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 Signed By 8 of 11 Participating Countries

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the authority-to-engage-in-trainwrecks dept.

Piracy 213

An anonymous reader writes with this news on the ACTA treaty, straight from the EFF's release on the news: "On Saturday October 1st, eight countries (the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in Tokyo, Japan. Three of the participating countries (the European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland) have not yet signed the treaty, but have issued a joint statement affirming their intentions to sign it 'as soon as practicable.' ACTA will remain open for signature until May 2013. While the treaty's title might suggest that it deals only with counterfeit physical goods such as medicines, it is in fact far broader in scope. ACTA contains new potential obligations for Internet intermediaries, requiring them to police the Internet and their users, which in turn pose significant concerns for citizens' privacy, freedom of expression, and fair use rights." Update: 10/20 13:24 GMT by T : As several readers have pointed out, the quoted news from the EFF describes the EU as a country; I'm sure they know it's not.

cancel ×

213 comments

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

Countries? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773064)

The EU is not a country.

Re:Countries? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773114)

Don't worry, Slashdot's crack editing staff will fix that in the blink of an eye. Save us, Timothy!

Re:Countries? (1)

TechLA (2482532) | about 2 years ago | (#37773128)

And for that matter putting medicines as "counterfeit" items just because they're generic meds manufactured more cheap elsewhere is just stupid and shows that US is mostly interested in protecting RIAA, MPAA and the big pharma companies.

Re:Countries? (2)

LongearedBat (1665481) | about 2 years ago | (#37773620)

Actually, meds are often counterfeited [who.int] .

From the link:

1. Products without active ingredients, 32.1%;
2. Products with incorrect quantities of active ingredients, 20.2%;
3. Products with wrong ingredients, 21.4%,
4. Products with correct quantities of active ingredients but with fake packaging, 15.6%;
5. Copies of an original product, 1%; and
6. Products with high levels of impurities and contaminants, 8.5%.

Re:Countries? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#37774538)

Define incorrect quantity. I take a drug that has 137ug of active ingredient per pill, since I take the generic they work that out by testing the active ingredient in X amount of pills and averaging. The name brand does this too but they use Y amount of pills and Y is less than X. Their tolerances are also closer, would my generic drug then fall under incorrect quantity of active ingredients?

Re:Countries? (2)

MikeB0Lton (962403) | about 2 years ago | (#37773640)

Counterfeit drugs are quite often fake in that they contain more, less, or an entirely different drug than advertised. They have also been known to contain toxic filler material and not practice proper sanitation in manufacturing. Have fun fighting big pharma and taking those cheap foreign drugs. I'd rather pay up and be assured I'm getting the correct medicine from a well regulated facility.

Re:Countries? (3, Informative)

King InuYasha (1159129) | about 2 years ago | (#37773168)

The EU can sign on the behalf of its member countries, though it doesn't exercise that power often.

Re:Countries? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773310)

The EU is a government to override all those pesky national governments with their annoying democracies. It's basically a dictatorship and can be considered a single country as far as lobbyism and its resulting laws are concerned.

Re:Countries? (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | about 2 years ago | (#37773314)

So, more correctly, it was signed by 8 out of 29 participating countries.

Re:Countries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773384)

Yeah, it really is.

Re:Countries? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773484)

If the US is a country, the EU is a country. Both are collections of states which were once independent nations. The days of dealing seperately with individual European states are numbered. Deal with it.

Re:Countries? (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 2 years ago | (#37773748)

While the EU is different from the USA, is it that different from the USSR which was considered a country?

Re:Countries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37774038)

It's a Union of Countries

Re:Countries? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 2 years ago | (#37774138)

It is 27 countries, that's more than have signed it ... ...and has a combined population larger than the USA ...

Nation-states no friend to liberty (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773074)

The core problem here is that we have nation-states regulating the nationless internet.

The world's people are no longer divided by stupid, arbitrary national borders. And yet we still have these gigantic nation-states serving to limit our freedoms.

It is downright ironic that as we open up our capabilities, we move closer toward totalitarianism.

What we need now is to move beyond nation-states by implementing new forms of governance, starting at the community level.

Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773210)

That's already underway in the form of Agenda 21, an overarching agreement to create a new world order based on Sustainability. There would still be nations but they'd really have no power as everything would be run by committee from the UN. After the culling, since there's only supposed to be 500 million people on the planet, everyone would live in compressed reservations and most of the planet's land mass would be off limits to any human presence.

Under such a new world order, do you think there would be any hope for individual liberties or free speech? Not a chance.

Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#37773290)

Well, one goal of ACTA is to unify the different IP policies of nationstates.

Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#37773456)

The world's people are no longer divided by stupid, arbitrary national borders. And yet we still have these gigantic nation-states serving to limit our freedoms.

get this into your head: the way the world works and has always works is: the ruling class exists to have a great life and we, the 99%, exist to support them and serve them.

anything else you learn in life is secondary to THIS golden rule.

sorry, but its true. this 50 yr old guy has learned this much from his years out in the real world.

all else they tell you is food coloring. the real deal is to keep the lower and middle classes 'in line' and there is NOT going to be any personal freedom if it interferes with the ruling classes.

its how humanity is 'wired' and its always, always been this way. internet or not, people are controllers and those in power are NOT going to give in to this new peer-to-peer (person to person) method of bypassing their control.

Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#37773664)

The core problem is they are too many people, doing illegal and harmful stuff.

One of the biggest problems that we face is the difficultly for a small business to get a foot hold, while the big corporations take all the goods.
Part of the problem is those small business often only have the resources to advertise the same way that most of the conmen do. But there is enough of these people selling faulty/damaging goods only to make a quick buck that people shortly learn to ignore and tag these areas of advertisements for products and services as too shady.
As a consumer we learn to avoid those small shops who looks like a hole in the wall, and those internet adds with obviously little marketing budget. When choosing a company we tend to choose the big one (no one got fired for choosing IBM) because if you get a small company it could be a scam where you loose money, and get nothing back.
Small companies as they grow they hire people, the bosses are on a more personal level with their employees and tend to treat them better (The trickle down does work for small companies) Big corporations when they get more money they put it towards improving efficiency meaning getting the business to run with less people, and more jobs that are more humdrum.
The policing of the internet is overall good for everyone. If you can keep the conmen down to an acceptable levels then you can spur more growth in small businesses and get people people working globally.

Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#37773858)

"The core problem is they are too many people, doing illegal and harmful stuff."

Yet people keep electing those criminals.

Honestly if you want to stop this, start electing people that are not rich and have real scruples.

Shit! (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37773082)

FFFFUUUUUUU

Re:Shit! (1)

scubamage (727538) | about 2 years ago | (#37773246)

My sentiments exactly. :(

Unconstitutional? (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | about 2 years ago | (#37773090)

Isn't there the question of whether this is unconstitutional here in America? I mean, didn't Obama sign it without it being passed by Congress?

Please let it be that Obama is vastly abusing power out of hopes that SCOTUS will get involved.

Re:Unconstitutional? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37773120)

Al Qaeda destroyed your constitution. Not physically, that would have been a regrettable loss of a historical artifact at most, but spiritually, which is much worse.

Re:Unconstitutional? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773194)

Al Qaeda destroyed your constitution. Not physically, that would have been a regrettable loss of a historical artifact at most, but spiritually, which is much worse.

Nope, the americans destroyed their own constitution. They were bamboolzed into thinking that Al Quaeda was the coming on the devil on earth and that every possibile action was justified. What is the proverb is fitting to this historical situation "the road to hell is paved with good intentions " ?

Re:Unconstitutional? (2)

scubamage (727538) | about 2 years ago | (#37773256)

I think "Bread and Circuses" is more appropriate. Americans couldn't care less, so long as they get to watch American Idol and don't have to see people laying dead in the street.

Re:Unconstitutional? (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#37773228)

Don't kid yourself.
The Constitution has been ignored when convenient for far longer than the last ten years.

Re:Unconstitutional? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773250)

Nah, that was Bush.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37773466)

He didn't do it alone. Most other US politicians supported him and even today Obama continues on the same path. Throughout the leadership of both Republican and Democratic supermajorities over the years nothing has changed.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#37773886)

GW bush and the Republicans AND Democrats destroyed it. But the destruction started back in the 50's it's just the last 10 years that sealed the deal.

Back a bit (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | about 2 years ago | (#37773996)

The destruction started with the New Deal, but a few Supreme Court justices and World War II got in the way.

Re:Back a bit (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#37774100)

And the Korean war. Vietnam also slowed it down a bit, all those dirty hippies protesting against freedom for the Vietnam people...

Re:Back a bit (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#37774356)

A few Supremes back in the New Deal caved, you mean?

Or did you forget the ruling that said that growing food for your own livestock on your own land came under the Interstate Commerce Clause?

When did that start mattering? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#37773150)

When did the constitution start mattering in this country? We do plenty of constitutionally questionable things all the time, so why single this out? I would be more concerned about the fact that we killed an American citizen without any due process.

Re:When did that start mattering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773578)

LMWPTFY

"To avoid the abuses of the English law ...treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. ...
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at "usc|18|2381" [25] states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

To me it appears that we basically cut out the middleman and went to that death sentence.

Re:Unconstitutional? (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#37773182)

Isn't there the question of whether this is unconstitutional here in America? I mean, didn't Obama sign it without it being passed by Congress?

A Treaty signing is meaningless in the USA. A Treaty is NOT binding until it has been ratified by the Senate.

So, no, the fact that Congress didn't approve it in advance is meaningless, since they're not supposed to.
On the other hand, it has no force until the Senate approves it (which it will, almost certainly - there are enough Dems in bed with Hollywood to pass it on their own, even ignoring the Reps who would approve it).

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773266)

The dems would approve it because they have close ties to the media industry. The repubs would approve it because their ideology holds property rights, including intellectual property, to be sacred and to be made as strong as possible. Their ideology also holds that all commercial activity to be inherently beneficial. Both would approve it because there is good money to be made in contributions, and no-one with money is paying them to vote no.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | about 2 years ago | (#37773342)

...which is ironic, considering that "intellectual property" is all about restricting normal property rights. No, you can't put those chips together in that way and sell them, that's patented. Buy a licence. No, you can't play that song in public on your own guitar, it's copyrighted. Buy a licence.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#37773962)

Close ties? the Dems are dry humping the MPAA and RIAA. The republicans are just standing in line to Dry hump them as well right after they are done Dry humping all the billionaires and Big Corporations.

Every one of the scum-bags on both sides are against the American people. The assholes passed the bill for helping the 911 first responders 10 years late AND put in a slap in the face provision that you have to pass a background check to make sure you were not a terrorist. The people in the house and senate are all major assholes.

Re:Unconstitutional? (5, Informative)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 years ago | (#37773662)

In general you're right.

Unfortunately Obama is taking the position that all ACTA's provisions are compatible with existing US Law, so actual ratification is unnecessary.

Look at it this way:
If the Obama administration charges somebody with counterfeiting some product using the US Code the Courts are not gonna let the dude off because ACTA isn't ratified. They're gonna try the guy under the US Code. And, according to Obama, they'll convict if he actually violated ACTA because everything illegal under ACTA is illegal under the current US Code.

The people in charge of judging whether the US is complying with the treaty will have to count the dude's conviction as compliance.

In other words you shouldn't be worried about ACTA. Yopu should be worried that everything ACTA does is already illegal.

Re:Unconstitutional? (3, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#37773276)

Isn't there the question of whether this is unconstitutional here in America?

You can't be serious. When it comes to corporate greed, The Constitution of the United States of America takes a back seat, pal. Corporations are citizens too (the Supreme Court has said so) and since they have all the money, they are the most important "citizens". Their unique needs outweigh those of you and me. Keep voting for candidates who are paid corporate lackeys, because the "free market" can't survive without government welfare/protection.
[/sarcasm] It's becoming clearer every day... Obama was a wasted draft pick.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#37773444)

Keep voting for candidates who are paid corporate lackeys, because the "free market" can't survive without government welfare/protection.
[/sarcasm]

Is there a candidate who isn't a paid corporate lackey?

It's becoming clearer every day... Obama was a wasted draft pick.

Problem is ... the other weasel wasn't any better.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#37774354)

There were more than two candidates.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | about 2 years ago | (#37774420)

Corps are persons, which basically just means a single legal entity for most laws. They are most certainly not citizens.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773296)

You really should look into the history of Executive Orders signed into being in order to get around your Congress and Senate. The Constitution was actually written in such a way that small groups can run the country in case the common population voted against what might be considered to be in the best interests of the country. That's why you have the Electoral College. The common vote may go one way but if the members of the Electoral College see that as incorrect, they can vote in opposition to it.

Democracy, phaw. There is no such thing, direct, representational or in any other form.

Re:Unconstitutional? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773442)

The question of House or Senate approval is easily sidestepped by the president signing soft laws using Executive Orders. If the House and the Senate don't approve of a thing the president can reword it a bit or implement it in sections using Executive Orders.

Your Consitution is actually written to allow smaller and smaller groups of people to control the country if that smaller group doesn't believe that the larger is making decisions in the best interest of the country. That's what the Electoral College is all about. If the Electoral College believes the common vote has gone in the wrong direction they can vote against the people's wishes. And, it just goes up the ladder from there.

Democracy, phaw. Direct, representational or any other form you want to try and describe just plain doesn't really exist in the world today.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 2 years ago | (#37773622)

The US has been a republic since the ratification of the Constitution. It's no secret, rather the electorate happens to be dumb as paint. If it weren't for "Jacksonian democracy" that wouldn't be half the problem it is today.

"A republic, if you can keep it."

ACTA will be an "Executive Agreement" for the US (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#37773502)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement [wikipedia.org] . ACTA walks, talks, and quacks like a treaty, but the President of the US can sign it without Congressional approval.

Re:ACTA will be an "Executive Agreement" for the U (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#37774432)

The President doesn't need Congressional Approval to sign a Treaty (see Kyoto, which was signed, but not even submitted for ratification by Clinton).

And the President can make all the "executive agreements" he likes. Without a controlling law (passed by Congress), they don't mean a hill of beans.

Re:Unconstitutional? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#37774574)

AFAIK the Senate has to ratify all treaties by a super majority (something like 60 or 67 senators in favour, even if the House passes it.

(Not that it matters of course I am sure the senators are all bought and paid for by the IP industry.

Americans at it again (-1, Redundant)

TechLA (2482532) | about 2 years ago | (#37773094)

Three of the participating countries (the European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland

I knew Americans are generally quite stupid and don't know anything about the world outside North America, but just for your information, European Union isn't a country.

Re:Americans at it again (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#37773124)

An anonymous reader writes. I don't think it said 'an anonymous citizen of the United states of America writes'.

Re:Americans at it again (-1, Flamebait)

TechLA (2482532) | about 2 years ago | (#37773144)

Yes, but it's so visible. Everyone else in the world knows there's other places in the world. US people are mostly concerned about how far their closest Walmart and McDonalds are.

Re:Americans at it again (2)

scubamage (727538) | about 2 years ago | (#37773286)

Not all of us, just most. The remainder are stuck /facepalm'ing all of the time and shaking their heads in disbelief.

Re:Americans at it again (3, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#37773462)

I thought the whole "war on...XXX" thing was a way to learn some geography.

Re:Americans at it again (1)

Pope (17780) | about 2 years ago | (#37773668)

"Poverty" is a place?

Re:Americans at it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773146)

A big WTF CANADA? comes to mind... ..kinda erases all previous good deeds of late. =\

Re:Americans at it again (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37773308)

You obviously aren't familiar with Canadian politics over the last few years or you wouldn't be even slightly surprised...

Re:Americans at it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773152)

Why did they put USA and Canada in the list? They could have just listed the whole country of "North America" :)

Re:Americans at it again (2, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#37773434)

Keep telling yourself that. I got news for you the EU mostly controls your currency. Has the power to make treaties, and has courts. In most cases EU law has supremacy over member states laws. That is pretty much a nation by any definition. The EU is a central government. It might not be as strong as the Federal government we have here in the states but it is none the less a central government.

Its time EU citizens face up to the fact YOU FOOLS gave up the sovereignty of your to make quick buck by streamlining some trade and travel restrictions. That worked out short term but just like here in the USA globalism is hollowing you out; and EU membership is going to make your own local government impotent and powerless to protect you. The EU just like dear old Uncle Sam here is far enough removed and fractured enough in represented interests, it either does not care to or won't chose to protect you.

Re:Americans at it again (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#37773536)

I knew Americans are generally quite stupid...

All that seething hatred is bad for your health. Just relax and admit the USA is THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH! Woooooo! USA! USA!

Re:Americans at it again (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 2 years ago | (#37773968)

Parent post would be funny; I'd normally moderate it as such but I'm skipping moderating it to say that the situation in the stupid USA is beyond despair so there is no longer any humor in such statements; its just depressingly sad and horrible - perhaps if you are on the outside you are removed or ignorant enough to enjoy such humor but being here and watching the self-inflicted implosion is another matter.

Re:Americans at it again (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#37774036)

"I knew Americans are generally quite stupid and don't know anything about the world outside North America, "

Most Americans don't know anything about north America, the United states, or even their own state. There is a large percentage of our population that has no idea how many states there are or even the number of stars or stripes on our flag. Education here is exceedingly bad because it's high priced.

In fact Student DEBT is higher than credit card DEBT nationally. Yes, our education system is that tilted so that only the rich get education.

Re:Americans at it again (2)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#37774470)

Hahahahaha. European anti-Americanism maps one to one to American anti-terrorist sentiment. Both are fomented as a distraction by the powers that be to steal your rights away from you. Look around you fool.

But of course (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#37773110)

Many major corporations are in favor of ACTA, and no major corporations oppose it, so clearly, signing it is a no-brainer.

I'd have been more surprised if any of the countries in question had had the cajones to stand up to Disney, News Corp, GE, or Time Warner.

Re:But of course (1)

Toe, The (545098) | about 2 years ago | (#37773172)

True that. Those corporations pay their employees (sometimes cutely referred to as "politicians" and "government officials") good money to do as they are told.

Re:But of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773270)

cojones

Re:But of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773528)

He, aren't those all American companies?

Re:But of course (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#37773708)

News Corp is not - Murdoch is Australian, and much of News Corp's operations are in the UK (remember that whole phone hacking scandal?)

Re:But of course (1)

arkenian (1560563) | about 2 years ago | (#37774018)

News Corp is an American company, based in NYC IIRC. Murdoch is a US Cit, I'm sad to say.

Re:But of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37774392)

I'm sure all of the countries in question have bureaucracies with plenty of filing space, so I'm not sure why you don't expect them to have drawers.

As soon as practicable? (3, Interesting)

mmcuh (1088773) | about 2 years ago | (#37773184)

They will sign it as soon as practicable? I thought that the European parliament and the Mexican one had explicitly instructed the commission and the Mexican government, respectively, not to sign ACTA in its current form

I suppose that's just a minor detail.

Re:As soon as practicable? (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#37773322)

The EP only wanted disclosure of the treaty, their problem was that it was written in secret. And I believe the EU did manage to get the worst parts out of it. Of course, it's still bad.

Re:As soon as practicable? (1)

terminal.dk (102718) | about 2 years ago | (#37773372)

It can't be signed by the EU before they change many EU laws, human rights laws etc.
Disconnecting people from the Internet is not an option, as that is becoming the only way to communicate with the government, report taxes, sales/purchases of houses etc.
Paranoid Americans without a working business model for their old tech can't stop all development in this world. The reason they don't sell that much music anymore is not because people copy it, it is because people do not have time for music, they spend the time on games, TV, Internet etc. And most music worth buying was made more than 10 years ago. They do not produce much good music these days. It will be difficult to make a "100 best hits from 2000-2010".

Re:As soon as practicable? (1)

Pope (17780) | about 2 years ago | (#37773740)

And most music worth buying was made more than 10 years ago. They do not produce much good music these days. It will be difficult to make a "100 best hits from 2000-2010".

Bullshit. There's plenty of worthwhile new music being released today. My concert going schedule since June is proof of that. Just because it's not on the local Top 40 station doesn't mean it isn't good. Hell, I haven't listened to the radio in 16 or 17 years and I still find new bands regularly.

breaking news (1)

chomsky68 (1719996) | about 2 years ago | (#37773224)

The treaty was signed on 01/10/11, the TFA was published on 10/10/11 and made its way to /. on te 20th....

Re:breaking news (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#37773248)

Only 19 days behind the times? Eh, that's not too bad for Slashdot.

Decentralize and encrypt everything! (4, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37773244)

Alright shit's getting real. I say as a first step we start by moving everyone onto a Tor-like darknet that runs on top of the current infrastructure. Once the uber-geeks are on we can start bringing Average Joes on, the incentive will kick in for them when they can't get their football game streams, replica handbags, Chinese knockoff batteries, cheap viagra and pirated MP3s. Maybe work in an IPv4-IPv6 transition at the same time, but that's just as much work by itself.

Then once everyone's on the darknet, start forking the infrastructure. Once the Internet becomes impossible to police there might not be a need to use a wireless mesh, everyone can have fiber to their door - not that a wireless mesh isn't also a worthy endeavor.

See also: my old commu-net concept: http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1634334&cid=32019410 [slashdot.org]

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773326)

You may be interested in metagovernment [metagovernment.org] , which is developing tools toward the same end, but maybe without the file-sharing rampup.

Along a similar line, you might also be interested in their concept of the distributed administration network [metagovernment.org] , previously discussed at length on slashdot [slashdot.org] . Admittedly, that is still vaporware, but the alternate system of governance is starting up.

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#37773422)

Oh yes I think metagovernment is an interesting concept. I had an interesting discussion about something similar here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1244451&cid=28083111 [slashdot.org]

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37774312)

Please join us if you haven't already: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org [metagovernment.org]

More info on participation is here: http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Participate [metagovernment.org]

Everything we do is, of course, open and libre.

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773364)

It's funny we still have lunatics like you.

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#37773406)

...start forking the infrastructure.

The regulatory powers of government allows control over any physical infrastructure, particularly an infrastructure large enough to replace the entire internet. It's more realistic to do the hard work of changing government to eliminate monstrosities like ACTA. Hint: it takes a lot more than just voting and complaining.

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773676)

Once the authorities start seeing traffic they cannot monitor on the net they'll just start shutting of the taps (as it were) to people generating traffic they cannot decypher. It will become illegal to use something like Tor or VPNs (unless you by a permit from the government and provide them with the keys so they can monitor the traffic.)

I think I've seen some countries already moving in that direction. Certainly shutting down Tor anyway.

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773888)

Slight change: More Freenet. It doesn't let you access anything on the conventional internet, and it can't stream, but it does scale much better and doesn't need anyone to endanger themselves by running exit nodes.

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37774560)

First, we need som lawyers to speak up here. Is it legal for the President of the United States to enter us into a treaty without approval from congress?

Is it legal for the President of the United States to also be a member of the United nations Security Council?

If these or any other activities he has done are Illegal, what is our legal recourse? Who's responsibility is it to take action? Is it Eric Holder's responsibility? Is it congressional responsibility to start Impeachment proceedings?

If those in power do not stand behind the law, they do not have the weight of law.

the logical first steps are communications. The people need to have the ability to seize communications. The satalites, Emergency broadcast System, the Telcos, and yes the Internet.

Orwell is probably laughing in his grave, by now. (3, Insightful)

borfast (752138) | about 2 years ago | (#37773278)

One more unfortunate step towards 1984... :(

Re:Orwell is probably laughing in his grave, by no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773350)

His name was Eric Blair. His namesake Tony, treated 1984 as a blueprint for his time in power.

Mexico? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773324)

I know some in Mexico would love to sign it and some government puppets indeed are sold to the industry for that purpose, but in Mexico the senate has expressed unanimously that they won't sign acta at least during this legislature, so I don't know who they consulted, but I am guessing it's the industry droids.

Game over (3, Insightful)

MistrX (1566617) | about 2 years ago | (#37773378)

Well people, the age of your relative freedom is definitely over when this is ratified.

Welcome to the neo dark age. This time not ruled by the church but by Megacorp & co that is called the western world.

What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37773386)

Read ACTA http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147937.pdf and tell me what's wrong with it? Even the EFF's page just kind of "suggests" that it "might be bad" without giving any detail. Well ACTA is up now. You can read it. What's the big deal?

What about Iceland and Norway? (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | about 2 years ago | (#37773478)

I know it says EU and Switzerland, but what about the remaining European countries? Are they bound by some other trade agreement to the ACTA if the EU signs it?

Re:What about Iceland and Norway? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 2 years ago | (#37774244)

Switzerland is not a member of the EU ...

What happened to putting it to a vote? (2)

RandomAvatar (2487198) | about 2 years ago | (#37773540)

For something this big, isn't it supposed to be standard procedure to have a vote? I mean, if I thought the Canadian government was stupid enough to sign it in the first place, I would have protested it. I guess that goes to show that you should never trust your own government.

Your own government (5, Insightful)

bussdriver (620565) | about 2 years ago | (#37773736)

Functionally, in areas where corporate interests dictate policy it is no longer your government. "Let them vote for cake" is where things are headed; serious self government is being removed gradually; like boiling a frog.

Why the piracy icon? (1)

coder111 (912060) | about 2 years ago | (#37773654)

Um, I know the DECLARED purpose of ACTA is to curb piracy and counterfeiting, but really, this is about your rights on-line and corporate rule. Piracy is just incidental.

--Coder

info about what's bad about it? (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | about 2 years ago | (#37773788)

So what are the actual problems remaining with ACTA as it is signed?

Constitutional scholar (2)

Quila (201335) | about 2 years ago | (#37773924)

Now we know why Obama became a "constitutional scholar," to be able to figure out more ways around it when he came to power.

Which didn't sign it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37774274)

Australia signed it, I need to move somewhere else. Which countries did not sign it?

hERE IS hOW iT iS dOne (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37774522)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/greek-riotcam-time

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>