dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Eight Countries Sign ACTA
As U.S. Takes DMCA Show Worldwide
by Karl Bode 08:21AM Wednesday Oct 05 2011
Despite continued problems with the law's overly vague wording, The United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea all signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on Saturday. The law, long designed to take the U.S.'s problematic DMCA copyright protections on to the international stage, including restrictions on devices that copy encrypted DVDs without authorization. One particularly contentious restriction requiring that copyright violators have their broadband connections terminated has been removed from the law, though the law has aimed to erode ISP safe harbor protections. Techdirt notes that Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are challenging the push, with Brazil crafting their own, civil rights focused "anti ACTA."

view:
topics flat nest 

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

No Force Of Law In The U.S.

It's an empty treaty in the U.S. Despite His Majesty Obama's claim that he, on his own, can give this treaty force of law in the U.S. by Royal Fiat, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which includes the Treaty Clause, says, in part "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

Last I knew, the U.S. Senate hadn't even taken this treaty up, much less concurred.

Jim
talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

Re: No Force Of Law In The U.S.

That must be why they called it an "Agreement" instead of a "Treaty". Constitution don't say nothin' about no "Agreements"!
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: No Force Of Law In The U.S.

The question then arises as to whether the president has the authority to sign this "agreement".
talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

Re: No Force Of Law In The U.S.

»www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm

I wonder if this falls under the "executive agreement" section? That link says:

Second, international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are �international agreements other than treaties� and are often referred to as �executive agreements.� There are different types of executive agreements.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: No Force Of Law In The U.S.

I guess that depends on whether the Executive has oversight authority over copyright law. Also, IAW 11 FAM 721.2:

»www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/175/1319.htm

There are three constitutional bases for international agreements other than treaties as set forth below. An international agreement may be concluded pursuant to one or more of these constitutional bases:

(1) Agreements Pursuant to Treaty

The President may conclude an international agreement pursuant to a treaty brought into force with the advice and consent of the Senate, the provisions of which constitute authorization for the agreement by the Executive without subsequent action by the Congress;

(2) Agreements Pursuant to Legislation

The President may conclude an international agreement on the basis of existing legislation or subject to legislation to be enacted by the Congress; and

(3) Agreements Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President

The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:

(a) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;

(b) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers;

(c) The President's authority as "Commander-in-Chief'; and

(d) The President's authority to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
Aptos, CA

Re: No Force Of Law In The U.S.

"take care that the laws be faithfully executed." isn't much of a power for the ACTA. The above assessment that it's not binding is pretty apt.

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 recommendation

It's kind of like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars aren't really wars. They are "conflicts" and we are performing "Operations".
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Re: No Force Of Law In The U.S.

But of course the government can do whatever it wants because it has unlimited "wartime powers".
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
Correct. Without ratifying this "accord", it likely won't mean much for anything...except providing a reason to raise consumer prices.

ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

Re: No Force Of Law In The U.S.

Which is all part of the plan, and capitalism's eventual collapse.

coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
said by jseymour:

It's an empty treaty in the U.S. Despite His Majesty Obama's claim that he, on his own, can give this treaty force of law in the U.S. by Royal Fiat, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which includes the Treaty Clause, says, in part "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

Last I knew, the U.S. Senate hadn't even taken this treaty up, much less concurred.

Jim

My take on this is that it will be used by the US State Department as a club to use in negotiations with those countries either not signing or too slow to sign. It is not consistent with current US law as the supporters have claimed so it will be totally unenforceable in the US regardless of the President's signature minus Senate ratification as a real treaty.

It is a farce and embarrassment...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC
zed2608
Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1
said by jseymour:

It's an empty treaty in the U.S. Despite His Majesty Obama's claim that he, on his own, can give this treaty force of law in the U.S. by Royal Fiat, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which includes the Treaty Clause, says, in part "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

Last I knew, the U.S. Senate hadn't even taken this treaty up, much less concurred.

Jim

doesnt matter even the dmca is still around and active in the usa so there is no need for any trety etc to force those on usa consumers this only extends the dmca more globally

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Brazil crafting their own, civil rights focused "anti ACTA.

Is there any doubt why the Brazilian economy is growing while the U. S. economy is declining? The U. S. government should try protecting individuals rather than obsolete business models. Protecting individuals is only the heritage of the U. S. of A and what it made it a great country.

cpsycho

join:2008-06-03
HarperLand

1 recommendation

Re: Brazil crafting their own, civil rights focused "anti A

Last time I checked the only civilians that count are corporations.

HappyAnarchy

@iauq.com

Re: Brazil crafting their own, civil rights focused "anti A

Well, since money is speech that means that corporations have more speech. Simple mathematics. Thanks Supreme Court!

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by Sammer:

Is there any doubt why the Brazilian economy is growing while the U. S. economy is declining?

»www.brazilianbubble.com/2011/10/···own.html
--
»www.rickperry.org/
Expand your moderator at work

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Damn ACTA..

Well, here we go. Time to start multi-layer encrypting my router.

Good thing I seen this coming years ago when COICA was in the air.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Should be Ashamed

With the problems in the US, anyone in our government that wasted their time on BS like this should be ashamed. They have more important things to work on.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Money talks. Everything thing else is expendable.

... including rights, freedom, and justice, it appears.

This will be great for all those un-used anti-terrorism "assets." Now they can focus on the citizenry, and get practice exploding in doors and doing surgical takedowns on all these evil folks.... you know... me... you... your Mom... whomever.

ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..

Corporate Oligarchy

It's covered under executive orders, which bypass congress, albeit sometimes only temporarily.

There is no doubt this will be enacted via executive order as a majority of the congressmen or judges involved, IF ANY, are subservients to whichever corporate office placed them there. i.e. Walt Disney, Time Warner, Viacom etc, etc.

All one has to do is a bit of research to see that we live under a corporate oligarchy now.

But theres always wishful thinking.
--
As long as superstition and ignorance prevail, humanity will fall short of eradicating war, poverty, and hunger.

Jacque Fresco

»khanacademy.org
»www.k12.com
»churchofreality.org
»zeitnews.org
»thezeitgeistmovement.com
Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Re: Corporate Oligarchy

Looks like the East India Company is back in full force.