| ACTA - "stick as closely to U.S. law as possible" "When pressed whether the U.S. would be open to any negotiated difference from U.S. law in the ACTA, the official said that the goal of the U.S. "is to stick as closely to U.S. law as possible."
»www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/st···ggernaut
-------------------------------
"Q: Will the ACTA rewrite U.S. law?
A: No. Only the U.S. Congress can change U.S. law."
Corollary: If the US agrees to ACTA, it must mean that US law is not [appreciably/at all] re-written, hence Canada will effectively be following US laws. (This is not in the link below, but it is the logical conclusion of the Q&A above if ACTA is adopted by Executive assent in the US.)
»www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files···5084.pdf
-------------------------------
Agreement on secrecy
»www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-offi···cta-text |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·FreePhoneLine
| Everytime I see an article about ACTA I want to vomit.
The fact that corrupt governments around the world met in secret to plot our doom and we have no say in it at all is completely fucked up.
I'll preface this question by saying that I'm not too well versed in politics in any way.
Why the hell when something important like this comes along does it not get put to a referendum for the people to decide?
Is it because we surrender those rights to empower our elected officials to make these all important world altering decisions for us? |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to MaynardKrebs
Well to my knowledge the ACTA type laws have been shot down multiple times. I still don't see this being passed anytime soon. |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
Since the U.S. always negotiates its treaties to require approval of Congress, does it mean it would be required to pass a vote in the Chambre of Commons to be effective here? What's our outlook if it comes to this? |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
This is an absurd negotiating position to start from. It effectively mandates what the outcome is going to be, because they aren't going to re-write any American laws to ratify it. Instead, they expect the other countries to change their laws to conform to the American standard. What kind of negotiation is that? There isn't even a theoretical possibility of movement from the Americans.
The US is signing this as some kind of executive agreement, meaning it will not require any approval from Congress. After all, it's only 'coloring inside the lines' of existing US legislation. However, it will require changes to our laws, meaning it will require approval from Parliament, including both the HoC and the Senate. |
|
| reply to dandin1
said by dandin1:Since the U.S. always negotiates its treaties to require approval of Congress, does it mean it would be required to pass a vote in the Chambre of Commons to be effective here? What's our outlook if it comes to this? .---.
|....|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
|.... /////////////////////////////////)
>....//////////////////////////////////}ed.
|....//////////////////////////////////)
|.....''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
|....|
'---'
You do know that we're currently being misgoverned by a branch of the US Republican party, don't you?
Don't blame me. I sure as hell didn't vote for the scumbags. |
|
| reply to dandin1
said by dandin1:Since the U.S. always negotiates its treaties to require approval of Congress, In this case Congress does not have to approve if there is no change to US law (ie. DMCA is not affected, border search & seizure of personal computers & cellphone/iPods, etc..., prosecution of anyone who crosses the border carrying 'contraband' - ie. a movie you own which you've 'illegally' ripped to the hard drive of your Linux laptop, etc....). |
|
| reply to oxymoron69
said by oxymoron69:Why the hell when something important like this comes along does it not get put to a referendum for the people to decide? The NEGOTIATIONS are secret - NOT the end product, which must be approved by the relevant authorities in each country signing on to the treaty. In the US the Senate has to approve this treaty and the treaty language will be available for all to see at that time. Don't like the treaty, then call your Senators and tell them to vote no.
The US isn't the only participant in the negotiations. So why aren't other countries releasing the info? Because all countries know that multilateral negotiations between many countries(including non-democracies) can't ever be completed with the press reporting every zig and zag of the deal making.
And it does get approved/disapproved in each country separately based on that country's laws. There is no worldwide plebiscite capability existing(though the "1 world controlled by the UN" people wish there were). There is the UN, but that is not a democratic organization and has no capability to pass laws applicable to countries that don't agree to those laws.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
 El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| said by fAcEtIOUs:The US isn't the only participant in the negotiations. So why aren't other countries releasing the info? Because all countries know that multilateral negotiations between many countries(including non-democracies) can't ever be completed with the press reporting every zig and zag of the deal making. Sorry buddy but that's called transparency, and that's what I want from my government.
I don't see how we can wag fingers at less-democratic countries, when our own corporate citizens are trying to bypass your constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with supposedly democratically elected governments turning a blind eye. |
|
| said by El Quintron:said by fAcEtIOUs:The US isn't the only participant in the negotiations. So why aren't other countries releasing the info? Because all countries know that multilateral negotiations between many countries(including non-democracies) can't ever be completed with the press reporting every zig and zag of the deal making. Sorry buddy but that's called transparency, and that's what I want from my government. And that isn't what you will get, because it isn't practical or doable. Maybe when the "Star Trek" model of government exists sometime in the year 2600 or after. 
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by fAcEtIOUs:And that isn't what you will get, because it isn't practical or doable. It's doable, there just a lack of political will to do so, and a tendency for politicians to pick sides opportunistically.
There's nothing utopian about transparency, it's how accountable government works.
I would say that the lack of transparency is pretty much a given seeing how unpopular the end results of these negotiations are going to be.
No government wants to be called to task on passing this... |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:In the US the Senate has to approve this treaty and the treaty language will be available for all to see at that time. Don't like the treaty, then call your Senators and tell them to vote no. Incorrect. In the US, this is being done as an 'executive agreement'. The Senate has already given the president the authority to ratify this treaty, sight unseen. It won't change any existing US laws, therefore it won't need a ratification process. There will be no Senate vote in the US.
»www.publicknowledge.org/issues/acta
said by fAcEtIOUs:The US isn't the only participant in the negotiations. So why aren't other countries releasing the info? Because the USTR made them sign non-disclosure agreements.
»www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/439551
said by fAcEtIOUs:Because all countries know that multilateral negotiations between many countries(including non-democracies) can't ever be completed with the press reporting every zig and zag of the deal making. "the WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, UNCTAD, OECD, Hague Conference on Private International Law, and an assortment of other conventions have all been far more open than ACTA"
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4549/125/ |
|
| said by Abattoir:said by fAcEtIOUs:In the US the Senate has to approve this treaty and the treaty language will be available for all to see at that time. Don't like the treaty, then call your Senators and tell them to vote no. Incorrect. In the US, this is being done as an 'executive agreement'. The Senate has already given the president the authority to ratify this treaty, sight unseen. It won't change any existing US laws, therefore it won't need a ratification process. There will be no Senate vote in the US. » www.publicknowledge.org/issues/acta Many other sources report this will be a treaty. The Public Knowledge claim was from 2007 and is not backed up with recent info.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| reply to infonium
said by infonium :said by dandin1:Since the U.S. always negotiates its treaties to require approval of Congress, does it mean it would be required to pass a vote in the Chambre of Commons to be effective here? What's our outlook if it comes to this? .---. |....|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, |.... /////////////////////////////////) >....//////////////////////////////////}ed. |....//////////////////////////////////) |.....'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' |....| '---' You do know that we're currently being misgoverned by a branch of the US Republican party, don't you? Don't blame me. I sure as hell didn't vote for the scumbags. Its either one group of scumbags or another. I don't see much choice in the matter lol |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Many other sources report this will be a treaty. The Public Knowledge claim was from 2007 and is not backed up with recent info. Well, there's the root of the whole problem, I guess. There is no reliable source of information, due to the extraordinarily secret nature of the negotiations. |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
Many of the links to the USTR files are broken (file not found) and could be as a result of removing the files, or that they have reorganized their site -- but after much hunting I find that most of the files have been removed. Much of what remains is has the same strange eerieness of repeating the same words over and over - like the stuff from the PMO's office and all the Conservatards about the CRTC - it's straight from an episode of The Twilight Zone.
The response to the EFF's fight for disclosure:
»www.eff.org/files/filenode/EFF_P···cCoy.pdf
Q: Will the border enforcement provisions of the ACTA require searching travelers’ music players or laptops for infringing content?
A: No. The focus of the discussion on border measures has been on how to deal with large-scale intellectual property infringements, which can frequently involve criminal elements and pose a threat to public health and safety. Past U.S. free trade agreements have called for ex officio authority for border enforcement, meaning that border officials are empowered to enforce the law on their own initiative, without waiting for a complaint from a right holder. But this in no way requires searches of travelers’ music players or computers. [but it does not preclude random searches of Canadian's laptops, iPods, etc....on behalf of Disney. Go to jail, go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Consider yourself lucky if the Canadian Embassy or Consulate takes your call when you are arrested, you destroyers of all that Disney goodness.]
How long does copyright last for corporations? life + 75 years? Most people they will never see things in the public domain again. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Many other sources report this will be a treaty. The Public Knowledge claim was from 2007 and is not backed up with recent info. For Sole Executive Agreements there is no Senate or House involvement is required to make this come into force -- just the signature of the President; and ACTA is being conducted by the USTR as a Sole Executive Agreement.
See pg. 5 in this .pdf (pg. 14 if using Adobe's page count)
»www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/con···role.pdf
Read this:
»www.virginialawreview.org/articl···icle=204
"Although such agreements with foreign nations are neither approved by the Senate as a “Treaty” nor enacted by Congress as a “Law,” the Court has asserted that they are generally “fit to preempt state law, just as treaties are.”
»papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?···=1108065
"U.S. international lawmaking is currently haphazardly carved up between two tracks of international lawmaking, with some areas assigned to the Treaty Clause route, others to the congressional-executive agreement route, and many uncomfortably straddling the two. Moreover, the process for making international law that is outlined in the U.S. Constitution is close to unique in cross-national perspective. To explain how the United States came to have such a haphazard and unusual system, this Article traces the history of U.S. international lawmaking back to the Founding. The rules and patterns of practice that now govern were developed in response to specific contingent events that for the most part have little or no continuing significance. The Treaty Clause process is demonstrably inferior to the congressional-executive agreement process as a matter of public policy on nearly all crucial dimensions: ease of use, democratic legitimacy, and strength of the international legal commitments that are created."
-------------
Some interesting reading......
»www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intell···sion.pdf
"For instance, under the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting
Treaty (ACTA) they would like to see all countries sign on to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and
the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT); together they are referred to as the
“Internet Treaties.” Enforcement provisions under these treaties include legal remedies against
circumvention of technological protection measures (e.g., encryption) or deletion of electronic
rights management information.[8] Since many countries have not signed on to these treaties,
the efforts to have everyone sign would raise IP standards and reduce some states’ flexibilities in
IP policy. For economically advanced countries like Canada, IP-based firms would like to see
them go beyond the TRIPS-Plus WIPO treaties and adopt something similar to the US Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). [9] The ACTA would run roughshod over differences
across jurisdictions."
......
"Border protection goals
include eliminating the existing “personal use” exemption and outlawing importation of any
quantity of counterfeit or pirated products including via mail or courier service.[17]
....
"It also seeks to focus on
college campuses to fund R&D to secure campus networks against P2P network activity,
and to direct funding agencies to favor those campuses that have the most stringent antipiracy
practices.[21]
......
This is no high-minded quest for the public good. As David Fewer of the Canadian Internet
Policy and Public Interest Clinic and the University of Ottawa noted, “if Hollywood could
order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty
close.”[37]One of the central features of ACTA’s approach would be to enlist the public
sector in enforcing private rights. This means that tax payers’ dollars would be used to
protect private profits. The opportunity costs of switching scarce resources for border
enforcement of IP “crimes” is huge. There surely are more pressing problems for law
enforcement in developing countries than ensuring profits for OECD-based firms. Other
concerns address the lopsided nature of the ACTA approach, favoring rights holders above
all else and presuming suspects to be guilty. Due process of law will be sacrificed to the
interests of IP rights holders and there will be few, if any, checks on abuses of rights.[38] It
would authorize border guards and customs agents to search laptops, iPods, and cell phones
for infringing content. Customs officials would have authority to take action against
suspected infringers even without complaints from rights holders; they could confiscate the
laptops and iPods. Privacy issues arise over extensive data sharing and possible wire tapping
that could be involved in ramped up enforcement efforts."
......
ACTA would require Internet Service Providers to police and control their systems for
infringing content.[39] [I guess Bell was tipped off that this was coming, hence the long lead time to install and get familiar with DPI.]
.......
[The fingerprints of Big Pharma in ACTA to benefit the USA and their own profits....]
"By casting this wide rhetorical net global pharmaceutical companies hope to curtail drug
importation from Canada, parallel importation, and the TRIPS-compliant use of compulsory
licenses – three important avenues for increasing access to essential medicines........... The US seeks to undo developing countries’ abilities to issue compulsory licenses. The EU’s
Cariforum Economic Partnership Agreement transfers European IP standards to ACP countries,
extends rights of complainants to access private information such as banking records and to have
goods seized.[73] Complainants may pursue injunctions against some IP uses without needing to
prove harm. Third party intermediaries who are not themselves infringers are targeted. The EPA
includes no limitations and exceptions to protect defendants. Like most of the IP enforcement
agenda it is one-sided in favor of rights-holders,"
While the US laws on who gets to ratify ACTA are a bit vague, don't expect the US Congress to push back on this given that the deal benefits Disney, et. al. for eternity. Canada would become an intellectual property vassal of the United States.
The one thing that our politicians consistently fail to consider in treaty negotiations with the US....... Canadians are always negotiating to have a fair outcome; the US ALWAYS negotiates to win - and when they don't win they still fuck you over (softwood lumber anyone?). There's still time to pull our politicians heads out of their asses, but the window of opportunity is closing fast. |
|
| reply to MaynardKrebs
Good luck with enforcing any copyright related 'crimes' in Canada. |
|
El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by kyle747:Good luck with enforcing any copyright related 'crimes' in Canada. Your statement is true as long as we have a minority governmenet. The groups with a vested interest in getting these laws passed have agents in both the Liberal and Conservative parties...
So if either of them get a majority then it's going to be a "fait accompli" as it were. |
|
| reply to kyle747
said by kyle747:Good luck with enforcing any copyright related 'crimes' in Canada. Cross the US border with your laptop or ipod with ripped movies/songs on them and be prepared to enjoy the cavity search. That'll be the easy one. Being somebody's prison bitch won't be fun. |
|
