Slashdot Mirror
ACTA Text Leaks; US Caves On ISPs, Seeks Super-DMCA
An anonymous reader writes "Given the history of ACTA leaks, to no one's surprise, the latest
version of the draft agreement (PDF) was leaked last night on KEI's
website. The new version — which reflects changes made during an intense week of negotiations
last month in Washington — shows a draft agreement that is much closer
to becoming reality. Perhaps the most
important story of the latest draft is how the
countries are close to agreement on the Internet enforcement
chapter. In
the face of opposition, the US has dropped its demands on secondary
liability for ISPs but is still holding out hope of establishing a
super-DMCA with digital lock
rules that go beyond the WIPO Internet treaties and were even rejected
by US courts."
We only get once chance to defeat ACTA.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
ACTA Text Leaks
Surely not. That would be infringing their copyright.
The goverment officials dealing with this have absolutely no understanding of how this law will affect the world for generations to come.
We're getting awfully close to needing the 4th box...
Now is really the time to get encrypted, decentralized networks with Onion routing working at a practical level and not just for academic enjoyment. I've had great expectations in GNUnet, but apparently it is pretty hard to port. Freenet has also never convinced me whenever I tried it. Are the technical obstacles really so hard to overcome? What about pervasive email encryption with automatic installation and more widespread use of SSL? What is holding all these technologies back?
Since this effects all of us in a huge way, there will be some sort of referendum which will see what the PEOPLE want and not just the corporation-bribed governments.
Experts say it'll happen on the 30th of Feburary at Half Past Never.
ACTA has many bad parts, such as entrenching DRM and the deadly effects of pharmaceutical patents, but it also has terrible effects for software patents:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA_and_software_patents
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Criminalising_patent_infringement_is_draconian
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Why do you blame Democrats for the DMCA? The bill was introduced into the House by a Republican, it faced pretty much zero Republican opposition in the House and had unanimous support in the Senate. Oh and let's not forget that the current head of the RIAA is a former Republican staffer and GOP lobbyist. So exactly why is it the Democrats fault despite the fact that this bill was introduced and had basically universal support from the Republicans in Congress?
Now is really the time to get encrypted, decentralized networks with Onion routing working at a practical level and not just for academic enjoyment. I've had great expectations in GNUnet, but apparently it is pretty hard to port. Freenet has also never convinced me whenever I tried it. Are the technical obstacles really so hard to overcome? What about pervasive email encryption with automatic installation and more widespread use of SSL? What is holding all these technologies back?
Once something is made significantly illegal and if the government is motivated enough, they'll pay their informants to infiltrate your private encrypted network and capture the IP addresses that way. The informants will host the exit nodes.
This has to be drilled into everybody's heads.
Copyrights and patents must be abolished, they are part of the death of economies, just like governments regulations, taxes, subsidies, wars, corporate involvement, corruption, stimulus borrowing/printing/spending and bailouts.
All of the above things are killing the economies, these things are making industrialized world uncompetitive and jobs are leaving and no amount of cash can be spent to make the industrialized world competitive again ever because the reason cannot be simply removed by spending.
The reason of the underlying structural breakage of economy is lack of useful production/manufacturing jobs, whose loss has resulted from lack of competitiveness. Competition is the only correct solution to this problem, and copyrights, patents, regulations, wage laws, taxes, subsidies, bailouts, stimulus, wars, corporate corruption are all tied to one main entity: government.
Government is the ultimate force with the power to compel people to do what they do not want to do, and it does so because it craves power, through people who join the government because they crave power, and for them gov't is the ultimate way to get power and money by sharing with corporate friends.
Government involvement in economy must be removed completely and that is the only way to remove incentives to corrupt the government, spending all the money in the world on buying the gov't should NOT buy you a free ride and destruction and structural removal of any competition.
This comment is the actual answer to the question: what the fuck happened to the economy?
That is unrealistic. Copyright and patents should not be abolished. They just shouldn't last forever. They should last X amount of years that society agrees upon, not an arbitrary number decided by the copyright holders themselves but a number of years decided by that individual culture or that society.
it's called a crisis. In a crisis situation rules change, if they don't then that 'unrealistic' situation will actually meet reality, and reality will win, and there will be no economy left to speak of, while the rest of the world would just completely ignore any position a country, whose economy fell apart takes, and they'd be correct not to care. Losers do not tell winners what to do.
You can't handle the truth.
Particularly since the alternative would have done exactly the same thing.
the US ...is still holding out hope of establishing...rules that go beyond the WIPO Internet treaties and were even rejected by US courts.
That would be precisely why the forces of intellectual darkness and their minions within the U.S. government are pushing for this with such rabidity, and in such secrecy. Unless it's flat-out unconstitutional (a much, much narrower standard than simply "illegal"), anything in this treaty will supersede U.S. courts and U.S. law.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little...ah, fuck it. We do the unconstitutional immediately, too."
Your ass, dude. It's not like the United States is the Lone Ranger, riding at the cutting edge of technology, all alone. FFS, pimple faced kids around the world manage to hack into the Department of Defense computers. Our high tech people sweat at night, worrying about China hacking into their computers. Information your ass. Our PRIMARY export right now is "entertainment". The word is placed in quotations, because it is hardly entertaining to anyone with a lick of sense. Only the brainwashed, ignorant masses can actually PAY for the drivel pumped out from Hollywood and the music industries. I might consider paying them to STOP PRODUCING!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Nice rant but totally unrealistic. Economies can't grow without limits as the raw materials are not boundless.
Manufacturing jobs will always be eliminated over time as automation replaces people. The US right now has the largest manufacturing output of any nation in history, and it's doing it with only 8% of its population. The US output is larger than China, India and Brazil combined.
White collar jobs are headed the same way as software replaces people.
So what is left? Simply make do public sector jobs funded by taxation on productive work. There isn't any other possible outcome.
Competition can't solve pollution. Only regulations can. Competition had its chance and still has its chance and companies are STILL polluting.
If the DMCA provision passes, I promise that from that point I won't spend a single cent on anything made by anybody who supports or takes advantage of it, and that I will make every effort discourage other people and companies from purchasing those things.
All my money will instead go on software, hardware and music without DRM and under liberal licenses, as well as organizations that oppose this kind of legislation. I will especially contribute to any attempts to eliminate patents and heavily restrict copyright.
if you think information goes only one way then you don't understand any society.
Information is not just an export, but an import as well.
I guess Wikileaks does have to leak out government docs. One more thing...." The British music industry has called for a truce with the technology firms with whom it has till now fought a bitter battle over rights, royalties and file sharing.
Feargal Sharkey, CEO of lobby group UK Music, told a conference in London this week that it was time for the music and technology industries to set aside their differences and strive instead toward a common goal: nothing less than the total global domination of British music.
Sharkey, a campaigner against people copying music on the internet and the technology they use, said it had become apparent that technology and creativity were inseparable.
"It's now time for ISPs and tech companies to sit down together and possibly for the first time have a broad adult conversation. Our future is now totally dependent, totally entwined, totally symbiotic," he told an audience of industry, government and media at the Westminster Forum this morning....."
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/9/4/uk-music-calls-truce-technology/
Sharkey was on rousing form. The former pop star called dramatically for the mobilization of British music and technology producers: "By 2020. We. Want. To rival. The United States. As the largest. Source of repertoire. And artistry. In. The. World."
So I take the company to court and...what are they going to tell him? The only thing they can tell him is not to pollute on my property. Easy enough for them to deal with. They'll still be polluting on other people's property. They'll probably be polluting the water supply to. Well, I don't own the water supply, the water company does. And if the water company doesn't care, then I just have to deal with it. Maybe it pollutes the food supply. I don't own the food supply, so I can't do anything about that either. I just have to hope there are alternative water and food supplies that aren't polluted. Of course, you'd probably tell me that I need to sue the food and water companies for not providing pollution-free food and water. So now they need to sue the polluting company. And we have to wait for all this to work out. And it only solves the issue once. Next time they pollute, we have to go through the rigamarole all over again. I'm now spending all my time suing people who try to pollute instead of doing something useful.
Or, we could just have government regulations and have a set of people who have the legal authority to monitor pollution and force those who pollute to stop. Now I don't have to spend all day suing people and tracing where the pollution came from to sue the right people. It just gets done. It also helps all those other people who otherwise would have to individually sue the polluters or their food and water supply companies. It's simply more efficient and it actually solves the problem from here on out. Or at least it's closer to a solution. Companies will still try to pollute, but instead of waiting for the pollution to become a problem, it can be nipped in the bud with inspections and monitoring that are legally forced to be on their property, not yours. See, by the time the pollution is on your property, it's too late. The damage has been done. It's an entirely reactive instead of proactive process.
It's all fun and good to make a microkernel government and it's really easy to point out problems with the existing government structures. But the microkernel government doesn't work because it distributes work that should be done by a common public trust (the government) and tries to place entities that don't actually have equal power and resources into a situation where they are considered to be of equal power and resources. It's me versus a company now, instead of the public versus a company. And the former is a much tougher battle to fight.
What we out to do, instead of stripping the government of everything that makes it useful, is to find ways to keep private interests from infecting the government and let it go back to being a public good. That's really what the problem is. If injecting some libertarian principles in the mix would help, I'm all for it. But let's not kid ourselves and think that the government-as-contract-enforcer is actually a workable system in anything approaching the real world.
That's because nobody has to pay for environmental damage unless they are forced to.
Tragedy of the commons.
Look up "externalities".
Incidentally, the Ruhr region of Germany solves this by making polluters pay for the privilege.
I find this so funny... letting the people just blame one of the two parties in America and bickering about it amongst yourselves seems to me to be the ultimate weapon politicians devised to keep you under their rule.
That's only if it's ratified in the Senate as a treaty. The Obama administration has already signaled that they want to enact it as an executive agreement if possible.
I'm not an expert on this, but I believe Presidents can enter into executive agreements with other countries only until the President's actions affect US citizenry. Then we've got an ultra vires issue or presentment problem unless congress passes the agreement.
Executive agreements obviously cannot violate the Constitution. Since the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. has made it explicit that although the U.S. intends to abide by a treaty, if the treaty is ruled in violation of the Constitution by federal courts, then the U.S. legally can't follow the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires.
Plus treaty law (including executive agreements, congressional-executive treaties, and real treaties) is incorporated into the body of U.S. federal law. So congress can modify or repeal treaties afterwards, and SCOTUS can review it.
However, I'm still wary. According to an EFF article published in The Yale Journal of International Law [PDF]. Even if this article is true, the agreements are still subject to modification after they're passed, but that shouldn't be good enough.
My point is precisely that there must be NO COMMONS.
I am hereby giving notice that you have been discovered inhaling air, some of which was within the air rights of my property at the time that I bought it (it's your job to figure out whose air the wind blew toward you -- especially if you want to know whom to sue if it's polluted, and you can prove it was that specific breath that made you sick...).
Further unauthorized use of this privately owned asset shall be grounds for litigation. I hope your lawyer's as good (i.e. expensive) as mine.
I don't think a private owners would lobby to set a liability cap on damages caused by an oil spill in his private property
The owners of the oil rig sure would. Do the owners of surrounding property have as much money to spend on lobbyists to represent their interests?
According to the "trade balance" view of economy, selling your house/furniture/gadgets/clothes/food to your neighbours to replace it all by a pile of gold made you richer.
According to the "trade balance" view of economy, as son as some good leaves the country to be replaced by some gold, something positive happened. As soon as some good entered the country and some gold left it something bad happened.
This view of economy is so moronically stupid it is frightening.
According to the "government is evil" view of economy, the existence of laws is a perversion to be fought.
According to the "government is evil" view of economy, it is okay to let restaurants/corporations/(rich) individuals poison their neighbours because the threat of lawsuits will prevent that from happening (but laws are evil, so some ad-hoc mechanism for determining damage need to be established.)
Fact: if the productive people of Atlas Shrugged all went to an island where there would be no "oppression", they would quickly degenerate in a pre-stone age society (there are real-world examples of this: a rich society is a large society, even though it might seem to be composed of dull individuals). We are collectively rich as we are because we are all interlinked through exchange of goods, services, ideas. For society to function, markets must function. For that, government intervention is required. To break monopolies, to forbid or compensate externalities, to impose transparency. To impose a measure of equality.
Fact: is that even the very rich and successful need the great masses much more than the masses need them. Equality must be imposed: markets work because the collective decisions f the agents are better than the individual actions. A very unequal society depends on the actions and choice of a small minority, and therefore cannot form functioning markets. If you believe in markets, you must believe in redistribution of wealth. Otherwise, you believe not in markets but in magic.
And that collective will is called, you guessed it, government.
That collective is called 'the people'. Government is supposed to be of/for/by the people but it clearly isn't anymore.
I'm not really trying to defend parent even though I can find some philosophical common ground with him. I, however, do not think the solution is getting rid of all regulations, I think it would be more reasonable to actually start *applying* existing law equally to everyone first. Two things would happen then. Corporations would stop breaking them, and we'd find a whole lot of laws that are incredibly bad and should be repealed. I propose a moratorium on new laws until we've gone through the existing set and put them through a constitutional filter.
Anyway, I think it is highly idealized of you, especially given today's state of things, to think the US government and the US people are the same entity.
It is the specific intent of the constitution to limit the power of government on its people. Such is not the case in current day United States.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Our PRIMARY export right now is "entertainment". The word is placed in quotations, because it is hardly entertaining to anyone with a lick of sense. Only the brainwashed, ignorant masses can actually PAY for the drivel pumped out from Hollywood and the music industries. I might consider paying them to STOP PRODUCING!
Ah, another snob with poor taste who believes everything everyone else likes is crap, that he's somehow the enlightened one, and wishes with every fiber of his being that everyone else would just WAKE UP.
Our PRIMARY export right now is "entertainment".
No it isn't. Not by a long shot.
The most recently available number for total hollywood studio revenues is $42.3 billion in 2007.
Total US exports were a hair over $1 trillion in 2009.
So even if every single cent hollywood made came from exports, they would still be a drop in the bucket.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
There, fixed that for you.
Remember who is really driving this, it's not about enforcing current copyrights at home, ACTA is about enforcing US copyright laws and indefinite copyright in other nations.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Every time someone on slashdot posits a global wireless mesh they get beaten back because of how slow it'll be to transfer several gigs of porn over it. Last I checked the information that we need to know, to liberate from censorship, was basic text, heck a lot of it is currently representable in ASCII. So what if we step back a decade to the age of the text only bulletin board. At least these BBs will be automatically backed up, re-routed and physically located nowhere, so will be uncensorable.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.