Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
09-25-2012, 11:29 PM,
RE: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Signed October 1st 2011
(09-25-2012, 10:27 PM)rsol Wrote: forget the fbi and the cia. someone needs to hack the patent office.

It would most likely have more of an effect on most people's daily lives, but then again you'd need a team of patent lawyers and bureaucrats to make sense of it all. I wouldn't want to be the one who recruited them... talk about terminal boredom.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
09-25-2012, 11:35 PM,
RE: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Signed October 1st 2011
fuck that. kill the data. breach and burn.
09-25-2012, 11:40 PM,
RE: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Signed October 1st 2011
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
12-13-2012, 02:52 AM,
RE: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Signed October 1st 2011
Latest from the EFF formally siding with Fight for the Future in their stance to fight copyright law on a legal stance based in reality. The right approach?

Quote:Calling on Congress: Time to Fix Copyright
December 12, 2012 | By Parker Higgins

It shouldn't be controversial to demand evidence-based policies in the copyright space. But over and over, Congress has failed to engage in an informed discussion over which copyright policies advance the public interest, and which ones cause harm. That's why we're supporting our friends at Fight for the Future in their launch of a campaign to urge Congress to engage in a reality-based debate about our copyright policy.

Last month, when Derek Khanna—a staffer for an influential policy group called the Republican Study Committee (RSC)—put forward a report busting some persistent myths about copyright, he wasn't met with a real debate or with fact-checking. Within a day his employer, reportedly under pressure from legislators supported by major copyright industries, retracted the report. Within two weeks, Khanna was told he would no longer have a job with the RSC.

That's right: instead of engaging in a fact-based discussion over how copyright policy should be decided, representatives of the content lobby (or the legislators they support) thought it would be a better idea just to silence the debate.

Perhaps that's because the facts aren't in their favor: Khanna's document called attention to some of the principal problems with today's copyright policy. The term of copyright is much too long, which chills innovations, weakens the public domain, and creates an enormous "orphan works" problem. The statutory damages are far too high, leading to insane awards of up to $150,000 per infringement in some cases. And over and over the public has seen its traditional rights eroded at the hands of a constantly expanding realm of copyright coverage, whether it's undermining the first sale doctrine, limiting personal uses of legally-purchased content, or jeopardizing property that happens to be stored in the cloud.

A year ago, these facts may have been the exclusive domain of legal specialists and law professors, but that's no longer the case. If there's one lesson that legislators should have gotten from the blackout protests against SOPA this January, it's that the public recognizes that copyright issues are free speech issues. We're not willing to let one industry steamroll online civil liberties in the name of preserving its profits.

Because we know where bad policy leads. It leads to innocent websites being censored, pulled offline for over a year because of unfounded accusations from the recording industry. It leads to hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines over a handful of downloaded tracks—a situation in which even the judge is pleading to Congress for badly needed reform. It leads to Supreme Court battles that could decide whether you are allowed to sell your legally purchased goods that were manufactured overseas.

It doesn't have to be that way. Congress could act to bring copyright policy into line with reality, even at the risk of upsetting a content lobby long-used to getting their way when it comes to copyright. This is a lobby that has convinced Congress to pass 15 laws against "piracy" in the last 30 years. It will take serious pressure from the public to let Congress know that it’s time for real copyright reform that benefits everyone—not just a few entrenched interests.

So join us in calling on Congress: when the legislative session resumes in January, let's have a reality-based debate, and let's fix copyright.

Links from the article:

Your Right to Own, Under Threat

Capitol v. Thomas: Judge Orders New Trial, Implores Congress to Lower Statutory Penalties for P2P

Unsealed Court Records Confirm that RIAA Delays Were Behind Year-Long Seizure of Hip Hop Music Blog

How Much Is Enough? We've Passed 15 Anti Piracy Laws Last 30 Years

Fight for the Future: Copyright is Broken - Fix it!

GOP sides with Mickey Mouse on copyright reform

Influential GOP group releases, pulls shockingly sensible copyright memo

Republican Study Committee

Congress Shouldn't Debate Copyright in a Reality-Free Zone

Some Related threads:

Secretive International Copyright Treaty: Confirms Fears About Internet Freedom

Bill C-32: The Canadian Copyright Modernization Act - From Radical Extremism to Balanced Copyright

RIAA Declares Using Brain to Remember Songs is Criminal Copyright Infringement!
There are no others, there is only us.
03-02-2013, 06:17 AM,
RE: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Signed October 1st 2011
Like Australia is bowing down to the carbon tax.. Canada is falling and bending over itself to take ACTA up multiple orifices.

Quote:USTR To Canada: 'Bow Down And Accept ACTA!' Canada: 'Yes, We Shall Do Your Bidding'
from the why? dept

The story of ACTA is well-known by now. ACTA was yet another attempt by copyright and patent maximalists to spread maximalist principles further via a secretive treaty that allowed certain industries to participate in the process, but kept out any and all concerns from public interest groups, the public itself, and innovative industries that would be harmed by the laws. Thankfully, widespread protests in the EU resulted in ACTA being declared dead there, as the EU Parliament refused to agree to ACTA. And, without the EU, it's questionable if ACTA will ever be a real treaty in any way that matters. Yes, some countries have signed it, but there are still some ratification processes necessary, and without the EU on board, the whole thing seems kind of pointless. Other negotiating countries, including Switzerland, Australia and Mexico have indicated that they are not fans of ACTA either.

Many assumed, therefore, that ACTA was dead. But... not the US apparently. Nor Canada. In an announcement today, the USTR is apparently acting as if the months of ACTA protests and the death of ACTA in Europe didn't happen. Instead, it's all about pressuring countries like Canada by claiming that they need "to meet its Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement obligations." Seriously, now?

Now, if I'm a Canadian politician, this is the point where I tell the USTR to go pound sand and to recognize that the world has clearly rejected the concept of ACTA, and having just gone through a long and arduous copyright reform process (also mainly because of US demands from the likes of the USTR), that the USTR should go pick on some other country to bully.

Instead, however, we get near complete capitulation. With near perfect timing, a bill has been introduced in the Canadian Parliament to bring Canadian IP law into line with ACTA. Why would they even bother?

The core elements of the bill include the increased criminalization of copyright and trademark law as well as the introduction of new powers for Canadian border guards to detain shipments and work actively with rights holders to seize and destroy goods without court oversight or involvement.

It's really amazing that they're willing to open this can of worms, given just how strongly people fought back against ACTA elsewhere. Michael Geist has a good initial analysis of the bill at the link above, and will likely follow up to call out some more specifics in the 52 pages of changes to copyright and trademark law, but just the fact that Canada is bothering to move forward on this is troubling. It shows a Canadian government who doesn't seem to care about what the public wants, but rather feels the need to kowtow to US entertainment and pharmaceutical lobbying interests.

The first is that this bill provides a clear signal that Canada will move forward with ACTA notwithstanding some doubts over whether there is even sufficient global support to allow it to take effect (six ratifications are needed). ACTA is toxic in Europe, where officials now go out of their way to assure the public that ACTA is dead and that any new agreements will not involve efforts to revive it. ACTA has also faced serious opposition in other negotiating countries, including Switzerland (which has not signed it), Australia (where a Parliamentary Committee recommended against ratification), and Mexico (where the Senate rejected it in 2010). ACTA was promoted as a "gold standard" agreement on counterfeiting, yet the failure to garner support from many participants has left an agreement that is often cited as an example of how not to engage in international negotiations. Given the global opposition, Canadian support for ACTA is disappointing.

For many years, Canada has strongly resisted US-style copyright laws, despite tremendous pressure to do so. Watching them cave on ACTA is certainly a disappointment. Meanwhile, watching the USTR pretending as if ACTA went forward as planned is simply par for the course, and a reminder of just how completely detached from reality that organization remains. Elsewhere in the USTR's agenda release today, it mentions working with Japan to bring ACTA into force, which is somewhat laughable, considering how many countries have been rejecting it.
There are no others, there is only us.
03-16-2013, 04:05 AM,
RE: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Signed October 1st 2011
Quote:How New ACTA Internet Lockdown Measures Are Coming to Canada
Posted by Josh Tabish on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - 15:51

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), once believed dead, is back from beyond the grave, and could criminalize and otherwise restrict your use of the Internet by overwriting our copyright rules.

Join over 69,312 Canadians who have spoken out about ACTA’s threat to Internet freedom. Click here to send our leaders a message.
ACTA and New Internet Restrictions Through the Back Door

As you may have heard, on March 1, 2013, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-56,[1] which aims to bring Canada into compliance with the globally unpopular[2] and widely discredited[3] Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

ACTA is an international trade agreement designed to create a global set of Internet restrictions in the name of copyright enforcement[4] that could change how you use the Internet. These standards were decided behind closed doors by industry lobbyists and bureaucrats, without public input, and promise to go above and beyond any participating country’s own national laws.

ACTA is extremely unpopular globally.[5] The agreement was outright rejected by the European Union, and has found heavy resistance in Australia, Switzerland, and Mexico, among others.[6] Given that the EU and Mexico voted No on ACTA, it seems bizarre that the Canadian government wants to forge ahead to bring our legislation into step with an agreement that so clearly lacks public legitimacy.
Why New ACTA Internet Lockdown Measures? Why Now?

So, why is the government plowing forward with Bill C-56?

1. Ratifying ACTA:
NDP MP Charmaine Borg rightly dubbed Bill C-56 as “ACTA through the back door”.[7] On the same day that Canada announced the bill to comply with ACTA, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) posted its yearly report, [8] stating that US officials were working with Japan and other parties negotiating ACTA, “to ensure that ACTA can come into force as soon as possible,” and, crucially, to encourage Canada “to meet its [ACTA] obligations.” As Maira Sutton at EFF rightly points out, “Canada did not miss a beat to satisfy this demand.”[9]

It looks like the US Trade Representative gave the Canadian government its marching orders behind closed doors, and Canada bowed down without missing a beat. Or as tech blogger Michael Masnick of Techdirt puts it, “'Bow Down And Accept ACTA!' Canada: 'Yes, We Shall Do Your Bidding”.[10] Or better yet, as popular science fiction writer and copyright commentator Cory Doctorow puts it, “US Trade Rep orders Canada to comply with the dead-and-buried ACTA treaty, Canada rolls over and wets itself”.[11]

Canada’s border security rules are currently not compliant with ACTA’s rules and Bill C-56 will amend this by changing our border security rules. Michael Geist suggests that border guards will have more power to restrict Canadian activity and seize citizens’ electronics without court oversight. Border guards would essentially become copyright enforcers - a position they are currently poorly equipped to administer, leaving the process open to abuse by big media lobbyists and others.[12]

2. Slow Walking Canada Into the TPP’s Internet Trap:
ACTA also brings Canada’s laws incrementally closer to the new Internet restrictions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement’s Internet Trap. The TPP is extreme and secretive and promises much greater restrictions than even ACTA on what you can do on the Internet.

As our own Steve Anderson told the Huffington Post, our government has refused to commit to uphold our own digital policy laws in TPP negotiations. The Canadian and US government and their lobbyist backers likely realize that citizens are more likely to swallow the drastic Internet restrictions proposed in the TPP if countries incrementally water down our digital rights through Bill C-56 and other ACTA-based legislation.[13] Bill C-56 feels like the start of a process to slow walk Canada into the TPP’s Internet Trap.

ACTA and the TPP are a gruesome twosome for our digital rights, promising criminal penalties for copyright violations, the ability for governments to block content and take down websites (which is already happening in the U.S.), and the capacity for border guards to seize and destroy our electronics at border crossings without court oversight.
What can we do about it?

To speak out against ACTA and Bill C-56, we have created the No Internet Lockdown petition telling our elected officials to say No to the ACTA Internet lockdown before it’s too late.

Now is the time to stand up and stop the renewed moves to lock down the Internet in Canada and around the world. Click here to send our leaders a message.

[1] Harper Government Protecting Canadians from Counterfeit Goods. Source: Canada News Centre.
[2] The European Parliament Rejects ACTA: The Impossible Becomes Possible. Source: Michael Geist.
[3] Here Comes ACTA: Canadian Government Introduces Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Compliance Bill. Source: Michael Geist.
[4] ACTA’s Not Dead Yet: The detailed breakdown. Source:
[5] Supra note 3
[6] Supra note 3
[7] NDP Calls It: Bill C-56 is "ACTA Through the Backdoor". Source: Michael Geist.
[8] USTR 2013 Trade Policy Agenda and 2012 Annual Report. Source: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
[9] US Trade Office Calls ACTA Back From the Dead and Canada Complies. Source: EFF.
[10] USTR To Canada: 'Bow Down And Accept ACTA!' Canada: 'Yes, We Shall Do Your Bidding'. Source: Techdirt.
[11] US Trade Rep orders Canada to comply with the dead-and-buried ACTA treaty, Canada rolls over and wets itself. Source: BoingBoing.
[12] Supra note 3
[13] Trans-Pacific Partnership: Chief Canadian Negotiator Refuses To Say If Canada Will Uphold Copyright Laws. Source: Huffington Post.

If you're so inclined to be a click-activist:
There are no others, there is only us.
12-05-2013, 12:55 PM,
RE: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Those lawmakers are so clever.

Quote:Without Anyone Paying Attention, Canada Is About To Change Its Laws To Support ACTA
from the sneaky,-sneaky dept

Thought ACTA was dead? While the EU Parliament may have strongly rejected it, and even with the EU Commission (who negotiated it) admitting that ACTA is dead, a variety of other countries still did sign on to the agreement. And, now, it appears that with basically no one paying any attention at all, Canada may be about to pass some laws to effectively tie itself to ACTA's ridiculous requirements. The bill was originally introduced back in March, but was never considered by the Canadian Parliament. However, in late October, it was reintroduced under a new code, C-8, and it looks like it's moving forward, despite almost no public discussion of it anywhere.

The whole point of ACTA, and this bill, are to unite two very different issues: counterfeiting and copyright infringement. The legacy copyright players have been trying to conflate these things for years. That's because they can point to the tiny, but very real, problem of counterfeit drugs or safety equipment that can cause serious damage... and then mix it with the very "large" issue of copyright infringement (where they can't show any actual damage or harm) and pretend that it's a big problem which puts tons of people at risk. Of course, none of that is true. Counterfeiting may be an issue, but it's a very small issue, and in the vast, vast majority of cases, with little to no threat of harm. But, the copyright legacy players have figured out that tying their bandwagon to the claim that "counterfeit drugs kill people" may help them to pass draconian copyright laws.

Bizarrely, the Canadian government appears to have bought this bogus argument, despite nearly all of the evidence suggesting it's wrong. Michael Geist made exactly this point to the Canadian Parliament, but nearly everyone else they heard from were industry folks insisting that they needed this new "anti-counterfeiting" bill. And the end result is it appears that the Canadian Parliament is about to move forward on the bill without hearing from anyone other than Geist who might represent the interests of the public at large. As Howard Knopf notes:

What this exercise it will do – and has done – is to allow lobbyists with a maximalist agenda to use this fake problem of fakes to create the potential for interference with legitimate trade in parallel imports, vastly increased criminalization of everyday “infringement”, shifting of enforcement costs from the private sector to the taxpayer, and the interference with the transshipment of generic drugs and other legitimate products. The new law will allow incredible opportunity for abusive or even simply incompetent enforcement. This can be very costly to large and SME business, not to mention consumers. This is perhaps the most sweeping legislation in Canadian IP law in 70 years, and it is being done without adequate hearings, study or the demonstration of any need. Anyone looking for counterfeit products can find them on the street in mid-town and downtown Manhattan. One doesn’t find this kind of flagrant counterfeiting in Canada. The “evidence” of a major problem with counterfeit good that can’t already be dealt with via existing laws almost entirely anecdotal or absent. Piling on of responsibility to border officials is an unnecessary and costly mistake. The DNA and fingerprints of the movie and record industries are all over this bill.

Tragically, there appears to be almost no media coverage of this at all. Basically, it looks like Canadian politicians waited until everyone was looking elsewhere, and then tried to sneak ACTA right through the Parliament. This would be a major win for the movie and recording industries in the US, but a massive loss for Canadians and Canadian innovation.

References FTA:

Canadian anti-counterfeit bill re-introduced

European Parliament Declares Its Independence From The European Commission With A Massive Rejection Of ACTA. Now What?

European Commission: ACTA Is Dead, Long Live ACTA?

US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement

Considering C-8: My Appearance Before the Industry Committee on the Anti-Counterfeiting Bill

Bill C-8 re Anti-Counterfeiting: Is Parliament Rushing to Respond to a Fake Crisis About Fake Products?
There are no others, there is only us.
02-03-2014, 08:24 AM,
RE: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Thanks for sharing.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Filesharing site revealed to be anti-piracy ‘honeypot pax681 2 1,515 10-27-2013, 09:28 AM
Last Post: thokling
Exclamation “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy (p2p) Scheme starts Nov 2012 ZeroCenter 0 877 11-16-2012, 02:07 AM
Last Post: ZeroCenter
  ACTA: “Usurps Congressional Authority”, “Threatens Numerous Public Interests”... h3rm35 3 1,307 02-01-2012, 01:25 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  HR875 S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food - UPDATE: Stealth Passage via CR Addendum plasticfan 44 9,813 11-18-2011, 07:10 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Canadian Chamber of Commerce Floats Fake $30 Billion Counterfeiting Claim yeti 3 1,647 07-18-2011, 09:00 AM
Last Post: zapoper
  Lieberman et al. Introduce anti-Wikileaks bill barackollama 0 1,075 12-06-2010, 11:58 PM
Last Post: barackollama
  Cap and Trade 101 FastTadpole 12 4,102 07-23-2010, 02:07 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  UN Anti-Blasphemy Measures Dr Richard H Thorndyke 1 1,069 03-06-2009, 02:21 AM
Last Post: ---
  U.s.-eu Sign Agreement On Security Of Classified Information SerialExpLain 1 1,384 05-21-2007, 10:09 AM
Last Post: hardboiled11
  United States / Mexico Totalization Agreement blove8. 0 993 01-02-2007, 06:23 PM
Last Post: blove8.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)