6 ms·

Why I signed ACTA

192 points by llambda 15y ago

kibwen 15y ago
Can anyone who is more familiar with European politics give their impression of how successful these country-specific anti-ACTA protests are likely to be? I don't dare to hope that we'd actually manage to totally derail yet another of these bills, but my spirits would be bolstered if at least one leading European country failed to ratify it.
- bad_user 15y ago
  It is too early to tell which countries will ratify it and which won't. From what I know it hasn't passed through the EU parliament either. Also, I'm pretty sure that many governments simply signed blindly, either not fully grasping the effects of ACTA or simply responding to pressure from the U.S. which I'm sure highlighted the upcoming SOPA/PIPA and how ACTA is an international treaty that aligns everybody with SOPA/PIPA and the DMCA. If SOPA/PIPA fail it will be like a cold shower to many. I'm also sure that opposition wasn't expected, like the protest of Pols which took it to the streets (I have a newfound respect for Pols btw).
- jwr 15y ago
  The protests in Poland are actually creating more of a storm than I ever expected them to. We will see what will come out of it, but at least the government is now very aware that this is a controversial treaty that can't be signed just "because everyone else did". Also, it seems that at least the prime minister and his aides simply did not realize how far-reaching and controversial ACTA is. They certainly do realize that now.
- rickmb 15y ago
  Things are starting to heat up all over Europe now, inspired by the Polish protests. The European Parliament is notoriously sensitive to grass roots movements, because they are eager to prove themselves and rarely get to deal with controversial issues that capture the imagination of public and media. And being relatively free from domestic political power games, they can vote more independently. And if one or more countries (especially if they are founding EU-members) turn against ACTA, and become likely not to ratify, the politicians may actually quietly encourage the European Parliament to kill ACTA to prevent the much bigger embarrassment of high profile rejection by member states. There's a really good chance to kill ACTA before it even comes to national ratification.
holri 15y ago
It seems that actually no one is reading the original text. I did, and I did not find any censor, ISP reponsibility or surveillance points. I asked the German Pirate Party for clarification and citation, with no luck. Everything in there is already law in Europa. I therefore do not understand what the point of the protests is. Please help me (with text citation from the official text): http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st12/st12196.en11.pdf http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st12/st12196.e...
- tptacek 15y ago
  'tzs said much the same thing earlier today, with another citation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3542774 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.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    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.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    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.
unreal37 15y ago
Putting aside the actual excuse given (I wasn't paying attention), the letter is extremely well written and worth reading. Makes me sympathize with some of the politicians who got hoodwinked into passing this "treaty" without understanding its implications. Which is still no excuse for signing something you don't understand, but nonetheless, we're all human and imperfect sometimes.
shmerl 15y ago
This seems to be a common tactic of the shady backers of the global censorship. They gain support for their dark laws by obscuring real intentions and fooling politicians into blindly supporting them. True, there are those who understand the real picture, and support nevertheless. But there are also those who are simply not responsible enough to understand clearly what they support. And they are exploited by the real culprits who fight against freedom. That's why they are so scared of publicity and push hard to pass this laws in secret. They know that public review will quickly reveal their evil intentions.
skrebbel 15y ago
Important background detail: the author is the Slovenian ambassador to Japan. not an (indirectly) elected politician. I think it is very courageous of her to write this, since traditionally ambassadors never publically reject their home country's domestic policy making. I also like it because it debunks my image of ambassadors as conservative seniors who prefer signed letters, LPs, and fax machines.
- jdp23 15y ago
  Agreed, very courageous -- and very powerful.
- joelrunyon 15y ago
  Isn't she able to not sign it? In that case, the courageous thing to do would to not sign it. Right?
farinasa 15y ago
So all I have to do is admit that I'm incompetent and everything will be OK?
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  On the other hand, a massive chunk of world problems are rooted in people screwing up and then failing to acknowledge that fact and try to fix it, instead sticking to the faulty course and doing much more harm. Here we see a person eagerly accepting their failure, which is a good thing.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gerggerg 15y ago
Just read it. Here's why I don't like it: >> "NOTING further that the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods, as well as of services that distribute infringing material, undermines legitimate trade and sustainable development of the world economy, causes significant financial losses for right holders and for legitimate businesses, and, in some cases, provides a source of revenue for organized crime and otherwise poses risks to the public;" It's based on a false premise backed at best by contentious statistics. Also, ironically, it's prohibition that provides organized crime the largest source of revenue. >> "In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party's judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits," The rights holders get to tell the judicial system what they think you should be charged. Thats like, if you stole a venti-mocha-latte, and starbucks got to decide what your punishment was. >> "at least for copyright, additional damages." And in the case of copyright, there will be 'additional damages' >> "Each Party shall further provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order that materials and implements, the predominant use of which has been in the manufacture or creation of such infringing goods, be, without undue delay and without compensation of any sort, destroyed or disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to minimize the risks of further infringements." They can destroy your computer. >> "A Party may provide for the remedies described in this Article to be carried out at the infringer's expense." You have to pay for everything. >> "its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls" They're trying to take away your right to remain silent. (Which I realize isn't available in every country) >> "to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property right from occurring" They can stop you from entering or confiscate your computer if they think you might download a movie. >> "A Party may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage." This section should read "must exclude" theres no reason they should be searching small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature. >> "where appropriate, a right holder may request its competent authorities to suspend the release of suspect goods." The movie studio can determine weather you get your computer back or not. >> "each Party shall provide penalties that include imprisonment as well as monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement" You are to be punished severely. This is not a fine like a ticket. This is jail time and/or severe fines. For downloading a song. >> "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" They can order your ISP to give up your identifying information. Which may or may not even be relevant. >> "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 in, and that restrict acts in respect of, their works, performances, and phonograms, which are not authorized by the authors" You can be punished for circumventing DRM, jail-breaking your iphone, or using a region free dvd player. >> "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" Jailbreaking software, dvd decryptors, video game backups. >> "to remove or alter any electronic rights management information;" You are not allowed to remove identifying information even from media you purchased. Itunes wants to put your full name in a song you downloaded's meta-data? You have to leave it there. >> "Each Party shall endeavour to promote, where appropriate, the establishment and maintenance of formal or informal mechanisms, such as advisory groups, whereby its competent authorities may receive the views of right holders and other relevant stakeholders." Makes provisions for hearing from the IP rights holders, but nothing about hearing from citizens or public rights groups. >> "share information with the competent authorities of other Parties on border enforcement of intellectual property rights, including relevant information to better identify and target for inspection shipments suspected of containing infringing goods." They can start a world wide list of suspected infringers and keep permanent information about you available internationally. >> "The Parties hereby establish the ACTA Committee. Each Party shall be represented on the Committee." Doesn't say how the representatives will be chosen. Could easily be copyright lobbyists. >> "The consultations, including particular positions taken by consulting Parties, shall be kept confidential" They can keep their consultations between representatives out of the public record. ___________________________________ This bill's clear intent is to put copyright in front of human right. It's to get signing nations to agree that the wealth of IP holders is more important than the comfort and privacy of their own citizens. It won't stop piracy, it won't create national wealth, it'll give organized crime more money, it will waste SHIT LOADS of public money and time in the process, and we'll all be a little more worse off.
andraz 15y ago
This was written by Slovenian ambassador to Japan. There's quite strong opposition in Slovenia against ACTA - even the Musicians's guild is against it. There are going to be street protests in Slovenia against ACTA on Saturday. This can still be reversed - by EU Parliament not ratifying it and in turn giving other European countries an excuse not to ratify it.

192 points by llambda 15y ago

Can anyone who is more familiar with European politics give their impression of how successful these country-specific anti-ACTA protests are likely to be? I don't dare to hope that we'd actually manage to totally derail yet another of these bills, but my spirits would be bolstered if at least one leading European country failed to ratify it.

bad_user 15y ago
It is too early to tell which countries will ratify it and which won't. From what I know it hasn't passed through the EU parliament either. Also, I'm pretty sure that many governments simply signed blindly, either not fully grasping the effects of ACTA or simply responding to pressure from the U.S. which I'm sure highlighted the upcoming SOPA/PIPA and how ACTA is an international treaty that aligns everybody with SOPA/PIPA and the DMCA. If SOPA/PIPA fail it will be like a cold shower to many. I'm also sure that opposition wasn't expected, like the protest of Pols which took it to the streets (I have a newfound respect for Pols btw).
jwr 15y ago
The protests in Poland are actually creating more of a storm than I ever expected them to. We will see what will come out of it, but at least the government is now very aware that this is a controversial treaty that can't be signed just "because everyone else did". Also, it seems that at least the prime minister and his aides simply did not realize how far-reaching and controversial ACTA is. They certainly do realize that now.
rickmb 15y ago
Things are starting to heat up all over Europe now, inspired by the Polish protests. The European Parliament is notoriously sensitive to grass roots movements, because they are eager to prove themselves and rarely get to deal with controversial issues that capture the imagination of public and media. And being relatively free from domestic political power games, they can vote more independently. And if one or more countries (especially if they are founding EU-members) turn against ACTA, and become likely not to ratify, the politicians may actually quietly encourage the European Parliament to kill ACTA to prevent the much bigger embarrassment of high profile rejection by member states. There's a really good chance to kill ACTA before it even comes to national ratification.

holri 15y ago

It seems that actually no one is reading the original text. I did, and I did not find any censor, ISP reponsibility or surveillance points. I asked the German Pirate Party for clarification and citation, with no luck. Everything in there is already law in Europa. I therefore do not understand what the point of the protests is. Please help me (with text citation from the official text): http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st12/st12196.en11.pdf http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st12/st12196.e...

tptacek 15y ago
'tzs said much the same thing earlier today, with another citation: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3542774 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.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  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.
- barrkel 15y ago
  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.

unreal37 15y ago

Putting aside the actual excuse given (I wasn't paying attention), the letter is extremely well written and worth reading. Makes me sympathize with some of the politicians who got hoodwinked into passing this "treaty" without understanding its implications. Which is still no excuse for signing something you don't understand, but nonetheless, we're all human and imperfect sometimes.

shmerl 15y ago

This seems to be a common tactic of the shady backers of the global censorship. They gain support for their dark laws by obscuring real intentions and fooling politicians into blindly supporting them. True, there are those who understand the real picture, and support nevertheless. But there are also those who are simply not responsible enough to understand clearly what they support. And they are exploited by the real culprits who fight against freedom. That's why they are so scared of publicity and push hard to pass this laws in secret. They know that public review will quickly reveal their evil intentions.

skrebbel 15y ago

Important background detail: the author is the Slovenian ambassador to Japan. not an (indirectly) elected politician. I think it is very courageous of her to write this, since traditionally ambassadors never publically reject their home country's domestic policy making. I also like it because it debunks my image of ambassadors as conservative seniors who prefer signed letters, LPs, and fax machines.

jdp23 15y ago
Agreed, very courageous -- and very powerful.
joelrunyon 15y ago
Isn't she able to not sign it? In that case, the courageous thing to do would to not sign it. Right?

farinasa 15y ago

So all I have to do is admit that I'm incompetent and everything will be OK?

guard-of-terra 15y ago
On the other hand, a massive chunk of world problems are rooted in people screwing up and then failing to acknowledge that fact and try to fix it, instead sticking to the faulty course and doing much more harm. Here we see a person eagerly accepting their failure, which is a good thing.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

gerggerg 15y ago

Just read it. Here's why I don't like it: >> "NOTING further that the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods, as well as of services that distribute infringing material, undermines legitimate trade and sustainable development of the world economy, causes significant financial losses for right holders and for legitimate businesses, and, in some cases, provides a source of revenue for organized crime and otherwise poses risks to the public;" It's based on a false premise backed at best by contentious statistics. Also, ironically, it's prohibition that provides organized crime the largest source of revenue. >> "In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party's judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits," The rights holders get to tell the judicial system what they think you should be charged. Thats like, if you stole a venti-mocha-latte, and starbucks got to decide what your punishment was. >> "at least for copyright, additional damages." And in the case of copyright, there will be 'additional damages' >> "Each Party shall further provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order that materials and implements, the predominant use of which has been in the manufacture or creation of such infringing goods, be, without undue delay and without compensation of any sort, destroyed or disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to minimize the risks of further infringements." They can destroy your computer. >> "A Party may provide for the remedies described in this Article to be carried out at the infringer's expense." You have to pay for everything. >> "its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls" They're trying to take away your right to remain silent. (Which I realize isn't available in every country) >> "to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property right from occurring" They can stop you from entering or confiscate your computer if they think you might download a movie. >> "A Party may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage." This section should read "must exclude" theres no reason they should be searching small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature. >> "where appropriate, a right holder may request its competent authorities to suspend the release of suspect goods." The movie studio can determine weather you get your computer back or not. >> "each Party shall provide penalties that include imprisonment as well as monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement" You are to be punished severely. This is not a fine like a ticket. This is jail time and/or severe fines. For downloading a song. >> "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" They can order your ISP to give up your identifying information. Which may or may not even be relevant. >> "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 in, and that restrict acts in respect of, their works, performances, and phonograms, which are not authorized by the authors" You can be punished for circumventing DRM, jail-breaking your iphone, or using a region free dvd player. >> "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" Jailbreaking software, dvd decryptors, video game backups. >> "to remove or alter any electronic rights management information;" You are not allowed to remove identifying information even from media you purchased. Itunes wants to put your full name in a song you downloaded's meta-data? You have to leave it there. >> "Each Party shall endeavour to promote, where appropriate, the establishment and maintenance of formal or informal mechanisms, such as advisory groups, whereby its competent authorities may receive the views of right holders and other relevant stakeholders." Makes provisions for hearing from the IP rights holders, but nothing about hearing from citizens or public rights groups. >> "share information with the competent authorities of other Parties on border enforcement of intellectual property rights, including relevant information to better identify and target for inspection shipments suspected of containing infringing goods." They can start a world wide list of suspected infringers and keep permanent information about you available internationally. >> "The Parties hereby establish the ACTA Committee. Each Party shall be represented on the Committee." Doesn't say how the representatives will be chosen. Could easily be copyright lobbyists. >> "The consultations, including particular positions taken by consulting Parties, shall be kept confidential" They can keep their consultations between representatives out of the public record. ___________________________________ This bill's clear intent is to put copyright in front of human right. It's to get signing nations to agree that the wealth of IP holders is more important than the comfort and privacy of their own citizens. It won't stop piracy, it won't create national wealth, it'll give organized crime more money, it will waste SHIT LOADS of public money and time in the process, and we'll all be a little more worse off.

andraz 15y ago

This was written by Slovenian ambassador to Japan. There's quite strong opposition in Slovenia against ACTA - even the Musicians's guild is against it. There are going to be street protests in Slovenia against ACTA on Saturday. This can still be reversed - by EU Parliament not ratifying it and in turn giving other European countries an excuse not to ratify it.