Slashdot Mirror
Submit Your Comments About ACTA
alex_guy_CA Notes that the US Trade Representative — who has been negotiating the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement without input from the American people or Congress — is seeking public submissions on how to conduct US foreign copyright policy. This means that Americans can file comments with the USTR asking for ACTA to be made public. Public Knowledge explains the process: "Under the Special 301 process the USTR seeks input from US copyright, trademark, and patent owners about whether policies and practices in foreign countries deny them adequate IP protection. The process has generally been used by IP holders to complain not only about lax enforcement in other countries, but also about limitations and exceptions in their laws that are beneficial to libraries, to education, to innovation, and to the public interest generally. The ability to comment in the Special 301 process is not limited to IP owners only. Any member of the public is free to file comments. If you believe in the importance of balanced copyright policies, file comments with the USTR and make your voice heard. Comments can be filed electronically via http://www.regulations.gov/ docket number USTR-2010-0003. You have to include the term '2010 Special 301 Review' in the 'Type Comment and Upload File' field. ... Deadline for filing is February 16 by 5 pm."
How under any circumstances is this legal? It's not national security you're talking about, it's a trade agreement. I'd be thankful I'm not American but unfortunately I'm Australian so with a government that's so I don't feel like I have any right to brag, nor reason to celebrate. What happened to the Western ideals of freedom and democrasy. Seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water sometime around the start of the war on Terra.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a7dc9b
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
What's the real motive?
Pretending to care.
After careful consideration and review, they'll finally decide to do whatever the hell the oligarchy thinks is most profitable, as planned.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can take your unconstitutional further criminalization of what is ultimately a civil issue -- copyright infringement -- and shove it up your ass. Rights holders already have all the recourse they need -- the public court system. Taking away my constitutional rights to satisfy the profit needs of some rights holders is simply unacceptable. What do we have to do? Toss CDs and DVDs into Boston Harbor?
My blog
How about the USA keeps there dictatorial policy on their own continent? Foreign policy... Don't make me laugh, next thing they want to bring democracy to Europe. Yeah sure, please mod this down... but the truth won't go away by modding this down.
A leaked copy was posted on wikileaks, but they took everything offline due to their financial problems. Does anyone have a copy of the leaked document? Please post it here, or add it to this public wiki:
The URLs for the relevant wikileaks docs were:
I haven't found it in archive.org or Google cache. Help sought, thanks.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
First question: "What's in it?" Once you tell us that, we'll have more questions.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Submit Your Comments About ACTA
Seriously: Why?
It's not like they really care what us little people think. The fact is, what gets put into law will be what the big copyright holders want. Think **AA.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
[Also see the EFF's page about this if you're having a hard time coming up with a letter.]
This is my comment about the '2010 Special 301 Review' for the United States Trade Representatives. I would like to complain about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, also known as ACTA. As a firm believer in transparency of government and democracy, I would like to strongly object to the outright secrecy displayed around these negotiations. In a modern age, this simply isn't an appropriate forum for creation of new law.
Furthermore, what I have seen in leaked versions of the ACTA is deeply upsetting, on many levels:
- The "Border Measures" provisions are unconstitutional, as well as extremely alarming -- search and seizure without probable cause, on no grounds more severe than suspicion.
- The ISP regulation is also extremely alarming, unduly allowing enforcement agents to remove the privacy and anonymity of citizens without a warrant.
- "Graduated response" programs, such as those required by the ACTA, threaten to deprive citizens of Internet access without probable cause. As Internet access becomes more and more central to civic and daily life, this becomes increasingly threatening.
- In general, the criminalization of copyright infringement, which has always been a civil crime, is a huge provision for what is presumably a "trade agreement" and is frankly arbitrary and despotic.
The creation of ACTA is wholly inappropriate given the existence of another intellectual property organization, WIPO. As a citizen of the United States, I demand that my government cease participation in this mockery of democracy at once.
Thank you for your time.
Ethan
IMHO (and near-total guess), I don't think this is an RIAA-type copyright nazi push. It seems in the last 2 months or so that there's been a quiet directive from the current US administration to be more protectionist. It's a stand the president can't make publicly because then everyone else will follow suit, but it seems that in the quest for jobs, they want to try to encourage domestic consumption.
I mean first off you've got the DOT secretary going nuts about Toyota. Deserved? Maybe. Did the Secretary help the situation by saying "don't drive your cars"? Definitely not. Then there's NSA's involvement with the China/Google issue. More government involvement that seems out of place. The "Buy American" clause, changes in tax breaks announced at the State of the Union address, blah blah blah.
So if that's the case, then I focused in on the part of the summary about "policies and practices in foreign countries". Reading the actual docket, the request for info is strictly about what countries should be placed on a watch list, not what policies etc (searching iPods at the border) should be (or not be) in place. It's JUST about what countries out there are making fake CDs and handbags etc. and need to be placed on the "watch list".
I'll bet a fake Rolex that China ends up on the watch list.
I don't mean this at all in a snarky way, but...
Does anyone have a sense of whether or not us submitting comments would actually change the outcome?
Am I missing something? I read the Federal Notice rather quickly, but I don't see anything about ACTA. They're looking for comments specifically for "Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974." Wouldn't they just disregard any comments that don't address what they've asked for? (To "identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.") I suppose one could submit a comment saying that the parties negotiating ACTA are denying adequate and effective protection (etc.) under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, but I don't know that this would have any effect on the ACTA negotiations.
Nothing will get any better until things get loony. I hope to see house confiscations, children removed from families, people put in jail.
We're already _almost_ there.
This will foster the development of better anonymous networks and the adoption of proper encryption techniques to defend against these crazy laws.
Just like consuming illegal drugs, nobody is going to stop copying things that don't exist.
..don't panic
It's not national security you're talking about, it's a trade agreement.
As an American protectionist, I would think that the issue is really about how Asia approaches trade. They are all mercantile nations, not genuinely free trading ones, and, after waiting for 30 years for trade to somehow balance, I'm done with waiting and am ready to pull the plug on trade with at least Asia.
Australia, and Europe, I am not so worried about. Those nations come from the same cultural background, have been long allies, and at least play by similar rules. Like, I have no problem buying a Pontiac GTO, which was made in Australia, because Australians have similar wages, legal and cultural underpinnings, and hey, the first two Men at Work albums were pretty good stuff to listen to. Plus, 400hp RWD is always nice to have.
This is my sig.
I'm amazed that some people seem to think being able to import cheap crap from overseas is somehow meaningful when a huge (and growing) percentage of the working population is having a problem finding a job. As long as you have a job, then you can cope with rising prices. Without jobs, then the fact that imported goods are cheap merely means that you are spending your reserves a little slower than you would otherwise - and the money is STILL going out of the country, to a place with a lower standard of living, which means you probably won't be seeing again anytime soon (except maybe as a loan).
I'm skeptical about the specific forms of protectionism being proposed nowadays, but the idea that allowing all our money to flow unimpeded out of our country (without having any dependable mechanism to bring back equal or more value) will somehow be net beneficial for the country is just laughable.
That might not be a bad idea... /me calls for a Boston CD Party!
Sweet jeebus, man, don't do it! Dolphins are having hard enough of a time of it as is without you dumping cases of crappy Brittney Spears music on them...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It will turn out just like the place where they asked for public comment on off-shore drilling. When the overwhelming majority is not in favor of what they want to do, it will just disappear into a black hole and get ignored.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm sure a lot of people will cynically disregard the opportunity to comment as pointless; ignore this urge! While this comment period touches a fairly narrow area, if you care about this issue PLEASE COMMENT. Bring yourself up to speed on the proposed regulation (summary: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7dc9b), and make your comment as efficient, relevant, and precise as possible.
Commenting on regs is NOT like writing your congressperson! Public comments to proposed regs are reviewed, and are considered; these public comment periods are not just for show. Industries with vested interests in an agency's regulations are aware of this, and are certain to have their say in the matter. Have yours!
There's more context in the linked summary, but here's basically what they're asking for input on:
USTR requests that interested persons identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. USTR requests that, where relevant, submissions mention particular regions, provinces, states, or other subdivisions of a country in which an act, policy, or practice is believed to warrant special attention. Submissions may report positive or negative developments with respect to these sub-national entities.
What's the real motive?
Pretending to care.
They are not even pretending to care. If you read the notice, it is a solicitation for complaints against foreign countries who are failing to provide adequate protection to US intellectual property owners.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
I ask you to make a part of the United States' position the following:
1. ACTA negotiations must be open and transparent and conducted in such a way as to permit the American public ongoing input into the negotiation process as it occurs, rather than conducted behind closed doors, with only the end result visible, after an agreement has been concluded.
2. The preservation of fair use must be a critical and integral part of the United States' position in the negotiations, and the fair use rights of its citizens must not be compromised in the final agreement.
3. Copyright terms must not be extended any further than U.S. law currently provides, and should, if anything, be reduced in order to provide the artistic compost necessary for the creative process to thrive. The U.S. must take the position that excessive copyright term lengths stifle innovation in the arts, rather than preserve it, and that its citizens and humanity as a whole are ill-served by the progressive march towards infinite copyright extension.
4. Penalties for copyright violation should and must fit the actual economic damage incurred by copyright holders, with Draconian punishment reserved exclusively for those who profit financially from infringement. The U.S. position should and must be that damages for infringement by individuals who do not seek to profit financially from their actions must neither be excessive nor unduly harsh.
5. Artists should be given the right to sue copyright infringers for monetary damages, regardless of when or whether those artists have formally registered their works, if and only if the infringing use was for the financial gain of the infringer.
Check out my novel.
They aren't asking for our input on anything, just big media's and then they are only asking which countries they should go after with a rather large axe for being bad for business...
Feel free to write something just know that it will be filtered out before anyone important reads it. Honestly it should be clear to everyone that if they cared about what the public thought they would not be holding these meetings in secret.
But... If you wanna cause some trouble (for the Lulz) then I'd suggest picking a random country, lets say... china.. and then complaining about loosing millions because of IP theft. That at least should get past the filter and maybe even read before being deleted because it just wasn't valuable for their secret negotiations. Now if you want to help them out than might I suggest complaining about Canada or Spain. Pretty sure file swapping was ruled legal in Spain a while back.
This is about "special 301" reviews, which are a scheme for applying diplomatic pressure on countries that do trade things that US companies don't like. Anything submitted that doesn't relate to a specific issue with a specific country is irrelevant.
If you want to bitch about ACTA, write your congressional representative.
When is the last time that China has bought anything of significance from us except for our debt? I think it's high time that America woke up and understood that foreign countries are not necessarily our friends or have our best interests in mind just because they're willing to trade with us. Free trade is going to be the ruin of this country.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
What, you don't think China, Inc. is one huge abusive monopoly?
Last year, Canada was put on the watch list. Because... we're full of pirates!
Arrrr.
This year, please comment on just HOW ineffective it's been. Canada is (obviously) home to more pirates than ever, AND we have WAREHOUSES FULL of illegally copied goods ready to ship to the USA!
Really. I speak as a Canadian. I want to be on the "Priority Watch List", and not just on the "Watch List".
So get your comments in! Make this Canada's year!
Things to mention: "Canada has not yet implemented ex officio customs authority to allow warrentless seizures". "Canada is a massive trans-shipper of counterfeit goods". "Canada has not yet improved on its weak Internet IPR posture". And, just for good measure, state "I believe that Canada is a candidate for Section 306 monitoring at this time".
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061