Slashdot Mirror
Unpacking the Secrets of ACTA
An anonymous reader writes "As negotiations in the 7th round of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement talks continue this week in Mexico, Michael Geist has been
posting a comprehensive guide to the secret copyright treaty. He
started with a review of the substance of
the treaty, then posted links to all the leaked
documentation, and has now unpacked the
secrecy associated with the talks, including why governments have
made it secret, the public concern, and why this isn't business as
usual."
Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary?
Because from where I sit the new master looks and smells a lot like the old.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is far more of a threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could hope to be.
Governments negotiating secret treaties with corporations concerning the dispersion of information? That's a stake right through the heart of liberty, far more damaging than suicide bombers or terrorist attacks.
For what it's worth, in case you (as I) were wondering who Michael Geist is (I don't want to end up passing on links to some guy who turns out to be a conspiracy theorist or something), he's a University of Ottawa professor, serving as their chair in Internet law.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
From the European Parliament (quoted in TFA):
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will contain a new international benchmark for legal frameworks on what is termed intellectual property right enforcement. The content as known to the public is clearly legislative in character. Further, the Council confirms that ACTA includes civil enforcement and criminal law measures. Since there can not be secret objectives regarding legislation in a democracy, the principles established in the ECJ Turco case must be upheld
From TFA:
The inescapable conclusion is that the ACTA approach is hardly standard. Rather, it represents a major shift toward greater secrecy in the negotiation of international treaties on intellectual property in an obvious attempt to avoid public participation and scrutiny.
The "make it harder to steal" part is less important to you.
You, however, are not rich. Therefore, you do not matter.
The "make it harder to steal" part is very important to a small group of rich people who usually get their way.
I went to an ACTA public information meeting that was organized by the Swiss delegation ten days ago. They couldn't openly talk about the positions of the different countries, but from what they said, I concluded that we don't have to fear as much as the internet rumors suggest. For example, they wouldn't sign the treaty if it contained a three-strikes-provision as this would be against Swiss law. They also publish quite some information on their website, including a transparency paper that roughly describes the content of ACTA:
https://www.ige.ch/en/legal-info/legal-areas/counterfeiting-piracy/acta.html
Overall, they made a good and competent impression and it also seems to me that they are open to input from the public. I'm quite proud that the Swiss government seems to handle this much more democratically and transparently than others.
Forget filesharing for a second. Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents?
If you think the main issue here is about file-sharing and the MPAA, think again. The ACTA negotiations involve representatives from the Pharmaceutical industry but notably absent is the WHO , Amnesty, Doctors without Frontiers , and a number of other human rights organizations.
Basically if this treaty is allowed to go through it is likely millions will continue to die a morbid death needlessly. Focusing on file-sharing and the RIAA is only going to result in the Pharma industry getting to screw over the citizens of developing countries.
Who has given the EU the right to represent me (EU citizen) with these criminal talks that will rob me from even more freedoms and rights?
Who in the EU decided the course? What was my part in deciding/controlling?
In other words: where is the democracy?
Frankly, I find this whole business revolting. Several large countries are working on a framework for lawmaking, which would eventually turn into laws all citizens aren't supposed to break.
The problem with this (and laws in general) is that no single citizen has any idea how not to break the law anymore. Furthermore, I was under the impression that lawmaking within democracies is supposed to be a process where every voting citizen has a say in, directly or indirectly.These ACTA negotiations are essentially about making laws noone but the big shots really want to be enforced.
To summarize: I believe these negotiations to be utterly and completely undemocratic, unethical and criminal.
Big businesses welcome regulation that they lobby for. They despise regulation that comes from any other source. In an nutshell, your problem isn't regulation but lobbyists and corruption.
When big businesses really ran the show a hundred years ago, you had kids working in sweatshops, factory fires that killed scores of people, and the government literally sending in the marines to break up union strikes. Businesses have been forced to become civilized, not by their own will, but by government regulation and public pressure.
Americans could change the way business is done, but collectively, we have been hoodwinked into believing that we can't do anything, and that football and famous twats deserve more of our attention than the decisions that really do affect our lives. The real issue now is that so much money is being diverted to the military and away from education and infrastructure that each successive generation is dumber and more apolitical than the last.
You're half right and half wrong. They don't like regulation that costs them huge chunks of their profit margins, sure. However like the parent poster suggested, businesses like regulation that makes it hard for new players to enter the market.
If regulation makes it hard for new businesses to start but is trivially expensive for big business, then they are going to love that. Like say forcing all of the businesses in a particular sector to pay $10,000 for a license. That's nothing to a big company like Microsoft but to us it could mean life or death.
Imagine if we made it legal to manufacture, sell and serve liquor out of your home without a license as a small business. Do you think that local breweries and bars would support or oppose that decision?
because you are dim enough not to understand that with this treaty, there are criminal punishments that are being brought by into your country's citizens, including you, WITHOUT going through the legislation process of a democratic country. basically, democracy is being bypassed, and NATIONAL criminal charges and punishment are being brought over your citizens without your parliament's approval.
its a violation of democracy. and if you are unable to comprehend what this means, you dont deserve democracy. not that you would need it, if you didnt comprehend the meaning of this anyway.
Read radical news here
... it would still be seen as a treaty under international law...
And other countries don't have access to the US constitution? If he doesn't have the authority to make a binding agreement, then he doesn't have the authority, and they know it.
I don't mean to belittle. You seem to know more about the subject than I do. I just can't quite wrap my head around this. Is there a congressional mandate involved somehow? How would this become binding under International Law?
As an aside, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale...
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.