Slashdot Mirror
Adding Up the Explanations For ACTA's "Shameful Secret"
Several sources are reporting on a Google event this week that attempted to bring some transparency to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that has so far been treated like a "shameful secret." Unfortunately, not many concrete details were uncovered, so Ars tried to lay out why there has been so much secrecy, especially from an administration that has been preaching transparency. "The reason for that was obvious: there's little of substance that's known about the treaty, and those lawyers in the room and on the panel who had seen one small part of it were under a nondisclosure agreement. In most contexts, the lack of any hard information might lead to a discussion of mind-numbing generality and irrelevance, but this transparency talk was quite fascinating—in large part because one of the most influential copyright lobbyists in Washington was on the panel attempting to make his case. [...] [MPAA/RIAA Champion Steven] Metalitz took on three other panelists and a moderator, all of whom were less than sympathetic to his positions, and he made the lengthiest case for both ACTA and its secrecy that we have ever heard. It was also surprisingly unconvincing."
I think we can all agree that this is too important to negotiate the details in public.
Why the hell a trade treaty is secret. From anyone... let alone the people of the countrys involved in the agreement.
If you can't tell people what's in it. It's most likely not a good thing and we'd like to hang you for it.
These creeps are not dead and they will try other approaches to take away freedoms that we should all have and cherish. They have redefined piracy in order to make normal and usual human activity a crime. Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted. The notion that because it is easier to copy because we use computers is no excuse for the current plague of laws. This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.
...it's clear that many governments don't actually want their own people to see the proposals being made and to shape their outcome.
It goes to show that it really pays to be a lobbyist:
Keeping negotiations secret is how "you get big fees to be a lobbyist," since only the "insiders" have access to the process.
Unless copying is blatantly commercial in nature it should be permitted.
Well then you can say goodbye to alot of creative endeavors. Why write a book when it will only sell a single copy before being copied all over the internet? I can't make a living off the time spent writing when sales drop. Can't be a very successful band without some form of digital media, whether you're signed or produce it yourself. That won't turn a profit once its all across the web.
This is almost as absurd as telling drinkers that they could not use a device to lift a drink to their lips because it makes getting drunk easier.
No, this is like telling drinkers that they cannot use a device that duplicates the beverage to give to their friends.
From the summary...
[MPAA/RIAA Champion Steven] Metalitz took on three other panelists and a moderator, all of whom were less than sympathetic to his positions, and he made the lengthiest case for both ACTA and its secrecy that we have ever heard. It was also surprisingly unconvincing.
I'd find it more surprising if he could make a convincing argument for all the secrecy.
Take a look at which political party the MAFIAA has bought.
Well, wtf were *you* thinking, voting a senator from the most famously corrupt state in the union into the office of the President?
Makes me wish I'd owned land in Utah for that election. I would have made a killing selling "oceanfront property".
There are actually good reasons to keep drafts of a trade treaty secret, or at least to keep Congress from meddling too much in the negotiation of a trade treaty (and one way to accomplish that is secrecy). Often a trade treaty might involve lowering tariffs or other barriers to trade, which result in a net economic benefit to the countries involved as a whole. However, they also hurt specific businesses or industries, which have a strong incentive to mobilize and lobby against lowering tariffs (see, e.g., Chinese tires). By keeping a treaty secret until most details have been hammered out, it gives less time for special interests to derail what can potentially be overall a beneficial product.
That said, as Jonathan Band of Policy Bandwidth (one of the panelists) pointed out during the event, ACTA is fundamentally not a trade agreement, and it's dishonest to pretend that it is, even if it has "trade" in the name. ACTA seems to be combination agreement on customs and law enforcement (not trade) and on intellectual property (also not trade). This difference is important, because IP agreements have a much more transparent history than trade agreements. This is something that Jamie Love kept trying to point out to Steve Metalitz; Steve was arguing that ACTA is no less transparent than trade agreement X, but the proper comparison would be any of WIPO's recent work, and the fact that NGOs, business groups, and academics all have access to draft WIPO agreements and resolutions, and their input is taken seriously. Draft texts are even put up on the Internet. That's transparency. It's also precisely the reason why ACTA can't be negotiated in a forum like WIPO.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson