Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Final ACTA Text Published
ciaran_o_riordan writes "The US Trade Representative has published a text which, subject only to a last legal review, is proposed to be the final text of ACTA. The differences between this text and last month's, from the Tokyo round, are mostly cosmetic but there's an important positive change giving signatories the option of excluding patents from section 2. As for software patents, most harm has been avoided. If signatories make use of the section 2 exclusion option, there might be no harm at all. Lobbying for this will be important. Meanwhile, the many problems regarding Digital Restrictions Management, and the extra powers given to businesses to obtain personal and identifying information about accused copyright infringers "in the Digital Environment" are still there (mostly section 5). Earlier texts were much worse. The improvements in recent months are surely due to public outcry, leaving us indebted to the anonymous friends who scanned and leaked the various secret versions and the activists who made text versions and spread them across the Internet. There's a chance we can still influence the text in this legal review phase, but the bigger task ahead will be working on the national implementations. It's not yet clear what procedure the US will require for its own ratification."
Remember, the original goal of copyright was to give exclusive copy rights to the authors for a limited period in exchange for their work to become public domain after that limited period.
A lot more people would agree to abide by copyright laws if they had not been twisted into the lifetime + 50 years locks that they are now.
I'm pretty sure the Senate will ratify whatever their corporate overlords tell them to. And I don't care if previous texts were much worse....that doesn't change the fact that ACTA sucks.
Not if you get on them HARD right now.
Many in the Senate are still stinging from the voter rebuke that just occurred, and the rest are not in a mood to pick a fight with the voters.
The entire thing should simply be rejected due to the excessive secrecy with which it was negotiated. Even if this treaty gave a gold brick to every citizen, capped punishment at one dollar and 50 cents, and baked you pies every Wednesday, the mere fact that they had to build a world wide conspiracy of silence to try to get this one over means it should be Dead On Arrival in the Senate.
But I suspect it might never go to the Senate. Obama will simply try to impose it by edict as a "trade agreement" without treaty status.
Treaties modify the US Constitution. People have to realize that.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Now, now you two. There's enough blame to go around.
No, people don't need to realize that, since its not true.
The Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate, and federal laws adopted under the authority granted by the Constitution together form the "supreme law of the land", superceding the constitution and laws of the states (U.S. Const, Art. VI) but the only thing that modifies the U.S. Constitution is amendments to the Constitution adopted under Article V.
Putting falsehoods in bold print doesn't make them true.
The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article VI:
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So your own citation proves you wrong.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
No, large patent holders shaped this. Politicians, democrat and republican alike, that had little idea what any of it meant, took their money and happily let it go on through. As Ralph Nader once wisely said, our two party system is a two headed dragon. There is no difference between the two parties. People like you who seem to think the democrats are somehow less corrupt are causing the problem more than the people that vote republican.
If you didn't vote Republican in 2008, you asked for this.
I've found that...
If you voted you asked for this.
If you didn't vote you are responsible for letting it happen.
is true of about 2/3rds of what the governement does... if not more.
I voted Independent in 2000.
In Florida.
My bad.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Aww, isn't that cute? The little AC still thinks he has a major party looking out for his interests!
Your brain is not a computer.
I know that Slashdot frowns on this kind of thing, but if you'd followed the last link in TFS, you would have discovered that the US Trade Representative has declared that ACTA will take effect in the US by Executive Order. Why? 'Cuz they said so.
That's right, folks, it's a treaty, but it's not a treaty! So that little part of the U.S. Constitution requiring ratification by the Senate doesn't apply! Really! This is not the treaty you're looking for!
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
acta proceedings were prepared during bush years, with republican senate and house. it was well underway in 2006 when democrats got the houses. and it was already being negotiated in 2008. not that it would matter much, since democrats are too in the pockets of the private interests. but, the head of the snake, were republicans.
I think it might be more accurate to say the head of the snake were politicians.
Because you know... ACTA and more powerful, more draconian, more extensive copyright and business method/software patent protections are one of the few things there is bipartisan support for.
The fangs of the snake will be whatever president signs ACTA, if it gets signed. Because the clincher is approving the rule -- no matter who drafted it
And no... neither republicans nor democrats "really" decided what should go in it. This was done by corporations that have become scarily powerful, so scarily powerful they can apparently buy enough supporters now to get whatever laws they want.
The opposition who aren't getting their numbers artificially increased by corporations paying people, don't really stand a chance, unless there is a full-blown revolt by the masses.
Treaties modify the US Constitution. People have to realize that.
No. False. What the constitution says is:
In other words, these things are the supreme law of land, In this order
Adopting a treaty doesn't impose any domestic rules, except under the rare circumstances of a self-executing treaty, which does not have power equal to the constitution. The treaty making power does not trump the legislative power of the congress.
And treaties are only valid if signed by the president and ratified by 2/3 majority of the senate.
Earlier texts were much worse.
Stalin: Let's execute all dissidents and paint the Mausoleum green!
Minister: Why green, comrade Stalin?
Stalin: I knew there would be no objections about the first part.
The treaty spends a lot of time on "pirated copyright goods", and the bits about "counterfeit trademark goods" seem tacked on. I could find no mention of the public good, the rights of licensees, fair use, public domain, media transfer/backup copies, etc. There is a good bit about the minimum civil and criminal procedures and penalties that should be in place and made available to businesses and rights holders. It seems to be exclusively intended to ensure that organizations like the RIAA can sue and harass "pirates", and god willing, get them a healthy jail sentence too. This is interesting in that it might provide some cover for rights-holder actions that are an abuse of the court system (mass filings) and criminal harassment.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
It doesn't even indicate that the Constitution is overridden. It just says that the U.S. Constitution, the national laws which implement it, and national treaties, taken together, override state constitutions and state laws. It doesn't spell out any particular precedence between the various national elements. Based on just the quoted text, the U.S Constitution could still take precedence over treaties. After all, it certainly takes precedence over national laws, which are part of the same list.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article VI:
Yes, it is. Too bad you don't understand what it says.
No, it proves me right. Let me refresh your memory on what I said, which was:
The Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate, and federal laws adopted under the authority granted by the Constitution together form the "supreme law of the land", superceding the constitution and laws of the states (U.S. Const, Art. VI)
And -- that's exactly what Article VI says. To avoid any confusion from reading too much at once, and with your oddly placed emphasis, lets break it down. First it defines what the supreme law of the land shall be:
"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;"
IOW: The Constititution, federal laws, and ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land.
Then it goes on to say what it means for those things to be the supreme law of the land:
"and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
IOW: The things that are defined as "the supreme law of the land" in the first clause (the Constitution, federal laws, and ratified treaties) are binding on State judges and superceded the constitutions and laws of the states.
It does not say that treaties modify or supercede the federal Constitution, any more than it says that federal statute law modifies or supercedes the federal Constititution. It just says that, taken together with the federal Constitution, treaties and federal laws supercede state constitutions and laws, and are binding on state judges.
Saying that, even putting "change" in all caps, doesn't make its so. Treaties don't change anything. Treaties, taken along with federal laws and the federal Constitution, supercede state laws and state constitutions and are binding on state judges. That's all the Supremacy Clause says.
Wrong. Amendments under Article V change the Constitution. Treaties don't change the Constitution any more than regular laws passed by Congress do, and there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests otherwise.