IFPI: Piracy Bad!!! Government Must Fix Because We Don't Want To Adapt!

UK Gov't Tells MPs They Can't See ACTA Details

from the you-only-represent-the-people dept

Thu, Jan 21st 2010 4:10pm — Mike Masnick

While there have been more and more calls for transparency on ACTA negotiations, it seems that even government officials are being stymied. Some UK Parliament Members have asked for the details and are being told they cannot see the document because mysterious, nameless "others" require it to be kept secret. Of course, if you're an industry lobbyist, it's not hard to see the document. But, if your job is to represent the people? Get in line. You'll see it once it's been signed, sealed and delivered.

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, public interest, secrecy, uk

32 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brendan (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 3:43pm

Completely unacceptable.
How is this even allowed?

I hope the same is not true in Canada. And here I thought the Conservatives were conspiring to screw us on copyright, but this would mean they aren't even SEEING what they're agreeing to.

Completely unacceptable.

This agreement needs to get blown out of existence. Also I wouldn't mind if a few conspirators found themselves as collateral damage.
"Proper application of explosives, etc."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 4:22pm

I should pretend to be an industry lobbyist, see the documents, maybe take some pictures with my phone, and then expose them to the public. Oh wait, can I go to jail for actually representing the general public and not just the top one percent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 4:25pm

Re:
I'm sure that will be a crime once ACTA is passed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl Bode, 21 Jan 2010 @ 4:29pm

I really like to be reasonable about this, but honestly -- how does this path we're on where corporations secretly craft law in complete disconnection from both the public and lawmakers not result -- eventually -- in violent revolution?

I really don't say that to be coy or hyperbolic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean Ness, 21 Jan 2010 @ 4:48pm

Re: Completely unacceptable.
Canada is a member - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 5:02pm

Re:
Why is everyone so worked up over a secret treaty about counterfeiting?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 5:21pm

I think a Counterfeit Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is equal to a Secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. If we publish say a couple hundred different ACTAs and send them to lawmakers everywhere......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brendan (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 5:21pm

Re: Re: Completely unacceptable.
Oh, I am fully aware of that.

I mean I hope that at least _somebody_ in the government is actually reading this piece of shit. Clement or one of his goons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 5:23pm

Re: Re:
Because it covers quite a bit more than just counterfeiting, despite its title.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 5:35pm

"This would harm our ability to protect, promote and secure an outcome in the UK's interest, and the premature release of documents that are not agreed and not fully developed may also have a negative effect on the government's reputation."

That pretty much says it all. They don't want anyone with the ability to oppose it to see the details until it's to late to do anything about it. That and "we're not showing you because you won't like it".

How is this in any way, shape or form acceptable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 5:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Completely unacceptable.
"_somebody_" is, obviously. It just may not be the "_somebody_" you elected, of course...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Corsale (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 5:43pm

Wellll
Where do I start.. First of all, the counterfeiting bit is a misnomer. It's about a gross expansion of power for those that allready have far to much power. Power which is not regulated by the people but by the ones with said power. That has never worked out throughout all the history of mankind.

Second Treaties can be used to tranced laws established by governments and their people LONG after the party that made them is out of power. Meaning regardless of public sentiment our "international obligations" come first.

Third ACTA is far more reaching than even an expansion of Copyright, it's an expansion of TRIPS. TRIPS is a way of pushing our hopelessly broken patent system on the planet Earth. Many companies have withdrawn from entire markets in which they were just entering, because once TRIPS was signed they found themselves in violation of imagination patents on concepts and methods that were broadly used throughout a given industry. Liability is the anti-innovation. Small Database vendors and Chip makers are particularly susceptible to infringement given the thickets in those two sectors. You wont see many if any new players in those markets for sometime to come.

... Do you see why were all so worked up?? Take something that doesn't help anyone other than the already powerful, and kick it up a notch (Please don't sue me) and you get a global cooling of free markets. This is baaaaaad for small business and startups. Big players have pounded down companies in the US with patents, not because they win in court, but because they win in bankrupting the little guy with litigation fees. Which are now in the tens of millions of dollars to defend yourself against "one click checkout" inventions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rasmus, 21 Jan 2010 @ 6:27pm

Re:
I like that. It has a lot of similarities to a method described by the author Stanislaw Lem (mostly known for writing Solaris) in his book Memoirs Found In a Bathtub.

Basically if you make 200 different versions of a document no-one can tell which one of the documents that is the real one. Or even if any of them is real, or maybe all of them is real.

Eventually one must choose between disregarding all of them or to assume all of them is real and react to everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 7:35pm

Re: Re:
If the government has nothing to hide then why are they hiding something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob V (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 7:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
Can we use the if they aren't doing anything wrong they should have nothing to hide ploy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Taylor, 21 Jan 2010 @ 8:00pm

Who are these people?
Does anyone who the people doing the actual negotiations are?

Anyone in govt who feels the need to negotiate treaties that are kept secret from the people who will suffer the consequences should be sacked.

I think we should know who these individuals are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dementia (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 8:17pm

Re: Who are these people?
That would be the US Trade Representative. Can't remember his name offhand, but Mike has mentioned it several times. More to the point, Obama is aware of this, but has done nothing to bring about the transparencies he promised during his campaign. So tell me, where should the buck stop?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 9:14pm

Re: Re:
Read the UKs Digital Economy Bill it almost the same thing as ACTA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 9:32pm

Re:
"How is this in any way, shape or form acceptable?"

Its not in any way, shape, or form acceptable. What it is how ever is simply a way of maintaining control. All the information middle men are going to die off because of the internet. That includes Newspapers, broadcast news, and Cable news channels. Imagine you got into power using the current way of doing things. You pay for access to broadcast your message. You are now up against an obama style internet campaign that is grass roots and not bought and paid for by corporations. People are watching the news on TV less and news and information is finding them sent by friends and family. You lose your billion dollar run for president because os one guy with an internet connection ...

That is what ACTA is about, maintaining existing corporations because free communications scares alot of people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 9:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could it be possible that we shouldn't be supporting the 'music industry' or the 'movie industry'? Vote with your feet and stop consuming the content which is paying for the restriction of your liberty.

If your elected representatives aren't behind the wheel (and you don't like what's happening), stop supporting the people who are. I know I'll be a happier person not seeing Avatar than seeing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2010 @ 10:41pm

Re: Re:
But the supreme court ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want on campaigns. Yet the limitations to individuals still remain if I understand this correctly? Since when do corporations have more rights than individuals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 11:51pm

somebody
get this thing on wiki leaks before it is signed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doge (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 12:01am

The UK Digital Bill
If it is of any comfort my politician assured me that due to the impending election in UK, non of the current bills going through are likely to become law in this parliament. And the Digital Bill will have to be reconsidered by the next elected government... let's see of they behave any differently. Hope so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Idobek (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 3:21am

The UK has no say in ACTA
"The European Commission, also involved in negotiations"

If the EC is involved then no EU country has any real negotiating power; the EC is all.

David Lammy knows this but doesn't want Parliament to realise it, especially with an election coming up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 5:02am

Re: The UK has no say in ACTA
Correction, all the countries involved in the EU have a 'say'; just not the legislators.

This is a problem.

Can we not just find the negotiator and leak their location to Al Qa'ida? It would save us a lot of effort fighting ACTA in the courts and parliaments. :p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uhuh, 22 Jan 2010 @ 5:08am

capitalism and couterfeiting go hand in hand
levis overprices its jeans
someone goes i can make a reasonable pair cheaper BUT where they go wrong is they place a levi symbol same as the originator

if this is all thats wrong , i have a solution thats far better for society.

A) expose very public this counterfeiter
B) show the quality of both items if same ALLOW the counterfeiter to continue as long as they remove symbols

as to music and movies and such htink about this
as i said before a counterfeit cdr you wont be able to tel leasily it is really a fake

while lil johnny makes a music cdr and a custom label its pretty easy to tell

the latter become illegal under acta EVEN with our cdr levy
and when the CRIA is commerically infringing on 300000 artists it really starts to piss people off.

ALSO the types a people create the truer fakes are nto lil johnny's and they dont give two shits about all the laws you make, THEY WILL KEEP DOING IT CAUSE 30$ MUSIC CDRS as i saw at futureshop in 2005 WILL CREATE A MARKET FOR THEM
go back and read about the levis example.

all this does in fact is put the entire piracy thing into counterfeit hands and real criminals and of the conservatives really do care for kids they'd not be handing there cultural habits to the real gangsters.

no one can debunk this i've seen it and lived it.

if your a reporter go find out about the plastics recycling plant in Pickering ontario that was to be melting down 75000 pirated cdrs/dvdrs a month and didn't , just turned round and resold them in stores EVERYWHERE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 5:22am

Re: Re: Who are these people?
"Can't remember his name"

Jar Jar Binks

Der be some bombad clankens comin' dis way!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jjmsan (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 7:40am

Corporations
I am so happy we are recognizing that corporations should be treated as people with free speach rights and everything. I have just one question.Does this mean bankruptcy is now the same as murder?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kirillian (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's ok to use this reasoning with the government as opposed to individuals since the government is actually, supposedly, accountable to individual citizens. That's a very interesting problem however.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 3:49pm

Re: Corporations
And if a corporation is a person then would a corporation owning another corporation be a form of slavery?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re: Re:
Since they paid for the privilege.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2010 @ 11:35am

Re: Re: Re:
Individuals can (and have been able to) spend as much as they want supporting a political candidate; they just can't give more than a certain amount of money directly to a political candidate

I think corporations still cannot give *ANY* money directly to a candidate, until the SCOTUS strikes that law down too, anyway). Of course, they can just spend millions buying ads so the candidate can spend their other money on other things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]