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!

ACTA Draft To Be Made Public Next Week

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the why-not-keep-it-secret-forever? dept.

The Courts 95

Spitfirem1 writes with this snippet from ZDNet: "Negotiators will on Wednesday publish the first officially released draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a new treaty designed to harmonize copyright enforcement around the world. The decision to release the consolidated draft on 21 April was made at the eighth round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations, which took place this week in Wellington, New Zealand. So far, the only publicly available information on the negotiating countries' proposals and amendments have been leaked documents purporting to be drafts of the agreement."

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

Obama's "transparent" government (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880112)

You can bet the US wasn't behind this decision.

Why fear terrorists... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880216)

Why fear terrorists, when government and industry working together do the most damage to our freedoms and liberties?

Re:Why fear terrorists... (4, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880330)

Why fear terrorists, when government and industry working together do the most damage to our freedoms and liberties?

Why? The same reason why one can simultaneously fear any two (or more) threats which may or may not present equal levels of peril. One can reasonably fear a wasp sting and a gunshot wound at the same time, as long as one does not assign equal responses to unequal dangers. You wouldn't just put some OTC burn/sting ointment on a gunshot wound (well, maybe if you're Chuck Norris!), and you wouldn't call in a trauma team for a wasp sting (unless there's some life-threatening allergic reaction, the wasp used an assault rifle, etc).

Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans. At this point I'm starting to believe our own government is more of an immediate threat to at least our way of life and our freedoms & liberties, if not our lives, than the threat of terrorism or other foreign threat.

Strat

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

ADHVfFsvjLIViaglKlqo (1766800) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880392)

The terrorism threat is created by our Goverment's actions in the first place. So I guess the wasp is shooting us, or something.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880476)

I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans.

Lives, perhaps, but exactly what threat does bin Laden pose to Americans' liberties and freedoms? Is he going to run for President in 2012?

All the post-9/11 impositions on American freedoms have come from the US government, not some crazy guy in a cave in Afghanistan. And most of them are things the government have wanted to do for years but had no excuse to impose before that point.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881372)

Lives, perhaps, but exactly what threat does bin Laden pose to Americans' liberties and freedoms? Is he going to run for President in 2012?

All the post-9/11 impositions on American freedoms have come from the US government, not some crazy guy in a cave in Afghanistan. And most of them are things the government have wanted to do for years but had no excuse to impose before that point.

But it as all happened because of that guy in Afghanistan. He's a threat by giving our governments an excuse to limit our freedom.

Of course he was originally trained and funded by the US government, so terrorism is really just a tool that governments use to take away our freedom.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881734)

Welcome to Eastasia. Da Boogeyman will get you, if you don't conform!!

signed
`````
Da Boogeyman

Re:Why fear terrorists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31883534)

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the guy in Afghanistan (who is likely more of a mercenary than an idealist/fundamentalist) was paid under the table by some people well connected to the defense industry (if not in government directly) to do his terrorism. And how convienient it would be if the places that would most likely have the evidence of such transactions went up in smoke during the process...

Definitely works out to be profitable for both parties involved, and it's not like folks in the past haven't said something (google "eisenhower warning").

No way to prove this conspiracy theory, but it's good as any.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31884792)

I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden got elected. Every President we've had for half a century has been a terrorist lunatic, anyway.

At least people are talking about it now, rather than mindlessly bowing to Mr. Hope n' Change as if he wasn't the next installment in the Bush war on everything.

Maybe it's a good thing that the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy. The last thing these guys need is a few bucks to run with.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880506)

Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above

How many American lives has terrorism claimed over the last decade? And how many American lives has "our" government ruined in that time? (Including being thrown in jail for consuming a certain kind of plant, or facing crippling fines for sharing music.) Not to mention the insane amounts of time and money wasted by the security theater at our airports, illegal wiretaps, no-fly lists...

The threat levels aren't even close.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (4, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880562)

Terrorism has been proven a threat

The death toll from 9/11 was under 3000 [wikipedia.org] . 1500 Americans die from anaphylactic shock every year [wikipedia.org] .

Seriously, without a hint of hyperbole, we - and Congress and the White House - should be more concerned about the threat from wasps than terrorists.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (2, Interesting)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880586)

And over 400,000 die every year from consuming Tobacco products. So which is the greater evil? The Terrorist or The Tobacco industry?

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882576)

As many people die each year from Auto-erotic Asphyxiation as Parkinson's Disease.

Wait, what's the point?

Re:Why fear terrorists... (4, Insightful)

lightversusdark (922292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882686)

On September 11, 2001, nearly 3000 people in the US were killed by:
Heart disease.
On September 12, 2001, nearly 3000 people in the US were killed by:
Heart disease.
On September 13, 2001, nearly 3000 people in the US were killed by:
Heart disease.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Watch out for that communist healthcare investment talk coming out of your government..
You could be spending that money on defence, or Israel, or civilian communication monitoring infrastructure, or any number of other things for the greater good of your society.

Comparing the cost of the War on Terror (or Drugs or whatever) to government investment in researching heart disease treatments over the last decade is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31883394)

Watch out for that communist healthcare investment talk coming out of your government..

Geeeez, it's not Communism for fuck's sake. That argument is straight out the 50's. I would much rather health care be socialist, which is where it is going. The capitalist idea of how to do it right now certainly is NOT working. I even find it in accordance with our ideals as Americans. We really are a hospitable people.

Taxes bad..... No. Taxation without representation is bad. Right now, I don't feel represented at all. The corporations and the elite are well represented. Not me.

There is a cocksucker on the west coast of the US here that lives in a $50 million dollar home. His wife wasted $1.5 million dollars worth of granite building it because she did not like the color of it. This man, which is going to Hell, lives off the suffering of others to a fantastic degree. Who is he? A majority owner and founder of one of the largest health insurance agencies on the west coast. Gee, I wonder why it cannot afford to pay out to the doctors for its customers health care costs.

Capitalism has NO place in Health Care. Period. We can't even afford to have it. It has pushed the cost of decent health care so high, that most Americans cannot afford it, and miraculously "preexisting conditions" pop up everywhere.

Health Insurance companies are not in the business of keeping you healthy and happy. They are in the business of making money.

Huh? How can those two goals co-exist? They CAN'T.

It's disgusting.

The purpose of government is to provide a secure foundation upon which a free society can prosper. Well I think part of that should be free health care provided to all. I have no problem paying taxes to make sure it happens. It is in my best interest, it serves my ideals (compassion for others), and it is in the best interests of society.

You could be spending that money on defence, or Israel, or civilian communication monitoring infrastructure, or any number of other things for the greater good of your society.

So let's break that down....

1) You want us to INCREASE our Military budget which is the highest in the world by far, and contains so much pork it is ridiculous. The perpetual "defense" contractor bailout program. Uh huh.

2) Support Israel financially? You mean keeping giving the terrorists a good damn reason to attack us? Sorry, but if we were to nuke the entire Middle East tomorrow including Israel, I would not shed a tear. All the peoples of the Middle East are fucking it up for the rest of the world and before I lose my rights, freedoms, and security over it I would propose killing everything in the Middle East. It's called War, it's terrible, and it is a fact of life on this planet. If all those assholes in the Middle East can't figure out how to get along with each other, they don't deserve to be here. The US should just keep out it and have the position if you attack us you lose Mecca. Period.

Israel does not deserve our support. They are equally as bad and complicit with all the shenanigans over there as any terrorist, or fundamentalist Islamic person. I blame them all equally.

3) Civilian Communication Monitoring Infrastructure? Holy Shit.... Are you really proposing we spend the money on completely eliminating my rights to privacy and anonymity to gain some supposed security?

#3 is abso-fucking-lutely hilarious. You denounce Communism, but encourage a Totalitarian Police State.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31884124)

whooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

ekhben (628371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31891960)

The causes of heart disease aren't really so mysterious these days. If anyone's reading along, and doesn't know, smoking, poor diet, hypertension, and low exercise are the four worst contributors, but it's basically lifestyle. The solution is to change your lifestyle. Ounce of prevention, etc.

(I do not recommend anyone give up smoking, though. Doing so increases your chances of dying of old age. Sounds terrible!)

Given the choice, I'd take research into more effective treatments for heart disease over full body scanners in airports any day. But given further choice, I'd take research into non-preventable fatal diseases first, or artificial (mechanical or biological) organs as a general treatment for a host of conditions.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882768)

Question: Who of you even remembers, that a week after 9/11, about 15,000 people died in a massive landslide caused by heavy rain? (Don’t dare to say that they are worth less.)
And who knows how many Americans were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Now tell me how many it were, also counting non-Americans. (Ditto.)

Nope, that does not make the terrorist attacks good. But it puts priorities in perspective.
When you consider what caused those attacks in the first place (religious fundamentalism induced by evil leaders using poor and badly educated people), then we should focus on stopping the exact same thing from happening in America with Christian fundamentalists, shouldn’t we? Seriously. Mass murder got nothing on mass social engineering when in comes to evilness. The only reason nobody goes to jail, is because it’s so sneaky, and fits the human mind so well, that it (the schizophrenic disease called “religion”) even infected the law makers and most rational people.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (2, Interesting)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882962)

While this is true, do note that the destruction (perhaps think in terms of $) also caused by 9/11 was considerable, and that additional casualties may have been incurred via illness caused from toxins or toxic debris, not to mention overall disruption and panic.

Not that I'm supporting the US government's subsequent (increased) trampling of rights.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31884946)

I can just see it now... we'll have to get cavity searches in order to leave our houses by our very own state appointed 'peace' chaperones (wearing black ski masks, military helmets and kevlar, carrying AK47s) just in case one of the wasps that hate us for our honey comes buzzing by.

Aren't you happy Heavenly Father Obama and Mother America is there to wipe your ass for you and make sure you wear clean socks?

Gee, I wonder if they're going to introduce the BAFTA - Banker Accountability for Financial Terrorism Act. Probably not.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (2, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881246)

Terrorism has been proven a threat, and so has excessive government control over peoples' lives. I'd say they're much closer in peril-level than the sting/gunshot example above. They both pose a threat to the liberties, freedoms, and lives of Americans.

The main way in which terrorism has proven to be a threat, is through excessive government control over people's lives. The number of deaths caused by terrorism is negligible compared to deaths by traffic, disease, crime or whatever. The terrorists' biggest victory is getting our governments to take away our liberties.

WHAT?!?! (1)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881326)

CHUCK NORRIS?!? Chuck Norris wouldn't need burn/sting ointment for a gunshot wound! All guns pointed at Chuck Norris backfire killing the user for fear of retribution by Chuck! Turn in your Geek Card.

Re:WHAT?!?! (1)

chromas (1085949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31883006)

Sometimes, he accepts bullets into his skin just to show how cool and/or totally awesome he is. Then he'll either fire it back out the wound or suck it into his stomach to use as sustenance.

I saw it.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31885682)

The same reason why one can simultaneously fear any two (or more) threats...

Research suggests the brain has a 2 threat limit..

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880570)

Why fear terrorists, when government and industry working together do the most damage to our freedoms and liberties?

There are times I suspect the government actually paying the terrorists to be terrorists.

I mean, without the terrorists it's pretty freaking hard to take away people's right in a democracy like America.

With the so-called "threat of terrorism" they can do almost whatever they want - tap your phone withou warrant, read your email without warrant, search your house without warrant, lock you up without any valid reason, etc - and we the People mostly comply because they (the gomen) actually makes us feel MORE secure the more they violate our rights.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31883276)

With the so-called "threat of terrorism" they can do almost whatever they want - tap your phone withou warrant, read your email without warrant, search your house without warrant, lock you up without any valid reason, etc - and we the People mostly comply because they (the gomen) actually makes us feel MORE secure the more they violate our rights.

That is NOTHING compared to the "threat of lost profits".

EVERYTHING you mentioned will be used to defend copyrights eventually unless the People really start to get their stuff together and fight back against the lobbyists in DC and ..... ohhhhh American Idol is on! BRB. LOLCATS.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882728)

Your question makes no sense. When I look up “my government” or “multinational corporations” in my dictionary, in redirects me to “terrorist”.

Re:Why fear terrorists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31884764)

The chances of being killed or maimed in a terrorist event is almost zero.
The chances of being oppressed by a tyrannical government is 100%

I agree with you totally.

I'll take my chances without your enlightened help, Big Brother. You can take your oppresive social engineering, stick it in your pipe, and smoke it until you die of lung cancer.

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (3, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880248)

You can bet the US wasn't behind this decision.

You can bet that the lobbyists within the US weren't behind this decision.

There, think that's more on the point now. I wouldn't at all be surprised if some members of the US party in these negotiations isn't secretly crying out "Booyah!" while putting on their "Oh dear, I'm sorry that happened..." face to the lobbyists who give them money.

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880478)

Secretly: "Whooo! Haha, yes! In your face!"
Publicly (aka to lobbyists):"Oh dear. Sorry to hear about that, but maybe if...($$$)"

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (1)

Ernesto Alvarez (750678) | more than 4 years ago | (#31887000)

There, think that's more on the point now. I wouldn't at all be surprised if some members of the US party in these negotiations isn't secretly crying out "Booyah!" while putting on their "Oh dear, I'm sorry that happened..." face to the lobbyists who give them money.

I'm not so sure, considering most of the leaks appear to have come from the EU. If there were a will to be open about the treaty, I think we would have seen at least a leak from the US legation.
Not seing leaks probably means that either there's no or little intention to be open, or while there might be the intention among the grunts, the security is really tight (because probably a big fish does not want the leaks to happen).

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880274)

Don't just blame Obama for something that started when Bush was president. I don't have to speak to the "transparency" there, do I? It matters little--a bad idea is a bad idea no matter who is supporting it, and "harmonizing" laws is almost NEVER a good idea, no matter what the subject.

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882588)

The difference is Obama said he would be transparent, Bush said he wouldn't. One of them was just keeping their word.

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31883060)

I'll blame Obama for doing something that I didn't like when Bush was doing it and feel quite justified, thank you.

Just because one bastard started doing something doesn't mean that someone elected to reverse what that bastard was doing should continue doing it. That just makes him another bastard.

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880894)

The EU-Parliament said, that they will say no when it will not be made public. And they have proven that they say no when the executive thinks they can fool them. The stopped the US ca spy on SWIFT treaty. And some European governments and ministers wanted to make it public (for example Mrs. Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger the German Minister of Justice).

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31881574)

What if they just show some fake document that is just a smoke screen to satisfy / shut people up?
Well, I'll keep my tinfoil hat on, thank you very much!

Re:Obama's "transparent" government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31882226)

Yeah, but I'm just glad to have an opportunity to see the next RIAA bought-and-paid-for law I'm going to completely ignore and violate every time it conflicts with my belief about what's right.

Spoiler (5, Funny)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880114)

Spoiler: you're not going to like any of it. At all.

Re:Spoiler (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880156)

thanks, way to ruin it.

Re:Spoiler (0)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880254)

thats depends on what the definition of "like" is dose "like" mean "like" or dose "like" mean something else

Re:Spoiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880302)

thats depends on what the definition of "like" is dose "like" mean "like" or dose "like" mean something else

holy crap that was hard to read

Re:Spoiler (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880416)

It was like an overdose of "like"...

Re:Spoiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880418)

I its meaning depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Re:Spoiler (1)

hallux.sinister (1633067) | more than 4 years ago | (#31884294)

See? Punctuation IS important. It would have been way easier to read with the addition of a well-placed punctuation mark. The sentence should have read as follows:
That depends on what the definition of "like" is; does "like" mean "like" or does "like" mean something else?
(I also fixed some spelling problems, without changing the meaning of the sentence.)

Re:Spoiler (2, Interesting)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880568)

Spoiler: you're not going to like any of it. At all.

That's assuming they release the real thing...

I wouldn't be too surprised if they released a decoy. Last time there were such talks, they were killed when they came under the public eye. So a bland document would be a good way to defuse the situation.

Of course that's assuming anybody cares about it nowadays which might be a bit optimistic of me.

Re:Spoiler (1)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880960)

Well they can do it. but before the treaty is worth anything it has to go to many different parliaments. For example the EU-parliament. And when they get the document for reading and it is a different one that was released, then they will say NO (again). They'll do it they said NO to SWIFT, which made many governments in Europe very angry, but they are only the executive. So the treaty is gone. And I assume that the same thing would happen to ACTA. They already said that they will say no on the basis which is public already.

Re:Spoiler (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881302)

Your parliament reads the bills before it? How do they fit in time for parties and junkets and campaigning?

Re:Spoiler (1)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882040)

We have many different national parliaments which dance the lobbyist dance. The EU-parliament was a powerless people distractor which was used to dump used politicians and to play democracy without affecting anything. Recently, the governments in the EU decided that they need a new treaty and accidentally they gave the parliament some power. They are allowed to say NO to transnational policies in the EU and between the EU and other states. And now you have a horde of angry politicians which have been left out of their cage :-) I hope it will last forever. However, I think the lobbyists will spend billions (British billions) to turn the tide.

Re:Spoiler (2, Funny)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880928)

Maybe I like the cover color and finish?

Re:Spoiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31881046)

Worst. Ending. Ever. (This will still be fair and protected criticism, right?)

Re:Spoiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31884170)

you have obviously downloaded the leaked version. Wait for the official release, you dirty pirate!

Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880122)

Thank you leakers.

How appropiate, captcha: freedom

Is it real? (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880124)

Who wants to bet that the draft was forged?

Re:Is it real? (3, Funny)

captnbmoore (911895) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880152)

I would have said pirated.

Re:Is it real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880244)

stolen, err, copyright infringed.

Re:Is it real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880448)

So close, but not close enough

Counterfeited

mass civil disobedence (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880142)

all this kind of shit does is insight people to subvert the system even more. people generally have a sense of whats fair, and when you present someone with a $250,000 fine for downloading some piece of crap song, they don't tend to see fair in the equation.

Re:mass civil disobedence (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880486)

"Incite." You incite people to subversion. You gain insight when you learn.

Re:mass civil disobedence (2, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880828)

Like, when you learn that Subversion is crap?

Re:mass civil disobedence (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880876)

At least it doesn't randomly lose commits like git does.

Re:mass civil disobedence (1, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881066)

Citation needed.

Mod parent Inciteful (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881898)

inciteful adj. Tending to provoke retaliation.

You incite people to subversion.

Then what do you do if you want people to use Git or Mercurial?

Re:mass civil disobedence (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31883624)

As someone once said: Laws are meaningless. Good people know what’s wrong and right themselves. And bad people don’t care about them anyway.

But of course “good” and “bad” is entirely defined by how much you profit from them (or how much they hurt you). So it’s a completely egocentric concept, and must be applied relative to someone.

The problem is, that views always differ on something for a big set of people. And why you will never ever get people to want the same on everything in a country. Ever.
So laws are created, so that everyone adheres to the reality and rules of those in power. To give them the illusion that we’re not still living under the law of the jungle, and that there’s not just some monopoly in that jungle, that is all-powerful.

It’s still deeply wrong though, to force hundreds of millions people to adhere to the same thousands of laws. No matter what those laws are.

I’d prefer smaller communities of people who at least agree on close to everything. And only alliances for things where both communities really agree upon.

Five Days (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880182)

That's only five days. How are we supposed to have enough torches and pitchforks before then?

Re:Five Days (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880204)

I suspect that's the point of releasing it late into the game.

Re:Five Days (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880350)

Yeah it hasn't even passed yet, what's up with this?

Re:Five Days (2, Funny)

Rehnberg (1618505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880260)

Counterfeiting them, of course.

Re:Five Days (3, Insightful)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880494)

You wouldn't download a pitchfork...

I was so hoping that link was goatse.cx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880262)

Or that I was being rick-rolled. The ACTA treaty makes me feel like the goatse guy.

Re:I was so hoping that link was goatse.cx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880394)

The ACTA treaty makes me feel like the goatse guy.

Wow, you must really like ACTA.

Hm... (3, Funny)

Rehnberg (1618505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880264)

So, I filed a FOIA request for the text of the treaty yesterday (figured it couldn't hurt and could possibly help move the process along if one more person filed one...), and now the government says it will release the treaty... I find this suspicious...

Treaty? (2, Interesting)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880276)

Really? I can't help but laugh. Treaties are diplomatic tools we use to end wars. Or avoid then.

Re:Treaty? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880334)

Treaties are diplomatic tools we use to end wars.

Treaties usually start wars. Non-aggression pacts, especially. Even more so secretive ones.

ACTA is a product of governments of the people, by the people, for people, who have managed to create something, of the special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests.

Or fuck knows . . . the treaty is being published after it's been ratified.

Um, like, what happened to political debate?

Re:Treaty? (2, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880374)

Or fuck knows . . . the treaty is being published after it's been ratified.

Um, like, what happened to political debate?

AFAIK the treaty still needs to be ratified by Congress before becoming enforceable.

Strat

Re:Treaty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880560)

AFAIK the treaty still needs to be ratified by Congress before becoming enforceable.

No...well, kinda.

First the treaty is ratified, then a bill matching the treaty must be created and pass congress then signed into law by our fearless leader.
For reference, see WIPO [wikipedia.org] turn into DMCA [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Treaty? (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880598)

And how many industry lobbyists are waiting in the wings to twist the arms of Congress into ratifying it?

Re:Treaty? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31885266)

And how many industry lobbyists are waiting in the wings to twist the arms of Congress into ratifying it?

I think for this answer, we need to summon the spirit of the departed Carl Sagan.

"BILL-i-ons and BILL-i-ons!" :)

Strat

Re:Treaty? (2, Insightful)

thoughtfulbloke (1091595) | more than 4 years ago | (#31885650)

ACTA is being negotiated, from the USA perspective, as a "Sole executive agreement". This does not need congressional approval. See the Lessig and Goldsmith article in the Washington post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502403.html [washingtonpost.com]

"Policy laundering" (4, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880376)

Treaties are diplomatic tools we use to end wars. Or avoid then.

The abuse of treaties as an excuse for governments to enact unpopular policy changes is common enough to have a name: policy laundering [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Treaty? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881270)

Well the drug prohibition treaty did the exact opposite. Thanks to the US war was declared by countries upon their own citizens all over the world, turning hundreds of millions into prisoners and throwing away billions of dollars, apparently all to enrich a few US corporations.

Looks like they are at it again. Another treaty designed to get countries to declare war upon it's own citizens, imprison them and waste billions of dollars yet again to enrich a few US corporations. When will people wake up, societies are about creating healthy and happy citizens, not about enriching and empowering a handful of fucking sociopaths.

Just one more question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880300)

Is this a treaty in the formal sense that the US Senate will have to approve its ratification? If so, then the campaign needs to be brought to Congress now.

Guilty until proven innocent (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880426)

Since this treaty will hold ISPs liable for alleged copyright infringement of pass-through content by its users, we can expect new levels of monitoring and three-strikes you're out.

This won't stop copyright infringement (as its currently defined), but it may slow it down a bit - for a while. And at the price of turning content carriers into the internet police. The results will be pretty chilling for the average joe, and I wonder what this will mean for media sites like YouTube, whose parent company is rolling in enough cash and clout to bribe, cajole and fight this as they see fit.

This is the worst thing since DCMA, which is another 4 letter disaster.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881944)

Since this treaty will hold ISPs liable for alleged copyright infringement of pass-through content by its users, we can expect new levels of monitoring and three-strikes you're out.

The DMCA, 17 USC 512, already has a clause requiring service providers to take action against repeat-infringing subscribers. You act like the language of ACTA will be any broader.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31884916)

The DMCA, 17 USC 512, already has a clause requiring service providers to take action against repeat-infringing subscribers. You act like the language of ACTA will be any broader.

You're misunderstanding the difference between alleged infringement and actual infringement. The DMCA requirement is based on judgments by the courts whereas the '3 Strike' example in the ACTA is based on unproven allegations.

In the Washington Post the EFF describe it as [wsj.com] :

How could a democratic government consider cutting off Internet access for people who haven't been convicted of a copyright violation? Danny O'Brien, the international outreach coordinator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that New Zealand changed its copyright law to be in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in the U.S., but then chose to interpret the language differently than the U.S.

"One of the things about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is that it's got these rather strong enforcement mechanisms, but U.S. copyright actually has quite a lot of room for maneuvering for normal users," Mr. O'Brien said. "In the U.S., it was assumed that repeat infringers would be people who are tried in the court of law. And in New Zealand, though similar language was transposed, that was not the way it was read. The outcry has been so great that the New Zealand government has said, 'Look, we're not going to enforce this, so we're going to go back and rewrite the law.""

New Zealand was going to implement a 3 strikes law but now they're going through due process, a Copyright Tribunal.

Its not being made public (1)

Rallias Ubernerd (1760460) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880462)

Its being made public legally

With or without US barb? (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31880580)

IIRC, the USA only wanted to drop their veto if the other countries agreed to some draconian "improvements" to ACTA, first. Did that happen?

Re:With or without US barb? (1)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881026)

The US wants something thing, does not work. The treaty has to be accepted by the people (e.g. the parliaments) and for example the EU-parliament wanted to see the documents. They wanted even to have a seat at the table. And when the EU-parliament says no to the treaty. Then there is no treaty at least in Europe. Its actually nice here too. We have general health care ;-). So when the US wants to shoot themselves in the foot. They can do it, but I won't let them shoot in my foot too. At least that's what the EU-parliament said to the already leaked documents.

Re:With or without US barb? (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882176)

Well, New Zealand wanted to open ACTA negotiations for a lot longer, but one of the conditions of the ACTA negogiations is that _everyone_ needs to agree if they want to open up anything.
Which is what the US tried to strong-arm everyone else with.

So the question still stands: Did they succeed?

Good news everyone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31880732)

And you know what that means.

I guess I have to give them some small amount of credit for finally listening to world-wide outrage from their constituencies.

I'm going to download more (1)

Alcoholist (160427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31881292)

I'm one of these types who actually lays out money for media (well mostly), but I like the "try before buy" capability the Internet gives me. In my home country this doesn't make me a criminal, but it seems the U.S. government is bound and determined to make me one. I'll bet there will be an extradition clause this sucker.

In the U.S., you can do more time for downloading a movie than stealing a car. But I think I'm going to download even more now. Things like ACTA... Sooner or later all our freedoms are going to legislated away so a few rich buggers can have even more of the pie. Fuck 'em, I'm going to enjoy some pie now too.

When they sue me, I'm not going to bother to show up at court. Not like I own anything worth taking anyway. When they get a warrant I'm going to run for it. Hide, steal, lie, whatever it takes, I'm a criminal, right? I'm going to do time for downloading that song, so who cares? I want nothing less than to be featured on the America's Most Wanted for the horrific, heinous, terrorist (you just know someone is going to use that word) act of copyright infringement. I'm sure they'll catch me eventually and bring me to the judge in shackles. But maybe if I do this, the clueless folks who make up the majority of our society will wake up to the fact laws like this are nuts and it's time for some change.

lol steal a car to get away (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#31882164)

after all you get less time and or a fine for that
hell when they come for you join a gang and .....

Spoiler Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31882144)

Snape kills fair use.

This won't matter... (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31883140)

This won't matter... UNLESS we spread the word. We can't count on the mainstream media (owned by the **AA) to give people real information about this. We need to spread the word. If you're too lazy, at the very least just tell it to a few people. Print off the ACTA document, circle important parts, hand them out. Do your part. This doesn't just apply to Americans.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?