Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy China Government Politics

Pro-ACTA Site Says 'Get the Facts' 84

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-the-facts-ma'am dept.
Glyn Moody writes "We hear a lot about politicians and countries rejecting ACTA, but not so much from the treaty's supporters. Here's a new site, called 'ACTA Facts,' which invites Europeans to 'get the facts' on how wonderful ACTA really is. Judging by its content, this one will be about as successful as Microsoft's 'Get the Facts' campaign a few years ago, which tried to dissuade people from using GNU/Linux. For example, a new report linked to by the site claims that ACTA could 'boost European output by a total of €50 billion, and create as many as 960,000 new jobs.' Unfortunately, that's based on numerous flawed assumptions, including the idea that countries like China and India are going to rush to join ACTA, when the treaty is actually designed as a weapon against them, as they have already noticed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pro-ACTA Site Says 'Get the Facts'

Comments Filter:
  • Gotta love this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pikoro (844299) <init AT init DOT sh> on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @05:43PM (#40302219) Homepage Journal

    Members of Europe's Parliament have come under considerable pressure to "look the other way" on the fight against counterfeiting and piracy - a global problem that impacts virtually every product category in every sector worldwide.

    If that "considerable pressure" is being brought by the people who live in the EU, then perhaps it's not something they want. Why pass laws that nobody who lives in the EU wants? Doesn't sound like this is in the best interest of the population in Europe...

    • Re:Gotta love this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @05:50PM (#40302311)

      Presumably, from the standpoint of the "Get the Facts" site, the only reason the European public dislikes ACTA is because they don't have, well, the facts.

      Like the way a rape victim's only basis for fighting back is that they don't realize how good the rape will feel if they just accept it.

      • by Taco Cowboy (5327)

        Presumably, from the standpoint of the "Get the Facts" site, the only reason the European public dislikes ACTA is because they don't have, well, the facts.

        Like the way a rape victim's only basis for fighting back is that they don't realize how good the rape will feel if they just accept it.

        In other words ...

        These Pro-Acta people are laying out the "facts" to the EU people, telling them to enjoy the shove, even if they don't need 'em ?

        • Lie back and enjoy it, otherwise it'll be WAY more traumatic for you once the results take effect.

    • by MtHuurne (602934)

      Also note they call "counterfeiting and piracy" a single problem, while those are separate issues. Until we get replicators, clothes manufacturers won't have to worry about piracy of the digital kind (robbery at sea might still be an issue for them). And even for industries that do have to worry about both, the people committing counterfeiting (running an unlicensed DVD factory) and piracy (downloading movies) are two different groups with different motivations and different ways of operating, so lumping th

      • by Shavano (2541114)

        And even for industries that do have to worry about both, the people committing counterfeiting (running an unlicensed DVD factory) and piracy (downloading movies) are two different groups with different motivations and different ways of operating, so lumping them together is not helpful.

        Also not helpful: lumping together the group of people who board and rob ships with those who download movies.

    • My wife worked in one of the auto Big 3's anti-counterfeiting group for awhile. It's a big problem for companies.

      The easiest trick is to just look up part numbers on the internet and figure out if the smarm-meisters are offering legitimate stuff.

      Another problem is the people they contract to in other countries to run their assembly lines often, violating contract, run off extra parts, and frequently with substandard materials at that.

      And, sorry, so what if some demagogue jackass in EU can suggest "The Peop

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @05:45PM (#40302237)

    Okay, I'd like to get the facts about who was involved in the treaty planning, and what they said.

    Oh, I'm sorry. By "facts", they apparently meant their talking points. My mistake - I assumed we were using the normal meanings of words today.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @05:58PM (#40302391)

      Okay, I'd like to get the facts about who was involved in the treaty planning, and what they said.

      Oh, I'm sorry. By "facts", they apparently meant their talking points. My mistake - I assumed we were using the normal meanings of words today.

      Not sure why this was modded "Funny". It points out a very important problem in the consumption of knowledge today.

      Propaganda is masquerading as "fact". Both on this "Get The Facts" website, FOX News [ceasespin.org], and other outlets for malicious marketing.

      How do we fix this problem?

      • by MickLinux (579158)
        Well, I say we sponsor a sitdown protest to display the facts, at which point the police attack to convince us of the facts, and we videotape it to broadcast the facts, and the police youtube their spin of the facts, and then we go home and rationalize our stupid behavior while griping about how stupid everyone else is.

        Which may not help the problem of all our news being spin, but at least it shows that I understand the SLASHDOT spin as well as anybody out there. Today's news was sponsored by the word `sp

      • by Luckyo (1726890)

        We don't. Symbiotic corruption between politicians and propagandist "fact sellers" is simply too strong to fight against with common methods. About the only methods that would work would likely be worse then this disease, so all we can do is threat the symptoms, as they would result in total upheaval of society. This particular problem is simply so deeply rooted in our society now, there's unlikely to be a way to root it out not unlike like metastasized cancer.

      • by MtHuurne (602934)

        I don't think the problem will ever go away: manipulative use of text will not be unlearned and attempting to ban it would cause far more problems than it solves, since it's very hard to be truly objective even if you try to be unbiased (this applies both to people writing texts and to people judging them). Therefore the best way to deal with it is to teach people how to spot spin, framing and other manipulative communication. For example by pointing it out and there are plenty of opportunities for that.

      • by EzInKy (115248)

        I'd start with forbidding links that say that you are going to one place that send you to another. Everyone with half a brain knows FOX spins fact to suit their agenda.

    • I have some bad news for you about the "normal" meanings of words as they are used by politicians, lobbyists, media, and industry today...
  • by Anonymous Coward

    For example, a new report linked to by the site claims that ACTA could 'boost European output by a total of €50 billion, and create as many as 960,000 new jobs.' Unfortunately, that's based on numerous flawed assumptions, including the idea that countries like China and India are going to rush to join ACTA, when the treaty is actually designed as a weapon against them, as they have already noticed."

    As horribly flawed and guestimated as statements on the site may be, it will probably work on vast swaths

    • by poetmatt (793785)

      The IP-> jobs thing has gone hilariously debunked in the way of the "america invents act" in the US - where the claims came from, and yet what happened? Less IP jobs than before, actually.

  • by nzac (1822298) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @06:06PM (#40302477)

    Looks like its 10 years old and written by someone not much older at the time. Should a assume that the content on the page is of similar quality?

    • by Teun (17872)
      They could not find anyone with better skills as they already knew the facts.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @06:12PM (#40302541)

    ACTA was conceived and written in corporate boardrooms, for the benefit of the corporations those boardrooms control. Corporate money solicited politicians to secretly adopt it. Corporate money funded the politicians. Negotiations were done in secret so that the general population couldn't see what underhanded business was going on. Politicians were paid to change national/international laws to allow ACTA. Again, they were selected in boardrooms, funds drawn up from corporate funds and listed as 'investment'. Corporations led negotiations. Corporations put the soft sell into the politicos. They found vulnerabilities in the politicians and offered 'helping hands' in a quid-pro-quo form. In many cases the politicians problems were exacerbated so that the corporations could 'save them' in a more pronounced way. The entire thing was stage managed from beginning to end. When given the light of day and public scrutiny (that's where we are at now), ACTA fails. Its corporate greed writ large. Its draconian and undemocratic. The corporations will yelp and complain about its absence, but their interest is in corporate welfare. When you look at ACTA, repeat the words of Gandalf: "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"

    • by MickLinux (579158)
      Except that doesn't work unless you are the keeper of the secret fire, or the speaker of the house, or something.
  • by future assassin (639396) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @06:14PM (#40302559) Homepage

    Is that the amount they plant to extort from 960,000 people per year?

    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @06:36PM (#40302791) Homepage

      It's the same imaginary numbers on how people would spend billions of their money on IP if only they couldn't get it for free on the Internet. Because everybody would totally spend that money anyway if it wasn't free. Also those 50 billions earned is coming out of someone's pockets, so it'd probably be a million less jobs in all other industries. It's a million jobs, not a net million jobs.

  • the Buisness Software Aliance and other orginizations dedicated to breaking the kneecaps of orphans, their nuns, and all other fine folk without reasonable cause since 1988.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Now we are talking! [whirlpool.net.au]

    (Australians will know exactly what I'm referring to. For those outside Aus, that was a website that was set up by Telstra as a propaganda mouthpiece. Shutdown about three years ago, shortly after Sol Trujillo left.)

  • Anyone got a 'fact' per 'fact' rebuttal?
  • by petteyg359 (1847514) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @06:29PM (#40302725)

    a.k.a. Fuck ACTA

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @06:44PM (#40302865)

    €50 billion won't nearly be enough for those 960000 new lawyers!

  • The whole point of terms like "fact", "neutral" or "fair and balanced", is to hide the inherent bias that every life form in this universe must have.
    And the point of hiding it, is that it is assumed, that if it weren't hidden, the victim would not accept the bullshit it actually is

    You will never ever see a wise man say those things. He knows that he knows nothing, that everything is just nice theories that happened to match observation until now, that everything is relative in physics, and that neither our

  • So, there's a FAQ that has no questions, but some fairly arcane "rumors" or "myths" that they're debunking. And the "why you should support ACTA" links to an impossibly brief pamphlet that pretty much tells you that ACTA only does good things.

    I suspect the site is aimed at people who already support it and want to find legal opinions to justify themselves.

    "It appears that the Agreement per se does not impose any obligation on the Union that is manifestly incompatible with fundamental rights.“

    That's a positively ringing endorsement of ACTA, especially with the "per se" and "manifestly" qualifiers.

    And the Euro notion of "fundamental rights" alwa

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @07:38PM (#40303363)

      Looking at the source code it has references to things like file:///C|/Users/Jeff%20Hardy/Documents/4-websites/CCAPCongress/home/tn_new_o.gif
      Jeffrey Hardy, BASCAP Director - I somehow doubt he's decided to moonlight as a really shitty web designer in aid of the cause.

      I'm really not sure what to think. It's so poorly done I'm almost suspicious it's not actually legitimate.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @08:51PM (#40303959)

    From http://www.actafacts.com/faq.htm , going by point to point in the faq. I'm not copying it here so you'll have to put it side by side ;p

    About the Internet
    - "No requirements" - In other words, open to interpretation by the reader with no policies put into effect to prevent abuse.
    - Same story, open to interpretation and abuse with no set policies against such breaches of freedoms and privacy.
    - ACTA "mentions" privacy according to this entry but does not actually safeguard it, having no policies (yet again) to do this, letting it open to interpretation of the reader.
    - Very clever wording, "seeks not to duplicate" -> However, ACTA seeks to CONTROL and supplant any existing policies regarding governance of the net.
    - Again clever wording without actually mentioning safeguarding the rights and freedoms of anyone, much less the citizens, making no mention of whom it's supposed to protect.

    About access to medicines and patents
    - Good in what way exactly? In who's eyes? While removing counterfeit medicines is a good thing, the current treaty also prevents medicines to be produced without consent of the patent holder, which encourages price fixing and does not actually help the patient at all. The treaty makes this international law and as such only protects business interests of patent holders.
    - Vague wording on a policy governments "may" institute or not.
    - Again, open to interpretation, as governments may appoint customs officials as a 'competent authority' to save money.
    - 'Lawful generics' - IE, patent holder interests, not patient interests.
    - Seeds are not but patents and intellectual property are, under which seeds fall as per the design. While this entry doesn't blatantly lie it does beat around the bush trying to do it.

    About Fundamental Principles, Rights, Data Protection and Freedom
    - ACTA "recognizes" privacy and does not make data retrieval 'mandatory'. So what DOES it do exactly?
    - Open to interpretation yet again, where it does not reference any existing law or policy safeguarding these freedoms, not to mention the loopholes that already exist in current law all over the globe.
    - Again, using words like "recognizes" and "does not require" without giving any guarantees whatsoever to protect said freedoms and privacy.
    - A savings clause that safeguards laws which already permit breaches of privacy and security, or might soon do? Loopholes are abundant.
    - Same as above. "Protective of privacy" - Of whom exactly?
    - Freedom of expression is exactly that, freedom of expression. When phrases, songs and looks are trademarked in such a way that you can get arrested for imitating them anywhere, it kinda limits what 'freedom of expression' actually is, right? This entry is just a blatant lie.
    - Very open to abuse, this one, as it heavily encourages patent and copyright infringement trials which due to "protection" will most likely end up in the plaintiffs (usually corporate) favour, combined with the already mentioned breaches of privacy and basic rights above.

    About Transparency and Governance
    - In other words, it's a corporate effort to sidestep official national and international lawmaking.
    - Clever wording: "Texts of ACTA were made public". ACTA as a whole was never made public and what WAS made public has always been subject to revision immediately afterwards.
    - The question didn't mention changing the agreement but enforcing it. VERY sneaky here.
    - The public is mentioned as an implied secondary party AFTER freedoms and rights were mentioned. Suspicious yet?
    - In other words, if someone makes one penny from anything involving anything infringing, to their knowledge or not, they can be taken to court. The "indirect" wording here is especially worrying.
    - This one is just too funny. "ACTA will not have a website" - What am i reading then? Not to mention the governing body which is mentioned at least once before this, does that not count as an international organization?
    - US does

  • by WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @08:52PM (#40303967)

    For example, a new report linked to by the site claims that ACTA could "boost European output by a total of 50 billion (euro), and create as many as 960,000 new jobs."

    How can you tell when a politician or special interest group is lying?

    When they start talking about all the jobs their new laws will create.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      How can you tell when a politician or special interest group is lying?

      They're moving their lips.

    • How can you tell when a politician or special interest group is lying?

      When their lips are moving.

  • Copyright is incompatible with modern, global civilization and efforts to change this will simply result in corporatism which will eventually collapse. In the mean time, those countries that adopt protectionist, innovation-strangling patent and copyright laws will be trampled by countries like China and India.

    It's time to let the Romantic myth of divine inspiration die and respect freedom of communication. We all build on what came before - copyright hinders us all and the methods being proposed to prop
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Copyright is incompatible with modern, global civilization and efforts to change this will simply result in corporatism which will eventually collapse.

      Not exactly. What copyright is incompatible with is the noncommercial copying of digital data. Without copyright, the movie theater wouldn't have to pay the studio to show the movie. But your making a copy of your friend's DVD of Avatar costs society nothing and costs the studio nothing, and may even cause me to buy another Cameron movie because I saw the one

      • by bky1701 (979071)
        All the lofty ideas of reinforcing fair use in the world are worthless for two reasons:

        1. As long as a media industry exists, any progress will be rolled back;

        2. Nothing exists in a vacuum. If I want to write a book in the Avatar setting and sell it, that is morally right by my standards, yet is still illegal under yours. Since everything is, at some point, based on another thing, it is only a matter of time until that system comes crashing down in apparent ways as well.

        Total abolition is the only
        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          If I want to write a book in the Avatar setting and sell it, that is morally right by my standards, yet is still illegal under yours.

          No, I have to agree with you on that. If you write a book in the Avatar setting that's not Avatar itself, it's a new work and you should be able to copyright it. That's one of the bad things about current copyright law.

  • If legislation and treaties have to be negotiated and drafted in secret, and then an attempt is made to quickly rush it to passage before anyone can really inspect it and debate it, it is inherently undemocratic. Its wrong for democracies to enact laws in such fashion, it is corruption of the political system and a violation of social contract.

    Based on this any legislation pushed in such a fashion should be opposed, always, even if you happen to support the idea behind it. Its the wrong way to do things.

"Bureaucracy is the enemy of innovation." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments

Working...