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."

46 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. I can relate by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:I can relate by siloko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [India] fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it.

      I find that quite sweet actually. The whole point of excluding the next economic power house is precisely to frame laws which may delay their rise to the top. It is not if ACTA gets used against India but when.

    2. Re:I can relate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a citizen of any of the countries that are in it, we can relate.

    3. Re:I can relate by Weezul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how do we help them derail it?

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    4. Re:I can relate by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some EU countries are already seizing shipments of cheap generics being sent from India to other developing nations, if they happen to transit through European ports.

      It just goes towards exposing the hypocrisy of such countries that keep on shrieking about aid convoys being attacked and privacy being trampled upon elsewhere.

      What is the cost in terms of human lives when right to medicine and right to cheap medicine are denied?

      --
      Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
    5. Re:I can relate by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think he was referring to the insanely high cost we Americans pay for drugs compared to other countries. For example, after an eye surgery I was prescribed some eyedrops (Vigimox IIRC) that ranged in price from $65 to $85 depending on the pharmacy. My co-pay, what I pay after insurance, was $26.

      The same drug retails for $24 in Canada.

  2. software patents and DRM by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    1. Re:software patents and DRM by unix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO

      DRM is not a problem; criminalizing talking about DRM is.

    2. Re:software patents and DRM by unix1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.

      The real problem is when governments come in and single-handedly criminalize certain speech when such speech doesn't agree with corporate interests that got them elected in public office.

    3. Re:software patents and DRM by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.

      I will agree with that statement if and only if one concurrently has the right to write and distribute software that easily cracks said DRM. "However you like" goes both ways, in such a case. If my rights to break it can be restricted, yours to use it can be too. If either of us can write software however we like, you can write your DRM, and I can crack it. The problem occurs when that "right" only applies to one side.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    4. Re:software patents and DRM by unix1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was the point in both of my previous posts. You've said nothing that disagrees with it.

      OP (of this thread) said: "DRM is actually the most worrying problem."

      Again, DRM is not a problem. The erosion of rights of free expression and speech is. The solution should not be to outlaw DRM, or place some legal restrictions on its implementations. This could have many unintended consequences. The solution should be to not restrict everyone's rights w/respect to DRM in the first place (i.e. cracks, discussion, research, etc.).

    5. Re:software patents and DRM by unix1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      DRM is a problem.

      (See, you did not say why. So I also don’t, to refute your statement. But I can add arguments on top anyway, to make it an actual argument. Like:)

      It's not a problem because it's your right to write whatever software (DRM or otherwise) you please - that is your right. Outlawing DRM would take away your freedom to write such software.

      DRMed information is lost, when the server or decoding system is gone.

      Writing with disappearing ink also causes information to be lost. Let's outlaw disappearing ink.

      Encrypting information and throwing away decryption keys would also cause information to be lost - let's outlaw deleting encryption keys and passwords.

      Criminalized circumventing DRM also is why it is a problem.

      Then you didn't read my (oh, so short and to the point) post. Because that is what I said was the problem.

  3. Yep. Yer boned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Pleasepleaseplease by dasdrewid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Profits are more important than lives. by elucido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Profits are more important than lives. by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're not a capitalist country anymore; we're corporatists.

      --
      'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
    2. Re:Profits are more important than lives. by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering it took deaths at Apple's iPhone manufacturing plant to get a 20% pay raise that caused a 0.7% increase in cost of making the iPad, I would have to answer your question: profits.

    3. Re:Profits are more important than lives. by AnEducatedNegro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you're missing the point. i'm saying we're willing to go to cheap labor to make an extra $1.20 per ipad. to answer the OP's question, we're obviously after profit otherwise we'd make electronics here in the states to boost our economy without needing to resort to ACTA

    4. Re:Profits are more important than lives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      we're corporatists

      Which is just a nice word for fascism

  6. Re:Yep. Yer boned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  7. what about Antigua free ip that the WTO GIVE them? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  8. It's a shame... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that we (the good ole USA) need to rely on other countries' governments to protect us from our government and its corporate puppet masters.

    1. Re:It's a shame... by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a shame, but it's not unprecedented.

      We won the Revolution only because we had copious assistance from the French.

      And despite what the militia fucktards think, armed insurrection is not going to topple the U.S. government if it gets out of hand. If you need to revolt, you're either going to need the military behind you (probably not the revolution you're looking for), or bring a tougher one. Hint: a tougher one don't exist.

    2. Re:It's a shame... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "And despite what the militia fucktards think, armed insurrection is not going to topple the U.S. government if it gets out of hand."

      They need only be part of a mass movement that sustains them.
      The government doesn't have enough personnel to secure the whole US against serious _popular_ resistance. The thing about modern armed forces designed to destroy other sophisticated modern armed forces is that they aren't capable of putting all that many boots on the ground. Iraq and Afghanistan are difficult enough, and tiny compared to the USA, and not full of people Americans object to killing.

      In any mass movement, the military itself would be in play, with results depending on the allegiance of individuals or units. There are lots of folks in Combat Arms who aren't going to shoot their kinfolk, and might savor putting politicians against the wall if the situation is right. Direct "toppling" isn't necessarily the mechanism by which government might be changed. Coup and other methods might offer themselves.

      Never underestimate the appeal of mass movements. Should the economic situation get bad enough (the major reason people revolt, not for freedom but for food), ANY conduct becomes reasonable. The ghey and genteel Civil War was a long time ago. In modern civil wars, there is no useful reason to let enemies survive so they are often liquidated (why save them so they can fight again?). The best way to fight any serious internal conflict would be to exterminate ones enemies since they have no worth.

      Everything is cozy now, so none of this is more than speculation. The US isn't hurting, no one is starving, and the economy is showing some signs of health. Crime is low, even auto fatalities are low. It's boring and there is every reason to keep it that way.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:It's a shame... by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We get "popular revolution" every 2, 4, and 6 years. So there's no pressure for the masses to join the militias.

      But that's beside the point. The point is, yes, there is enough military power in the military to stop any military attack on the military from any militia or military on this planet. So as long as that military is protecting the government, this form of government is not going to be revolved by military action. We, or anyone else, would need to get a lot of countries together to accomplish anything revolutionary here.

      Which is why we need to get better at the 2/4/6-year thing, and use ideas and facts to control our destiny, instead of letting money and propaganda be the determining factor.

  9. What about the WTO What if they say no to this? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about the WTO What if they say no to this? What they set the price for some IP to Free?

  10. Re:Yep. Yer boned. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. India in. Now we only need china, and russia. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that will constitute approx half of world population.

    versus, hollywood.

    who do you think will win ?

    1. Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well the way its going in Canada, Hollywood is already entrenched in out gov pockets even though the majority of Canadian voters don't want the new DMCA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5079/125/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5017/125/ and many more http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  12. Yep. Yer boned too. by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone

    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.

  13. what i'm wondering is by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:what i'm wondering is by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What Hollywood wants is active policing of the internet by all world governments with prison terms handed out to infringes. If governments did go to that step I guarantee they would succeed, at the cost of imprisoning a few million more people while paroling truly violent criminals.

      This is the reason the US government hasn't pursued it, but you should be very afraid of the influence the MPAA can exert, before it was just the RIAA, but now with Hollywood behind it there is a very good chance ACTA will force all the WTO countries to enforce restrictions (that includes China). Once the WTO starts imprisoning people the major easy distribution channels will go dead leaving only secure encrypted and very low volume exchanges, reducing the trade to very minimal which is Hollywood's goal. The tax increases to support the enforcement and the destruction of millions of lives will be enormous, but Hollywood doesn't care.

  14. i'd like to see them try by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:i'd like to see them try by oiron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Flouts is too strong a word. Indian law allows the government to license other manufacturers to produce any drugs deemed to be "life saving"...

  15. Eventually? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I quote:

    “Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”

    meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  16. Re:Yep. Yer boned. by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  17. Re:Yep. Yer boned. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  18. Re:Yep. Yer boned. by d34dluk3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  19. i understand what you are saying by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  20. Quixotic Attempt I'm Afraid by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm glad India is taking a stand that supports its national interests and that position coincides with my belief that intellectual property rights have gone to far. The big "however" is that India does not have a great success rate of stopping a treaty. They did not sign the NPT nor the CTBT and the NPT is in force and the CTBT would be if it was not for the Annex II requirement.

    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...

  21. Re:Yep. Yer boned. by cenc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  22. What the? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What the? by mdielmann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And this is what makes me chuckle at free-market economists. The invisible hand only works when people have an informed choice, and give a damn. What tends to work better for managing the market is a big fucking stick and the warning, "You can make as much profit as you want, but when you start treating humanity as a source of profits and nothing else, we're going to start spanking." That's what any reasonable government would do, but governments are made of people, and people tend to be greedy...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  23. what a douchebag by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  24. Here is what will happen... by pankajmay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  25. EFF by Misch · · Score: 3, Informative

    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