they can either stop using DRM or purchase a DMCA repeal.
Copyright laws that don't include fair use, aren't copyright laws that anyone ought to bother respecting. And if some crybaby cries that people aren't buying their crap, maybe they ought to rethink their decision to bribe our government into outlawing fair use, instead of just crying louder. Their crying is just annoying and doesn't elicit any sympathy from the left nor the right.
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Counterfeiting is fundamentally about trademarks and copyrights.
That sentence is complete and utter bullshit.
If it were true, then why do we have counterfeiting laws? Why not just prosecute under trademark and copyright?
If it were true, why do we talk about counterfeit money, when money is neither trademarked or copyrighted?
If it were true, why is passing off a fake DaVinci counterfeiting?
As Entropius said - counterfeiting is primarily about fraud. It can deal with trademark infringement if the product is marked, and it can deal with copyright if (as I said) the copyright infringement is large-scale for-profit copying with the intent to pass it off as the original. But it's fraud that makes it counterfeiting, not the trademark or copyright status.