Making Sense of ACTA

Hodejo1 writes "This past week Guadalajara, Mexico hosted the 7th secret meeting of ACTA proponents who continue to ignore demands worldwide to open the debate to the public. Piecing together official and leaked documents from various global sources, Michael Geist has coalesced it all into a five part ACTA Guide that offers structured insight into what these talks might foist upon the populace at large. 'Questions about ACTA typically follow a familiar pattern — what is it (Part One of the ACTA Guide listing the timeline of talks), do you have evidence (Part Two), why is this secret (Part Three), followed by what would ACTA do to my country's laws (Part Four)? Countering the momentum behind ACTA will require many to speak out" (Part Five).'"

Comments

Fuck ACTA

[haderytn]

That is all.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[couchslug]

Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.

I don't advocate what he did, but as the proponents of secret government become more and more abusive they are going to provoke the fringe...first.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck ACTA? More like what the fuck is ACTA?

Re:Fuck ACTA

[hairyfeet]

The problem with that theory is how can you kill that which is not alive? And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts, along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.

Sadly short of armed revolution (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants) I just don't see things ever getting any better, and more likely will get far worse. At least China and India have strong nationalistic streaks and tend to put their own people first, whereas our traitors will happily sell us out to foriegn multinationals for 30 pieces of silver. I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area) while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough. Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.

I am only glad my grandfather who fought in WWII isn't alive to see how pathetic and corrupt our government has become. You could probably already power the entire south with the revolutions the man is spinning in his grave at how far his once great country has fallen. Sadly there is simply no way to compete with income tax dodging multinationals who have more money than most third world nations.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[biryokumaru]

You must be new here.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Hurricane78]

Follow the money.

There. There’s your sense.

Case closed. ^^

Now where is my giant space ray gun, when I need it?

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Yvanhoe]

That's not all.
Join the Pirate Party.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[pydev]

In Soviet Russia, ACTA fucks you. Oh, also in Europe and the US.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[dissy]

Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.

I don't advocate what he did, but as the proponents of secret government become more and more abusive they are going to provoke the fringe...first.

Can't feel too bad for them. If they want people to take their arguments the legal route, they perhaps shouldn't outlaw all the legal routes.

Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly there is simply no way to compete with income tax dodging multinationals who have more money than most third world nations.

Your forgot to mention popular revolutions during the past 200 years:

1. French
2. Russian
3. Chinese
4. Cuban

Each of these took care of issues you have mentioned...with the last two have accomplished laudable aims by (at least initially) improving the health/political standing of the populace. When you start executing those who have been taking advantage of/gaming the system...makes those oppressed feel better & shows the government being serious about those who allow it to govern. What's better than watching some former rich/aristocractic person digging ditches while the former laborers are the boss???

Re:Fuck ACTA

[freakinangry]

It's sad to see the result that is this country after so many have fought for what is truly a dream and nothing else. I'm a foreigner having lived in the US for almost my entire life, and seeing the unfortunate direction on so many different levels that this country is speeding towards has me looking elsewhere for relief, meaning moving out of the US. I hope that people one day wake up and take action to correct the country's course, but it doesn't seem to be likely. All empires come to an end.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice ... you don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying ... lobbying, to get what they want ... Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want ... they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that ... that doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers ... Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They'll get it ... they'll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people ... white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means ... continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you ... they don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about you at all ... at all ... at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain wilfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream cause you have to be asleep to believe it... -- George Carlin

Re:Fuck ACTA

[martas]

While I agree with the general idea behind your post, I fail to see how immigrants (evil, evil immigrants) fit there. IHMO, the biggest problem with the US gov't today is that it is a "democratic" government where elected officials are more worried about money than their own voters, especially since these days votes are won not through argument and opinion, but through ads and shady campaigns that overwhelm the voter with so much garbage that he no longer thinks about what's best for him, but rather what some cheap slogans that have been crammed in his brain tell him to do. Even language, what is supposed to be a tool for communication, has become tainted and twisted and bent into something that provokes animalistic emotion in the listener, not thought and reason. I bet if you looked at the brain of the average American through an fMRI when he heard words such as Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, healthcare, terrorism, etc, the areas you'd see lighting up would imply something very disturbing. Immigrants aren't this country's biggest problem. Nor is it terrorists, oil, healthcare, global warming, etc. The biggest problem is that government is no longer for the people, or by the people (if it ever was, of course).

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Ostracus]

"Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them."

When did apathy get outlawed?

Re:Fuck ACTA

[hairyfeet]

I have NO problem with immigrants, what I have a problem with is slaves. H1-Bs are nothing more than indentured servants brought in to lower the wages for everyone else. You bring in someone from India that paid maybe 12k for a master's degree, pay him peanuts and give him NO recourse or he's on the next boat back home, and we are supposed to compete with THAT? It is like saying "We should just compete with Chinese manufacturing" while ignoring they can use slaves and political prisoners, can poison their workers, and dump toxic waste into the air and water at will.

So you misunderstand me. I have no problem with those that want to come over here legally and become US citizens. No problem whatsoever. What I have a problem with is H1-Bs and illegals being brought in and paid peanuts while so many Americans and barely surviving. Several of my neighbors are seriously talking about buying tents and living in the woods, simply because they are nearly out of money and there is simply no work of ANY kind to be found, yet you go to the construction sites and there is ONE white foreman and a whole bunch of illegals. One of my relatives said "maybe they are just Mexican workers". I said "Oh really?" and yelled "Immigra!" and watched as the ENTIRE workcrew ran off like the hounds of hell were chasing them. Now THAT I DO have a serious fucking problem with!

Re:Fuck ACTA

[martas]

well yes, that much i agree with - american workers are "protected" by many laws (e.g. minimal wage, workplace conditions, etc) that make them much less attractive to an employer than illegals/quasi-slave labor in developing countries. though it's not obvious to me how this problem can be solved. how can you stop outsourcing without severely damaging the competitiveness of american companies? how do you stop illegal immigration without some very disturbing campaigns reminiscent of witch-hunts? i got nothin'.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Monsuco]

Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.

Umm, is wasn't a copyright treaty that made McVeigh mass murder people.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[joocemann]

"Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them."

When did apathy get outlawed?

Since when is apathy a counter?

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Monsuco]

And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts

The courts did absolutely nothing to legalize bribery. Quid pro quo exchanges of money for votes are still very much illegal, and unless you have been huffing paint thinner, you'd have no way of interpreting what SCOTUS said this way.

along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.

Regardless of your views on the case, money already was a huge player. It always has been, it will continue to grow, the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act" did absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of money in politics, as is clearly evident in the fact that we saw some of the most expensive elections in history in the campaigns since it passed. The only thing it really has done is made candidates put those awkward "approve this message" lines in their commercials (which is still in place),encouraged increased use of 3-rd party campaigns (still in place but less relevent), and reduced the competativeness of most elections since it is much more of a pain to criticize opponents (hence its critics have dubbed it the "Incumbency Protection Act"). A politician still must earn your vote and the extreme majority of campaign contributions tend to go to candidates that already favored a viewpoint. Suppose you are a gun company. It is a lot easier to promote a candidate who is already pro-gun than to persuade an anti-gun candidate to join you. All the recent court ruling did was make it so companies can more directly contribute to political speech, rather than indirectly contribute via third parties.

I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area)

Actually, the rate of illegal immigration appears to be declining due to the poor economy. I also would doubt legal H1-Bs hold too negative an impact on the US economy. What do you assume those workers do with the money they've earned? Do you think they eat it? They turn around and re-spend it here, creating jobs or they ship it overseas which removes currency from the US, thus reducing inflation. (It isn't the presence of dollar bills in the economy that make it worth money, it is the asset value the economy has, money is just a token to represent that value.) Illegal immigrants cause problems largely because of the high crime rates associated with illegal human trafficking not the taking of jobs. Also, the US unemployment rate as calculated by the department of Labor (not the Fed, they are a semi-independant central bank) is based on a survey of about 60,000 households to estimate a national average. It is currently about 10%. Your claim of it being underrepresented is a myth that derives from the fact that a few state and local governments compile their stats that way.

while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough.

Have you ever read history books? Have you ever heard of the Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, the leader of the 19th century Democrat political machine of New York City? Have you ever read about the Teapot Dome scandal? The current levels of corruption pale in comparison to these.

Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.

Social Security might be something of a Ponzi scheme, but the rest of the federal government really doesn't come close to the defe

Re:Fuck ACTA

[JackieBrown]

That must be why all our neighbors are illegally immigrating to Cuba instead of the US.

It also explains why more people apply for Cuban citizenship rather than US citizenship.

To the GP

At least China and India have strong nationalistic streaks

Unfortunetly, any sense of nationalism in the US immeidetly gets shot down as arrogance and ignorance

Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare? They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals. I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's people talk about how we should all have national healthcare.

Nothing these people say make me think that they give a damn about us.

Not all Europeans are like this. In fact, I imagine that the majority of Europe either likes the US or is apathetic to us. But there is a strong and loud anti-US online sentiment that drowns out the rational ones.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[hairyfeet]

Well on the illegals I would first demand employers have SSNs for ALL workers on file, and make the fines for hiring illegals so damned nasty that no company would dare risk it. When you can walk onto ANY construction site here in the south and see NOTHING but illegals and a single white boss? Well that shit is fucked up and has got to go. Like I said all you have to do is yell "Immigra" and they will scatter like spooked deer, so you know that none of them are legals.

As for H1-B, we are just gonna have to accept the world is NOT our friend and get protectionist. Do you think the Chinese or Indians will let your white ass go over there in mass and do the same shit? Hell no, they would run you out on a rail! Perot talked about a "giant sucking sound" and no truer words have been spoken. China rigs their currency so they can sell all they want here while we can't sell jack to them, Japan has truly nasty tariffs on items like rice to keep us out, India is building their own weapons systems so they don't have to give us a single dime, so why should we give a shit about them?

It is actually quite simple: Everyone talks about "free trade" but FREE TRADE IS A LIE. There is NO free trade, there is just countries that make sure they can sell to us while we can't sell jack to them. The EU mostly deals fair with us, and should be given favored status for doing so. China? India? Rig the game so we can't win. All our money goes out, none comes back. It would be like saying it was fair to put a Pinto in a race with a Porsche, but just so Porsche doesn't have to worry about there being even the tiniest chance of you winning, ties an anchor to your bumper first and calls it "fair". They poison the planet, use slaves, dump toxic waste, and we are supposed to treat them as equals to the US and EU?

There is NO FAIR TRADE and the lies and bullshit must end, or we will become just another third world hellhole. We are already at 24% unemployment (the fed numbers are lies) our pay has been either stagnant or falling for decades depending on which economist you believe, and pretty much anything in tech is being given to H1-Bs so a guy with a 100,000 worth of student debt has to compete on his OWN SOIL with a guy that paid less than 10k for his. THIS is fair trade? Either we change our ways, protect our own like China and India do, or we WILL fall. It is as simple as that.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Stop throwing up fucking acronyms without at least defining them once in your story. Not everyone is an expert in your particular area of interest.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[jonwil]

Although I do not advocate terrorist attacks as such, maybe the US needs a "government reboot" similar to what happened in the Tom Clancy book "Executive Orders".

Re:Fuck ACTA

[AllergicToMilk]

What's better? Watching some smug, self-righteous prick choke on his own bile.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/employment

The unemployment rate that you refer to can be made to say anything at all. Historically, 10% has been a "cutoff" point. The populace grows restless when unemployment officially reaches 10%. The solution has been to readjust the numbers to keep that rate below 10%.

If we used the same numbers, and crunched them in the same manner that our government crunched them when I was in high school in the early '70's the official unemployment rate WOULD BE over 20% right now, and closing in on 30%.

Want a rational means of figuring unemployment? Here you go.

Take the entire population of able bodied people between the ages of 18 and 65. Subtract the total of primary caregivers who stay home to take care of children and invalids, as they are employed. DO NOT subtract welfare recipients, prisoners, people whose unemployment benefits have expired, military, and people who have just never had a job because they are to lazy. A simple division at this point gives you the total number of people who are not gainfully employed, and THAT is the real unemployment figure.

Using my method, you will at least double the 22% found on this graph: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[mjwx]

Sadly short of armed revolution

The problem with armed revolution is that it's extremely easy for a spin doctor to marginalise and make unpopular. Just imagine someone like Slush Fatbargh, on Box News telling you how these "freedom hating terrorists" want to destroy the good old "US of A" and how they'll eat babies and kittens if they ever succeed.

Unless you manage to pull off a rapid coup d'etat and also silence or are aligned with the media the spin doctors will rip any such rebellion to shreds in it's infancy. But really, would a military coup be any better?

For a governmental change to succeed with democracy remaining in tact you need overwhelming support from the majority of the populous. If you have this, you can easily accomplish governmental change with non-violent means such as protests, sit-ins, work disruptions and so forth. If you have that much support it's a good chance the police/army will simply refuse to follow orders to force you. If you're shooting people, soldiers and police officers don't have time to question their own actions. There is a good reason dictators maintain a small private army for law enforcement separate to the police and regular army (Saddam - revolutionary guards, Iran - Basij and many others)

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

This phrase should never be taken so literally, it means that freedom requires personal sacrifices, not all of these need to be bloody or violent. Look at Ghandi, the protesting Monks in Vietnam and China (self immolation).

If you managed to organise 20 million Americans to take up arms against the US government you would maybe cause some damage before the US army beat you to a bloody pulp, even with 20 to 1 in your favour you're still guaranteed to lose (then you'll have desertion, lack of munitions and funds). If you managed to organise 20 million Americans to sit out the front of key capital buildings until the government resigned, then you have a chance of accomplishing your goals.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[the_one(2)]

Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare? They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals. I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's people talk about how we should all have national healthcare.

No, it's because we realize the stupidity and inefficiencies of your system and feel sorry for you.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

The REASON USA is pushing ACTA is that they KNOW they cannot compete with China at many levels, so they hope that some IP red tape will ensure a endless flow of royalties back to USA to support the new age jobless, when manufacturing goes *poof*. It new trade protectionism at its worst - and feeble minded host countries imagine their tax coffers will get a slice of the pie too. This wont work if the other countries do not join the club and agree to extrajudicial extradition to put the fright into wayward souls.

In reality China will do what it does best, at worst agree to something but ignore it.
But like the banks and Hollywood, all the existing royalties and taxes somehow don't get collected, but avoided.

What will happen, is America is on track to put its 100 millionth citizen in Jail.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[DangerFace]

Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare? They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals. I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's people talk about how we should all have national healthcare.

Nothing these people say make me think that they give a damn about us.

Seriously? I don't like people dying. I really don't like people dying of easily preventable causes. I hate people dying in hospitals of easily preventable causes because they aren't millionaires. I couldn't care less about what you want to do with your life, if you're doing ok, but if you use "I'm alright" as an answer to "Why are you letting all these people die?" then you are morally reprehensible. If you are just happy to have people die through lack of money in the richest country in the world when much poorer countries do much better, then that's fine.

The New Scientist had a brilliant graph plotting expected lifespan against annual government spending on healthcare. Guess who spent the most? The US. Guess who had the shortest lifespan? The US. Guess what the only explanation is? Profits on such an epic scale even European levels of corruption don't achieve them.

Not all Europeans are like this. In fact, I imagine that the majority of Europe either likes the US or is apathetic to us. But there is a strong and loud anti-US online sentiment that drowns out the rational ones.

The majority of Europe hates America. Really, really hates America. However, most European people understand that most American people are alright. The basic values of the Founding Fathers are pretty noble and good.

But

Your country and its citizens dare to lecture China on human rights when you don't recognise the International Criminal Courts, you hold unnamed suspects with no evidence and no charges against them for unlimited amounts of time with no access to legal representation. You invade sovereign nations in the name of regime change. You defend these invasions with the words freedom and liberty, and yet have no care for the millions dying in far worse regimes throughout Africa and Asia. You announce wars on abstract ideas like 'terror' or 'drugs' - unwinnable wars that nevertheless get people whipped up into a nationalistic frenzy.

You know what the worst part is, though? The reason people throughout Europe really, really hate the US? Our governments copy you like fscking monkeys, spending more in order to get less, joining in with your pointless wars in far off lands - at least you have companies that profit from rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. Our school systems get more and more like yours, even though our schools have always turned out smarter kids. Nationalised public services start being seen as some left-wing ideal, rather than centrist and part-of-the-basic-ideals-of-the-free-market.

The truth is that the venting you get on the interwebs is actually pretty mild compared with the venting you get at dinner parties, in pubs - basically wherever there aren't Americans, because you bastards are all so fscking nice.

Have a nice day.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Jedi Alec]

The majority of Europe hates America. Really, really hates America. However, most European people understand that most American people are alright. The basic values of the Founding Fathers are pretty noble and good.

Ehmm, unless you can quote some census data on that, speak for yourself please? Hate is a pretty strong emotion. I'll admit that those people who I know have an opinion on the US at all generally disapprove though.

You know what the worst part is, though? The reason people throughout Europe really, really hate the US? Our governments copy you like fscking monkeys, spending more in order to get less, joining in with your pointless wars in far off lands - at least you have companies that profit from rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. Our school systems get more and more like yours, even though our schools have always turned out smarter kids. Nationalised public services start being seen as some left-wing ideal, rather than centrist and part-of-the-basic-ideals-of-the-free-market.

Odd, noone I know feels this way. Then again, most of the people I tend to hang out with realize that if our elected representatives stick their heads up the ass of the US, maybe we should have voted for someone else instead, and they get to pay the price next election.

I take it you are from the UK? Sentiment on the mainland is a little more nuanced than you picture it in your post I think.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that the venting you get on the interwebs is actually pretty mild compared with the venting you get at dinner parties, in pubs - basically wherever there aren't Americans, because you bastards are all so fscking nice.

I find it easier to vent against someone not in the room with me as well :)

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason people throughout Europe really, really hate the US? Our governments copy you like fscking monkeys

So Europeans hate the US because their governments are spineless and weak? Why don't you revolt against your government as is so often suggested that we Americans do?

I honestly do not believe that most Europeans think like you. I really want to believe that Europeans are more open minded than this.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[IndustrialComplex]

The Geneva Convention even specifies the status of non-uniformed combatants; they have no rights and may be executed on the spot. I'd say in light of that, Guantanamo detainees have been treated with far more compassion than they legally deserve. After a thorough no-holds-barred interrogation, when I was certain they were of no more intelligence value, all I'd give them is a blindfold and a cigarette

It's heartening to know that you hold yourself to such high moral standards.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Kopachris]

Anyone want to donate to help start a new microstate? Maybe we can make an open-source project out of it: OpenNation.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[DarkKnightRadick]

Really? Is that why every European nation with national healthcare sees a DEFICIT (France's is 2b annually) in their budgets due to health care? Get a grip.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[DarkKnightRadick]

I just want to say that not only do we not recognize the ICC, we shouldn't recognize them. They are not part of our Constitutional form of government. Nor is the World Bank, the IMF, or the UN. No country should allow a foreign power (which the UN and it's related agencies are) to dictate internal policy. Yes, it is that simple, even if you don't want to admit that.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[DarkKnightRadick]

Go Strat! If I had mod points I'd give them all to you!

Re:Fuck ACTA

[jc79]

I believe the vast majority of the UK's deficit is due to a combination of loaning money to, and buying shares in, failing financial institutions. The cost of the NHS is nothing compared to that.

The reason Europeans care about American healthcare is the same reason we give money to NGOs to dig wells and build schools in developing countries: we don't like to see people suffer through no fault of their own. It's called compassion for our fellow humans. Or enlightened self-interest.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[jc79]

Guantanamo detainees have been treated with far more compassion than they legally deserve. After a thorough no-holds-barred interrogation, when I was certain they were of no more intelligence value, all I'd give them is a blindfold and a cigarette.

Really? Even people for whom the only evidence against them was obtained by torture?

They aren't Democrats, they are Progressives, an ideology that can be described as "Socialism-Lite" or "Conservative Socialism". This is a bad thing, as it *always* fails and devolves into a Socialist or Communist totalitarian state.

[citation needed]

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts

The courts did absolutely nothing to legalize bribery. Quid pro quo exchanges of money for votes are still very much illegal, and unless you have been huffing paint thinner, you'd have no way of interpreting what SCOTUS said this way.

It wasn't the courts that made this legal, it was congress that made it acceptable. When we have the $300million bribe to Mary Landrieu and the multi billion dollar bribe to Ben Nelson in exchange for a vote this can be seen as nothing else then an end to the rule of law.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Pentavirate]

Sounds like a dictatorship.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that violence isn't actually legal, but I bet a few dead congress critters would speak legions louder than any organized protest.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Rakarra]

As someone who lives in California, I would point to our state legislature as an excellent, prime example of why term limits are a terrible idea.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[bit9]

The courts did absolutely nothing to legalize bribery.

Have you been paying attention lately? Like, for instance, the last 30 years? Bribery may still be "very much illegal" on paper, but in practice, it's par for the course. Tell me something. When bribery is illegal on paper, but in practice it is so widespread as to almost be the rule rather than the exception, and it happens frequently and routinely in broad daylight because nobody can be bothered to give a damn, how exactly is someone wrong for suggesting that bribery has become legal?

Our legal code is chock full of old laws that are no longer enforced, yet remain on the books merely because nobody pays them any mind. In the old days, those seeking to get around a given legal statute would hire a team of lawyers to find some sort of loophole. Nowadays they just call their buddies in government and say "How 'bout we stop enforcing that law? Mmm-kay? Yeah. Sounds great." What the hell good does an anti-bribery law do if the people in government charged with enforcing that law can themselves be bribed?

Don't you realize that the recent economic disaster was brought about by an absolute orgy of lawlessness? And I'm not just talking about the big evil banks. You had millions of would-be homeowners lying about their income to qualify for loans. You had loan officers who took those fraudulent applications, and in turn fudged the numbers even more so they wouldn't be rejected. You had appraisers giving fraudulent appraisals. Then there were the banks and hedge funds chopping all the bad loans up and repackaging them into securities so complex that no human being could possibly understand them, for the sole purpose of being able to misrepresent the risk involved. You had all the major ratings agencies giving those securities fraudulent AAA ratings. Then you had the Federal Reserve fueling the entire debacle by inundating the system with absurdly low rates, which translate directly into cheap, easy credit for even the worst borrowers. And all the while, the government not only stood by and watched, but they actively spurred the situation on by removing numerous regulatory roadblocks that would normally have kept a situation like this from ever occurring.

Now here we are, two and a half years later, and where are all the criminal prosecutions for the literally millions of criminal acts that were committed? Are you seriously telling me that tens of trillions of dollars of wealth disappeared practically overnight, and the only person who we could make a criminal case against was Bernard Madoff?

So tell me, what was it you were saying about how bribery is technically still illegal?

Re:Fuck ACTA

[DarkKnightRadick]

And yet you cannot dispute that NHS schemes are in the red all throughout Europe. They are costing more money then they are saving.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare?

Why? Because they think it's sad in this day and age that not every citizen in the US is entitled to good health care regardless of financial status. That's why. It's not the case in every single European country either, and they are criticized for it as well. The US is not singled out.

They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals.

No, that's not it. Grow up.

I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's people talk about how we should all have national healthcare.

Bullshit.

Nothing these people say make me think that they give a damn about us.

You don't think much at all, it seems. I can't help you with that attitude. That's your own problem.

Not all Europeans are like this.

Most Europeans are not like you think they are. In fact, very, very few are like you think.

In fact, I imagine that the majority of Europe either likes the US or is apathetic to us.

Most Europeans dislike the way in which the US meddles in the affairs of others. It's that simple.

But there is a strong and loud anti-US online sentiment that drowns out the rational ones.

You're not helping at all.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever dealt with someone on an H1B? What on earth makes you think that you can just pay 'peanuts' to an H1B holder? Do you even realize that the employer has to pay prevailing market rates for the job and is not allowed to pay less than that to an H1B holder? For the record, I worked for 6 years as an H1B holder in the Silicon Valley. My employer bestowed the very same benefits (salary, paid for additional university courses I took, etc.) on me as on anyone else.

Re:Fuck ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

DangerFace the only way you can believe what you write is if you're both incredibly closeminded and live in a bubble of confirmation bias.

"The majority of Europe hates America. Really, really hates America."

As a European that likely told me everything I need to know about DangerFace (1315417) and the people he closely associates with in daily life, I'm not generally in favor of pigeonholing people but most likely:
- He's Western European (so am I).
- He's an actual socialist, whether he's a national socialist or an international socialist doesn't really matter, same difference: solid heapings of fascism under the guise of "the greater good".
- He doesn't have the foggiest clue about group dynamics and nuances of social interaction.
- He's possibly highly educated but generally narrow-minded and extremely naive.
- He's a romantic that thinks of himself as a realist.
- He's an atheist with religious fervor.
- He enjoys belonging more than independent critical thought but thinks it's the other way around.
- He wouldn't be able to comprehend why post-modernism is nothing more than a giant elaborate self-contradiction.
- He's a person of double standards in his own favor.
- He thinks silence is automatically silent support for his own stance unless it's from someone already targeted as an enemy.
- He thinks he's the polar opposite of those he vehemently disagrees with.
- He thinks demonstrations by small percentages or percentages of percentages represents majorities.
- He thinks most people care that he cares.
- He limits choices to agreement or disagreement only (in other words he's not a mature human).

Or all of that is simply wrong and he just doesn't grasp what hate is, what the word means, and uses it trivially.

Either way:
- He most likely thinks Europe is mostly doing just fine or that at any rate Europe doesn't have issues as large as or larger than the US.
- He is delusional, overwhelmingly driven by positive bias.
- People like me don't truly exist in his mind except as personifications of evil :D Love it. Better pray you're not right about that DangerFace, and yes you can go hide in your bubble now and spend the rest of your days in the glory of your own magnificence :)

Could someone explain to me

[MrEricSir]

how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Sique]

how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?

How would it not? There is a parliament, whose members are elected by the public, and whose task is it, to enact laws. That's how it is put down in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public. That's what the debates in the parliament are for.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[LostCluster]

ACTA is basically saying "We got the DMCA in the USA, so why don't you write a similar law where you are... or we're going to raise the price of our content to the point we break your economy!"

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Smallpond]

Obviously it would not be in a democracy. However many of us live in a representative democracy where our government represents those who speak the loudest

Re:Could someone explain to me

[peragrin]

if true i do hope that everyone calls that bluff. that way American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[BadAnalogyGuy]

American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.

That's an awfully subjective view of American media. The objective view is that the most popular content worldwide is produced by America.

Say what you want about the quality of "American content", but you'll find that most people will not agree with you.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Kell Bengal]

Paraphrasing: "The subjective view is that you're right. The objective view is that you're wrong. Everybody must think the same way I do."

Re:Could someone explain to me

[sjames]

That won't work. The 'content' just isn't that critical and the natural retaliation to it being too expensive suggests itself!

Instead of the stick, I suspect they'll offer the carrot under the table to legislators who agree to betray their country, just like always.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[peragrin]

Your right America does the producing but I still refuse to watch prime time tv as It is useless. Yes I do live in new York.

American prime time, news stations, etc produce more crap than actual news. It is why watch visit the BBC to realy find out what is going on in my own country.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[sjames]

It won't die. They'll kick, scream and threaten to hold their breath until they die. They may even be stupid enough to try it. However, just like the bratty kid, soon enough they'll get dizzy, realize they can't win that way and they'll give in.

That is, even though they're demanding $10, eventually they'll settle for $5 because it's better than $0.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public

This is how it should be. Default of 3 months review by public eyes before final decision. Fat chance of that happening.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Fjandr]

Quite easily. There is no requirement for public debate or notice in passing legislation or signing treaties. It is assumed that people will vote out politicians who do such things. The fact that there are enough of them currently elected that this is even a possibility shows that US citizens get exactly the government they want and deserve. Otherwise, we wouldn't have as many slimy people in office.

Actually, the question above is exactly why this is a problem: US citizens have no idea how their government works in practice, let alone how it should work in theory.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if you can get a sunshine amendment made to the constitution you'd have a point. Until then you don't have a point.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Nefarious Wheel]

Parliament and Constitution in the same breath? I don't think we're in Kansas any more, Toto...

Re:Could someone explain to me

[funkatron]

It's constitutional because the constitution doesn't include any reference to your gut feelings.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Nefarious Wheel]

if true i do hope that everyone calls that bluff. that way American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.

You know, I remember a story my Father used to tell me about why there weren't any new brick buildings in Southern California (this was long before the Sylmar earthquake). He drove a concrete mixer, and his attitudes were probably colored by it - he said "There are no more brick houses because the unions priced themselves out of the market."

Now I'm not trying to bash the unions here, they have their place - but the fact is, raise the price too high for a quality product and buyers will re-define their concept of what they like. And if the interest moves away from the traditional stuff, the quality will too. Fashions will get redefined.

My point is that the content of media controlled by ACTA and other attempts at legitimatizing RIAA and MPAA enforcers will have the effect of more and more music and video coming from indie sources. Good stuff, too. Put too tight a control on your contributions and the world will pass you by.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose he/she didn't specify his/her nation of origin.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

The FACT that today Avatar surpassed Titanic as biggest grossing movie of all time, the FACT that the top 10 viewed movies of all time are all american, the FACT that american sitcoms are syndicated world wide make your "Paraphrase" seem rather silly. That's like saying French champagne sucks even though that's what everyone buys. Just makes you look stupid, because what you're really saying is that the majority of people don't have a clue, when almost certainly it is the minority (ie you) that don't.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[maxwell demon]

Maybe there should be an amendment to the constitution:
"The gut feelings of people posting on Slashdot always overrule the congress."
Well, maybe we should exclude low-scored postings.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[ultranova]

ACTA is basically saying "We got the DMCA in the USA, so why don't you write a similar law where you are... or we're going to raise the price of our content to the point we break your economy!"

Empty threat, as anyone who wants the content but doesn't want to pay can already get it for free from isohunt. And even if they couldn't, do you really think that people would get themselves bankcrupt over entertainment?

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Patch86]

The British Motor Corporation (/British Leyland/Rover MG) will back you up on that one. Unions are wonderful, but the overzealous ones have killed off many a healthy local industry.

In the case above, the union kept making demands, and the incompetent management never managed to balance them out properly, in the end the company was busy producing the fewest, shoddiest, most expensive excuses for automobiles available this side of the iron curtain, before duly going bust for the final time.

(Car analogy five?)

Re:Could someone explain to me

[gmuslera]

Its called "representative democracy", you vote your representants, and then they do what they want. If their misbehave, is not their fault, or constitution fault. Is yours, or if you like, your countriy's citizen fault, even if was just gullibility.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Leynos]

A good cava will be better than the equivalent Champagne for the same money. It's only when you get to the point of spending £60 a bottle that Champagne becomes worthwhile. The majority really don't have a clue.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

My point is that the content of media controlled by ACTA and other attempts at legitimatizing RIAA and MPAA enforcers will have the effect of more and more music and video coming from indie sources. Good stuff, too. Put too tight a control on your contributions and the world will pass you by.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MAFIAA has this already in the plan book. As soon as it looks like Indy is being flocked to, they'll buy a law that makes it illegal to publish something independantly for the good of the public. (disclaimer: public means "stockholders" in this instance.)

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Ostracus]

"That's how it is put down in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public. "

And the judicial branch is for deciding the constitutionality of said laws. They didn't have the technology we have for information dispersion, but the next best thing. Also a lot of decisions are left up to the states which is usually closer to the populace than say Washington D.C. And last it's the duty (not optional) for the governed population to be involved in all aspects of state, from local to national. Our busy lives and sometimes apathy may have caused us to forget that.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Ostracus]

ACTA is basically saying "We got the DMCA in the USA, so why don't you write a similar law where you are... or we're going to raise the price of our content to the point we break your economy!"

Then that speaks more to the scarcity of talent than anything else. Or maybe the drug addict relationship people have with American content? We were trying for the sympathy angle, weren't we?

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Neoprofin]

I have the discussion with my German girlfriend (gasp, sorry, "guy I know") when she derides American cultural imperialism and then sits down to watch the Simpsons or True Blood. If you wish America would stop infecting the world stop buying the DVDs!

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Neoprofin]

Then why do all the other countries insist on watching American shoes and movies even though they are frequently in a language they barely understand and conveying topics they frequently can't relate to. Seems like an awful lot of suffering to keep their vastly superior programming off the air, and expensive to boot. I know America is the giant cultural cancer of the world in a lot of people's minds, but apparently the world finds cancer delicious and can't help but themselves with it.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[tomhudson]

The FACT that today Avatar surpassed Titanic as biggest grossing movie of all time

The FACT that I haven't watched either of them and have no intention to.

the FACT that the top 10 viewed movies of all time are all american

Absolutely false Bollywood has a lock on the top 10, in both movies and tv shows, in terms of number of viewers.

Also, 8 of the top 10 grossing movies of all time are either joint productions or filmed on location outside the US. That's not "all-American" either. The days of the US Empire are over, in large part thanks to the US for 50 years exporting "dirty" jobs to "lesser countries". Now the only option the US has is to inflate its currency like crazy and hope that nobody notices.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[AthanasiusKircher]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public

This is how it should be. Default of 3 months review by public eyes before final decision. Fat chance of that happening.

WHAT?!? Do you really think that much is being hidden? Almost all legislation already spends months going through committees, and once a bill is introduced (i.e., before it goes through months of committee bureaucracy), it's available to the public. Take a look at http://www.house.gov/ and http://www.senate.gov/ to see what's currently being considered.

Sure, there are last minute amendments and other things, but the vast majority of legislative text is already available for months for anyone to review by "public eyes before final decision."

You know what the problem is? Nobody cares enough to dig through the mountains of pages of proposed legislation... not individuals, not the media, and certainly not most Congressmen (sometimes even those sponsoring the bill). Since the advent of CSPAN most Congressmen aren't paying attention to debate in the chamber -- they're wheeling and dealing in their office, with CSPAN on mute in the background. That's what "public access" to the live actions of Congress has gotten you.

The only people who read bills are generally the minor staff lawyers who draft them. Do you want things revealed before "public eyes"? Fine. Go to the websites yourself, start reading bills, and when you see something interesting, start blogging about it. Get a couple hundred people doing this, and maybe Congress will pay attention. But stop with the conspiracy theories about Congress -- if you don't know what legislation is under consideration, that's your own fault.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[AthanasiusKircher]

There is no requirement for public debate or notice in passing legislation or signing treaties.

And in general, we have no need for more "notice." What "debate" happens is mostly wheeling and dealing behind the scenes before the bill comes to the floor, and any "debate" on the floor is usually for soundbites for the evening news. I'm not sure how one could require an "actual" debate, except through media and individuals being more critical during the process... which they can be.

Most non-trivial pieces of legislation take months to go through both houses and get to the President's desk for signature. Once a bill is introduced, it's a matter of public record, and current legislation under consideration can be found on the websites of both houses of Congress.

Yes, there are last minute amendments, but the negative effect there is usually more about pork rather than some more nefarious purpose... and there's generally still a delay while the bill winds its way through the other house or takes a few days before the President has to decide on it.

But the vast majority of this stuff is available for anyone who wants to look, and usually weeks or even months ahead of time. No one looks.

As for the implication that secret meetings are a common occurrence... they aren't. The Senate has only held secret sessions a couple dozen times in the past century, and the House has only had less than a handful since the early days of the US.

So, I'm not sure where this great public outcry against secrecy is... 99.9% of the stuff is already there (and most of the actual secret meetings had to deal with national security briefings). That doesn't mean there isn't a potential for abuse, but I'm not sure why everyone's acting like what Congress does is some big secret or that they are continuously hiding things from the public.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[GooberToo]

just makes you look stupid, because what you're really saying is that the majority of people don't have a clue,

Not really jumping in the middle of the specific exchange here, but the majority absolutely do not have a clue. Just because something is popular doesn't mean its good. Popular used be large codpieces and long, curly, falic toes on the end of your shoe. Popular was putting lead in your food, on your skin, and in your hair.

To suggest that popular is somehow correct or in the right is to suggest you have no idea what you're talking about. Even today, superior products often lose out to superior advertising. And everyone in advertising knows it.

Popular is about marketing and pandering. Having a clue is about knowledge and an education. The first is easy. The second, few Americans know anything about. To say the majority are completely clueless is an accurate statement. In fact, even our forefathers would completely agree. It was so important to them, to exclude the clueless, they as much said so right in the US Constitution. Since that time, various amendments have been made which have drastically empowered the clueless, which in turn has allowed the government to completely run amuck; contrary to our forefather's best efforts and wishes. The fact that such things were even allowed to take place pretty proves cluelessness is very much alive and well.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?

How would it not? There is a parliament, whose members are elected by the public, and whose task is it, to enact laws. That's how it is put down in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public. That's what the debates in the parliament are for.

That is the very point of the present disquiet, these secret international 'negotiations' are, in the case of Britain NOT debated in Parliament. That is why a number of politicians in the British Parliament have tabled an 'Early Day Motion' in an attempt to force the British (Mis-)Government into having to present it for discussion by our Representatives BEFORE the Government enacts the new Law by some 'back door' process. If you think the British Government represents the People then you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The Labour Party only received some 35% of the votes CAST, and therefore cannot claim legitimacy - and the actual Government is only really supported by a minority of their Labour Members of Parliament. The majority of real Labour Members of Parliament hate this Government, but have not got the Guts to stand up to them by voting against the Government. They are too scared of losing their lucrative jobs AND EXPENSES! Do you still call that Democracy???

Re:Could someone explain to me

[IndustrialComplex]

It's only when you get to the point of spending £60 a bottle that Champagne becomes worthwhile. The majority really don't have a clue.

Glad I never took the time to appreciate what makes champagne 'worthwhile'. To think, if I really took the time to appreciate something I enjoy, I wouldn't be able to afford it anymore.

Re:Could someone explain to me

[Dr. Hellno]

I can't wait for the supreme court ruling in the landmark case of Flamebait V. Troll

The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance

[Opportunist]

Let's be level headed here for a moment. Let's assume for a moment ACTA was a "fair" agreement. Designed to give all affected parties a fair share of the cake. Even then, it would be met with incredible resistance once it hits the fan. Why? Because it's kept secret. You design a contract that will affect me but I don't get to read it until after it is signed. How in the world could I not resist it with all the force I could possibly have?

Also, they will soon notice that all the secrecy around it only makes it more interesting. If ACTA was published and discussed in plain view, it would soon be drowned in the noise of everyday politics. A few activists would care and as usual, nobody would listen to them. Do you think it would be on /.'s frontpage every other day if it was public? This way, it's kept in our minds, fresh and looming, a secret deal that will affect us but we don't get to see it. Can you imagine anything more interesting?

Of course (please put on your tinfoil hats now), it could all be a gigantic plot to keep our interest on it so we overlook something else. But generally, if ACTA is supposed to become reality some day, the whole secrecy around it will ensure that every government will have to fight an uphill battle to get it ratified and codified and every single step will be monitored closely and reported widely, simply because ACTA got that much limelight. Due to its secrecy.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance

[Anonymous Coward]

You design a contract that will affect me but I don't get to read it until after it is signed.

If its passed I will simply use every means at my disposal to ignore it.

Do you think it would be on /.'s frontpage every other day if it was public?

So what? Its on the front page of a half-dead geek website every other day. How often is it mentioned on the cover of a
national paper? How often is it mentioned on a news channel on TV? What percentage of the population has even heard of
ACTA? Maybe 5%? How many care? 1%?

But generally, if ACTA is supposed to become reality some day, the whole secrecy around it will ensure that every
government will have to fight an uphill battle to get it ratified and codified and every single step will be monitored
closely and reported widely, simply because ACTA got that much limelight

I think you're seriously overestimating the power of the people. Your lobbying dollars will never equal the amount the
RIAA/MPAA/BSA members and others can generate. The public are mostly weak-willed sheep who gladly swallow every word of
the crap they're fed by the media. They are easily distracted and change their minds based on the slightest whim or on
what they believe is popular opinion. The people behind ACTA are totally single-minded in their desire to increase their
power, influence and profits.

Dont get me wrong.. I wish you were right but the simple fact is that most people just dont care.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not half-dead, you insensitive clod!

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance

[mikael_j]

So what? Its on the front page of a half-dead geek website every other day. How often is it mentioned on the cover of a national paper? How often is it mentioned on a news channel on TV? What percentage of the population has even heard of ACTA? Maybe 5%? How many care? 1%?

Well, here in Sweden it's been mentioned in the national media, but then we also have Pirate party representatives in the EU parliament...

/Mikael

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance

[init100]

but then we also have Pirate party representatives in the EU parliament...

The parliament might be all that stands between us and ACTA being implemented in the EU. Because of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU parliament now has a say in virtually every new law and agreement that is to be ratified by the union. I don't think that they'll take the fact that they have not been allowed to see the draft treaty yet lightly, and might put some heavy grit in the machinery. They are very keen on using the newly acquired powers, and hopefully, they'll use their power to strike down the ACTA.

I don't count on the riksdag to do that, they are a bunch of sheep. The FRA law proved it. As you probably know, those who opposed it were coerced by the administration to vote contrary to their own opinion.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget lobbying dollars. Bullets are cheaper. Carbombs are cheaper. We've seen how effective they can be elsewhere in the world. Guess what? It isn't politicians that are the problem. Politicians have always been professional whores. The problems is the people behind the politicians, those people who pay the lobbyists to lobby the politicians. Those people who work at the tops of their respective corporations who pay the lobbyists who lobby the politicians. I suspect that many of them have far less security forces protecting them as politicians typically get the brunt of the blame and have to act accordingly, by having well trained and funded security forces to protect them. Politicians are basically professional whores and "blame magnets" to distract from the real problem makers.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance

[Opportunist]

I wouldn't count on the EU parlament to do that. It's basically a scapegoat to push unpopular laws because the citizens of the EU still don't see the connection between the EU parlament and their votes.

Far too often you get to hear statements along the lines of "we wouldn't want to implement these laws, but the EU forces us, so sorry..." from the mouths of our politicians. Yet people don't grasp the idea that they could change something if they voted sensibly in EU elections. Unfortunately those elections are only viewed as some sort of "show elections" where you can stick it to your party by casting your vote in protest. I'm guessing that the success of the Pirate Party in Sweden is partly due to this, that people don't see the EU elections as a "real" election and cast their vote for the party they really wanted instead of choosing the "lesser evil" that stands a chance to enter the riksdag.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance

[SwedishPenguin]

I don't count on the riksdag to do that, they are a bunch of sheep. The FRA law proved it. As you probably know, those who opposed it were coerced by the administration to vote contrary to their own opinion.

Of course, if those with differing opinions actually had any principles whatsoever they would have stuck to their guns and ignored the party whip and fellow party-members.
I'm convinced that most politicians that get as far as parliament never really had any principles whatsoever to begin with, they just like the posh job with a great "retirement" scheme, and so don't have any desire to upset those who could endanger their positions (ie. party leaders).
What we need in Sweden is an expulsion of all current politicians from parliament, and some new provisions in our constitution to make sure the parliament actually has to consider the legality of the laws they are passing (like a constitutional court, or some other means of balancing the power of the parliamentary majority).

No Jokes Here

[Bottles]

Get it together, people. We understand the implications and can make the right noises to the right people.

The public will sleep safer knowing we're out there, doing something.

Like the Batman.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Opportunist]

Batman is a comic, you know that I hope? Because in reality, someone like Batman would be hunted by the executive worse than any criminal you could imagine. No country on this planet lets a private citizen crack the force monopoly.

Well, not without a reasonable kickback.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Batman was a billionaire after all, he could definitely swing a little influence as needed behind the scenes.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Batman, like most US comics heroes, was a criminal, by refusing to obey the law, and hiding his identity so he would nof be accountable for his actions.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Hurricane78]

Well, as far as I know, they DO hunt Batman in the stories.
But in a city full of crime, like Gotham, a desperate police force, nearly against its will and nearly against the wall, can absolutely try to get a little help.
Batman is somewhere between calling the swat teams, and calling the national guard.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Batman has his own huge corporation involved in the military industrial complex and from which he creams the best technology. I think Batman could do this.

Re:No Jokes Here

[lennier]

Actually.... there have been people rather like Batman in the 1930s era. Private millionaires who bankrolled much of WW2 military R&D.

Look up Howard Hughes, Alfred Loomis, Floyd Odlum, William Stephenson, 'Wild Bill' Donovan. Those boys got up to interesting stuff, sometimes working for 'the government' and sometimes on their own time (and dime). They weren't all friends of Hoover and FDR.

And to be honest, that heritage still exists today. Some of the same types of characters surfaced in teams Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Private military contractors, private defense contractors. Wackenhut/Group4, Blackwater/XE, KBR, Halliburton...

Batman is alive and well.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Opportunist]

Trust me. Any other crime would take a back seat. Swat teams and national guard are under the control of the state, he would not be. That alone, and making the police force look bad, which falls back on politicians, is alone to make him the number one on the list.

Re:No Jokes Here

[martas]

that's not batman, that's greed. there's a slight difference.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You tell those capitalist pigs! They never benefit society! Andrew Carnegie can take those libraries of his, and shove them up his ass!

Re:No Jokes Here

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what made them so awesome.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You right wing extremist nutjobs are all the same. Someone points out that something is done for personal gain, and you start ranting on about economic systems.

People like you are ruining the world for the rest of us. Grow the fuck up or get out. I'd prefer the latter. I'll even pay for the bullet.

Re:No Jokes Here

[Anonymous Coward]

lol u mad?

Re:No Jokes Here

[Rakarra]

Andrew Carnegie wasn't too bad as far as they went, but most other large tycoons of that age were absolutely ruthless. They weren't people you'd look to for morals.

Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the US

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's all about standardizing shipping documents between countries. If you have ever tried to ship something bigger than a letter to the U.S., you'd find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time filling out forms just to get it into the American borders.

ACTA aims to make this pain equal across the board. In some ways it will protect shippers because the better they describe the contents of the package, the less likely it will be to be targeted for extra search measures. On the other hand, who in their right mind ever tells the complete truth on shipping documents? Shipping company hardware overseas isn't a gift, and it isn't really a "customer sample", and it definitely isn't a "commercial sample" or any other category listed on the document. So you usually just mark it as something random and give it a value of 50USD and hope for the best.

God help you if you try to send anything that could possibly generate radio signals. There is an additional form just for that.

The ACTA will pass because it will make it easy to manage documentation for shipping. There won't be a need to keep different forms for different countries at the post office or FedEx counter anymore. Everyone just uses the same ridiculously difficult forms that require signing in triplicate and exact descriptions of the shipment items.

Good day, Citizen. Papers please.

waggers

[epine]

USTR head Ron Kirk has reportedly said that countries would walk away from the treaty if the text were made available

I don't get this. If our elected leaders walk off on the job, we already have a mechanism in place to fix this: a general election. Maybe the next batch is willing to contend with the issue under democratic conditions, such as open consultation.

Oh, you mean only the tinpots will walk away from the table, which will hurt us more than it hurts them. Why didn't you make yourself clear in the first place? Democracy is good, except when negotiating with tinpots, which necessarily takes place on their terms, in the best interest of all concerned.

Nice tail-wags-the-dog justification for subverting democratic transparency.

Or is there something I missed here? Did I skip an essential chapter in Democracy for Dummies? I feel so stupid. Our politicians are willing to shine their eminent sensibilities on this problem and all they want is a little secrecy to work their magic for the good of humanity? There's just no respect in this world, is there?

Re:waggers

[PPH]

Perhaps this is the best solution. If the current proposals are so embarrassing (or whatever) to the parties negotiating them that they don't want to do so in the light of day, then drop the whole thing. Step back, take another look at the problem and come back when everyone has some ideas that they're not ashamed to publish.

Acronyms...

[RocketRocketship]

Not mentioned in the summary or the first two linked articles is what ACTA actually is. It stands for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Re:Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the

[PPH]

That seems pretty reasonable. So why don't they negotiate the terms out in the open?

I suspect that there's more to it than just this. Someone is trying to slip some funny language into the agreement. Often, when negotiating contract terms, one can deduce where such language is being injected into the document by observing how dearly one party has become attached to some particular wording or content. And in finding these particular terms, one can guess at what sort of hidden agendas the various parties might have.

They do realize it has to go public at some point?

[DJRumpy]

All of this secrecy just feeds the intense interest from the public. Everyone from conspiracy theorists, to fringe lunatics will have ample time to take pot shots at it. That said, they do realize that at some point, they will have to put their 'yay' or 'nay' on this thing? It will be obvious to anyone wanting to read it what it says? If it adversely affects millions of Americans in any significant way, the folks who ratify this thing are history. Brown should be a good reminder of that. Piss enough people off, or scare them enough, and they will act out of self defense. I don't see anything in ACTA that is comfortable, and it actually does make me extremely nervous that only folks like the RIAA are invited to attend. I've seen the ridiculous lengths they will go to and what they consider sane and sensible.

unauthorized IP distribution = piracy

[Ifni]

<tinfoilhat>

From the article: efforts at the international level to fight counterfeiting and piracy

I have to wonder at the increase and sudden newsworthiness of Somalian piracy during the private talks around ACTA. When it comes time to present it to the public, talk of counterfeiting and piracy will elicit images of counterfeit currency and Somalian pirates and the average Joe that hasn't read much about the document will assume that those opposing it are a bunch of crazies. Finally, the years of equating unauthorized IP distribution with piracy will come to fruition for our dark masters.

</tinfoilhat>

In all seriousness, though, whether planned by some diabolical secret cabal or not, I can see this confusion being purposefully used to sway the view of the common citizen.

Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy

[martas]

i agree that the possibility exists, and that in itself scares the shit out of me.

Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy

[Zerth]

Have you noticed that, with the increased mention of Somalian piracy, that this winter has been a bit chill?

I think it is a sign from the FSM, but I'm not sure if it is positive of negative.

Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy

[ldrydenb]

Yes, just as Disney used the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy to glamorise piracy & promote their pro-sharing, anti-copyright agenda.

Oh, wait...

Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, just as Disney used the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy to glamorise piracy & promote their pro-sharing, anti-copyright agenda.

Oh, wait...

Yet it's interesting that the real "bad guys" (they are certainly not the only antagonists, but even Davy Jone was given sympathetic moments) in the trilogy are neither the pirates nor the Government, instead it's the East India Trading Company (who are based on these guys)! I have a feeling someone, somewhere in Disney Corp. just gets some twisted high out of this sort of hypocrisy.

Re:They do realize it has to go public at some poi

[Shadow of Eternity]

Politicians haven't been held responsible for this kind of shit ever since they realised the full extent to which they could abuse redistricting.

Questions are harder than answers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably we don't know the right questions.

The answers are easy.

-What is it?
A reciprocity agreement about avoiding piracy, to protect the ellusive Intelectual Property. As economies migrate more and more from material to knowledge, it becomes important to create scarcity of ideas, so that it's possible to market them intead of freely distributing them. As we've seen in the Middle Ages, we're about to perform a huge step -- backwards. Countries which will close will become outdated, just like the former URSS. Countries with free exchange of ideas/culture will get an enormous advantage, just like the US when it did not recognize copyright.

Alas, this certainly will also be used for threats and control by some superpower.

-do you have evidence?
No, I don't. It's bad policy warning someone before you shake him. Fair play is so 19th century.

-why is this secret?
Because the shepherd enters the front door. Tautologically, it's secret because it's bad and thus must be made secretly.

-what would ACTA do to my country's laws?
In simple words, subvert your country values. If you live in a musical country (like me), prepare for more unidirectional cultural domination/contamination and unidirectional money flow.

To sum it up, prepare for spending your money non red tape, under the supervision of the law.

how to defeat acta:

[circletimessquare]

ignore it

technology has gotten to the point that piracy is simply the best distribution model around, for creators and consumers (oh, you thought the law was supposed to protect creators? it protects distributors: look at the contracts distributors sign with creators and tell me who really benefits). consumers get bounty, creators get ancillary revenue streams and distributors die. end of story

let them pass any law they want. no really: what is the value of an unenforceable law? people are getting upset about acta, but i really have to ask everyone: acta may sound diabolical and severe, but its toothless: there's no enforcement of it possible. sure, they may get the occasional grandmother with an unsecured router or a soccer mom who's kids friends take advantage of her hospitality, but that's going to stop technological progress?

let them fund stables of tens of thousands of lawyers and put behind them far reaching draconian laws. whoop de friggin doo. tens of millions of media hungry, technologically savvy and POOR teenagers has them all beat, and then some. the contest is a joke, the laws mean nothing, the game is over: technological progress wins, distributors die

we are simply living in a transition period in which we must suffer the bluster of morons from another media era who simply don't get the fundamental changes taking place around them

Re:how to defeat acta:

[misexistentialist]

I'd like to think your right, but once people start having their internet connections cut off (maybe even having their "internet passports" revoked) piracy will likely revert to a much more limited community. Hopefully people will read and fuck more, but they will probably just watch more TV.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[syousef]

let them pass any law they want. no really: what is the value of an unenforceable law?

It's not unenforceable. The tech can be turned against it's users. Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged. We're not that far off such a thing. So people stop using the net and start copying files. What do you think "trusted" computing is about. There will be a day when hard drives start dobbing their owners in. Imagine mass round ups of teenagers that are guilty until proven innocent and go to jail for years over copyright infringement. It's all possible if no one stands up to this madness.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[martas]

there is no law that cannot be enforced, given sufficient resources. and one thing the MAFIAA has is resources.

you think anti-piracy laws are unenforceable? let me paint you a picture:
the internet has become a commodity like power or water, not in terms of how widespread it is, but because it is thoroughly regulated. anonymity is dead. MAC addresses are impossible to change, and are registered to a specific individual (perhaps a set of individuals, if it's a machine shared by a, say, family). owning a network card with a counterfeit MAC is a federal offense. ISP's are fully regulated, and are required to record if not all traffic, then at least all packet headers. a system is in place by which a government organization can gain instant access to any ISP's records, and even live traffic at any router. a rag-tag group of disgruntled idealists/poor teenagers can't stand up to a fully organized effort to shut them up.
far-fetched? sure. impossible? fuck no.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[selven]

Nobody is worried about the future of distributing content. There will always be crackers, and the effort of one is enough to liberate some piece of content for everyone. What we're worried about is that the *AA will destroy the internet trying.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[Thing 1]

Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged. We're not that far off such a thing.

Imagine a sneakernet.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[BitZtream]

The law only works because the majority of the population respect it.

As you say, once you make a law that the majority don't want to honor and respect, the law is unenforceable.

As they say, they can't put us ALL in jail.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[ratboy666]

Yes, I can see it coming.

I still have my old analog modem, and I still control my own network. We hackers will simply retreat to UUCP ("bbs" for the micro-computer generation). With known and trusted peers only.

About the only thing added will be full crypto on the UUCP links.

And when they come for that...

It will go back to physical data exchange.

Too bad, though. But the level of discourse may become reasonable again, and maybe, just maybe, SPAM will go away. At least on the darknets.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[syousef]

Imagine technically illiterate people with better things to do.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[russotto]

As they say, they can't put us ALL in jail.

Yes, they can. You just need the Soviet Russia model, where you turn the entire country into a prison. Or the German Democratic Republic model, with half the population watching the other half.

Re:how to defeat acta:

[L4t3r4lu5]

Or, both.

UK has 1% of world's population, 20% of its CCTV cameras
General public to view CCTV, report crimes

Re:how to defeat acta:

[erdraug]

ACTA vs The Shell Traders

Re:They do realize it has to go public at some poi

[westlake]

All of this secrecy just feeds the intense interest from the public

The story may have the Slashdot's attention. But you have drill down deep elsewhere to have even heard of it.

Re:Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the

[Anonymous Coward]

ACTA also seeks to add in some things they have in France like their three strikes law and other goodies that aren't in the US just yet. ACTA will fix all of that though, I also assume fair use will be neutered beyond belief.

American Criminal Transportation Authority?

[zaivala]

I have just read this article and two layers down in links, and have YET to find what "ACTA" is or means. Please add this information to the article -- not all of us can remember the tons of alphabet soup we are being fed.

Re:American Criminal Transportation Authority?

[Joce640k]

It's a secret...

Re:American Criminal Transportation Authority?

[zaivala]

Then that explains why they are holding secret meetings, but does not explain why they are openly discussing open meetings.

ACTA will kill people

[Weezul]

TRIPS kills people. ACTA will kill vastly more people.

"ACTA will kill people" is the meme your looking for.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[pommiekiwifruit]

"ACTA will kill people" is the meme your looking for.

But only the sick poor! And US voters in Massachusetts have recently shown what their opinions about them are :-(

Re:ACTA will kill people

[roju]

Someone beat slashdot to the ACTA meme bandwagon: ACTA will burn your books.

Chuck Norris says...

[Anonymous Coward]

""This past week Guadalajara, Mexico hosted the 7th secret meeting of ACTA proponents who continue to ignore demands worldwide to open the debate to the public. Piecing together official and leaked documents from various global sources, Michael Geist has coalesced it all into a five part ACTA Guide that offers structured insight into what these talks might foist upon the populace at large"

One World Government.

If you haven't already

[T Murphy]

Write to your representatives in the national government. It might not mean much, but it's the best (legal) way to get your voice heard. The same arguments why not voting is a bad idea generally apply here.

The best thing is, it might only take one country pulling out to put the ACTA into question everywhere.

Re:If you haven't already

[gink1]

I wrote my representative with all my many objections to ACTA.

A few days later I received my response. Here is an excerpt.

"For these reasons, the office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has commenced a multilateral discussion concerning global intellectual property rights, known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). I strongly support intellectual property rights, and I look forward to reviewing the recommendations of USTR in this regard. The United States is a leader in innovation, and to protect the investment made by our innovators, we must also lead the effort to combat global piracy."

As you can see, my representative supports Intellectual property rights but fails to mention internet impact, net neutrality or even the right of citizens to have their views heard. And he obviously supports ACTA at this time.

If this is typical of our congressmen, ACTA will fly through as long as their major supporter, the Media Cartel approves of it.

We should start getting together to buy T1's and bring up alternate networks so we can access the internet versus the ACTAnet or as I call it the Obamanet.

Re:If you haven't already

[T Murphy]

Since I'm sure America is the biggest reason the ACTA exists, I feel we should do our part and write to our bought and paid for congresscritters, but I'm hoping people in other countries that might be somewhat less corrupt could change the situation in our favor. One if the big names on this said if secrecy were lifted, many countries would walk away. Lots of nations are part of the talks, so it just takes one to release all of the information and we might see something happen.

Won't/Can't happen

[Mathinker]

> Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged.

Cannot happen. Well, at least effectively. Because of things called "steganography" and "perfect forward secrecy".

So, no. The only closed Internet is a a read-only Internet.

It does lower the bandwidth a lot. But as Thing 1 already replied to you, the high-bandwidth stuff can be done by sneakernet.

Your fear from Trusted Computing is more real. But even there, we are close to the point where third-world countries can host illicit fabs for untrusted computing platforms. Well, I suppose if possession of untrusted computing would be punished draconianly.... but if it gets that bad, the third world will be looking like a really good place to live for a lot of us technophiles....

Re:Won't/Can't happen

[syousef]

I think you underestimate what the average person is willing to risk. Make steganography and encryption completely illegal with harsh penalties and they all but go away.

Re:Won't/Can't happen

[Mathinker]

> Make steganography and encryption completely illegal with harsh penalties and they all but go away.

You do realize that DRM is a form of encryption, right? I don't see that encryption is going to be illegal in the near future. Too useful for our corporate overlords.

I suppose you're right that most people won't bother to chance trying to be free under such a harsh totalitarian government, but the point of my post was that technology would at least give them the tools for freedom, if they dared. For example, their illicit tools could be on a bootable CD, which prompts for a password to decrypt the OS. It is possible to have an encryption scheme with a data rate less than 1/2 such that there are actually 2 passwords, each one of which decrypts the file to a different (given) result (and except for the unusual data rate, the existence of the second password is deniable). So one password could let you boot a legal OS, and the second, an illicit one (assuming hardware which doesn't require Trusted Computing).

Hopefully no laws will come out of it

[physburn]

Its difficult to get politicians from different countries to agree on anything. Getting the USA and Europe to agree is hard enough, but expecting Russia and the Far East to agree on a global copyright law, seems incredible to me. I bet these meetings will continue though as the politicians get regular payed for holidays and the expenses of all copyright vested interests.

---

Piracy Feed @ Feed Distiller

Re:It's not just the secresy but the content!

[gink1]

Secret laws designed to prevent public comment is completely abhorrent by itself but . . .

It the content of the Treaty which is 100% contrary to the interests of the signing countries that is the worst feature of ACTA!

ACTA is written by Big Media and those with a vision to remake the internet into a copyright policing system and ultimately into a pay per use network.

What do they get? Effective monopoly on most media.
What do we get? Loss of net neutrality (which is already being removed by the FCC for peer to peer systems). ISP policing with a 3 strikes policy only as fair as the ISP makes it, with no appeal and resulting in permanent loss of internet if invoked.

ACTA is an offensive, poorly written and completely undemocratic power grab designed to take citizens by stealth and surprise and result in Billion dollar empires for the Cartel creating it, not to mention their henchmen the RIAA and MPAA - and in the White House.

Somehow we MUST put a stop to ACTA and to this method of Treaty Takeover!

Re:It's not just the secresy but the content!

[Opportunist]

And how?

Elections? With people who couldn't care less about net neutrality, especially in times when their jobs are at risk, provided they don't think about international fishing problems when they hear net neutrality? Hardly. This will never be an issue in any political debate.

And how else would you, could you stop that treaty from happening?

Outsourcing is a lie

[shmlco]

"How can you stop outsourcing without severely damaging the competitiveness of american companies?"

I'm beginning to think that this is a lie.

We're told over and over again that American companies have to outsource production to other countries in order for them to remain "competitive".

Okay, fine. But tell me this: How do Honda and Toyota and Kia and Hyundai BUILD PLANTS HERE IN THE US???

Are they not competitive? If FOREIGN companies can build plants here and produce products here for sale here AND hire American labor to do so... AND still make a profit...

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS OUR PROBLEM??????

i will simply say

[circletimessquare]

that the music/ publishing/ movie industry is powerful

but the open internet is even more powerful

iran and china, with all the legal justification they need, and a dire existential motivation to fight an open internet, have proven unable to control it

acta will not, and cannot defeat the open internet. the fact that it remain open is more useful and more important to all of us, governments included, to kowtow to distributors' need to control it to survive. in this contest, distributors die

iran and china can't cope

[circletimessquare]

they have all the legal justification, all the enforcement apparatuses, and a dire existential reason to fight an open internet, and they still can't cope

so you think a small industrial sector: distribution of media, can do a better job?

it's a contest: open internet versus a dying economic distribution model. internet wins, easy

you obfuscate the connection, you encrypt it, you darknet it, you disguise it as ip packets on port 80, you make it look like smtp email, you make it look like put form responses on a webpage, you employ steganography: it's an arms race, and it's guerrilla warfare: they have to block everything, you just have to tunnel effectively. they can't cope, they can't keep up, they can't staff and fund the effort necessary to counteract the constant mercurial creative efforts none of us have even dreamed up yet. even if they shut down one method, ten more pop up they have to learn to cope with. its a hydra: cut off one head, eight more shoot up harder to cope with than before

then you package it in software any idiot who can point and click can use easily, and then you give it away for free

no, i'm sorry: the free and open internet wins this contest, really. the benefits of an unregulated internet, in terms of new technologies, new uses trumps, by far, according to anyone, including governments, pandering to one dying economic sector

The first rule of ACTA

[Anonymous Coward]

You DON'T talk about ACTA!

Re:Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an interesting question raised about how ACTA would classify IP obtained by whistle-blowers for the purpose of supporting lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions, and to what degree the transfer of such IP would have to be blocked by ACTA implementers.

There is one major US corporation that has an interest in having ACTA language written broadly enough to block such transfers. To date, they have avoided prosecution by US authorities because 1) the means by which supporting evidence was obtained is questionable (the whistle-blower was in fact arrested for IP theft) making its admissibility in a US court uncertain. And 2) US regulators have no standing in a case as (to date) all accidents and fatalities involving the violation in question have occurred overseas. This company is a major supporter of ACTA and has an obvious interest in broad IP definitions and tight restrictions on transfers. But they can't tip their hand in open negotiations. If it became evident that US negotiators were attempting to manipulate language to this end, plaintiffs in foreign lawsuits may be alerted and motivated to lobby against such treaty language.

Re:It's not just the secresy but the content!

[gink1]

Some Congressmen will respond to public pressure by their constituents. Those must hear from everyone who cares about the internet and wants it to stay neutral.

Publicity of ACTA with it's secret agenda designed to support monopolies and destroy the internet should help. If ACTA begins to stink enough "Congressmen" will turn away from it.

And for the rest of our "Congressmen" - they want money which is why the currently support Big Media and ACTA. If we could raise say $2 Million per "Congressmen", that should bribe them to do their jobs.