Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The ACTA Fight Returns: What Is At Stake & What You Can Do

Posted by Soulskill on from the sopa-was-a-warmup dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The reverberations from the SOPA fight continue to be felt in the U.S. and elsewhere, but it is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that has captured increasing attention this week. Several months after the majority of ACTA participants signed the agreement, most European Union countries formally signed the agreement yesterday (notable exclusions include Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, Cyprus and Slovakia). Michael Geist has a full rundown on what is at stake and what you can do, wherever you live."

51 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    He'll change... oh wait... no fuck that.

    1. Re:Obama! by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He signed the treaty, despite it not being ratified by the Senate. I don't think he can weasel out by whining the Senate was ignoring it. The Constitution is pretty clear on this.

      [The President] shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Obama! by Drafell · · Score: 1

      So, providing the Senator that was with him agreed, it was all good.

    3. Re:Obama! by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      Wha? Ron Wyden is already seeking answers quite appropriately about the question of "does the president even have authority to call this an executive agreement" - it seems the president has defined it as one himself.

      Where are you getting treaties from? It's defined as a trade agreement, and the president is calling it an executive agreement.

    4. Re:Obama! by sycodon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here is what the Feds say

      But it seems to me that an "Executive agreement" as it is defined in that reference is pretty much unconstitutional.

      I think your average reasonable man would say that a Treaty, duly ratified, has the force of law and is applicable to all citizens.

      An Agreement, on the other hand, would have the parties conduct themselves in a certain manner (follows certain protocols or procedures) with respect o the subject matter. but do so within the framework of the law.

      So, while an "Agreement" would have the Feds use the existing U.S. laws to enforce the goals, they would still have to follow the law (i.e. get a court order to shut down a site).

      A Treaty, on the other hand, would have the force of law and presumably not require the government to get a court order.

      That's my guess anyway. But only a fool relies on internet posts for their information eh?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:Obama! by hitmark · · Score: 1

      New guy, same as old guy. I find myself wondering if all of the worlds democracies (leave the debate about the definition of that alone, thanks) have ended up with some combo of regulatory and bureaucratic capture. With that i mean that the staff that is not replaced after a election can slow walk any policy change they do not agree with, and so the de facto policy never changes between elections.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    6. Re:Obama! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      heh. the funny thing is, I see no reference to the executive branch in any way. Quite interesting.

      Just the reference to "Executive agreement", but even that seems to indicate "The senate needs to be involved"

  2. Shut it down by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    shut is all down.

    How about a week long blackout?
    Or a week of backhoe accidents.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Shut it down by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And I'll bet you're great fun at parties.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  3. Signing is only the start of the battle by Elektroschock · · Score: 5, Informative

    Signing does not mean a thing because the European Parliament still has to decide whether to give its consent, and when a single nation asks the European court of Justice, or the Constitutional court then it's dead, because it is against EU Treaties/constitutions. it's not too late to get involved.

    1. Re:Signing is only the start of the battle by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, the START of the battle was two or three years ago. At the most lenient, the start of the battle was at least a YEAR ago, when the fact that ACTA was being worked on in secret (and partly by our president, who promised his would be the most open administration!) was exposed to the public.

      It's great that people are all freaking out about this in the last few days before ACTA is being signed, but WHERE THE FUCK WAS EVERYONE FOR THE LAST 12+ MONTHS?! I'd been bringing ACTA up to people over most of this time and they just returned with dumb blank stares.

    2. Re:Signing is only the start of the battle by Wowsers · · Score: 3, Informative

      You will get blank stares because if you're like the UK, not one word has been mentioned in the press about the ACTA treaty. Even today, you can watch foreign news on protests in a few countries (there's a week long protest going on in Poland who signed the treaty), but despite the UK signing the ACTA treaty - not one word in the British press about it or that there are even protests abroad about ACTA, no mention of how devastating it will be for internet freedom democracy and rule of law.

      No mentions in the press is censorship and just what proponents of ACTA like.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    3. Re:Signing is only the start of the battle by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      How bizarre that large news corporations heavily involved in copyright lobbying wouldn't report about the negative bits of ACTA, huh?

  4. What you can do? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bend over, grab your ankles, and hold your breath.

    This is why those scumbags let SOPA sputter so easily. They knew this was in the pipe. How's that "victory" taste now? Yeah, thought so.

    Until there's actually some tangible consequences to stop them doing so, you'd all (and that goes for everyone in any country) best come to grips with the fact that you exist to be boned in the bottom by your governments.

    1. Re:What you can do? by Microlith · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is why those scumbags let SOPA sputter so easily. They knew this was in the pipe.

      ACTA was signed by the US months ago. They were trying to pile SOPA on top of it.

    2. Re:What you can do? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Bend over, grab your ankles, and hold your breath.

      This is why those scumbags let SOPA sputter so easily. They knew this was in the pipe. How's that "victory" taste now? Yeah, thought so.

      Until there's actually some tangible consequences to stop them doing so, you'd all (and that goes for everyone in any country) best come to grips with the fact that you exist to be boned in the bottom by your governments.

      SOPA and PIPA have been stopped for now because many big corporations with a lot of money were against it in addition to ordinary Internet users. I haven't heard of many big corporations against ACTA.

    3. Re:What you can do? by Jonner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm fairly certain the "signing" was legally meaningless in the US at least. Only the US Senate has the power to approve international treaties. Of course, the fact that US Congress hasn't declared war since WWII hasn't prevented US involvement in countless wars.

    4. Re:What you can do? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Better go look up "executive agreement".

    5. Re:What you can do? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Well naturally, since it's a self serving bit of crap. OTOH, they might not have been sure that all their little minions across the water would do it, so they needed something to attack those ebil overseas websites with.

    6. Re:What you can do? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Bend over, grab your ankles, and hold your breath.

      It's best not to hold your breath; you don't want to be tensed up when they get to work.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    7. Re:What you can do? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Funny

      ACTA was signed by the US months ago. They were trying to pile SOPA on top of it.

      $ rm -f ???A

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  5. White House "Petitions" by oneiros27 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assuming that the White House actually takes the petitions seriously, the current ACTA related petitions are:

    ... and, not ACTA related, but as I'm an ALA member, there's also one that needs another 6k signatures by next week for funding for school libraries. (although, personally, I'd rather it go to regular public libraries, so they have access over the summer)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:White House "Petitions" by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Why would anyone want him to submit it to the Senate? So long as he does not do this, the signature is meaningless. It seems to me that everyone signing that petition is asking for it to be ratified.

    2. Re:White House "Petitions" by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

      I can see your argument, but that assumes we have someone in power who's willing to ignore it because it was improperly done.

      I would assume the rationale would be to force it to be discussed in open, as opposed to these behind the scenes ways in which it might've been approved without ever having seen the light of day if it hadn't been for leaks. We'd be up with the lobbying efforts dumping money into it, but we'd also have a chance to for the citizens to petition congress as was done with SOPA.

      --
      Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    3. Re:White House "Petitions" by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Have the US courts ever enforced a treaty that was not signed by the Senate? That would be like enforcing a law that was not signed or voted upon. I think that would be real armed uprising material there.

    4. Re:White House "Petitions" by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Define "a done deal?" As of now, his signature has no force of law. Obama can sign anything he wants: credit card receipts, autographs, or his underwear. There's nothing magical about his signature unless it is on a piece of legislation approved by the legislature. Maybe he just did it for the lolz.

      What court would uphold something that the senate never voted upon? Who would arrest someone for violating an international treaty that was never ratified? Has that ever happened?

  6. BTW by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

    he signed it a few months ago.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:BTW by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Presidents routinely sign treaties that aren't later ratified by Congress, there is nothing special about what Obama did compared to any of the other dozen treaties that Congress never ratified.

    2. Re:BTW by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I am wondering if it is considered by whatever groups to be binding at that point.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:BTW by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Yea, i think the recent bruhaha about some books and such going out of public domain was a side effect of a treaty signed a couple of decades ago but only recently ratified.

      Hell, the list of non-ratified treaties is a long one i suspect. The sad part is when the rest of the world is expected to behave as if everyone is bound by the treaty while it sits as non-ratified in the US governmental system.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  7. ACTA in the USA by msheekhah · · Score: 2

    Since Obama signed the treaty, is there anything we can do in the US besides bend over?

    --
    Mark Anthony Collins
    1. Re:ACTA in the USA by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 2

      It doesn't official until two thirds of the Senate approves it.

      Encourage your Senators to vote against it.

    2. Re:ACTA in the USA by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      Signing it means nothing if not ratified by congress.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  8. What benefits do these countries get from signing? by chihowa · · Score: 2

    I understand how the US benefits from everyone else signing this treaty, but how is this in the interests of the other countries? Why is everyone else so motivated to sign this?

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  9. Top down; bottom up by sakdoctor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, but it hasn't all been a top down government and corporate conspiracy.
    Normal people (aka the yahoos) have played their role by placing their entire digital lives in highly centralised web-based services, (facebook, twitter, etc). This makes regulation, censorship and monitoring child's play. Even the "blogosphere" was a better model than this.

    Something new? I can tell you there won't be any modern day miracles. A bunch of anti-social intellectuals will increasingly use darknets to communicate, and everyone else will stay in their gilded cages; secure beneath the watchful eyes.

  10. online petitions by blackest_k · · Score: 3, Informative

    https://secure.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet/
    Acta petition to the EU with over 600,000 people signing up and growing fast.

    http://stopsopaireland.com/ Trying to stop Irelands version of sopa being written in to law next week with not even a debate in the house just a junior ministers signature. Recent news suggests there may be a debate since pressure has been building all this week.

    Both petitions need a lot more signatures if they are going to influence the respective politicians.

    --
    Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
  11. Re:What benefits do these countries get from signi by tbird81 · · Score: 2

    To gain the permission to beg for a free trade deal with the US.

  12. Full rundown...not by kiwimate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Michael Geist has a full rundown on what is at stake

    No, he doesn't. He rambles on about how it's controversial and terrible and stinky, but doesn't say why. He says India has raised concerns about how it interacts with TRIPS, but doesn't bother to say what TRIPS is, or even what the acronym stands for. (Neither does the linked article on indiatimes.com.)

    If you don't already know exactly what ACTA is, then it's a waste of time reading it. Nowhere does he say what's at stake. He just says "here's how to contact someone about it, and you should because it's a bad thing (insert jedi hand wave))"

    1. Re:Full rundown...not by jesseck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think part of the problem is no one knows that ACTA is, exactly. My understanding when ACTA came to a year ago was that different versions were released so they could track who leaked ACTA.

  13. Well who'd thunk? by 3seas · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/technology-news/120127/top-eu-official-kader-arif-resigns-protest

  14. Re:What benefits do these countries get from signi by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are pressured by the US (mostly). In Serbia (where I'm from) for example, Biden attempted to force Serbia to allow importing of GMO food, currently forbidden by the Serbian law. Here's a statement made by the American ambassador in Serbia during a speech to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce: (http://serbia.usembassy.gov/g100302.html) (emphasis mine)

    "Our Foreign Agricultural Service, for example, facilitates a U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Assistance Program to assist Serbia in its WTO accession process. This support aims to help Serbia establish a trade regime consistent with the WTO and other international standards-setting. Our Foreign Agricultural Service office is currently assisting the Serbian Ministry of Agriculture to amend the new Law on Genetically Modified Organisms – or GMO’s -- to bring Serbia's GMO regime into WTO compliance and advance Serbia's WTO negotiations."

    They are doing their job -- pushing interests of big corporations, we have to do ours -- defend against it.

  15. Re:What benefits do these countries get from signi by qbast · · Score: 4, Informative

    When in Poland a parliament commission approved resolution asking prime minister to postpone signing ACTA, official from US embassy called demanding explanation why it was voted and who voted for it. Here is translated link from Polish source.

  16. Kill Hollywood. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are the carriage industry refusing to die, and blocking progress. Kill hollywood. fix your problems. and no - 'dont buy their stuff' will not work. they already have enough money to buy lawmakers until the end of century. find another way. best would be to buy lawmakers ourselves. internet/tech companies need to spearhead this shopping spree.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:Kill Hollywood. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I applaud your capitalization progress. Seriously. It is refreshing to communicate using protocols.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:Kill Hollywood. by unity100 · · Score: 2

      there is no such progress. i am capitalizing first words so that some of you, who cant see past the form to look at the content, will not get confused. such mindset is what got us into these messes in the first place. but there is no time to wake you up to that.

      --
      Read radical news here
    3. Re:Kill Hollywood. by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      Hang on, "wake me up to abused protocols?" I think you have difficulty in communicating, again. I'm already awakened to abuse of protocols. I thought you were learning; again, I'm chagrined. There's hope for the future, though. Download "Thrive".

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:Kill Hollywood. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Your "content" is awful

      dont read them then.

      --
      Read radical news here
    5. Re:Kill Hollywood. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Content are singular.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  17. sweden? by WanQiaoYi · · Score: 1

    (notable exclusions include Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, Cyprus and Slovakia) Sweden is not on the list of countries that don't support? Seems strange .. but what do I know, I'm not from Europe

  18. Ignore the law? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    You could just ignore the law and use the Internet to route around this sort of thing. Why follow an unjust law?

    Of course, when a few people are imprisoned for doing so, and the news media tells everyone else about it, people will be frightened back into conformance. That is, of course, how things are supposed to work in the free world, right?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  19. Give Obama a way out by hemo_jr · · Score: 1

    The contention is that since ACTA does not change any laws so it can just be considered an executive agreement and not a treaty. However, the President may have second thoughts on this in light of the poulist anti-SOPA/PIPA movement, the potential for a bribery scandal, and his declarations in favor of Internet freedom.

    If Obama does want to dump ACTA, the best way to do it is to sent it to the Senate for ratification. He can do this by paying attention to a petition to do so:

    http://wh.gov/KxA

    Voluntarily sending ACTA to the Senate for ratification would alienate his Hollywood contributors. In this case he may wait for a law-suit to force the issue, in which case the Supreme Court may need to decide if ACTA needs to be ratified by the Senate.