ACTA text Leaked!

[x88x]

If you care, you probably already know what it is. If not, head over to the almighty Wikipedia and find out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/0118-version-of-acta-consolidated-text-leaks

Score one for citizen-enforced transparency.


...and epic FAIL to the governments of a large part of the world for not doing it themselves... o_^

[mDust]

I had never heard of it until just now. I understand that it's all drafted behind closed doors, but why is this leak important? What can be gained? Please excuse my complete ignorance on this.

[SXRguyinMA]

I'm with him ^^

[x88x]

The leak is important because it is a document that (if agreed upon) will change several areas of personal privacy and (current) consumer rights across most of the developed world, that has been formulated in secret over the past ~1.5 years. Additionally, despite many attempts by private groups and governments to require transparency, it has been kept secret from anyone not directly on the negotiating panel.

This leak is the first that the general public (or, to my knowledge, anyone not on the panel) has seen any part of the document.

For something that will have such a great affect on laws around the world, it is completely unreasonable for it to be negotiated with this level of secrecy.

Current member nations:

Australia
Canada
The European Union
Japan
South Korea
Mexico
Morocco
New Zealand
Singapore
Switzerland
United States

[d_stilgar]

Did the US sign it? I thought that the US was still in negotiations but that no agreement had been made.

The bid deal about this is the torrent laws. In the agreement it says that if there is a complaint (no proof, just accusation) that you are sharing files illegally three times, that your name goes on a black list and you can never get internet service again for your entire life.

Not only is this against the constitutional right to due process, but the punishment seems cruel and unusual. Banning people from the internet, a ubiquitous and open system that we all use in our every day lives is crazy. I could understand this for child porn trafficking, but even then I would prefer some rehabilitation over permanent ban.

Banning someone from the internet seems like the way to keep them from ever being able to be rich and successful. I feel like pretty much all business is done on the internet and it is the way that small independent businessmen, musicians, and artists can get their work recognized.

[x88x]

Yes and no. The US is a member nation, but it has not been finalized yet. IDK what the particulars are on the 3-strikes process in there (I haven't actually read it yet), but yeah, I do remember hearing rumors that there was one in it. There is already similar legislation in France.

There are a lot of other parts of the document in addition to the 3-strikes process, including limits/grants on border searches, limits on import/export of certain IP, and a proposal to expand the DMCA's universal DRM-circumvention ban to all member nations.

[mDust]

Just how do they plan on enforcing that ban? The Man isn't as powerful as he thinks he is. I could just walk down the street to the nearest hotspot and connect there. Or, if I'm too lazy to walk, I could just use a fake name to sign up for internet service because ISPs are basically security forces themselves with all their background checks and 8 required forms of ID...;)
But seriously, from what I read, this is all about stopping many forms of counterfeiting which is a good thing. Internet piracy is only a smallish part of it.
I do agree that transparency is a good thing. But this could be compared to SWAT not formulating an entry plan in front of the terrorists. Although, they could have compromised and released some of it that wouldn't matter one way or another.
Are you guys actually worried about this? There are worse laws already on the books...

[x88x]

Just how do they plan on enforcing that ban?

By cracking down on the people who make software that does it. (Assuming you're referencing the DRM stuff.) It's happened in the US and UK, where similar laws are already in effect, but we've managed to continue being able to do it because people in other countries developed the software (or at least hosted a server that had the community developed software on it). If this passes, it would enable corporations in those countries to crack down on them (most are in the EU). Yeah, they could always move their stuff to another country, but it's more likely that the project/company will die, depriving us of another great tool.



Are you guys actually worried about this? There are worse laws already on the books...

I worry about anything that takes away consumer rights. Especially when that thing is being developed in secret by private organizations.

[chaksq]

I worry about anything that takes away consumer rights. Especially when that thing is being developed in secret by private organizations.

+1

I'm all for good and fair government, but secrecy for discussions like this is very discomforting. What are they up to that they can't tell us about.

[mDust]

I'm still not seeing the light here I guess. Even if the laws are drafted behind closed doors, they have to tell us what they are anyway...likely while they are still considering ratifying them. Politicians generally try not to completely piss off their constituents.
Hosting and distributing illegal copies of software is illegal...so should the perpetrators not be punished by the law? I think this whole closed door thing is just trying to agree on what those laws are and standardize them. How does this take away anyone's rights? Nobody has the right to pirate software, only the ability. It looks to me like they are only trying to enforce current laws.
As for the secrecy, lets not get too paranoid. It's not a new world order, just another congressional meeting. It happens every day, and 99% of the time you can't walk in on them and they aren't widely discussed afterward.

What do you guys download illegally that you will be missing so much?

[x88x]

Actually it's not publicly elected officials that are on the committee (at least the US representatives), which is part of the problem I have with it. It's secondary officials and private industry groups (like the RIAA). And as much as I hate it, the people sitting on the committee are probably more afraid of pissing off those industry groups than the citizens. The whole point of a Democracy (ok, Democratic Republic) is that the citizens are supposed to know and have a say in what the government does...and in the case of ACTA, we haven't had either.

ACTA is about more that just enforcing current laws, and in fact, the IP/copyright changes are just a small part of it. Even there though, it's not just about enforcing current laws, it's about defining those laws to defend an dying business model and bloated organizations. (Sorry if that seems a bit sensationalist, I just think that's the most accurate way of explaining it.) So much of our current intellectual property (IP) and copyright law in the US was formed before the growth of the internet, and designed around physical distribution methods and large-scale commercial counterfeiting operations. Neither of these is the norm or necessary any more, and yet these laws are continually applied in ways that (I believe) the people who drew them up never intended or anticipated. One prime example of this in regards to ACTA is making it illegal to circumvent any form of DRM. This is already in place in the US as a result of the DMCA, but ACTA attempts to push this on every member nation. The problem is that (in my experience) the primary reason why DRM is circumvented is not for illegal reasons (well, other than circumventing DRM being illegal, but that's just such a nice little circular argument, now isn't it). The primary reason I have seen for people circumventing various forms of DRM is to provide a better experience by taking advantage of consumer rights that we do still have (for now). For example, putting DRM-protected music on a mp3 player that doesn't support the DRM, ripping your DVDs/BDs to a home media server, making a primary use copy of a disc so you can keep the original safely in storage, playing DVDs/BDs in Linux. These are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head, and all things that are protected under the one 'archival backup' of copyrighted material that we are granted by (ironically) the DMCA. Last I checked, the process ran something like this:
We are allowed to make an 'archival' backup copy or any copyrighted media
We aren't allowed to circumvent any DRM to get that copy
We are allowed to have software that cirvuments DRM
We aren't allowed to create or traffic that software
We are allowed to write that software
Long story short, yes, DRM is intended to protect media against pirates, but in my experience all it does is piss off paying customers.

...I feel like I went off on a bit of a rant there... :whistler:

Anyways, the point is that as technology changes, laws need to change to understand that changing technology. So far it hasn't much, and ACTA makes very little progress on that front. In fact, I would argue that in some areas it takes steps backwards.

[mDust]

Actually it's not publicly elected officials that are on the committee (at least the US representatives), which is part of the problem I have with it. It's secondary officials and private industry groups (like the RIAA). And as much as I hate it, the people sitting on the committee are probably more afraid of pissing off those industry groups than the citizens. The whole point of a Democracy (ok, Democratic Republic) is that the citizens are supposed to know and have a say in what the government does...and in the case of ACTA, we haven't had either...
If it's not elected officials that are on the committee then you will definitely be informed of what they have drafted before it is passed as law. Nobody other than Congress can pass laws.


...I feel like I went off on a bit of a rant there... :whistler:
Meh, it was justified since it was against DRM. Nobody likes DRM. However, there will always be ways of circumventing laws:
I foresee in the future a world that can no longer distribute DRM cracking software. Oh well, it looks like we'll just have to distribute the uncompiled code for that software in a text file in the same folder as an open-source compiler. Neither text files or compilers are illegal.:up:

[x88x]

Neither text files or compilers are illegal.:up:
..yet... :whistler:

[diluzio91]

What do you guys download illegally that you will be missing so much?

Disks for operating systems that i have lisences for that i dont have copys of the disks... EX, i had to restore a computer with ME on it, so i DL'd a ME cd because the software on the PC wouldnt run in xp or above.