Slashdot Mirror
India Attempts To Derail ACTA
Admiral Justin writes "Ars Technica is reporting that India is attempting to gather support from other large countries that have been intentionally left out of the ACTA process to actively protest it. India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries that were given no chance to be a part of the process of drafting it. Among the primary concerns are the possibility of medical shipments being seized if they use a port in transit that is controlled by a country with a patent on the pharmaceuticals."
India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries who were given no chance to be a part of the process drafting it.
As a US citizen, I can relate to that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that :-/ I do have info on ACTA and software patents:
FWIW
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Agreed. As a us citizen i can say for sure we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone.
In both real world terms and on the net.
We like pushing our laws on other countries.. But theres no way we will allow it to work the other way around.
America is like the largest group of hypocrites on the planet... Who put us in charge anyway... That wasnt too smart.
Ars Technica is reporting that India is attempting to gather support from other large countries which have been intentionally left out of the ACTA process to actively protest it.
Please let this mean they're planning an all-out media blitz here in the US. I can see the commercials now, something between between a Tea Party "the government's gonna get you!"/"One World Government is coming!" campaign booster and a Broadview Security "THEYRE GONNA RAPE YOU AND STEAL YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" commercial.
Seriously, plan the message carefully and you could run the same commercial on Fox News and PBS/NPR 24/7 and *everyone* would freak out and, hopefully, do something about this filthy excuse for a treaty.
No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
As a us citizen i can say for sure we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone. In both real world terms and on the net.
Will there be a line, or will it be an auction-type system? I'm hoping for a pretty Swede, but I'll take not-ugly.
So expect ACTA to pass and expect medicine to remain patented and restricted only for use by the richest 1%. It's the way society is designed, whether ACTA is instituted or not.
The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?
Corporations have chosen profits but what do individuals choose?
We like pushing our laws on other countries.. But theres no way we will allow it to work the other way around.
Question is, are these even your laws? How many elected officials have insight into these negotiations, let alone the public?
The whole trade agreement thing is mostly just a way to get countries to commit to laws without letting the democracy thing getting in the way. Just sign here mister prime minister, it's good for business!
what about Antigua's free ip that the WTO GIVE them? What if they get locked out under the ACTA? can they use to for there on line gameing to not be blocked?
that we (the good ole USA) need to rely on other countries' governments to protect us from our government and its corporate puppet masters.
What about the WTO What if they say no to this? What they set the price for some IP to Free?
If profits truly are more important than lives, why haven't we created the death engine? Why have we not taken it to the extreme of betting on who lives and dies via tontine to increase profits to the maximum?
At some point, somewhere in our system, somebody has made the calculation that certain lives matter while the rest of the lives don't matter. If you are wealthy you can bet on when millions of poor people will die indirectly, but if you are poor the tontine is outlawed.
So it's a bit more complicated. It's a situation where some lives are worth more than others, and wealth has a lot to do with it. Unless you think this is wrong and if so then how would you say society values life in the context of ever increasing profitability?
While I agree that we are exporting America's laws (for better or for worse) I refuse to lay claim to them. Just about every politician out there is a lawyer or former lawyer with absolutely no connection to their respective constituencies. They live privileged lives and pass laws that only benefit themselves. Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing. When there is so little difference between D and R who can blame people for simply letting themselves get railroaded.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
that will constitute approx half of world population.
versus, hollywood.
who do you think will win ?
Read radical news here
This is just American corps. pushing the American government to extend American laws on sovereign nations. The reason is to force the whole world into accepting US dominance in the information age. The US is transitioning away from production and manufacturing towards an information-based economy (entertainment, design, etc.) and they don't want competition in that space.
Heh, "we". Who are you? A top executive in the MPAA? Major share holder in Big Pharma?
Otherwise, you're not in the "we". Whether you're in the USA or not, you're at the other end of the stick.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Once India starts protesting we can subvert it from within by staging our own shit in the US and it will gain attention because of the ruckus.
Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.
Who put us in charge anyway... That wasnt too smart.
You did, so it makes sense.
how do these assholes actually expect to enforce acta?
you can pass all the laws you want. but in terms of actually stopping the spread of pirate media, they would have to fundamentally alter the internet in such a way as to also negate any value anyone attaches to the internet. in other words, they would start a revolt. not an armed revolt, just a sort of utter rejection of their vision of complete centralized control
it would also be extremely expensive, and they would also have to somehow control the internet internationally AND completely. they would, paradoxically, turn those outsider countries that aren't on the usa's bff list, into outposts of internet freedom
acta, to me, it seems like a completely desperate ploy, or clueless (or both)
really, in terms of enforceability, acta is a fucking joke
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> The drugs were developed in hopes of getting some kind of return on investment.
You make the same assumption the the **AAs make: every infringement is a lost sale (at premium prices). This is obviously silly in some cases. One can imagine an expensive drug which is too expensive for the Indian government to provide to its citizens under its national health plan. Lets assume that this drug is necessary to treat a pandemic within India, so the Indian government decides that it would rather legislate a special exception to respecting the patent on the drug than letting millions of people die. In this case, without the exception, the drug company would not have gained any appreciable income from use of the drug in India, so the "infringement" costs the drug company nothing.
Unless, of course, the widespread use in India enables the detection of undesirable side-effects which weren't known previously.
> The pills will cost a lot less if R&D costs to recoup are only $200 million, instead of $2 billion.
That's a good point, but it doesn't go far enough. There should also be legislation which limits the liability of drug side-effects for companies which deal in good faith, but strips a drug company of its patent in the case where it has been found to be actively negligent with respect to testing the safety of the drug (i.e., in a case where the drug company wouldn't be able to sell the drug anyway, because of the risk of too much liability --- so the patent actually ends up doing nothing but totally blocking the use of the drug). If we had had such a law, for example, then generic Vioxx could have been continued to be used by patients who are much less at risk for its bad side-effects.
There are two sides to this argument, if you ever visit Africa the place is flooded with cheap fake drugs with a 10-20% true dosage mostly coming from!!! yep you guessed it INDIA. The question for me is, is the Indian government complaining because the ATA may restrict real sales or are they using this argument as a trojon horse as they are being bribed by the fake drug industry. It is hard to say when dealing with India as corruption at the official level is so endemic.
india already flouts laws on hiv drugs. no one is stopping them because it pits humanitarian ideals versus craven corporate interests. the negative pr hit is far larger than any pittance they'd get from a poor country (nevermind the moral argument of lives in the balance, we are talking about corporations here)
so acta can be as draconian as they want. again, i'd like to see them actually try to enforce the bullshit
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I quote:
— meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.
No they aren't. This is the lie they want you to keep repeating until it becomes the truth.
The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm
http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1
There is a war going on for your mind.
Don't get me wrong, I hope india wins this. But if they do, it will be because we have so far subverted the treaty from its original purpose into this DMCA bullshit.
Honestly, it’s not America. It’s not even the USA. It’s the US government (and|,) a bunch of criminals.
And in this case also the EU fake government (as it’s not legally an actual government).
The people of our unions are mostly OK. I don’t have a problem with them.
I have a problem with some dicks who are full of themselves thinking that they deserve to be in charge and to profit trough abuse. I have a problem with them intentionally dumbing down the population (or letting it dumb down), and then using them like a herd of cattle, making them angry with lies or using the “don’t care” that they developed, or so they can make new rules with the sole purpose of abusing people for profit.
It’s how Hitler and Stalin did it. It’s now it’s still done.
Come on. We’re the intelligent people here! It’s our obligation to figure out a antidote for this.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing. When there is so little difference between D and R who can blame people for simply letting themselves get railroaded.
Uh, me? The people have the power to vote in whoever they want. The fact that they choose not to use it is their own fault.
they would basically turn the west into the corporate equivalent of the bullshit that goes on with the internet in china or iran: centralized monitoring and control, for the sake of $ (rather than political control)
in other words, they would force a conflict: the ideals of western liberal democracy, versus the corporate imperative to strangle everything to make a buck
now you can be a complete cynic and pessimist about this conflict, but personally, talking completely out of realism i think, they're fucking out of their mind: people won't stand for it. some of us will make it their passionate life pursuit to circumvent such controls, and those who are successful at routing around the controls will be folk heroes
i really don't see this weak ass acta subsuming the ideals of western liberal democracy. i'm sorry, but every goddamn teenager will take it as a personal joy to render acta a joke, and they'll be able to do it: all you need is technical knowhow. it beats all the lawyers, all the laws, all the international agreement
acta is a form of delusion, its doomed. but let them try, just see them crash and burn
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The only thing that will kill the ACTA treaty is if a significant number of countries refuse to sign it or reject it during ratification. Unfortunately, I fear that any US administration would gladly sign the treaty and the US Senate would readily ratify it. If only the treaty would harm the gay unborn whales...
The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?
That has been answered by law:
- Corporate officials have a duty to run the corporation, within the constraints of the rule of law, to attempt to maximize the value to the stockholders. "Value to the stockholders" is usually financial, though stockholders may decree that other values are to be primary or considered in the mix. (i.e. Hershey's, Google, ...).
- The government sets the "constraints of the rule of law" such that coercive harm to individuals is prohibited or penalized and strategies to maximize return also promote, rather than hamper, the general welfare.
So the corporate officers are REQUIRED BY LAW to put the law first and the profit second, considering fallout on others only to the extent that it affects legal constraints and the bottom line (or other desires of the stockholders). If they're causing harm to the "lives of the poor" in a way you think that's improper, one of the following is true:
- They're breaking a law and should be enjoined and prosecuted or sued for damages.
- They made poor decisions, harming the interests of their stockholders, and should be educated or replaced.
- The law needs adjustment.
High punitive damage awards in lawsuits are part of the way the law maps "not harming others" into "maximizing stockholder value".
(BP, for instance, seems about to be remapped rather fiercely, unless the corruption of the current government allows them to buy their way out. That's being reflected in their stock price, especially over the last couple days.)
As for medicine prices, the main problem there is the excessively tight requirements for drug approval by the FDA, where bureaucrats get dinged for letting a drug through that causes some birth defects (i.e. thalidomide) but not for blocking a drug that would otherwise have saved 100,000 a year (i.e. beta blockers for heart attack victims). When the agency was created the congresscritters thought that delaying drugs by more than six months would result in a cost-benefit hit. Now it takes decades and tens to hundreds of million dollars to TRY to bring a drug to market. That price - for the ones that make it to market and the many more that don't - must be paid from the money made on the ones that make it. This prices them out of reach of the third world. Cut those costs and delays and the drug companies would be happy to sell lots of inexpensive stuff. Fast nickels are LOTS better than slow dollars. A few more people would be damaged - and very many more would be helped.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yea, you are going to want to spend some time digging through all the supreme court rulings in that last 40 years or so regards Indian treaties. Granted, the Indian treaties are a very different legal animal from say treatise over copyrights with other countries, but treatise do in fact carry more weight than the constitution in at least very important cases.
If you are not up for the time to do that here is the basic legal theory upheld by the supreme court on the subject (and I am sure there are better ways of putting it):
The territory that the U.S. occupies was found by recognition of a set of treaties that in many cases predate the territorial space of the United States. Thus, the existence and enforceability of those treaties makes everything else contained in the constitution possible. The most important of which is the territorial definition of the U.S., along with lots of nice things like mining rights, water rights, hunting rights, and so on.
For example, this is why Indians have casinos and the individual States in most cases can not really do a whole lot about it. Essentially, most of the United States is under some sort of lease to another government, and if you ignore those "rental" agreements the whole legal mess called the U.S. starts falling apart. Even when the U.S. breaks those treatises, they still have to pay up in court for the damages. One that comes to mind would be things like the Black Hills land claim at the moment. There are hundreds if not thousands of other rulings, and why the U.S. government tends to get its rear eventually handed to them in a court room over breaking those treatise sooner or later.
Living in Chile
no one is going to allow hollywood to do that. even in the most cynical pessimistic point of view where that might happen in the usa, there's no leverage the usa has that would make that acceptable to other countries, even very close friends of the usa
i really wonder why these assholes believe acta is anything but a farce
completely unenforceable, really
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, it's because the two parties both do a satisfactory job at running the country, and they don't really mind which one gets in.
Think about it. Ideally, votes are used as a tool for actively changing between governments and government policies. Ideally, politicians maintain their beliefs, present their policies, and we choose between them, thus giving us maximum possible choice in how our country is run. This, of course, is not the case. Politicians realised pretty quickly that they get a much better result with compromise, and pre-empting the public with what they want. Suddenly, you have multiple parties aiming for the same target, so they become pretty similar. The point of this target is to satisfy a sizable portion of the population, so a sizable portion of the population is generally satisfied by both parties.
This is democracy working. "Voter apathy" (it's not truly apathy) simply means a job well done.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
> we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing.
That's like saying that my conditioning to not touch a hot stove is false.
Seriously. I've been following the non-major candidates for over a decade now, looking at their platforms, reading their public statements... and they've universally *sucked*. At best, they fail to even tie the moderates of the big two parties in terms of "would I trust this person with these powers". They tend to be single-issue candidates - who may well have a good position on that single issue - and then you look at their position on other issues and realize that they're lunatics. The sane independents (who you may notice do occasionally win) tend to be ones that were driven out of a major party by its internal party squabbling.
Instead of blaming some vast conspiracy, instead realize the simpler truth: the moderates got absorbed by the big two before you or I were even born. If we all paid a little closer attention, we could make better choices in the party primaries, which would then provide us with better available choices in the real elections. (And if you're unfortunate enough to live in one of the states that won't let you vote in more than one party's primary, then apply a little game theory - go vote for the sanest candidate in the crazier party's primary).
wonder how this will play out in their strategic meetings..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/First-India-US-Strategic-Dialogue-to-be-held-today/articleshow/6005810.cms
Any capitalist will answer: profit.
If you want someone to care about people find a socialist or a communist. Capitalist are not nice people, it is in their motto:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."
-- Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776)
Read it and try to understand its true meaning. Not the meaning for when you are well off and society is running smoothly but when there is some problem. Like say a disaster.
Adam Smith says that in a disaster, it is perfectly reasonable to charge a premium for emergency supplies and only a beggar would expect a fair price. For a capitalist, profits are the only thing that counts and the butch, the brewer and the baker under Adam Smith will let people die who can't pay the prices they charge. Of course, this also means that if ever something was to happen to them, they would be the ones doing the dying.
And it works, when society is doing well. You can life your entire life as a baker and never be faced with someone who is on the edge of starvation. I was a baker in my younger years and I never had someone beg for bread.
In practice supermarkets charge a "low" price for food and accept truly minuscule mark-ups on essential items. Eating in the west can truly be cheap, eating healthy is another matter. But this doesn't mean the Adam Smith way is a nice way. It is not for nothing that the poorer people often eat unhealthy, go and check the prices for healthy food (fresh vegetables) with the cost of absolute bottom line food. 50 cent frozen pizza etc. You can live on that for a day, no way you can cook a decent meal for that. So, the delivers off cheap food for all also deliver unhealthy food. Not so nice of them after all is it? Their profits are more important then the health of their customers.
Free choice? yes, you are free to eat bad. YOU are free to eat bad, because you can probably afford to eat better. But with ever lower wages and ever higher costs of living, a lot of people cannot. It is already well known that Africa is a dumping ground for western food that is no longer sellable in the west. Chicken refrozen a dozen times over is flooding the market, ruining the local industry. Profits of western capitalists again more important then decency.
Read up on the true effects of free market economy and you will see just how badly real capitalist are for people who do not belong to the elite. And you like me are most likely part of that elite or at least close enough not to be harmed by them to much. For now. Until something goes wrong. Like the economic crisis. Notice how the truly rich are not hurting at all. No, loosing 1 billion when you got a dozen is NOT hurting.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Where you could vote for either D or R but they both turn out to be ET bent on enslaving earth ? I always took that episode to be chillingly too near the reality.It may be more subtle than it was in europe middle age, and more class chane may be allowed than it was, and we are afforded a bit more freedom, but we really have a population of a few % "master" and a 95+% of serf.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If I recall correctly there is a provision in the WTO (or some subsequent treaty) that in case of medical emergency the IP law can be circumvented. Many country have declared such an emergency for AIDS, and therefor are fully legally allowed to produce cheap anti viral despite not having the patent. The *flouting* is on the side of the patent holder which protest against such treaty because it destroy their bottom line.Another such a country IIRC are in south east asia. Can't rememebr which.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
morality check: which is more important?
1. saving human lives
2. enforcing ip law
if they pirate the drug design and make the drugs without a license, guess what happens? THEY SAVE HUMAN LIVES
i think that pretty much trumps every goddamn thing you wrote, no?
poor countries can't afford to abide by ip law, genius
so they have my blessing and the blessing of everyone else with a simple moral compass, to rip off a rich country's pharmaceutical research TO SAVE LIVES
corporate profit is not important than human life, despite the fact that so many douchebags like yourself think otherwise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You put yourselves in charge just like any other empire. These days I never say USA. I say the American Empire.
Even the public behavior of POTUS is designed after Roman emperors. The gestures, the statue, the elevation above the crowd, the lot. I say the first step you Americans need to take is to acknowledge that you are an Empire and ask yourselves where it will lead you. Then perhaps you might muster the strength to dismantle your Empire before it collapses on you.
As an immigrant, I can attest to the fact that this law (and most of the US foreign policy) is quite selfish and short sided. Americans in general didnt seem to care bout this until 9/11. Now the masses are beginning to see how foreign policy affects US - and the price US pays in blood & treasure.
So you may not support the policy - but since it is a democracy, you are the final reason for the policy to be so messed up!
A point many people probably didn't notice is that India is not really pissed off at the whole ACTA treaty.
The major reason for India's tirade seems to be the fact that (in addition to Pharmaceutical situation, of course) it was left out of negotiations. In a multi-polarized world, India increasingly sees itself as an important node in the global market. Had the negotiations proceeded in an all-inclusive manner, I am pretty sure most countries' governments would have happily and silently signed oppressive laws into place.
In a way, this "unfair" tactic by western countries, I believe did push India over the edge, but surely the humanitarian, people-friendly position is not why India and other countries are opposing this law. It benefits the Indian Pharmaceutical companies and it is in India's benefit to fight this both for trying to keep its industry alive and asserting its influence.
For the record - I am Indian. And yes, I am opposed to many tough measures in the ACTA -- but I have this sneaky suspicion that just to appease India and other countries, the other countries will throw a ball in their direction -- give them some special concession in a very limited area -- and then all these countries will happily climb on to the ACTA bandwagon!
For all those expecting a showdown between India/China vs. the rest of the world -- chances are that it will never actually develop into something more than a few provocative statements here and there -- fervent negotiations will go on to give them some choicest concessions, so they can all start oppressing people everywhere asap... of course, this will be marketed heavily as something "amazingly good" for the people of the world!
Two mushroom-shaped clouds.
EFF is looking for people to contact their representatives in the US, especially if you are in a state with a senator on the Finance committee, or the House Ways and Means / Trade subcommittee.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
and i'm not buying it
its hard to understand how revolutionary governments are not your friend (referring to your examples). but it's pretty easy to understand corporate greed is not your friend
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And the fact that reducing barriers to trade is a good thing that each little factory in the town of Butfuck, Anystate doesn't want to happen means that overriding the democratic process through a negotiation where two countries agree to lower tariffs with each other is a bad thing because?
a poor country doesn't have money. they can't pay. the drug company with the ip won't be making money from that country, ever. if they give poor country drugs for free, they won't make money. if they deny the poor country the drugs it needs, they won't make money. getting a poor country cheap drugs, or not, makes no difference to the financial bottom line
meanwhile, they'll make plenty of profit from rich countries. the fact that the rich will pay and the poor won't pay does not in any way change the pharmaceutical company's fortunes or inclination to do research
so its a simple act of charity to look the other way on ip laws in poor countries and save some lives
but you, you'd rather squeeze a poor country for cash (and not get any), rather than save lives. therefore, you are an immoral low iq douchebag
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are continuing with the same mistake Christopher Columbus did, he was searching for Asian-India and he landed on America and called people here Indians. ... you are still talking about Native-American Indians. :)
Now when the talk is been happening on Asian-Indian drugs
Common sense is not common
Yea, I don't buy that political bs distinction. It is a completely none-derogatory and officially used term used throughout Indian / Native America / guys that got here first groups.
I know certain political groups would like to make "Indian" the "n" word, but it is not. Now, asserting that I am somehow less of a "native" than someone's else, even though my family has lived in the Americas for the last 350+ years is offensive. If that is the case, then strictly speaking there is no such thing as a "native" American.
But, not really too interested in getting in to that discussion at the moment.
Living in Chile
So you want to take away the ability for a these companies to keep the rights to their products? Alright, we can do that, but then what incentive is there for the company to invest large portions of their budget into R&D for new products that they will have to give away? This lack of protection will stop the production of new medicines and will hurt the people you say the corporations are screwing... the poor who need drugs. If we had not had the corporations and copyright protections for their drugs in the past; we would not have had half the vaccines, cures and treatments that many here are complaining greedy companies are withholding. You are basically killing the hand that feeds you.. Wake up and look at the whole cycle. McDonalds doesn’t give every homeless person a Big Mac because it’s the humanitarian thing to do; it would kill their ability to serve anyone a Big Mac. If you want to give away great new products/services start a non-profit or humanitarian organization and do it! Stop bitching about people who choose to make a profit while you sit on the sideline telling people what to do with their money or IP.
I really don't know a ton about the specifics of ACTA but the overall idea of protecting a companies copyrights especially in the drug, technology and media arenas is necessary for the whole cycle of creation to continue. Let large markets of people get these products for free and you erode the incentives and slow the innovation/production of better goods.
1) Only select group of rich countries were part of ACTA negotiations.
As per wikipedia entry: "The negotiations for the ACTA treaty are conducted behind closed doors by a select group of over 30 countries. The treaty was developed outside of normal IP venues such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization (post TRIPs). The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge filed a FOIA request which was denied."
Countries such as India/China/Brazil in combined have over half the world population (and probably more than 50% drugs consumption), but were never involved in the treaty negotiations.
2) India is one of the largest producer of generics drugs. As a matter of fact over 90% of the generics used in Africa are made in India. They range from mass epidemics like maleria, cholera and other diseases that citizens of rich European countries and the US don't even hear about these days. And "surprisingly" they come at a fractional cost as compared to once produced in Zurich and California. An example could be standard Penicillin tablets whose price varies between $1 - $30 in US but just 10 Paise in India ($1 US ~= 45 Indian rupees, 1 Indian Ruppee = 100 paise). Yes I am not joking, that's true.
3) US/Scandanavian healthcare industry is very different than the third world health-care
Typically, medical-insurance covers you when you get sick in US, and that includes the cost of medicine. In India medical insurance is hardly heard of. And then there is the dynamics of scale.
It is other thing that after staying in US for some time I appreciate Indian health-care system much more. The level of commercialization in US is a hell lot creepy. Even after spending over $2.5 trillion per year (in 2008*), if US can't guarantee healthcare for its citizens, it has no right to enforce the same practices to the third world.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States