US Negotiators Cave On Internet Provisions To ACTA 80
Hugh Pickens writes "Ars Technica reports that with the release of the 'near-final' ACTA text (PDF), it is becoming clear that the US has caved on the most egregious provisions from earlier drafts (advocating 'three strikes' regimes, ordering ISPs to develop anti-piracy plans, promoting tough DRM anticircumvention language, setting up a 'takedown' notification system, ordering 'secondary liability' for device makers) and has largely failed in its attempts to push the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) onto the rest of the world. Apparently, a face-saving agreement is better than no agreement at all — but even the neutered ACTA could run into problems, with Mexico's Senate recently approving a nonbinding resolution asking for the country to suspend participation in ACTA, while key members of the European Parliament have also expressed skepticism about the deal."
Re:This is no surprise. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is no surprise. (Score:3, Informative)
The US was the one pushing all those things (and Japan)Them caving means they agreed to remove all those silly provisions due to pressure from other countries (EU, Canada, Mexico, etc.)
Heh, why bother with ACTA when.. (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/09/30/democrats_shelve_net_neutrality_plan/
Democrats shelve net neutrality plans: the internet is going to be a very slanted service if Net neutrality legislation doesn't go through..
You won't need ACTA to regulate things.
Follow us to Mordor... (Score:4, Informative)
Lord of the Rings online has DOUBLED its revenue since becoming free to play online. You can then pay a-la-carte for upgrades, etc. but you can still play for free if you like.
An interesting business model that may be the the one model to rule them all...
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/10/07/lord-of-the-rings-online-doubles-revenue-since-going-free-to-pla/ [joystiq.com]
Re:still need to kill it (Score:3, Informative)
The same reasons that the text of Bills in Congress is often kept closely guarded for months or years until the Bill is formally introduced:
1) Politicians don't want to tout a bill that lowers taxes and saves puppies only to have the puppy provision removed before the Bill reaches a committee. At least if the committee removes it he has someone else to blame.
2) Politicians also don't want to deal with the blowback for unpopular pieces of a bill until they know it actually has to be in there.
This thing is taking years to draft and refine, why would anyone want to be blamed for text that may never make the final version?
Keep in mind that my answer to your question still supports the notion that politicians suck. I do not mean to say their secrecy is justified, merely that there is a reason for it.
Much of these same principles apply to treaties. Either way, at least in the US, the Senate has to ratify any treaty (by two thirds no less) that the President signs. It's not like this could easily be snuck in overnight.
Re:Democracy is already dead. (Score:3, Informative)
It's only the US which has this peculiar "republic not a democracy" interpretaton. In the rest of the world, we've long been using the word "democracy" to mean any political system where people vote in free and fair elections, clarifying it as needed - i.e. US is a representative democracy, Greek city-states were direct democracies, etc.