Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Networking Your Rights Online

Leaked ACTA Treaty to Outlaw P2P? 387

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the coming-at-you-from-every-side dept.
miowpurr writes to tell us that a draft of the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has been posted on Wikileaks. Among others, Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow has weighed in on the possible ramifications of this treaty. "Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked ACTA Treaty to Outlaw P2P?

Comments Filter:
  • by Deathdonut (604275) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:39PM (#23687913)
    Considering it uses p2p for patches.
    • by oahazmatt (868057) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:43PM (#23687993) Journal

      Considering it uses p2p for patches.
      Millions of gamers in wizard robes, facepaint, wearing viking helmets on horseback storming the Capital in 3...2...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cdrudge (68377)
        While it's funny picturing that, those gamers in wizard robes, facepaint, wearing viking helmets on horseback storming the Capital will soon also be storming voting booths. It may not be this year, or next year, but soon the "internet generation" or whatever todays teens are called soon will be able to express their opinions at the poles.
        • by bob.appleyard (1030756) on Friday June 06, 2008 @08:08PM (#23689885)

          Yeah, just like all those students from the 60s and 70s voted to legalise marijuana.

          Society changes, but it's often much slower than one might expect.

          • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday June 07, 2008 @01:03AM (#23691417) Homepage
            Just to throw up a few numbers I found on that:

            From 1960 to 1970 the number of Americans who had tried marijuana had increased from a few hundred thousand to 8,000,000.

            US Census 1970: 203,302,031 inhabitants
            So a total of less than 4% of the population tried it through the golden hippie years, ever. It's freaking hard to find good data on P2P users, but the pirate bay has over 10 million simultanious users alone. Never mind all the other public BT trackers, private BT trackers and all the other P2P networks. With all due respect, the P2P movement is far bigger than the marijuana movement ever was.
    • by snl2587 (1177409) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:44PM (#23688015)

      Or that, if you really want to get technical, everything that takes place over the internet exchanges information between two or more parties. How does one quantify p2p as opposed to simply transfer of information between two people, two servers, etc?

      • by nurb432 (527695) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:49PM (#23688065) Homepage Journal
        And you don't think that is the ultimate goal, to kill off the internet as we know it ( and most digital media devices ) and return to the old form of 'media distribution' where they had pretty much total control?
        • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:51PM (#23688087)
          Fundamentally, the problem is that virtually every society on Earth is ruled by sociopaths (or in the case of my country right now, perhaps psychopath is more accurate.)
          • by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:05PM (#23688265) Journal
            Fundamentally, the problem is dealing with sociopaths without reducing the freedoms of the majority of decent folks. How do you let decent folks participate in self governance, and give them freedoms, without ceding control to the sociopaths?
            • by digitrev (989335) <digitrev@hotmail.com> on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:19PM (#23688437) Homepage
              Follow Mr. Jefferson's advice: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by corsec67 (627446)
                Hence the true psychopaths in government try to reduce guns in the hands of law-abiding people through "gun-control"

                Crime is the excuse, and that sounds good to ignorant people.

                Just look at England with all of the CCTVs(Is my sig ironic now...?) and the antisocial behavior law.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by spun (1352)
                Yes, but what do you do when the sociopaths are telling the regular folks that you are the tyrant? What do you do when, in the course of overthrowing a tyrant, another tyrant rises to the top of your organization, as tyrants tend to do in times of violent revolution?

                In short, its a nice quote, but I've thought about it a lot, and it was just a cheerleading slogan. It doesn't give any real advice on how to deal with the problem.
                • by digitrev (989335) <digitrev@hotmail.com> on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:36PM (#23688653) Homepage
                  You educate. You inform. More importantly, you teach people how to think. That's the real lesson. Make sure that the average man knows as much as he can, and is able and willing to think and criticize what he's told. That way, when push comes to shove, people will make a reasonable decision. As for avoiding tyrants...it boils down to trial and error. The key thing is to make sure that power is not and can not be consolidated by any one group or person. Which is what the Constitution tried to do.
                  • by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:49PM (#23688785) Journal
                    Now that is good advice. Educate, and teach people critical thinking. Create a system with checks and balances. The 'blood of tyrants' quote may have been mere cheerleading (still, very necessary) but our founding fathers were brilliant men who cared deeply for human freedom, and gave the issue a lot of thought.

                    The problem, as I see it, is that our current corporate 'free market' system allows an end run around the checks and balances. A free market contains no checks or balances against the consolidation of power.
                    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      by dr_dank (472072)
                      but our founding fathers were brilliant men who cared deeply for human freedom

                      Once you get past that whole "slavery" thing, they really did care deeply for human freedom!
                    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      by Skreems (598317)
                      Personally, I'm becoming convinced that America is a sinking ship, and the only thing left to do is to sit back and enjoy the ride as we slowly spiral into gleeful ignorance and mediocrity.
              • by uniquename72 (1169497) on Friday June 06, 2008 @06:35PM (#23689167)
                One man's tyrant is another's messiah.
                One man's patriot is another's insurgent.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by nurb432 (527695)

                Follow Mr. Jefferson's advice: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
                I totally agree with him, however the only problem is you need a general populace that is willing to join in. A few martyrs wont get the job accomplished when most of the people are sheep.
          • by Quixote (154172) *
            No, fundamentally the problem is that people are fucking lazy and don't speak up at the right time.

            People are too busy with their Britney Spears', their Amy Winehouses, etc. to pay attention.

            As they say, evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

            What you are seeing, with your own eyes, is good (and mediocre) men doing nothing.

        • When I was in school (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gerf (532474) <edtgerf@gmail.com> on Friday June 06, 2008 @06:01PM (#23688899) Journal

          When I was in school, we were taught about Francis Cabot Lowell, who heroically copied machine plans in England to use in the US for textile mills.

          England was so worried that their monopoly on their mill technology would be taken that they would search ships, cargo and passenger for hidden plans.

          Fortunately for the US, Lowell memorized the plans and was able to build his own plants in the New World. His business was the beginning of the industrialization of the New World. Without which, the United States would have continued to be merely agrarian in nature. Does anyone know if they still teach this lesson in gradeschools, or was it killed when they started teaching kids to respect copyrights more?

        • by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Friday June 06, 2008 @07:29PM (#23689613)
          I think you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what they want to do. The elites have for so long controlled the media and have been in the exclusive position to be able to propogandise the public and control inforation flow. Since the development of the internet, we have seen for the first time true freedom of speech for the masses, where we dont only have it on paper, but people are actually able to use it without having a lot of money and resources. Previously, media was easy control , and it by definition had to be large corporations in order to reach large numbers of people. Now anyone can publish information that can be accessed by anyone else. This terrifies them, since their goal, being power hungry and really seeing the planet as something to be controlled rather than a place where people can control themselves and live in freedom. They have for years trying to find ways to shut down the internet and control it.
      • p2p == !DNS (Score:5, Informative)

        by swm (171547) * <swmcd@world.std.com> on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:18PM (#23688433) Homepage
        Yes, all IP packets are sent from one peer to another.

        The defining characteristic of what people call peer-to-peer systems is that the peers find each other without relying on the Domain Name System. A service that relies on the DNS--like a web server--can be shut down by removing its address from the DNS. Wikileaks had a problem like that recently. If you can force everyone to go through the DNS, then the DNS become a single point of control for the entire internet, and you can easily shut down anyone you don't like.

        The tricky part is establishing the legal principle that forces everyone to go through the DNS. You have to make it illegal to send a packet to an IP address unless you have obtained that IP address through a DNS lookup. Or something like that...
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Veinor (871770)

          The tricky part is establishing the legal principle that forces everyone to go through the DNS. You have to make it illegal to send a packet to an IP address unless you have obtained that IP address through a DNS lookup. Or something like that...
          veinor@zodiark:~$ ping 127.0.0.1
          PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.

          OH GOD THEY'RE COMING TO GET ME!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Drakin020 (980931)
      I'm sure if it came down to it, Blizzard would just change the way you update. Lost most other MMO's they would just implement an update server that pushes out the patches. They have more than enough money to put something like that in place, dispite the large number of players.
      • by Zironic (1112127) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:57PM (#23688153)
        They already do, their bittorrent client downloads from peers and an HTTP source at the same time, they might need to upgrade the main server though.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thtrgremlin (1158085)
        agreed. There are other more important social implications of the health or death of P2P. I enjoy a lot of Creative Commons content to be my own rebel. Legally getting all the free content I want is the biggest F U to the MAFIAA, IMO. It may not be GREAT, but got to believe in a world you wish existed for it to be come true. Want the best argument I have ever heard that changed my life? follow the link in my sig.
    • It would render a mmorg that ran its world distributed across the users computers illegal as well.

      Not that I know about anyone that's working on such a thing [koff] as far as you know [/koff]
    • Bad summary. (Score:5, Informative)

      by kesuki (321456) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:07PM (#23688285) Journal
      I went to wikileaks, read their summary, dled the PDF and read as much of it as i understood, and this document does nothing to 'criminalize' p2p activity. What it does criminalize is...

      "For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet. This clause would also negatively affect transparency and primary source journalism sites such as Wikileaks. "

      Basically, not just a pirate bay killer, but a wikileaks killer all rolled in one. Legitimate P2P is completely unaffected. except that there will never be 'open' trackers after this law goes through, in member nations. it's really easy to have a closed tracker, as WOW uses for distributing patches... now if WOW or say, SC2 uses P2P for 'user created content' (custom maps, sprites etc) then they might have to 'kill' those features in a patch, after all you can easily infringe on copyright (especially with custom sprites)
      • Re:Bad summary. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FSWKU (551325) on Friday June 06, 2008 @07:44PM (#23689709)

        What it does criminalize is...

        "For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet..."

        EXACTLY. It will criminalize unauthorized information exchange on the internet. Sounds all fine and good until you start thinking about who gets to define what constitutes "unauthorized." A legislative body with proper representation drafting the definition after careful consideration, input from constituents, and an informed debate on the issue? Hardly. "Unauthorized" will be at the sole whim of the MAFIAA and whatever political party is in power at the time. This will be used to squash differences in opinion from those in power. It may take down Wikileaks first, but who is to say if it will stop there? What they're trying to do with this is no less than pulling the wool over everyone's eyes until it's too late to do anything about it. They're going to try and present it fait accompli because they know it won't stand up if they actually ask people what they think.

        Face it, power no longer rests with the people, and hasn't for some time. It all resides in the hands of the corporations with money to buy votes. The oil, content, and software industries are the ones ACTUALLY running the US. So when does everyone decide to use what little power they have left to say "That's it, you're ALL fired. Every single one of you. Get the HELL out of Washington and find a REAL job, while we vote in people who actually have a spine to stand up for those that they represent!"

        I know, I know. It's a pipe dream that won't happen in my lifetime, or even in my grandchildren's lifetimes (I'm 26, single, no kids. Typical Slashdotter, but there's an idea of the timescale I'm talking about), but can't a man dream?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drew30319 (828970)
        That's not the way I read it:

        "... designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange (emphasis mine) on the internet. This clause would also negatively affect transparency and primary source journalism sites such as Wikileaks.

        The document reveals a proposal for a multi-lateral trade agreement of strict enforcement of intellectual property rights (emphasis mine) related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods hiding behind the issue of false tradem

  • Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:41PM (#23687965) Homepage Journal
    Sneak it in the back door via treaties that trump sovereign laws.

    Im glad our collective governments have all the real issues of the world solved ( like famine, disease, terrorists , etc ) and can focus on such important things as saving some corporate entity from having to adapt to the future.. ( and make us all criminals in the process )

    Can you say 'one world government by proxy' ?
    • Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:56PM (#23688147)
      "have all the real issues of the world solved"

      This isn't about music and/or copyrights, thats just a smoke screen for what they are really doing which is controlling the flow of information that they cannot watch. People in power get into power because they seek power over others. They fear the loss of power and so they want to control as much as they can. They fear any spread of information outside of their control as it can undermine their positions of power. This is all about constructing a global information gathering network. They want power over the internet and what flows on it. Most of us who don't seek power don't think like the people who seek power. The power seekers spend decades learning to gain and hold onto power. They are always looking at new ways to control and so far the Internet has grown up largely outside of their control and they dont want that.
      • And the reason that P2P has anything to do with controlling the Internet is what? Seriously, unless WikiLeaks starts to go P2P, I don't know of any P2P site that has government documents that would be a threat to power.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by nurb432 (527695)
          Its not about P2P as much as it is about the beginning of restriction of speech and information.

          It may not be some grand scheme, but it is the end result
          • Wouldn't though HTTP be a more logical way to start? Then move in to online videos, and FTP by citing that Al-Queda has a website and has the capability to use online videos to make a terrorist out of YOU!!!1!!1!*shift*One!!11!
            • Re:Typical (Score:5, Interesting)

              by digitrev (989335) <digitrev@hotmail.com> on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:33PM (#23688625) Homepage
              Nah. HTTP has too many legitimate uses and has been around for too long. It's much easier to attack the fringe first. After all, most people will agree that the majority of P2P sharing infringes on someone's copyright. Whether or not this is fair use is another argument. So by taking out the things with the most illegal use, they get people accustomed to having protocols be made illegal. So when the big media companies create a new protocol, call it "Guaranteed Information Delivery Protocol", or something equally fuzzy, all other protocols will be slowly phased out, as "illegal things" could happen on them. Of course, with GIDP, you'll never have to deal with something scary and illegal like child pornography. Only our nice and safe news/entertainment will be available to you. And how I wish that someone could prove to me that these are just the paranoid ramblings of a /.er.
    • Re:Typical (Score:5, Funny)

      by ElMiguel (117685) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:35PM (#23688635)

      Can you say 'one world government by proxy' ?

      No. Proxies are now outlawed too.

    • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Friday June 06, 2008 @06:01PM (#23688891) Journal
      Typical ... Sneak it in the back door via treaties that trump sovereign laws.

      Treaties do NOT trump federal law or the Constitution.

      When a treaty requires some internal law change to implement its provisions, that can only happen if congress passes such laws. Congress is not obligated to pass such laws or refrain from repealing them. Laws implementing a treaty are just as subject to being struck down as unconstitutional as any other law.

      The idea that treaties are a way to effectively amend the Constitution by an easier procedure comes from a common misreading of the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution. What the clause ACTUALLY means is that the Constitution, federal law, and treaties, each trump state/county/local law when they conflict (and the laws or treaties are constitutional).

      The supremacy clause from article VI:

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

      But see also article III Section 2:

      The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

      Note how, in both, the treaties are subordinated to the Constitution and how in article III they're also clearly subordinated to federal law.
  • by nexuspal (720736) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:44PM (#23688007)
    People will substitute away into another technology that will get around the requirements of the treaty if enacted. It's a nice thought though, isn't it ;-)
  • Canada (Score:4, Funny)

    by jcgf (688310) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:46PM (#23688037)

    I swear to God, if Harper signs this, I am going to skull fuck him.

    Bring it on CESIS, I'm ready and waiting!

    • by KillerBob (217953)
      Psst... it's called "CSIS".... Canadian Security and Intelligence Service.

      *shrugs* it will just take one person to challenge the provisions in the treaty. I'd take it to the supreme court, but it's unlikely that they'll enforce that anyway. As with most treaties, they don't usually bother enforcing some of the more arcane provisions until some nit complains that you're violating them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        As with most treaties, they don't usually bother enforcing some of the more arcane provisions until some nit complains that you're violating them.

        Which is the best thing that can happen to us.

        If a law isn't enforced in Canada, it becomes void. I don't know the exact term for it, but it's true. (I studied this about 2 months ago) You can't get caught on a minor, obscure technicality here.

        Also, SCC = 7 figures. Good luck with that.

        It's best to call the NDP and Liberals to tell them what's going on. With the current scandal, this might be enough to topple to Conservatives.

        Oh, don't forget the Bloc. I'm sure they'd love to have their content controlled

    • Re:Canada (Score:5, Funny)

      by snowraver1 (1052510) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:02PM (#23688221)
      Wear a condom. I think whatever he uses in his hair is toxic.
    • Re:Canada (Score:4, Informative)

      by WebCowboy (196209) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:36PM (#23688647)
      I think the implications are not as bad as all that. If it looks like enforcing the treaty would cause undue harm or expense, Canada won't ratify it under such onerous terms.

      Remember that though treaties are used by lobbyists to do end-runs around the laws of various countries, treaties cannot escape ratification by signing nations. Ratification still has to be voted on in the commons and given Royal Assent to be put into law before they can be enforced in Canada.

      Sometimes that isn't even enough. The Kyoto treaty was ratified, then pretty much ignored by the Liberal government of the time, the Liberal government following it and the present Conservative government.

      I don't even think a draconian copyright treaty would even get as far as Kyoto. Canada has been under some degree of pressure for a decade to "update" its copyright law to include DMCA-like provisions. It isn't an issue that resonates with the electorate like the environment, the Industry and Heritage committees have reviewed copyright law ad-nauseum, and copyright reform bills have died on the order paper.

      With it being a minority government run by a Conservative party that can only claim to live up to the name by the slimmest of margins as it tries to lure voters with policies scattershot all over the centre and right of the ideological spectrum, and a Liberal party with no principles to speak of and an ineffectual leader yet very eager to dig up all the dirt it can, I cannot see the government stepping up and pushing through a contentious copyright bill that would outlaw all forms of P2P (something even legitimate content providers are toying with, including the CBC--so such a law would even make criminals out of government-owned institutions).
  • by oahazmatt (868057) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:47PM (#23688047) Journal
    "How can we outlaw P2P? A lot of people use it for legitimately trading legal content."
    "Exactly. We make legally trading content illegal, then we'll catch those copyright infringers."
    "But if you outlaw legal file-sharing you set a dangerous precendent and risk a horrific backlash from the populous."
    "Look, you want this kickback or not?"
  • by TheStonepedo (885845) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:49PM (#23688059) Homepage Journal
    \begin{comment}
    It might well put a damper on piracy efforts that rely on decentralized distribution to stay afloat, but it will seriously hurt the (few) legitimate uses of peer-to-peer distribution. Imagine the strain on software development if the the good will and bandwidth of end users disappeared from their distribution model. At the end of the day somebody has to pay for the $n$ million downloads at 700MB apiece; I seriously doubt the paid development, marketing, sales, and support staff want to see it reallocated from their budgets.
    \end{comment}
  • by merchant_x (165931) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:51PM (#23688089)
    Tell them to stop selling out their constituents.

    From TFA
    Thank you also to the Members present, who have done so much to advance
        the cause of IP protection, including:
                - Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)
                - Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
                - Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
                - Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
                - Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)


    • by NiceGeek (126629) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:05PM (#23688263)
      Bono. Gee no surprise there. The dammed tree should have gotten them both.
    • by Shakrai (717556) * on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:10PM (#23688321) Journal

      Tell them to stop selling out their constituents.

      I don't know any of those names but one: Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA). The only 'constituents' that she gives a rat ass about are those that work for the content industry.

      This is the woman that pushed the Copyright Term Extension Act through Congress. This is a telling quote: (emphasis mine)

      "Actually, Sonny [reference to her late husband, Sonny Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."

      WTF is wrong with our elected officials? IANAL but I've read the Constitution enough times (and paid enough attention in civics class) to understand that the power of Congress to grant patents/copyrights is time limited. Let me help you Congresswoman:

      To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

      I also love the bit about what the MPAA President wanted. Care to tell me why his concerns should carry anymore weight then those of any American citizen?

      In short, she's a bitch and I wish I lived in her district so I could vote against her. Since I wouldn't live in California if you paid me a million bucks a minute (sorry to my friends on the west coast!) I'll have to be content with donating money to the campaign of whomever runs against her.

    • by Quixote (154172) * on Friday June 06, 2008 @06:22PM (#23689055) Homepage Journal
      OK, remember these names now.

      Soon we'll know who's running against these dicks. PLEASE DONATE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN TO THEIR OPPONENTS IN THIS YEARS'S ELECTION!!

      In the Congress, money talks; bullshit walks. All this discussion about "IP rights" and "Constitution" is pure bullshit to these leeches. All they care about is money. Well, put your money where your mouths are and donate liberally to their opponents come November. If we can just kick a couple of these bloodsuckers out of Congress, then we'll send a message to the others that these shenanigans won't do.

      On the other hand, if they win again, then you might as well kiss the Internet (as we know it) goodbye....

  • can someone come along and say "you can serve", and "you can request", and keep and monitor that separation? seems rather daunting

    otherwise, if the status quo is two way traffic flow, p2p traffic can be obfuscated in such a way that it is hard to detect and hard to isolate from "acceptable" traffic

    so i think all these laws do is breed stronger p2p apps
  • by grizdog (1224414) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:53PM (#23688123) Homepage
    This would be a good question for the candidates (I apologize for my US-centric point of view, but the idea applies everywhere), and not just the presidential ones.


    Can we gather a list like this and ask candidates to comment on it, like the groups interested in abortion or taxes or the environment do? Or is that outside the scope of /.?

  • by nuzak (959558) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:56PM (#23688149) Journal
    Corporations used to write laws, but that turned out to be really inefficient. Why bother when you can write treaties instead?

    And like I've said before, there's no bribing going on: the people writing these laws and treaties believe with all their hearts that the good of the nation -- nay, all humanity is served by maximizing corporate profit through physical force.

    I wasn't always like this. And in fact, lest you mistake me for a turtle-suit-wearing WTO protester, I'm actually all in favor of free markets. It'd just be nice if we ever actually saw an actually free market in my lifetime.
    • by nuzak (959558)
      Actually, I need to stop actually saying "actually" all the time. It's actually kind of annoying to read my own posts.
  • by Broken Toys (1198853) on Friday June 06, 2008 @04:56PM (#23688151)
    "...The agreement does not cover currency fraud..."

    So that's still OK because it's not a copyright violation.
  • ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books)
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    • by Hungus (585181)
      What the Constitution says is in the hands of Judges these days, many of which seem, from their actions, to have never read it.
    • by sqlrob (173498) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:09PM (#23688313)

      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;


      Problem is, the Constitution doesn't give a ranking for treaties when they're unconstitutional, and it's been treated that they supersede it.
      • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Friday June 06, 2008 @06:20PM (#23689041) Journal
        It's clearer if you quote the whole thing:

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

        It doesn't say treaties trump the constitution, or even are peers of it. It says that the hierarchy is Constitution -> Federal law -> Treaties -> state law.

        It's even clearer in article III section 2:

        The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

        Treaties themselves have no power internally without enabling legislation. Congress is not obligated to pass enabling legislation, to make it conform to the actual treaty language if they do pass it, or to refrain from repealing it. Courts can strike the enabling legislation (or any attempt at direct application of treaty language to the international activity of US citizens or entities) for unconstitutionality, interpret it into impotence, or set up impossible enforcement roadblocks, as easily as they do the same to federal law.
    • Article 6 of the Constitution might be relevant here:

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

      I would agree that this sounds like a First Amendment issue, but I wouldn't be
      • by Astro Dr Dave (787433) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:37PM (#23688659)

        Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

        This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

        There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

        -- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)
  • I've been tossing around the idea of leaving the U.S. again. Last time I left for the destination (Southern Mexico beach). Now I want to leave because the U.S. is quickly becoming the kind of place where I don't want to live anymore...

    I'm hoping that a new administration with fresh ideas might go some way to improve the situation here, but I'm getting tired of a country whose politics are motivated by money. It wasn't too many years ago that companies felt some sort of obligation to the betterment of societ
    • by nuzak (959558)
      It doesn't matter -- this is a treaty. The iron heel means to crush you everywhere and respects no national boundaries.

    • by nguy (1207026)
      Where do you want to run?

      Do you think that European governments aren't listening in to everything you do or say? British police records and retains license plate information all over the place, as well as having installed massive video surveillance. Germany has passed a data retention law, and the main German phone company (and possibly some other companies) have been using stored data to spy on their employees and journalists. In addition, they tried out massive facial recognition screening in public p
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:00PM (#23688197)
    "Who is really behind ACTA? Follow the money:

    Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)[4]

            Top four campaign contributions for 2006:

                    Time Warner $21,000
                    News Corp $15,000
                    Sony Corp of America $14,000
                    Walt Disney Co $13,550

            Top two Industries:

                    TV/Movies/Music $181,050
                    Lawyers/Law Firms $114,200
    "
    Can we outlaw these groups from the internet? kthx
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:05PM (#23688257) Journal
    I honestly can't imagine what the pretext would be if, asked point blank, somebody needed to justify doing this sort of thing in secret. Obviously, it is secret to keep the dirty proles and rabble-rousing journalists away; but I can't even imagine a plausible sounding excuse.

    How could doing this sort of thing in secret possibly be justified?(I'd honestly be curious to hear plausible sounding answers, my usual arsenal of quips is exhausted)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      They will probably say something about terrorists, because as we know every .torrent file you download from The Pirate Bay helps funds terrorists!!!!!!

      And they will also then manipulate the facts into lies by saying that (perhaps) some region free DVD players sales go to help terrorists and then region free == terrorist supporting.

      In the end it is rather sad as who pays for pirated materials? Just about everyone, well... pirates them!
  • .... more shyster than a pickpocket in the Marakesh Bazaar.

    and when you think that you people actually VOTE those into power in america, i become speechless.
  • Yes, but... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Sta7ic (819090)
    ...if this gets signed, will it kill off MediaDefender's business model?
  • I'm a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:22PM (#23688477)
    <SOAPBOX>
    If I use P2P of any kind for any reason, legal or not, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
    If I get for free, legally or not, what I could PAY for, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
    If I don't spend every last penny I make on what corporate America tells me to, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
    If I don't purchase a gas-hogging SUV every three years, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
    If I ride a bicycle because gas is so expensive, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
    If I don't consume, consume, consume, and CONSUME, I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
    I object to having to live in a fucking nanny-state, so OBVIOUSLY I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.
    If I don't live exactly like EVERYONE ELSE, then I'm a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer.


    ...

    Know what? The fucking bastards can fucking drop me in an oubliette in Gitmo then, because I guess I'm a fucking terrorist. I don't do everything I'm told to do, believe everything I'm told to believe, and keep my mouth shut because my opinions aren't "politically correct", so that makes me an "undesirable", worthy only of societies' scorn, and I should be treated like a dog.

    Let them sign their fucking little treaty. It's all paperwork bullshit anyway. I say it over and over again like a mantra: You can't stop the signal, goddamnit! Outlaw BitTorrent? Let's see them try, and if they do, someone will re-tool it into something completely different. Make the public internet unusable for anything other than their corporate bullshit? We'll find a way to subvert it into doing what we need it to do, or we'll tell them to go fuck themselves and go back to SneakerNet -- or maybe we'll just start creating a mesh network of our own and SCREW the ISPs!

    ..Said it before, I'll say it again: If this is the shape of things to come, then they can KEEP their fucking fucked-up internet. I'll go back to PRINTED BOOKS and actually TALKING TO LIVE PEOPLE IN PERSON, and these fucking politicians and their ISP lap-dogs won't get a SINGLE PENNY more of mine.
    </SOAPBOX>

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DigiShaman (671371)
      Guns my friend. Guns an violence are the only tools the oppressors listen too (sadly). I speak historically of course.

      I fear that if not us, our children will be fighting the next American revolution.
  • by metoc (224422) on Friday June 06, 2008 @05:26PM (#23688539)
    ACTA also has the effect of requiring that all traffic (and transactions) be routed through central points so that infringing content can be tracked back to the source. Pretty much a puts us back in the old Mainframe & PBX days. This not only impacts P2P traffic, but anything that is decentralized, which means the internet as a whole, along with email, IM, IRC, Skype, etc.
  • by wkcole (644783) on Friday June 06, 2008 @08:52PM (#23690127)
    1. ACTA is being negotiated in secret. A very bad practice. On the other hand, it is also being negotiated by an incompetent, generally scorned, lame duck administration with no "fast track" authority, so an opposition Congress will get to pick apart whatever they are sent and will be more inclined to do so for purely political reasons. The chances of ACTA actually being done any time soon are slim and none.
    2. What was leaked is not a draft of the actual ACTA agreement or anything like it. It is four pages of vague suggestions of what someone (no one knows who) thinks should be in it.
    3. Doctorow's description of what is in the leaked document makes it clear that he didn't bother actually reading it, but rather he seems to be channelling other people's conjecture about what might end up in ACTA when and if it actually becomes real.

    A deeper, less hysterical, and non-intellectually dishonest analysis than Doctorow's chicken-littling is at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080602-the-real-acta-threat-its-not-ipod-scanning-border-guards.html [arstechnica.com]

HOST SYSTEM NOT RESPONDING, PROBABLY DOWN. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? (Y/N)

Working...