×

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!

Full ACTA Leak Online

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the change-yer-pants dept.

Privacy 201

An anonymous reader writes "Following months of small Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement leaks, the full consolidated ACTA text has now been posted online. The consolidated text provides a clear indication of how the negotiations have altered earlier proposals (see this post for links to the early leaks) as well as the first look at several other ACTA elements. For example, last spring it was revealed that several countries had proposed including a de minimus provision to counter fears that the border measures chapter would lead to iPod searching border guards. The leak shows there are four proposals on the table."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

201 comments

Canada (-1, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596328)

Why does the french originated country but up with that shit?

Re:Canada (5, Insightful)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596476)

Modded off topic, too bad theres not a -1 Wrong moderation.

Back on topic: There are SOME decent provisions in the ACTA, however on the whole the entire thing needs to be torn up and burned. Start over with something reasonable and above board rather than having all this secrecy surrounding it. Even with leaks we can't trust our governments to continue in this despicable fashion.

Re:Canada (0, Offtopic)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596712)

"-1 overrated" is meant to be used for mismoderated comments, in much the same way as "+1 underrated", isn't it?

Trust your government (5, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597970)

... Even with leaks we can't trust our governments to continue in this despicable fashion.

On the contrary, I believe that we can put our full trust in the government to continue in a despicable fashion.

Short summary of the treaty (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596336)

All your files are belong to us.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596604)

Naturally. Mmusic and movies and TV shows are the US' only viable industry left. We have to protect it, else we'd collapse even further into AA status.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596816)

The US Still exports lot of physical, non RIAA/MPAA, goods

Re:Short summary of the treaty (-1, Troll)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597112)

Really? Lots? Define "lots", please. The trade deficit hasn't magically shrunk over the last few months, has it? The fact is, every third world nation in the world, plus China, is working hard to make that trade deficit even larger, each and every day.

If we, as Americans, had a lick of sense, we would stop buying things made in China, Pakistan, India, etc. Everything made in China, and half of everything made in the rest of the third world is junk. Hell, half of what comes from China is actually deadly. But, we keep buying. DUHHH!!!

Re:Short summary of the treaty (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597422)

If we, as Americans, had a lick of sense, we would stop buying things made in China, Pakistan, India, etc. Everything made in China, and half of everything made in the rest of the third world is junk. Hell, half of what comes from China is actually deadly. But, we keep buying. DUHHH!!!

That would be sensible if we weren't in the worst recession since the great depression. Nobody has as much money as they used to; most of us are just getting by, people are losing their jobs, etc. The choice is third world junk or nothing.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (4, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597622)

The choice is third world junk or nothing.

I've found that in some cases, the "nothing" is actually the better alternative here. Rather than buying a cheap piece of crap that I can barely afford right now, I make a conscious decision to hold off and simply do without for a few months or maybe even forever. It's not always easy, but it brings a remarkable sense of peace when you figure out a way to be okay with less.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597728)

One or more of you parents and/or grandparents passed a little bit of wisdom on to you. I have to wonder where all the rest of America's parents and grandparents are. No one can "do without" these days, it seems. They can't even budget something down the road a month or two, let alone "do without". Insanity, I say.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598002)

Yes, maybe in most cases. But if your kid makes you a grandpa, somebody has to buy a crib and baby clothes, and that's usually grandma and grandpa. You can't save up for kids' clothes, or school supplies. And to someone making less than I do, the American made Apple (full of third world parts in any case) is a popor choice when a Chinese model that IBM used to sell costs half as much. A dollar I save is an extra dollar I can spend.

You no longer can buy an American made TV. Do without just because they don't make TVs here? The advice to "buy American" is a bit too late.

It would have been good advice for most people back in the nineties when the economy was good, but people simply can't afford stuff now. And doing without doesn't help me OR my economy.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598468)

"The advice to "buy American" is a bit too late."

No, not at all. I've been hearing that advice since about 1970-something. I've heeded it as much as possible. These days, it isn't as possible as it was in the '70's and '80's, but you can still go a long way on it. Those things that you can't find made in America, shop around for European, or south America.

But, whatever you do, don't allow yourself to fall into that rut of buying the cheapest thing possible. I've harped on the fact that various countries and/or manufacturers make superb products, if you just know what to look for. Need steel tools, or other products? Almost anyone in the world who makes steel, produces better quality than China. Argentina, India, the Netherlands, Germany - shop around! Computer components? Go Korean, or Japanese. Shop. Know whose families you are feeding with your purchase.

China has really given us nothing - I'm not willing to help feed Chinese children. Korea and Japan, on the other hand, have given back to us. I am willing to help feed some Korean or Japanese man's kids. You've heard the old saw, about voting with your dollars? Stop rewarding shoddy workmanship, and a complete lack of any quality control.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (1)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597928)

If we, as Americans, had a lick of sense, we would stop buying things made in China

That would be sensible if we weren't in the worst recession since the great depression.

So the solution to the recession is to send what money you do have to another country?

Re:Short summary of the treaty (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598384)

So the solution to the recession is to send what money you do have to another country?

The middle class can't solve the recession, only the rich 5% who control 95% of the wealth can do that. The Waltons choose where your goods come from, as do those who own Best Buy, Target, etc.

I'm too old to tilt at windmills. I leave that to the younger folks; I've tilted at anough windmillls in my life to know that resistance is futile.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31598480)

I've tilted at anough windmillls in my life to know that resistance is futile.

So, the Borg are right?

Re:Short summary of the treaty (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#31599084)

I am a cyborg, you insensitive clod! Most geezers are.

You will be assimilated.

Yes, lots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31597666)

He wasn't talking about the net deficit; he was talking about the exports. Saying the US doesn't export lots, is like saying a rockstar who spends a million dollars a year on cocaine, isn't really buying much cocaine because his income is higher than his cocaine expenditure.

But ok, let's totally change the subject and talk about the net deficit.

If we, as Americans, had a lick of sense, we would stop buying things made in China, Pakistan, India, etc.

Hey, they're the idiots who gave us the credit card that everyone knows we are never ever going to pay off. Why not use it? After the crash when no one will export to us anymore, then we'll be glad we didn't ship away all our resources. I say exploit China as much as they're willing to let us. This fake credit rating isn't going to last forever.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598602)

Actually, the US will be the ones that lose the most when ACTA gets enacted.

Let's look at how copyright is enforced (or not). You will notice that in countries like the USA, the EU countries, Australia, Japan, in short, every country that doesn't really have any real problems, you have pretty good copyright and IP enforcement (good from the IP holders perspective). You don't really have a lot of power to get your IP enforced in countries that either have real problems (like, say, most countries ending in -stan) or countries that actually benefit from pretty much ignoring IP laws altogether (like, say, China).

Do you think that will change when ACTA gets ratified?

The US will have to enforce the IP of those countries. And they will, because these countries can and of course will prod them to. Can you imagine getting a DMCA takedown notice from China because they claim the rights to all film shot by a chinese citizen, and that dissident happens to be one? Think that's impossible?

In return you get zip, nada, rien from China. Yes, they'll sign it and yes, they'll even pay lip service to it. Copying is still sky high? Boo hoo. We are really sorry. We will even stage a token sting. And even punish the guy(s) we catch to the utmost extent. Want him hanged? No problem, think we care or what? Satisfied? Ok, now buzz off.

Re:Short summary of the treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596796)

/me puts on his anti-static rubber gloves..

Re:Short summary of the treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31597990)

Got a date with a sheep to get to, I take it?

Global Fascism Acid Test (4, Insightful)

inKubus (199753) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598786)

This has the hallmarks of an acid test. Global law negotiations done in secret, under the guise of treaty...exactly the way we don't want it to go. From here there will be more laws in secret and the only way you'll find out you've violated them is that you don't have the required permit on your passport and you're accosted at the border. This is exactly how the global fascists (corpratists) want it. Without control over global travel, they cannot control the flow of goods and information. Each intersection of borders is a profit gradient. If goods are allowed to pass by osmosis, they lose all the leverage they could use to pump wealth back and forth between countries while taking a cut off the top. Sooner or later, they have it all.

There are basically two forks in this road: one, where there is a single world democracy with the corporations below that rule of law and the other where there are separate country laws (like there are now) and the corporations flit above them BUT prohibit the individual. That's where we're headed now.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_text (5, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596344)

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_text [swpat.org]

I'm typing up the whole thing, for easier reading, searching, copying

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596400)

Use OCR, much faster.

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (1)

kemenaran (1129201) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596520)

I guess the quality of the scan is too poor and the language/typography too complex for decent OCR recognition.

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596630)

The only reason to ever draft laws in anything but plain-text is obfuscation. I'm sick of trying to read the actual text of legislation and only finding PDFs of scanned images of typewritten papers. Seriously, who the fuck still uses a typewriter? All legislation should be written in .txt files, and placed in a web-accessible revision control system. That way, it becomes trivial to discover who is responsible for each and every line of treachery.

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (3, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598290)

In this case, since it was effectively smuggled out, I'd wager that the leak was simply unable to get ahold of the source document and maybe all they had available was some hard copies. FSM bless them for the effort, I sure hope they don't get found out and made dead.

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (2, Interesting)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596654)

I guess the quality of the scan is too poor and the language/typography too complex for decent OCR recognition.

Wouldn't it be possible to do distributed proofreading of the OCRd text like they do for Project Gutenberg?

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (4, Insightful)

Paul server guy (1128251) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596424)

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_text [swpat.org]

I'm typing up the whole thing, for easier reading, searching, copying

Cool, Thank you. - And yes, please keep all of the original errors and typos, Law droids have all sorts of fun with those. "For lack of a comma the land was lost" and all of that..

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (5, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596958)

Searchable text mirror: http://www.exstatic.org.nyud.net:8080/201001_acta.pdf_as_text.html [nyud.net]

Rehosted on my website and then put into the nyud system, should be able to handle it.
I just hate hotfile and rapidshare type sites. No I don't want to wait 30 seconds or become a premium member.

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596442)

Thanks very much! Glad to know the Internet isn't all 4chan trolls and hot grits chasers

Speaking of leaked treachery... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596526)

Remember when Obongo promised us he'd post the full text of every bill online for the public to view for at least 5 days before he'd sign it into law? Health care takeover? 36 hours... He now controls the banks, GM, Chrysler, your mortgage, your student loans, and now your access to health care. Next up: your access to energy. Can you say "Fascism?"

Re:Speaking of leaked treachery... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596886)

If you're referring to the health care bill, it went online last Thursday at the latest, and he signed the bill on Tuesday. That's five days on my calendar.

I just thought you'd want to be accurate.

Re:Speaking of leaked treachery... (2, Informative)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597258)

Actually the Senate bill, which is what he signed, has been up for weeks. The House reconciliation bill which is now in the hands of the Senate is nowhere near signing. What remains to be seen is if the Senate, which actually likes the Senate bill (they passed it after all), will actually pass the reconciliation bill.

Re:Speaking of leaked treachery... (1)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597820)

I think this has been a bait and switch all along. There is absolutely no requirement or guarantee that the Senate will pass the reconciliation bill. If it doesn't get passed, we're stuck with the original Senate version, which a lot more people had problems with. Can someone please explain why the health care bill wasn't treated like every other bill? . . . Each house should pass their own version of the bill and then have a joint reconciliation meeting. That reconciled bill then has to be passed by each house again before the president gets a chance to sign anything.

Re:Speaking of leaked treachery... (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598294)

Because they couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for it a second time. They had enough trouble finding enough to vote against the express wishes of their constituents the first time.

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31597096)

You are not the only one, the telecomix/werebuild cluster has started up a transcription effort together with la Quadrature at this faxpad [faxpad.org] as well. The finished pages are available at the wiki. [werebuild.eu]

In thruth, it is almost finished, with only about 5-10 pages left.

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31597948)

Text is now completely transcribed and online at the wiki [werebuild.eu] .

Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001_acta.pdf_as_tex (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597140)

You're awesome. I've skimmed through the PDF, but it's positively crap. I owe you a little something toward your next pair of glasses, after you've read and transcribed all that mess!

Capable? (5, Insightful)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596368)

It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content even if they were allowed access. Seriously, would I have to carry receipts, license docs, original packaging and so forth?

Re:Capable? (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596748)

no no.

all your content should of course be DRM'd.
No need for receipts then.

(who wants to bet someone actually proposed this at some point)

Re:Capable? (2, Informative)

Jenming (37265) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597166)

Section 2 Options 1,2,3 state that personal baggage of a non-commercial nature do not need to be searched.

Later in that section the only things Border Guards would have control over are items where they have been provided with accurate enough descriptions in order to identify them.

It doesn't look to me that this guards searching your iPod for illegal mp3s. Rather I think this is a truck full of burned DVDs, knockoff designer items, etc.

Re:Capable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31597900)

Later in that section the only things Border Guards would have control over are items where they have been provided with accurate enough descriptions in order to identify them.

"iPod" sounds like an item that could be accurately described.

It doesn't look to me that this guards searching your iPod for illegal mp3s. Rather I think this is a truck full of burned DVDs, knockoff designer items, etc.

That they would limit their actions to quantites like "a truck full" is wishful thinking.

Re:Capable? (3, Informative)

geegel (1587009) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597334)

No you wouldn't. Usually I'd say RTFA, but given the size of the thing, it would be a bit inappropriate.

Please look over Section 2 (all the options have a similar provision)

Where a traveler's personal baggage contains trademark goods or copyright materials of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance {Aus: or where the copyright materials or trademark goods are sent in small consignments} and there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement.]

Re:Capable? (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598240)

Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement

"may consider" doesn't sound legally binding.
If the treaty doesn't explicitly say "don't do XYZ" or "you can only do XYZ" then it'll get used to the full letter of the law.
That's usually how these things go.

Re:Capable? (3, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597792)

It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content

"Article 2.7: Ex-Officio Action" [presenting just the US version here]

"1. Each party shall provide that its customs authorities may act upon their own initiative, to suspend the release of ... suspected pirated copyright goods..."

The content need not be illegal (nor easily discriminated as such), the guard merely needs to posit suspicion.

Re:Capable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31597838)

Seriously, would I have to carry receipts, license docs, original packaging and so forth?

I can see where this is going: encrypted storage for an e-receipt for a media and a device. The store signs the receipt and can provide customer service even without the paper receipt. Of course, it will be cracked but so are the paper receipts copied as well. Then again, if the content licence forbids transferring the content to another storage by any means the customer is screwed anyway as the receipt would provide unique product type id to ensure the product would be in the proper (content) configuration (media) as (semi-) automatically inspected by the border officials. In my dreams, this post provides a prior art so that nobody can extract any additional licence profits from something possibly included in everything sold.

Origin of the file (kinda) (5, Informative)

kemenaran (1129201) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596420)

By the way, the file was released by the french association "La quadrature du Net", which is quite active as a defender of Net freedom and neutrality in France (they fought against HADOPI and the LOOPSI-pedo-filtering-and-blocking laws).

I don't know if they got the file themselves or if they just released it.

Re:Origin of the file (kinda) (4, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596658)

Link: http://www.laquadrature.net/ [laquadrature.net] They also have a great political memory section [laquadrature.net] plus current news:

Brussels, March 22nd, 2010 - With the current debates surrounding the Gallo Report on "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR) enforcement1 and rumours about an imminent revival of the IPR criminal enforcement directive (IPRED2), a holy war is taking place in the European Parliament. Members of the Parliament are being flooded with false figures and statistics from the entertainment industries' intensive lobbying. They are also being heavily pressured by the French authorities.

then theres only one thing to say (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596850)

Viva la france !

Re:then theres only one thing to say (0, Troll)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597382)

Viva la surrender monkeys!

Wait, are we for or against the French today? Man, posting on Slashdot has become a minefield of post modernism these days...

surrender monkeys as in (4, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597856)

how they occupied entire europe back in 1792 ?

fyi, any serious scholar of military history would be able to say that what befell on france would befall any contemporary nation that happened to be placed geographically same with france. germans gambled on untested military technology, and won their gambit. such gambles cost many nations their freedoms before when tried. however this time it worked.

northern france, poland, western soviet union had geography that was most accommodating to this new kind of war, blitzkrieg, with their open wide fields that allowed big mobility. because it was a fast tactic, until allies were able to develop a counter tactic, germans were done away with northern france, and even later soviets in 1941.

due to geography, blitzkrieg didnt work well in south france, yugoslavia, balkans.

let me break you another fact - by 1940, united states didnt even have a proper medium battle tank, hell they didnt even have light tanks. had germany been a neighbor of usa, all americans would be talking german now. i know this will come as distasteful to a lot of you nationalist americans out there, but its a brutal historic fact.

and on a sidenote, im not french. im just a hobbyist of history.

Full Consolidated? (1)

Mrdzone (562353) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596466)

Come on now... at least take 30 seconds to read the story before you publish it. It's either Full or Consolidated.... not both

Re:Full Consolidated? (5, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596546)

As I understand it, it can be both.

Full = the entirety of it (i.e. not missing any sections)

Consolidated = in one piece, with up to date edits and amendments included.

The latter is typically used with legislation that undergoes amendment. You have the amendment itself, which says thing like "in section 3, omit the words blah and replace with blah" or "section 82(b) is hereby repealed". The amendment is what gets passed, and either a ~consolidated~ version of the full legislation is made (with the changes from the amendment effected), or it's not, and you have to read the original text + the amendment ~together~ to get the full meaning.

So in this case we have the consolidated version (no reference to external modifying documents needed), which is also the full text.

This is why you need version control on laws (3, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597044)

You have the amendment itself, which says thing like "in section 3, omit the words blah and replace with blah" or "section 82(b) is hereby repealed".

If you squint hard enough and replace the arbitrary words with intuitively selected symbols (plus, minus, at, comma), it looks almost like...

A diff.

So... a consolidated version is one with... all patches applied? Like git checkout HEAD?

And they have this cumbersome process automated? Why, we programmers should do that too! It would save lots of effort :)

Re:This is why you need version control on laws (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597418)

But then they'd only need half as many politicians to accomplish the task. That would mean the other half of the politicians would have to enter the private sector work force. And I don't even want to *risk* having my Big Mac handled by an ex-politician thank you very much.

One Small Leap (4, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596472)

I'm just happy *someone*, *somewhere* had enough moral integrity to defy their corporate-led masters.

Re:One Small Leap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596808)

if you believe in corporate-led masters and there abilities to manipulate, why do you not believe they allowed it to be leaked?

people are jerks, whether they're judged as good or bad is besides the point.

Safe Harbor Provisions (1)

snsr (917423) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596628)

Most concerning to me is that this bullshit may effect safe harbor provisions for service providers.

Re:Safe Harbor Provisions (3, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597164)

It also circumvents current laws that most countries have regarding home copies (either subsidized through taxes levied on blank media) and fair use by stating that all copies (regardless of commercial gain) are 'illegal'.

Re:Safe Harbor Provisions (5, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597224)

Most concerning to all of us should be, the fact that a separate group of "rights" holders are being defined, and that governments are going to sign away authority and sovereignty to those "rights" holders.

You think you've seen some crazy shit in the past? Just wait until half the nations on earth are subject to the whims of some greedy sumbitch with a blockbuster movie or two to his name.

Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty - in effect, you've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law. Those "rights" holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow, Washington, London, and Beijing, just how "intellectual property" will be handled in the future.

Farewell, Public Domain. From now on, it will all be pubic domain, because those "rights" holders will be sticking it to all of us.

The Right-Wing nutjobs may have been right? (2, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598432)

Perhaps this, rather than the UN, is the 'Evil One-World Govenment' they were warning us about...

a companies bad busines model (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596632)

is clearly not a government's problem. The ACTA needs to be stopped.

Re:a companies bad busines model (2, Insightful)

SilentSandman (1488023) | more than 3 years ago | (#31599132)

"clearly"? ... considering how far this has already gone, I am guessing it's not quite clear enough.

Am I reading this right? (3, Interesting)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596662)

On page 6, article 2.3 paragraph 2: Where it says materials and implements does that mean if i use a infringing line of code or part to make a product like a Ferrari, then the whole item can possibly be forfeited?

Re:Am I reading this right? (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596898)

if it's brutal enough I might not be against this one :D
Some Microsoft programmer grabs a small chunk of GPLed code and well...
But it probably doesn't mean that since that would be the most dangerous to companies which create large monolithic expensive projects.

Re:Am I reading this right? (1)

djnforce9 (1481137) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596934)

Border searches would take an eternity if the guard has to conduct the search in THAT level of detail. Even with iPods, I'd say good luck having someone verify ownership of every single file on it.

Re:Am I reading this right? (2, Interesting)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597120)

As I read this, not only the product in violation, but also the means of production which are predominantly used to produce the product in question can be forfeited. This is not exactly new, at least in the area of patents. If you build a machine the primary purpose of which is producing something that is patented by someone else, you are indirectly violating that patent. The weird thing is that every other paragraph of this article contains the provision "at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings", which is missing here.

Re:Am I reading this right? (1)

Lostlander (1219708) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598636)

That would be entertaining if Microsoft or Apple added GPL code without sharing derivative work and ended up handing over their entire products to the writer.

Re:Am I reading this right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31598690)

Silly rabbit, laws like these are for the powerless! If Microsoft adds GPL code, an army of lawyers keeps them from harm. If Linux adds code even in the slightest bit tainted by MS, the same army of lawyers now goes on the offense.

iPod searching border guards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596814)

What for? If I wanted to hide data on a device, you would need a computer forensics expert to find it. Border guards are doing well to find their dick with both hands, never mind uncovering evidence of encrypted data hidden in executable code. The obvious workaround is storing your data on a server and sftp'ing it across geographic borders and anyone can manage that.

What is the exact problem that would be solved by permitting border control staff to rummage through peoples private data?

Re:iPod searching border guards? (2, Interesting)

BlackCreek (1004083) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596918)

What is the exact problem that would be solved by permitting border control staff to rummage through peoples private data?

The "problem" of a citizen's privacy. Or at least the "problem" of a citizen's perception of having the right to any privacy. I think that is the "problem" they are aiming to solve.

Re:iPod searching border guards? (3, Informative)

Comboman (895500) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597158)

Border guards have always had the right to dig through your luggage and look at your underwear, even strip search you if you look at them the wrong way. How is there ANY expectation of privacy at a border crossing?

Re:iPod searching border guards? (1)

BlackCreek (1004083) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597360)

Ok. You are right, they always had strip-search rights. But it was only from a few years ago, from the terrorist scare, did border guards start caring about the content of a computer. If it was terrorist material.

Now, I will also need to worry about copyright claims over the files I carry. Or if my phone is claimed to infringe on someone's patents.

Re:iPod searching border guards? (3, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596956)

Border guards are doing well to find their dick with both hands

Man, I've traveled in parts of Eastern Europe and the Balkans where the border guards are fucking animals.

The last time I traveled from Sutomore to Sarejevo by car it was less bad, but they still seem to be actively recruiting sociopaths.

Scanned With Free Software (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596872)

The PDF was scanned using XSane version 0.996.

Will Someone Please!!!? (3, Insightful)

Pitawg (85077) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596924)

Someone with some music talent should put out a song with the text of the agreement used as lyrics, and charge the negotiators with international copyright infringement and distribution! NOW!

Re:Will Someone Please!!!? (1)

burkmat (1016684) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597294)

You've misunderstood things: The law doesn't apply to the people writing it.

Re:Will Someone Please!!!? (1)

Pitawg (85077) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598904)

You do not believe the copyright laws on the books, now, in all the nations negotiating this agreement cannot be used to pursue infringement violations against these negotiators, if the words were in a copyrighted tune? Someone is misunderstanding, but not I.

Does this mean...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31596930)

Does this mean I can't use my iPod to search the boarder guards anymore?

PETITION EU PARLIAMENT - NOW ! (5, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#31596980)

https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do?language=EN [europa.eu]

if you are living in an Eu member country, Eu member candidate country, or a resident of an Eu member country, or working for a company that has its quarters in an Eu member country, you have the right to petition European Parliament.

This is not your ordinary online petition page - this is an official petition page, petitions of which are each processed by real bureaucrats and acted upon, if you give your credentials correctly. (Name surname and so on). Its serious shit.

As of this moment, the affiliates of american media cartels are flooding Eu parliament members with the falsified and baseless statistics they have been using to fool the senators in united states. Eu parliament members are generally much more informed than u.s. senators, however it is much better not to leave anything to chance.

So, if you fulfill any of the above conditions, you should fill a petition urging European Parliament to side with the people rather than the corporate interests, and you should inform them about the falsified statistics that media cartels are using. If you have any links to the various realistic statistics that were made by independent organizations, you can also forward the information to them. (like the p2p research done in netherlands a while ago).

Eu parliament already basically blocked some draconian items in the acta treaty. they did it with great majority. so they DO listen and heed people. If Eu parliament shoots acta down totally, then there is no way in hell that it can come into being, because since china and russia would never accept and enforce it, (and noone can force them to do so), if you add europe to that it basically makes approx 4/7th of world population.

Go for it. time is now.

Re:PETITION EU PARLIAMENT - NOW ! (4, Informative)

Spyware23 (1260322) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597202)

This works, people. I've used the EU parliament's petition page before (regarding pricing issues with Valve) and I got a three-page semi-personal response. Like OP says, take the time to fill out a petition!

holy crap (2, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597782)

of course it would work. it is the official page to submit a petition. its in equal status as if you went there, and presented a petition on paper. its official, governmental, bureaucratic as it can be.

Injunctions against "intermediaries" (2, Interesting)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597100)

Well, it's great to know what our corrupt EU politicians over here have been up to. EU citizens: remember, this is what your government ministers have agreed to, it's not just some faceless EU bureaucracy. Hold them responsible for their actions in the EU, don't let them hide behind the bureaucracy.

Article 2.x, option 2 (EU)
"Each party shall ensure that, where a judicial decision is taken finding infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. The parties shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by the third party to infringe an intellectual property right."

Re:Injunctions against "intermediaries" (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598088)

Well, you are loud, but typically for loud people, not very well informed and ignorant of that fact.

Yes, they did. but you omitted that the current situation is, that the EU rejects ACTA as a whole. There even was an article here on Slashdot about it.

Re:Injunctions against "intermediaries" (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598752)

The "EU as a whole" did not reject ACTA, the European Parliament did. The council of ministers and the commission are the ones propagating ACTA, and the ones involved in the negotiations. Unfortunately, the European Parliament has a tendency to fold when it come down to it, and the council of ministers usually wins. The council of ministers is composed of national government ministers. The national governments are however rarely held responsible for any of the decisions of the council of ministers, hell most people probably have no idea what the council of ministers is. That needs to change.

Coming up: DMCA takedown request (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31597508)

That would be funny.

Not too bad (2, Informative)

Jenming (37265) | more than 3 years ago | (#31597906)

After reading through the entire thing it actually doesn't look too bad.

The only major problem I see in it is trying to make 3rd parties liable for people who use their services. I'd recommend pestering your elected representatives and tell them to follow NZ lead on those articles.

The rest of it basically says:
1) make sure its illegal to copy and distribute pirated works.
2) make sure there are tools to enforce those laws.
3) provide these legal tools to foreign copyright holders.

These seem like pretty logical steps. I think the real fight here should be to shorten the absurd copyright lengths currently in use.

What are odds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31597926)

Next draft will include making it a criminal offense to release secret treaty information?

I've started reading the text through ... (1)

dbarclay10 (70443) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598424)

I've started reading the text through, and all I can say is: GO CANADA!

As a Canadian I've been dreading our role in these negotiations. I feel that we really haven't pressed our position sufficiently in bilateral treaties with the US when it comes to commerce (this goes back decades). This is exasperated by the current Federal party in power in parliament (though it's a minority), which demonstrably follows the US lead in many areas.

However, it seems that at least in this case, our government (as distinct from parliament, I might add) is clearly pushing for the Right Stuff(tm). At least as hard as the EU, maybe harder. As an example, it seems that wherever punishments (remedies) for infringers are mentioned, Canada (and usually the EU) has added: [the judicial authorities] "shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies ordered as well as the interest of third parties."

In other words, no ridiculous court cases where a 16-year-old gets saddled with a $750,000 judgement against them because they downloaded a few tracks from Kazaa (or whatever the kids are using these days :) and didn't know enough to turn it off.

DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT. TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS.

Damages and DRM (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31598474)

Article 2.2 1 (b)

in determining the amount of damages for infringement .. its authorities [shall] consider .. the value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, [or] the suggested retail price

Here's the big problem: if the infringing copy does not contain DRM but the retail version does contain DRM, then there is no retail price for the infringing copy to compare to.

Let's say in 2010 Sony sells a Bluray disc of movie for $20. Let's say you rip the movie, removing the DRM which keeps most people who buy it from being able to play it, and then spread seven billion copies of the .mkv file.

In the eyes of this treaty, the resulting law is going to value the damages at around $140 billion. But in real life, the damages are $0.00, because Sony doesn't really have a usable product on the market. They haven't lost a single sale. This discrepancy needs to be dealt with.

The catch is that Sony may in the future lose some sales due to the past infringement. Suppose in 2012 Sony decides to enter the market and start selling the movie without DRM. Why buy Sony's non-DRM copy of the movie in 2012 if you downloaded it in 2010 for free? That's a problem and clearly something has gone wrong.

But we've got to remember that the purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to release creative works. If Sony doesn't really release the movie until 2012, then it doesn't make any sense for them to have a copyright in 2010, so those unauthorized copies shouldn't be considered infringing. And this is where copyright law really breaks down, because it considers the work to be copyrighted as of 2010, and considers a DRMed copy to be a real publication, and even contains other weirdnesses to not only allow DRM, but legitimize and endorse it. In US, the very act of removing the DRM is prohibited. That's just insane.

ACTA is too soon. We need to repair copyright law before we pass a treaty like this. But if we must have ACTA, then it needs to contain a provision that copyright should not be granted or enforced, when the holder doesn't make a good faith effort to get the work onto the market. DRM should mean no copyright. Add that provision, and everyone -- publishers, consumers, and public domain trawlers a hundred years in the future -- wins. Without that provision, ACTA is worse than useless, because it only compounds the error in existing copyright law.

Do not support this treaty without that provision. If your Senator votes to ratify it, vote him out. If the president doesn't tell his commerce people to make that a top priority, vote him out too. As is, the treaty just isn't being proposed with any good faith at all.

This must be fake (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#31598784)

Where's the part that justified the secrecy? I don't see it here. Somebody obviously edited out the part requiring the US to sell puppy shredders to Iran in exchange for releasing hostages. If they edited that out, then who knows what else is inaccurate?

But seriously: let's see who is now going to "walk away from the table" now that the big secret is out of the bag. If we don't see countries withdrawing from the treaty now, then Kirk was lying.

trUoll4ore (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31598844)

and/Or distribute part1es). At THE

"would lead to iPod searching border guards"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31599050)

So, in ACTA countries, iPod searches you!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...