I'll make it simpler for you. Even if that is correct, even if ACTA doesn't change the existing laws: we want those laws reversed.

They are not our laws. They were forced upon us by a combination of US government pressure and outright bribery. And they are now sending our people to prison and censoring our internet access for things we do not consider to be crimes.

The protest against ACTA is not so much a matter of "ACTA is evil", it's more a matter of "this corruption stops now".

We want our freedom an sovereignty back, not to have it signed away in some treaty, even if that treaty has been watered down to something merely symbolical with no immediate effect. It is patently obvious that they won't stop at ACTA in it's current form.

Sometimes that mere fact that you finally draw a line is more important than where exactly you draw it.

Also, if people are misinformed over ACTA, it's because the whole freaking negotiation was done in secret.

That's nonsense. First of all, even during the "secret" negotiations, the current drafts were routinely leaked and widely discussed.

Second, there was an official release of the draft text on April 21, 2010. An updated "near-final" draft (which was quite close to the April 21 draft) was released on October 6, 2010. The final draft was released on November 15, 2010.

All of those drafts are readily available on the Office of the United States Trade Representative site: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/intellectual-property/anti-...

The idea that people are misinformed because a document that has been officially and readily available for nearly two years (and unofficially available long before that) was at one time years ago secret is ridiculous.

Right, so we have to rely on leaks in the future to get visibility on how our rights are being stripped away, this is the democratic process our predecessors shed blood for?

Am reminded of this passage from HHGTTG.

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

heh that exact reference was done in discussions in a danish newspaper too :)

OK fine. But the used arguments against ACTA are obviously wrong. No one will win a fight against arguments with idiocy.

This is not about arguments. This about ideology. Just read the opening words of ACTA:

"effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is critical to sustaining economic growth across all industries and globally"

That is not a fact. That is not even an argument. That is an ideological statement, and 50% of ACTA is exactly that: an ideological manifesto.

Propaganda is the primary currency here, and always has been when it comes to copyright. The other side has been fighting dirty for a few decades now, conveniently ignoring the facts, and they have been winning.

So now the opposition has started to fight dirty. It may be ethically questionable, but idiocy? So far, for the first time ever, the opposition against the ever more repressive copyright regime actually seems to be gaining some traction.

This is not a high school debate. This is politics. Not being willing to fight dirty simply means you'll get beaten up. Unless you want to keep running until there is nowhere left to run. But that is pretty much the intent behind ACTA: making sure that eventually, there will be nowhere left to run.

That was my exact thought too, when I read through it.

Watching politicians actually trying to defend this is infuriating as it is embarrassing.

>Everything in there is already law in Europa.

Wow. Easy there.

#23 counting compensation ammounts is different from basic EU laws, it suggest summarizing the costs of copied products, not the actual losses of the victim which now have to be claimed and proven in court.

#8 is against 'de minimis' rule.

#27.2 violates indentity data protection laws in EU.

#12 let violators be punished bypassing the actual legal system procedures of their countries.

I could embed quotes, but what I'm reading right now are translated quotes with interpretations, so I mentioned only the section numbers

'tzs said much the same thing earlier today, with another citation:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3542774

I am generally 10000x more likely to trust 'tzs on issues of IP law than I am to trust the prevailing sentiment on HN.

Perhaps more to the point: what a boring article. How much more interesting would it be to see a rebuttal of the conventional wisdom around ACTA? Instead, the entire article is just a genuflection, interesting only if you personally care about this particular politician, stultifying otherwise.

The problem with ACTA isn't its content. The problem is with how it got negotiated and signed with almost no democratic accountability. And this article is specifically addressing that deficit.

If you're an "ends justifies the means" kind of guy, then this stuff doesn't upset you. But it upsets me.

> The problem is with how it got negotiated and signed

How is it different how ACTA got negotiated and signed and how copyright policy in general is being negotiated and enacted? How is ACTA less democratic than stuff like life+70 years and big scale filesharing prohibition and mass lawsuits?

Democracy is generally completely shut out of any decision regarding copyright. This stuff is and always was decided _completely_ in shady backroom deals behind closed doors for the sole benefit of special interests and then enforced against the majority. It has zero connection to peoples will, the natural sense of right and wrong that should be basis of any law, especially laws broadly enforced against the people. I dont think there was ever a case on this planet where any population was actually allowed to vote on "intellectual property" in general. The idea behind it, the decision making process and the enforcement has always been purely autocratic, from the top down, like this thing called democracy never happened.

  > How is it different how ACTA got negotiated
  > and signed and how copyright policy

It was a matter of 'national security' that no one outside of the negotiating body could see it... except copyright lobbyists. Apparently members of Congress (and members of other countries' legislative bodies) are a security risk to an international treaty that's all about how to deal with copyright infringement, but those copyright lobbyists are all on the up-and-up...

We know representatives everywhere (and here) sign legislation they don't fully understand. What was revealing to me was how she fully admits it. Perhaps this is a plea for a positive change in public opinion for her. But it could also be a response to an attempt to use her as a scapegoat...

   This was decided by the Slovenian government and by the 
   parliamentary committee for EU matters, and before that, 
   Slovenia was for quite some time involved in 
   coordinating the agreement. [...] Back then, the 
   Slovenian media did not demonise this decision to the 
   same extent as they now demonise my signature.

If ACTA was a singular event in an otherwise perfect universe. Your stance may indeed be correct.

But, today our freedoms are being assaulted from all sides. There are global databases being build, capturing, indexing and processing all the little details of our lives as we speak.

There is an increasing tendency towards control, censorship and abuse of power throughout the world, facilitated by technology and special interests.

What the protests around ACTA are about for me is that some US private interest group basically worked to get most of the world to adopt their view on IP and privacy. If that were not bad enough, they did it in total secrecy, not allowing the public to know what the officials paid for from our pockets are doing.

Public has many concerns. RIAA and MPAA have only one.

Subsection 5 From section 5:

"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, 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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy

The above is effectively censorship: making certain numbers illegal. It's exporting some of the DMCA and the european copyright act to countries that don't have it already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive

I can forsee subsection 7 of section 5 having implications for ISPs:

" To protect electronic rights management information, each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing without authority any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any copyright or related rights:

(a) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information;

(b) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast, communicate, or make available to the public copies of works, performances, or phonograms, knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority."

electronics rights management AKA DRM. Coming to a CPU near you, soon.

You are being as superficial as metinalista. The line Everything in there is already law in Europa was used to try to legalise software patents in Europe: EPO exists, Nokia et al. already had filed software patents.

The argument, that it will not change anything is bogus: if it were the case, there would be no need for ACTA. ACTA was needed to legitimize current illegal de facto status quo.

http://ffii.org/

The problem is that it's vague, meaning that not even top lawyers interpret it the same way. According to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy3zBZ4vI4E in such a case (according to the Vienna Convention) interpreted such laws requires the documents during the drafting phase of the convention. In case of ACTA these documents are secret even to the governments that have signed the agreement.

Paranoid yet?

I can't validate this analysis, but it does seem pretty thorough: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the...

The basic understanding I got from it is: ACTA doesn't enforce any new censorship or surveillance but instead lays down an international framework so that all countries can work together in implementing compatible policies for enforcing intellectual property protection in the future.

The other thing I got from this analysis is (which I don't fully understand) this provides some protection for signing countries to enact their own legislation that would implement censorship/surveillance/etc.

I'd love to hear someone else chime in because I have not been paying enough attention to it.

EDIT: I understand `tptacek` disagrees with the second point about countries receiving cover; I don't understand the disagreement with the first point. Has someone been able to disprove `justicia311`s analysis on reddit? Don't just downvote me when I clearly ask for others to help me understand it.

Countries don't need protection from treaties to censor the internet.

Countries don't but governments and politicians very much do. "It's required from us by the EU" is already a common excuse, this is yet another treaty that will be used that way -- it solidifies the current copyright regime making it more difficult to introduce changes later.

This is the part I was referring to:

   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.

Just taking the parts which sound bad to me:

"At least with respect to pirated copyright goods and counterfeit trademark goods, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, at the right holder's request, its judicial authorities have the authority to order that such infringing goods be destroyed, except in exceptional circumstances, without compensation of any sort." (Article 10, page 15)

OK. What if I have a chinese imitation of some product and I don't know it? Why do they have to destroy it? And, about pirated content: the damage is done. If I have some music pirated in my MP3 and you destroy it I'm not going to buy it again. Also, how can I prove that the content is not pirated? Shall I carry over my iTunes receipts if I travel to the US and they take my iPod at the airport control? And how do they destroy the pirated content? Do they delete the files or they trash the whole gadget containing them?

"1. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order prompt and effective provisional measures [...] to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce" (Article 12, page 17)

What kind of goods involve copyright infringement? Will they block P2P programs although they can be used for legal downloads (Linux distributions, for example)?

These are two examples that I found without much effort (I'm not a legal expert so I'm sure there are more).

Also, the fact that it was created in secret is a good reason to reject it. In Wired they explained very well the four main points of criticism.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/24/acta-101?page...

"Intellectual property right" sounds vague enough to cover patents and trademarks. To me, that sounds like Apple could order customs to destroy, say, all Android phones.... Welp.

Some things from a quick scan:

27.1 - ISPs must provide tools/procedures to block infringing users:

It does say, right next to it, that this should preserve fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy. But then again, it says in a footnote while preserving the legitimate interests of right holder. Protect freedom, except when you don't.

27.4 - No anonimity on the web:

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

27.5 - makes breaking DRM, sharing software that circumvents it, sharing files etc., a crime:

Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures

the offering to the public by marketing of a device or product, including computer programs, or a service, as a means of circumventing an effective technological measure

to remove or alter any electronic rights management information / to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast, communicate, or make available to the public copies of works, performances, or phonograms, knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority

--------

Now, most of that sounds reasonable. But it becomes more worrying as you link all to these:

4.2 - Your information can be used by other countries/companies for other purposes (with prior consent from the government - haha):

the Party receiving the information shall (...) refrain from disclosing or using the information for a purpose other than that for which the information was provided, --except with the prior consent of the Party providing the information--

8.1 - businesses can be ordered to take action against infringement - that means VISA/PayPal cancelling/blocking your accounts, your ISP severing your connection, your hosting shutting down your website, DNS blocking, etc etc.

its judicial authorities have the authority to issue (...) an order to a third party (...) to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property

9.3 - makes it written law that every pirated/counterfeit good equates to a lost sale by the IP owner. that's a very wrong assumption:

the quantity of the goods (...) multiplied by the amount of profit per unit of goods which would have been sold

10.1 - a company can order that your infringing material be destroyed:

at the --right holder's request--, its judicial authorities have the authority to order that such infringing goods be destroyed

And most important:

Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order prompt and effective provisional* measures*

each Party shall provide its judicial authorities with the authority to act expeditiously on requests for provisional measures and to make a decision without undue delay

And to finish if off, your data can be shared between all signing countries (article 34).

That means they can do all of the above before you even know what's going on.

I don't know much about this subject (apart from taking some WIPO classes), but I wouldn't be comfortable giving this kind of power to half the world's governments. They will be sharing your online usage data as much as they want, and can take "provisional" action without due course. There are legal system already in place to deal with counterfeit products. You can argue that it prevents one of the signed countries becoming a pirate haven, but what's the chance of that?

that's what this guy http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the... is saying as well. There was this first version with the most draconian measures arranged without the knowledge of public but then it got watered down, but nobody seems to have noticed...

I don't understand why you are getting so many down votes. Of all the analysis I've seen on forums, websites, and in magazines, that one seems to be the most thorough and best documented.

If the down voters are aware of a flaw in it, I wish they would say something instead of just burying you.

A similar thing happened with SOPA. The original version was really vague and looked like it could be applied to domestic sites. Some parts were clarified and became much watered down. That still didn't make the watered down version a good bill, but everyone was still bashing the old version.

A question that I find interesting is: would the bill have been so clarified and watered down without all of the people getting irrational about it?

Here is a nice analysis of ACTA and its implications for Human Rights. http://rfc.act-on-acta.eu/fundamental-rights

>Everything in there is already law in Europa.

Not to rebut your main point, but if so why is a new law needed? Seems unnecessary to me if it's already law.

It's an effort to harmonize international law with US law. It's essentially the DMCA in treaty form, and important provisions of the DMCA find no close analogue in most nations' laws -- or indeed almost any nation's laws until very recently. Certainly they are not universal to Europe.