Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency

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."

Comments

apt quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Re:apt quote

[Anonymous Coward]

No one because all you armchair freedom fighters are too much of pussies to actually do anything besides posturing on the internet.

Re:apt quote

[zach_the_lizard]

Those posts took real courage to post! Now, who's with me? Let's go glare ominously outside the White House! FREEEDOOOM!!!!11!!11eleventy1111!!

Re:apt quote

[HeronBlademaster]

If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.

Re:apt quote

[Miamicanes]

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 ;-)

Re:apt quote

[Neoprofin]

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?

Re:apt quote

[FriendlyLurker]

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.

Just who did we elect to do this?

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Just who did we elect to do this?

[DrJimbo]

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.

Re:Just who did we elect to do this?

[zach_the_lizard]

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.

Re:Just who did we elect to do this?

[zach_the_lizard]

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?

Re:Just who did we elect to do this?

[Intron]

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.

Re:Just who did we elect to do this?

[Warhawke]

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.

Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2!

[dr2chase]

The D's are not reliable opponents of **AA craziness.

Re:How do we folllow the law?

[Conchobair]

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.

IT IS NOT A TREATY

[langelgjm]

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).

Since when does transparency...

[macraig]

... , 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.

Transparency

[Nidi62]

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

Re:Transparency

[Nidi62]

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?

Re:How do we folllow the law?

[Spad]

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.

you mean "retard"?

[circletimessquare]

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

hello naive unexperienced idealist

[circletimessquare]

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

i accept every criticism of our government

[circletimessquare]

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

if gore was president in 2000

[circletimessquare]

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