Slashdot Mirror
IP Enforcement Treaty Still Being Kept Secret
Hugh Pickens writes "More than a thousand pages of material about Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), are still being withheld, despite the Obama administration's promises to run a more open government. The EFF and Public Knowledge filed suit in September of 2008, demanding that background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 'We are very disappointed with the USTR's decision to continue to withhold these documents. The president promised an open and transparent administration,' said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel. Publicly available information about the treaty shows it could establish far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of anti-counterfeiting measures. Additionally, multi-national IP industry companies have publicly requested that ISPs be required to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, force mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adopt 'Three Strikes' policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement. 'What we've seen tends to confirm that the substance of ACTA remains a grave concern,' said Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Sherwin Siy. 'The agreement increasingly looks like an attempt by Hollywood and the content industries to perform an end-run around national legislatures and public international forums to advance an aggressive, radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced.'"
Mostly due to the fact that my brain is currently swiss cheese,
but I know there have been great big loopholes in things past that would be unconstitutional, slipping through because treaties are consider on equal legal footing with the constitution. If you can get the USA and another country to sign off on it, then it does not have to pass muster with the nine judges in DC...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
That was Joel Reidenberg at Fordham Law.
Here's a brief article.
Scalia's response left a little to be desired.
And FWIW, I do advocate this sort of thing as long as it is within the bounds of the law. If we're going to point out why the law is flawed, then we need to show what the law really means in practice.
WRT to the ACTA situation, we have no recourse, since we cannot even examine the proposed treaty. Our only hope is to intercede with the Senate before the treaty is ratified. The chances of a successful intercession at that point are close to zero; furthermore, the US has acted within treaties it has signed even without ratification (assuming, generally correctly, that ratification would come at a later date).
In the end, though, we're SOL. IP is the only major area where the US has a dominant share of the global market. You can bet your bottom dollar that attempts to legally protect this valuable export will be made, regardless of how it suits *our* notions of freedom, or our notions of personal rights.
Big business rules the US, and they'll get what they want. Welcome to the future.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The difference is, enforcement. For example, people have recorded mix tapes for years while technically being in violation of copyright, no one cared though. Today, the digital equivalent of mix tapes are likely to get you sued if you exchange them over a digital means. People have also copied books via handwriting or more recently with copy machines and then sent those to people, which again, was technically illegal but no one cared. Today, even the of ripping a book into a digital format can possibly be interpreted as illegal and be sued, even more so if you distributed your ripped book.
Its only in the past 20 years that big businesses have managed to make everyone a criminal and charge them with a crime. Prior to that, unless you were making money off of it, you were safe. Today, anyone is a potential target.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Its Obama's administration that keeps refusing though.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty
On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. "Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned that most of the interrogators had in fact believed Mr. Dilawar to be an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
You can't take the sky from me...
[citation needed] If you could point out where the parent said torture of anyone was OK I would appreciate it, thanks.
aclu IS worthless to the average person.
I had a privacy issue that I wanted some info on (and some help with) with my landlord. not any kind of 'world war' but it sure was affecting me and my life and it seemed like an invasion of privacy would be something they'd handle.
they essentially hung up on me and I talked to dialtone until I was done.
they're fucking worthless for regular peoples' problems, even ones that ARE under their mission statement.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
No informed adult believes that Republicans and Democrats are the same. The two parties agree on certain issues, which is unfortunate for those who hold a different view on those particular issues. But that does not mean that the parties are the same.
Gay marriage? They differ.
Abortion? They differ.
Gun control? They differ.
Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ.
Amount of regulation for the markets? They differ.
Torture of key terrorists? They differ.
Most foreign policy matters? They differ.
Stem cell research? They differ.
Universal health care? They differ.
Immigration reform? They differ.
Only someone completely ignorant of US politics would try to claim that they're the same.
I had a privacy issue that I wanted some info on (and some help with) with my landlord. ... it seemed like an invasion of privacy would be something they'd handle.
It's the American Civil Liberties Union. Civil liberties are rights the people have with respect to keeping the government in check, not necessarily other private parties like your landlord.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Not to diminish your issue, but public-policy organizations (whether it's the ACLU or the EFF) only have the resources to handle specifically chosen cases, with the intent to draw publicity and influence wider policy. You shouldn't expect the ACLU to swoop in every time a cop finds weed in your car, or have the EFF drop everything and write a amicus brief when your landlord eavesdrops on a phone conversation.
You might try calling your local Legal Aid society, which DOES have the primary goal of helping individuals rather than making broader social statements. Better yet, you could drop your sense of entitlement, stop being such an insufferable freeloader, and pick up the phone to call an actual private attorney. You can almost always get a consulation on whether or not there's a legal action there before you pay anything.
ACTA is far worse than that as it sets some terrible precedents.
1) The right of corporations to censor the communications of their customers.
2) Guilt upon accusation and you must prove your innocence at your own expense.
3) Prison terms for copyright infringement with no profit motive and regardless of the extent.
4) The gross and deceitful intent to place the artificial and arbitrary asset of IP above that or of real property by providing it laws which radically exceed those for the protection of real property.
5) The corruption of the political process with absolutely no benefit to society and to only serve the greed of a minority. Especially egregious as the harm caused to society by some of the copyright protected works can be demonstrated and in fact is considered so harmful that distribution of the copyright protected content to minors is considered a criminal offence.
Before any more laws are changed to protect copyright, first and foremost current copyright should be forced to align with current laws ie. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". So until the criminal abuse of the basic principle of copyright is corrected and that the work must actually promote the progress of science and useful arts (the intent can not be more glaringly obvious), not one cent of taxpayer dollars should be spent on protecting any of it. If fact it can literally be argued that as the value of any copyrighted has not as yet been substantiated as conforming to that requirement, no one can be charged with copyright infringement.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
How many more content-mafia lawyers does he need to appoint to the DoJ before everyone here can admit that you've been sold down the river?
If you believe in freedom on the Internet, Obama is your enemy. Get used to it.
They express different positions on many matters, but the results are the same no matter which party is in power.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.