Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts United States Politics Your Rights Online

ACTA Draft To Be Made Public Next Week 95

Posted by timothy
from the why-not-keep-it-secret-forever? dept.
Spitfirem1 writes with this snippet from ZDNet: "Negotiators will on Wednesday publish the first officially released draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a new treaty designed to harmonize copyright enforcement around the world. The decision to release the consolidated draft on 21 April was made at the eighth round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations, which took place this week in Wellington, New Zealand. So far, the only publicly available information on the negotiating countries' proposals and amendments have been leaked documents purporting to be drafts of the agreement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACTA Draft To Be Made Public Next Week

Comments Filter:
  • by biryokumaru (822262) <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:22PM (#31880112)
    You can bet the US wasn't behind this decision.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:43PM (#31880216)

      Why fear terrorists, when government and industry working together do the most damage to our freedoms and liberties?

      • by BlueStrat (756137) on Saturday April 17, 2010 @12:16AM (#31880330)

        Why fear terrorists, when government and industry working together do the most damage to our freedoms and liberties?

        Why? The same reason why one can simultaneously fear any two (or more) threats which may or may not present equal levels of peril. One can reasonably fear a wasp sting and a gunshot wound at the same time, as long as one does not assign equal responses to unequal dangers. You wouldn't just put some OTC burn/sting ointment on a gunshot wound (well, maybe if you're Chuck Norris!), and you wouldn't call in a trauma team for a wasp sting (unless there's some life-threatening allergic reaction, the wasp used an assault rifle, etc).

        Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans. At this point I'm starting to believe our own government is more of an immediate threat to at least our way of life and our freedoms & liberties, if not our lives, than the threat of terrorism or other foreign threat.

        Strat

        • The terrorism threat is created by our Goverment's actions in the first place. So I guess the wasp is shooting us, or something.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 0123456 (636235)

          I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans.

          Lives, perhaps, but exactly what threat does bin Laden pose to Americans' liberties and freedoms? Is he going to run for President in 2012?

          All the post-9/11 impositions on American freedoms have come from the US government, not some crazy guy in a cave in Afghanistan. And most of them are things the government have wanted to do for years but had no excuse to impose before that point.

          • by mcvos (645701)

            Lives, perhaps, but exactly what threat does bin Laden pose to Americans' liberties and freedoms? Is he going to run for President in 2012?

            All the post-9/11 impositions on American freedoms have come from the US government, not some crazy guy in a cave in Afghanistan. And most of them are things the government have wanted to do for years but had no excuse to impose before that point.

            But it as all happened because of that guy in Afghanistan. He's a threat by giving our governments an excuse to limit our freedom.

            Of course he was originally trained and funded by the US government, so terrorism is really just a tool that governments use to take away our freedom.

        • Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above

          How many American lives has terrorism claimed over the last decade? And how many American lives has "our" government ruined in that time? (Including being thrown in jail for consuming a certain kind of plant, or facing crippling fines for sharing music.) Not to mention the insane amounts of time and money wasted by the security theater at our airports, illegal wiretaps, no-fly lists...

          The threat levels aren't even close.

        • by Rogerborg (306625) on Saturday April 17, 2010 @07:56AM (#31880562) Homepage

          Terrorism has been proven a threat

          The death toll from 9/11 was under 3000 [wikipedia.org]. 1500 Americans die from anaphylactic shock every year [wikipedia.org].

          Seriously, without a hint of hyperbole, we - and Congress and the White House - should be more concerned about the threat from wasps than terrorists.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jo42 (227475)

            And over 400,000 die every year from consuming Tobacco products. So which is the greater evil? The Terrorist or The Tobacco industry?

          • by Neoprofin (871029)
            As many people die each year from Auto-erotic Asphyxiation as Parkinson's Disease.

            Wait, what's the point?
          • by lightversusdark (922292) on Saturday April 17, 2010 @02:07PM (#31882686) Journal

            On September 11, 2001, nearly 3000 people in the US were killed by:
            Heart disease.
            On September 12, 2001, nearly 3000 people in the US were killed by:
            Heart disease.
            On September 13, 2001, nearly 3000 people in the US were killed by:
            Heart disease.

            Repeat ad nauseam.

            Watch out for that communist healthcare investment talk coming out of your government..
            You could be spending that money on defence, or Israel, or civilian communication monitoring infrastructure, or any number of other things for the greater good of your society.

            Comparing the cost of the War on Terror (or Drugs or whatever) to government investment in researching heart disease treatments over the last decade is left as an exercise for the reader.

            • by EdIII (1114411) *

              Watch out for that communist healthcare investment talk coming out of your government..

              Geeeez, it's not Communism for fuck's sake. That argument is straight out the 50's. I would much rather health care be socialist, which is where it is going. The capitalist idea of how to do it right now certainly is NOT working. I even find it in accordance with our ideals as Americans. We really are a hospitable people.

              Taxes bad..... No. Taxation without representation is bad. Right now, I don't feel represented

            • by ekhben (628371)

              The causes of heart disease aren't really so mysterious these days. If anyone's reading along, and doesn't know, smoking, poor diet, hypertension, and low exercise are the four worst contributors, but it's basically lifestyle. The solution is to change your lifestyle. Ounce of prevention, etc.

              (I do not recommend anyone give up smoking, though. Doing so increases your chances of dying of old age. Sounds terrible!)

              Given the choice, I'd take research into more effective treatments for heart disease ov

          • Question: Who of you even remembers, that a week after 9/11, about 15,000 people died in a massive landslide caused by heavy rain? (Don’t dare to say that they are worth less.)
            And who knows how many Americans were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Now tell me how many it were, also counting non-Americans. (Ditto.)

            Nope, that does not make the terrorist attacks good. But it puts priorities in perspective.
            When you consider what caused those attacks in the first place (religious fundamentalism i

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            While this is true, do note that the destruction (perhaps think in terms of $) also caused by 9/11 was considerable, and that additional casualties may have been incurred via illness caused from toxins or toxic debris, not to mention overall disruption and panic.

            Not that I'm supporting the US government's subsequent (increased) trampling of rights.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mcvos (645701)

          Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans.

          The main way in which terrorism has proven to be a threat, is through excessive government control over people's lives. The number of deaths caused by terrorism is negligible compared to deaths by traffic, disease, crime or whatever. The terrorists' biggest victory is getting our governments to take away our liberties.

        • CHUCK NORRIS?!? Chuck Norris wouldn't need burn/sting ointment for a gunshot wound! All guns pointed at Chuck Norris backfire killing the user for fear of retribution by Chuck! Turn in your Geek Card.
          • by chromas (1085949)
            Sometimes, he accepts bullets into his skin just to show how cool and/or totally awesome he is. Then he'll either fire it back out the wound or suck it into his stomach to use as sustenance.

            I saw it.
        • The same reason why one can simultaneously fear any two (or more) threats...

          Research suggests the brain has a 2 threat limit..

      • by Taco Cowboy (5327)

        Why fear terrorists, when government and industry working together do the most damage to our freedoms and liberties?

        There are times I suspect the government actually paying the terrorists to be terrorists.

        I mean, without the terrorists it's pretty freaking hard to take away people's right in a democracy like America.

        With the so-called "threat of terrorism" they can do almost whatever they want - tap your phone withou warrant, read your email without warrant, search your house without warrant, lock you up without any valid reason, etc - and we the People mostly comply because they (the gomen) actually makes us feel MORE s

        • There are times I suspect the government actually paying the terrorists to be terrorists.

          What? You mean like illegally smuggling cocaine and weapons [williambowles.info] to steer the outcome [fas.org] of US elections?

        • by EdIII (1114411) *

          With the so-called "threat of terrorism" they can do almost whatever they want - tap your phone withou warrant, read your email without warrant, search your house without warrant, lock you up without any valid reason, etc - and we the People mostly comply because they (the gomen) actually makes us feel MORE secure the more they violate our rights.

          That is NOTHING compared to the "threat of lost profits".

          EVERYTHING you mentioned will be used to defend copyrights eventually unless the People really start to ge

      • Your question makes no sense. When I look up “my government” or “multinational corporations” in my dictionary, in redirects me to “terrorist”.

    • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:52PM (#31880248)

      You can bet the US wasn't behind this decision.

      You can bet that the lobbyists within the US weren't behind this decision.

      There, think that's more on the point now. I wouldn't at all be surprised if some members of the US party in these negotiations isn't secretly crying out "Booyah!" while putting on their "Oh dear, I'm sorry that happened..." face to the lobbyists who give them money.

      • There, think that's more on the point now. I wouldn't at all be surprised if some members of the US party in these negotiations isn't secretly crying out "Booyah!" while putting on their "Oh dear, I'm sorry that happened..." face to the lobbyists who give them money.

        I'm not so sure, considering most of the leaks appear to have come from the EU. If there were a will to be open about the treaty, I think we would have seen at least a leak from the US legation.
        Not seing leaks probably means that either there's

  • Spoiler (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aurisor (932566) on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:23PM (#31880114) Homepage

    Spoiler: you're not going to like any of it. At all.

    • Re:Spoiler (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:30PM (#31880156)

      thanks, way to ruin it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Fred_A (10934)

      Spoiler: you're not going to like any of it. At all.

      That's assuming they release the real thing...

      I wouldn't be too surprised if they released a decoy. Last time there were such talks, they were killed when they came under the public eye. So a bland document would be a good way to defuse the situation.

      Of course that's assuming anybody cares about it nowadays which might be a bit optimistic of me.

      • by prefec2 (875483)

        Well they can do it. but before the treaty is worth anything it has to go to many different parliaments. For example the EU-parliament. And when they get the document for reading and it is a different one that was released, then they will say NO (again). They'll do it they said NO to SWIFT, which made many governments in Europe very angry, but they are only the executive. So the treaty is gone. And I assume that the same thing would happen to ACTA. They already said that they will say no on the basis which

        • Your parliament reads the bills before it? How do they fit in time for parties and junkets and campaigning?

          • by prefec2 (875483)

            We have many different national parliaments which dance the lobbyist dance. The EU-parliament was a powerless people distractor which was used to dump used politicians and to play democracy without affecting anything. Recently, the governments in the EU decided that they need a new treaty and accidentally they gave the parliament some power. They are allowed to say NO to transnational policies in the EU and between the EU and other states. And now you have a horde of angry politicians which have been left o

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by prefec2 (875483)

      Maybe I like the cover color and finish?

  • Who wants to bet that the draft was forged?
  • by timmarhy (659436) on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:28PM (#31880142)
    all this kind of shit does is insight people to subvert the system even more. people generally have a sense of whats fair, and when you present someone with a $250,000 fine for downloading some piece of crap song, they don't tend to see fair in the equation.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Incite." You incite people to subversion. You gain insight when you learn.

    • As someone once said: Laws are meaningless. Good people know what’s wrong and right themselves. And bad people don’t care about them anyway.

      But of course “good” and “bad” is entirely defined by how much you profit from them (or how much they hurt you). So it’s a completely egocentric concept, and must be applied relative to someone.

      The problem is, that views always differ on something for a big set of people. And why you will never ever get people to want the same o

  • Five Days (Score:5, Funny)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:36PM (#31880182)

    That's only five days. How are we supposed to have enough torches and pitchforks before then?

  • Hm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rehnberg (1618505) on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:57PM (#31880264)
    So, I filed a FOIA request for the text of the treaty yesterday (figured it couldn't hurt and could possibly help move the process along if one more person filed one...), and now the government says it will release the treaty... I find this suspicious...
  • Treaty? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tpstigers (1075021) on Friday April 16, 2010 @11:59PM (#31880276)
    Really? I can't help but laugh. Treaties are diplomatic tools we use to end wars. Or avoid then.
    • Treaties are diplomatic tools we use to end wars.

      Treaties usually start wars. Non-aggression pacts, especially. Even more so secretive ones.

      ACTA is a product of governments of the people, by the people, for people, who have managed to create something, of the special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests.

      Or fuck knows . . . the treaty is being published after it's been ratified.

      Um, like, what happened to political debate?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by BlueStrat (756137)

        Or fuck knows . . . the treaty is being published after it's been ratified.

        Um, like, what happened to political debate?

        AFAIK the treaty still needs to be ratified by Congress before becoming enforceable.

        Strat

    • by SteveFoerster (136027) <steve AT hiresteve DOT com> on Saturday April 17, 2010 @12:26AM (#31880376) Homepage

      Treaties are diplomatic tools we use to end wars. Or avoid then.

      The abuse of treaties as an excuse for governments to enact unpopular policy changes is common enough to have a name: policy laundering [wikipedia.org].

    • by rtb61 (674572)

      Well the drug prohibition treaty did the exact opposite. Thanks to the US war was declared by countries upon their own citizens all over the world, turning hundreds of millions into prisoners and throwing away billions of dollars, apparently all to enrich a few US corporations.

      Looks like they are at it again. Another treaty designed to get countries to declare war upon it's own citizens, imprison them and waste billions of dollars yet again to enrich a few US corporations. When will people wake up, socie

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Since this treaty will hold ISPs liable for alleged copyright infringement of pass-through content by its users, we can expect new levels of monitoring and three-strikes you're out.

    This won't stop copyright infringement (as its currently defined), but it may slow it down a bit - for a while. And at the price of turning content carriers into the internet police. The results will be pretty chilling for the average joe, and I wonder what this will mean for media sites like YouTube, whose parent company is ro

    • by tepples (727027)

      Since this treaty will hold ISPs liable for alleged copyright infringement of pass-through content by its users, we can expect new levels of monitoring and three-strikes you're out.

      The DMCA, 17 USC 512, already has a clause requiring service providers to take action against repeat-infringing subscribers. You act like the language of ACTA will be any broader.

  • Its being made public legally
  • IIRC, the USA only wanted to drop their veto if the other countries agreed to some draconian "improvements" to ACTA, first. Did that happen?

    • by prefec2 (875483)

      The US wants something thing, does not work. The treaty has to be accepted by the people (e.g. the parliaments) and for example the EU-parliament wanted to see the documents. They wanted even to have a seat at the table. And when the EU-parliament says no to the treaty. Then there is no treaty at least in Europe. Its actually nice here too. We have general health care ;-). So when the US wants to shoot themselves in the foot. They can do it, but I won't let them shoot in my foot too. At least that's what th

      • by RichiH (749257)

        Well, New Zealand wanted to open ACTA negotiations for a lot longer, but one of the conditions of the ACTA negogiations is that _everyone_ needs to agree if they want to open up anything.
        Which is what the US tried to strong-arm everyone else with.

        So the question still stands: Did they succeed?

  • I'm one of these types who actually lays out money for media (well mostly), but I like the "try before buy" capability the Internet gives me. In my home country this doesn't make me a criminal, but it seems the U.S. government is bound and determined to make me one. I'll bet there will be an extradition clause this sucker.

    In the U.S., you can do more time for downloading a movie than stealing a car. But I think I'm going to download even more now. Things like ACTA... Sooner or later all our freedoms are

  • This won't matter... UNLESS we spread the word. We can't count on the mainstream media (owned by the **AA) to give people real information about this. We need to spread the word. If you're too lazy, at the very least just tell it to a few people. Print off the ACTA document, circle important parts, hand them out. Do your part. This doesn't just apply to Americans.

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Working...