European Parliament slams digital copyright treaty
The European Parliament took aim Wednesday at a secret intellectual property treaty that has been criticized for possibly giving copyright holders more power to pull the plug on peer-to-peer users.
By a remarkable vote of 633 to 13, the Parliament rebuked European negotiators who have been drafting the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in a series of confidential meetings around the globe. No version of the document has been disclosed by the participants, which include the United States, the European Commission, Japan, and Canada.
Parliament's resolution demands that the European Commission--the EU's executive branch--grant "public access" to the ACTA documents. If the negotiations are not sufficiently transparent, the resolution says, Parliament "reserves its right" to take legal action.
This is in part a tussle between two arms of government, each intent on protecting its own sphere of influence, with Parliament saying that it never gave approval for the treaty-negotiation process to begin with.
Whatever the reason, the lopsided vote was welcomed by liberal advocacy groups that have been opposing ACTA with little success of far. Public Knowledge said afterward: "This process for too long has been driven by the wishes of the big media companies. The European Parliament vote is yet another reminder that ACTA, both in process and in substance, is fatally flawed."
In Washington, secrecy over the details of ACTA has enjoyed bipartisan support: First, the Bush administration said in 2008 that it could not disclose information because it agreed with its trade partners to keep it confidential.
Then, in March 2009, the Obama administration declared that ACTA drafts were classified for "national security" reasons; it subsequently published a limited summary confirming that portions dealt with border inspections, criminal penalties, and perhaps holding Internet service providers liable for infringing material.
One recent point of contention has been whether ACTA will include a "three strikes" rule that could involve cutting off broadband users with limited or no judicial oversight. A leaked European Union document (PDF) from last fall that the Obama administration's negotiators had suggested "termination of subscriptions" to Internet access in some circumstances.
A more recent leak in the last week of an ACTA working document provides some hints about each nation's negotiating position. The United States has taken probably the most expansive view of copyright, which includes pushing for a global version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention rules, and suggesting broader language related to investigations.
The next closed-door ACTA meeting appears to be in New Zealand next month.
Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. You can e-mail him or follow him on Twitter as declanm. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site. 
They have to do their own work.
If you need more proof read some of the recent statements made by RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol
http://www.riaa.com/blog.php?content_selector=Illegally_Downloading_Charity%20_Album_
http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/19/google-has-reason-to-rethink-ip/print/
There disingenuous at best.
These people are clueless schmucks trying to regulate and restrain what they don't understand because change scares them.
I'd rather my ISP notify the RIAA that their accessing copyrighted information in their users data streams is an unautorized use of copyrightred materials for which the RIAA can be taken to court, found guilty, and fined.
What about patents. Apple VS HTC with regard to multi touch gestures. Fair enough, all the Iphone knock offs should be banned and burned. The products are meant to copy and surf on Apple's success to steal part of their revenues, they physically mimic the device and the UI design. With regard to HTC and its multitouch features. Apple brought this feature to the mass market and reap everyday the benefits of it. If pinching can be patented, why not typing with both thumbs on a virtual key board? Or sliding a bar with your middle finger? WHy not patent the act of looking at a screen with a view to read your Emails? How many ways are there to zoom in intuitively on a handheld device? What about patenting pinching with the pinkie and the middle finger? You know what, I will patent the action of an individual moving forward using the two lower appendices, and will sue the whole world untill everyone pays their due, untill I patent the same but with the hands and weels...
Protect innovation but don't turn it into a dictatorship.
And, technically speaking, they aren't currently seeking to make laws without representation. After all, the clowns that are taking part in and/or orchestrating the negotiations were elected by their respective constituencies. They *are* your representatives. Thus, it's not being done without representation. The same cannot be said of the Coercion Acts (and similar acts of Parliament during the 18th Century).
Just saying. You are off topic.
The US government, for starters, uses a LOT of European software. The US airline and shipping industry uses quite a bit. Could probably name a lot of others that do, as well. Got a CD or DVD player? Chances are, it includes some European software.
Pretty much anyone that listens to broadcast or satellite radio, watches TV or movies (or anything else featuring/including music) listens to European music.
Given the number of movies that are shot in European studios, pretty much anyone that's seen more than one or two movies since the 70s has seen movies that are at least part European. It's really rather hard to avoid.
Then when you do go to court over PVP copyright violations and your lawyer tries to get all information needed for a defense and he is denied because parts of the ACTA are deemed TOP SECRET due to national security concerns?
Seems like a rip off from lack of REAL eveidence so that they can slam this onto anyone and use the clause of concern ,"NATIONAL SECURITY" without really expressing the terms of evidence that stomp all over the NATIONAL SECURITY.
It seems they want a easy win soloution even if the defense has a very good reason and would win in a normal court but would lose due to National Security concerns when if it was opened up would hold no real evidence against the defendant.
So this National Security seems to be used as a SMOKING GUN tool just to make the defendant appear guilty without ever expressing their plea to begin with.
Using Natioinal Security is a cop out in cases for PVP sharing unless the dude was a spy or just plain dumb.
And that's the problem with Obama. He kept the worst of Bush, and is building on it. There was a time when the two parties at least would work to undo the damage of the other. Now they build on the damage and make it worse. If I have to suffer a liberal in office the least the guy could do is act like a liberal and implement the good parts of what liberal is (yes fellow conservatives, liberals do have some good in them).
- by hawkeyeaz1 March 11, 2010 10:10 AM PST
- Thirty cheers for EU Parliament! ACTA (in reference to the USA) is being written unconstitutionally, if it passes, it will be passed unconstitutionally, and enforced unconstitutionally. Other countries have similarities to the US Constitution so the same would be true for them. The USA will not tolerate dictatorship, which is what ACTA is.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(17 Comments)