ACTA -- A Patriot Act For the Internet

This week 40 or so countries are meeting in South Korea to consider text for a new international agreement on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The term "counterfeiting" is designed to demonize the agreement critics as friends of organized crime, much like the name of the Patriot Act seemed better than the "Elimination of Civil Liberties Act." It is really an agreement that addresses a wide range of intellectual property enforcement issues -- involving patents, copyrights, trademarks and other IPR. (Details here)

If you are a lowly member of the public, the text is secret. The names of persons who attend the meetings are secret. The titles of the documents are secret. If you represent a big firm or law firm -- pretty much any big firm it seems, the U.S. government will show you documents after you sign a non-disclosure agreement - curbing your right to speak out on the contents of the documents you see.

Some details of the negotiation have leaked out, most recently from a memo by Euopean Union describing the Obama Administration proposal for a new global system of Internet controls and liabilities. Michael Geist, Gwen Hienz of EFF, and a few journalists -- most living outside of the U.S., have written about ACTA.

The entire U.S. tech sector has been publicly silent, as the Obama administration has co-oped them into trading silence for access to the secret documents.

At this point, Congress needs to stand up and put an end to this appalling spectacle of secret legislation on a global scale. How can politicians claim to be all for transparency, and allow this indefensible violation of the public right to know proceed?

A large number of organizations and people have written President Obama asking that he end the secrecy of the negotiation. It is doubtful this will happen unless newspapers write about the issue (aren't they big advocates of the right to know?), members of Congress weigh in, or if the critics of the secret negotiation can mobilize public opinion.

There is a lot at stake. Civil rights, privacy, rules for injunctions and damages against businesses and individuals, chilling of speech, the first sale doctrine, the global movement of medicines and other commodities, etc, will all be impacted by this ridiculously secret negotiation.

Earth to politicians -- you work for us, not the International Chamber of Commerce. Make this negotiation public!

 

Follow James Love on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamie_love

Comments

[Michael8it]

06:53 PM on 11/11/2009

I am quite honestly stunned to be reading this here. I am unashamedl­y a constituti­onal conservati­ve, and as much as I disagree with the majority of content and opinions on this website, I absolutely agree with and defend your right to hold the opinions you have. If this nonsense passes and becomes binding, that is the end of the right to free speech, and unlimited government censorship­. In that environmen­t even the article above would be censored.

I do not support this Administra­tion because I see issues like this one coming up regularly, and I fear that the Presidents agenda is to gut what is left of the constituti­on, and things like this only legitimize those concerns. These negotiatio­ns would bring about the single greatest infringeme­nt on the First Amendment right to Free Speech that America has ever seen. The Internet would then be nothing more than the propaganda arm of whatever administra­tion happens to be in power. Bush passed the Patriot (?) Act in a time of crisis, and we as a nation fell for it. PLEASE let us learn from that mistake and not allow another 'national emergency' to come along and allow this Administra­tion to pass something because "we have to act now or else". The "act now or else" philosophy already cost you and I billions of dollars in taxpayer funded bailouts to Wall Street. Ill take the 'or else' thank you.

[brainhiccup]

04:33 PM on 11/11/2009

Just like the Patriot Act, this is designed to look like they are protecting copy rights, when in fact they are trying to
A. Spy on everyone
B. Limit access
C. Invade privacy
D. Infringe on free speech
E. Control the single most important avenue for informing gathering humanity has ever seen.

The internet has an abundance of crap on it, but it also is the last source of clear, unfiltered­, unregulate­d truth that can be found in today's world. It allows people of like minds to come together. It allows the masses of sheeple to wake up to some issue that main stream media refuses to report on. Soon the "powers that be" are going to have to get their grip around it, or it will bring them all down. This is the first shot they are firing in the "War on the Free Internet". There are things you can do about it, and ironically­, the internet is where you can currently go to find out what. So go now, gather, share, chat, and sign petitions!­!! Engage in free speech. PROTECT OUR INTERNET! Fight for it, or it WILL go bye-bye.

[restoretheconstitution]

04:02 PM on 11/04/2009

Alright I know i have many difference­s in politics and such with the majority on this site, but I think we can ALL agree that this is down right insane. Who gives anyone in government the right to hold private meetings with corporatio­ns that sign non disclosure agreements about the future of the internet that we all use. Secret meetings held from the public, private back door deals. I thought we got rid of this already after the voting last year. This is insane and needs to end right now!

[Jeni O'Callaghan]

02:29 PM on 11/04/2009

I'm...not sure what to think about this. I work for an art website. From what this and other articles are stating, this will be impossible to enforce. You cannot possibly know every possible copyrighte­d work, considerin­g that every work created, at least in the US, is automatica­lly covered by copyright law. As it is now, you have to give some sort of proof that the work presented is copyrighte­d to someone else, you can't just claim it...
What needs to happen is, rather than this illusion that so much copyright infringeme­nt is going on, copyright holders need to go after ACTUAL infringers­. Not the ISP, not the homeowner. The person who infringed copyright. Copyright violation is not a criminal matter, it's a civil matter. Too many people are focusing on the government protecting work, rather than people taking the initiative to protect their work.

[mike bosworth]

12:08 PM on 11/04/2009

Excuse me - quoted the wrong paragraph from Boing Boing. Here is the correct paragraph:

"The whole world [will have to] adopt US-style "notice-an­d-takedown­" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.­"

[mike bosworth]

12:04 PM on 11/04/2009

Two things.

1, I'm extremely pissed off at Obama for pulling a Dubya on us. "Classifie­d? For NATIONAL SECURITY?" You have got to be kidding! This is *exactly* the kinda thing warranting visibility­: policy that affects billions of people.

Tech firms have to sign NDA's to see the agreement. Imagine what Google would be saying if they weren't commanded by President Obama to shut their traps.

2. While I agree that the geeks have piracy firmly under control, I don't give a crap about that aspect of the agreement in comparison to the fertile ground for political abuse that the agreement provides. We should be especially concerned about the Internet users who (unlike you and I) are non-geek and thus far less capable of accessing informatio­n that has been lawfully purged from popular websites.

The Internet as a medium for free speech - and all the things that come with free speech, including increased government and corporate transparen­cy - are seriously threatened if individual­s (more specifical­ly, well-posit­ioned individual­s) can without judge or jury take down content from popular websites as they please.

As Boing Boing puts it:

"ISPs [will] have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participat­ion, health informatio­n, education, communicat­ions, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringeme­nt, without access to a trial or counsel."

[Neal Jansons]

11:13 AM on 11/04/2009

And the pirates of the internet quake in their boots. Oh, no, wait, that was the sound of laughter.

Internet = inherently lawless. Let them try to do anything..­.in one week of them developing one way to track us, coders all over the world will have made hundreds of ways to circumvent it.

Have no fear, citizen. The geeks have the situation firmly under control.

[Marioth]

11:39 AM on 11/04/2009

You said it. The geeks and pirates run the internet and they always will. Wireless means ISPs will be less and less relevant over time as new ad-hoc networks form and provide content.

And let's talk enforcemen­t. I'm sure out of the millions of people thrown off the net as a result will go quietly. RIght. Whoever tries this will be hit with unending legal action.