Experts Say ACTA Threatens Public Interest

langelgjm writes "In the lead up to next week's Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations in Lucerne, a conference that drew over 90 academics and experts from six continents has released a statement issuing a harsh condemnation of both the substance and process of the agreement. Held last week at American University's Washington College of Law, the attendees say, 'We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.' The 'urgent communique' covers more than the usual ACTA topics of interest on Slashdot: in addition to the agreement's effect on the Internet, it also considers the effects on access to medicines, international trade, and developing countries. Meanwhile, Public Knowledge has an action alert where you can send a note to the White House expressing your opposition to ACTA."

Comments

Crazy radical extremists

[adonoman]

Well, according to the Canadian government, those "experts" are just radical extremists who pretend to care about copyright. If you are against copyright bills, you are a terrorist.

Re:Crazy radical extremists

[Kitkoan]

Ahhhhh.... what the difference a year makes...

Re:Crazy radical extremists

[Kitkoan]

D'you think if someone handed James Moore a cluestick he could use it to pry himself out of the CRIA's ass that he's so firmly lodged in? ... No?

Can we just beat him with it then?

Beat him with what? The cluestick or CRIA's ass? Or both for the best of both worlds?

Of course it isn't in the public interest

[dkleinsc]

The question is not whether ACTA is in the public interest, but whether it's in the collective interest of those empowered to enact it. It's safe to assume that with the supporters of ACTA in control of a lot of cash and the majority of television airtime, the folks in power are very likely not giving a rat's behind what these professors and petitions are saying.

Fuck acta

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck acta

Re:developing countries will not just sit by and l

[Kitkoan]

Developing countries and other countries that aren't included in the ACTA meetings aren't just sitting by.

not just experts

[theheadlessrabbit]

It's not just experts who believe ACTA threatens public interest.

My name is on that list, too.

Re:No Kidding

[Barrinmw]

If nobody comes out to state the obvious, then the people who are forcing this down the throats of the collective world will think they are doing it with everyone's concurrence.

Enough is enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Government of the USA,

Please stop trying to cram your shit house laws down the rest of the worlds throat.

Maybe if you took care of your own internal issues properly and stopped interfering with the rest of the world we would hate you less.

Kind regards,
The rest of the world (yes there is life outside the USA)

Re:Enough is enough

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Dear Rest of World,

Our laws (bills) are written by the lawyers from the industries those laws are written to regulate. These bills are then introduced by representatives from the home districts of the largest companies of those industries, who supply the voters and money to place/keep those representatives in office. The bills are then discussed and voted on in an orgy of self-interested back-scratching and pork exchange with representatives from other districts. Oftentimes, these other representatives will attach totally unrelated goodies and other bits of pork for themselves and their districts to bills which have nothing to do with their ostensible purpose. After a bill is passed into law, its enforcement is regulated by a government bureau whose executive layer is comprised of people who came from executive positions in the industry in question, and to which they will return, when the Other Party wins their next Presidential election and replaces those executives with a different set of executives from the same industry. If a law should come before a pesky court, its hands are generally bound by the letter of the law itself, so, in actual fact, the Constitution poses little threat to our sacred way of life.

Please understand that if we do not "cram our shit house laws down the rest of the worlds throat" then our Corporate Overlords become unhappy because they are not making every possible dime they feel they are entitled to, and their accountants will produce reams of speculative arithmetic to prove that it is so. And frankly, we're just not interested in "taking care of our own internal issues properly", or whether or not the rest of the world "hates us for our interfering", because we're making lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of money, and that's the only thing anyone in power here gives a flying fuck about.

Kindest Regards,
The U.S. Government
(and their Corporate Overlords)

Re:Enough is enough

[complacence]

No can do. Any decline in sales will be blamed on piracy, and a sales tax on computers, storage media or connectivity will be introduced (cf. Canada, Germany et al). They're in deep enough to basically finance themselves through corruption even if they didn't produce anything.

If you think a note to the white house matters....

[fotbr]

You're nuts. You or I don't have enough money for them to notice us, and if we did, we'd have lobbyists go to the white house and make the points -- and campaign donations -- for us; not use a web feedback form.

Realistically, there's nothing we can do.

I think so

[NickFortune]

A non-trivial number seem to think that any copyright is a bad thing, that it hurts the economy, etc

Of course, a non trivial number also seem to think that more copyright is always better, too.

There is some pretty good evidence to indicate that's not the case, but they aren't interested

I'm interested. If nothing else, I'm interested in what you'd consider "evidence" without a parallel universe to use as a control sample.

They have an all or nothing stance on it. As such, this treaty is automatically and "obviously" a bad thing to them, since it increases copyright.

Of course it is also possible to be of the opinion that copyright laws are currently too strong without necessarily being a deluded extremist. So you can make an entirely rational case that the ACTA is a bad thing in so far as it works solely to strengthen copyright provisions that many feel are already over strong.

So this is the kind of thing I like to see. Some real analysis to determine what benefits and costs it has

Why don't you start? What's this evidence you mention?

When you think something is obvious, especially something complex (as any new law is) ask yourself: Is it really, truly obvious, which would mean that nearly everyone should see it, or do I think it is obvious because of my biases?

So what, then? We should all sit tight and wait for someone in authority to tell us what everyone thinks? I can see problems with that approach, personally.

I should also add that I'd find your call for objective self-examination a lot more convicing were it addressed to both sides of the debate. Otherwise, it seems as though you don't think the copyright maximalists need to examine their preconceptions. Perhaps your own biases are showing here?

Re:I think so

[NickFortune]

You know, I think the parent was simply attempting to get the 'dotters to examine their own self-justification in their hatred of ACTA

Always presupposing that it is self-justification, of course which has yet to be established. I'm sure you meant to say that.

As for the GP, his post struck me as being quite baldly manipulative, framing itself as an even handed appeal for balanced judgement, whilst being utterly partisan, and quite one sided in its analysis. I mean we have:

• The straw-man framing of the ACTA critics as extremists, opposed to any copyright at all
• We have "evidence" aluded to but not cited, on the one hand, whilst simultaneously demanding a detailed cost/benefit breakdown from the other side.
• Accusations of bias, leveled at one side of the debate, only.

We do it all the time because, quite frankly, we are smug, intelligent, self-assured folk that have successfully surrounded ourselves with like-minded individuals in this medium (nerds and such).

... and there's also trying to trying to gain rapport by identifying yourself with a side of the debate that you don't especially seem to support.

However, as soon as a story comes up about increasing the scope of copyright law, our knee-jerk reaction is something along the lines of, "WTF?! It already sucks as it is! Can't everyone else see that?!"

ACTA is hardly a knee jerk reaction, however. It's been quite robustly debated on a number of occasions. I've yet to hear any persuasive points made in its favour. And the best I've heard from yourself and the GP boils down to "you're not really qualified to hold that opinion" which I reject.

Well, the answer is, apparently, "No."

Because if there wasn't some disagreement on the subject, we'd hardly be debating it. But the simple existence of differing viewpoints is hardly an argument for one side or another.

Hell, there are quite a few people who consider copyright infringement to be on the exact scale of morality as physical theft. (And if you don't believe that, go down to your local farmer's market/community center sometime and try debating it with some non-tech oriented folks. They will look at you like you just ate a baby).

I'll tell you what: you go tell one of them how his fourteen year old daughter who spent all last night downloading music is a criminal and has caused thousands of dollars of damage. Report back when you're done. I'll wait :)

So in other words, I don't think lashing out at the parent is really in the best interest of discussion

What I don't think is in the best interest of the discussion is trying to tell people "you guys aren't really smart enough to make that judgement - wait for someone to tell you what everyone else thinks and then agree".. And if you think this was lashing out, you've clearly not spent much time around here. Or on the Internet for that matter.

I don't see a reason to pick apart his post and try to paint him as some sort of biased shill.

I picked the post apart because I found things too pick apart. If there's any specific thing I said that you think is unfair, perhaps you might point it out and explain why, rather than simply painting me as some mean old kicker of puppies.

The parent isn't trying to make the case that ACTA, or harsher copyright, is a good thing. He is just saying that he likes to see people spending their time actually doing research and analysis on this topic

I read it as "doubt yourselves - but only if you think the ACTA is bad". But you know, if he's keen on research, perhaps he'll set the ball rolling the evidence alluded to in his post.