Concerns About ACTA In EU, Canada

Elektroschock writes "An EU document on the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty was leaked. The main purpose of the trade agreement is to impose the European enforcement measures for IPR infringements on the US and emerging economies, widen the enforcement measures to include criminal sanctions for patent infringements, and introduce internet content filtering measures. Civil society groups such as the FFII criticize the ACTA process because negotiation documents are not made publicly available by the governments. The EU document ('fact sheet') from the EU Trade Commissioner explicitly mentions: 'Internet distribution and information technology — e.g. mechanisms available in EU E-commerce Directive of 2000, such as a definition of the responsibility of internet service providers regarding IP infringing content.'" And an anonymous reader adds Michael Geist's push for more transparency around ACTA negotiations in Canada.

Comments

About time!!!

[syousef]

Everyone knows that murder, assault, rape, theft of tangible goods, and even child pornography are just petty crimes that we waste a lot of money enforcing. The real crimes we should be targeting are those which involve Intellectual Property and may even possibly have an impact on company profit margins through such things as lost potential sales, or the inability to overcharge by virtue of an artificial monopoly, or restrict use to what is most convenient to a company. How can even a million human lives compare to a potential lost sale? IP crimes are so heinous we should be bringing back the death penalty and torture. I say anyone who backs up their DVDs should be put to death!!!

In case anyone has failed to detect the sarcasm above, I believe our society is becoming one twisted piece of SHIT and the IP legislators are leading the way to hell.

Re:Resist IP, resist the government.

[kent_eh]

*phone rings*
"Hello Senator Bedfellow's office"
"Hi, this is Bob from the RIAA. We need another new law. People aren't buying as much stuff from us as we would like since the last law we paid you for.."

Only about commercial piracy???

[PontifexPrimus]

The Commission, on the other hand, has warned against alarmist scenarios. It emphasises that ACTA is about tackling large scale criminal activity, not about limiting civil or consumer rights.

I really, really hate stuff like this. Why doesn't anyone call the industry on this? Whenever I hear "but it won't be used against small-scale infringers" I want to shout at them THEN FUCKING PUT IT IN THERE! Put it in writing, in the treaty / law / whatever, that it can't be used if fewer than 200 files are shared. Spell it out that you won't prosecute anyone who possesses less than a quarter of his whole movie collection as illegal downloads.

Two reasons why we should not accept wishy-washy talk like this:

• This will have the force of a law, and I want to be able to interpret laws myself, so I know if / when I'm breaking them.
• The other one is to show the disconnect between what the media industry thinks is acceptable, and what the average citizen thinks is acceptable; I'd bet if forced to define their limits honestly the media conglomerates would have to explain their definitions as "non-commercial infringer: person with one or two illegally acquired mp3-files, either through downloads or by format conversion from a cd; large-scale commercial infringer: everything beyond that, including redistributing even a fraction of a file when downloading from a P2P service".

Why can people like that get away with blatant lies like that time and time again?

Another nail in the coffin

[99luftballon]

The ACTA saga rolls on. One bonus of stories like this is that it shows how worried the participants are by the attention they are receiving. This after all was supposed to be pushed through on the QT.

Note the special pleading going on - we will not search your iPod, it's just an augmentation of existing regulations etc. No mention of the fact they are still presuming guilt on the part of the consumer and are asking for unprecedented intrusion into individuals personal data.

The fact is this is a treaty designed by copyright holders to give them more powers to protect their IP at the expense of everyone else. No doubt the provisions will be used against major traffickers of stolen IP but they will also be used against individuals by overzealous companies too.

So.......I'm kind of lost here.......

[Anachragnome]

It appears, to me, that somebody wants people to stop using the internet for various purposes that might be in contradiction to their financial goals. They claim they are losing money.

So, once they get what they want, and the internet is no longer a means of the free exchange of ideas, information, etc, what the FUCK do they think is going to happen?

Hmmm...maybe people will stop using it? And what happens to all the corporations that make THEIR money from the internet? Are they going to stand there and let it happen?

From my point of view, this "war" against copyright infringers is going to blow the whole damn boat out of the water. Right now, it is a war against "us", when it should really be a war between those corporations. A lot of people(read, companies) other then "us" supposed copyright violators stand to lose a lot of money, and I am not talking about the copyright holders.

Where are THEIR voices, on this matter?