ACTA Internet Chapter Leaked — Bad For Everyone

roju writes "Cory Doctorow is reporting on a leaked copy of the 'internet enforcement' portion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. He describes it as reading like a 'DMCA-plus' with provisions for third-party liability, digital locks, and 'a duty to technology firms to shut down infringement where they have "actual knowledge" that such is taking place.' For example, this could mean legal responsibility shifting to Apple for customers copying mp3s onto their iPods." Adds an anonymous reader, "Michael Geist points out that the leaks demonstrate that ACTA would create a Global DMCA and move toward a three-strikes-and-you're-out system. While the US has claimed that ACTA won't establish a mandatory three strikes system, it specifically uses three-strikes as its model."

Comments

This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[clang_jangle]

Indeed. Surely some people must be thinking it's getting to close to time to create some drones of our own to take out the corporatocracy. Not me of course, but "some people".

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[BountyX]

Too late already done.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[causality]

This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

I wish I could attribute the saying, but here is how I've heard it said: If your law requires a police state to enforce, then your law is a bad law.

The very fact that these meetings were held in secret was a dead giveaway that nothing in our interests is going on in there.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[CannonballHead]

But it's far less personally dangerous. Most people are not killed by the *AA nor by DMCA or ACTA. People ARE killed by terrorists (and war, etc). Thus it is most definitely a more personally dangerous threat.

And most people care more immediately about their personal welfare than their freedom, if it comes down to it.... I think.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Friend, it ain't done until corporations are no longer entities with rights superior to those of human citizens. And it probably will take a real, old-fashioned insurgency such as our forefathers performed.

--
Remember, it's not terrorism if it's by the people, of the people, for the people!

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[CannonballHead]

Then be glad you live in the US which has a very strong and active military, still.

Other countries are significantly less fortunate.

I didn't say terrorism was a huge threat; but at the very least, the perceived physical threat of terrorism is significantly greater than the perceived physical threat of the RIAA.

Also, it would be interesting to know not just successful "terrorism" - however the statistician defines it - but the ones that were caught, as well. Those contribute to the perception.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Wowsers]

There's a difference between this ACTA treaty and terrorism? They both aim to control and / or destroy economic activity, and keep control of it in the hands of the few.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[haruharaharu]

I don't live in darfur, so I'm not concerned about being killed. As it stands, in the rich world, you stand a better chance of getting killed by traffic or the cops than terrorists, and by a wide margin.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[hairyfeet]

Welcome to the United Snakes home of the thief, only the thief is the mega corps stealing all our rights and leaving only the "freedom" to work for ever shittier wages while they try to find ways to offshore your job or bring in scabs so they can give themselves gold plated toilets.

Everyone said those survival nuts gearing up like it is fixing to be WW3 were just crazy, they don't look so crazy now, with that slippery slope turning into a roller coaster going straight down and your only choices being "Rich corporate ass kissing lawyer" A or B, now do they? Like the old saying "he who has the gold makes the rules" and they are gonna make damned sure they keep the gold and thus make the rules. Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker. Cue the Ayn Rand quote about everyone being criminals.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Larryish]

If this looks like it will actually come to pass, stock up on ChiPods. As many as you can buy, buy them. When new hardware _requires_ DRM and locked-down transfer channels, those things will be golden.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[HungryHobo]

You seem very quick to attribute the fact that terrorism is a trivial threat to the fact that the US has a very strong and active military.

On a related note I have a rock here which keeps tigers away.
I have this rock and I don't see any tigers.

Have you considered comparing the US to countries which do not have a large and active military.
Even better try comparing it to countries which have no standing military.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Ltap]

Just remember - Captain Obvious is never a villain. So, no matter how often he shows up, he always helps.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Tuoqui]

You'd be able to help out best by joining your local Pirate Party.

Pirate Party Canada
Pirate Party International - Find your own country's here.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[GaryPatterson]

Whilst the motives of the pirate party are generally okay, they're all but a gauranteed failure due to their ridiculous name and single focus. Few voters will put a tick next to "Pirate Party" on their ballot form, just from the name alone.

It'd be infinitely better to get real political parties onboard with the ideas than play around with joke parties that will never have the power to implement their ideas. Sadly many nations are stuck in faux democracy two party politics where voters get to choose the lesser of two very similar evils.

Failing that, at least change the name to appeal to the more general population. Something like "Reform Party." Something that isn't trivial to twist in the voters minds. Something that's not setting the party up to be easily demonised into irrelevance.

It's up with "The Gimp" for 'worst name ever' award. It's hard to think of a worse name for a political party, although rural canola producers one day might come up with the "Farmers for Rape" party. I live in hope.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[GaryPatterson]

Why would you feel safe? The terrorists have already caused your country to cower in fear, installing detectors at airports, ramping up people's paranoia and generally screwing you over.

On top of that, you've spent hundreds of billions on wars, one to hit back at them, the other being an unrelated military adventure.

They won years ago. Few people have been killed, but your country is terrified of them and acts accordingly.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[garg0yle]

Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker.

If it were that easy to buy public opinion, we'd all be drinking New Coke.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Entropius]

A bigger threat to the idea of the Pirate Party in the US, or any like-minded party, is our ridiculous two-party system. It doesn't matter what you call it, no third party has a chance in the US because of the way the system is constructed.

Piratpartiet did decently in Sweden...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[FiloEleven]

I am an adult. I can be responsible for my own interests. I recognize that what I want is not always what is best for me, and I act on that recognition through self-control. When I fail, I accept the responsibility.

Any group of men who thinks they know my interests better than I do can speak with me and try to convince me that this is so, but it is I who makes the final decision. Provisions decided in secret without public knowledge or consent will result in nothing but more lawlessness. Anyone who approves this agreement clearly shows that he does not represent me.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[nebaz]

Are you sure? They passed the DMCA, without much fanfare.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Virtual_Raider]

They are trying (and getting away) with this crap so they can pull disgustingly immoral tricks like Disney is doing. I saw the most sickening book yesterday:

"Disney's Alice in Wonderland", based on the movie by Tim Burton and the screenplay by whomeverthefuck. No mention of Caroll whatsoever. This is your new future. I hope you've never been too fond of Eurasia...

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[hairyfeet]

Thank you. And for those that labeled me a troll? Come out to middle America and see for yourself. our towns are nothing but corpses. Walled up store fronts, half the houses are abandoned, folks living out of their cars, whole towns just walked away from. Just in the two mile daily walk around my town I passed boarded up building after boarded up building, tons of for rent and for sale signs that have sat so long they have faded, the only reason my home town isn't completely dead is because it has a college. Those towns nearby that don't have a college? look like something out of an "after the apocalypse" movie.

It is actually pretty simple folks. You can't pay for two wars and bailouts of thieving bankers without taxes, and kind of hard to tax the unemployed. If the fed were to release REAL numbers, instead of their bullshit numbers where they drop all those whose benefits ran out, or who gave up because there simply isn't any work to be had, we would probably be looking at close to 30% unemployment and rising. They can talk about their "positive" indicators all they want, the jobs aren't coming back, they've been offshored to places were they can poison the workers into an early grave and dump toxins out the back door.

From driving through middle America and seeing the vast wastelands I personally think we are gonna have a depression that makes the 30s look like a joke. And I don't think it will go nearly as meekly, do you? We are a hell of a lot more mean than they were back then, and a hell of a lot better armed. We'll see how nasty things will get when it takes a basket of money to buy bread, with the way they are printing money at the fed probably won't be too long. China will only put up with buying our worthless dollars for so long before they just switch to the Euro and say fuck us. When that happens it is gonna get nasty folks, you mark my words.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[ArsenneLupin]

This is a much bigger threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could be.

Worse than that, it could actually cause some terrorism. Wanna snipe around some MPAA or RIAA parking lots?

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Genda]

Excuse me, that wasn't the terrorists... Hundreds of thousands of Americans protested in streets all over the nation, demanding Washington stop the action, think out a logic plan of response, and deal with a small group of criminals, who represented a small but violent organization, responsible for blowing up a group of buildings and killing several thousand people, in one city, in one state in this country. Instead, our government, and corporate friends of that government, saw this as an opportunity to whip the nation into a frenzy, shake a scary, scary Iraqi scarcrow at all of us, and go "booga, booga, booga!!!" The majority of good Americans, who have been trained since Kindergarten to trust and obey their government without so much as a single contemplative neuron firing, swallowed the WMD swill provided them without so much as a proper belch, and did as they were told. While these cynical, evil men sold out their country, the world at large, and for all intents and purposes, the foreseeable future. The mess we see today is that aftermath of the party these pigs had at our expense.

Tonight on 60 Minutes, there was a story, about a planes being flown by Blackwater. The planes flown by Blackwater had developed a reputation for being piloted by folks who were carelessness, reckless, unprofessional, and dangerously under-skilled. One of these planes crashed into a mountain in Afghanistan. A witness, mentioned that while speaking with the CEO of the company, the man in charge was utterly dumbfounded... he said "Did you listen to the black box recorder? The idiot flight crew was screwing around, joking about TV shows, then WHAM, flew straight into a mountain." The widow of an Officer being transported and who died in the crash, began proceedings to sue Blackwater... Blackwater never even said we're sorry. Whoops, it seems we screwed the pooch??? What they did do, was tell her, "Because we're contracted by the government, we are the government, therefore you can't sue us." Then they said "Since the accident happened in Afghanistan, you have to deal with us under Afghani law (which states business owners can't be held liable for gross negligence.) Then finally they said "There is no evidence that we did anything wrong, and in fact it was the Army Officer on the plane who was responsible for the crash... he must have done something to precipitate the disaster." Since then there have been more incidents of near disasters, and just this week, the Army awarded Blackwater with new and extended flight contracts. If this doesn't tell you the whole damn thing sucks like a Dyson Upright Vacuum, you are heavily medicated, or have serious perceptual limitations.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[scruffy]

Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker.

If it were that easy to buy public opinion, we'd all be drinking New Coke.

But a lot of people do seem to be drinking Bud Light.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[Culture20]

FWIW, classic coke in the USA no longer uses cane sugar, it uses HFCS (however the "jewish passover" coke does have cane sugar). I'm too lazy to figure out when exactly they switched to HFCS, but they certainly did, so in a way classic coke is not back. Some people claim there's a difference in taste.

There is, and a difference in texture too. I'll drink Pepsi Throwback (made with Cane Sugar) or Jones Soda Cola before Coke Classic with HFCS.

Re:This is a MUCH bigger threat than terrorism.

[HungryHobo]

culture, religion, belief, freedoms, etc

yes.... they hate you for your freedom.

What's best would be to compare the US to other SIMILAR countries without a large and active military... are there any?

I know this game.

Any country which has less than a quarter the population of the US will not count because they're too small or insignificant.
the only countries which are that big are:

Bangladesh | Brazil | China | Egypt | Ethiopia | Germany | India | Indonesia | Japan | Mexico | Nigeria | Pakistan | Philippines | Russia | Vietnam
(15)

Any country which is not predominantly christian won't count because they're not american enough given that you dwell on Islamic terrorists and ignore all the other kinds.
Brazil | Ethiopia | Germany | Mexico | Philippines | Russia
(6)

Any country which doesn't have a high enough average enough average income will not be western enough for your taste.
Germany
(1)

And while germany spends a tiny fraction of that the US does on it's military and anti terrorism rocks it still spends quite a lot.
I can't find any attacks in 2009 which implies they're going better than the US on that score.

In looking up the deaths due to terrorists in other western countries I'm finding it hard to find any other western countries with or without large militarys which lose less people to peanut allergies and bee stings than they do to terrorism.

Despite what the news may tell you terrorists just aren't all that much of a threat.

All those billions of dollars being wasted on anti terrorist measures could save more lives if they were spent on cancer research or road safety... quite possibly even if terrorists actually manage to do the incredibly improbable and and get their hands on a small nuclear device... which they somehow didn't do even before 9/11 when nothing like as much money was being wasted on terrorist repellent rocks.

Tyranny vs Liberty

[Afforess]

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

Which is true today?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[geminidomino]

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

And? One would have to be a deity of disingenuous rhetoric to make a case that there is anything "by" or "for the people" about the contemporary government system. It's been gamed, expertly so, and the only ones who could fix it are those who benefit from it.

You'd better start to love it, because ACTA and more like it are going to happen, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Cue naive, high-school idealists who blame the voters and/or claim that voting could stop it.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[BradleyUffner]

Which is true today?

People can't be scared of things they aren't aware of. Most people aren't aware of much the government is doing these days.
Governments passing laws to control people so much seems to indicate that the government is scared of the people and is trying to regain control.
Oddly enough it seems we are in the situation of government fearing the people more that the people fearing the government. So that means... We have Liberty?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[DigiShaman]

I fear the government. That much I know to be true.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[91degrees]

The much wiser man was a complete moron then.

When government fears the people there is a ineffectual weak populist government that fears making difficult decisions because people collectively are pretty damn stupid. Alas that isn't catchy and doesn't use a clever mechanic of opposites, but alas, reality can't always be handled in a pithy statement.

Government should respect the people, earn their trust, and work as their loyal servants. Neither side should fear the other.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[the_humeister]

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

  Which is true today?

Depends where you are. In Somalia, it would seem that the government (and everyone else) does indeed fear the people.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Adrian Lopez]

So that means... We have Liberty?

If ACTA is anything to go by, it appears there are those who feel we do have [too much] liberty.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[maxwell demon]

Actually tyrants fear the people more than democrats. In a democracy, those in power mainly fear to get voted out of office. Tyrants fear to be forcefully removed, with high probability of being killed, and an assured uncomfortable life if he survives the revolution.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[ipquickly]

A Man much wiser than me once said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

There should be neither.

The government should be the people.
Right now the government is more the corporations than the people.

Until we start electing people who grew up downloading music, or those in power will have lawyers bills because their kids were charged with downloading music, I doubt much will change.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[Afforess]

That much wiser man was Thomas Jefferson. Care to revise your moron comment?

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

An equally wise American once said "..and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Unless you want to leave his government, then he is all for jailing you without trial and suspending habeas corpus. He is also cool with using total war in order to invade one section of the country, burning down such cities as Atlanta and devastating the region. He also brought about the income tax, which was at the time unconstitutional (like much of what he did). Sure, he freed a terribly oppressed group of people, but he used another form of slavery (conscription) to achieve it.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

Not that I agree with your parent, but just because a man is famous and revered does not mean that he was infallible. Many wise men have made mistakes throughout history; Jefferson is one of them (ever hear of the embargo he put in place? That was one of them. Let's not get started on him and slavery)

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[zach_the_lizard]

Depends where you are. In Somalia, it would seem that the government (and everyone else) does indeed fear the people.

I think they did that before their government collapsed. Somalia was a hell hole then, and remains so now, although I have heard it reported that, despite this, they have a fairly decent telecom industry for that neck of the woods. Their tribal Xeer law system is also fascinating.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[NeutronCowboy]

To see this at work, just watch the French. It is the one country in the world where the government is genuinely worried about the population. The French have a habit of instigating work actions that would result here in the National Guard being called in. The French government, not being quite as quick to shoot at its own population (unless they live in the poor suburbs....) is constantly forced to cave to populist demands.

How is it working out for them? I don't know about you, but Time Magazine recently rated France the best place to live. On the other hand, be ready to plan your vacations around predictable strikes that cripple the nation's transportation system.

I wouldn't go so far to say that such a government would be weak and ineffectual, but it certainly comes with its own set of challenges.

Re:Tyranny vs Liberty

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Either you are a person of acceptable intelligence, or you make false dichotomies.

In which category are you?

(I like your sig BTW)

Mining the DMCA safe harbor

[John Hasler]

Sounds more like "DMCA-minus" than "DMCA-plus", with mines being planted in the DMCA safe harbor.

Re:Mining the DMCA safe harbor

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sony is probably going to bomb the safe harbour at some point.

Why isn't China a Partner?

[BlueBoxSW.com]

Seriously. You want all the world to abide by an anti-piracy measure and don't include the biggest pirate on the planet?

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[Gorkamecha]

Wait, I thought Canadians were the biggest pirates on the planet? (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117939142.html?categoryid=19&cs=1&nid=2570)

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[TheNarrator]

Because the Chinese don't think Europe and the Anglo-Americans run the world. Seriously, whenever you hear the word "global" or "international" that really means Europe (Specifically the EU leaders), the Anglo Countries (spearheaded by British and American think tanks), any third world countries they can bribe or intimidate into going along with them and NOT China or Russia (and occasionally Brazil and India will opt out too).

Re:Why isn't China a Partner?

[oldhack]

It's a sad, sad world where we have to rely on China and Russia to "protect" our freedom.

been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

[Joe The Dragon]

been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

Do like what you market competition is doing just a accused them and watch how they can't do any work any more then they get shut off.

some get's layed off then to get back they just accused them.

You make your own art / music and you trun down a deal and they just trun around and accused you

You give a bad review of a moive / game / any other thing and they just accused you and shut down your web site.

You say that x is doing a bad job and he shuts you down.

This like a red light cameras with no court that goes off on yellow and goes off right before you hit the stop line.

Re:been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

[Hurricane78]

How about aquiring a list of those who created ACTA, and accusing them all of whatever.

But I think a new virus would be better. One that targets ACTA creators and their friends, and has a child porn payload. Then it automatically triggers a call to the cops. ^^

Re:been accused counts as a strike = easy DOS

[polle404]

These people do not get cut off, people with this much power never do.
Vira with illegal payload won't do the job for these persons, they will pay, bribe, cajole, lawyer their way out of anything.
But hey, you've just had most of your family and neighbors locked up.

There's only one way out of this, publicity, publicity, publicity.
This needs to be blown up so big all over the news, that none of these people/organisations/corporation can hide anymore.

So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[jr2k]

I think I have posted 1 time since I opened am account here. This issue caused me to find my login /password. This thing scares the shit out of me. Something that is seemingly "all encompassing" treaty for internet use should be out in the public for ridicule. What would be the due process for contacting whomever in government has the power to stop this thing? Or do we have no option? I am generally apathetic about internet policy because I have FIOS, but this treaty has changed my outlook.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[geminidomino]

What would be the due process for contacting whomever in government has the power to stop this thing? Or do we have no option?

We have no option. You know how, when talking about annoying/abusive advertising practices, people love to say "you're not the customer, you're the product?"

Welcome to reality: the government views you exactly the same way.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[slashqwerty]

In the United States a treaty has to be signed by the President and approved by two thirds of the Senate. So you can:

1. Convince the President not to sign it (he has been pushing for this treaty and has to sign it in order to repay his very favorable media coverage during the election).
2. Convince 34 senators to vote against it (they will be crucified by the media if they do so). They will likely need to vote against it every year until the deadline runs out.
3. Convince two thirds of the states to hold a constitutional convention to fix copyright law. Hope they come up a with a fair constitutional amendment. Then convince three fourths of the states to ratify it.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Hurricane78]

Well, you can do many things.

You can get the word out. (But beware to not act or sound like a crazy or raging person. They have to want to listen to you!)
If you are relatively skilled in PR / politics / marketing / psychology / social engineering / etc, you can create a critical mass of people agreeing with you. They will then take care of things... the hard way. ;)

Or you can go guerillia (= the best war strategy for minorities) and create a virus that lands on ACTA creator/supporter computers/sites, has a highly illegal payload (child porn, movies, secret documents, illegal books, etc), and then automatically tells the cops to go raid the house.

You can create, support, install and spread darknets to everyone.

You can move to a still free country. (Or create your own. [You wouldn’t be the first one!])

Etc, etc, etc.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[Culture20]

In the United States a treaty has to be signed by the President and approved by two thirds of the Senate.

Unless the President is negotiating it as an executive agreement, then it's just the President. So you can:
1. Convince the President not to sign it (he has been pushing for this treaty and has to sign it in order to repay his very favorable media coverage during the election and his political connections with Biden et al).

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[FiloEleven]

Writing is good and if you have the inclination, do it. Calling the offices (home and DC) of your senator (since this is a treaty) is very quick and almost as effectual as snail mail. I personally call for important matters and email for back-burner stuff. I never got along well with the postal system.

Just as important as contacting your reps is convincing others to do the same. This is why I prefer to suggest phone calls: they can be done on a whim and they're quicker than post and email because you get to air your views to a live person on the other end of the line who can gauge how you feel by your tone (please remain civil and avoid run-on sentences like this one). If you convince other people to call and to talk to their friends, soon enough the staffers on the other end are going to feel like everybody hates this thing, and they'd better tell the boss or they might be blamed when he loses his next election because of it.

Public pressure is our greatest tool.

Re:So, what can we (US Citizens) do to stop this?

[ArsenneLupin]

4. Get a gun, and take it to ACTA's head quarters. That's what the Second Amendment is for. As others have said, ACTA is high treason, and needs to be dealt with as such.

Re:This is absurd

[causality]

As a whole, does anybody really think the DMCA was beneficial to the economy?

It was incredibly good for the economy, if by "economy" you mean "campaign funds."

Treason, and terrorism

[syousef]

Can't think of anything that fits with the definition of treason better than a system that passes laws that the citizens aren't permitted to know. That immediately removes the incentive for being law abiding since you can't know if you're breaking the law. Anyone enacting or enforcing such laws should be covered by treason laws.

Can't think of anything more terrifying than threatening to take away a person's ability to communicate, possibly their livelihood without having to PROOVE a crime in court. Enacting such laws is the very definition of terrorism. Where's the anti-terrorism legislation now?

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Spad]

Next up, you're not allowed to know what you've been charged with or what you've been sentenced to.

Re:Treason, and terrorism

[Hurricane78]

Doesn’t this exist already in the US? It’s the laws that allows homeland security to deport you to Guantanamo.
No phone call. No asking why. Nothing. Basically the laws of Gulags and KZs. (And at the same time Cheney’s company builds tons of new jails too.)

Land of the free my ass! :(((

Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

The fact is that each of us probably commits three felonies a day as it is, or so says Harvey Silverglate of the EFF, ACLU, and FIRE (see his book "Three Felonies a Day.") Heck, it's probably a felony (under wire fraud statutes) to surf Slashdot while you are at work. And given that it's a felony there, it's probably also a felony under the CFAA. So if you surf Slashdot at work, you are already two thirds of the way there.....

The fact is it doesn't matter if you have done anything wrong. The current state is that the government can prosecute just about anybody on vague laws and make it extremely difficult to fight (try hiring a lawyer will all your assets frozen).

I am of the opinion that the Constitution is in shambles anyway. I oppose this treaty but I am too cynical to think that will make a difference. Prosecutors can ALREADY go after anybody they want to.

Re:Doesn't matter

[betterunixthanunix]

I could not agree more, but what bothers me the most is the absolute apathy most people seem to have. Most people are not just unaware of what is happening, but they do not care at all even after they are told -- and that is when they bother to listen at all. People just do not care about these issues, so long as they can see the latest celebrity scandal or play with some new high tech toys.

Re:Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

I think part of the problem is that it usually comes up when prosecuting alleged bad guys.

For example, it's really hard to have sympathy for Jeff Skilling or Lori Drew but some of the charges in both their cases illustrate this problem perfectly. I have no problem with the securities fraud charges against Jeff Skilling, but the wire fraud charges? The idea that Jeff Skilling engaged in a fraud to deny Enron the "intangible right" to his "honest services?"

Yet I have known people who were railroaded in these sorts of things for political purposes. They don't make the news. It was a nice republic while it lasted.....

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ltap]

I hate to be the person to Godwin this, but it is reminiscent of the regret of German intellectuals. They were intelligent, educated people who could have swayed the German public early in Hitler's rise but were too apathetic to do so, convinced that they would be left alone as long as they toed the line.

Which is ultimately the perfected method for slowly eroding liberties - to at first use it on "criminals" (catching more people who break existing laws), then creating new laws to support it, then revising it to suit the new laws... continue ad nauseum until you end up with a legal system in shambles that has been filled to over-capacity and can punish anyone just for living their daily life, if it so chooses. This is by far the most sneaky way of governments dealing with political dissidents - either find them committing a crime, frame them for a crime, or turn what they do into a crime to make it easier to lock them away. Then they have a pretext, an excuse to get rid of them without it being too obvious.

Re:Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

But do they? Have they actually managed to prosecute anyone for their 3-a-day felonies? Have they managed to actually freeze anyone's assets over these felonies? You can't just freeze assets over any crime.

I have known two relatives who were prosecuted on trumped up charges for political reasons. Both were convicted. Neither one even had assets frozen. However, having assets frozen is not uncommon.

In the first case, it was a lawyer in the McCarthy era who spent a lot of time and energy defending individuals accused of violating the Smith Act. They tried him on perjury for his efforts and he was acquitted, so they came back and tried him on income tax evasion on some technicality (and secured a conviction there). Shortly after he was released from jail he was readmitted to the bar association which suggests that there was reason to think it was politically motivated.

In the second case, it was a doctor who was prosecuted for "medicaid fraud" over an error in billing codes. This was during the Reagan administration and was part of an effort to show the public they were fighting fraud regarding medicare and medicaid. Many, many doctors were unjustly prosecuted and in the case I know of, there wasn't even an allegation that the wrong amount of money had been billed. The government talked to the doctor's partners and pressured them into demanding a guilty plea. Silverglate documents a number of other similar cases in his book.

So yes, it happens. If a prosecutor decides that prosecuting you is in the prosecutor's interest, it can happen and all too often does.

Re:Maybe it'll be a good thing...

[Spad]

No, you're not, but you are still in a minority.

Face it, 90% of the population of any given country involved in ACTA don't care in the slightest about copyright and patents and net neutrality and the like; at least, they don't realise they do, even if they do. They're quite happy to carry on with their lives and put up with or work around any shit that new legislation throws at them without changing their day-to-day routine.

Disproportionate punishment

[mudshark]

People have been using the postal service to commit fraud for decades, but even repeat offenders are not banned from sending or receiving mail. And when was the last time you heard of someone getting kicked off the telephone network? Just because the medium has evolved, the right of people to have access to common means of communication does not change.

The hiding of the bill's creation is only half

[You'reJustSlashFlock]

The hiding of the bill's creation is only half of the fearful part of the legislative process.

The DMCA was passed with not one legislature sigining a name to it. It passed the House through voice vote and the Senate through unanimous consent. They knew what they were doing.

Canadian solution

[jvillain]

For me the proper solution to the piracy concerns from the US is to stop the import of all movies, music, tv shows and any thing else they are so worried about people stealing at the border. If other countries did it as well then production would move from the US to other locations. Problem solved they wouldn't have to worry about people stealing their content any more. I swear, I try not to hate Americans, but when they start demanding that we abandon our laws and customs and adopt theirs I just loose it. How long till the next secret treaty is about making every one, every where abandon their gun control laws because that is how it is in the US?

Re:Canadian solution

[introspekt.i]

The RIAA and the IFPI is now an international organization that throws its weight around everywhere, not just the US. Would you say a company like Sony-BMG is an American one? This is not an American problem. It's easy to scapegoat Americans, but perhaps this is an issue that deserves more thought.

ISP Reason for Public Domain

[headkase]

If this goes through here's what I'm going to do: make suggestions wherever there is a receptive venue to restore a functioning public domain. If regulation such as this actually does go through and all those pipes (heheh) are suddenly sitting there underutilized, well, they need something else to fill them back up! Starting with restoring a sane public domain would be a poetic way to accomplish this! Say everything 20 years and older is the target to be public domain. So, any movie, music, book, and software from 1990 and back right now. ISP's who would suddenly be looking at a drought of demand for their infrastructure would probably be receptive to such a proposal. Mom and Pop who suddenly found they couldn't download the latest pop song would also probably be receptive to the idea at least out of a sense of revenge. Seriously if it's going to be class warfare then throw a little corporate warfare into the mix: pit ISP's against content industries. At the very least I could be a little smug. And if it doesn't work, get all your friends and family to move to the really cheap ISP plan which is all they'll actually and reasonably need in this new corporate dawn. ISP's are the ones set to lose the biggest in this, all the more reason to give them ideas as much as possible.

Re:When governments cease to represent their citiz

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

It's in your interest that the rich become richer. After all, doesnt it trickle down?

I'm still waiting for that top 1% to release the cash on us poor 99%ers

Oh wait, they're just going to lock us up for pirating things they sell that we cant afford, because they refuse to pay us a humane living wage and provide us a country of fair laws that represents the interest of its people....

we are so fucked.

Its the kind of shit that makes you want to fly planes into buildings... but then they label you as "crazy" rather than try to understand why you were crazy... even when you write a perfectly sound explanation as to why.

Keep dreaming *AA

[sqrt(2)]

Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How? Will I have a chip in my arm that keeps my router from working? Even if they were somehow able to blacklist me from every ISP how would they stop me from using freely available Wifi? How will they shut down Freenet? How will they stop me from burning CDs and just handing it to my friend?

This isn't going to change anything.

Re:Keep dreaming *AA

[geekmux]

Lofty goals. This isn't enforceable, legally or practically. Three strikes and you get kicked off the internet? How? Will I have a chip in my arm that keeps my router from working? Even if they were somehow able to blacklist me from every ISP how would they stop me from using freely available Wifi? How will they shut down Freenet? How will they stop me from burning CDs and just handing it to my friend?

This isn't going to change anything.

(In my best Morpheus impression when speaking to Neo during training). What makes you think these laws have anything to do with enforcement? You think they care about what numbers they change on this Internet?

Remember NO law is ever suggested without it ultimately meaning money and/or power to someone.

Three what?

[chilvence]

The most aggravating thing about this three strikes rule is that it is so obviously based on an obsessive baseball fanaticism.... making it impossible to disguise the fact that it is actually the kind of half baked idea thought up in 30 seconds in a bar somewhere and scribbled on the back of a beer coaster so that it wouldnt be forgotten in tomorrows hangover. That is exactly the kind of flippant attitude to problems that nobody in the world deserves to have forced upon them.

Besides, if you yanks were going to try and pull a fast one on the rest of the world, you should have used a football analogy - its the international sport!

(thats the one with the round ball by the way)

Law vs law?

[gmuslera]

This implies no privacy, as whoever that provides us connectivity with others (ISPs, cell/line phone companies, postal service, web services like email/chat/voice/webcams/etc) as could held liable for what their customers do, that must follow all we do using their services. And privacy is an human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, plus probably most governments constitutions. Will that be enough to stop them or we will not have human rights?

It makes the worse totalitarian governments in the world in history look like the land of the free.

Re:Great...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

http://www.gp.org/index.php

Well look at that... I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004..

He was right back then... and no one believed him and now look at us dick deep in the shit he predicted and NO ONE STILL GIVES A DAMN TO VOTE for a 3rd party. The dems have adopted his issues yet do nothing about them.

Ralph was right... and Everyone of you should look into him seriously if he runs again.

Not sure it's even good for them.

[einhverfr]

Here is the letter I sent via regulations.gov:

BTW, here was my comment submitted to the USTR regarding the treaty.

RE: 2010 Special 301 Review
Docket Number USTR-2010-0003

Jennifer Choe Groves
Senior Director for Intellectual Property and
Innovation and Chair of the Special 301 Committee
Office of the United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508
Filed electronically via Regulations.gov

Dear Ms. Groves:

I am a software engineer and developer here in the US. I own copyrights to a number of software programs and published papers, some jointly with corporations or other natural persons. I have also authored two ebooks which are distributed online and one printed book which is available through major retailers. Software I produce is distributed world-wide.

I am deeply concerned about the rush towards greater liability for neutral service providers where copyright infringement is alleged. Holders of copyrights (including myself) should not be able to make end-runs around our traditional system of legal protections by threatening third parties into shutting off services which may be vital for conducting lawful business. This is especially dangerous where very fact-centric elements of copyright and trademark infringement accusations may need to be adjudicated by courts. These cases can occur where questions of fair use or derivation occur.

Thus I am concerned that the rush towards greater protection and greater third party liability will become a sword of Damocles hanging not only over the head of the average citizen but most especially over the head of the copyright holder. After all, if a set of mere accusations is enough to insist that material be taken down or internet access denied, then those who produce copyright-worthy materials will be the most exposed.

Instead, balance is needed, and consumer protections must be a major part of the equation. These consumer protections don't just protect consumers against rights-holders. They protect rights holders against unfair competition, and they protect innovators against entrenched market interests.

Instead of dictating how foreign countries should make laws ensuring elements well outside the traditional boundaries of copyright law (circumvention device control, etc), we should instead be interested in looking at ways to make claims more easily adjudicated when they come up. The emphasis on third-party liability is a major step backwards.

Please reconsider.

Sincerely,
Chris Travers

Re:Not sure it's even good for them.

[fucket]

Did you include a check?

Re:Not sure it's even good for them.

[dcollins]

Amusingly, in the past when I've sent similar letters to representatives in Congress, I get an automated letter back to wit, "Mr. Software Professional, we hear how important copyrights are to you, and we're doing everything we can to strengthen them and enforce them as stringently as possible..., etc., etc."

Re:This is absurd

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's a matter of national security. As the American manufacturing sector withers away and we become a service economy, our creative content* will remain our largest export, and we have to protect our country's cash cows. I'm not joking.

* Of course, I don't agree with bullshit like ACTA and the DMCA. The content providers haven't produced anything worth a shit in decades so the best solution to this is not to buy their shit and instead donate that money to the EFF and The Pirate bay.

So now you know!!

[noz]

Keeping it secret is a matter of national security when the nation is controlled by private interests.

Fat, Dumb and Happy

[issaqua]

Most are either too affluent (or is it effluent?), or too desperate, to care about these things.

The narcissistic direction that western culture has taken - "I'm alright Jack, sucks to be you" - magnifies this issue. Without concern for the common (greater) good, I think we will ultimately consume ourselves.

-I.

The Furture

[BountyX]

*some time in the near furture*

Due to ACTA, everyone now listens to CC music, watches youtube, and uses only GPL software. Copyright is considered a very large liability by companies and people. All of Microsoft's servers have been shut down due to ACTA accusations made by GPL developers. Microsoft uses thepiratebay (which is still online) to distribute copies of the new Windows 10. These copies are infected with a malicious software that downloads bootleg Disney movies and reports the end-user to Disney for affliate revenue. The malicious software developer also sues the end-user directly for copyright infridgment. Meanwhile, the RIAA and MPAA are the single source of all remaining pirated musics and movies since they need pirates to survive. They eventually all go to jail for downloading illegal copies of "The Little Mermaid". NewYorkCountryLawyer is now in the Supreme Court trying to overturn ACTA; however, the Supreme Court judges have been replaced by drones provided by the airfoce. NewYorkCountryLawyer uses a legal loop-hole in the constition that allows a EULA to trump every US law ever made. Guns are no longer needed, becuase you can just throw a EULA into someones face demanding they kill themselves. The world finally achieves universal peace.

unenforceable

[circletimessquare]

seriously, let them pass every goddamn unenforceable law they want

ten million technologically sophisticated, media hungry and POOR teenagers have them beat, sight unseen. they simply cannot enforce ACTA. seriously. its castles in the sky

i understand completely the concept of a legal framework to encourage the creation of cultural works via economic incentives

except what they are talking about goes WAY WAY beyond that concept and extends into the realm of corporate ownership of culture for no purpose that serves the general public in any way whatsoever

seriously, when

1. grandchildren of some guy who wrote a song are legally entitled to a cash flow, and
2. when pseudolegal structures are empowered to intrusively monitor the supposed free exchange of ideas central to a healthy society,

then the very idea of intellectual property law is philosophically and morally broken, and must simply be ignored and/ or outright actively destroyed by anyone with a moral compass and a passion for the concepts underlying western liberal democracy

ip law is a parasitical device distribution companies have bought and paid for via legislative interference to somehow validate their existence. distribution companies that have simply been replaced by the internet. they can buy all the fucking laws and all the prostitute legislators and all the legions of corporate legal goons. who fucking cares. unless they actually break the internet to the extent of china and iran, which even their legislative whores would feel uncomfortable about, their entire legal fantasy is an unenforceable joke for some highly motivated teenagers to route around, package as a point and click interface, and give away for free

technological progress is a bitch. no law can trump it unless you want to stop the very notion of progress itself. so for all of the power of media companies, i simply don't see them powerful enough to crush the foundational concepts of western liberal democracy simply in order to retain their antiquated reason for existence

death throes of a dinosaur. people should fucking know when they are defeated already. and the entirety of the media industry has most certainly been defeated

if they won't go peacefully, we'll just kill them. p2p is only the beginning. there are a million more technologically sophisticated methods. dark nets. steganography. obfuscation. protocol impersonation. and best of all: play countries against each other. set up shop in one, jump to the other. always a step ahead of the assholes. who are we? any goddamn poor terenager. there's no structure needed. a simple desire for one's own culture is the only imperative needed to defeat these assholes. let them sniff all they want. it's a pandora's box. a hydra: cut off its head, we grow ten more. they're doomed. let's make sure they fucking know it

bring it on media corporate assholes. bring all your legal goons and all your bought and paid for legislative puppets and all your paid for tech hacks and all your pseudo corporate governmental entities. we have you beat, and we welcome the fight in the name of the greatest principles of the free exchange of ideas and a free society and simple moral integrity. you're fucked, and your defeat is for the common good

you can't own our culture. we won't let you. we are simply motivated for the love of music, literature, and cinema. you don't own it. we the people do. fuck off and die. we will burn your toll booths to the ground

bring it on. bring your worst. we have you beaten, hard

i spit on you corporate assholes. i relish your comeuppance

Both are terrorism

[bussdriver]

If you can be terrorized and that is their intent then they are terrorists. You do not have to be killed for it to be terrorism.

A team of industry lawyers taking you for everything you have, your time, possibly your freedom and now even more criminal law. They want to make examples and terrorize their customers. "Hired guns" now wear suits but the phrase lives on for a reason.

Re:Both are terrorism

[skine]

If you can be terrorized and that is their intent then they are terrorists. You do not have to be killed for it to be terrorism.

Furthermore, the point of terrorism is that terrorists don't have the means to directly attack everyone, but instead have the means to directly attack anyone.

This insanity wont stop...

[CondeZer0]

until so called 'intellectual property' is exposed for the oxymoron that it is.

Who leaked?

[fyoder]

From the article:

Someone has uploaded a PDF to a Google Group that is claimed to be the proposal for Internet copyright enforcement that the USA has put forward for ACTA, the secret copyright treaty whose seventh round of negotiations just concluded in Guadalajara, Mexico.

I wonder who that someone is who leaked it. It could be part of a strategy to scare the crap out of people so that when they come out with something no more than an international DMCA people will breath a sigh of relief instead of getting all up in arms. What they've leaked is so bad as to almost seem not credible.

From the computerworld.co.nz article:

The chapter on the internet from the draft treaty was shown to the IDG News Service by a source close to people directly involved in the talks, who asked to remain anonymous. Although it was drawn up last October, it is the most recent negotiating text available, according to the source.

So is this a real leak, or something they want disseminated? /paranoia

Concerning

[symbolset]

I'm actually kind of concerned that there's a shadowy group of corporate advocates purporting to be agents of US policy negotiating international treaties which must remain a secret from the citizens of the respective countries, and the practice is getting serious play in the halls of large governments. I'm not the tinfoil hat type usually, but there's something about this that makes me slightly uneasy.

Re:Crypto

[Ernesto Alvarez]

I don't think you got the idea....

My proposal's main objective is not technical, it is mostly to give the ISPs the excuse for not intercepting traffic.

I'm counting on the ISPs not wanting to do the interception in the first place, and using TLS as an excuse for not intercepting. While some people might see eavesdropping as not that bad, tampering with a connection is a different ball game. Besides, they are likely to be discovered unless they coordinate perfectly (how would you explain that the certificate for your site changes when you switch ISPs?).

Obviously anyone can do a MITM against not only self signed certificates, but also to properly signed ones. If the government decides to interfere, they might as well get a MITM box with a properly signed certificate that will work both for self signed and regular certificates. Then again, if the situation gets like that, you have a police state.

Already here somewhat.

[Jaazaniah]

Perfect example of DRM gone wrong and hurting consumers: A guy I know actually bought the media center edition of WinXP, (yes, I know) and recorded some video on an older-model hand held and then tried to play the resulting AVI file. I was called on to help them debug why it wasn't playing. I don't recall the exact error message now, but it was something related to an unknown author (Media Player was default). So on a wild hunch I downloaded and installed vlc real quick to test my theory and it played perfectly. Way to go Micro$oft, yet another normal user who will never buy your products again.

The problem is if ACTA goes through, there will be no choice. Something must be done to take these players drafting this piece of crap down or out before governments have a chance to sign away our rights to choose.

Re:Crypto

[myowntrueself]

Using strong crypto between mail clients is like...

Using armored cars to transfer bags of money from one park bench to another.

You HAVE a weak and ineffectual government.

[Anonymous Coward]

You HAVE a weak and ineffectual government. It has inherited a stack of strong in irresistible lobby group and ancillaries from the strong and effective (and completely and utterly corrupt) Bush administration.

The weak government you have is bowing down to what SEEMS to be a stronger force: the legacy of corporate whoring Republicans left behind.

What you need is a strong and effectual government WHO WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE.

New Coke

[PincushionMan]

No, New Coke was a scheme to get people to forget the taste of 'Old Coke' so that they could make 'Coke Classic', which replaced sugar with HF Corn Syrup.

AFAICT, they did it again with Mr. Pibb to Pibb Xtra.