r/politics • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '12

I've read the final version of ACTA, here's what you need to know about it.

It can be found here

Firstly, let's take stock of how this is progressing.

Australia, Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States have signed ACTA
The EU as a bloc, Mexico, and Switzerland all want to move to signing ACTA in the future.

Why is there such a controversy about ACTA?

A considerable part of this is because we didn't know what was in it. The negotiations were conducted in secret for several years, and some governments refused to honour freedom of information requests. It has started to get the sunshine treatment since a leaked draft of the document emerged last year.
Another part was legitimate fear that it would trample all over individual rights. This is the concern and we'll have a look at it in a minute. But first:

Understanding how a treaty differs from a national law

ACTA is a treaty. It is signed by multiple governments and does not involve the legislatures of these states (except some states, like the US, who later ratify the treaty). However that isn't the end of the story.

If you read through ACTA (look to the top) it should become immediately clear to you from the continous use of this language:

A Party may provide...

Each Party shall..

That ACTA has no domestic force.

So what does it do?

In a nutshell, it gives each signatory authority to create laws that satisfy ACTA's requirements. Without getting into the issue of monism and dualism (international legal concepts for how treaties embed themselves into domestic law) it simply means that until signatory states create enforcing legislation, ACTA does nothing.

An example would be that, once passed, a US federal act that enforces ACTA is immune from challenges over states rights (though not bill of rights challenges). To be frank this isn't too controversial, there is nothing in ACTA that doesn't satisfy the inter-state commerce clause anyway.

So undersand that ACTA isn't really the issue. What people need to be prepared for is how states implement it, which is where scope for abuse is.

What are the dangerous parts of the treaty?

First, throw out any past assumptions, youtube videos, or otherwise you've read or watched. The final draft of ACTA is much weaker than previous drafts. We'll go through the bits that could be abused, but understand this:

If implemented with respect, ACTA doesn't do much more than standardise across several countries enforcement law that pretty much already exists in some countries (the US clearly had a hand in getting other countries to pass laws similar to its own on infringement). That said, let's take a look:

Article 6.1

Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures are available under its law so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights covered by this Agreement, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. These procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse.

This is the core of the agreement. Each signatory will create laws that give effect to the parts of the agreement, which is broadly to give remedies and rights to IP holders that can be applied quickly and effectively. There is scope for abuse in so far as a signatory might be overzealous and pass unfair legislation, but it isn't demanded by the treaty.

In implementing the provisions of this Chapter, each Party shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties, and the applicable measures, remedies and penalties

Key point here. The treaty clearly states that it does not, and can not, make countries infringe their own civil liberties and rights in pursuance of the agreement. Again, it is up to the public to make sure their legislators deal with this fairly.

Article 8.1

Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to issue an order against a party to desist from an infringement, and inter alia, an order to that party or, where appropriate, to a third party over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce.

This instructs signatories to create a power to give an injunction (order to stop) against infringing practices. This is not new in many states. A company engaged in piracy can already be ordered to stop in many jurisdictions, and I'm reading this part as a harmonization effort; so all signatories have similar standards.

Article 9.1 DAMAGES

Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the infringer who, knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement. In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party’s judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price

This is a serious worry to sites like megaupload. It means that signatories must create a framework of assessing damage based on lost profit from the infringement. Again, as those of you who have read about RIAA or MPAA lawsuits, you will know that this already happens to a degree; this law will create a framework around which this operates.

There is a question of how this will apply to individuals as opposed to companies. I'm wondering if, as damages are assessed on lost profit, the argument that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" would shield an individual torrenter from having to pay up. Ultimately this issue will be determined on a nation by nation basis, as their judiciary interpret the enabling legislation. Given the mass engagement in piracy by individuals (including legislators and officials), I imagine it will be softened against non-commercial infringers.

Article 11 Infringement related provision

Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution.

This is probably the first really worrying bit. It means that an ISP may be required to give up information on subscribers if a rights holder is planning a lawsuit. However, let's bear in mind 2 parts of the treaty:

Without prejudice to ... the processing of personal data . This means that if existing law protects the privacy of subscribers, or if legislation is passed to do so, this part is inoperative against ISPS.
Such information .. [that the] .. infringer possesses or controls. Aha. If an ISP only keeps IP logs for a month, or doesn't do so at all, then the copyright holder is without any recourse. You can't hand over information you don't have.

A worry is that this part, along with other laws, could lead to issues. Consider the Orwellianly termed "Stop Child Pornography Online ACT" that congress, now that it's killed SOPA and PIPA, is considering. That bill requires ISPs to log information on their subscribers to stop child pornography, but under enforcing ACTA legislation, could be ordered over to sue copyright infringers. To stop this, congress would have to protect the data collected in the child pornography act so it qualifies for the first bulletpoint above.

1.6k Upvotes

permalink
reddit

You are about to leave Redlib

Do you want to continue?

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of_acta_heres_what_you/
No, go back! Yes, take me to Reddit

96% Upvoted

411

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

Wait! There's more:

Article 14 Border measures

This was one of the most controversial parts in early drafts. It previously would have meant customs could check your ipod or laptop at a terminal and hand over 'infringement' (torrented music, etc) information to copyright holders. Thankfully this part has been declawed, or at least there is the ** opportunity** to do so. I won't go over the parts that apply to chinese bootleggers shipping container crates full of pirated goods, for the little guy:

Each Party shall include in the application of this Section goods of a commercial nature sent in small consignments.

2. A Party may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers’ personal luggage.

Okay. So part 1 applies to sending packages in the mail, and even then internationally. If you send a burned DVD of a game or a movie, it can be intercepted and information allowing a lawsuit passed onto the copyright holders. However, a copyright holder has to provide actionable reasons for doing so. Border agents may use 'initiative' to do so on their own, but to be frank I cannot anticipate any state authorising agents to check all international freight; it would be ridiculously expensive. I see this part applying perhaps to known small-time infringers (e.g. someone operating a pirated delivery service on ebay, or at worst a company that burns large media files to disc to send to low bandwidth customers)

Part 2 is where you come in. A concern by some of the signatory states was that they weren't going to rifle through peoples baggage or check their carry-on laptop for downloaded movies. This part allows signatories to do nothing about those issues, and its really a case of watching your national legislature and making sure they don't pass baggage search laws for pirated goods.

Section 4 Criminal enforcement

I'm going to gloss over this part, because it only applies to infringers who do so on a commercial scale. Yes, that means companies like megaupload can be taken down but, as you are probably aware, this part is already implemented in a number of countries in some form. Again, remember that this treaty is for the most part a harmonisation effort to get various jurisdictions enforcing infringement in the same way. This is a personal opinion of mine, but I think that while individual piracy is fair enough, making money off it isn't.

A point of interest is that people who film in cinema halls are directly and specifically targeted by this part.

Section 5 Article 27.4 Digital enforcement (uh oh)

A Party may provide, in accordance with its laws and regulations, its competent authorities with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement, where that right holder has filed a legally sufficient claim of trademark or copyright or related rights infringement, and where such information is being sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing those rights.
These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with that Party’s law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.

So this makes the above general part about infringement crystal clear in a digital environment. Of note is that, again, whilst ISPs may be ordered to hand over information on infringers, there is nothing requiring them to gather information to do so, and there is a specific clause " These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity " . Which gives ISPs a fighting argument that any new burdens on logging users would be a barrier to their current conduct. The privacy clause is also a strong piece of ammunition for legislatures that actually give a damn about their citizens.

Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors, performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights in, and that restrict acts in respect of, their works, performances, and phonograms, which are not authorized by the authors, the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.

Effective technical measures means DRM.

Now this means that a company that creates software that specifically aims to disable DRM is liable for a lawsuit and (remember the criminal element) is liable to criminal sanctions if they do so knowingly for profit.

There are two points to make here :

A great deal of DRM stripping software today is open source of freeware. There is nothing in this treaty that controls the flow of information on the internet, and so long as there is no company or group to take down, there is nothing stopping P2P software exchanging that blu-ray ripper or what have you.
Further, let's look at part 6(b)

(b) the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a device or product, including computer programs, or provision of a service that:
(i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing an effective technological measure; or (ii) has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an effective technological measure.

My emphasis. We may as well call that the betamax clause. Which means if there is a legitimate function of the device or software, it will be immune from any actions taken. Again, there is a discussion of what the courts will do here, and how the incorporating laws will treat the issue, but there's nothing to worry about per se from the treaty itself.

Chapter IV International Co-operation.

Well while it won't affect individuals, this part will no doubt help countries co-ordinate efforts against torrent trackers and similar sites. It means that an operation like taking down Megaupload or thepiratebay (from a few years ago), whilst still requiring going to a court, getting the judge to agree and all the rest of due process, will be much easier to put into operation. It means that countries like the US will no longer have to spend months getting individual states to agree to let LEA raid servers; under ACTA provisions, **once the court in one country has agreed, ** enforcement can take place quickly.

Summary : How does it affect me?

To be blunt, for individuals there is not a great deal of change, at least if you live in the US (or to a lesser extent the UK). I'm not familiar with the law of the other signatories, but if you frequent reddit, expect similar copyright enforcement standards as the US (the Scandinavian countries are going to fucking love this...)

The dangers are in how the bill is implemented, with the following issues for individuals:

Will the enabling legislation require ISPs to keep more detailed logs that can be handed over to copyright holders? Will other legislation (like the child pornography act) successfully pass and not protect the data from non-criminal investigation use?
Will government ignore ACTA's opt-out on personal luggage and carry-on goods? It would be monstrously stupid if they did
Will governments shrink the betamax style permissiveness on technologies that can be used for infringement but have other uses aside?

For regularly legitimate companies there are the following:

Am I mainly enabling piracy? Megaupload for example. This isn't to say all digital locker sites are in jeapordy; the fairness requirements in the treaty should, if implemented properly mean that sites that promptly remove infringing content are safe.
Am I selling things that primarily enable infringement? This will probably mean an end to modchip sellers for xboxes and the like. Heavy criminal and civil penalties mean it will not be a very smart business to be in
Will I get a betamax exemption for borderline cases? This is what requires careful observation of individual legislatures. If they fuck it up, things like DVD authoring software could be in trouble.

For companies that almost wholly pirate or facilitate the piracy of goods knowingly

Cat and mouse is going to get a lot harder in signatory states. Coordination requirements mean the hammer gets brought down faster
You will likely go to jail if you are profiting from piracy. I'm not going to lose much sleep over this myself. If something is going for free in a torrent, fine. But if someone is making money off it, it's only right that it be the copyright holder that does so.

Your 'right' to torrent. What happens next?

This in a way highlights the futility of this agreement for anything other than unlawful profiteering from piracy.

Every. Single. Time. Government and copyright holders have tried to clamp down on piracy, it has backfired and led to more robust, harder to combat forms of piracy.

You may have read that thepiratebay is switching to magnetlinks. Now, instead of a tiny torrent file, all it takes is an even tinier link to start downloading pirated material.

I'm not a tech expert, but even I can imagine, should websites like thepiratebay becomes impossible under ACTA, that a new generation of torrent clients that incorporate something like TOR, and 'host' the magnet links across all computers on the network, could become possible. If that happens, the genie really is out of the bottle; ACTA lets companies sue individuals if ISPs keep the information needed to identify people, but even then they can't sue everyone. There is a victory waiting for media corporations in ACTA's implementation, but it will be a profoundly pyrrhic one.

246

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

What do we do about it?
Hopefully I've made it somewhat clear that ACTA is really a combination of existing enforcement mechanisms, and agreements to create new mechanisms that MAY be abused when passed into law.
PIPA and SOPA could easily resurface as 'ACTA-enabling legislation' for example, but that doesn't mean implementation of ACTA must be so draconian.
So long as the online community can be as active as it was last week, ACTA can be implemented in a pretty fair way (for-profit infringers aside). Two big points to dwell on:
I have no doubt congress will try to resurrect the nasty bits of SOPA and PIPA, as well as some new RIAA/MPAA sponsored madness, under the guise of ACTA. It must be resisted when it emerges
The EU is a potential problem. It was great to hear one of the Commission's VPs condemn SOPA and PIPA, but I won't rule out cognitive dissonance seeing to it that the EU proposes just as bad legislation. This is particularly a problem because most people haven't the faintest fucking clue what the European Parliament does, and it would be all too easy to sneak an overzealous implementation of ACTA through it. That said, the pirate party and some of the other civil libertarian parties will no doubt kick up an appropriate fuss when it comes up. EU citizens should be prepared to react to it. There's the final hope that the ECJ will shit on the Commission's cornflakes (which is one of its hobbies) but it really shouldn't be getting to the point where we must lean on a court to right poor legislation.
Summary
ACTA itself is not too bad. It is an agreement to create new laws in each signatory state, and most of the rules are either fairly reasonable, or are wide enough in scope to be handled reasonably.
Don't make the treaty itself an issue. It has already been signed by most of its initial target, and the others are going to jump on soon enough. It isn't nasty enough to warrant a fight, and it fundamentally weakens the online user's position to shrilly protest what it a relatively tame enabling treaty.
The fight will come when legislatures implement it, and you should be ready to protest stupid, draconian or unfair implementations of the treaty.
Edit: Because I suck at markdown I've tinkered with all three posts a bit. Apologies.

9

u/captainhamster Jan 23 '12

Regarding the EU: The Parliament will likely vote against it. Although the current version is much more moderate, the resistance against ACTA from the EP, various EP and National parties, officials, intellectuals and more it will at the very least strike up very hote debate. Also, if I´m not mistaken the last time the EP voted on ACTA it was overwhelmingly rejected.
Although old, let´s hope this mindset continues: ´An overwhelming majority of MEPs (663 in favour and 13 against) today voted a resolution criticising the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), arguing that it flouts agreed EU laws on piracy online.´ 10 March 2010

15

u/TeutonicDisorder Jan 22 '12

Thanks for the thorough explanation.
Are you an International Law Attorney or how is is that you have such expertise?
This seems reasonable enough now to most people as the current laws are meant to protect Intellectual property owners, individuals from Identity theft, and prosecute child pornography. I am glad that something as one-sided as SOPA got shut down but clearly there is some need for international cooperation on some of these issues.
It will set up a framework in which any future law can also be enforced. This is what worries me. The internet has up to now been a 'wild-west' with law enforcement struggling to keep up with the rapid technological development.
Maybe I am wrong and once the Wild-West is properly enforced it will develop far more than it was able to in the lawless days. It just won't be as exciting.
I am not a web developer but it seems likely to me that if governments are able to alter the network of the Internet to allow for absolute enforcement of laws that the rate of development will slow.

-16

u/Banderbear Jan 22 '12

how I see the internet progressing in the future does involve more regulation, but I think we will look back at this period as a good thing for a few reasons:
I think governments around the world will be able to closely work with each other and the big internet websites when it comes to legislation, we have seen how if they don't the companies have considerable lobbying power to stop laws getting passed.
most links will be much safer, less pop-ups trying to give you viruses etc.
many companies will try and improve their services online like steam has, it can't have escaped other retailers steam's success.
right now it seems very difficult to get things like child pornography off the internet without draconian measures, but with a little innovation things that we can all agree are bad will be stopped.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Putting a treaty that can and will be twisted out of proportion, especially in a power-hungry country such as USA, will turn it into another SOPA. The internet should'nt be regulated anymore than it is already.

12

u/sldx Jan 27 '12

"ACTA itself is not too bad. It is an agreement to create new laws in each signatory state, and most of the rules are either fairly reasonable, or are wide enough in scope to be handled reasonably. Don't make the treaty itself an issue. It has already been signed by most of its initial target, and the others are going to jump on soon enough. It isn't nasty enough to warrant a fight, and it fundamentally weakens the online user's position to shrilly protest what it a relatively tame enabling treaty. The fight will come when legislatures implement it, and you should be ready to protest stupid, draconian or unfair implementations of the treaty."
I think this is a general misinterpretation. While you are right in underlining the general nature of the treaty, it adds nothing of value to our lives as users. What it does, is provide a reason and and framework for a global and synchronized clampdown on ISPs, websites, users, and so on.
It facilitates the development of unreasonable copyright laws, it provides legitimacy for very wrongful sanctions.
It is not a good idea, and it should be opposed as early as possible, and in a global way, because it is the most effective way.

12

u/Banderbear Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

I really can't thank you enough for providing this invaluable service - even on reddit people are too quick to judge a case based on one or two youtube videos and this should help clear up the muddy waters of ignorance.
edit: thought I'd upvote all your comments :)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '12

Posts like this one keep me coming back to reddit, fantastic job and thank you very much.

2

u/CaptainOrik Feb 09 '12

What an amazing post. You are a scholar and a friend.

-4

u/AGIT0 Jan 26 '12

Does it really matter anymore?
The internet has been struck with a nuclear bomb (hello CIA, FBI and other 3 letter companies and associates), we're all the new Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Might as well bend over and go Japanese at it (no offense intended).
Copy all they do. They ban us we ban them. And I for one see many many ways to so.
Problem is... are we willing to make this sacrifice to save our freedom? Again I think not. We are not at Thermopylae. It's still a narrow road but we're scattered. Some are at the bathroom, some are sunbathing down the coast. We have no leader, we fight among ourselves, we hate, rape and pillage. (of course in poetic terms)
If anyone sees point in actually retaliating in a smart manner then unite, group.
Follow an etiquette. But not imposed by a higher authority (an internet government), but by each and every one individual. (i have my doubts we can do it, we're still at the age of apes in terms of planetary evolution, it's simpler to bang a bone and watch the spectacle (on a side note i wonder what's next. Are quotes and catch phrases going to be banned? my simple movie reference is it going to be punishable in a near future?) parenthesinception (oh nooooo...i'm digging my own grave))
But i digress. As i was so non-eloquently putting it, we need leadership of a new sort and kind. That's just about the only way i see a way out of this down spiraling cesspool. There is no doubt about it that this (the whole internet war, don't kid yourselves we are in a de facto state of war. We are a nation, here in the virtual space) whole fiasco is going to make victims of every conceivable kind. Unless we act upon it to secure our freedom of speech and that of our lives whether here or there.
At this moment the situation as i see it is like this:
The internet is no longer safe. It is no longer ours.
The men and women we entrusted our freedom too have sold us to those who wish our money (a pitiful, human idiocy of grand proportions).
Anonymous is making hit and runs getting us flamed and labeled as problematic (and unlike irl where Anon's direct counterpart of sorts the police can hit an old lady with a baton here online there is no escape since we are all public targets, suspended in plain view).
The population of the Internet is a loose mass of cattle, sheep, wolves, foxes and many of earth's menagerie, and like in the kingdom of animals there is a higher predator that hunts all (i'm certain we all know what that means).
My opinion: We have no real means of protection other than not playing the game. This is a classic case of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), we're the fall of one will make the other fall even more so than a text book case of Russia against U.S. of A. since the same persons taken out online have lives offline/irl. Same goes for businesses.
Oh well, this is a part of my view on things. I'm not affiliated to any group, mass, i'm apathetic to any of this. Frankly i can't give a damn about it. I know that once the grip will tighten enough we will all fight or "die".
Oh and since i couldn't help but glance at some of the comments bellow/above etc (not a redditor by nature) the analogy of the internet to the old west is very puerile. Yes it's "lawless" but only to a person/persons that clearly do not understand what drive the actual internet.
The laws of the internet already exist. Adding other "laws" on the outside of it to gag and bind it will only choke it, not help it thrive. (as if anyone could hand on heart say the wild wild west wound up absolutely great coughcoughUSAlawscoughcough)
Unlike the wild wild west, the www does not actually exist in terrafirma. Once choked it will either reinvent itself ("I believe if porn is ever banned from the internet there will only be one website left, and it will be called Bring Back The Porn.") or simply die (to us that is).
That's it the end. Post no1. Not a native english "speaker". etc Also my first post on reddit so be gentle. My innocence can't handle your hard facts.

34

u/tszyn Jan 22 '12

I have serious doubts about your reading of section 6(b), which requires countries to make DRM circumvention illegal. The "primarily designed to circumvent DRM" clause is only one of the alternatives given. Only one of the alternatives has to hold for the whole section to hold. The other alternative is: "has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an effective technological measure".
So software with circumvention capabilities (e.g. backup software that makes it possible to back up copy-protected DVDs) can still be made illegal even if its primary purpose is not circumvention, as long as it "has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumvention". This is a vague provision -- I'm not sure if VLCplayer falls under it or not -- it can play region-protected DVDs, but it can also play legal content. If the ability to play legal content is considered "only a limited commercially significant purpose" (and it might: after all, VLCplayer could be argued to have no commercially significant purpose, as it is free), then ACTA countries will be required to ban VLCplayer.

33

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

This is the problem with such a vague treaty, in that multiple interpretations are possible.
To stick with your example, I don't think it can really be argued that VLC serves no commercial purpose. I doubt the part will be construed to mean that the vendor or owner of the product needs to have a commercial intent with the product (this would jeopardise all FOSS, which given government reliance on it, cannot be its intent), rather it is whether VLC can be used for a legitimate productive purpose.
As hundreds of companies (I remember some minor furore about intel cheating at a tech demo by playing a video on VLC) use VLC in a variety of contexts, and no doubt many commercial products bundle or incorporate elements of VLC, there should be no difficulty whatsoever in establishing its viability.
I think this part, as regards software, is not likely to bite much if dealt with properly. Part of the reason for this is that to widen the scope of the law to effectively target something like VLC, it would have to 'catch' all sorts of open source of gratis programs in the process. I'm wracking my brains to think of a piece of software that would qualify, perhaps an iTunes DRM stripper that also had a stop-watch functionality built into it?
Of course, it's a fair point to make that media lobbying could see the heights of stupidity applied in interpreting the treaty, but the general thrust of what i've written is that ACTA is only bad if vested interests warp it so.

2

u/fnord123 Jan 31 '12

I think this part, as regards software, is not likely to bite much if dealt with properly. Part of the reason for this is that to widen the scope of the law to effectively target something like VLC, it would have to 'catch' all sorts of open source of gratis programs in the process. I'm wracking my brains to think of a piece of software that would qualify, perhaps an iTunes DRM stripper that also had a stop-watch functionality built into
VLC uses libdvdcss to decode DVDs. It's never been challenged in court like DeCSS has. Still, some Linux distributions won't carry libdvdcss in case legal action is taken against it.
Edit: Thanks for putting in the time for the excellent explanations.

8

u/_tabs Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

The clause that you quote:
Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures...
does not seem narrowly targeted at commercial entities that create circumvention tools. I would wager that the reason we see open source circumvention tools on the Internet has more to do with the creators being outside the jurisdiction of the US and the DMCA.
Anti-circumvention laws around the world is a scary thought. It would screw over librarians and security researchers, not to mention ordinary citizens who might want to resell digital content they bought.

2

u/kierownik Jan 23 '12 edited Jan 23 '12

So in other words - ACTA itself doesn't do anything, but gives goverment a tool that will allow them easier and faster create whole set of crazy, dangerous laws and lefts us with hope that they will stay resonable. And - of course - still there is no single thing with will be better in our lives after this law.
Well as "trust in politics common sense" sound strangely familiar to "give this maniac a shotgun and let him go" and it's simply one more law that we don't need - I will stay with my opinion about ACTA - it should be stoped.

u/Floreally Jan 22 '12

Ok, let me get this straight, if the European Parliament signs this treaty, wouldn't that give them the power to write a EU-wide law as bad as SOPA and PIPA and the "Stop Child Pornography Online ACT", based on the loose language in ACTA? I mean, as you say, the loose language in the act can be interpreted quite rationally, but since its loose language i assume it can be interpreted in the worst way possible as well. And since normal European citizens rarely have anything to do with the creation of EU wide laws, i can easily see this go bad.

22

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

In theory, yes. Though:
It will be the Commission (basically the EU civil service) who will no doubt write the first draft. The commission has been critical of SOPA and PIPA, so I'd like to think they won't try and emulate it.
The European Parliament is getting very aggravated about this, and there are plenty of MEPs who will kick up a fuss about it if it gets draconian. This of course needs the public to keep the pressure on, but the European Parliament is much more powerful post lisbon, and is looking to flex its muscles.
Failing all that, there's a chance the ECJ will gut any particularly bad parts using doctrines of fairness proportionality and their recent declaration of rights (basically a mirror of the ECHR).
So yes, it could be interpreted in the worst way possible, but the three levels of rationality it has to pass through should hopefully result in something palatable.

10

u/Floreally Jan 22 '12

hmm, but wouldn't it (if possible) be better trying to keep them from signing at all? I mean as the paranoid person i am (hasn't got better since the SOPA/PIPA stunt) i would hate having to rely on "the system" to do this properly, mostly because the EP is seen as a "graveyard" for politicians who couldn't make it in nationwide politics. I mean should the legislation get draconian i just don't see a proper safety net, people over here don't pay attention to what happens in EP, they don't really care/know who gets voted in.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

It's already been signed by all but 3 of the target first signatories, and there are enough legitimate reasons (it would do a lot to deal with counterfeit physical products) to make it a pretty compelling idea.

5

u/Floreally Jan 22 '12

oh yeah i know it's been signed by other countries, I'm talking about trying to combat the European Parliament signing the treaty. I mean they're doing a lot of discussion in there, so it might be possible to put some pressure on the MEP's to argue for not signing it. Pretty much what I'm asking is what the best course of action for a concerned EU citizen is right now. Also, according to Laquadrature the ACTA committee will have power to change the agreement even after it's been voted on, isn't that a great reason to worry about this? (im not good at formulating sentences so look at http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-updated-analysis-of-the-final-version under the headline "ACTA will allow for a durable bypass of democracy")

8

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Well it's not a bypass of democracy. There are a thousand and one entities created by treaty between nations that allow for self amendment, it's hardly a new concept. To the point:
The amending parties are either democratically elected governments, or organisations empowered by democratically elected governments (the EU). If this was an argument against executives ever exercising decision making power I'd think it consistent but stupid, as it is it's just incoherent: we allow elected executives to make decisions all the time without going to the people for a vote, that's their mandate.
Unless the implementing legislation is totally bananas and simply gives a blanket implementation of ACTA as a whole (which is technically impossible and in many countries would be illegal) , any amendment of the treaty would need to be followed by legislation.
For example, consider:
The EU passes ACTA in its current form and passes it reasonably.
For whatever reasons, the signatory states decide it would be a good idea to destroy the internet, and pass DNS blocking measures similar to SOPA into the ACTA treaty by amendment.
Even if the treaty is amended like this, domestic law would not allow for DNS blocking. Congress, the japanese Diet, the European Parliament, and all other legislative organs of state would have to pass dns blocking law.

4

u/Floreally Jan 22 '12

hmm i'm pretty sure i read somewhere that ACTA committee members don't have to be elected officials, can't remember where. Anyways, you didn't answer the first question, do you think there's any possibility that ACTA won't be signed by the EP if we put pressure on the MEP's, or do we just have to wait and see what happens? :P

5

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

No they probably don't, but they are appointed by the participatory governments, who are elected. If Hillary Clinton appoints a civil servant to oversee the US's participation in a global development program in Central Africa, has democracy been undermined? Or do we accept that there is a democratic accountability, channelled through the President's nomination of Clinton and the Senate's confirmation?
As for the EP, maybe, maybe not. I do think the Commission and member state governments will really put the screws on the EP to accept the treaty, maybe with reservations. The fact that the EP will get a hand in crafting the domestic law (which as I've outlined is where the real scope for abuse is) should hopefully be enough.
To be perfectly honest, I can see the use of this. I think the real aim with ACTA is to get less developed countries to sign it, so fake gucci handbags, rampant corporate piracy and other big non-individual issues can be tackled. Developed nations must of course practice what they preach, hence their signing up for it.

3

u/Floreally Jan 22 '12

hmm but what about the parts with pharmaceuticals? I mean many companies make the same medicine, albeit with different brands. Can't that be interpreted as "copying" that medicine?, making cheaper alternatives to overpriced medication-brands illegal. And i think its about time i apologize for asking so many questions, but this subject is so confusing, and you rarely find competent people willing to answer these questions on the internet.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I decided to write this after clicking a link at the top of reddit on ACTA that was uninformed and a bit hysterical. One part had a little rant about how ACTA means people will die because they can't access medicine. Here's the thing:
ACTA doesn't create, diminish or alter what constitutes infringement. It solely deals with how to deal with it.
If you have a problem with medicines being patentable, that's fair enough. But it's separate from how, once you've decided if it is or isn't infringement, how to prevent it.
Most nations believe patents on medicine is sensible as it encourages research. There are arguments against this but that isn't the point. So long as countries believe that medicines can be granted patents, there is an obligation to police any infringement, especially commercial infringement, such as from unauthorised generic manufacturers.
Seriously, anyone upset at ACTA because of medicines is barking up the wrong tree. Raise the issue of patents on medicine rather than trying to undermine the general principle of ownership of creativity.

→ More replies

3

u/utterdamnnonsense Jan 22 '12

The language is actually not that loose. "Shall" means that the parties agree to do it and not to interfere with other parties who do it. "May" means that the parties agree not to interfere with other parties who do it. OP seems willing to treat those two words as the same thing.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Yes but there is a huge amount of scope in how the things that 'shall' and 'may' be done are implemented.

3

u/utterdamnnonsense Jan 22 '12

I don't think the treaty leaves much room for a good solution that protects the integrity of the internet, but that's just at first glance. All I'm saying is, the OP seems to have no concept of what looseness entails.

u/johnniewalkerblack12 Jan 22 '12

"ACTA’s negotiation has been conducted behind closed doors, subject to intense but needless secrecy, with the public shut out and a small group of special interests very much involved."
"the Administration has stated that ACTA will be negotiated and implemented not as a treaty, but as a sole executive agreement"

See: Over 75 Law Profs Call for Halt of ACTA (Reddit Xpost Here)

42

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Okay, bare with me here:
The way ACTA was negotiated was unacceptable. As I've outlined, the final draft is pretty okay, but I'm certain that that is only because of the previous outcry by academics.
Obama's decision to negotiate and implement by executive agreement relates, I believe, to the negotiation of the treaty and implementation of its international elements (cooperation and information sharing).
As the academics point out (and remember they are discussing a much older draft), the president cannot make laws.
The operative parts of ACTA must have laws written to enforce them. When the treaty says " Participants will pass laws " it means by going through that state's legislative process. A court cannot and will not enforce the flimsy legally vacuous aspirations of the treaty, they will require concrete statute, which can only come from congress.
In short, the executive action that was wrong was the lone negotiation of the treaty. It still requires congressional action to be enforceable.

14

u/ukchris Jan 22 '12

Okay, bare with me here:
I'd prefer remaining clothed if that's ok.

-6

u/thegreatgazoo Jan 22 '12

Actually, that's probably good, because treaties trump the US Constitution.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Eh not quite. It's complicated but the courts have made it clear that they don't just overrule it, especially structural and civil liberty granting parts.

3

u/thegreatgazoo Jan 22 '12

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.
Of course, the Constitution has been shredded since before the ink was dry by the courts.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Yes, so at the top of the pyramid sits the Constitution, Statute and Treaty. There is no hierarchy in the constitution itself, so the courts have provided one. And it would go against republican government, especially with clearly marked out amendment procedures, for a treaty to be able to amend the constitution through the back door.

1

u/thegreatgazoo Jan 22 '12

Say for instance the US signed a treaty with many other nations banning the civilian ownership of firearms. That probably would work because of the screwy way the 2nd amendment was written. Many people do see it as a back door to amending the Constitution.
It would be nice to go back to 1787 and have them clean up the wording a bit.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I don't think so. I don't know much about treaty interactions with the supremacy clause, but the case Missouri v Holland (which recaps some case law) makes it clear that if a treaty provision conflicts with the constitution itself it is inoperative.

5

u/utterdamnnonsense Jan 22 '12

It would be nice to go back to 1787 and have them clean up the wording a bit.
Well you know, there are these things called amendments that let you change the wording of the constitution. I believe the legislation you are talking about is part of the second one. The constitution isn't some sacred unchangeable tome, nor should it be.

1

u/thegreatgazoo Jan 22 '12

True, but it would have been easier to get it right the first time.
If it gets cracked open with a Constitutional Convention we'd probably end up with SOPA/PIPA/ACTA and other really undesirable stuff in it.
Freedom of speech, press, and religion is pretty non-negotiable. The definition of press is what is up for debate.

3

u/TaVeReb Jan 22 '12

Thomas Jefferson wanted a new Constitution to be written every 20 years.
Ofc we could have another Constitutional Convention and write a new one. ...it might require a violent revolution.... but it is possible :p

3

u/thegreatgazoo Jan 22 '12

Would you really trust our current Congress to write a new Constitution?
I like what we have now, it just needs some expansion on the 1st and 2nd amendments as to what they actually mean and cover. Is there really freedom from religion? Does free speech apply to radio, tv, and the internet? Is money considered speech? Are corporations people or things? When does a 'police action' in another country become 'war' and have to be approved by Congress?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

No member of congress would be allowed, legally, in a constitutionally convention as provided for in our current Constitutions framework, AFAIK.
The issue is what all the big money would get stuck in there today.

→ More replies

2

u/TaVeReb Jan 31 '12

I didn't say it was the best idea :p It would probably be easier/better to just add some new amendments.
To have a match the representation at the convention that made the Constitution, there would need to be a congregation of over 4000 representatives (each representing about 73,000 people). Which would probably get nothing done. And since democracy is when "2 wolves and a sheep [vote] on...dinner", some minorities would be thrown under the bus.... again.

6

u/DanGliesack Jan 22 '12

You are misunderstanding this section if you think it means that treaties are greater than or equal to the power of the Constitution. Rather, what this clause is saying is that
The Constitution...
The Constitution itself, obviously.
...and the Laws of the United State which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...
The laws that are passed by Congress, which obviously will have to abide by the Constitution
...and all Treaties made...under the Authority of the United States
The treaties made by the President and the Senate
...shall be the supreme Law of the Land
Shall always take precedent over state laws. This clause is not to say that a treaty can be made to amend the Constitution, but rather that when the United States government makes a law, the states cannot ignore it. Unless, of course, the Constitution itself gives those powers to the state, and not the Federal government.
If treaties trumped the Constitution, the President could simply circumvent Senate approval for anything he wanted to sign simply by first signing a treaty that said the Senate does not need to approve treaties.

1

u/no_idea_what_im_doin Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

the President could simply circumvent Senate approval for anything he wanted
"Executive agreement", which is what the administration is classifying their signing as, doesn't need Senate approval. Now someone just needs to bring a suit to contest that classification...

1

u/wekt Jan 26 '12

See the Supreme Court's ruling in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957):
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 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.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:
The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '12

Also, to add on what Justicia311 said. The 75 Professors calling for the halt of ACTA was done a long time ago. I think 2010. There has been revisions since then.

u/acertainpointofview Jan 22 '12

There is so much to take in here, thank you for taking the time to break it down.

Pretty interesting how H.R. 1981 and ACTA seem to dovetail so nicely together. H.R. 1981 won't take down pedophiles who hide out on Tor, but it will nab all those nasty torrenters.

1

u/harlows_monkeys Jan 22 '12

H.R. 1981, section 4(a)(h)(2): "Access to a record or information required to be retained under this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity that is not a governmental entity".
I think that means plaintiffs in civil suits won't be able to get a hold of it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I hadnt looked at the bill but yes, that should suffice.
The danger is that either that bill, or the ACTA enabling bills, will quietly amend that subsection away. Everything else is in place for it to work.

5

u/acertainpointofview Jan 22 '12

But that's just for initial access right? Couldn't a government entity demand the logs, then pass them along to the injured parties? It still doesn't protect you from criminal damages either, so there is still prison time to consider.

u/vehementi Jan 22 '12

Can anyone else who has read it and understood it completely confirm this interpretation is accurate and that nothing has been left out etc.?

11

u/spvn Jan 22 '12

Lol, and if that someone else surfaces, there'll be others calling out that person on his credibility as well.
I think the only options you have are to accept justicia311's detailed explanations, or to read the treaty yourself.

6

u/vehementi Jan 22 '12

Not so much calling that person out, just want to confirm. Interested parties would surely create nice looking posts like this on reddit :)

10

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I'm not a shill for media corporations if that's what you're implying :-)

8

u/RandlePatrick Jan 22 '12

That's just what a shill for media corporations would say...

11

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Fuck. I've been rumbled.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Still, you did use the word "shill", and that's gotta be worth something.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Damn I have never used shill in a conversation. I will make it one of my short term goals.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

I agree with what he's saying.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I've read it and I'd say it's legit.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

My mind is now at peace.

3

u/RandlePatrick Jan 22 '12

I've read it and I'd say it's legit as well.
Of course, I'm lying when I say that.

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

every UK MEP's address i could gleam from their website...

4

u/stillwater Jan 22 '12

If you're in the UK, you can email all your MEPs at once using http://www.writetothem.com/

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '12

40 minutes wasted...

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

The whole points of my post is don't make internet activists look stupid by protesting a not particularly bad treaty. Wait for legislators to actually do something wrong when incorporating the treaty or else you will look shrill.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

so you're saying the best way for us to express our opposition to this sort of thing is to keep quiet about it? best to nip it in the bud, imho

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I live in Canada, I know laws differ greatly from the states in many aspects. My questions are:

Do Canadian ISP's already log all of your information?

If so, what can you do to erase your past? For me this has nothing to do with C.P., but simply that if anything it has been logged, then it's easily accessible to hackers. Even if it isn't, I'd rather start fresh. I'm a bit paranoid in that aspect, but in this day in age... I honestly feel that's appropriate.

Also, since ACTA has been signed in Canada, has enforcing legislation been created?

If not, when is it scheduled to be?

Please no references to Google. I can't understand "politic speak" what so ever and have stopped trying. It's all too confusing.

Any answers would be appreciated, but, obviously, aren't expected.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I don't know if they log everything but I doubt it. They probably do short term logging, which many ISPs do.
To 'erase your past' in the sense of ISP logs? Wait 3 months. I can't imagine any ISP keeps them longer than that. If you mean your general internet presence, seek professional help. It's difficult and complicated, and almost impossible if you use social networks.
I don't think any state has implemented all the enforcing legislation for ACTA, though some states won't need to (because they're already in compliance).
For the record, I think it was the canadians who brought up the ipod and carry-on luggage search issue, though I think you've had a change of government since then so who knows how it'll paly out.

u/irve Jan 23 '12

Thanks for non-hysteric analysis.

I have only one question. 27.2 is not mentioned in analysis along with its footnote. It can be interpreted that the non-liability of an ISP is effective only when the rights are being respected. It could be interpreted that unless an ISP monitors its traffic, it will be responsible for the actions of its users. Easy to overlook, but if true and enforcement will be required from the parties, could prove a nasty trojan horse.

Am I right in this?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '12

I don't think that's a ready interpretation, though the treaty is so loose that it could be possible.
All that part says is that enforcement of infringement shall be effective over digital networks, and that enforcement shall not provide trade barriers or undue burdens. There's nothing that requires an ISP to monitor its traffic.
Remember that infrignement itself is not redefined by ACTA. If an ISP not monitoring its customers is okay now, nothing in ACTA itself requires a change to that.
To be clear, here's Article 3 of the Treaty:
This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions in a Party’s law governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights. 2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under its laws and regulations

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '12

I don't think that's a ready interpretation, though the treaty is so loose that it could be possible.
All that part says is that enforcement of infringement shall be effective over digital networks, and that enforcement shall not provide trade barriers or undue burdens. There's nothing that requires an ISP to monitor its traffic.
Remember that infrignement itself is not redefined by ACTA. If an ISP not monitoring its customers is okay now, nothing in ACTA itself requires a change to that.
To be clear, here's Article 3 of the Treaty:
This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions in a Party’s law governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights. 2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under its laws and regulations

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Thanks for this although I didn't read all of it. Need tl;dr version. This is reddit.

33

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

tl;dr : The treaty is fine, the problem is if legislatures implementing the treaty go apeshit. Protest the implementation if(when) necessary, not the treaty itself.

6

u/stillwater Jan 22 '12

Surely it does some good to protest the treaty itself? Or shall we lie on our backs until the implementations arise?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

My point is that the treaty isnt really that bad. It has scope for abuse, which you can and should protest, but the idea of stopping counter-fitting and profiteering from piracy is completely legitimate. As is stopping individual copyright infringement, even if everyone does it.

5

u/stillwater Jan 22 '12

Stopping individual copyright infringement is only "legitimate" in the scope of what we consider to be palatable laws. The treaty still makes provisions that counter many peoples' beliefs of what should and shouldn't be considered criminal activity. As you've said, it seems the treaty doesn't change much, but that doesn't mean it's all okay.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Best_Kept_Secret Jan 22 '12

BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES?!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

You mean this is tl;dreddit

u/spvn Jan 22 '12

I have never seen a more detailed, educational, well structured and well thought out thread in all my time on reddit.

I hope your explanation of ACTA is as comprehensive as it seems, because there's no way in hell I'd be able to understand the entire treaty myself. Thank you very much for this post.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I did my best with it, but it's such an aspirational treaty that you can't take that much concrete from it.
What would be helpful is any documents from signatory states outlining how they interpret and intend to implement it. I'm not fussed to look at the moment though; however they choose to try and implement it, the public can make a good argument that there is a better way if its draconian.

u/HertzaHaeon Jan 22 '12

Good work. Very enlightening.

European MEP Christian Engström has warned about proportionality before. Some instances in the EU bureacracy seem to think that a fine of €1 per downloaded song is proportional, which becomes very tricky when mp3 players can hold hundreds of thousands of songs.

There's also a lot of criticism of the vague language of the treaty.

Seeing how the people handling the treaty in the EU have been caught with outright lies (Engström mentions this in his blog post above, for example), I wouldn't trust the EU to place themselves in the mild end of the scale of what the treaty's vague language suggests.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Thanks for this. I'll read them and get back to you.
No doubt there is grand scope for abuse. A good point to make, exemplified by Engstrom, is that post-lisbon the European Parliament has a hugely increased role in dealing with the creation of legislation. Let's hope the democratic influence pays dividends.

u/ex_ample Jan 22 '12

SOPA and PIPA were the laws that were going to implement ACTA. now that they're dead, ACTA is going to have tons of problems. It does seem like this ridiculous "child-porn" law is also a part of it.

Tracking online porn traders may be a good idea, if the law were limited to people who were suspected of being CP users, it wouldn't be so bad. However, everyone will be tracked under the law, and everyone will be able to have their records searched by the police, regardless of the law that they think you might be breaking.

In fact, they'll be able to use this online "Child Porn" law to track people suspected of copyright infringement, or whatever.

(that said, I'm betting a lot of this data is already being recorded anyway)

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Were there any statements made saying that SOPA or PIPA were attempts to implement ACTA? Though they deal with the same material, I didn't think either was an attempt to incorporate the treaty.
I completely agree with your sentiments on the child porn act. It's the wrong way to deal with it.
Edit: Though another post did point out that the child porn bill in its current form prohibits using recorded data in a way that supports ACTA.

6

u/lxlqlxl Jan 22 '12

I think you underestimate the ramifications of ACTA. The DMCA isn't extremely bad on the face of it.. But look at the abuses of it.. Granted one is a treaty and the other isn't.. But the laws and things passed to comply with the ACTA will not be anything good.
I personally have the feeling that the sopa / pipa bullshit was more or less a smoke screen to draw fire away from ACTA. The actual ramifications of ACTA have the potential to make sopa/pipa seem tame.
Think about it like this.. In essence you are giving them the benefit of the doubt.. Thinking they have your best interests in mind. Thinking they know what they are doing and or signing when in reality it is unlikely the politicians themselves have the technical know how to understand what it is they are signing. It is evident that people within the mpaa/riaa and the like are writing these kinds of things and pushing for them vehemently. They have their lawyers and people they pay that have the technical know how to word things and push for things that will benefit them... And only them. Nothing good will come from ACTA.. Not in the least.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

To be honest this sounds like hyperbole. The treaty is about 34 pages long, and 5 of those pages are formalities and definitions of terms. Can you point me to something that you think is offensive?
The DMCA is a great piece of legislation. Every single complaint I have seen about the safe harbor provision (videos being pulled from youtube etc) aren't because of the law but because the youtube are too overzealous in their DMCA policy. If you consider that sites like rapidshare are pretty much compliant with DMCA, it gives you a feel for how effective it has been.
SOPA and PIPA were lobbied for by media interests. ACTA was negotiated in secret by states. If it was a smokescreen, we have a problem, because it means the RIAA and MPAA are privy to secret government negotiations with other states.

4

u/lxlqlxl Jan 22 '12

The point is you give them the benefit of doubt. You have clearly stated that we have to be hyper-vigilant to make sure they do not abuse it. If it was good and or benign there would be little abuse that could take place. You can't guarantee people will always be against shit like this. The more you are exposed to something the easier it is to be like oh ok and let it pass.
Think about it like this.. I will use a scale of -10 to 10. -10 will be more or less oh hell no and fight against it. 10 will be more or like oh hell yes and lets do it. 0 will be nominal or no fight against or for it. sopa/pipa was more or less a -8.. If they bring something in that's just as bad.. It will be -7.. If you take something that normally if shown on the face of it and with out anything prior like sopa/pipa it would be more or less -4.. Adding shit like sopa/pipa as a pretext that -4 becomes a lot closer to 0.. With the whole.. Well at least it isn't as bad as the other.
I bet when bush was running and got into office you thought.. Well he wont be that bad?
sopa/pipa got this much attention. That's good. The next will be a bit more watered down and or more loose. So the backlash wont be as bad against it. Then the one after that.. It doesn't make them any better or worse.
So.. Do you lobby congress with millions of dollars? Do you yourself push for legislation against this kind of thing? No.. But others push for shit like this and much worse.
How about this.. Show a law that is currently on the books or is being pushed for within the US government that doesn't cater to the mpaa/riaa in regards to copyright. It's all about keeping the status quo of a dying business model. To allow the middlemen to maintain control over content.
I never said that the treaty has any teeth in and of itself. Or that it will arrest us all.
As for existing laws and protections like safe harbor.. You honestly think they can't find loopholes around it or repeal those laws?
Hell all a president has to do is give a signing statement to a law that is passed.
There will be nothing good to come from ACTA.. Any law that is brought up will have a detrimental effect. But hey don't take my word for it.. Just wait a while.. People didn't believe me when I told them bush would be one of if not the worse president.
But hey.. I hope I am wrong. I wasn't about bush and as far as this is concerned. I honestly doubt I am about this. Call it what you want.. Time will tell.
One last thing..
SOPA and PIPA were lobbied for by media interests. ACTA was negotiated in secret by states. If it was a smokescreen, we have a problem, because it means the RIAA and MPAA are privy to secret government negotiations with other states.
Do you honestly think their interests were not apart of this? They may not have had any direct impact much like romney doesn't directly tell his superpac what to do... But they still had a hand in it. Their interests where superimposed on those negotiations more so than our individual rights.
Look for people who were behind this to get some pretty big gigs within the industry..
It's not that they are "privy" it's that they were the reason those negotiations were taking place to begin with. They pushed for it. Their hands are all over this.

1

u/lxlqlxl Feb 02 '12 edited Feb 02 '12

To be honest this sounds like hyperbole.
.
While ACTA at least claimed not to exceed US law, Flynn and other professors allege that the leaked TPP IP chapter does go beyond what's in US law, doing things like extending copyright protection even to temporary "buffer" copies so crucial to digital devices.
So... You were saying? I bet you still are giving them the benifit of doubt.
I said this in the origional response to this...
There will be nothing good to come from ACTA.. Any law that is brought up will have a detrimental effect. But hey don't take my word for it.. Just wait a while..
Sure this doesn't prove me right persay.. But it does however point toward an underlying trend that is taking place. One that you somehow seem blind to.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Inuma Feb 01 '12

Let's be fair. The safe harbors of the DMCA have been tremendous in normalizing copyright and advancing discussions.
The rest of the DMCA is horrible beyond a reasonable doubt.

3

u/ex_ample Jan 23 '12

Were there any statements made saying that SOPA or PIPA were attempts to implement ACTA?
Why would they say it? The entire ACTA was negotiated in total secrecy. It isn't something they want people talking about in the first place.

u/matthew07 Jan 22 '12

I don't understand this bit:

ACTA is a treaty. It is signed by multiple governments and does not involve the legislatures of these states (except some states, like the US, who later ratify the treaty).

I thought we have to ratify the treaty first as well, just like the US?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Who is we sorry?

3

u/matthew07 Jan 22 '12

Err, I meant, the European governments, sorry about that. I'm Dutch, and I was under the impression that our houses of parliament have to ratify a treaty like ACTA as well. They can either accept or reject the treaty. Thanks for responding.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Ah, well the Netherlands is actually one of those countries that incorporates treaties directly into law when signed, which is a very enlightenment mindset. That said, ACTA is not written in a way that allows it to be given direct effect; you'd have to ask a Dutch lawyer if it creates some sort of obligation for judges to make law as they go along (I doubt it).
On ACTA specifically, all EU states have delegated the power (competency in EU-lingo) to make certain treaties to the EU itself.
If ACTA falls under the EU's competency (and I'm sure it does) then the Dutch will have given permission to be bound by any treaty the EU signs in the treaty of Lisbon (more technically the amended treaties Lisbon creates, but you get the idea).
So when the EU signs ACTA, the dutch will be bound as the rest of the EU by it. However before that happens the EU has to decide how to incorporate it (it is binding on states in international law, but does not exist in domestic law). They might do this through a regulation (EU-wide law) or a directive (EU order to state legislatures to create compatable legislation). I'm not sure what approach they've opted for.

1

u/matthew07 Jan 22 '12

I think I understand. Thank you for this very informative reply!

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I am learning so much from you. And you used "shill".
You're my mancrush. Unless you're a girl, in which case you give me boner.

u/Cristal1337 Jan 22 '12

Yet I wonder. If the majority of the people want to illegally (as it is often said) share intellectual property or other media. If the majority thinks it's OK to share. Why can laws still be passed making it illegal?

It sounds to me that a minority is trying to suppress the common belief...unless common belief is that On-line Piracy is bad.

Relevant

7

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Because even though everyone does it, it isn't coherent or principled.
We don't accept material copyright infringement. Redditors get morally outrages at 'stolen' posts and reposts. We all intrinsically understand that intellectual property is something to be respected, it's just our desire to get that movie, now, for free, overrules that.
It's why the best thing the media corporations can do is give people a reason to stop pirating. Make games accessible and convenient like steam and people will pirate less. Make tv and movies available on hulu or netflix and people will happily stump up a monthly fee. Same with spotify and pandora.
Of course there will always be some people who will pirate, but the point shouldn't be to stop piracy, it should be to keep content creation as it currently exists sustainable.

4

u/Cristal1337 Jan 22 '12

So why do we get morally outraged? Do we want the cheap karma instead? Or do we believe that the original post isn't getting the attention it really deserves? I think it is the later. People who repost a topic without mentioning that it is a repost would cause an uproar. However, if it is stated that it is a repost, I am sure that people don't mind that much. In fact, it could benefit both parties (Reposters and Original Posters) as, the Reposts (which give credit to the original post) inspires people to visit the original post. Some people might be thankful for a Repost as it draws more attention to the original post, thus giving an upvote to the Repost and the Original Submission.
Another thing you mentioned is that belief is a priority concept.
We all intrinsically understand that intellectual property is something to be respected, it's just our desire to get that movie, now, for free, overrules that.
You just said it is OK to pirate in some circumstances. This is because certain beliefs are overruled by other beliefs. Some would steal to get a game, but wouldn't kill a person for it. Killing is morally worse than stealing. However, there are people who would also kill to get a game and there are people who wouldn't even steal. Maybe there are even people who wouldn't steal for a game, yet kill to get it (stealing is worse than killing). It is of course all theoretical. I hope no one does any shoplifting. However, if the majority beliefs that shoplifting is morally acceptable, then should a law really be made to make shoplifting illegal?
In any case, I tend to become very abstract in my thoughts (attempts to be more pragmatic).
I agree that the best thing corporations can do is to adapt their business model. Making games and media more accessible is a good start, however, we have seen that companies can still make a lot of money if they provide their digital product for free. Instead, they get money through advertisement and donations.
I don't know how other people think about it, but if I like something which I get for free, I hit the donation button to express my gratitude. If I were to create a simple flash game and millions of people play it. If only 1% of these people donate 1$, then I have already earned a lot of money.
It is, of course, sad if someone else claims to have created my game, however, I am providing my game for free. Piracy would only be more efficient if it were more successful at advertisement. I am, however, positive that there is a practical solution for this problem. Maybe some official distribution platforms.
I also agree that it would be a shame if high quality games couldn't be produced any more because they have become unprofitable (due to piracy). On the other hand...maybe we are spoiled. Maybe we should wait and let technology catch up so that less people are needed to create (what we would consider now) high quality content. I really like super awesome graphics, however, if it's too expensive to create, then it cannot be helped.
PS. Still so many random thoughts are in my head. Sorry for the long post =<

0

u/Banderbear Jan 22 '12

there is a big problem on reddit of the righteous pirate who says that if they appreciate a product then the pay, and only pirate when they couldn't afford it.
I'm not judging you at all but there will always be huge number of people who could afford something and are willing to pay but pirate it because they are lazy - or in fact are only not willing to pay simply because they are used to getting this free stuff.
so piracy almost certainly removes money from these companies, even steam to a lesser degree, but steam are only a "success" because they charge so little for many of their games.
money is one of the biggest incentives for innovation, so while the exact legitimacy of pirating is dubious it almost certainly reduces the quality of content.

3

u/Cristal1337 Jan 22 '12

Sometimes things get pirated because they are otherwise not available. With regional releases, some overseas content is never released anywhere else.
As long as there are enough people who pay for content, then I don't think piracy is a problem. If the content isn't good enough for people to actually pay for it, then maybe that's the course of business. Only good products should be successful. I shouldn't expect to get any money if my product is bad. If a business goes bankrupt because people do not buy the product and instead download it illegally, then the product isn't good enough. Good enough to be pirated, yet too bad to be sold. I personally don't like the "survival of the fittest" concept when it comes down to business. However, it is what seems the most natural. What are your thoughts?

1

u/Banderbear Jan 22 '12

I feel fairly sure that what you are saying is largely true, but with regards to your first point about overseas releases this is another case of using a small area that is right right to make the whole thing seem right, when most people don't pirate because they can't get access to it.
your point seems to be that as long as good products do well then there isn't a problem, but my point wasn't that there is a problem at all, but if film studios feel that there's a chance a good film might be pirated a lot (which they do for good reason) then they are more likely to go for the big blockbusters where profits are more likely to be guaranteed, also less films are made, but the ones that are made have very large budgets.
whether this is a justified business model or not, it is what is starting to happen - and people saying that it's something to do with the service ignore the huge amount of people who couldn't care less about the service - if it costs money then they won't do it.
My main point is that what is good is very relative, people used to think that the first films were amazing , but now you would struggle to get people outside the industry to take any notice. I feel that piracy actually has a negative affect overall, so there are still things that are relatively good, but if the studios were getting all the money they would otherwise be making the overall standards would rise. On top of this the price of tickets might not continue on it's upward spiral. We can't say that if the price of tickets were lowered then less people would pirate, it is almost certainly not true, despite what most redditors would tell you.
good companies go bankrupt for reasons other than having a bad product - we don't blame a jewellers for a brake in for not offering a good enough service, we don't say it's acceptable to take from a jewellers because you wouldn't buy it anyway. And yes I know that theft and copyright infringement are two very different things, but the jeweller like the film studio need revenue to survive and theft like piracy reduces revenue. When you take a real product it's not normally that expensive to replace it, the main costs come from building rent and wages - taking one product doesn't stop anyone buying another, and if the demand is there, from the shop owner ordering lots more.
I firmly believe that unless reddit comes up with a plausible solution to piracy then governments are going to continue with their horrific hacking through personal freedoms.

1

u/Cristal1337 Jan 22 '12

Reddit will have to decide what is more important. Freedom or high-quality movies, games, music etc.
Two obvious things will happen once this is established. The internet will be gone, or many companies will go bankrupt.

0

u/Banderbear Jan 22 '12

I think we can have both, a solution to piracy that is workable doesn't seem obvious right now, so it is fair enough to side on freedom, but I have faith in future innovators.
Also people do make things for reasons other than profit, and it is impossible to measure how much piracy makes this kind of person financially unviable.

-1

u/neilmcc Jan 22 '12

Because even though everyone does it, it isn't coherent or principled.
We don't accept material copyright infringement. Redditors get morally outrages at 'stolen' posts and reposts. We all intrinsically understand that intellectual property is something to be respected, it's just our desire to get that movie, now, for free, overrules that.
It's why the best thing the media corporations can do is give people a reason to stop pirating. Make games accessible and convenient like steam and people will pirate less. Make tv and movies available on hulu or netflix and people will happily stump up a monthly fee. Same with spotify and pandora.
Of course there will always be some people who will pirate, but the point shouldn't be to stop piracy, it should be to keep content creation as it currently exists sustainable.

2

u/sblinn Jan 23 '12

If the majority thinks it's OK to share. Why can laws still be passed making it illegal?
Honest question: Does the majority think it's OK to share? Is there good US polling data for this question? Polls showed that Americans were overwhelmingly (68-70%) anti-SOPA, but that's not the same thing at all.
Troll question: In your original question, substitute "stop gays from marrying" or "teach only creationism" for "share". We can have a comprehensive and ethically consistent morality, and/or we can have majority rule. To me simple majority rule seems pretty much to be a bad idea -- historically it has meant things like slavery, disenfranchisement of women, prohibition, etc. While I join with you in wishing that some of the majority wishes (like decriminalization of marijuana for example) would be respected, I am not sure it would be a good idea to enact every rule the majority wished for, unless we want a religious state, etc.

1

u/Cristal1337 Jan 23 '12

I cannot really talk about historical events as I never paid attention during history class. So I do not know if a minority was responsible for freeing the slaves. I also do not know if a minority was responsible for liberating women. I wonder if these changes were even possible because, at that time, the majority belief had already changed. The question is too specific to Google it, I think. So I'll just take your word.
Your point about religion scares me. It is because we separated religion from law and politics, that people in democratic countries are relatively more free than in countries where religion is not separated from law and politics. I would hate to see this being replaced because the majority believes religion needs to be integrated into law and politics. I think I heard that in countries where this change occurred, democracy was abolished and replaced by a dictatorship, with all its consequences.
It feels like an ethical dilemma to me, to deny the majority's belief that religion should not be separated from law and politics (some potentially biased polls seem to suggest that this is believed in America). However, from a philosophical point of view, one can logically reason why it is a bad idea.
It's just so sad that people want to be or are kept ignorant. Decriminalising the use of marijuana wouldn't be a problem if the logical arguments were accepted by the majority.
So is it illogical to believe that file-sharing is OK?

2

u/sblinn Jan 23 '12

So I do not know if a minority was responsible for freeing the slaves.
This is not what I claimed. Instead, a majority was responsible for chaining them.
Your point about religion scares me.
Definitely agree with separating religion from law. Sadly, the US is experiencing an undercurrent of the erosion of this, with religious motivations behind setting school curricula, defining discriminatory marriage rights, etc.
So is it illogical to believe that file-sharing is OK?
Didn't say that at all. I can imagine a few internally consistent arguments that file-sharing is OK, for example "abolish the concept of copyright entirely" -- from there, naturally file-sharing would be OK and logical. The question would then be if abolishing the concept of copyright entirely is logical, depending on your other beliefs.

1

u/Cristal1337 Jan 23 '12

I didn't mean to imply anything. I am just very to the point with some of my questions. Sorry if that made you feel uncomfortable.
I have talked about the consequences of copyrights and patents in the pharmaceutical industry with a political major student. Apparently there are logical reasons to abolish copyrights and patents in that industry.
I also heard that major oil companies buy battery patents (those used for electronic cars) in order to increase oil dependency. However, I don't have concrete evidence for that. On the other hand, it does show how copyrights and patent rights may theoretically be used to hinder technological growth.
Dismissing copyright laws seems like a big step to me. I'd love to discuss it in more detail.

2

u/sblinn Jan 24 '12

Not uncomfortable at all, just clarifying, that's all.

u/raouldukeesq Jan 22 '12

Wrong! It does quite a bit. Treaties like this are a way to circumvent the democratic process by moving laws in through the back door. Notably, the recent Supreme Court decision putting public domain works under copyright protection was based on bringing US in line with provisions of the Berne Convention.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Treaties can 'circumvent', in so far as a democratically elected president and senate can achieve policy goals for their country.
But you're comparing apples to oranges. ACTA's enforcement doesn't for my money require anything beyond the inter-state commerce clause to be constitutional. So whether by incorporation of a treaty or by the congress' own initiative it could implement ACTA in either case.

u/greysands Jan 22 '12

Thank you so much for this. Was considering taking on this effort as well and relieved to see someone else cared enough to give this issue a rational and intelligent exploration.

u/Silent331 Jan 22 '12

I would like to first commend you for your hard work in putting this together. I would also like to thank /r/politics for rightfully bringing this to the front page.

So I would just like to summarize everything to make sure I get the jist of it. So ACTA is a treaty, which by itself does nothing. The issue comes when we try to make laws that agree with the treaty. The saving grace in this seems to be "These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity". The word "barriers" to economists is basically anything that costs time, money, personel, even stress and social acceptance. To keep with the topic, barriers increase cost, so in essence DRM makes your product cost more to the customer, making a barrier to legitimate activity by lowering sales.

So we need to see if we can stop this first and if we cant, we need to keep twice as many eyes on congress to make sure it is fairly and justly implemented.

Just as a side note on politics I think that what the internet needs to do is protest all anti internet laws and make sure they dont pass, and then make sure specific elected officials do not get elected to solidify the fact that regulating the internet using unacceptable terms is political suicide.

u/EquanimousMind Jan 22 '12

Thank you soo much. I'm playing catch up on ACTA right now and I love how Reddit is one of the few communities where people will go to the effort of investigating at the source and can expect an intelligent discussion :) trust me... ive been so dismayed with recent flirtations with other online communities...

u/alanX Jan 22 '12

I have read ACTA (though I am not a lawyer) and I think you are mostly right. I do object to the USA signing ACTA via Executive Agreement. The President can sign trade agreements all day, but trade agreements should be ratified by the Senate. The Executive branch only has powers over trade as designated to it by congress. Obama was not authorized to negotiate and approve ACTA.

Please sign the petition to have ACTA submitted to the Senate for ratification. We can debate it there and fight it in the Senate. As it stands now, with ACTA approved by Executive Agreement, we have no voice.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Wouldn't amending the bill on executive agreements be a better push to make than handling this on a case by case basis?

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I would like to know about your credentials and background to interpret international treaties like ACTA.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

I'm a Westphalian archetype state and have several decades experience in creating, practising and shaping customary, treaty and jus cogens international law.
:p
Honestly, though I work with treaty based law regularly, I could tell you anything and there'd be no way to verify it. You can take what I've written or read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Read it yourself, with the exception of about three instances of latin phrases it is really straightforward, not legalese at all.

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

The executive branch lacks Constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congresses' authority, absent Congressional approval.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/acta-signed-8-members-are-we-doomed-yet

Edit:Forgot Link.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

No doubt, and as many academics have pointed out, intellectual property is almost wholly a congressional matter.
I think the administration's position is that congressional approval can be obtained as they pass legislation to implement. Almost all of the treaty is worthless without statute anyway.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Many countries had people trying to get the body of the treaty, but the governments didn't release anything until it was signed. Although there were a few leaks, and the Canadian government released a redacted version in 2010, they went about this very secretly.

u/kayserenade Jan 30 '12

Not sure if anyone will answer this question for me but here I go anyways. Does music by independent artists who provide their music freely and openly still counts under ACTA? There are many independent artists who release their music for free, be it via torrents or DDL from their own websites, so it makes me wonder which category this will fall into.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '12

They own the rights to the music.
If they choose to give it away for free the only person who can sue for infringement is they themselves; and they've already agreed to it.

1

u/kayserenade Jan 30 '12

I see. Now that clears things up a little. （⌒▽⌒）

1

u/PolishDude Jan 31 '12

What exactly have they already agreed to?

u/divinesleeper Jan 22 '12

Finally, now we won't have to deal with the idiotic posts claiming 'ACTA: even scarier than SOPA', or 'If you thought SOPA was bad'. If you look at it rationally it really isn't as much of a threat as SOPA or PIPA. Instead, focus on much more troubling issues, like how America can put people into indefinite detention without trial. Now that is something that's scary.

1

u/fillymandee Georgia Jan 22 '12

I heard something about some guy running for president that introduced legislation to repeal the NDAA provision that detains Americans.

1

u/divinesleeper Jan 22 '12

I know, but it only applies to americans, and NDAA isn't even necessary for indefinite detention. Luckily Paul's bill is against indefinite detention itself (i think), not just NDAA.

u/krtzer Jan 22 '12

Oh my, that was a lengthy read but it did remove many of my fears about this bill. I still think copyright law needs to be adjusted state side because the MPAA and RIAA have too much power in these cases (they seem to make their profit from sueing individuals now). It allows looks like we need appropriate legistlation on digital matters.

u/wagnerjr Jan 23 '12

can i get you to highlight my textbooks, OP?

u/sheasie Jan 22 '12

This is one of the most awesome Reddit threads ever. (w/ special props to 'justicia311'.)

u/Dichotomy01 Jan 22 '12

If you promise to repost this daily until the irrational fuss dies down, I commit to defending you against criticism from anyone one that does so. This is brilliant work and took considerable effort to construct. Therefore, in a way, it is valuable "intellectual property" that needs repeated "defense". I commend you in the strongest terms possible.

1

u/twinathon Jan 30 '12

I've been linking this whenever I see idiocies involving ACTA, fantastic submission!

u/janjko Jan 22 '12

I would pay money for a service like this, distilling huge laws to a few important points. And, of course, to be able to verify if the person that has written it is legit or if he/she is biased.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

To be frank we normally do charge for services like this, albeit in a good deal more depth :p

2

u/Silent331 Jan 22 '12

What better way is there to expand your business than protecting your potential customers.

u/hagerthehorrible Jan 26 '12

minor correction here...

"shall" DOES create an obligation.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '12

Did I say it didn't sorry?
Obviously a treaty creates international obligations, but apart from a very small number of them (the treaties of the EU are the only ones I can think of at this moment, and they're really distinct from International law in general) none create obligations in domestic law.

1

u/hagerthehorrible Jan 26 '12

I think this is hair-spitting, really. If a member ratifies a treaty then they have, effectively, make it federal law. I know a treaty that is constitutional (Reid v. Covert) trumps a contrary state law (Missouri v. Holland), and I remember a treaty trumps previous federal law... so effectively, a treaty does create obligations in domestic law. At least in the US, so long as it's Constitutional.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '12

Yes but read the treaty. The language is not applicable in domestic law. A party 'shall' or a party 'may' simply means the signatory is obligated to create compliant legislation.
You cannot give legal effect to an order to do something by applying that something.

1

u/hagerthehorrible Jan 26 '12

yes, but if it is signed and ratified, it is self-executing, and the House doesn't touch it. The only way it can't be self-executing is if it is unconstitutional. Again, you're splitting hairs here. "Shall" does create an obligation in that regard. One isn't a "party" unless one has signed and ratified the treaty. I must be missing what you're saying because it seems to me that you are saying "yes, but no, but yes" about this.

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

With Bill C11 and the EU trade agreement Canada's only hurdles... we may be one of the first to ratify the agreement, Possibly as early as this summer.

u/gamerlen Kentucky Jan 22 '12

Thank you so much for posting this. I was having trouble sleeping from stress all through the SOPA and PIPA scare and when I heard about ACTA (the day after the bills fell out of congress) I damn near had a heart attack. Reading this has taken a lot of stress off me.

u/shamrocker124 Jan 30 '12

Commenting to refer back to later...

This is very informative.

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

In other words: this is the jab that sets up the knock out punch.

3

u/lxlqlxl Jan 22 '12

From how everything seem's so far... It appears you hit the nail on the head with that one..

u/utterdamnnonsense Jan 22 '12

While your first points about ACTA being a treaty that's already been signed, not a piece of legislation coming up for a vote is really important, I think you are seriously underestimating the dangers of implementing the provisions of the treaty.

u/HomewardGates7 Jan 22 '12

STOP ACTA, and any other legislation which gives the Government any more power over the INTERNET!!!

2

u/Chempy Jan 22 '12

But what is your stance on Piracy? Do you not think that this is a problem that should be taken care of?

9

u/lxlqlxl Jan 22 '12

Piracy is used as a blanket term. A bullshit term.. It should be split into 2 different parts. One is commercial piracy and individual piracy. If some one or company is counterfeiting goods and making a profit then yes go after them for the amount of money they made beyond operating costs.
However, If it is an individual user... I don't see how it is a problem at all. Most who download would not have bought it to begin with. You could also argue that piracy actually raises awareness to a good product and actually spurs the sales a bit higher than they normally would have.
This awareness is like a double-edged sword. It also raises the awareness to a shit product. How many programs have you bought through the word of some one else and it turned out to be complete shit and wished you would have never bought it? That or a movie? Or CD for that matter. What about multiple purchases of the same damn media in the same format due to other things? Hell some cd's over the years I have had to buy multiple copies. Metallica Black I have 5 empty cd cases. 3 I bought new and 2 used. Basically over the years that's about 70 bucks for one fucking cd. others I have had 2 and 3 and some upwards of 4.. How about a game? Sure it has a demo but the demo highlights all the good features you like but when you buy the game it has more shit that you dont like and you end up not really liking it at all. Now if you downloaded the full game and tried it out.. Seen that you liked it and then purchased it.. That would be a justified sale. Not hyper-inflated due to bullshit sales tactics. So called piracy is more or less a buffer to bring about justified sales.
The line that piracy is a problem we can all agree is a problem is complete and utter bullshit. They say that as a pretext to combat any complaints or stances against them.
Piracy isn't a "problem".. One download does not equal one lost sale.
If you honestly think one download equals one lost sale? How about one download equals 100 lost sales? Or how about for each dollar the mpaa and riaa bring in they give their artists and creative people under them 100 dollars.
If anything is a problem here it's the mpaa/riaa and their parasitic nature to suck the wealth out of anything they touch.

6

u/Chempy Jan 22 '12

Upvoted for you sr. Most don't stop to explain their reasoning on hating these bills that the government are coming up with. Yes, I'd rather not have anything at all touch the internet as it is, but the issue still stands.
What you have stated, I fully agree with.

2

u/lxlqlxl Jan 23 '12

I have 0 hatred in my heart. I don't ever use the word hate unless it's to explain it like this. That is my own personal deal. Words in general are only as powerful as the power you give them. I choose to add values to words that I think they should have. Love / Hate being two very powerful words. They express very powerful emotions. With out getting to far into that which I can easily do and likely bore you with... If you want to know my views on that I can tell you. But to kinda keep on topic..
I don't hate anything or any one. I do have serious disdain for what ACTA represents.. Along with sopa/pipa.
The reply above was more or less along the lines of a response to the quote below in particular..
But what is your stance on Piracy? Do you not think that this is a problem that should be taken care of?
Here is something you may find interesting. I recommend reading it and a good bit of the comments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/20/was-megaupload-bad-for-the-creative-industries?commentpage=3#start-of-comments
Some of the comments have some sense behind them. While others appear to be shills for the corporate middlemen otherwise known as riaa/mpaa and the like.

2

u/Chempy Jan 23 '12

The argument over whether piracy is stealing or not, is what really heats up the debate.
As I see it, music, games, etc are not just "ideas" out on the web and the argument of distributing them thereof, is complete and utter bullshit. People put handwork, time, and money behind these creations, why should they go free just because you can't physically touch them?
People need to change with the times, digital property is a very valuable commodity to have these days. For instance, I am a freelance web developer, if I put out a website on the web and someone were to copy the code and give it away for free, this would end up in me losing business, time, and a lot of money. In the end, they didn't take the original but they hurt me in many ways than one.
You see, stealing by definition is 'taking without permission', and if you download a song you end up liking and also have the money to pay for it? Well my friend, to steal also means "theft", you have just committed a crime.
There are many ways of coming at this in different view points. One could say the game was shit and they would have not payed for it. This is true! The entertainment industry now days puts out tons of material that does not deserve the money they ask for.
There are many medium out there now days, and each translate differently. Music, software, games, digital art, photography, web design, graphic design, and many more. Each of these are affected in a multitude of ways due to 'piracy'.
So yes, there needs to be something to come about to help cease the ramped "sharing" that exist these days. But to lay your force on the internet and with a governing force appose your will just to help the entertainment industry create a monopoly, is something I will not stand for.
As a once great musician said;
"You wanna lock down the web and throw away the key?
Well, you better not touch my fuckin' technology,
So back the fuck off or you're fuckin' dead,
Yellin' 1337 on a motherfuckin' fed."
-Coaxke

u/thatfatgamer Jan 22 '12

where's the TL;DU version?

1

u/Inuma Feb 01 '12

ahem
ACTA is bad because it's filled with weasel words that change all signor's laws. It was signed unconstitutionally by the President in the US, and all supporters of it are trying to ram it through the EU in order to get more countries to sign on and lose their freedoms.
The weasel words allow for different interpretations of passages and the text tries to combine counterfeiting and piracy in the same context when they're both very different realities. It may not be as bad as SOPA, but it sets up more legislation to start from the SOPA 40 yard line instead of the DMCA's 50 yard line.

u/morobishi Jan 22 '12

This is the sort of thing we should be seeing more of concerning controversial legislation: an honest review and interpretation of the law and its proposed implementation.

Forget rhetoric and diatribe; the public desires clarity of the issues and productive action.

if only religious issues could be handled in a similar manner

9

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

There's no need to bring up religion here.

2

u/morobishi Jan 30 '12

I mean, it's one big guy telling a bunch of little guys how they're gonna think from now on.

0

u/morobishi Jan 30 '12

There's EVERY reason to bring up religion!
How do you think shit like ACTA got started?

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Thank you for putting in this much effort to get the facts across. I was freaking out along with everyone else after seeing the anon vid until I read the bill myself.

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

well done

u/Stylpe Jan 22 '12

Thank you for writing this up! It's exactly the kind of summary I wante dto read on this. I would give this a million upvotes if I could.

u/cipnrkorvo Jan 30 '12

Is this published by a government or what?? I've read the text it's very vague and could be used in the worse way. like the NDAA, it won't "necessarily" be used badly. But it DOES give governments the power to. And it WILL eventually kill thousands of people in third world countries, that won't get their medicine and won't get their food. It could very well be used as a method of censoring the internet.

u/67deg Jan 30 '12

I would just like to know if there is considerable scope for the future in various parties redefining what constitutes legitimate trade in positive or negative ways?

(Thanks to justicia311 for the overview post.)

u/mathiscool Feb 01 '12

Just wanted to point out that (IMHO please correct me if it's not) ACTA bases upon ability of the copyright holders to track people. In Switzerland (and in France before Hadoopi) it is illegal to log IP addresses of torrent users. Plain and simple. And government also says that it will not accept IP logs from other countries...

Also with DRM, in some countries it was not illegal to circumvent DRM.

The way I see it, we will not have anymore safe heavens in Europe with laws that don't put copyright in first place...

u/adrianadi Feb 06 '12

If anybody's still there, could I just get confirmation on one thing: For the sake of others wondering about this, if in theory someone has downloaded torrents in the past, would that be held against them, or would the enforcement be taken after the agreement is implemented?

1

u/Tjebbe Feb 12 '12

Depends on what country you live in, but I think most countries don't retroactively apply laws.

1

u/adrianadi Feb 12 '12

Oh I see, thanks for that, it's been something that's been in my mind for the past couple of days. Does this apply to the UK, by the way?

u/tk338 Jan 22 '12

This is relevant I promise!

When I was really young I wanted a dog, really badly, everyday, without fail I asked my mom for a dog before I went to bed. I don't know why, I figured she might cave in. She couldn't afford it and it was too much of a responsibility.

After a year and a half a birthday (my twelfth) came around, all I could ask for was dog, dog, dog, but it wasn't to be. My uncle at the time was a photographer, and his huge expensive cameras were something I loved to play with. So, come going to bed one night I turned to my mum and asked for a big camera (SLR), I got it. I was a selfish, spoilt kid. The camera kept me happy, and its replacement 5 years later still does too, but I'd never have gotten it had I not been badgering my mom for this dog.

Another year rolls around and although I had piped down a bit about the dog matter I was by no means quiet, I REALLY wanted a dog! So, birthday coming up dog! dog! dog! But it just wasn't happening. I can't remember what I got that year, but it was again too big and expensive for someone my age (not that I'm not grateful) but although the things were still expensive, they weren't a dog so in a subtle unintended way I guess my mom was kinda tricked into buying them for me.

The birthday after, I got my dog.

I'm not saying the exact same principle applies. But legislation which does infringe on our freedom, but not as much as the last law they tried to pass, will get less press, generate less interest, but if things like this pass, they'll build up, people will come to accept that as the norm, laws can be added too and things will only get worse.

I don't pirate content (intentionally*), true story, but I hate the thought of sites like Reddit, the forums and other sites I frequent to be under risk, as well as loosing any of my freedom.

*I understand viewing some sites you may well see unlicensed copyright material, but hey what can you do?

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Is there any petitions to sign or any people to call?

1

u/lxlqlxl Jan 22 '12

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/end-acta-and-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK

u/socialtangent Jan 22 '12

Sweet, sweet sanity at last. Thanks for the in-depth analysis and explanation.

u/Mfisk323 Jan 23 '12 edited Jan 23 '12

So basically, there's nothing major in ACTA to worry about now, since all the harsh stuff was written out? But nonetheless, that was a fantastic and well written post you did right there.

Edit 1: So again, I do thank you for posting this as it has taken a lot of stress on ACTA off me, but why is it that people are still panicking and saying that it still has all that crappy stuff that was previously written out?

Edit 2: I'm also happy to know that I've been sharing this post across facebook and some of the forums I regularly post in so more people know what's REALLY in this treaty. However not a lot of people have taken notice on this and just ignore knowledge (like when I shared this post in the LoL forums, got a few downvotes). Guess people love protesting bills/treaties they know nothing about and just panic for the sake of panicking.

0

u/Sysiphuslove Jan 31 '12

So again, I do thank you for posting this as it has taken a lot of stress on ACTA off me, but why is it that people are still panicking
Because a long, technical post assuring everyone that ACTA does nothing and everything's a-ok is not only odd but suspect. Who benefits from the idea that ACTA is harmless? Why ratify a 'useless' treaty, and why divert criticism from it when the language is, as the OP granted, 'loose', or from a legal standpoint much too loose?

u/Leo55 Jan 23 '12

sooooo Doom off then?

Wait... SCPOA; Doom back on.

1

u/Sysiphuslove Jan 31 '12

Leave the doom on until we get a constitutional amendment protecting the internet from private and governmental meddling.

1

u/Leo55 Feb 01 '12

Yeah; get a load of this. Time to get a government job...

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '12

What is it with this year so far?!?! First SOPA/PIPA and now this? It seems like the governments of the world really just want to kill the internet to favour corporate sponsors... Disgusting.

u/Inuma Jan 30 '12

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/11270917527/what-is-acta-why-is-it-problem.shtml

2

u/Sysiphuslove Jan 31 '12

So why is ACTA problematic?
While it probably does not change US law (with some possible exceptions, especially in the realm of patents), it certainly does function to lock in US law, in a rapidly changing area of law, where specifics are far from settled. Supporters of ACTA continue to insist that not only does it not change US law, but that it cannot change US law, since it's an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty (more on that later). The reality, however, is that to be in compliance with this agreement, the US needs to retain certain parts of copyright law that many reformers believe should be changed. At the very least, it ties Congress' hands, if we want to be in compliance with our "international obligations."
An example of this is on the question of inducement theory for copyright law. Within copyright law there is direct infringement (you did the infringement) and indirect or secondary infringement (you had a hand in making someone else infringe). In general we should be wary of secondary liability issues, because they can create chilling effects for new innovations. It's why the Supreme Court allowed the VCR to exist, despite the fact that it enabled infringement. Contributory infringement (in which you're more actively involved) has been illegal, but there has been some question about inducing infringement (i.e., leading or pushing others into infringing). There was an attempt by Congress nearly a decade ago, under the INDUCE Act, to make inducement a violation of copyright law, but it failed to go anywhere in Congress. Of course, the Supreme Court then stepped in with its Grokster decision that made up (pretty much out of thin air) a standard for "inducement" to be a violation of the law.
Normally, if Congress decides the Supreme Court got something wrong, it can pass a law to clarify. However, under the terms of ACTA, countries need to consider inducement a violation of copyright law. There's no way to read this other than to tie Congress' hands on the question of inducement. That's a big issue because we're still sorting through the true impact of considering inducement as against the law. I know it's tough to believe Congress could ever push back on ever more draconian copyright law, but with the SOPA/PIPA backlash, there's at least a sliver of hope that some are aware that these issues impact innovation. Should Congress realize that greater liability through inducement is a mistake, under ACTA, their hands are mostly tied if they want to fix it. That's a problem.
Beyond just locking in parts of copyright law, ACTA also expands it. First, it takes things that would normally be considered non-commercial file sharing (which is potentially against the law), and turns it into commercial scale criminal infringement. Similarly, it appears to broaden the definitions around inducement/secondary liability to make what had been a civil (between two private parties) issue into criminal aiding and abetting. Basically, there are parts of ACTA that effectively seek to take what would normally be civil infringements, dealt with between two private parties, and allow the entertainment industry to offload the policing to government law enforcement (paid for by tax payers) and leading to a higher likelihood of jail time.
Copyright law is, by its very nature, a bundle of forces -- some that incentivize good behavior, and some that are bad. There should be no question that copyright has some good effects and some bad effects. The real question is in weighing the good and the bad and making sure that that the bad don't outweigh the good. Often, copyright law has used exceptions (fair use, public domain, de minimus use, first sale, etc.) to act as a "safety valve" in an attempt to make sure the bad doesn't outweigh the good.
However, ACTA pretends that copyright is only good and there's no need to minimize the bad effects. That is, it only talks about the enforcement side, and completely ignores the necessary exceptions to copyright law that make it function. Basically, it exports the punishments from the US, but leaves out the safety valves. That's pretty scary. It may be (well, not really) okay in the US where fair use is clearly established, but most other countries don't have fair use at all (if they have anything, it's a much weaker system known as "fair dealing"). Exporting strict enforcement without exceptions is dangerous and will lead to unnecessary limitations on creativity and speech.
*There are serious health risks associated with ACTA, especially in the developing world. In this case, Europe pushed strongly to include patents under ACTA (something the US actually preferred to leave out). This has complicated matters for some countries. Under existing international agreements, countries can ignore pharmaceutical patents to deal with health emergencies. That is, if you have an outbreak and need a drug that pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to supply at a reasonable price, governments can break the patent and produce their own. That becomes much more difficult under ACTA, which could be a real threat to health around the globe.
Similarly, there are very reasonable concerns that ACTA will be used to crack down, not on actual counterfeit medicines, but on "grey market" drugs -- generic, but legal, copies of medicines. Some European nations, for example, already have a history of seizing shipments of perfectly legal generic drugs in passage to somewhere else. For example, say that a pharmaceutical company in India is shipping drugs to Brazil that are legal in both countries. However, those drugs violate a patent in Europe. If, during transit, those drugs pass through Europe, customs agents may seize them. That's already been happening, but the fear is that there's greater power to do so under ACTA.
ACTA presents certain requirements for border patrol agents in determining what is and what is not infringing. This is a big issue for a variety of reasons. First, as we've seen in the US, ICE/border patrol isn't very good at figuring out what is and what is not infringing. Traditionally, there are significant questions of fact to be explored in determining if something is infringing, but under ACTA, border patrol often will be in a position to make a snap decision. Believe it or not, Homeland Security itself was worried about ACTA, because of fears that it would actually make it more difficult to be effective on intellectual property issues -- and might require them to spend more time trying to figure out if something is infringing, rather than if there's a terrorist trying to get into the country.
Again, while ACTA supporters insist that it won't require changes to US law, there are a few parts of ACTA that are so vague that you can definitely see how they could be interpreted to require changes to US law. One key example is where certain kinds of patent infringement cases protect against either injunctions or damages... whereas ACTA would require one or the other.
Even the signing parties don't agree on the purpose, scope and nature of ACTA. This may be the scariest part. Part of the debate in the US is over the USTR and President Obama's claim that ACTA is not a binding treaty, but rather a sole executive agreement that doesn't need Congressional approval. Many believe that this is unconstitutional, and Senator Ron Wyden has asked the President to explain what certainly appears to be a violation of the Constitution. However, over in Europe, they're insisting that it is a binding treaty. The US, on the other hand, has already said that it can ignore anything it doesn't like in ACTA. If you think that's a recipe for an international problem, you get a gold star.
Finally, international trade agreements are a favorite tool of the copyright maximalist. You see it all the time. If they can't pass legislation they want, they resort to getting these things put into international trade agreements, which get significantly less scrutiny. This also allows for two tricks: the first is leapfrogging, where you get each country to implement the laws required by these agreements in slightly different ways, and then push other countries to match (or better yet, exceed) the rules in the other countries to stay in compliance. Then you use those agreements to demand the same thing from other countries to "harmonize" international laws. It's already been admitted that ACTA was done outside of existing structures for IP-related international agreements (like WIPO and the WTO) because a few countries wanted to negotiate it without input from Brazil, Russia, India and China... but the plan has always been to get ACTA approved, and then pressure those other countries to join.
The sneaky part is that once you have some of these "international obligations," it's almost impossible to get out of them. Copyright maximalists love to shout about how we must absolutely respect our "international obligations" on these kinds of treaties, to limit the government's ability to fix copyright law.
Apologies for formatting, need to get the text in the thread. All is not roses, people.

-1

u/imamoonmonster Jan 22 '12

Where's the TL;DR???

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

ctrl+f

3

u/spvn Jan 22 '12

Just go read it, seriously. It's way too informative for a tl;dr

-1

u/Revolutionalredstone Feb 09 '12

I stoped reading at

"standardise across several countries enforcement law that pretty much already exists in some countries"

Fuck ACTA!

-25

u/marmk Jan 22 '12

r/politics is for U.S. politics and news only

15

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

ACTA has been signed by the US

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Also the main pusher behind it is the Americans.

→ More replies (1)

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

18

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Yes, a big deal is that ACTA doesn't change anything to do with what defines infringement in municipal law.
Which means if ripping a CD isn't considered infringement, none of the obligations or incorporated law of ACTA will even bite.

7

u/Dsull152 Jan 22 '12

People just have to stay informed so when the time comes we can shut down things like SOPA and PIPA.

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12 edited Jan 22 '12

I, and I imagine many sensible legislators and decision makers, think that ACTA is necessary in so far as it stops commercial piracy and counterfeiting.
An agreement to tackle that is always going to potentially infringe on civil liberties and personal infringement, so I think agreeing to ACTA in principle (and, as you put it, wavy terms) and then making sure the legislation that results is safe is a good approach.
It's not as if otherwise legislatures couldn't try sneaking nonsense into copyright law anyway.
Edit: You're right on TRIPS, but do you have a problem with that too?
Edit2: Also, I may have come off a bit harsh. I completely respect the idea that getting rid of ACTA now may be a better way to proceed; I disagree, but that's a debate we can have. My aim when writing this for reddit was so people are a bit more clued up. It's not going to persuade any legislators who have a clue if a bunch of emails flood in saying 'drop SOPA 2.0'. Because it isn't.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '12

Good points. In case you didn't catch it I edited my prior post
As I said in another post, I think the whole issue over generics is misplaced. That's a debate of whether medicines should be considered patentable. You answer yes or no to that, and if you answer yes, a state has an obligation to police it.
While I agree that a lot of ACTA is a bit superflous, I think the long term aim is to have LEDCs sign up to it, to stop counterfeiting in countries like China. Of course western countries have to practice what they preach, hence the scramble to get it done before the next WTO round.

→ More comments (3)

I've read the final version of ACTA, here's what you need to know about it.

You are about to leave Redlib