Slashdot Mirror
ACTA Document Leaks With Details On Mexico Talks
An anonymous reader writes "A brief
report
from the European Commission authored by Pedro Velasco Martins (an EU
negotiator) on the most recent round of ACTA negotiations in
Guadalajara, Mexico has leaked, providing new
information on the
substance of the talks, how countries are addressing the transparency
concerns, and plans for future negotiations. The document notes
that governments are planning a counter-offensive to rebut claims of
iPod-searching border guards and mandatory three-strikes policies."
Man, that buzzword just keeps coming up. Can you imagine if baseball was based around 4 strikes instead of 3?
Uniformity of procedures.
Guess we were all worried for nothing.
Until they show me what's on the table, I will not consider anything rebutted. The politicians can say all they want that xyz is not in the proposed treaty, but until they show me what is actually in the treaty, I won't believe them. Politicians often say that something is not in a bill or treaty or other document imposing government regulation and when you read the document, sure enough it isn't there. However, when you analyze what is there you discover that, while what they told you wasn't there isn't, the stuff that is there allows for them to just implement it at any time in the future that they choose without any further public notice.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
A good counteroffensive to rebut these claims would be to remove all the secrecy and let us see what's going on
So its still a one sided document being written up by those in the big industries and no input from anybody this document will most likely effect, the people. They are trying to control and impact technologies they don't understand in the least. I mean if they actually had real knowledge of the technology they were trying to control they would realize that they should be using this to their advantage instead of trying to stop it.
How much bandwidth was wikileaks even using?
The document is very sparse on details. They seem to be negotiating four topics:
1. civil enforcements
2. customs
3. internet
4. transparency (wtf??)
But the most interesting quote is: "Parties remain committed to conclude ACTA in 2010."
If my own government is anything to go by (Netherlands) then the counteroffensive will be "you just don't understand it". The time politicians felt accountable to the public has long gone.
Mind you, the public keeps voting for the same guys over and over.
The biggest scammers are the media, in Holland you got something called to "kiez wijzer", a site that records the various parties (yes America, you can have more then 2) election PROMISES and ask you how you feel about various issues and then gives a recommendation. It is actually fairly fair, except that the attentive reader will have noticed I said PROMISES. It does NOT base its advice on YOUR preferences and a parties PAST behavior. So the advice in on what parties say they will do, not what they have done. And almost every falls for it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm a big supporter for copyright in principle, but I have no sympathy for the big content companies losing money left and right to pirates because most of them are by anti-property rights leftists and are constantly harping on "Capitalism is bad, mmmmkay?" If things were philosophically balanced where the little guy's property rights were as rigidly secure as big corps' IP, and those same big corps didn't spew out an anti-property rights, anti-"rich" mentality, I might have some mercy for them getting more aggressive in protecting their rights.
... I'll start investing in MicroSD chips... lets see border guards search me for those!
Bastards...
This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (STFU)
"The document notes that governments are planning a counter-offensive to rebut claims of iPod searching border guards and mandatory three strikes policies."
A) so, are the claims true or not?
B) if they released the fricking document in the first place, they wouldn't have to "rebut" (supposedly) false claims. They could just refer people to the document.
C) until I see the actual document I won't believe whatever "rebuttal" they are cooking up anyway.
Here you find a video of Valasco-Martins as he explains the agenda behind the ACTA agreement to lobbyists.
Actually, this is the ideal sort of thing for bittorrent. Collect everything, pack it up, and start seeding. Post links. I'll be pitching in at 5:20pm.
Like an analysis as to whether ACTA will block evidence discovery in support of foreign trials.
Have gnu, will travel.
just hurry up and die already. if the same fervent effort were applied to research, development, and innovation of pirated products as was applied to relentlessly combing the globe with jackboots and bayonets in a systematic attempt to pre-exterminate all general interest yet inability to consume monetarily, im certain i would have a music player that did what i wanted and needed it to do, a video medium that didnt treat me like a car thief, and software that didnt have to send half my computer to its corporate headquarters before i got to use it.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Insightful analysis of the use of the word counterfeiting.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Counterfeiting is fundamentally about trademarks and copyrights.
That sentence is complete and utter bullshit.
If it were true, then why do we have counterfeiting laws? Why not just prosecute under trademark and copyright?
If it were true, why do we talk about counterfeit money, when money is neither trademarked or copyrighted?
If it were true, why is passing off a fake DaVinci counterfeiting?
As Entropius said - counterfeiting is primarily about fraud. It can deal with trademark infringement if the product is marked, and it can deal with copyright if (as I said) the copyright infringement is large-scale for-profit copying with the intent to pass it off as the original. But it's fraud that makes it counterfeiting, not the trademark or copyright status.
Bandwidth wasn't the problem. They need funding to keep going, so, to show how essential they are, they took everything off line and said they'll keep it off line until they receive enough donations to keep going. They hoped to be back on line by January 18th, but they're still off line.
I think it's a tactical blunder. They even broke all their links - instead of being redirected to a "we need donations", you just get a 404! Messers.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Sounds like a bureaucracy to me.
Too bad.
They don't make that many guns.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Secret laws are a slippery slope that eventually encourage lawlessness and act against the interests of the citizenry. Why should any citizen obey the laws they do know, if they can always be punished severely for breaking laws they aren't permitted to know about? It's unconstitutional in most places, and especially the US that is founded on rule "by the people for the people". Anyone enacting these laws should be brought up on charges of treason, as should anyone attempting to enforce them. Quite ironically, there are probably anti-terror laws that apply too.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
New Zealand recently proposed our own version of the anti file-sharing law. It had a 3-strikes and you're out provision, but it was so convoluted that it would never actually get to disconnecting someone as it is currently written. I figured that it was just included to appease our American overlords, and it seems as if I was right.
I wrote this letter
Dear [New Zealand Prime Minister]
I notice that our country has joined the latest international fad and is implementing our own version of the three strikes policy to deter potential file-sharers.
However, as I'm sure you're aware, no one in New Zealand plays baseball. So, I propose the following changes:
The word "strike" is replaced with the word "wicket".
You only have one "wicket". So if you are accused of file-sharing once, you are 'out'.
You don't actually go to jail until 9 of your good friends have also been accused of file sharing.
There is a neutral party which can review any decisions. (I think this may have been called a 'judge' at some point, but I would rename it to 'third umpire').
These changes satisfy the intention of writing laws based on popular sports rules, but they add a nice "kiwi" touch.
Yours Sincerely, ...
I never got a reply :(
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
army? make that legions of armies if you want to be correct.
I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.