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]

"American Idol is on tonight, oh goodie" - Typical American

Re:apt quote

[dch24]

"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>

Re:apt quote

[Lunix Nutcase]

Get slaughtered by the US military for inciting rebellion?

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

[zach_the_lizard]

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.

Re:apt quote

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:apt quote

[Elektroschock]

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.

Re:apt quote

[FriendlyLurker]

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.

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

[KeensMustard]

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:

1. Witholding your capital from corporations who act counter to the interests of the community
2. Witholding your labour from corporations who act counter to the interests of the community
3. Raising awareness of the issue in the community
4. Lobbying those who can be influenced
5. 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.

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?

[SteveFoerster]

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.

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:Just who did we elect to do this?

[steelfood]

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.

I must say

[Monkeedude1212]

I am shocked. Just shocked.

Glad I live in the land of the free.

[FiloEleven]

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.

Copyright expansionism is bipartisan

[tepples]

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.

Germany

[Estragib]

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.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

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.

Re:As a Dane

[c0d3g33k]

That's ok. You're still Great. Woof!

It takes 20% to force a roll call

[tepples]

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."

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).

Re:Poorly written summary

[FriendlyLurker]

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.

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