Remember How ACTA Wasn't Supposed To Be A 'Major' Change To Copyright Laws?

from the yeah...-not-so-much dept

Wed, Apr 15th 2009 7:21am — Mike Masnick

One of the excuses given by the various trade representatives negotiating the ACTA treaty for the fact that they were keeping it quite secret, was that it wouldn't represent any significant change to copyright laws, and thus it was no big deal. Yet, the various drafts of the proposed treaty have suggested otherwise. TorrentFreak examines one of the latest leaked drafts and notes that it would require agreeing nations to change copyright laws concerning damages, pushing judges to consider every unauthorized file to be considered as a lost sale for the calculation of damages. This is a key point that plenty of folks have made clear over the years: assuming that every shared file would have been a lost sale is absolutely false. Putting that into the law and suggesting judges use that false concept as a basis for calculating damages is quite troubling. In the meantime, we're still trying to figure out why ACTA is even necessary? And... on top of that, no one has yet explained why industry lobbyists have been integral to the negotiations, but the public and public interest groups are being blocked from any information based on bogus national security claims.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: acta, copyright, damages, transparency

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish, 15 Apr 2009 @ 7:28am

"we're still trying to figure out why ACTA is even necessary?"

Because the copyright industry wants draconian laws in place but the legislatures of the world are hesitant to pass them in fear of pissing off their constituents. So this back-door approach compels the laws to be passed and lets the legislators off the hook because they can say that they "have to enact the laws to be in compliance with the treaty. It's completely out of our hands."

"And... on top of that, no one has yet explained why industry lobbyists have been integral to the negotiations, but the public and public interest groups are being blocked from any information based on bogus national security claims."

This one is even easier. Because the copyright industries do not want the public and public interest groups getting in the way. God, how hard was that?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheStuipdOne, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  You know ... if this treaty goes into effect in the US then 100% of the blame rests on the US Senate. Sure negotiations take place. The president will sign off on it because he's shown himself to have very close ties with the RIAA. But then the senate has to approve it ... and they don't have to. So flood your senator's mailboxes with requests to vote against ACTA
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ima Fish, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    "if this treaty goes into effect in the US then 100% of the blame rests on the US Senate."
    
    Sure, you could blame the Senate. But your incorrect assumption is that the system is fair and works for us. Or to put it another way, that the Senate looks out for our bests interests and that it really does have a choice in this matter. It's doesn't and doesn't. The copyright industry wants these laws and will get these laws. The Senate is just a cog in the wheel.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TheStuipdOne, 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      but they still carry the blame
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but they still carry the blame
        
        They'll still be reelected. Blame the American people for that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 4:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So flood your senator's mailboxes with requests to vote against ACTA
    
    You better include lots of cash with those requests if you want your senator to give a rat's behind about what you think.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
yogi, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:05am

Democracy?
Is the U.S. even a democracy anymore? Why pretend?

I suggest the next election be conducted by an open auction: the highest bidder will get to choose the president. The bidding will also include specific laws.

That way everyone will know who paid for what.

This will save a lot of time and money for the candidates and the parties.

It will also be a truly honest election as compared to the BS election system currently in place where millions of idiots vote for president based on looks and marketing ability.

Now that is change I can believe in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Democracy?
  The U.S. was never a democracy. In fact, the founding fathers frowned on it as two wolves and a sheep deciding what was for dinner. The U.S. was founded as a representative republic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - interval, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:34am
    
    Re: Re: Democracy?
    Can the sophistry, you know what yogi meant. And I agree with him, bum the front and just sell the presidency to the highest bidder. I think want to move to Greenland.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tgeigs, 15 Apr 2009 @ 2:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Democracy?
      It's not sophistry, it's factually correct. The American government is a Constitutional Republic, meaning that we elect people that choose for us, not represent us. That's a huge distinction.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jason, 15 Apr 2009 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Democracy?
        Actually we have both. Reps who are only in for 2yrs-a-pop are much more constituent-minded than Sens who sit pretty for 6. It can be legitimately argued that reps rep and Sens sin - I mean choose for us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 4:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Democracy?
      Can the sophistry, you know what yogi meant.
      
      I just thought yogi was confused.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:12am

Get the FTC involved - lies on the web!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yozoo, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:18am

Its the Chaney way
"no one has yet explained why industry lobbyists have been integral to the negotiations, but the public and public interest groups are being blocked from any information based on bogus national security claims."

Reminds me of Chaneys Secret Energy summit where experts like Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling helped shaped American Energy Policy in secret (prior to being convicted of fraud of course), hidden from the undue scrutiny of the meddelsome American People.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: Its the Chaney way
  I remember that summer of '01, where Enron sold California's own nrg back to us. Sitting in mass transit on my way to work at my office on Market St., S.F., listening to the news about rolling blackouts... good times.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Malcontent, 15 Apr 2009 @ 8:52am

the answer is simple
Stop listening to music from the evil companies.
Don't buy it.
Don't support it.
And, for heaven's sake, don't STEAL it.

Let the evil companies crash and burn, wondering what went wrong all the way down...

Don't EVEN get me started on why we should have let the BANKS all crash and burn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hulser, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: the answer is simple
  And, for heaven's sake, don't STEAL it.
  
  If you're going to propose a boycot of the RIAA and the big music companies, you might not want to adopt their incorrect usage of the word "steal".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 15 Apr 2009 @ 5:14pm
    
    Re: Re: the answer is simple
    Hear, hear!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alternatives(), 15 Apr 2009 @ 4:51pm
  
  Re: the answer is simple
  Stop listening to music from the evil companies.
  
  Yup. The RIAA and others of their ilk should have a list of their clients whom they are supposed to represent.
  
  Use that list as the boycott list.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 9:46am

...it wouldn't represent any significant change to copyright laws...

Which nations's copyright laws are you talking about? The "problematic" verbiage replicated in the link largely reflects the law currently in force in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kirillian (profile), 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:32am
  
  Re:
  Actually, it reflects the laws that the 'AAs would LIKE to have in force in the US currently.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eponymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 10:19am

Business as usual, kids.
I'm agreeing with the AC above. Laws aren't put in place to help or protect the people anymore. They are enacted for two reasons, to serve the interests that finance re-election campaigns and to occasionally placate, but never serve, the individuals that listen to the re-election campaigns. That's how we got half of the ridiulously Onerous laws on the books at present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Grizzly, 15 Apr 2009 @ 11:06am
  
  Re: Business as usual, kids.
  If senators pay more attention to the big-money interests than to their constituents, it's because the big money interests actively (even aggressively) keep their points of view in front of the senators. The constituents, meanwhile, sit back and voice their opinions on blogs that the senators never see, but DON'T get politically active themselves. If you don''t like the way your senator has voted or has said he plans to vote, WRITE to him/her. One letter may not change a senator's vote, but a flood of them will.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tgeigs, 15 Apr 2009 @ 2:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Business as usual, kids.
    Agreed. The only thing a Senator needs more than money is votes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 1:28pm

Transparency is the opposite of secret.
Anything negotiated in secret is a major change to change a balance of power.

They can negotiate it all they want, but it doesn't mean citizens will sign on to it.

Transparency, on the other hand, breaks secrets. If it wasn't about a nefarious landgrab of power, it wouldn't be secret!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2009 @ 1:40pm

In a nutshell
The ACTA terminates the normal gov in the ACTA-countries and lets the MAFIAA and copyright interests rule them.

Bad, veeery bad :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]