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

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.

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.

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: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