Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency

Posted by timothy on Thursday February 25, 2010 @08:31AM from the putting-on-an-acta dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, the secret copyright treaty, many countries have taken public positions that they support release of the actual text, but that other countries do not. Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners, the text simply can't be released until everyone is in agreement. A new leak from the Netherlands fingers who the chief opponents of transparency are: the United States, South Korea, Singapore, and Denmark lead the way, with Belgium, Germany, and Portugal not far behind as problem countries."

164 comments

apt quote by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
1. Re:apt quote by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 08:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "American Idol is on tonight, oh goodie" - Typical American
2. Re:apt quote by dch24 · 2010-02-25 08:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "Don't bother to actually read what Michael Geist wrote, just post inflammatory headline" - Typical Slashdot Editor.
  
  I know, I must be new here... Here's an important block of text. Read this:
  
  Outside of the Europe, the memo identifies three problem countries. While Japan is apparently supportive, both South Korea and Singapore oppose ACTA transparency. Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.
  The U.S. Representatives may be against transparency, but they aren't stupid enough to say so.
  
  Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>
3. Re:apt quote by killmenow · 2010-02-25 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  "Shut up, honkey!" - George Jefferson
4. Re:apt quote by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 09:01 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  No one because all you armchair freedom fighters are too much of pussies to actually do anything besides posturing on the internet.
5. Re:apt quote by Lotana · 2010-02-25 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  And then what?
6. Re:apt quote by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-02-25 09:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Get slaughtered by the US military for inciting rebellion?
7. Re:apt quote by zach_the_lizard · 2010-02-25 09:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Those posts took real courage to post! Now, who's with me? Let's go glare ominously outside the White House! FREEEDOOOM!!!!11!!11eleventy1111!!
  
  --
  SSC
8. Re:apt quote by zach_the_lizard · 2010-02-25 09:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Get slaughtered by the US military for inciting rebellion?
  The last major rebellion by the southern half of the US ended with control firmly established and more governmental power in place, so I'll add that to what would happen in any hypothetical rebellion. You know, we gotta keep them turr'rists down.
  
  --
  SSC
9. Re:apt quote by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-02-25 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Says the big bad armchair soldier who would wet his pants at the first sight of an army batallion heading his way.
10. Re:apt quote by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 09:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  As a current US Army reserve soldier let me tell you:
  
  An American Revolution is most definitely possible in modern society for two reasons:
  
  The US Army is not supposed to put down armed uprisings unless it is on a massive scale, you only have to fight the police at first.
  
  By the time it gets big enough they start calling up the Nat'l guard and what have you, you'll have as many soldiers defecting to revolt.
  
  It's even more possible now with a lot of our top end equipment and soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan.
  
  As for the technological gap between the Army and the civilian population, well the Iraqis don't have drone fighters and are still doing a decent job of killing soldiers.
11. Re:apt quote by Elektroschock · 2010-02-25 09:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In the EU Article 15 TFUE applies which gets citizens access to these documents. So the only legal grounds is protection of interests of nations outside of the European Union.
12. Re:apt quote by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-02-25 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Except none of these little wimps on Slashdot would ever have the balls to revolt. They posture on the internet all the time in their parent's basement and that's about all that ever comes of it.
13. Re:apt quote by FriendlyLurker · 2010-02-25 09:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here's an important block of text... Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue.
  This is a more telling block of text :
  
  IDG covers the latest Dutch leak that reveals the transparency position of many ACTA participants. Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.
14. Re:apt quote by erroneus · 2010-02-25 09:57 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  In the first U.S. revolution, a very small few got the ball rolling. By the time retaliation started happening, it was enough to polarize the rest of those who participated in the U.S. revolution to fight as they were going to get punished by England's response anyway.
  What would happen here? It's hard to say... we have a tendency to want to see it on TV but not on our streets.
  Were it to happen on my street? I don't own any firearms. What could I do? I would like to own firearms but it is presently too much of a pain in the ass to get them legally. And further, to practice using them is also a pain in the ass. This is, of course, "by design."
  So when the time comes, I will have to visit the local drug dealers and gang members to see what I can afford. We all know that's who has the guns these days.
15. Re:apt quote by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-02-25 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying that there aren't people who would actually have the guts and the ability to start a rebellion. The point is that the people who constantly post that Jefferson quote on Slashdot and the subsequent postings by armchair soldiers about starting a rebellion are a bunch of pansies. There's probably a good reason that they almost always do so as AC.
16. Re:apt quote by maxwell+demon · 2010-02-25 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Given that this is Slashdot, the most likely form of revolution would be a cyber revolution. No need to leave your basement for that. :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
17. Re:apt quote by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-02-25 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Given that this is Slashdot, the most likely form of revolution would be a cyber revolution.
  So they'll download a syn flooder and an email bomber and think they're 1337 h4x0r5 sticking it to the man?
18. Re:apt quote by ubrgeek · 2010-02-25 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Hey, AC. up yours." - Typical American.
  
  --
  Bark less. Wag more.
19. Re:apt quote by DinDaddy · 2010-02-25 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  By the time it gets big enough they start calling up the Nat'l guard and what have you, you'll have as many soldiers defecting to revolt.
  They're going to find it difficult to mobilize the NG with so many of them deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
20. Re:apt quote by Omestes · 2010-02-25 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't own any firearms. What could I do? I would like to own firearms but it is presently too much of a pain in the ass to get them legally. And further, to practice using them is also a pain in the ass. This is, of course, "by design."
  By your own design perhaps. I come from a long line of lefties and liberals, and 90% of us own guns, and use them. Buying a gun isn't that difficult, if you don't mind a small amount of paperwork, less if go to a show, and none if you know people (or have guns floating around in your family). Practicing them is simple as well, membership in a range in rather cheap, and if you live out west, there are vast tracks of wilderness in which to pluck away at tin cans in (free, sans ammo, beer, and gas).
  The only restrictions of gun ownership, in most of the US, is cost. Can you afford to buy a gun? If not, tough, the Constitution doesn't guarantee guns being cheap. Do you have a felony record? Tough, you gave up your right to bitch when you broke the social contract. None of those apply? Happy shooting.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
21. Re:apt quote by Garridan · 2010-02-25 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wut? It is NOT hard to buy guns. I implore you to buy a used .22 rifle. I got mine for $100, walked in, plunked down the money and left with my gun. And this is in Seattle, where we have lots of kneejerk nannystate-ists.
  You won't fight an army with a handgun. They've got rifles with scopes, and armor. Of course... you couldn't do much with my .22 bolt-action plinker either, but military-grade weapons aren't that hard to get either (though, they're out of my price range). You don't have a gun because you haven't bothered to by one.
  Buy a gun. If you don't exercise the right, you'll lose it. Then, you can learn to hunt, and you can help keep the deer and rabbit population down in your state, and feed your family, too! And, if the government ever unleashes its rapidly growing army of lethal robots on the people, you'll be able to shoot one (and only one, unfortunately, as its redundant systems will alert the network to your presence and call in an airstrike).
22. Re:apt quote by FatdogHaiku · 2010-02-25 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  ...Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>
  I get the sarcasm, but that is an interesting thought. I wonder how much sales tax, withholding type taxes, health care and retirement contributions, permission to exist as a business permits, etc. the organizations that produce retail targeted, unauthorized products (bootleg DVD's, software, etc.), do contribute to their country. In China I would expect it to be large, as there is that whole "violators will be shot" enforcement system. But normal countries that have these operations running must at least claim to consider them criminal enterprises, even if it is winked at later. Someone is doing printing and molding packages, pressing disks, packing boxes, etc.... and that just digital stuff, there is a huge amount of counterfeit clothing, antiques, hell, anything that worth a buck, basically. I bet a lot of national revenue is just "missed" by being under the table from the start.
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
23. Re:apt quote by HeronBlademaster · 2010-02-25 10:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.
24. Re:apt quote by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2010-02-25 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  I would like to own firearms but it is presently too much of a pain in the ass to get them legally. And further, to practice using them is also a pain in the ass. This is, of course, "by design."
  Of course. It's designed to keep nutjobs with short tempers away from firearms, for the good of, well, everyone.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
25. Re:apt quote by erroneus · 2010-02-25 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  That is rather my point in adding the last part of my comment. The gangsters and drug dealers and all those have their own sources of arms. The "criminals" get their guns by criminal means. I am not a criminal, however, and don't feel that I should be registered in any national database where I can later be targeted in the event things turn bad for the government.
  I buy a gun today... a few years later, I'm collected and encamped somewhere because I was on a list of potential threats.
  I think we are better off without these lists. In Texas, crime rates dropped when the concealed handgun laws were passed. The same happened in other states as well. The more people have guns, the safer we all are.
26. Re:apt quote by ArsenneLupin · 2010-02-25 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.
  France is a nuclear power, for chrissakes. Why would they need to fear U.S. retaliation?
  And as far as Italy is concerned, isn't it quite ironic, that of all countries, it's Italy who is standing up against the MAFIAA?
27. Re:apt quote by ScrewMaster · 2010-02-25 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
  Home of the (not so) brave (anymore), land of the (less) free (than we used to be.)
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
28. Re:apt quote by zach_the_lizard · 2010-02-25 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Insightful? Really? I was going for humor, not some deep insight into the way the world works or an explanation of monads and why Haskell programmers would want them.
  
  --
  SSC
29. Re:apt quote by ScrewMaster · 2010-02-25 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  France is a nuclear power, for chrissakes. Why would they need to fear U.S. retaliation?
  Huh? We aren't talking about military retaliation. Why would you bring that up? Christ, nuclear power or not France is an ally! Regardless, what we are talking about is economic and political reprisal, not warheads. In other words, if they go against us on this, we may take sides against them on some other issue. Personally, I hope they do stand up to us, just like Germany did regarding Iraq. "No, this is a bad idea!" That's all they have to do.
  
  And, no Italy isn't standing up against the media companies, they're standing up to what they (correctly) perceive as undue influence upon their economy by the United States.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
30. Re:apt quote by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  There's more than one way to revolt... you could probably take down a lot of the nation's infrastructure from your basement. To quote A Bug's Life: "You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life!"
  This is why the US Grashoppers are so intent on protecting entertainment IIP. It keeps the ants wanting to sit on the couch instead of standing up. But slashdotters at least sit in office chairs.
31. Re:apt quote by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-02-25 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, one would expect a Berulsconi run government be very pro IP laws since he's the biggest media mogul in the country.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
32. Re:apt quote by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Let's display our typical television fueled ignorance of the states on slashdot Nigel, It'll be grand fun, then we can go disco with the boys!- typical Euronigger.
33. Re:apt quote by Miamicanes · 2010-02-25 13:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I had the same argument with a British coworker last year. He was convinced that Bush was going to somehow unleash "battle-hardened" troops on the American public and make himself America's dictator instead of heading home to Texas on Obama's inauguration day. After I finished laughing, I informed him that scenario was about as likely to happen as Prince Charles having his sons and mom murdered so he could be king before he died... then proceeded to explain why both scenarios were completely ridiculous.
  Among other things, if one blindly assumes that every person classified by Wikipedia as an active-duty member of the US Armed Forces is a soldier capable of urban warfare, and that every single one is available for instantaneous deployment -- without support services -- across the US, there are *almost* enough to send 25 soldiers to every zipcode. Pit them against a population that values freedom, celebrates gun ownership, and generally practices large-scale civil disobedience even in normal daily life (speed limits, sales tax on out-of-state purchases, drug usage, underage drinking, you name it), and even if you assume the government has somehow managed to secure 100% complete blind obedience from its soldiers, they'd be hopelessly-outgunned and overpowered before they managed to park the Humvee and turn on the megaphone. God *himself* couldn't successfully impose martial law on an uncooperative American public ;-)
34. Re:apt quote by zippyspringboard · 2010-02-25 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you think gun ownership is expensive, try actually knowing how to use one... On a good day you can buy a box of 50 9mm rounds for $13. That's 26 cents each time you pull the trigger. The cost of the gun becomes moot if you want to practice regularly, as a good practice session is going to consume several boxes of ammo. Just like anything else you must practice to become proficient, and practice regularly to maintain your proficiency.
35. Re:apt quote by KeensMustard · 2010-02-25 14:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  No one because all you armchair freedom fighters are too much of pussies to actually do anything besides posturing on the internet.
  The reason for the widespread compliance within the population is not because they are all wimps. Revolution is like amputation. You only amputate your leg if you really have to. If wounded in the leg, and given the choice to do nothing, or amputate it, most people will adopt a wait and see approach - it's not that bad just yet.
  Whereas real healing lies in the utilisation of other, finer instruments - the scalpel, the antibiotic, the anaesthetic. In the context of government it is by wielding the fine instrument that you overpower the powerful in their entrenched power bases. These fine instruments are things like:
  Witholding your capital from corporations who act counter to the interests of the community
  Witholding your labour from corporations who act counter to the interests of the community
  Raising awareness of the issue in the community
  Lobbying those who can be influenced
  Replacing those who can't with someone else.
  These are a hard slog. And lot's of people like to complain, but are too lazy to do their duty, to step up to the table and fix what is wrong. So the solution is to call for revolution. Blowing the dog whistle of revolution justifies doing nothing - after all, they did their civic duty by blowing the whistle, who would ask more of them? The revolutionary whistle is like a relief valve - there's a problem, hearts and minds are stirred - pressure builds up - someone calls for revolution - no we can't do that, it's not justified - the relief valve opens and the pressure is gone. People go home to bed, and in the morning, pay their due to their masters.
  Ironically, the US love of guns and the kneejerk tendency to suggest violence as the solution to issues of governance means that of all the democracies in the world, the US population is amongst the most compliant of all populations toward their government.
36. Re:apt quote by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Do you know what an engine rebuild or performance carburetor for a classic car costs? Far more than 10 boxes of 9mm rounds, and that's just for a simple hobby, not something that might (admittedly, a small chance) save your life. And firearms practice can be pretty relaxing, just like more expensive hobbies.
  - T
37. Re:apt quote by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 15:58 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe he lives in Chicago?
  - T
38. Re:apt quote by steelfood · 2010-02-25 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Singapore's stance doesn't surprise me. Their government is totalitarian and extremely repressive in nature, while still being pretty much a full democracy (it works due to their size and the by-and-large homogeneity of their most populous cultures). They don't value freedom so much as order and hence the rule of the law. If something helps enforce the law, regardless of what the law stipulates, then they'd be for it.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
39. Re:apt quote by steelfood · 2010-02-25 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  And it's not going to happen for one and only one reason: American apathy.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
40. Re:apt quote by ffreeloader · 2010-02-25 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  France is a nuclear power, for chrissakes. Why would they need to fear U.S. retaliation?
  Because we wouldn't export any more of McDonald's french fries to them?
  
  --
  "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
41. Re:apt quote by russ1337 · 2010-02-25 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  "Ironically, the US love of guns and the kneejerk tendency to suggest violence as the solution to issues of governance means that of all the democracies in the world, the US population is amongst the most compliant of all populations toward their government."
  One of the most insightful statements I've seen in a long time.
42. Re:apt quote by sonicmerlin · 2010-02-25 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  Holy frack this is one of the most insightful comments about US politics and culture that I've read in a very, very long time. I really wish I had mod points. Especially that last paragraph, you freaking win the internet.
43. Re:apt quote by sonicmerlin · 2010-02-25 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, citation please? Everything I've ever heard about gun laws is that they actually increase the rate of crime, especially in more densely populated urban areas.
44. Re:apt quote by sonicmerlin · 2010-02-25 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  This is why we need Laser Guns!
45. Re:apt quote by MacWiz · 2010-02-25 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  The MAFIAA wants to keep the process of turning their fantasies into law hidden behind closed doors? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. They've always been so honest and forthcoming...
46. Re:apt quote by ArsenneLupin · 2010-02-25 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because we wouldn't export any more of McDonald's french fries to them?
  That would only save them some matches.
47. Re:apt quote by ArsenneLupin · 2010-02-25 19:02 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Huh? We aren't talking about military retaliation.
  Now we are...
  
  Why would you bring that up?
  Because it's about time. Enough about the bullying. Sometimes you do need to pull a Columbine on bullies. And God, have we seen bullying by the US during the last 10 years! Enough already, please leave us alone!
  
  Christ, nuclear power or not France is an ally!
  However, why France still wants to be an ally of a Nation which doesn't respect the civil liberties of its own citizens is beyond me. During the cold war, it may have made sense, but no longer now. Ironically, during most of the cold war (since 1966), France was not a member of NATO, and it is only very recently that they decided to join again
  
  Personally, I hope they do stand up to us, just like Germany did regarding Iraq. "No, this is a bad idea!" That's all they have to do.
  Indeed. No need to spell everything out explicitly. US diplomats should be intelligent enough to understand that when France says that it is a bad idea, that indeed, then it is indeed a bad idea. Indeed, France has much more convincing arguments here than Germany.
48. Re:apt quote by Neoprofin · 2010-02-25 20:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  when France says that it is a bad idea, that indeed, then it is indeed a bad idea.
  Like getting jealous that the US and UK are so close to each other, demanding that France be allowed to play too while at the same time demanding that in the actual event of war France can negotiate their own peace rather than actually bear the consequences of de Gaulle's political grandstanding? Or perhaps requesting NATO troops for a genocidal occupation of Algeria and then quitting NATO when no one would go along with it?
49. Re:apt quote by FriendlyLurker · 2010-02-25 21:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.
  Yeah, just like everything else we know about ACTA - it is ALL speculation and no "official" information. However we don't have to look very far at the "official" evidence we are permitted to see to find their priorities and aims that paint a pretty damning picture that US lobby groups (i.e. the IIPA - International Intellectual Property Alliance) and their bought and paid for US politicians are the main instigators behind ACTA. Given the official data we do have, It would be very naive indeed to start give them any benefit of the doubt on the secret speculative ACTA treaty, especially since they are making every effort to keep it out of the public eye.
50. Re:apt quote by AntiDragon · 2010-02-26 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think I've ever seen this idea explained in such a succint and clear manner - truly a comment worthy of the label "Insightful".
  
  --
  "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
Just who did we elect to do this? by LostCluster · 2010-02-25 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

As the Republicans are saying on health care that the people are against it, but the Democrats were elected by the people with full knowledge they'd try to do this... they seem out of place.
Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.
1. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by FiloEleven · 2010-02-25 08:42 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  The people who elected the Democrats thought they'd do a better job of making a health care bill. The Republicans have their own agenda, of course, but it makes it no less true that the Democrats failed the people who elected them in the writing of the legislation. It's a turd of a bill.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
2. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by DrJimbo · 2010-02-25 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.
  Uh, the **AA people own the Senate. They have also infiltrated the Department of Justice. And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding (via advertisements) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase.
  
  --
  We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
  -- Anais Nin
3. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by copponex · 2010-02-25 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  good luck getting this past The Senate.
  Although I was quite young, I remember hearing about NAFTA, and thinking, who are all of these crazy people who are against it? It's going to help give everyone jobs and promote trade!
  The sad truth is that if the business community is behind ACTA, it will be pushed 24/7 as a good thing in the press until it is passed, even with a few conciliatory addenda that will be properly loopholed into oblivion. Just like the DMCA.
4. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by cvtan · 2010-02-25 08:56 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Republican agenda is to get Obama out of office even if it means wasting the 4 years he is in power. See this about health care: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-11-2010/the-apparent-trap
  
  --
  Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
5. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by Idiomatick · 2010-02-25 08:58 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  "It's a turd of a bill."
  Yeah but the risk of ignoring Republican input would have resulted in law that the republicans would undo first chance they got into power.
6. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by zach_the_lizard · 2010-02-25 09:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.
  The DMCA made it past the Senate, as did the PATRIOT act, the war on (some) drugs, Prohibition, and I believe the Corwin Amendment. I feel your faith in the Senate is misplaced. You see, to have real influence in the Senate, you must either be someone with enough cash to make a difference in an election, such as a CEO, or you must be someone who represents a collection of people that have that power, such as union bosses.
  
  --
  SSC
7. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by zach_the_lizard · 2010-02-25 09:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They didn't undo half of the things that the Dems have done for years that they have opposed from time to time (such as their opposition to the New Deal in the 30s), and the Dems have also done little in the way of repealing themselves. I am awaiting the death of the PATRIOT act, for example, and the closure of Guantanamo Bay's prison. So why do you think they would repeal it now?
  
  --
  SSC
8. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by zach_the_lizard · 2010-02-25 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding (via advertisements) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase.
  Wait, you mean that that ownership ever decreased at some point? You know, I never believed in any deity before, but proof of that might make me reconsider.
  
  --
  SSC
9. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by moxley · 2010-02-25 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the same senate that has bought and paid for a significant portion of these congresspeople?
10. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by zach_the_lizard · 2010-02-25 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  NAFTA had even pro-trade people against it, because what sort of free trade bill needs to be so long and have so many negotiations? How about this:
  All businesses and individuals in nations that are signatories may sell any good in the nations that are party to this treaty so long as the products obey the standards and regulations in that nation, and they will, for tax and trade purposes, be treated as if they were a local product. All tariffs are to be removed, and all quotas likewise.
  That is all that is needed for a trade treaty, really, because that opens everything up. Instead we were left with all sorts of restrictions and changes that made it less a free trade treaty and more a managed trade treaty. See, for example, the squabbles over agriculture (which also apply to the EU's ag policies).
  
  --
  SSC
11. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by DrJimbo · 2010-02-25 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  If I pig out over the holidays and then say "expect my waistline to increase" I'm not implying that my waistline had ever decreased. I leave converting this to a car analogy as an exercise for the reader.
  
  --
  We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
  -- Anais Nin
12. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by Intron · 2010-02-25 09:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress. This side-steps the constitutional separation of powers by claiming it is an agreement under existing laws, not creating new laws. At any rate, write to Obama about his promise of greater openness.
  
  --
  Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
13. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-02-25 11:20 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people
  Once again, the USTR is, ostensibly, the US representative for negotiating ACTA. Currently this position is held by Ron Kirk. The official positions of this office can be found at their website here. Contacting the office via official channels can be done by reading through this contact page. The official USTR position and stance regarding ACTA can be found here. Finally, if you search for, "US Trade Representative ACTA," on google then you can find a link on the page titled, "US Trade Rep wants your input on ACTA Boing Boing," which is supposed to be a place that discusses how you can give the USTR input regarding ACTA. Unfortunately, I cannot access boing boing from work, and cannot link to it directly.
  
  Any other questions?
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
14. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by SteveFoerster · 2010-02-25 12:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Democrat-controlled Senate just reapproved key provisions of the Patriot Act that would otherwise have expired. If you wanted any indicator that they're worse than useless, that was it.
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
15. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by Warhawke · 2010-02-25 12:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  For clarification, the Supreme Court ruling did not so much grant any new rights to corporations as it did close a loophole that allowed Big Content, but not other businesses, to publish advertisements by means of owning their own media outlets. While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less. When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.
16. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-02-25 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress. This side-steps the constitutional separation of powers by claiming it is an agreement under existing laws, not creating new laws. At any rate, write to Obama about his promise of greater openness.
  I have a feeling he won't give a shit.
  Best chance is to write to the republicans in congress and try to get them to come up with a way to aim their obstructionist game-plan to include this treaty - like pass a ride on a bill that would make implementing it as a presidential directive harder in some way. Maybe get Glenn Beck riled up about the presidential monarch making treaties with other countries and side-stepping congress.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
17. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by NormalVisual · 2010-02-25 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress.
  
  Yet. Ultimately, Congress will still have to vote on the treaty, but I don't see them putting up too much of a fight. Congressmen/senators have a proven history of passing legislation that they don't even bother to read.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
18. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by steelfood · 2010-02-25 15:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less. When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.
  That's BS. Corporations are non-entities. They are faux-persons. They don't have or deserve inalienable rights because they're not created by a Creator, but by people. I know this levels the playing field by allowing corporations to play on the same level as special interest groups and trade unions, but I think this is leveling the playing field the wrong way. It is a step backwards, not a step forwards. We should be restricting the abilities of the collective while encouraging individualism, not the other way around.
  I quote from, ironically enough considering the media company bashing theme of these comments, MIB:
  
  A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
  Corporations, unions, special interests, lobbies, their power over our government should be limited. Meanwhile, power should return to the individual. I don't know how this will come to be, or what form it will finally take, but the freedom that the internet provides and represents is probably a good first baby step into bring the government into line with the wishes of the people.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
19. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by Hurricane78 · 2010-02-25 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! Capitalism RULES! Oh, wait...
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
20. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by Smallpond · 2010-02-26 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Only the Senate needs to approve treaties, that's the "advice and consent" clause.
21. Re:Just who did we elect to do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  They did so unanimously on a voice vote, no votes recorded, no responsibility taken.
I must say by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-02-25 08:36 · Score: 4, Funny

I am shocked. Just shocked.
Glad I live in the land of the free. by FiloEleven · 2010-02-25 08:38 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm glad I live in the land of the free,
where the ones in charge aren't accountable to me.
They say they do it all for my own good,
so I ought to keep my head down like they say I should.
Meh.

--
Your brain is not a computer.
1. Re:Glad I live in the land of the free. by Em+Emalb · 2010-02-25 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Citizen:
  I'm a citizen and I'm okay.
  I pay my taxes and work all day.
  Congress:
  He's a citizen and he's okay,
  He pays his taxes and works all day.
  Citizen:
  I slave for the man. I eat my lunch.
  I take my 15 minute break.
  On Wednesdays I watch Idol
  And wonder how much money they'll take.
  Congress:
  He slaves for the man. He eats his lunch.
  He takes his 15 minute break.
  On Wednesdays he watches Idol
  And wonders how much money we'll take.
  He's a citizen and he's okay,
  He pays his taxes and works all day.
  Citizen:
  I work like a dog. I scream and shout.
  I would like to press charges.
  I turn on the Television
  And don't have the funds to hang out.
  MOUNTIES:
  He works like a dog. He screams and shouts
  He wants to press charges.
  He turns on the television
  And has no money to hang out?!
  He's a citizen and he's okay,
  He pays his taxes and works all day.
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
2. Re:Glad I live in the land of the free. by Em+Emalb · 2010-02-25 08:51 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  damn....
  couldn't remember the full song, had to copy it...forgot to edit Mounties from my "re-do" My bad. Slashdot, stop punishing us with the 2 minute post rule, please. There's a better way.
  Citizen:
  I'm a citizen and I'm okay.
  I pay my taxes and work all day.
  Congress:
  He's a citizen and he's okay,
  He pays his taxes and works all day.
  Citizen:
  I slave for the man. I eat my lunch.
  I take my 15 minute break.
  On Wednesdays I watch Idol
  And wonder how much money they'll take.
  Congress:
  He slaves for the man. He eats his lunch.
  He takes his 15 minute break.
  On Wednesdays he watches Idol
  And wonders how much money we'll take.
  He's a citizen and he's okay,
  He pays his taxes and works all day.
  Citizen:
  I work like a dog. I scream and shout.
  I would like to press charges.
  I turn on the Television
  And don't have the funds to hang out.
  Congress:
  He works like a dog. He screams and shouts
  He wants to press charges.
  He turns on the television
  And has no money to hang out?!
  He's a citizen and he's okay,
  He pays his taxes and works all day.
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
How do we folllow the law? by Jeng · 2010-02-25 08:41 · Score: 1

How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is?
Or am I missing something here?

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
1. Re:How do we folllow the law? by zero_out · 2010-02-25 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a law yet. Eventually, once it is ratified, it will become a law. Until that time, it is just a document. Once it becomes a law, it will be made public. At least, that is my understanding. Of course, the problem with opacity here is that once it's been agreed upon by the participating countries, it's 9/10th of the way to becoming a law here in the US. If it isn't made public, then we can't yell and scream about how evil each provisiou is. Once again, that is my (potentially erroneous) understanding.
2. Re:How do we folllow the law? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 08:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's still under negotiation. It's less a question of not telling you the law, and more a question about whether they want the general populace to know the terms of the agreement _while_ they're working on it.
  (i.e. whether they tell you before or after it's too late to complain about the laws they'll have to pass to support the treaties).
3. Re:How do we folllow the law? by Conchobair · 2010-02-25 08:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not a law yet. They are trying to keep things quiet so that there is not enough time to mount large scale opposistion to the proposal. This will allow them to pass it before most people are aware of the implications. Once its a law it will be a lot harder to repeal or change what they decided in these secret meetings.
4. Re:How do we folllow the law? by Nadaka · 2010-02-25 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  It is a secret law so that it can be passed without opposition. Once it is to late to do anything about it, it will be made public. If the people don't know about it, they can not protest, they can not petition their government. The powers that be can get away with governing without requiring that little flaw of democratic representation. The safest and easiest way to subvert democracy is to keep the people ignorant.
5. Re:How do we folllow the law? by nedlohs · 2010-02-25 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't "the law".
  Once it's all worked out it will be published, has to pass the senate after all, so you'll have no excuse to not obey it.
6. Re:How do we folllow the law? by Spad · 2010-02-25 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's not a law, it's a treaty. Treaties are much better than laws on their own because while laws can easily be opposed by the public before being passed, treaties can be passed in secret and then used as a basis for forcing laws through on the grounds that they are a requirement of the treaty.
7. Re:How do we folllow the law? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is?
  "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
  "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
  ~Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! by LostCluster · 2010-02-25 08:41 · Score: 1

There's no way you can get the US onto a treaty without getting that through The Senate, and right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats. This will be debated. The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing. What are we worried about?
1. Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! by Moridineas · 2010-02-25 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'll be perfectly honest that I have not followed the ACTA issue closely at all. Are you just assuming that the Democrats will be against and Republicans are for it, or are you going on actual statements? Let's not forget that Senator Disney was himself a democrat, and that the lines of party/ideological purity often seem fairly blurred in cases involving IP, international trade and treaties, etc.
2. Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! by dr2chase · 2010-02-25 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The D's are not reliable opponents of **AA craziness.
3. Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! by c0d3g33k · 2010-02-25 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  What are people worried about? That their representatives in the Senate will cast an uninformed vote that does not include input from their constituents (informed or otherwise). That's kind of what a representative democracy is all about.
4. Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! by yacc143 · 2010-02-25 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  lol, the naivity.
  Just means that the content mafia has to go to a different shop to buy the 9 democrats?
  No, I guess that would be customer-unfriedly (or shall I say lobbyist unfriendly), guess it's a one-stop shopping run.
5. Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  What are we worried about?
  The treaty passing with 100 yea votes and 0 nay votes. Or passing 59 to 41. The two parties you just mentioned happen to be the bad guys, and the one with 59 senators happens to be the worst of the two (on this issue).
  Remember that DMCA has not been repealed. The current American government is pretty hostile.
  
  This will be debated
  Nobody has put forth a good reason why it can't be debated now, before it even gets to the Senate. Why wait? The treaty and the existing law (DMCA) that it appears to make worse instead of better, ought to be getting talked about in the bars, TV shows, newspapers, etc right now.
6. Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  The D's are not reliable opponents of **AA craziness.
  Understatement of the fucking century.
  The **AA OWNS the Dems:
  See here and here.
  There's about a billion rea$on$ why you can't spell DMCA without a big, fat, fucking, bought-and-paid-for D.
Copyright expansionism is bipartisan by tepples · 2010-02-25 08:44 · Score: 4, Informative

right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats.
President Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Bono Act and the DMCA in October 1998. He didn't send it back to both houses for a roll-call vote (which requires 67% assent); instead, he let the voice votes in both houses (which require 81% assent) stand.
1. Re:Copyright expansionism is bipartisan by wurp · 2010-02-25 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  which require 81% assent
  Did you mean 51%?
2. Re:Copyright expansionism is bipartisan by LostCluster · 2010-02-25 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  And that's really a 4:1 ratio of apparent db to the chair position... no accountability in a voice vote unless somebody makes a request that the roll be called.
3. Re:Copyright expansionism is bipartisan by wurp · 2010-02-25 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Holy shit, that shouldn't be legal!
  We allow bills to pass into law without even recording who voted for them? I could plant some high quality speakers & dictate the law!
4. Re:Copyright expansionism is bipartisan by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  You'll need some very nice speakers indeed to be heard over the ones already in place from the *IAAs, Big Oil and Big Insurance. They've already got quite a few, cleverly disguised as lawmakers.
Poorly written summary by Anonymusing · 2010-02-25 08:46 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Um, just to be clear... the article says "the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers." (emphasis added)
In other words, we haven't said anything. I wish we'd said something in support of transparency, but it is not fair to lump the U.S. in with countries who are actively opposing transparency.

--
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
1. Re:Poorly written summary by FriendlyLurker · 2010-02-25 09:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  it is not fair to lump the U.S. in with countries who are actively opposing transparency.. YES it is fair, and it IS justified :
  
  IDG covers the latest Dutch leak that reveals the transparency position of many ACTA participants. Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.
2. Re:Poorly written summary by MobyDisk · 2010-02-25 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the article says that, but what does that mean?
  I have a document in my hand. I have 1 million people writing me letters asking me to release it. I refuse. How is that being silent on the issue? They are actively refusing to release it.
3. Re:Poorly written summary by Neoprofin · 2010-02-25 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  When the UK has stated "hey guys I thought the entire EU agreed to total transparency?" and the Portuguese are openly supporting transparency? Why the French are suddenly afraid would be beyond me. The article you link provides absolutely no evidence as to why a few EU member states who agree with the majority of the EU are are afraid of the US, nor anything but "silence" as a US position.
4. Re:Poorly written summary by Carewolf · 2010-02-25 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  Denmark is also known in Europe as the voice of America. Any position Denmark takes in international treaties like this is likely to be a request that the US doesn't want to raise officially themselves. I am not sure why we do this in Denmark anymore, now that the UK is the US bitch in Europe, but I guess it is a tradition now, and the US is bad-ass enough to have two bitches.
5. Re:Poorly written summary by henrygb · 2010-02-26 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  The final paragraph of the Dutch note is confused about Denmark. It starts saying the UK (VK in Dutch) called for transparency and was supported by FIN, FRA, NL, ZWE, OOS, HON, DK, ITA, IER, POL, BEL, POR. Later it says the UK thought there was a consensus for transparency but BE, POR, DK & DUI resisted, that DUI, BE & POR might be flexible but DK was firmly against.
Germany by Estragib · 2010-02-25 08:48 · Score: 4, Informative

As a resident of one of the mentioned problem countries, I think it might be helpful to point towards an organization to rally behind to oppose the secrecy:
ACTA workgroup of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V.
As a Dane by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 08:50 · Score: 1, Informative

I'm sorry.. In so many ways
1. Re:As a Dane by c0d3g33k · 2010-02-25 09:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That's ok. You're still Great. Woof!
Summary is wrong by Solandri · 2010-02-25 09:15 · Score: 1, Redundant

The blog states several countries have come out against public disclosure while others have come out for it. On the U.S. in particular, it says:

Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.

Somehow the submitter has morphed this into the U.S. being the lead opponent to public disclosure.
1. Re:Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  What the hell?
  With the RIAA's and the MPAA's shenanigans, the general vanguard role of the US with regards to software patents et al., and the historical acceptance of "secrecy for the sake of greater good", do you even doubt for a second the ACTA was born in the States and the major financial, thus political, backing originates there?
  I'd agree the other predators are more than happy to comply (they belong to the same multi-nationals after all), but believe you me, it all came from the land of the free. It rhymes, so you know it's true.
2. Re:Summary is wrong by the+eric+conspiracy · 2010-02-25 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  With the RIAA's and the MPAA's shenanigans, the general vanguard role of the US with regards to software patents et al., and the historical acceptance of "secrecy for the sake of greater good", do you even doubt for a second the ACTA was born in the States and the major financial, thus political, backing originates there?
  In other words you have no actual information what the real story is and are drawing conclusions based on paranoia.
  One thing to be aware of is that ACTA is not just about copying entertainment media. The scope is far larger than that and includes biotech products (pharmaceuticals and GMOs), industrial technologies and a lot more. Of course you won't hear about that on Slashdot because the audience here is a lot more narrow. My particular believe is that there is a large industrial espionage component to this, and is a big reason that China is not an ACTA participant.
3. Re:Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  My particular believe is that there is a large industrial espionage component to this, and is a big reason that China is not an ACTA participant.
  In other words you have no actual information what the real story is and are drawing conclusions based on paranoia.
4. Re:Summary is wrong by the+eric+conspiracy · 2010-02-26 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  In other words you have no actual information what the real story is and are drawing conclusions based on paranoia.
  Oh you mean the fact that there are pharmaceutical and other biotech companies on the ACTA advisory board isn't real information?
It takes 20% to force a roll call by tepples · 2010-02-25 09:18 · Score: 3, Informative

In the U.S. Congress, a voice vote allows a legislator to neither confirm nor deny to his constituents that he voted for a controversial bill. It takes 20 percent of a house to force a roll-call vote. From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5: "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."
1. Re:It takes 20% to force a roll call by wurp · 2010-02-25 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info; I wasn't aware of that.
  I thought your comparison was pointing out that Clinton didn't do his part to counter the **AA by vetoing the bill, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass it. The initial passing of the bill should only have required a simple majority.
  It seems that you are presuming that a voice vote would be called down (and a roll call required) if 20% disagreed with the vote. I suspect there are "gentlemen's agreements" to not require a roll call on any vote unless it is very important to the senator in question.
  After all, without a voice vote every senator can claim to have voted whatever way is most advantageous to him with the audience he's speaking to.
2. Re:It takes 20% to force a roll call by tepples · 2010-02-25 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I thought your comparison was pointing out that Clinton didn't do his part to counter the **AA by vetoing the bill, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass it.
  It's both of their fault. The Congress was too chicken to go on record, and Clinton was complicit in letting them be chicken.
IT IS NOT A TREATY by langelgjm · 2010-02-25 09:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

This will be debated.
No, it won't.

The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing.
No, it won't.

What are we worried about?
We're worried about the fact that ACTA is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement, inter alia. This means that no Senate approval or Congressional oversight of any kind is required. The only limits are that the agreement has to be within the bounds of current U.S. law. Of course, coloring within the lines of judge-made case-law is hard to do, it closes off policy options for the future, and the primary concern many people have is the extent to which ACTA will be forcing US IP policy onto other countries (all the while leaving out the good parts of our law, like fair use).

--
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
1. Re:IT IS NOT A TREATY by LostCluster · 2010-02-25 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  If it's Hollywood dictating rules for the world but not adding to the force of law... how is that different from what they do already?
Contact Your Senators NOW! by DustyShadow · 2010-02-25 09:24 · Score: 1

Do it now! https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383
USA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 09:30 · Score: 0

EFF Action Alert: Rein In ACTA: Tell Congress to Open the Secret IP Pact
News to me by Krakadoom · 2010-02-25 09:37 · Score: 1

Not to rain on the Dutch parade, but maybe they dont know entirely what they're talking about? Could it just be finger pointing?

I know two things for sure though. First, I live in one of the countries listed as "opposed" to transparency, yet our administration is clearly for more transparency in the process. Second, I've read the draft text start to finish - it's not all that secret, and honestly not all that interesting either. I'm surprised it's not on wikileaks yet tbh.
Re:Offtopic, huh? by dave562 · 2010-02-25 09:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

You're off topic. The article is about ACTA. You're talking about health care reform.
Never fear by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 09:55 · Score: 0

Anonymous is already on it...

The Legion of Anonymous supports the war against ACTA. We are already developing plans to help combat this threat to people’s freedom.

Anonymous does not forgive
Anonymous does not forget
Expect Us
For We are Many
Because none of us, is a cruel as ALL of us
(Anonymous)

They'll save us all!
Whaddaya mean "countries"? by Hurricane78 · 2010-02-25 09:58 · Score: 1

Governments? Bribed government officials?
Population? The uninformed mass of the population?
Because a whole country having a single p.o.v. on anything is something that only happens in the fairy tales of delusional “idealists”. (And it’s not even an ideal at all.)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Since when does transparency... by macraig · 2010-02-25 10:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

... , to the very people who elected them, require consensus? Shouldn't it be opacity that requires unanimous consensus?
Seriously, people, how much more clue do you need that "reform" isn't going to cut it? Only another "R" word is going to put an end to this. If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.
1. Re:Since when does transparency... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  Funny that you say that. I'm also a bladesmith and do that sort of thing all the time. Making the sword isn't a problem - it's figuring out who do remove to make the difference. Perhaps all of them.....
2. Re:Since when does transparency... by ScrewMaster · 2010-02-25 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.
  Swords? What good are swords. I'm beating my plowshares into cruise missiles. When they come for me, I'm taking them all out!
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
3. Re:Since when does transparency... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about you, but I don't have a furnace, let alone a plowshare.
  I agree that ridicule is the only solution though. Much public ridicule.
Transparency by Nidi62 · 2010-02-25 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

You know, I seem to recall hearing that word a lot the past 2 years, but now? Eh, not so much.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
1. Re:Transparency by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  You know, I seem to recall hearing that word a lot the past 2 years, but now? Eh, not so much.
  Funny you should say that since today was the big whitehouse meeting between Obama and the republicans that was initially mooted back in december as being hidden from the cameras but ended up 100% on cspan.
2. Re:Transparency by Nidi62 · 2010-02-25 13:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Funny you should say that since today was the big whitehouse meeting between Obama and the republicans that was initially mooted back in december as being hidden from the cameras but ended up 100% on cspan.
  You mean the political theater where nothing was expected or planned to get done, and that the Democrats half-hoped the Republicans would boycott so they could get more political ammunition?
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Offtopic, huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 10:21 · Score: 0

If you disagree with a comment, it's best to rate it as "overrated". From what I understand, the overrated/underrated comments don't get flagged in metamoderation.
(Posting anonymously to preserve modpoints.)
Do something about it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 10:28 · Score: 0

Write your Senators and let them know what you think about ACTA.
http://www.eff.org/action
you mean "retard"? by circletimessquare · 2010-02-25 11:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

because if you don't understand how much worse an actual revolution is compared to the issues here, that's what you are
when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution. if they can't download cartoon network for free, not so much
and i say this as someone who has said in many comments on this site that intellectual property is morally and philosophically bankrupt. but i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution, not even remotely. if you think it does, you are extremely, extremely out of touch with what is really important in this world

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:you mean "retard"? by macraig · 2010-02-25 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Intellectual property per se is NOT what demands a revolt/revolution. What demands that is the consistently anti-democratic and unethical behavior of nearly all of the people we're electing, as well as those we're promoting to power in corporations. After we're done kicking them all out of the temple, THEN we need to sit down and collectively have a serious conversation about how screwed-up our criteria for choosing leaders has been. We need new criteria to make sure we don't repeat the same litany of mistakes all over again. Hell, we've been doing this for centuries.
  That's what is really important.
  We're not likely to achieve any of the necessary systemic change with the existing narcissists still in control, because the existing system is precisely what nurtures them. They'll fight any true reform tooth and nail... and they have been and ARE. Not only are they fighting reform, they're actively working to make things worse, less democratic, less ethical. This ACTA business is but one tiny example.
  If you think just keeping people fed is what's really important, you're seriously ignorant of the bigger picture.
2. Re:you mean "retard"? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution.
  Even the most oppressive of governments knows enough to keep the majority of the people's bellies full and their minds entertained (Bread and circuses.)
  
  i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution
  Since when is intellectual property the only thing wrong with this country?
hello naive unexperienced idealist by circletimessquare · 2010-02-25 11:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

solving this problem is not a matter of throwing a revolution and then everything is golden forever more
its more like a policing duty, a constant lowgrade effort at taking out the trash
in your home, do you declare a revolution on garbage and then forever more there's no more garbage?
no, no matter what you do, you need to take out the garbage every thursday. likewise in a democracy, there will be a constant crop of assholes who get power and don't deserve it. how do you get rid of them? YOU VOTE THEM OUT
this is what makes a democracy so much better than other governments: you don't NEED a revolution to get a new regime
so stop advocating for revolution, which is FAR FAR worse on ANY scale of abuse and damage than ANY problem you can describe facing us today
if you don't understand that, then you are 11 years old, and your lack of life experience is excused, or you're an adult idiot

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:hello naive unexperienced idealist by macraig · 2010-02-25 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't read - or understand - a single damned thing I said; what sort of reply do you expect? Oh, I know: you expect me to resort to using words like retard and idiot to marginalize you and then dismiss your words, huh?
  It's the system that's broken. No "constant low-grade effort" is going to fix that. Maybe if your system at home was more refined, you'd have automated the trash disposal problem; there'd still be trash but you wouldn't have to constantly fight with it. A perfect example of that automation is probably in your house right now, unless you live in the bush: a flush toilet. Do you actually have to carry your shit out in a bucket? No, because the system is designed to eliminate that.
  That's why our government and corporate hierarchies are FUBAR: they lack an automatic means to flush away the crap. Since the crap in this instance lives and breathes and has visions of grandeur, it's going to be none too happy with us meddling with the very system that gives it its power.
  Your low-grade effort won't fix anything. Neither will your insults and ad hominem.
2. Re:hello naive unexperienced idealist by myowntrueself · 2010-02-25 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  this is what makes a democracy so much better than other governments: you don't NEED a revolution to get a new regime
  If you believe that a democratic process can lead to regime change (within that same democratic nation), well thats just totally naive.
  Democracies, as we know them today, are driven by media corporations and the advertising industry. They in NO way represent the people who vote. People vote based on advertising, not on rational considerations.
  Human beings are not rational agents. I know that it may be hard for individuals who consider themselves to be intelligent, rational people to believe this, but its true. You are not a Vulcan. You are not a machine.
  To believe that humans are rational agents really puts humanity on a pedestal that it does not deserve.
  Democracy is not under the control of the people who vote but under the control of people who control media representation; people who control the *advertising* of politics. And advertising is incredibly powerful. People are incredibly gullible.
  The truth is that we do still need revolution to bring about REAL social change but that it is impossible to predict how revolution will change society.
  One thing is for certain about revolution; it never turns out the way its instigators hoped.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
3. Re:hello naive unexperienced idealist by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-25 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  "YOU VOTE THEM OUT"
  This is where you've lost. The vote is rigged, the puppets are placed in front of you and you are screwed no matter which of these pawns you choose. Occasionally you will get a decent candidate who managed to avoid all of the barriers the crooked have put in front of them. They do not win, because the general public has been programmed from a very young age to believe what the media tells them. And the media is told what to broadcast by those in power. It's a vicious cycle that is near impossible to change by working within "the system". A system they have designed to prevent you from changing.
  Grandparent is correct. There needs to be a whole-scale garbage day where all of these assholes are thrown out and replaced by honest people with integrity. People who know that it is the public they represent and not the almighty dollar that the previous corrupt filth bowed before. If this is not done, then no real problems will be addressed, and things will degrade to the point where "1984" becomes a documentary.
4. Re:hello naive unexperienced idealist by HyperQuantum · 2010-02-26 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  in a democracy, there will be a constant crop of assholes who get power and don't deserve it. how do you get rid of them? YOU VOTE THEM OUT
  Just pointing out a few problems with this (yeah, sorry):
  First, you can't vote people OUT. You can only TRY TO vote other people IN. Because there are probably other people who (still) vote (again) for the ones you want out.
  Second, what makes you so sure that there are good candidates to replace the people you want to get rid of? And you need enough of those if you want them to have any influence in case they actually are elected. But how can you get them elected? You have only one vote yourself. Good luck trying to convince other voters.
  And finally, you cannot be sure that the people you vote IN will (always) do the Right Thing(TM). They might say: "oh I get that much money if I just vote the way they want me to?" and forget all their ideals and just go with the flow -- of the money.
  
  --
  I am not really here right now.
WTF? by Das+Auge · 2010-02-25 12:41 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight: The USA says nothing on the matter, and someone thinks that France and Italy are afraid of economic reprisals from the USA, and you use that as a reason to say that it's justified to say the IS against transparency? From that, someone saying nothing and someone having an opinion? You and critical thinking aren't friends.

As an American, I feel it's quite certain that USA politicians are against transparency; a lot of their funding comes from the people that want it passed. However, trying to reach that conclusion from the article is moronic.
1. Re:WTF? by FriendlyLurker · 2010-02-25 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  As an American, I feel it's quite certain that USA politicians are against transparency; a lot of their funding comes from the people that want it passed. However, trying to reach that conclusion from the article is moronic.
  I agree that the article itself is short on details, but luckily we don't have to look very far at the "official" evidence we are permitted to see to find their priorities and aims that paint a pretty damning picture that US lobby groups (i.e. the IIPA - International Intellectual Property Alliance) and their bought and paid for US politicians are the main instigators behind ACTA. Given the official data we do have, It would be very naive indeed to start give them any benefit of the doubt on the secret speculative ACTA treaty, especially since they are making every effort to keep it out of the public eye.
i accept every criticism of our government by circletimessquare · 2010-02-25 12:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

you offer, and agree with all of them
now i am asking you to understand why a real world REVOLUTION is far, far worse
in terms of devastation to personal lives on a massive scale, in terms of massive amounts of injustice, and most importantly in terms of the complete unpredictability of a final outcome in terms of who actually winds up on power: usually exactly the kind of asshole you complain about in our current government, times 1000 times worse
if you take your head out of your fanboy ass and your romantic fiction, you will realize that a real world revolution is just about the worst state a country can ever be in, and people ONLY turn to revolution if they can't feed themselves
and i am not debating your points, i am telling you what should be, for anyone intelligent, an obviously truthful historical fact about what a revolution really is
i am openly insulting you with the words "retard" and "idiot" because that is exactly what you are if you romanticize revolution
revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable
that you openly call for it, when your complaints about our government don't even begin to approach by many orders of magnitude a valid call for revolution, means you are, genuinely, a complete moron

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:i accept every criticism of our government by myowntrueself · 2010-02-25 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable
  Its only undesirable if you value weakness over strength, timidity over boldness.
  "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome." -- Nietzsche
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
2. Re:i accept every criticism of our government by macraig · 2010-02-25 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  "revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable"
  Ummm... Ghandi had a revolution. While you're looking him up on Wikipedia, check out an online dictionary for definitions of "revolution". Your definition seems to be pedantically narrow.
  For dessert, you might want to Google "literalism", since your mind's expression of it is now clearly the cause of most of the dischord and your vitriol here. Being able to read between the lines and comprehend metaphor, simile, parable, and even hyperbole - as I employed here - is a very useful skill to have. I hope you develop it.
3. Re:i accept every criticism of our government by NormalVisual · 2010-02-26 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  people ONLY turn to revolution if they can't feed themselves
  
  Or unless they're just sufficiently unhappy with the state of the current government. I don't recall that New England had a particularly bad problem with its citizens starving at the hands of the government back in 1776.
  
  Certainly revolutions *can* be triggered by intolerable living conditions, but not necessarily so.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Corruption and Treason by syousef · 2010-02-25 13:05 · Score: 1

Lack of transparency here is corruption since a lot of these people make money from entities that stand to profit, and treason since you are acting against the people of the state. Pure and simple. "National security" is a laughable excuse. Finger pointing at corruption in Asian and Middle Eastern countries is just hypocrisy when you're willing to do this kind of thing.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
lol by circletimessquare · 2010-02-25 13:15 · Score: 1

did you just warp in from 1930s germany or 1930s italy?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:lol by myowntrueself · 2010-02-25 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that people, including yourself, would rather live lives of miserable ease than actually *live*.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
if gore was president in 2000 by circletimessquare · 2010-02-25 13:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

we would not have invaded iraq
meaning the parties genuinely are different and that obama coming after bush represents genuine regime change
if you say the parties are same, or advertising controls all of our thinking, you are replacing intelligence with empty cynicism
furthermore, the people actually voted for gore in 2000, and it was a structural fault that led to the weaker candidate taking the white house
meaning those irrational people made the wiser decision all along, and the system, which we have to fix, can result in a cleaner expression of democracy, never perfect, but better than anything else in this world you can possibly hope for

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:if gore was president in 2000 by myowntrueself · 2010-02-25 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  If you think that one president or another could change the way that the USA behaves in its foreign policy then you are doubly naive.
  The president is just the 'fall guy'.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
what you champion by circletimessquare · 2010-02-25 15:14 · Score: 1

boldness and strength, are also the qualities of a rabid dog. i don't hold the life of a rabid dog to be that of a life of something truly alive in any better sense. free, yes. but free in the way most short lived destructive forces are: big, fast, dumb, and quickly petered out completely
strength without prudence is arrogant and cruel
boldness without wisdom is stupid and crude
throw in the nietzsche quote and you sound like just another garden variety strutting cocksure protofascist asshole
too bad you weren't born in 1930s germany, you would have fit right in
so do your worst internet tough guy. sounds like you're overcompensating. you probably work at a frozen yogurt stand in the mall, feeding syrup to fat chicks all day
lol

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:what you champion by myowntrueself · 2010-02-26 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Nietzsche dates from well before the fascist movement existed.
  However, his sister was married to a man who was heavily involved in an anti-semitic political movement of the day. This man used some of Nietzsche's 'Zarathustra' in one of his publications. When Nietzsche found out he was livid and disowned his sister.
  Nietzsche was fundamentally opposed to the nation and the state. He was an *anti* nationalist. He was a humanist.
  Some of his ideas appeared on the surface to fit right into the Nazi mythos, eg the 'Superman'. One can easily imagine the Nazis thinking that he meant them. But this would be flawed thinking; the Nietzschean Superman is not a human being at all.
  Man is a bridge across the abyss that lies between animal and superman.
  To cross that bridge requires boldness, courage and strength.
  If humanity should come to favor weakness over strength, timidity over weakness (as is the case in the modern western democracy) that bridge may never be crossed and we might fall into that abyss.
  But ultimately, man is something to be overcome. Something to push past. Out of man, something better comes, much as a man may have children and hope that their children can do better than they, can go past them, can exceed all their hopes and dreams. So the Superman is like a child of the human species. Not some eugenic programme such as the Nazis may have envisioned.
  If you think that theres any connection at all between my thinking or that of Nietzsche and that of the fascists then... you need to do more research. Either that or just shut up :P
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
i already know you're a protofascist by circletimessquare · 2010-02-25 15:19 · Score: 1

from your other thread
and now i know you are a paranoid schizoprenic: top secret cabals run the world!
who is it? the j00s? the bank3rs? senator palpatine? agent smith?
so how big is your weapons stash?
go for it timothy mcveigh! do your worst dylan klebold! YOU CAN DO IT RETARD!
lol
fucking loser

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:i already know you're a protofascist by myowntrueself · 2010-02-26 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  You really have no idea.
  If you think that Nietzsche was connected with fascism you need to read him. Hitler seemed to like Nietzsche but had he actually read any (or understood it) I think he would have tried to erase Nietzsche from history.
  If you think I'm anything to do with fascism, you should know that I am opposed to the very existence of nation states and corporations.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
i see this thread by circletimessquare · 2010-02-25 15:30 · Score: 1

has degraded into the usual paranoid schizoprenic drivel
perhaps your worst intellectual insult is that you're boring. you can't even provide me with a more entertaining narrative at least (an intelligent one is of course beyond possibility). just the typical b-grade hollywood movie plot about top secret cabals in control, the tired idiotic noam chomsky "manufactured consent" meme, and you even throw in the bankrupt chestnut "1984", the go to fantasy of every low iq paranoid like yourself. typical, boring, pathetic. a garden variety unintelligent paranoid asshole
you guys are boring, really
come on losers, at least be entertaining in your alternofantasy life!
if i'm going to have to wade through your insipid derivative common thoughts, at least show some creative spark
i hereby require the paranoid schizophrenic losers i encounter on slashdot to have more entertaining fantasy lives from now on. the steven seagal movie plots mistaken as reality just isn't cutting it anymore

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:i see this thread by Andorin · 2010-02-25 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, circletimessquare... I've seen plenty of good posts from you in lots of other threads, particularly copyright/IP threads. It makes me sad that you descended to the level of flamebait and trolling in order to get a point across. If you have something to say, say it without being a complete jerk. Otherwise you just damage your position.
  
  --
  That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
Money is not Speech. Money is used to buy things by ChapterS · 2010-02-25 16:26 · Score: 0

like people. Oh, wait, CongressCritters&SenaToides may have once been people, but no more.
The two factions of the BusinessParty do come in flavors, Bad and Worse... but it does not matter so much.
Stop Corporate Personhood.
Please don't export more by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 02:33 · Score: 0

Dear USA
Please don't export more McFreedom.
Sincerely,
Everyone else
Anonymous danish coward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-06 04:03 · Score: 0

It appears that a large part of the danish parlament including spokesmen of IT inside the government - the people that are supposed to know about this stuff, don't even know what the ACTA is all about. Nobody seems to know who has ordered Denmark to be oppose transparency. Now THAT is a disturbing fact!