But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?

from the then-what's-this-about? dept

Tue, Feb 2nd 2010 7:55am — Mike Masnick

It's been amusing watching the entertainment industry lobbyists try to come up with talking points in support of their most favored trade agreement du jour, ACTA. A popular one is that nothing in it can or will change US law. But, of course, if you talk to the folks who know how these things work in DC, you quickly learn that's hogwash. There wouldn't be any ACTA at all if it wasn't out to change the laws, and it wouldn't be so secretive if it was just designed to keep the status quo. Case in point, not that we know for sure because we're still not being told what's in the document, but various sources have confirmed that "three strikes" legislation that would kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) is on the agenda. That's not in US law, and according to all the ACTA defenders out there, it would be impossible for this to be on the agenda because, we're told, ACTA can't possibly change US law. Not at all. Except for the parts that do seem to require changing US law.

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, three strikes

95 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:06am

It is a fact that the ACTA, in and of itself, will not change US law. In fact it is true that all treaties do not and can not change our laws. Until they are approved and adopted. That's the trick defenders of the ACTA are using. What they say is completely true, but completely dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  You said what I wanted to say. I really can see that argument, "The passing of ACTA changes no laws. Now if you want to COMPLY and ADOPT the ACTA you have to change all your laws, but that is not OUR fault for simply putting the treaty out there." Hopefully, there are enough people who see through it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ima Fish (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Hopefully, there are enough people who see through it."
    
    It is my hope for your sake that you're being sarcastic. I have little faith in the sheeple that make up our country.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher Weigel (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have little faith in people who use "sheeple" in an unironic manner.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        THEM STEALERS ARE DESTROYING OUR SHEEPLE-SHEARING INDUSTRY!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
senshikaze (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:10am

yay. three strikes law. In America.

So when is the govt going to change the images and statues of Lady Liberty to a prostitute?

At least be honest about it if you are screwing me.

Well doesn't this say everything:
http://zombietime.com/anti-july_4th_sf/IMG_4557.JPG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
socialvictim (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:34am

Has it not been shown that a 3 strikes law for pretty much everything does not work at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 11:24am
  
  Re:
  Isn't it odd that a baseball analogy doesn't magically fix the rest of the world. This goes against my "Field of Dreams" training.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:37am

Wont work
Three strikes without due process wont pass constitutional muster. And if some court (or the Supremes) upholds it, then all bets are off in this country, and the rule of law is no more. Our laws and constitution wont be worth the paper they are printed on, and it will be open season for the govt to screw the general population at will and without recourse of any kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:41am
  
  Re: Wont work
  Three strikes in our country will not be mandated by law, so there will be no due process concerns. It will be an agreement between the copyright industry and the major ISPs.
  
  We all know that the copyright industry wants three strikes imposed on customers. What most people don't realize is that ISPs want it too. They want to kick off the heavy users. They want to block "illegal" use such as bittorrent. They want to stop anything or anyone which does not earn them a profit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - senshikaze (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re: Wont work
    yes, but as a consumer, can't i complain that i was unfairly booted off the internet (remember no charges are officially filed), and wouldn't my only recourse be to take the ISP to court?
    And if the ISP doesn't give me an opportunity to resign my contract (i personally won't) and they change the terms of service that drastically I can take them to court over that issue as well.
    
    Of course this is assuming our legal system isn't corrupt and being paid off (not a stretch by any means (see:lawyers)).
    
    I'm just saying one lawsuit over this, especially a class action lawsuit, might make the heavy users seem like a light tax in comparison.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CStrube (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wont work
      There's nothing that forces a company to take your money. Since access to the internet isn't a Right, ISPs could just refuse your custom. Unlike utilities or apartment owners that have to comply with non discrimination laws, an ISP could tell you to go pound sand, like a 7-11 refusing the custom of someone not wearing shoes, or trying to buy a stick of gum with a $100 bill.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Wont work
        Since access to the internet isn't a Right, ISPs could just refuse your custom.
        
        The word you're looking for is "business". The thing a company gets from a customer isn't his custom, it's his business.
        
        With that said, I think you're right. It's just one more reason we so badly need healthy competition in the ISP market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ima Fish (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wont work
      "wouldn't my only recourse be to take the ISP to court?
      And if the ISP doesn't give me an opportunity to resign my contract"
      
      You could sue for their breach of contract, but you'd lose. The contract between you and the ISP would exclude activiies such as bittorent or "heavy use." So you would be kicked off because you breached that portion of the contract. If you went to court to sue your case would be kicked out because you were the breaching party.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Wont work
  Always recourse, but civil unrest and wars are bloody
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cynix, 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:49am

Defending the indefensible
I wonder how "the anti Mike" will defend this.

I'd really love to see it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:52am
  
  Re: Defending the indefensible
  He'll probably just tell you to go FOAD and then yell at you for not "respecting others" (where others = the entertainment industry only).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:52am
  
  Re: Defending the indefensible
  with aplomb and feats of twisted logic that hurts just to read.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:53am
  
  Re: Defending the indefensible
  He's hopefully busy researching wireless security and how hopelessly poor his beloved WEP is. Thus changing his mind about how innocent those accused of file sharing may actually be, and joining us in demanding actual proof before conviction.
  
  ...not likely though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti-Mike (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:58am
  
  Re: Defending the indefensible
  The correct answer I think is this:
  
  Any treaty, once ratified, doesn't change law, but it certainly can add to it, create restrictions, or limitations.
  
  I also think that much of this stuff is very, very, very speculative and based on leaks and other misinformation. It's about on the same level as the weekly Tom Cruise is dead rumors that circulate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:08am
    
    Re: Re: Defending the indefensible
    Gee, perhaps if the treaty wasn't being negotiated in secret due to "others" and "national security," we wouldn't have to rely on leaks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re: Defending the indefensible
    Sadly, until the public is allowed to see what's actually in the treaty, that's all we've got. We're looking at the potential for livelihoods to be wrecked with no due process by private corporations. Forgive me if I think this is a little more important than the tabloid rags you seem to be obsessed with.
    
    I'm sure Mike will be the first to take back his comments if the rumours turn out to be misleading. But frankly, taking into account the secrecy and the history of these corporations, that's unlikely. Call it paranoia if you want, but it's a very serious issue whichever way you look at it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kaden (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re: Defending the indefensible
    Wait... Tom Cruise is dead?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 2:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Defending the indefensible
    Any treaty, once ratified, doesn't change law, but it certainly can add to it, create restrictions, or limitations.
    
    As if those aren't "changes".
    What a tool.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Swan, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:00am

Too greedy
If the entertainment industry weren't so greedy then ACTA would simply be about pushing the DMCA down the rest of the world's throats, but when you take all that trouble to fill the rooms with smoke then you might as well push a bit further.

The sheeple don't even know that ACTA is happening, which is hardly surprising when they get their 'news' from the people who are behind all this. Back in the days before Bliar I would have hoped that the BBC would get on top of something like this, but these days they're in the same trough as the rest of the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:02am

ACTA law bypass.
The industry knows that it wouldn't win in an open battle so it took the route less travelled.

They are in fact bypassing congress, society and maybe more.

Why deal with the pesky loud public opinion, when you can do better behind closed doors.

I just feel they will fail miserably at trying to curb this piracy thing on the internet.

People won't expend more then they already expend, and I think that even if they can scare people into not downloading anything they still lose everything, change arrived and it will be messy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:06am

Hey everyone. Some anonymous coward stepped up and decided to go after me. He/She ignore the content of my posts, the context of my posts and insulted my intellect. He/She cherry picked points out of context, and FULLY FAILED to address other issues. Their post defended The Anti-Mike, mysteriously right after TAM stopped posting as heavily as he has been. So apparently this person is the self appointed digital body guard of TAM. Just in case that person is reading here a few points:

1.) Go read my last post in response to you on the previous most recent ACTA thread, it should give you a clearer insight into my POV.

2.) Please explain the "national security issues" involved that prevented the release of the text of ACTA through a FOIA request.

3.) Please explain why industry and only industry reps, are allowed in the negotiating process, while those with opposing POVs are not.

Defend away ANONYMOUS COWARD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti-Mike (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  I can't help but thinking that Mike will get bored of you one day and block you. Save your dramas for your llamas, RD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Good job respecting others, there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's our TAMMY!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RD, 2 Feb 2010 @ 5:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I can't help but thinking that Mike will get bored of you one day and block you. Save your dramas for your llamas, RD."
    
    You have no idea how much I laugh when you do this. You think half the anons here are me trying to "Get" you, but I only post as myself. You dont believe it, of course, however, that doesnt mean it isnt true. Mike could verify this whenever he wants. If I was truly doing this to the extent you think I am, Mike could see the IP associated with the postings and ban me. He wont, because I'm not. Enjoy your paranoid delusions TAM, its entertaining as hell to watch you jumping around not knowing where I will "strike" (even though I have said many times its not me).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 5:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You have no idea how much I laugh when you do this. You think half the anons here are me trying to "Get" you, but I only post as myself. You dont believe it, of course, however, that doesnt mean it isnt true. Mike could verify this whenever he wants. If I was truly doing this to the extent you think I am, Mike could see the IP associated with the postings and ban me. He wont, because I'm not.
      
      Sure, I'll confirm that RD posts under his own name. The ACs that TAM thinks are RD have never been RD. I, of course, find this all more amusing, because TAM himself regularly used to post under many different names, including responding to himself under different names, and now suddenly he thinks that we'll ban others for doing the same? Odd.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Anti-Mike (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, I never, ever, ever replied to myself. You are wrong.
        
        Sorry, you fail.
        
        As for the ACs, well, let's just say they write like RD, the attack like RD, and they USE THE POSTING STYLE of an aggravated RD, which is sort of what is telling.
        
        I do appreciate Mike that you continue to allow them to post, even if their posts are entirely about attacking me, and not about discussing ideas.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, I never, ever, ever replied to myself.
        
        Right, and we believe you (of all people) because...?
        
        That's what I thought.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 5:17pm
  
  Re:
  I seem to recall you asked why only industry reps were granted access to the ACTA process. Actually, at least two public interest groups independent of the industry have had access. IIRC, one of them is Public Knowledge (though please do not hold me to this because I do not have the list at my fingertips.)
  
  You asked about how ACTA might effect Fair Use. The answer is "it won't" since Fair Use is a matter of federal statutory law that by definition trumps anything to the contrary contained in an executive agreement. Fair Use can only be changed by Congress, and I have seen nothing within legislative circles since it was codified in the Copyright Act of 1976 (prior to 1976 is was a doctrine created by the judiciary) suggesting that any changes are under consideration. If anything, it is clear that Congress long ago decided that the federal judiciary is best suited to deal with Fair Use issues and has deferred accordingly.
  
  Re FOIA and "national security", EFF apparently some time ago filed a FOIA request with the USTR. Obviously the USTR took issue with some portions of the request and relied upon one of the applicable FOIA exemptions, but without a copy of the USTR's response in hand it is not possible to examine the merits of the position taken by the USTR.
  
  The EFF site is replete with references to its request and subsequent lawsuit. Unfortunately, the site does not appear to have any links to either the USTR's initial response to the FOIA request or documents pertinent to the lawsuit (complaint, answer, motions, etc.).
  
  I can say, however, that the term "national security" is quite broadly defined in various Executive Orders spanning many decades and is not limited to national defense matters as most might initially assume. While some may disagree it is a proper thing to do, courts typically give defference to executive judgements of this type except in a very few, particularly egregious cases.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 5:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I seem to recall you asked why only industry reps were granted access to the ACTA process. Actually, at least two public interest groups independent of the industry have had access. IIRC, one of them is Public Knowledge (though please do not hold me to this because I do not have the list at my fingertips.)
    
    Two representatives from PK were given approximately an hour with a small portion of the document, and later a second hour to discuss it with a small group of people. That's not "access to the process." That's so folks like you can pretend that others are "in the process."
    
    Re FOIA and "national security", EFF apparently some time ago filed a FOIA request with the USTR. Obviously the USTR took issue with some portions of the request and relied upon one of the applicable FOIA exemptions, but without a copy of the USTR's response in hand it is not possible to examine the merits of the position taken by the USTR.
    
    Bullshit. Of course it is. There is nothing in discussing the copyright part of ACTA that is a national security issue and you know it.
    
    I can say, however, that the term "national security" is quite broadly defined in various Executive Orders spanning many decades and is not limited to national defense matters as most might initially assume. While some may disagree it is a proper thing to do, courts typically give defference to executive judgements of this type except in a very few, particularly egregious cases.
    
    Which is why it's been regularly abused, such as in this case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 6:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have no information concerning how long parties that signed the NDAs had access to any part of the document, be they public interest groups, industry associations, academics, etc. Perhaps you have a cite.
      
      Re National Security, how you can say what you do without any of the noted information in hand eludes me. The FOIA process is much more formalized than you may believe, and a copy of both the original request and the original response to the request is important to even begin understanding the issues.
      
      As for abuse of the term "national security", judges routinely take view contested documents in chambers...so while they may generally defer to executive judgments, they do not do so blindly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You said,
        
        "Actually, at least two public interest groups independent of the industry have had access."
        
        Please provide a cite.
        
        "Re National Security, how you can say what you do without any of the noted information in hand eludes me."
        
        Then why are industry lobbyists invited and not the public?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 7:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "As for abuse of the term "national security", judges routinely take view contested documents in chambers...so while they may generally defer to executive judgments, they do not do so blindly."
        
        Allowing industry lobbyists in the discussions and not the public itself is an abuse of the system. and your nonsense lies are not fooling anyone because no one believes the nonsense that the government tends to act in the best interest of the public and that they never lie. Just look at the laws in place as it stands, it's obvious that industry lobbyists lobbied for them and not the public. The laws outside the Internet are intentionally designed to favor the top one percent at public expense, and industry lobbied for this, I see no reason to believe that the industry and the government is now doing anything different.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 7:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "There is nothing in discussing the copyright part of ACTA that is a national security issue and you know it."
      
      Of course he knows it, but intellectual property maximists are born liars. They're not very good liars but just about all they do is lie whenever it's in their best interest.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:08am

As a final follow up: TAM, You still have steadfastly refused to answer DIRECT questions posed to you on the other ACTA thread. Sorry pal, your rhetoric doesn't cut it.
Perhaps because your position, when analyzed IS undefensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti-Mike (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:14am
  
  Re:
  Umm, as I am a spokesman for nobody, I have no obligations to answer troll bait. I certainly don't have to answer to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    I hope you get banned from the internet for no reason. It would be a hoot!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Translation: I can't defend my silly arguments. Also, I respect others by whining and calling them trolls.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Anti-Mike (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      More stinky troll bait. No answer required.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Sneeje (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Minty!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You never answer legitimate questions either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Luci, 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As you go and just prove the point that was made. Good job!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re: Trolls
    > I have no obligations to answer troll bait.
    
    You apparently have a different definition of "troll" than the rest of the English-speaking world.
    
    Here's a hint: a person is not a troll merely because they disagree with you, ask you uncomfortable questions, or expose your illogical spin for what it is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Anti-Mike (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 2:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Trolls
      They aren't disagreeing with me, they are trying to bait me into a misleading discussion, in an attempt for me to say something they will later use to beat me over the head.
      
      it's just troll bait, they have no interest in the discussion, just in the argument.
      
      I don't eat stinky troll bait.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls
        "They aren't disagreeing with me, they are trying to bait me into a misleading discussion"
        
        In other words, because you are in no position to answer a relevant question, since you have no reasonable answer, you simply call those who ask questions trolls and ignore them.
        
        "in an attempt for me to say something they will later use to beat me over the head."
        
        If you are able to come up with a meaningful response you shouldn't have to worry about saying something that will be refuted in a second. I take this as a tacit admission that you are unable to respond to the questions because you have no reasonable response that won't be refuted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Anti-Mike (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 3:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls
        Since I have no idea what "relevant questions" you want me to answer, how can I answer them? So far the only thing I have seen you point at is something you can answer yourself by scanning through Techdirt (variations in numbers in surveys).
        
        Again, I feel that you are attempting to bait me into an argument about personality rather than about issues, and I am having none of it. That is just stinky troll bait.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls
        Asking you questions about the issues that you can not answer is not the same thing as trying to change the subject. It is your very post that is off topic, not us, and we are clearly trying to get back on topic but you keep changing the subject into an argument about personality by calling others trolls instead of answering relevant questions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls
        and the questions that were asked were not personality questions, they were DIRECT questions about ACTA, and you refused to answer them every time. People did ask questions, I saw them, you ignore them, and they were questions about ACTA. Instead of answering them, you turned this into an argument about personality by calling people trolls.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:10am

"I also think that much of this stuff is very, very, very speculative and based on leaks"

Funny that, huh? Perhaps it wouldn't have to be speculative if it wasn't be negotiated in complete secret. Are you disputing the accuracy of said leaks? Game, Set, Match.
Go get yourself a towl and dry off....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:11am

so
So, if you can get someone kicked off the internet by accusation what's to stop retaliatory accusation getting pretty much everyone kicked off at some point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChrisB (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: so
  Unfortunately I don't think it will be that easy. If the entertainment industry is taking this much effort in creating this "Treaty" they will not allow everybody to make these accusations. I expect that only a "Select" (read MPAA/RIAA) group to be able to make these accusations. If they allowed everybody the chance to make accusations then the entire "Treaty" would be worthless as, like you said, everybody would eventually be kicked off the net.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: so
  Only people with lobbyists will get the magical accusatory power.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Annon, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:18am

Its going to be fun
When this hits the UK, I will be taking my laptop and doing a little Wifi hacking, with the express intent of getting insocents kicked off the web...

Just think how many powerfull people I can get banned from the web with a bit of carless torrentling... Surly they wont kick up any fuss at all :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon++, 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: Its going to be fun
  You have the right idea, though I wouldn't break the law... that usually backfires. We need publicity more than anything, this endless circle jerk of congruences gets us nowhere. A strategy to exploit the flaws in IP to the extreme and raise an army of straw men in order to expose the under belly of the beast.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam I Am, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:25am

Even if this law were to pass, I can't think of anything I'd do differently, in real life or online.

Non-issue for most, a problem for the civil disobedient. Okay, then.
Sounds fair to me.
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  Ha! It still won't be a problem for the civil disobedient.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  As a civilly disobedient citizen, this treaty does affect me. I not download copyrighted material without paying, but since I do use bittorrent (for completely legal reasons, I might add) i will be negatively affected by this. how long before "heavy users", like me, get banned, not for doing anything illegal, but i use "too much" bandwidth. Of course they don't have to prove what i was doing is "illegal". remember, the three strikes laws are set to where all you have to be is accused no actual proof has to be given.
  
  And on the subject of civil disobedience, only cattle follow laws and politicians blindly and without regard for morals or their own conscience. I refuse to be cattle. I refuse to be civil and obedient to an immoral govt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:54am

A "treaty" duly approved by the Senate in accordance the the mandate set forth in the US Constitution is as a general rule entitled to the full force and effect of law as is the case with a federal law duly enacted by Congress. Even so, like any other law it is subordinate to the US Constitution.

An "executive order" is not a treaty and, thus, does not enjoy the status of binding law enforceable in our federal courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Corsale (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 9:54am

I was having a hard time buying the whole 3 strikes thing. It seemed too much like a red herring, designed to raise intense opposition to one aspect of this treaty, that could be dropped at the last minute to silence th critics. Then France surrendered and England is pushing a similar law. Now, I can't help but think that even the industry is surprised at what they could push off.

The media is mums on this for a good reason (they get new powers) and like all rights transfer treaties it will be a sprint to the signature. Any delay and it won't float. It will be unveiled and signed within a week. It takes the public several weeks to spread the news, before they know it, it's too late. Anyone who follows politics should know this, thats why the anti-Healthcare ads were initially just asking you to call your senator and tell them to "slow down" on reform.

slow down = don't pass..

It's a real shame Obama turned out to be utterly ineffective as a force for good, Yet he executes is political paybacks with surgical precision. His legacy will be the disparage of the masses around the world, deepening the divide between the have and have not(s). Then again, I'm under do delusion that the president is little more than a figure head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:19am

@TAM: Actually sir, YOU are the troll. A troll is designated as one who engages in a discussion with no intent to legiitmately answer questions. A troll also does so for the purpose SOLEY of harrasing other users. That has been, and is your intent here, based off the content of your posts. According to some sources, BTW, "flame bait" or "troll baiting" is defined as follows:

with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in...

I have a real interest in this topic. So not only are you incapable (not unwilling) to answer straighforward legitimate questions, you also don't know basic definitions ("troll baiting"), and ironically, YOURSELF fit the definition of what many would consider a "troll". Hypocrisy at it's finest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti-Mike (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 11:07am
  
  Re:
  Sorry, but I won't fall for your trolling.
  
  Your entire intent is to engage me in some sort of personal flame war. Sorry, I am not biting. If you want to ask questions, and they are valid questions, they get answered. When your questions are meaningless flames, they get ignored.
  
  It doesn't matter how many user names you create or how many anonymous posts you make, the results are the same.
  
  So please get back to debating the issues, and stop debating the people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 1:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Still waiting for you to answer this question:
    
    http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100127/0622237940#c501
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 2:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hint: When your entire purpose is to disagree with everything Mike says, you probably shouldn't bring up "debating the people."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:25am

Oh no! The Anti-Mike saw his shadow, it's going to be a bullshitty ride towards spring...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:46am

My favorite line from the article ....
"making Internet Service Providers liable for copyright infringement."

Secondary liability will stiffle innovation as more businesses become afraid of any sort of infringememt. The same thing has happened in south Korea.

From a quote I was sent they have discussed the removal of fair use in ACTA "Copyrighted works may not be used in whole or in part with out the express consent of the copyright holder". That frightens me even more than secondary liability. The chilling effect of not being able to quote other people without consent would in effect shut down a sizable chunk of what the internet is.

Three strikes and kicking people off the internet ...

ISP's Monitoring network communications on behalf of a non governmental entity without a warrant ...

the list goes on ....

I dont see how any of this this will actually work in the long run. The internet and information route around obstacles and obstructions. It ends up being a larger game of Whack-A-Mole with more encryption used, a loss of civil liberties, escalation of penalties to make examples, and the eventual criminalization of IP infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard Corsale (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 11:44am
  
  Re: My favorite line from the article ....
  Exactly, 3 strikes is misdirection on behalf of the other draconian aspects of this treaty that have far worse implications. Such as the reasoning that you are just as liable for any and all activity on your internet connection as you are on your property. Forcing you to put security measures in place, as you would a fence around a pond on your property. They like using these analogies because they appeal to those that struggle with new concepts (a series of tubes). However furthering the liability of assets is nothing new. In fact that's one of the ways governments have historically exploited fundamental human flaws like greed. Let the people think they own "stuff", then that stuff becomes their responsibility to fix/maintain. No new taxes, few laws at first to ease the public into the new deal, then 1 degree at a time..
  
  Everything benefits the top 0.2% not 1% get it straight, money is only power if it's used to buy power. Just like soap (see how I just did that :-) ).
  
  Mike, please.. lets back up a bit on the 3 strikes coverage. Thats all anyone that's not a card carrying member of the reform movement knows about ACTA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 4:45pm
    
    Re: Re: My favorite line from the article ....
    "However furthering the liability of assets is nothing new. In fact that's one of the ways governments have historically exploited fundamental human flaws like greed. Let the people think they own "stuff", then that stuff becomes their responsibility to fix/maintain."
    
    Thanks. I just realized something after reading that. This will lead to secondard liabilities for individuals also. If your Wifi router is open and they accuse you of file sharing it will be your fault and you have to pay the fine-fee-penalty. Thats even if they didnt get the correct IP address.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard Corsale (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 10:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: My favorite line from the article ....
      Exactly what I was insinuating. There is about to be a boom in personal WiFi security devices. Bank on it ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 2 Feb 2010 @ 10:49am

Treaties
Treaties are the supreme law of the land when they have been ratified by congress.
People need to read their own US Constitution.
Treaties can and will be used to usurp the Bill Of Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 11:14am
  
  Re: Treaties
  This is not correct. Treaties once ratified stand on an equal footing with federal laws duly enacted by Congress.
  
  Each of the above are subordinate to, and must fully comply with, the US Constitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 2 Feb 2010 @ 11:33am

Your entire intent is to engage me in some sort of personal flame war..

@TAM: You CLAIM you "want" to "get back to" the issues, but that is exactly what I am doing. Since you refuse to answer specific, legitimate questions, it is AGAIN YOU who are "debating people" and not "debating issues". If you won't answer any questions from one specific person, that would be "debating the people", unless of course, only your definitions of "legitimate" and "debating persons" count.
It's easy to try and win when you try and control the definitions. Pitty that your hypocrisy is open for the world to see. I honestly feel sorry for you. I will never ask for nor expect a response from you in the future, and I expect the same from others. I can however only speak for myself. My final request is that your direct yourself to a dictionary, that's a book that has word definitions in it,
and look up "legitimate" "questions" "debate" and (if it is up to date) "troll". Bye =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 2 Feb 2010 @ 11:36am

BTW, YOU DON'T WIN BECAUSE NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU SAY ANYMORE. SEE HOW THAT WORKS TAM? LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2010 @ 5:03pm
  
  Re:
  I am giving up on commenting on anything he says ... I will leave that to DH ... But I will comment on responsess to his comments ... :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clueby4, 2 Feb 2010 @ 2:36pm

Will certainly work, failing that; use a backhoe.
@CStrube

Until ISPs can exist without using public and private resources; ie right of way and spetrum licensing.
This quite obtuse position; "that it's their lines...flap..flap..flap" ignores that significant aspect.

Or are you implying that ISPs would blather about "free market" when customers start pulling up "their lines".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 4:17pm

"But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?"

It's not the entertainment industry, it's the government extortion industry. They do nothing to entertain us, instead they steal the work of artists and claim it as their own and benefit from the work of others without paying them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 2 Feb 2010 @ 5:13pm

RD now with LESS ANONYMOUS!
"They aren't disagreeing with me, they are trying to bait me into a misleading discussion, in an attempt for me to say something they will later use to beat me over the head."

Awwww poor widdle TAMmy cried wolf so much and now everyone is ganging up on him and not treating him "fairly." Boo hoo, no one cares about the feelings of a lying hypocrite corporate shill.

"it's just troll bait, they have no interest in the discussion, just in the argument."

LIAR. Flat out, liar. You are called out as the liar you are. MANY MANY people have called you out on SPECIFIC arguments, and you steadfastly dodge and ignore the issues, and go instead to either a sideline point, or attack the poster. YOU ATTACK THE POSTERS. You.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:18pm

This should draw a wry smile from MM (See: List of other reports)

Moreover, it is instructive to closely look at the names of those provided access under NDAs. They cover a diverse set of views.

http://www.keionline.org/node/660
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:44pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, I see the names, and they are mostly industry reps.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2010 @ 8:45pm
  
  Re:
  "They cover a diverse set of views."
  
  A bunch of people that agree with you does not constitute a diverse set of views.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Feb 2010 @ 1:23am
  
  Re:
  This should draw a wry smile from MM (See: List of other reports)
  
  Hmm. Why? That's the same list we linked to a few months ago. At the bottom it explains the sort of "access" that was given to PK. Having spoken to numerous folks on that list, let's just say that "access" to seeing the document for a very short period is not the same as the kind of access given to the entertainment industry players on that list (some of whom had a hand in *writing* the documents under consideration).
  
  Moreover, it is instructive to closely look at the names of those provided access under NDAs. They cover a diverse set of views.
  
  Again, as I pointed out to you already (why you repeat this is a mystery to me), just because your name is on the list, it does not mean the same thing for everyone. Furthermore, it does not explain why the document remains secret.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 8:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    1. I selected the site from one of several having the list because it is a public interest group, and its associated article was from a public interest perspective.
    
    2. Has Bill Patry suddenly become an industry shill because he is identified on the list as associated with Google? It seems to me that companies providing search engine services have a vested interest in trying to moderate any untoward effects that might otherwise be more applicable to other types of companies. Other examples of persons/groups granted access strongly suggest that the line-up of such persons/groups is more diverse than many who comment here seem to believe.
    
    3. Many, if not most, who are commenting here are appear to be laboring under the impression that ACTA may/will establish various substantive amendments to Title 17 of the US Code. They are mistaken.
    
    4. US law accords rights to domestic and foreign authors alike. This is not true regarding the substantive law of many foreign countries engaged in these discussions. I do not see discussions attempting to more level the playing field as a bad thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2010 @ 9:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "1. I selected the site from one of several having the list because it is a public interest group, and its associated article was from a public interest perspective."
      
      What does this have to do with who can attend the meetings?
      
      "2. Has Bill Patry suddenly become an industry shill because he is identified on the list as associated with Google? It seems to me that companies providing search engine services have a vested interest in trying to moderate any untoward effects that might otherwise be more applicable to other types of companies. Other examples of persons/groups granted access strongly suggest that the line-up of such persons/groups is more diverse than many who comment here seem to believe."
      
      He is interested in HIS industry, so yes, to some extent he can be said a shill. When you say other groups having access, by that you mean mostly just INDUSTRY groups, why not groups that actually represent the public like the EFF?
      
      "3. Many, if not most, who are commenting here are appear to be laboring under the impression that ACTA may/will establish various substantive amendments to Title 17 of the US Code. "
      
      and you know this because?
      
      "They are mistaken."
      
      The meetings are secret, so you don't know this and if you do you are breaking non disclosure agreements.
      
      "4. US law accords rights to domestic and foreign authors alike. This is not true regarding the substantive law of many foreign countries engaged in these discussions. I do not see discussions attempting to more level the playing field as a bad thing."
      
      So because our system completely sucks, we should make everyone else suck to level the playing field. Yes, that IS a bad thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2010 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        or better yet, you want diversity, why not invite the public. Why keep them out? You keep them out exactly to limit diversity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 4:17am

From this link

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100111/2149377710.shtml

"He insisted that those who were complaining about secrecy "just don't want any agreement at all.""

(I posted my response there but I want to re post it here because I want the industry to read it).

and if it's true that the public (whom you are censoring this from) doesn't want such an agreement then why should there be an agreement? The government is supposed to serve the will of the public, not just YOUR will. and why should the public want an agreement that unfairly benefits YOU at public expense. I take this as a tacit admission that ACTA is not here to serve the will of the public, it's here to unfairly serve YOUR will at public expense. After all, if the public wants such an agreement then why the secrecy.

That's the problem with you rich thugs. You are completely uncompromising, you don't even want the public to know about the iniquities you perform. If you don't get your way 100 percent you claim that those who aren't giving you your way 100 percent are non compromising. It is YOU that are non compromising and why should the public even attempt to compromise with terrorist thugs.

and as evidence look at all the laws in place (ie: the length and dynamics of intellectual property laws, the government granted monopolies on cableco/telco infrastructure and who can build new infrastructure, the govt granted monopolies on taxi cab drivers, and the list goes on). These laws aren't a compromise, they are you bribing the government to exploit the public.

I just don't know how you can live with yourselfs knowing that you, a very tiny faction of the population, are the sole cause of a disproportionally HUGE portion of the worlds suffering and that the world would be a MUCH better place without you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 3 Feb 2010 @ 7:44am

Lies
"I do appreciate Mike that you continue to allow them to post, even if their posts are entirely about attacking me, and not about discussing ideas."

Bullshit. Lie. You are caught out now. I, and many others, have taken you to task about how your pro-copyright stance is so far to one extreme, and why that is a bad thing, and not what the founding fathers intended. MANY TIMES. Most times, actually. To say that ALL we do is attack YOU and NEVER one thing about the ideas is not only ludicrous and absurd, its a straight out bald-faced lie. Now you are trying to manipulate the conversation to be about YOU, when really, the ideas are being discusses and YOU try to derail valid points by attacking people, or playing the victim card in an attempt to discredit the actual arguments at hand.

You sir, are a lying, deceitful troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 3 Feb 2010 @ 8:56am

Wrong again
"3. Many, if not most, who are commenting here are appear to be laboring under the impression that ACTA may/will establish various substantive amendments to Title 17 of the US Code. They are mistaken."

Absolute bullshit. These changes WILL impact the copyright statutes, categorically. They SHOULDNT, but they will. You can bet your bottom dollar of two things with this treaty:

1) If it didnt change/modify/impact copyright, they wouldnt be so hard pressed to pass it, and with so much secrecy.

2) It will be used as a lever to either get copyright changed to match it, or used to get AROUND copyright law.

Make no mistake, this is a copyright-land-grab by Big Media and the Govt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2010 @ 11:08am
  
  Re: Wrong again
  It would help if you would identify those portions of Title 17 that you believe ACTA would substantively change.
  
  Perhaps then I will be able provide more detailed remarks concerning this issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2010 @ 12:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Wrong again
    and that's the problem, nobody knows because it's being kept secret. So instead we reasonably assume the worst, that it's being kept secret exactly because it will not be in our best interest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2010 @ 12:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wrong again
      and as evidence, many of the laws already in place are against the public interest (ie: current IP laws, cableco/telco monopolies on infrastructure and on who can build new infrastructure, taxi cab monopolies, etc...). Why should we believe that the government suddenly had a change of heart and is now acting in our best interest. Such would be unreasonable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]