Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Censorship Your Rights Online

ACTA Treaty Released 205

roju writes "The full text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was released today. It differs from the earlier leaks in that the negotiating stance of each country has been scrubbed. Preliminary analysis is up at Ars, which warns that 'Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACTA Treaty Released

Comments Filter:
  • Prior restraint? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @09:40AM (#31922042) Journal

    "Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet."

    Isn't that called "prior restraint"?

  • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @09:46AM (#31922122)

    So we should lock folks up not because they have committed a crime, but because they might commit a crime in the future.

    Buy stocks in companies that build jails . . .

  • by hibiki_r ( 649814 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @10:14AM (#31922492)

    I wouldn't call it a review of the draft: It doesn't really say all that much about it. Most of the text is spent insulting those that disagree with the author's views.

    Who knows, he might be right, but the text doesn't really resemble a good review.

  • on your rights, on your freedoms, and on the richness of your culture

    not by artists, but by an entrenched oligopoly of a dying distribution network (replaced by the internet)

    the proper response to this declaration of war is not via legal means. all legal means have been corrupted bought and sold by entrenched corporate interests

    the proper response is complete subversion of all media on the internet

    we can't beat them in the legal arena. not because our legal arguments are inferior. indeed, they are superior. but we can't compete on the same playing field in terms of financial influence over our legislative bodies

    so we will instead starve these assholes to death by destroying all of their sources of income: complete ubiquity of their media on the internet, free and higher quality (no DRM) than their locked up bullshit that only punishes the common man (it certainly doesn't punish pirates)

    let the war being: tens of millions of poor, technological sophisticated, and media hungry teenagers versus a couple thousand lawyers

    it's going to be a rout and we're going to win this war, by destroying these corporate interest that impoverish our culture and imperil our rights and freedoms by draining their finances

    it is no longer good enough to merely ignore this bullshit. it is incumbent upon anyone with a sense of morality to outright destroy media corporations for the crimes they are inflicting on our cultures

  • by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @10:28AM (#31922710) Journal

    Think about the SCO case: Perhaps SCO should have gotten an injuction to prevent anyone from distributing any version of Linux while the courts figured it all out. After all, they were claiming copyright infringement, exactly the type that would be covered in this treaty. SCO even brought the case to full fruition. This is 100% the type of case that can be subject to being enjoined. Imagine if that happened, and the judge decided that everyone that didn't have an SCO license also needed to take their Linux servers down for infringment.

    The answer is to NOT have prior restraint, and sue for damages later if that is the case.

  • by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @10:32AM (#31922808) Journal

    Trademark != Patent != Copyright.

    As I point out in a post below, just imagine if the judge in the SCO case used this treaty as a basis, then he could have enjoined anyone from distributing (or using) Linux that didn't already have an SCO license. It *was* specifically a copyright issue, just like this treaty covers.

  • by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @10:35AM (#31922854)
    I give it two weeks before we start seeing junk all over the net, possibly even here, along the lines of "ACTA not as bad as previously thought" or "why ACTA could actually save OSS" or other completely ripe horseshit like that. Hopefully everyone is smart enough to realize that's just the shills outing themselves, but they won't be.

    Hate this fuckin' planet so hard. Let me off.

"Turn on, tune up, rock out." -- Billy Gibbons