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."
I wouldn't relax yet. A controlled leak to discredit critics is quite likely.
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
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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?