ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored
from the getting-closer dept
Despite widespread demands from politicians around the globe, combined with promises from the USTR to be more open and transparent (despite unsubstantiated and totally ridiculous claims that countries would leave the negotiations if details were made public) and even entertainment industry lobbyists admitting that the process could be more transparent, ACTA negotiations are continuing in a veil of total secrecy to the public (unless you're a big industry lobbyist -- then it's open). The latest meetings in Mexico were again held in total secrecy, where public concerns were mocked, but appear to have continued to move the negotiations forward with claims coming out that the document is in "final drafting stages."Yes, without any transparency or participation allowed from those who it would impact most: the public.
How is it that any government is willing to participate in such a process? It's a massive travesty. The details that have been revealed suggest that this is a sneaky way to significantly impact copyright laws around the world, greatly in favor of a few industries that have been unwilling to adapt to a changing marketplace. This is protectionism at its worst. At the same time that US politicians are slamming China for its internet restrictions, ACTA seeks to place the same type of limitations on ISPs around the world that the Chinese government places on its ISPs, all done through a secret process with no public input -- even from many elected officials who are greatly concerned about both the content of the agreement as well as the way in which it has been drafted.
That the US government is orchestrating the whole thing at the behest of the MPAA and the RIAA, among others, is a disgusting display of industry influence in government policy. The administration should be massively ashamed of itself for not just participating in such a travesty, but in many ways leading the way and providing cover for the bogus claims of industry representatives and lobbyists that this is a minor trade harmonization issue, rather than a significant change in policy and an attempt to route around existing venues (that are willing to listen to the public and consumer concerns) in order to push through these changes on a widespread level.
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, mexico, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
yeah, the public might lose their ability to "share" other people's IP with impunity. How horrible that would be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "share"
I hope ACTA bites the music/ entertainment industry in the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "share"
Dont worry it will bite them in the ass. In the best possible way, the pocket book. Plus when it becomes public wait for every imaginable group it affects to lobby against it. IMHO in the end it could be the tipping point that breaks the IP maximalist bubble.
It will also lead to more encryption, onion routing, distibuted anon cloud storage, and P2P apps faster and more efficient than TOR. Looking at the rise in encrypted traffic in sweden and south korea after the ACTA like laws were passed there has actually been a rise in file sharing. If you dont worry about getting caught you tend to do it more.
iTunes is a "glam" marketing glitch. Most music sites are now communities that people can buy stuff, its not a RtB, its just convenient for the members. This to shall pass...
Now for the main reason they have already lost. 30 plus years of file sharing, 2 generations, plus all the older people who were techno savy enough. It started with modems and BBS's and now the internet. There arent enough jail cells to hold all of them, and making examples never works it just pisses people off even more. RIAA's lawsuits comes to mind.
I hope this helps in your wish to have ACTA bite them in the Ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "share"
I don't know if it helps, but I feel all tingly just thinking about it.
Sounds like you think it will be as effective as the "war on drugs"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "share"
Looking at Sweden, south korea, france, etc that have implemented parts of what is (see wikileaks) or has been speculated on being in ACTA it has had no effect except to drive up encrypted traffic after the laws were implemented. The UK's digital economy bill with its clause 70% reduction in infringing file sharing in x years is worthless. It will look like infringement is down because they wont be able to see what is infringing content. So I doubt as many people will be kicked off the internet as people believe.
To answer your question "will this be as effective as the war on drugs?" It will be less effective and it will cause better more anonymous software to be developed. If they cant see what you are transfering because its encrypted then monitoring by the ISP's using deep packet inspection is worthless. It just pushes it to a new level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So now on top of the levy, ACTA would also force people to get kicked off of the internet? Are they going to give up the levy? Over $600 million dollars has been handed over to the CRIA by the Canadian public.
How horrible would that be!
Who's going to pay for the expense of kicking people off of the interent? You? The Canadian ISPs? The Canadian taxpayers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those are "mights" because we don't know what's in it.
Democracy depends upon transparency. The free market depends on transparency. I would even argue that an effective IP system depends on transparency, but even if it doesn't, arguing that IP rights matter more than democracy and the market seems to be an untenable position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey, our very own local fascist cheerleader pipes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look...
I know you don't take the same view of our govt. that I do, I know you don't see the same extremes in the dangers and you temper your language to appeal to a greater audience....but why not just call a duck a duck. This is the very definition of fascism, as defined by the man who coined the term.
The time for pulling punches is over. First comes the harsh language, then comes the harsh but peaceful disobedience....after that....well....it might finally be getting close to the time when marching on our state governments and then on to Washington is at hand....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look...
The Pirate march against Fascism will go to history. One man in the European Parliament already. But we need people everywhere. So its time to join. Form a local Pirate Party with some friends. And remember the Pirate rule: 3 members that agree on a party activity is entitled to act in the Pirate Party name without asking anyones permission.
Check out http://www.pp-international.net/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, I do agree that the government(s) need to negotiate international treaties in private, and bring those treaties forward once signed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Er....why? It's a trade agreement. If they're going to be bringing to the public when it's signed anyway, where exactly is the Nat'l Security?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Free and frank discussions only can happen in private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean they might be representing a position that is against their citizens wishes? And that should be hidden? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There may be some truth to that, but two questions, one of which I already asked and you decided not to comment:
1. (Repeat) If this is a trade agreement, and they are going to release the details once finalized....WHERE THE HELL IS THE NAT'L SECURITY ISSUE?
2. If the only way you can have a frank and free discussion is without the scrutiny of the very people you represent, then maybe you shouldn't be IN FUCKING PUBLIC OFFICE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think when every time the bourgeoisie mentions the "people" their actually talking about their own class and not us because under capitalism we're actually designed to be their serfs/slaves with no rights and the internet was actually just a accidental mistake they put out (by the military I think) and their currently trying to gain control of it once again.
don't let their words fool you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Evil and devious plots are best carried out in private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, that's TAM and his type in the copyright industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, you might want to alert the impostor The Anti-Mike that secretly logs into your account to post all the time supporting exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Secrecy means only one thing:
"men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
(John 3:19)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's the problem with a Democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like in the People's Republic of China?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of which TAM is so fond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if this treaty really is about counterfeiting then why isn't China or India involved in the process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
big bad laws
Yeah, right Mike. How shocked are we? After 5 years and hundreds of millions in education and a ten year ransacking of the greatest catalog of recorded music the world has ever known....music owned by others (thank you very much)...they are finally moving to protect their products in the digital marketplace and even then only AFTER the public has made clear what they will do unless that digital marketplace is finally protected.
Aw, big bad evil laws to curtail rampant infringing. Poor widdle pubwic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: big bad laws
It would have been an even greater catalog if copyright actually lasted a reasonable amount of time.
Poor widdle pubwic.
Wow. Are you making fun of the public? The ones who have the power to change the laws?
Good show!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: big bad laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: big bad laws
At least you admit that you don't want the public to benefit from anything great and that your motives have nothing to do with the public interest.
"music owned by others"
"music owned by others (thank you very much)"
No body owes anyone a monopoly (thank you very much).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: big bad laws
Governments are awesome! Monopolies are awesome! Copyrights are awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAM the amazing TAMHOLE
However, I do agree that the government(s) need to negotiate international treaties in private, and bring those treaties forward once signed."
And this is why you are a Traitor Against Mankind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TAM the amazing TAMHOLE
Indeed, he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why this is being done in secret - because they're planning to do something we will never tolerate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So who wants it secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So who wants it secret?
Either that or a mysterious group of people living on a strange island who become instantly boring as soon as they are revealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does that say about you? I'll tell you! It says you're predictable. It also says that (as your name implies) your only purpose here is to be a gadfly.
Exhibit A:
" the US to limit fair use. The end results might not include either of those things"
Are you capable of answering a single straightforward question? I say you're not, which will solidify your gadfly status. Let's test that OK?
QUESTION: What if the treaty did try and limit fair use in the US, would you be comfortable with this position, and if so why?
The discussions can be held in private, but the general concepts/proposals can technically still be discussed publicly, with no one individual signled out. In the US, people have representative government. Since fair use is accepted in US law, a decision to try and wipe it out would most likely be opposed by the majority of the American people. I have no data, that is just an opinion of my. The point is however, that an attempt to placate other countries would run contrary (in the US at least) to the concept of represenation at that point, and the will of the people. Possibly just to placate a non-democratic republic.
Still OK with that are you? Really?
Your reasoning fails basic logic. Bye for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should industry get represenation with government, but not at least representatives of groups with alternative view points. Or is only one view point allowed?
You say this is all about people being pirates over their ISPs,but then bring up the possibility of limiting fair use.
You can't logically have both. If it's all or nothing, your point on fair use is moot. Unless of course that is also a goal. Now, no name calling, no funny business, JUST answer the questions please. Your choice of course, but if you don't,your cover (however now thin) will completely be blown. Waiting... =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
governments are..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dry runs ....
With this perceived protection they will do victory dances, smoke their cigars, drink, snort some coke, hire some hookers, pat each other on the back, and go about business as usual. "We are protected now" will be the cry from the board rooms of all media distribution companies ...
they will do nothing to adapt the old school business models ... the world will continue down the path it is currently following and adapt to the new rules ... then premature failure of their businesses will occur because they believe themselves to be protected and they do nothing to change.
This is the future ACTA will bring so I say ....
BRING IT ON!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
internal and external links
could the style of these articles be changed ever so slightly to make external site links more apparent? i like clicking to your source articles to view the full details, and this article has 10 links, 9 of which are internal. it would be very convenient if i could, at a glance, know which links go to the original source and which go to other articles that i probably read when you first posted them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: internal and external links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: internal and external links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the United Hackers Association to Anti Mike with Love or was it shit on his face
where you can be the lazy fucking asswipe tha you really are and SOAK the public for billions and get to that yacht building program while people in haiti starve
while poor and disadvantaged get cut off of there own culture
TO THIS I SAY TO ALL
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS YOUR RIGHT
DISOBEYING UNJUST LAWS ON MASS IS ALSO A RIGHT
they cant afford atm to put all of us in prisons
remember how much that would cost OH dont think i dont know
ive researched that too mister
YOUR ECONOMIC/CULTURAL TERRORISM SHALL END
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leaked DRM
modified mentors last words
Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Downloading music tune Scandal", "Pirate Arrested after Copyright Infringement"... Damn kids. They're all alike. But did you, in your three- piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the pirate? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him? I am a hacker, enter my world... Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me... Damn underachiever. They're all alike. I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..." Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike. I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened by me.. Or thinks I'm a smart ass.. Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here... Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike. And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found. "This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all... Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike... You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless.
We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert. This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual,but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.
I strive for freedom , I strive for knowledge. YOU seek containment and control. I am guilty of disobeying you, and your unjust laws. I am guilty of caring about spreading knowledge for it shall one day save us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: leaked DRM
You mock me because I'm different, I mock you because you're all the same :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If ACTA gets passed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If ACTA gets passed...
No, the problem is with the political system that can be bought out by lobbyists and twisted to the ends of the corporations instead of the people. When the people who are supposed to represent you turn a cold shoulder to your concerns and take bribes from companies trying to acquire / preserve monopolies, you know there is a real problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If ACTA gets passed...
Maybe for the buyer, not the seller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If ACTA gets passed...
The sad thing is the amount of regulatory capture and successful bribing of politicians that is going on these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure must be nice to treat your customers like that. If my company treated all of its clients like thieves, we wouldn't have any clients! I'm guessing neither would most companies.
That's ok, the bigger they are, the harder they fall, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAM the amazing TAMHOLE
He is now proven out as nothing, just a corporate mouthpiece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TAM the amazing TAMHOLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then, capitalism happened out of ascetic Protestantism. And suddenly, like magic, people started to specialise.
Sharing was a part of our culture for milennia. Stopping sharing now, when it only benefits a small few, is as best stupid and at worst downright neglectful of our collective cultures.
We need to shoot the bright sparks behind this., and fast. To put us all out of our deocratic Misery. Democracy is for Ancient Greeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
Everyone responsibility now is to demand that the treaty become transparent and look to see who votes and who doesn't.
Most in America have forgotten how much power we have, the fact is the politicians and government take as much power as they can, and through ignorance Americans give them that power. with the internet i don't believe lack of information can no longer fall as a excuse, I also don't believe that we can blame the people we put there. You need a movement, you need people getting off there asses and start throwing this at the people we vote in there, They are the employees.
I like tech dirt, it talks about a lot of things i care about, its unfortunate that i rarely see answers and only see gripes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The Office of the USTR has chosen to negotiate ACTA as a sole executive agreement. Because of a loophole in democratic accountability on sole executive agreements, the Office of the USTR can sign off on an IP Enforcement agenda without any formal congressional involvement at all."
More information at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/stopping-acta-juggernaut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a full believer in the citizens right to honorable civil disobedience, I find the ACTA laws and regulation immoral and as such of no consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAM = TROLL. Class dismissed...LOL...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
QUESTION: What if the treaty did try and limit fair use in the US, would you be comfortable with this position, and if so why?
1. Not a treaty.
2. Fair Use is defined by Title 17, and no executive agreement can in any way amend substantive federal law. Only Congress can do that, and Congress has shown not the slightest inclination to amend anything dealing in Title 17 with Fair Use. BTW, the USTR is well aware that he has not a whit of authority to negotiate something that would conflict with subsisting federal law, so for all intents and purposes the question is rather silly.
Sincerely,
Not TAM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then why is ACTA even on the table? It's blatantly false to claim that nothing in the agreement would change US law. We went through a rather detailed discussion of why that little talking point is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just as Econ 101 may help persons understand business models, Civics 101 may help persons understand how our federal system of laws works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because someone doesn't know the nuances of Federal code, doesn't make them uneducated. Your condescending, and arrogant tone, is a disgusting example of the tactics some will take to try and make themselves feel superior. I admit, I typed in anger, and insulted you. You deserved as much, although frankly, you aren't worth it. BTW, your assertion that the details of title 17 are taught in a basic highschool civics class is a false statement, and a straw man based attack. You have no valid factual base from which to assert my knowledge, or lack thereof, of Federal law. Go stroke your ego somewhere else. One last thing, Mike Masnick has a big fat crow sandwhich for you today. Perhaps you should read it. It just might knock you down a few notches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My answer transcends Title 17. It is directed to a basic principle under our trilateral separation of powers; in this case the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of our federal government.
As a general rule the truism applies that laws are enacted by Congress and executed by the President and his/her administration. I say "general rule" because there are circumstances under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, coupled with Supreme Court precedent demarcating the extent of what is known as "The Non-Delegation Doctrine" (in essence that under apporpriate circumstances Congress is empowered to delegate certain quasi-legislative functions to the Executive Branch). In this circumstance involving ACTA the doctrine does not come into play.
Thus, in the matter of ACTA the USTR is authorized to promote positions on various matters, but in all cases such positions must not deviate from the provisions of our copyright laws as expressed in Title 17.
Also try to bear in mind that ACTA involves many countries whose laws may depart significantly from US law. Thus it is to be expected that they would offer proposals that may very well be broader in scope than US law. As to such proposals the USTR is foreclosed from taking any position contrary to US law that would mandate amendment of US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]