Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Government United States Politics

Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency 164

An anonymous reader writes "Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, the secret copyright treaty, many countries have taken public positions that they support release of the actual text, but that other countries do not. Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners, the text simply can't be released until everyone is in agreement. A new leak from the Netherlands fingers who the chief opponents of transparency are: the United States, South Korea, Singapore, and Denmark lead the way, with Belgium, Germany, and Portugal not far behind as problem countries."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency

Comments Filter:
  • Re:apt quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dch24 ( 904899 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @04:53PM (#31277478) Journal
    "Don't bother to actually read what Michael Geist wrote, just post inflammatory headline" - Typical Slashdot Editor.

    I know, I must be new here... Here's an important block of text. Read this []:

    Outside of the Europe, the memo identifies three problem countries. While Japan is apparently supportive, both South Korea and Singapore oppose ACTA transparency. Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.

    The U.S. Representatives may be against transparency, but they aren't stupid enough to say so.

    Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>

  • Re:apt quote (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zach_the_lizard ( 1317619 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:16PM (#31277766)

    Get slaughtered by the US military for inciting rebellion?

    The last major rebellion by the southern half of the US ended with control firmly established and more governmental power in place, so I'll add that to what would happen in any hypothetical rebellion. You know, we gotta keep them turr'rists down.

  • Re:apt quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:36PM (#31278060)
    As a current US Army reserve soldier let me tell you:

    An American Revolution is most definitely possible in modern society for two reasons:

    The US Army is not supposed to put down armed uprisings unless it is on a massive scale, you only have to fight the police at first.

    By the time it gets big enough they start calling up the Nat'l guard and what have you, you'll have as many soldiers defecting to revolt.

    It's even more possible now with a lot of our top end equipment and soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan.

    As for the technological gap between the Army and the civilian population, well the Iraqis don't have drone fighters and are still doing a decent job of killing soldiers.
  • Re:apt quote (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:39PM (#31278108)

    In the EU Article 15 TFUE applies which gets citizens access to these documents. So the only legal grounds is protection of interests of nations outside of the European Union.

  • Re:apt quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KeensMustard ( 655606 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @10:58PM (#31280978)

    No one because all you armchair freedom fighters are too much of pussies to actually do anything besides posturing on the internet.

    The reason for the widespread compliance within the population is not because they are all wimps. Revolution is like amputation. You only amputate your leg if you really have to. If wounded in the leg, and given the choice to do nothing, or amputate it, most people will adopt a wait and see approach - it's not that bad just yet.

    Whereas real healing lies in the utilisation of other, finer instruments - the scalpel, the antibiotic, the anaesthetic. In the context of government it is by wielding the fine instrument that you overpower the powerful in their entrenched power bases. These fine instruments are things like:

    1. Witholding your capital from corporations who act counter to the interests of the community
    2. Witholding your labour from corporations who act counter to the interests of the community
    3. Raising awareness of the issue in the community
    4. Lobbying those who can be influenced
    5. Replacing those who can't with someone else.

    These are a hard slog. And lot's of people like to complain, but are too lazy to do their duty, to step up to the table and fix what is wrong. So the solution is to call for revolution. Blowing the dog whistle of revolution justifies doing nothing - after all, they did their civic duty by blowing the whistle, who would ask more of them? The revolutionary whistle is like a relief valve - there's a problem, hearts and minds are stirred - pressure builds up - someone calls for revolution - no we can't do that, it's not justified - the relief valve opens and the pressure is gone. People go home to bed, and in the morning, pay their due to their masters.

    Ironically, the US love of guns and the kneejerk tendency to suggest violence as the solution to issues of governance means that of all the democracies in the world, the US population is amongst the most compliant of all populations toward their government.

  • by steelfood ( 895457 ) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @11:59PM (#31281344)

    While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less. When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.

    That's BS. Corporations are non-entities. They are faux-persons. They don't have or deserve inalienable rights because they're not created by a Creator, but by people. I know this levels the playing field by allowing corporations to play on the same level as special interest groups and trade unions, but I think this is leveling the playing field the wrong way. It is a step backwards, not a step forwards. We should be restricting the abilities of the collective while encouraging individualism, not the other way around.

    I quote from, ironically enough considering the media company bashing theme of these comments, MIB:

    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.

    Corporations, unions, special interests, lobbies, their power over our government should be limited. Meanwhile, power should return to the individual. I don't know how this will come to be, or what form it will finally take, but the freedom that the internet provides and represents is probably a good first baby step into bring the government into line with the wishes of the people.

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982