Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Piracy Government The Internet Your Rights Online

Latest Version of ACTA Leaks 87

An anonymous reader writes "Drew Wilson of ZeroPaid points to a freshly leaked version of ACTA available on La Quadrature Du Net. While the text will need further analysis, the most recent look at the text suggests that there is no Three Strikes law, but anti-circumvention laws have a new twist to them with regard to exceptions in that 'they do not significantly impair the adequacy of legal protection [...] or the effectiveness of legal remedies for violations of those measures.' Overall, the text still hints at a global DMCA with notice-and-takedown."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Latest Version of ACTA Leaks

Comments Filter:
  • by ciaran_o_riordan ( 662132 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @04:30PM (#32918980) Homepage

    Software patent problems are also worsened by ACTA, but this problem's getting lost among the discussion of problems of transporting pharmaceuticals via Europe. The pharmaceuticals issue is bigger, but the software patents issue still exists (and the DRM issues, which is even worse).

    swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

  • Further Reading (Score:5, Informative)

    by somaTh ( 1154199 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @04:31PM (#32918984) Journal
    Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] recently ran a story on how non-transparent they've been since they gave out their official release in April, along with further links.
  • by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @04:42PM (#32919130)

    An Executive agreement still requires majority support from both Houses to be implemented. But since the DMCA was passed with unanimous support in the Senate and with little to no opposition in the House there is no chance in hell that ACTA is going to face any real opposition from Congress.

  • by mmu_man ( 107529 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @04:42PM (#32919132)

    Many volunteers from La Quadrature du Net did an amazing job at transcripting the ugly PDF scan, the result is available here:
    http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/ACTA_20100713_version_consolidated_text [laquadrature.net]

  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:01PM (#32919418) Homepage Journal
    the document was meant to be that secretive as geist makes it sound. but, all countries do not agree on this acta thing, leave aside its secrecy. the ones which are vying for that are united states of america, which houses the private interests who got that treaty prepared in the first place to push their own interests, and uk, due to their lesser counterparts being in the same boat. all the others are less than positive to this thing, but they dont want to go without say in it, hence, participating. some are probably actively trying to sabotage the talks, as all should do. some, like india, are openly against it.

    you owe the leakouts to sources that do not agree with american hollywood and media.
  • by Dorkmaster Flek ( 1013045 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:18PM (#32919630)
    Uh, I think you might want to actually read the DMCA. It uses a notice and takedown system, not notice and counter-notice. That's the major problem with it; it's easily abused just by sending takedown notices in a dragnet approach, even if the content is being used under fair use.
  • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @05:41PM (#32919894)

    What the heck is an "Executive Agreement" and what sort of force does it have.

    PoliSci grad student here. An Executive Agreement is exactly the same as an Executive Order (as in it has the full force of law) with one major difference: it is only in effect so long as the President that signs it is still in office. However, it can be extended by the next president through an executive order or another agreement. It seems to me that the whole point of this is to push it through by the easiest means possible, then when the government tried to push the terms of the agreement to a more permanent status, they are hoping we either won't complain, or won't pay attention.

  • by Bigjeff5 ( 1143585 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:12PM (#32920258)

    An Executive Agreement has the same force as an executive order, namely none.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States) [wikipedia.org]

    Executive orders have the full force of law unless an act of Congress specifically denies the power (Exec Orders are assumed to be based on acts of Congress), or the POTUS is not given such power in the Constitution.

    Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause [wikipedia.org]

    Executive Agreements (there are three types, we're talking about sole-executive agreements here) have exactly the same force as standard treaties, and as far as international law is concerned is just a treaty.

    The real difference between them is how easily they are enacted and repealed, and what has to be done after they are signed. Most treaties are executive agreements of one type or another. If the treaty falls in line with US law, nothing has to be done. Occasionally, new laws need to be enacted or current laws need to be changed to comply with a treaty. In this way Congress can essentially repeal a treaty they don't like, as well, because domestic laws take precedence over treaties.

    A sole executive-agreement is extremely easy for a President to enact, and just as easy for a president to remove. They are the weakest form of treaty, but unless there is something that contradicts US law or they are unconstitutional, they automatically carry the force of law - just like executive orders.

  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @06:33PM (#32920492) Homepage Journal
    there is an uprising against acta already. eu doesnt like it. eu parliament banned various potential implementations of it. india openly opposes it.

    all it needs more encouragement, for it to become a full fledged uprising.
  • by Bigjeff5 ( 1143585 ) on Thursday July 15, 2010 @07:03PM (#32920838)

    Apparently, you need to read it as well.

    The counter notice is sent to the company who took down the post, and under the safe harbor provisions as long as the poster sends them a counter notice the service provider can re-post the material.

    It is then up to the two individuals to solve the issue in court.

    This means illegal distribution of copyrighted material is easily removed with force of law, with only a slight and temporary inconvenience to fair use materials or otherwise legal distributions of copyrighted materials.

    The only change I would make is to add a consequence for an illegitimate takedown notice. A legitimate poster should have the ability to recoup any losses caused by a frivolous takedown notice. I wouldn't go as far as a fine for frivolous notices, but some sort of consequence to make sure copyright holders only go after those that are obviously infringing copyright.

Logic is the chastity belt of the mind!