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."

Comments

Three strikes policies?

[Monkeedude1212]

Man, that buzzword just keeps coming up. Can you imagine if baseball was based around 4 strikes instead of 3?

Re:Three strikes policies?

[Whalou]

Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then thou become naughty in my sight, and thy internet connection shall be snuffed.

Re:Sounds on the up and up

[russotto]

Uniformity of procedures.

Guess we were all worried for nothing.

I wouldn't relax yet. A controlled leak to discredit critics is quite likely.

show me what's on the table

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

A good counteroffensive to rebut these claims would be to remove all the secrecy and let us see what's going on

Re:Solution

[DarkOx]

I think the thing here is this is a copyright treaty, they talk about secrecy being required for national security and I just don't see how debate about copyright law being public could possibly pose a clear and present danger.

The opacity of this whole process is proof enough that its not expected to be a popular body of law and probably is does not promote the general welfare but rather those of specific few. I don't think we need to see whats in to be opposed.

Re:Solution

[xOneca]

They say 'downloading is killing music.' A few days ago I heard someone that said 'it's like saying that downloading porn is killing sex.'

They are "committed to conclude ACTA in 2010"

[phypsilon]

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."

Re:Sounds on the up and up

[schon]

Really? What exactly does "ACTA" stand for again? Oh right - "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement". Which means that they should be talking about counterfeiting, right?

So tell me - in a trade agreement that is supposed to deal with counterfeiting, why are they talking about penalties for file sharing?

Now, if it was dealing with mass for-profit media duplication with the intent of passing off the product as the original, that would make sense.. but they're not. The discussions are about "three strikes" and other bullshit to combat file sharing.

What exactly does file sharing have to do with counterfeiting?

Re:Sounds on the up and up

[molo]

They equate it all under the umbrella of IP enforcement. They're talking about counterfeit goods (trademark violation), not counterfeit currency.

In my opinion, if you consider getting digital material from a non-official source, its still the same material. Its copyright infringement, not counterfeiting.

They want to label it all counterfeiting because it is much harder to take a reasonable stance against counterfeiting. Its victory by redefinition.

-molo

Re:Sounds on the up and up

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What exactly does "ACTA" stand for again?

Anti-Consumer Trade Agreement

Re:why wont this one world order

[Renraku]

The biggest problem with 'one world order': Where does one go when they don't agree to the policies set forth by the one world order? What if I want to smoke a joint but it'll mean the death sentence if I do? What if they start basing their laws on Christian teachings, but I'm not Christian? What if I want to start a business somewhere the won't require me to hire equal numbers of all different races? I can't, because if the one world order decides it should be, then the world will be just that.

I don't mind countries forming defensive pacts or trade agreements. What I do mind is letting the people that can profit from those laws decide what should go in them.

New Zealand situation

[shermo]

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 :(