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."

Comments

direct link

[ClioCJS]

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a7dc9b

Re:Hmmm...

[Scrameustache]

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.

My comments on ACTA

[morgan_greywolf]

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 message

[glasserc]

[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

Re:Hmmm...

[gnieboer]

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.

Re:Hmmm...

[UnderCoverPenguin]

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.