Petition regarding ACTA

[cjr72]

Here is a link to a US petition asking that the ACTA treaty be sent to the Senate for ratification:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...paign=shorturl

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by cjr72

From what I've read the Obama administration is maintaining that ACTA does not need to be ratified by Congress because they deem it an 'executive agreement' and not a treaty. Some Senators have a problem with this, Ron Wyden being one.

You are correct. Obama already signed this on October 1, 2011.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...et-treaty-acta

Before the American people were protesting the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, the president managed to sign an international treaty which would permit foreign companies to demand that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) remove web content in the United States without any legal oversight. Entitled the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the treaty was signed by Obama on October 1, 2011, but it is currently a subject of discussion because the White House is circulating a petition demanding that senators ratify the treaty.

What’s worse is that the White House has done some maneuvering — characterizing the treaty as an "executive agreement" — thereby bypassing approval by members of Congress. Concerned by this action of the administration, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., above left) sent a letter to President Obama in which he declared:

It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law. But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law ... the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval.

and

http://investmentwatchblog.com/did-o.../#.TzaNu_mR0lo

Carol

[Sil_liS]

The petition for the EU is signed by over 2 million people. I hope that the EU Parliament gets the message.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The petition for the EU is signed by over 2 million people. I hope that the EU Parliament gets the message.

Which is more valuable to the EU government, two million voters or billions of corporate money in their next election year?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by teh603

Which is more valuable to the EU government, two million voters or billions of corporate money in their next election year?

We will find out. In the meantime, organized protests in Europe:

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by teh603

Which is more valuable to the EU government, two million voters or billions of corporate money in their next election year?

1. There are no "billions." *Maybe* millions. Politicians aren't as expensive as you might think.

2. Votes always trump money. But only if there is convincing evidence that people are going to *actually* vote based on this issue. That's what killed SOPA - the fact that people were paying attention and willing to take action.

Merely signing an internet petition or sending in a form e-mail doesn't suggest this and is usually ignored. Actually getting out of your house and going to a protest, on the other hand, does suggest this.

[hidari]

Here is an article or two defending it:

ACTA THAT IS:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles...to-Acta.409017


http://www.balkans.com/open-news.php...enumber=137577


And the Goddess Wiki do describe the uninitiated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Co...rade_Agreement




AND A WALL STREET VIEW:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj



The future of the internet will be interesting whatever happens...I prefer the Cyberspace of Terry Gilliam to A Cyberstraightjacket of an international treaty..... and so it goes...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by hidari

Here is an article or two defending it:

ACTA THAT IS:

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles...to-Acta.409017

From the article:

It will not mandate the inspection of laptops or MP3 players by Customs officials.

From ACTA:

ARTICLE 16: BORDER MEASURES
[...]
2. A Party may adopt or maintain procedures with respect to suspect in-transit goods or in other situations where the goods are under customs control under which:
(a) its customs authorities may act upon their own initiative to suspend the release of, or to detain, suspect goods; and
(b) where appropriate, a right holder may request its competent authorities to suspend the release of, or to detain, suspect goods.
[...]
ARTICLE 19: DETERMINATION AS TO INFRINGEMENT
Each Party shall adopt or maintain procedures by which its competent authorities may determine, within a reasonable period after the initiation of the procedures described in Article 16 (Border Measures), whether the suspect goods infringe an intellectual property right.
ARTICLE 20: REMEDIES
1. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities have the authority to order the destruction of goods following a determination referred to in Article 19 (Determination as to Infringement) that the goods are infringing. In cases where such goods are not destroyed, each Party shall ensure that, except in exceptional circumstances, such goods are disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm to the right holder.
[...]
ARTICLE 21: FEES
Each Party shall provide that any application fee, storage fee, or destruction fee to be assessed by its competent authorities in connection with the procedures described in this Section shall not be used to unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures.

I couldn't find where the author of the article dreamed that ACTA assures us that our laptops can't be confiscated, kept for some vague amount of time, the files deleted (?), and then returned with a fine.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

From the article:

This means that officials will not be required to check these things.

From ACTA:
[...]

This says that officials are permitted to do so.

I couldn't find where the author of the article dreamed that ACTA assures us that our laptops can't be confiscated, kept for some vague amount of time, the files deleted (?), and then returned with a fine.

I don't see where the author of the article claimed that, certainly not in the line you quoted.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

This means that officials will not be required to check these things.


This says that officials are permitted to do so.



I don't see where the author of the article claimed that, certainly not in the line you quoted.

I thought that "mandate" meant permission, not requirement. Going from this I understood that the author of the article said that ACTA doesn't give custom officials the permission to inspect your laptop. The text of ACTA shows otherwise.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I thought that "mandate" meant permission, not requirement. Going from this I understood that the author of the article said that ACTA doesn't give custom officials the permission to inspect your laptop. The text of ACTA shows otherwise.

It is an interesting question. I had taken it in the sense of mandatory, so it will not be mandatory for officers to do so. I think that is more likely than that they will not be given a mandate to do so, but English is a funny language.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It is an interesting question. I had taken it in the sense of mandatory, so it will not be mandatory for officers to do so. I think that is more likely than that they will not be given a mandate to do so, but English is a funny language.

Technically speaking, you could say that they have to check your possessions if the copyright owner requests it, but the source from which I initially heard about ACTA said that the customs officials get the right to search your laptop, not the obligation to do so. I see now that there are websites that said that ACTA would force border searches.

[teh603]

Here's the thing, though- ACTA won't survive in court. Flat- out won't. There isn't a jury yet made that'll convict based on the text of a law that isn't available for them to read, and no competent judge will even hear the case.

[speakingtohe]

The practicalities of crippling the internet are pretty insurmountable IMO. In Canada the average person spends 40+ hours in active internet usage per week. Cut it off and there would be rioting in the streets.
Helen

[Jaden]

Here's a link to the next step of the petition: http://www.avaaz.org/en/acta_time_to...?fRfjOcb&pv=39

Even if you think it will never get ratified where you live, if you can, please sign the petition. Europe is not one small, irrelevant country - if ACTA gets ratified here, there will surely be consequences for everyone all around the world, sooner or later...