Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks Releases ACTA Negotiations As "0-Day"

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the frictionless-information-flow dept.

The Almighty Buck 105

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has released a new document about the ACTA negotiations occurring in Washington over the next three days. This might be the shortest time between authorship of a document and its publication on Wikileaks so far. The brief 3-page memo, dated today, could add quite a bit of oil to the fire of the ACTA debate. It is titled Business Perspectives on Border Measures and Civil Enforcement and it contains a set of proposals to the 'ACTA negotiators' issued by 'Concerned business groups operating in ACTA nations.' Among many highly invasive methods and approaches proposed in this memorandum, the reader can find detailed demands for: full disclosure of relevant information by Customs to trademark holders so that they can mount private investigations; disclosure of identities and other information about copyright infringers; and increased inspection of goods. This document is especially important to raise public awareness on these negotiations and their implications for the future." We've been watching ACTA develop for a few months now.

cancel ×

105 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ATTENTION SHOPPERS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392105)

ATTENTION SHOPPERS: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. I REPEAT, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS CURRENTLY LOOMING OUTSIDE LOT 4. CONTINUE SHOPPING BUT PLEASE ENSURE YOU LEAVE VIA AN ALTERNATIVE EXIT AS WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO GUARANTEE YOUR SAFETY IN LOT 4, DUE TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 5 AND 6 ARE CURRENTLY FREE OF BAYING NECROTIC DOG PENIS. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS. THANK YOU.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter = censorship, lameness filter = censorship, lameness filter = censorship, lameness filter = censorship, lameness filter = censorship, lameness filter = censorship.

Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.

Re:ATTENTION SHOPPERS! (-1, Offtopic)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392139)

what?

Re:ATTENTION SHOPPERS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393397)

(Score:-1, Offtopic)

WTF?! I literally cried with laughter when reading that post. It's the funniest thing on Slashdot, since the discovery of how Natalie Portman and hot grits go well together.

If you haven't got the imagination to think of a giant necrotic dog penis, looming outside a shopping centre, you're no business moderating on Slashdot. Full stop.

ATCA (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392189)

I thought this was about the ATCA computer form factor. I would love to have a talk about that. But no. The news for nerds site would like to talk about politics. Again.

Re:ATCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392749)

It really is a shame. Instead of all the interesting stuff I used to read here, now all I get is anti-government, anti-copyright propaganda.

Re:ATCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393017)

It really is a shame. Instead of all the interesting stuff I used to read here, now all I get is anti-government, anti-copyright propaganda.

Sounds like you'd be more happy living in North Korea. I hear that the citizens never ever criticize their government.

Re:ATCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392825)

The news for nerds site would like to talk about politics. Again.

Threads about ACTA tend to get at least as much comments as more nerd-specific threads, sometimes more... But I'm sure you know what's interesting a lot more than everyone else at /. right?
No-one ever said that news and politics wouldn't be discussed here, in fact I'm pretty sure there are sections for both of those things...
You want to talk about computers all day go ahead and make your own site, for those of us who want to spend at most 12 hours a day on computers, the rest on politics, we can stick here.

Good luck on the site, I'm sure it will soon outgrow /.

Re:ATCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393259)

Well in that case Slashdot should start posting more Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and other celebrity gossip because those stories are even more popular than the anti-copyright and political bullshit. But I'm sure you know what's interesting a lot more than everyone else at /. right?

You want to talk about computers all day go ahead and make your own site, for those of us who want to spend at most 12 hours a day on computers, the rest on politics, we can stick here.

WTF? Are you new? In case you didn't know, Slashdot is (was) supposed to be that site about geeky, technical stuff. Maybe instead of hijacking a tech website, you can move to a site specifically about political bullshit. They're not exactly in short supply.

I agree with the OP. I can't remember the last time I saw any interesting technical articles on here.

Re:ATCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24394309)

Maybe instead of hijacking a tech website, you can move to a site specifically about political bullshit.

You just described Digg.

Re:ATCA (5, Insightful)

phoomp (1098855) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393167)

I would think nerds would like to know about a treaty which proposes to search your mp3 player for unauthorized copyright material at international borders.

Re:ATCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24395097)

How could they manage it, though? For example, a person has ripped mp3s from CDs that they legally bought. Then their mp3 player is scanned and found to have copywrited works on it. Are they going to demand that this person go all the way home to retrieve the CDs to prove that the mp3s are legal? They can't waste time on this for every person going through an airport.

Re:ATCA (4, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#24395491)

40 years ago they thought that they'd never be able to waste time searching the bags of every person that traveled.

All it took was a generation to be force fed apathy inducing, mind-numbing pop culture and now they are free to use your tax dollars to make your life a living security nightmare.

To the guy who posted earlier about only wanting to hear about the latest greatest motherboards and ignore anything remotely political, I'm looking at you. Only caring about the latest hardware is no different, effectively, to the teenage girl who reads Cosmo cover to cover to stay up to date on the latest adventures of Paris Hilton.

Re:ATCA (1)

Asztal_ (914605) | more than 6 years ago | (#24396279)

Don't you know, ripping CDs is illegal? (Ha ha only serious, as it is actually illegal in the UK... which is really quite alarming.)

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392191)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
Wikileaks releases picture of man with gaping ass [goatse.cz]

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (1, Offtopic)

cloakable (885764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392527)

I dunno, I found that quite funny :P

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392701)

I always find this troll funny :) I probably don't have enough karma to withstand the incoming wave of overzealous mods, so I'll be posting anonymously.

ACTA? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392193)

Is it really that hard to say what the initials stand for just once in the summary?

Re:ACTA? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392283)

You mean you don't know? Time to move out from under that rock!

I mean, geez... talk about ignorant. EVERYBODY knows about ACTA.

('cept me...)

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (3, Informative)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393327)

wiki + firefox searchbar [wikipedia.org]

Really though, yeah, should have been in the summary as a matter of style, but what do you expect?

Re:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24394173)

Well, I'd except that it'd be good to skip the whole article about irrelevant bullshit the authors cannot even bother to describe.

Yeah, matter of style sometimes matters.

Re:ACTA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393341)

I didn't know. Had to click on the links at the bottom to read a summary. Makes me feel dirty and new here.

Re:ACTA? (2)

simmee (1180333) | more than 6 years ago | (#24394299)

I might point out that not EVERYBODY that visits /. is an American. As a non-American, I for one would like to know what this thing is about (and being too lazy, at the moment, to google it), because anything that happens in the USA sure as hell ends up happening in other anglo-saxon western democracies,whether we vote for / like it or not.

Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393369)

ACTA stands for 'Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement', but that's not particularly informative, because the worrisome part has nothing to do with counterfeit goods and everything to do with Copyright Cops who fight the RIAA's War on Sharing via thousands of lawsuits.

Re:Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 6 years ago | (#24397585)

Actually, I'd say the fact that it effectively makes parallel importing a practical impossibility, if not outright bans it, is also pretty worrisome -- just not at quite such a personal level. (I know parallel importing is already illegal in some countries, but I've never heard a good argument as to why it should be.)

Re:ACTA? (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393655)

Well, duh [part68.org] . Doesn't everybody know that? This is a big deal too since this memo details the ACTA plot to ban red leads in terminal attachments.

Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists (1)

rasteri (634956) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393811)

DUH!

wikileaks (4, Funny)

olddotter (638430) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392209)

Part of me thinks that had the technology been around in the mid 1700's the rights of something like Wikileaks would have been enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers as the ultimate check and balance.

Re:wikileaks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392303)

Hush it up, Jewboy.

Re:wikileaks (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392317)

Part of me thinks that had the technology been around in the mid 1700's the rights of something like Wikileaks would have been enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers as the ultimate check and balance.

Despite the fact that the technology was far more primitive in the 1700s, the rights of "something like Wikileaks" were enshrined in the Constitution -- that is, in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:wikileaks (2, Interesting)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392421)

I was under the impression that ACTA was, in essence, an end-run around the constitution (or, in my case, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) ...

Mod parent down (2, Informative)

Shandalar (1152907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392487)

Come on now, this is banal. There were then, and are now, laws about defamation, and there was never any intent to make defamation Constitutionally protected; and Wikileaks-posted material is subject to those laws the same as any other speech.

Re:Mod parent down (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392671)

There were then, and are now, laws about defamation, and there was never any intent to make defamation Constitutionally protected

Defamation as it was understood in England was much broader than what is Constitutionally (because of the first amendment) prohibitable, and defenses, such as truth, were affirmative defenses. The jurisprudence of the First Amendment turns truth from an affirmative defense into something that must be shown not to apply as a part of the prima facie case for defamation. Additionally, it places even higher requirements for defamation actions where the subject matter of discussion (either the person or the context or both) is one of public concern. I think its kind of hard to argue that these effects were accidental.

Re:Mod parent down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393171)

"Defamation as it was understood in England..."

Is irrelevant.

Thanks for nothing.

Re:Mod parent down (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393271)

"Defamation as it was understood in England..."

Is irrelevant.

No, its really not irrelevant to the common law applicable in US jurisdictions prior to the Constitution and how the Constitution affected change to that law.

Re:Mod parent down (1)

digitrev (989335) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392771)

Well, when you can tell me who exactly is being defamed, and who is the perpetrator of said defamation, and how exactly anyone implied that defamation was Constitutionally protected, then I'll listen to you.

Re:Mod parent down (2, Informative)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#24394093)

defamation was Constitutionally protected

Defamation IS constitutionally protected. Slander and libel are not, which are cases of untrue defamation with malicious intent (or reckless disregard or some other standard that makes it very difficult, but not impossible to sue over.) Also, those are torts, not civil matters. So, while you don't have a constitutional right to prevent me from obtaining compensation for you unfairly and (something akin to deliberately) maligning my reputation, you cannot go be sent to jail.

Re:Mod parent down (1)

homer_s (799572) | more than 6 years ago | (#24394619)

What if I say something which I *thought* was true but which turned out to be false? What about things which are just a matter of opinion - is that defamation or slander?

Re:Mod parent down (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#24396971)

What if I say something which I *thought* was true but which turned out to be false?

Well, I know that newspapers would be protected if they did that. There's intent or some other consideration.

What about things which are just a matter of opinion - is that defamation or slander?

I don't believe defamation is anything other than the combination of libel(written) and slander(spoken). And opinion is protected. Only alleged facts matter.

IANAL, so double-check before expressing your opinions of XYZ.

defamation (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392935)

Where's the defamation?

Re:wikileaks (1, Funny)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393145)

I think "The People" refers to state run groups and not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. And "religion" is obviously referring to real churches and not just a bunch of folks dancing nekkid in the moonlight. As for "the press", sure, if you're an actual news paper business, putting words to paper with a press, you have the right to print what you want. Back then, no one imagined words and images flowing through the aether and being disseminated by all manner of modern devices. The Bill of Rights really only refers to society and technology of it's time. Founding fathers would never allow just anyone to broadcast out their opinions. Folks gotta' keep this stuff in mind when reading old papers and such.

Re:wikileaks (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 6 years ago | (#24394555)

I think "The People" refers to state run groups and not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry...

I truly and honestly hope you are trolling.

Re:wikileaks (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 6 years ago | (#24394847)

Oops, sorry: /sarcasm

Re:wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393577)

the rights of "something like Wikileaks" were enshrined in the Constitution -- that is, in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This is not what the Constitution of the US says, the Constitution says (and always has said):

All people are equal, But some people are more equal than others.

Any more of this and you'll be sent to the Halliburton gulag!

Regards,
Squealer

Re:wikileaks (1)

zigmeister (1281432) | more than 6 years ago | (#24395987)

All people are equal, But some people are more equal than others.

Whether or not that is in the US Constitution and which version is debatable, but I prefer a quote from gun toting circles I like to haunt: "God created all men. Mr. Colt made them all equal." This is talked about somewhere in the Bill of Rights if memory serves me right.

Re:wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393061)

Part of me thinks that had the technology been around in the mid 1700's the rights of something like Wikileaks would have been enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers as the ultimate check and balance.

Sure... And if only they had been aware that women and blacks are human beings, they would have been in favor of equal rights?

Your 'founding fathers' were not as enlightened as you seem to think they were. The US had some good ideas, but don't forget its long history of bloodshed and oppression.

Re:wikileaks (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393321)

The issues of women, non-whites, non-Christians, etc. were issues being actively advanced and struggled with even at the time of the constitutions writing, sadly it's a progression of baby steps and compromises that continues today. I'd still say they were doing better than the vast majority of the world at the time.

Obviously if it wasn't perfect the first time why even bother?

wtf (5, Interesting)

mattsqz (1074613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392235)

so now a collection of 1's and 0's with a filename ending with .mp3 will be searched for as if it were a kilo of coke? this makes me happy to be a gun owner... when the sh1t goes down, you better be ready..

Re:wtf (4, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392323)

Since you are a gun owner, you should realize that they will first come for YOU (since they know where you live). [wikipedia.org]

And the rest of us will cheer ("make streets safe for our children" or whatever) them on until it's too late.

Re:wtf (2, Informative)

fotbr (855184) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392357)

4473 isn't required for all purchases, though individual states may require something similar.

Re:wtf (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392509)

It's not required for antiques (1899 or earlier), face to face transactions with your favorite ATF agent in drag, if you have a ATF F 8A (5310.17) designating you as some type of FFL. For a collector license it costs $30.00 for a three year license to have specifically listed or 50+ year old firearms (curios or relics) shipped to your door. It's worth it especially this year as I've seen about a 300 percent increase in the value of even poor quality collectible imports.

Re:wtf (2, Interesting)

mattsqz (1074613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392519)

getting OT here, but.. not all firearms are purchased from storefronts, many are bought/sold by individuals. and not all firearms are purchased at all...many AK's, for example, here in the US are built at home with a press and a blowtorch, using deactivated parts kits and do not need paperwork of any sort - or even a serial number - to be legal.

Re:wtf (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393225)

ATF laws do require you to be licensed to manufacture firearms. Is similar to Class III license and you need to have local LE chief sign off on it. Friend of mine's a gun smith and he had to move to another county, after supporting losing candidate for county sherif. A few years later, his reapplication was turned down. Local politics suck.

But yeah, sales between individuals are pretty much allowed everywhere, I think, other than some big cities. As long as you are selling to a known felon, that is.

Re:wtf (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 6 years ago | (#24395919)

Federal law only says you need to be licensed (or taxed) to manufacture firearms if you intend to sell them, or if you intend to manufacture certain types -- machineguns, supressors, destructive devices, and the interesting category of "any other weapon".

Again, states / cities may require more though.

Re:wtf (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392675)

Alabama doesn't require anything. Sure, most of the time we're the backwards arm pit of America, but one Alabama citizen can sell a fire arm (rifles, not pistols) to another Alabama citizen with nothing more than a glance at his driver's license. Just to be sure he's an Alabama citizen. You don't even need to make a copy of the license. You gotta love gun shows!

Re:wtf (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392757)

Sure, most of the time we're the backwards arm pit of America, but one Alabama citizen can sell a fire arm (rifles, not pistols) to another Alabama citizen with nothing more than a glance at his driver's license.

Are you sure about the driver's license requirement? I think you can just ask if they reside in the state. I also think that it is legal to sell to residents of neighboring states.

Re:wtf (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393391)

Alabama doesn't require anything. Sure, most of the time we're the backwards arm pit of America

As a fellow Alabamian, I must respectfully disagree. Birmingham (my home city) is a place with lots of banking/tech. (the 280 corridor going into Shelby county is starting to get really good) Huntsville has lots of military/aerospace development. We're not as bad off as many people think, since some states don't even have that much.

Shhhh. (2, Funny)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393441)

Be QUIET, or the yanks will move down here.

We don't have paved roads, and we still use outhouses. This state is full of rednecks.

Re:wtf (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 6 years ago | (#24395319)

Can you take the guns out of the state without any paperwork?

Thats why I buy guns illegally. (2, Insightful)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392669)

Screw the forms. Not really illegally, but in my state, personal sales don't involve any forms. Unless you consider a federal reserve note a "form".

Re:Thats why I buy guns illegally. (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393075)

in my state, personal sales don't involve any forms.

Do you have a firearms license? That's good enough of a reason for them to come for you.

Re:Thats why I buy guns illegally. (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393143)

Do you have a firearms license?

Hell no!

And I also neither confirm or deny having a firearm. We might be a little backwards here in AL, but we take the 2nd amendment seriously.

Re:Thats why I buy guns illegally. (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 6 years ago | (#24395357)

The federal reserve note is the most powerful form there is. You can get access to anything if you have enough of them. Unfortunately, many people use them for the wrong reasons (like bribing politicians, though the politicians are just as bad.)

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392813)

None of the guns I legally purchased used Form 4473 as none of them were bought from federally licensed retailers. Also, in this state it is not necessary to register any of your guns so the state/city/county have no record of them either.

Re:wtf (4, Informative)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#24396071)

All those protections against government data snooping that were passed after Watergate are now nil, because those restrictions left a loophole for private entities to do this and for the government to buy it from them (thank you Cap Weinberger).

All the things the government is banned to do for itself, it can buy from the private sector. If you use a frequent shopper card or a credit card, they know you are buying pseudoephed at the pharmacy. They don't need a form to know that you're buying a gun. They can buy that information. They probably can figure out how much ammo you buy too.

All in all, the background check form is the least dangerous intrusion because it is (a) accurate, (b) transparent, (c) and regulated by law. Every bad thing you imagine them doing with the form they can do with data bought from the private sector, only it won't be accurate, you won't know you are being profiled, and there are no legal restrictions on how they use that data.

Of course, in a world without criminal background checks for firearms purchases, you could avoid detection by conscientiously buying your firearms, shooting supplies, books and magazines (off the rack, no subscriptions!) with anonymous cash transactions. But most people won't, and they've got you after you've bought your first box of bullets on your credit card.

The most important place to protect the right to bear arms isn't in firearms regulation. It's in protecting consumer privacy. In the US, there is no legally recognized right to privacy. Change that, and the ability of the government to target any group by what it purchases is severely restricted. Including people who purchase firearms. Criminal background regulations are actually less dangerous to gun owners, because of post-Watergate laws restricting the government's ability to mine its own data.

Re:wtf (1)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393073)

I wonder where the gun owners were when that kilo of coke was made illegal.

For some reason I have a mental image of boiling frogs here.

Re:wtf (2, Funny)

krelian (525362) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393177)

What's wrong with a kilo of coke? It's just a collection of atoms.

Re:wtf (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 6 years ago | (#24395389)

So is a nuclear bomb, so is poison, so is a taser. (Not trolling, I'm all for legalizing drugs, but just had to say my point.)

Re:wtf (1)

radarjd (931774) | more than 6 years ago | (#24394209)

so now a collection of 1's and 0's with a filename ending with .mp3 will be searched for as if it were a kilo of coke?

Possibly, but more likely this is intended to intercept counterfeit goods like bulk produced CDs, clothing and other fashion accessories, DVDs, etc. This part of the law is aimed at customs enforcement at ports and national borders. This is about someone shipping crates of knock-off DVDs or purses into a country, and the customs agents of that country seizing the goods and informing the rights-holder.

I don't think this is intended to deal with lone citizens re-entering the country with a couple of CDs from China. It could be used for that, of course, but there are the same enforcement issues you have now.

Like the DMCA? (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 6 years ago | (#24396029)

Possibly, but more likely this is intended to intercept counterfeit goods like bulk produced CDs, clothing and other fashion accessories, DVDs, etc.

Just like the DMCA was intended to stop people circumventing DRM but was also used by companies to silence people revealing information about them or their products which they wanted to keep quiet? I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt but I don't have any doubt at all that this will be abused.

Re:wtf (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 6 years ago | (#24395305)

this makes me happy to be a gun owner... when the sh1t goes down, you better be ready..

While I'm pro-gun (but do also support ethical gun control), I think that this mentality is the same as theirs.

end? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392255)

I used to wonder what the end of our free societies would look like.
Now I know it looks like ACTA

The Days of Internet Freedom (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392311)

The days of Internet freedom are quite sadly coming to an end with these international movements toward information totalitarianism, unless the geeks of the world are able to effectively unite and push back.

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (3, Insightful)

Wiseblood1 (1135095) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392375)

Yes, it is sad that attacks on our freedom such as this are happening everyday. The people woh have the power to change things do not, and will not for the foreseeable future. So long as corporate funded PACs and special interst groups such as these have the influence that they do now, our days as something remotely resembling a democracy are numbered.

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (3, Interesting)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392541)

I guess it's time for all of us to retreat to the FreeNet/DarkNet...which would consequently improve it greatly.

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393215)

http://freenetproject.org/

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (5, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392677)

The days of Internet freedom are quite sadly coming to an end with these international movements toward information totalitarianism, unless the geeks of the world are able to effectively unite and push back.

Local renewable energy, Wireless mesh networks and RepRaps are a good place to start. It is really more about walking away than it is about pushing back. If all you do is protest and make demands based on the rights you feel entitled to, they own your soul. If you render these centralized industries irrelevant, they die of neglect.

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392719)

Well, next time the pirate party is running for election, fucking vote for them then.

Seriously, things will only get worse if you keep voting republicrat/demopublican.

Y'arr, matey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24396297)

> Well, next time the pirate party is running for election, fucking vote for them then.

Unless I'm mistaken, the US branch of the Pirate Party can be found at: http://www.pirateparty.us./ [www.pirateparty.us]

Re:Y'arr, matey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24396875)

how hard would it have been to check the link? http://www.pirate-party.us/ [pirate-party.us] . Sheesh.

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (1)

DGolden (17848) | more than 6 years ago | (#24396783)

The US pirate party's website is at http://www.pirate-party.us/ [pirate-party.us]
(an AC posted an incorrect link, hmm... malice vs. incompetence... it was only missing a hyphen...)

The original swedish pirate party is at http://piratpartiet.se/ [piratpartiet.se]

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392831)

mass suicide.. we may be dead but we KNOW the world will die of brain drain.

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (1)

Missing_dc (1074809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393283)

The days of Internet freedom are quite sadly coming to an end with these international movements toward information totalitarianism, unless the geeks of the world are able to effectively unite and push back.

Dude, have you ever tried herding cats?

Look at all the arguments over "free" vs "FREE" or open source or even how many different flavors of UNIX derivatives we have. If we were really trying to band together to overcome the EVIL CORPORATIONS and produce a MS killer OS, we easily could have done so by now. We as geeks have too many personal agendas and projects we are trying to push to EVER get that organized.

You may as well preach about toppling and restructuring the US Government.

Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#24394399)

unless the geeks of the world are able to effectively unite and push back

Uniting geeks is like herding cats. It's an oft-abused analogy, but it's true.

While legislation like this is under review, we're too involved in a flamewar about Emacs/Vi or Trek/Wars or Libertarianism or whatever to make an impact on the decisions being made. And even if we could unite and push back, what are we going to do? Blackmail the powers that be by witholding critical systems? Right... see you in jail.

Call your Congressperson who won't give a toasty turd because they *have* to vote for this or risk being accused of being soft on border security?

Start some sort of grassroots support for our rights? Sure... like you'll get any press or publicity when the media is controlled by the corporate masters. The majority of the voting public isn't going to look past their sports and reality TV and decorating/cooking shows long enough to feel the breeze as their rights fly by them on the way to the dump.

Man, I must be depressed or something, because right now I really feel that *we can not make a difference*. The people in power have already taken everything they need to stay in power, and we have to bend over and take it, because a huge majority of the voting public doesn't give a flying fuck because they are not really inconvenienced as far as they can tell.

Sorry for the rant.

All I can say is, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter".

I can't access wikileaks from China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24392549)

Can someone else make this ACTA doc available please?

Text of memorandum (OCRed) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24397735)

Memorandum to: ACTA Negotiators

Subject: Business Perspectives on Border Measures and Civil Enforcement

From: Concerned business groups operating in ACTA nations

Date: July 29, 2008

_______________________________

In light of the upcoming second meeting of the negotiators of the Anti--Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) scheduled for July 29-31 in Washington D.C., the undersigned business associations would like to provide specific perspectives on provisions related to border measures and civil enforcement.

It is our understanding that discussions on border measures are expected to conclude shortly and that civil enforcement will be the subsequent topic in the ACTA negotiations, With this understanding, we have compiled the below recommended provisions, which we find crucial to effectively address border measures and civil enforcement issues in ACTA.

Furthermore, we would like to express our appreciation to the negotiating nations that have engaged the business community in collecting comments on ACTA. We look forward to more opportunities to engage with you and to receive additional details on the negotiations so that we can better provide relevant comments and information.

Recommendations for Border Measures

ACTA, at a minimum, should include provisions for border measures that:

1. Extend greater authority and effective powers to local customs and enforcement authorities and provide ex officio authority for customs authorities to suspend import, export and trans-shipment of goods, including merchandise in free trade zones, which are suspected of being counterfeited or pirated. Significantly increase inspections of exports/imports to find shipments of counterfeit or pirated goods and refer such findings to appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution.

2. In cases where relevant authorities have seized goods that are counterfeit or pirated, require authorities to inform the right holder of the names and addresses of the consignor, importer, exporter or consignee. Authorities should: (a) provide right holders access to relevant documents and information for use in conducting

[page 2]

private investigations or filing complaints to the courts or other government agencies; (b) provide right holders with sufficient time to commence a proper action pursuant to a seizure/suspension of clearance by customs authorities by introducing provisions that require a time period of at least 20 business days or 31 calendar days from the date of suspension or seizure, whichever is longer, for right holders to commence such action.

3. Establish clear procedures for right holders to initiate suspension by customs authorities of import, export and trans-shipment of suspected IPR infringing goods, including (a) all relevant and reasonably available evidence that is in its control, which is needed to establish a prima facie case for the party's claims or defenses; (b) reasonable security or equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the defendant and the competent authorities to prevent abuse. Bond requirements, however, should be eliminated as a condition to processing counterfeiting cases by customs. At the very least, the requirements should be established at a reasonable level so as not to deter the procedures. Governments should also take appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the burdens on trademark owners of suffering costs of storage and destruction of counterfeit goods.

4. Require authorities to take appropriate steps to ensure that all counterfeit goods are compulsorily destroyed, definitively removed from channels of commerce, or disposed of with the rights holders' consent where there is no health or safety risk. The simple removal of the unlawfully affixed trademark should not be considered a sufficient course of action.

5. Ensure close cooperation between national customs authorities and the special authorities of their free trade zones or free ports in order to provide for the efficient enforcement of anti-counterfeiting and anti--piracy laws to check the offences of trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods. This would include the seizure of equipment or materials suspected of being used to produce infringing merchandise.

Recommended ACTA Provisions for Civil Enforcement

ACTA, at a minimum, should include provisions for civil enforcement that:

1. Encourage governments to develop calculation methods that lead to fines against counterfeiters and pirates commensurate to the harms caused in order to increase the deterrent impact of fines, and impose sanctions, such as contempt of court, for failure of violators to pay such fines. Calculation methods can be based on information provided by right holders. Right holders should be allowed to elect award of either actual damages suffered or pre--established damages.

2. Allow right holders to recover costs incurred in the detection, investigation and prosecution of acts of counterfeiting and piracy. Costs that can be recovered by

[page 3]

the right holder can include court costs or fees, reasonable attorneys' fees, and storage and destruction fees.

3. Grant officials authority to order and/or execute seizure of the infringing goods, and materials and implements used to manufacture and/or package the infringing goods, as well as other physical and financial assets of violators. Counterfeit and pirated goods should be destroyed and definitively removed from the channels of commerce, or disposed of with the rights holders' consent where there is no health or safety risk. Destruction of the seized goods and materials and implements used to manufacture them should be conducted in a manner that minimizes risks of further infringements.

4. Provide rights holders who are victims of counterfeiting and piracy the right to obtain information regarding the infringer, including their identities, means of production or distribution, and relevant third parties.

On behalf of:

IANAL so if one can answer me this... (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392737)

How can this be allowed in the U.S., which seems to me to be in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment? I'm truly curious, as I said, IANAL. Is there something out there that allows this?

Why do I fear the answer will be "It's true it is against the 4th Amendment. However the U.S. Constitution is pretty much a piece of ass wipe your elected officials use daily anymore."

Re:IANAL so if one can answer me this... (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392931)

It's true it is against the 4th Amendment. However the U.S. Constitution is pretty much a piece of ass wipe your elected officials use daily anymore.

Re:IANAL so if one can answer me this... (2, Insightful)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24392985)

Why do I fear the answer will be "It's true it is against the 4th Amendment. However the U.S. Constitution is pretty much a piece of ass wipe your elected officials use daily anymore."

Because you're not Rip van Winkle, and thus haven't been asleep for the past n years?

Re:IANAL so if one can answer me this... (2, Funny)

TheFlamingoKing (603674) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393123)

Oh, no. The amendments to the FISA bill passed earlier this month. We don't have a Fourth amendment anymore.

I can see where you may have been confused, since a Google search will still turn up some text about "search and seizures" or something. But, if you're looking it up, you're probably a terrorist anyway. America *needs* to be able to go through your files, your hard drives, your iPods and your phone calls, or else more people will die!

9/11 Changed Everything! Did you forget?

Re:IANAL so if one can answer me this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24393649)

How can this be allowed in the U.S., which seems to me to be in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment? I'm truly curious, as I said, IANAL. Is there something out there that allows this?

IANAL either, but my understanding is that treaties can take precedence over the Constitution.

Not that anyone (I'm looking at you George) pays attention to the Constitution anymore.

Re:IANAL so if one can answer me this... (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 6 years ago | (#24396759)

IANAL either, but my understanding is that treaties can take precedence over the Constitution.

I always thought treaties become laws, but all laws have to work under the constitution. (That's why we have a supreme court)

Otherwise you could just wipe out the entire constitution without state ratification, and honestly, I don't think they would put up with it.

Re:IANAL so if one can answer me this... (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 6 years ago | (#24396835)

Replying to myself.

Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Reid v. Covert explains how the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert [wikipedia.org]

Our governments have sold out (1)

aaandre (526056) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393011)

The public servants haven't been such for a long time. If you look at the laws our governments pass, you'll see more power to the corporations, police and big money and less and less protection for the people.

Our countries are being turned in gated communities with all powerful private security force, where 90% of us can't afford to live.

Hmmm, have we seen this somewhere before?

Re:Our governments have sold out (1)

sydbarrett74 (74307) | more than 6 years ago | (#24397587)

The public servants haven't been such for a long time.

Have the vast majority of elected officials ever truly served the public, rather than merely power-tripping?

Pretty good with two additions (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#24393213)

Recommendations for Border measures 6. Establish clear procedures for those accused of infringement by the right holder to dispute claims and enforce due process including (a)disputing the standing of the alleged right holder to make a claim, (b) disputing the right of the border authority to impede fair trade, (c) require documentation supporting the claim of infringement within 24 hours of the claim (c) allow immediate access to the good accused of infringement by the owner or an authorized agent, and (d) require a hearing within five(5) business days of the claim of infringment to assess the validity of such claims.

Recommended ACTA Provisions for Civil Enforcement (5) In the case where a right holder claiming infringement does not provide documentation within 24 hours of the claim, does not attend the hearing or does not have suitable evidence to support the claim of infringement, or in the case where it is shown that right holder has made a frivilous claim, the victim of the right holder is entitled to recover costs associated with the defense and direct and indirect loss of business resulting from the claim. These include but are not limited to attorney fees, storage fees, the value of the detained product, the values of any lost business of the victim, that value of any lost business of clients related to the detained products, and any costs necessary for the victim to recover from any defamation related to unsupported detention of the products.

I know it sounds unreasonable, but if my shipment of bag can be halted just on the word of LVMH, and they can force me into the poor house because I have no recourse to get and sell my merchandise for 30 days, then there better be a balance so I can tap their massive corporate assets when they do wrong, including making them pay for the months worth of lost sales.

Re:Pretty good with two additions (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#24395745)

Good idea! Now all you have to do is lobby Congress to include that. Good luck with that.

Remember, you're just a measly voter. They've got money.

Re:Pretty good with two additions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24398685)

Jurisprudence and fairness is out the window with this lot. Rather than say 'reasonable' , we go for capricious administrative assumptions - no justice or balance here.

The existing law is not broken - the right holders already have rights.

Like the 'right holder' to produce a tax return proving they have the rights, on the day.

Customs: Are those yours?
Perp: No Sir- those belong to a rights holder in China - they are not mime - see this paper proves it.

Gallagher vs. the terrorists (1)

rancho_seco (1333477) | more than 6 years ago | (#24397049)

"ensure that all counterfeit goods are compulsory destroyed...The simple removal of the unlawfully trademark should not be a sufficient course of action"

This just in: The custom office has just hired the comedian, Gallagher, to bring the hammer of justice down on counterfeit goods. An spokesman was quted as saying:"You think you're cute with your mac sticker on your Thinkpad? WHAM!"

"Your sticker of Calvin urinating on an all-american Ford emblem stuck onto your briefcase? WHAM!"

Custom agents are secretly hoping for a shipment of counterfeit watermelons.

Acta or ACTA may refer to: (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 6 years ago | (#24399203)

Acta or ACTA may refer to:

* Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a proposed multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement

* Australian Community Television Alliance (ACTA), the industry association representing community television licensees in Australia.

* Acta Diurna, daily Roman official notices

* Acta Arithmetica, number theory publication

* Acta (conciliar), official proceedings of a council of the church or a government, such as the Acts of an Ecumenical Council

* Acta (software), early outliner software

* Acta Sanctae are hagiographical accounts of saints

* Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments See Registered jack

* American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an education organization

* Manny Acta, current manager of the Washington Nationals in Major League Baseball

* Australian Clay Target Association (my favorite)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>