As Countries Sign ACTA, Many Finally Admit Their Copyright Laws Will Need To Change
from the of-course-they-did dept
It will come as little news to most people that, as was expected, the US signed the ACTA treaty (while pretending it was an "executive agreement") this weekend in Japan. While the EU, Mexico and Switzerland at least had the sense to wait until they had more of a chance to review the legality of the document, the US dove right in, despite huge Constitutional questions about its ability to sign the agreement -- especially as more evidence was put forth showing that (contrary to the US's claims) ACTA is inconsistent with US law.The US, of course, was not the only one to sign -- and not the only one to recognize that ACTA is inconsistent with local laws, despite promises to the contrary. Canada signed as well, and used it to say that Canada now needs to implement more copyright reform to keep Canada in line with the treaty:
Fast�s office said the government still needs to create and pass legislation to implement the anti-counterfeiting agreement in Canada.Funny, since all along we kept hearing how ACTA wasn't about changing laws in various countries, but just coming to agreements on how enforcement would be carried out. In fact, when criticized about ACTA, the former Canadian Minister of Industry insisted that ACTA would not require changing Canadian law. Amazing that the Canadian government admits that this was false the day they sign it.
Another signatory? Why, New Zealand, of course. Last year, New Zealand (which already recently changed its copyright laws) said that it didn't foresee any changes to copyright law because of ACTA. And yet... now the New Zealand government admits that changes will be needed to local copyright law before the treaty is ratified.
Singapore, Australia, South Korea, Japan (of course) and Morocco also all signed on. Australia's and New Zealand's signings don't mean quite as much, as their legislatures need to ratify the agreement (the part the US is trying to skip).
Not surprisingly, the RIAA put out a ridiculous statement "saluting" the "will" of ACTA negotiators to complete ACTA. Yeah. The will to continue to hide the agreement from public scrutiny until it was "done" and no changes were allowed? The "will" to pretend that it's an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty, as per the Constitution? The "will" to insist that ACTA is consistent with domestic laws when it's not? Sorry. That's not worth saluting. That's worth not being allowed to participate in these kinds of negotiations any more.
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, australia, canada, copyright, legal changes, new zealand, signatures, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
er?
or abiding by..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: er?
Agreed, with this agreement, copyright law has become what it was mean't to prevent. It is now about keeping things out of the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three Strikes
Here comes "Three Strikes".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For some reason, the words "huge mistake" come to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All the lobbyists, all the time and negotiating, all the influence and goodwill used, it's all a complete waste.
ACTA won't solve "the problem." It won't dent or slow down piracy. It won't make the entertainment industry even a cent more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't wait for others to answer. Don't pretend like you don't see this post. I've been asking you this for months--probably a year--yet never once have you answered the question.
Why do you believe that "piracy is not OK"? Explain to us exactly why "piracy is not OK."
No dodging. No weasel words. A simple answer for a simple question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pollution.
The ocean floor is already littered enough without pirates going around sinking ships.
Also, it is seriously NOT COOL to be squashed by a sinking ship while scuba diving. Those things are heavy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So let's say -- hypothetically -- that I want to shut somebody up. So I hit him over the head with a baseball bat. Because in this hypothesis I'm an angry, violent person (in real life I'm a nice guy).
So as a result this victim starts screaming.
Well, obviously that wasn't the result I wanted. So I hit him over the head again.
According to the misquote you just misquoted, hitting him over the head a second time and expecting it to shut him up is insane, because the first time he actually got louder. And yet, I think most people understand that repeated blows will actually have a cumulative effect. Eventually the guy will be silent.
How does that work? Are we all insane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tl;dr they aren't hitting him hard enough,.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freetards
Helping Artists
Saving 3 billion jobs
Losing 400 billion dollars in lost sales
Helping terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike
How anyone could think they're making some kind of salient point by asking on guy on the internet a question is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's fascinating. What specific "inherent right" is it that is being trampled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Aside from that, no granted monopoly I have seem was ever good, they all fail in the end, but until they do, they cause irreparable damages to the economy and entrepreneurship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you believe that the damage that enforcement does to lawful activities is OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you believe that the damage that enforcement does to lawful activities is OK?
If you're talking about discussion boards being taken down along with a website full of infringing content, I have no problem with that at all. Adding a discussion forum to a site that offers infringing content doesn't immunize it from being seized. Not any more than a porn shop that offers both kiddie porn and that protected by the First Amendment. That place would be seized and boarded up in a second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and FYI sunshine before you point it out the USTR works for the Executive Branch, and therefore the President...
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Simple question, simple answer. No weaseling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, this is a repost. Read the damn blog before vilifying the material within.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smoke and mirrors
Simply a document that describes how some small minds think the world should be and what color the trees are when they look up using their rosy colored glasses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smoke and mirrors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Smoke and mirrors
The only real "teeth" this things has might be as a template to get other governments to change their laws in accordance with the provisions of this "wink & nod" idiocy - as you can already see, Canada is recognizing that they would need to make significant changes to come into "compliance" with this and are already acting like they need to do so because they signed it...
Like Kyoto, everyone else not signing it or not working to change their laws "quickly enough" will be beaten liberally over the head by the US State Department while at the same time, US companies would simply ignore it.
What a sad farce...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Smoke and mirrors
In a decade or two things might turn ugly or not, since it is a cycle other countries could start to see their economies slowdown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dive
Past tense of "Dive" is "Dove". Though spelled the same way as the bird, it is pronounced differently and that is the key to its meaning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I occasionally indulge myself in being a grammar, spelling, or punctuation Nazi myself. Usually I grit my teeth and go on with my life, but once in a while I succumb. Especially if it's in an article and not, say, in a comment. But when I do, I usually make sure that I actually know what I'm talking about.
For example, I looked this up before I posted this comment:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dive
P.S. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who am I kidding? Our government has a history of ignoring what the people say. I don't expect this to be any different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
National just hides it... that way when it's already on teh books and labour gets in and is forced to enforce it, they can start using it as an attack option. no one ever remembers who signed things like this in the first place.
side effect of National's general policy being 'screw the country, we get money!' and not having a damn clue beyond that.
do we have a functional pirate party? 'cause if we do i'm totaly voting for them. (or maybe the progressives, if they're still functional, i guess....)
both major parties have this ... psychotic... obsession with free trade deals, particularly with the US, compleatly missing the fact that free trade is only mutually benificial if both parties are about the same size economically and have little or no overlap in what they produce. otherwise it just locks the little guy into a downward spiral by make it harder and harder to establish anything new because it must compete with established imports right off the bat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]