The Counterfeit Treaty

Today in Geneva Switzerland, at an undisclosed location, the US government, the European Commission, Japan and a handful of other countries will meet in a secret negotiation on a new treaty.
The working name is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a name that masks the much broader subject matter, and one that was deliberately chosen to intimidate and discourage politicians from expressing opposition to provisions that undermine civil rights and privacy, and which many say will change the substantive rights the public has to use copyrighted works or inventions. What member of Congress or Parliament wants to be accused of protecting counterfeiters?

The US, EU and other governments involved in this project have not released details of the substantive provisions under discussion. Press reports in Canada in Europe have focused on provisions that would involve searches of computers, cell phones or iPods for infringing software or music files. Others have discussed changes in international law regarding injunctions for alleged infringements of intellectual property rights, expanded ex officio powers for governments, tougher sanctions, special programs to train judges or law enforcement officials, and other measures, most of which is speculation based upon some of the "asks" by lobbyists from the computer game, software, music, film, pharmaceutical and fashion industries. (See Shaw, Geist, ipjustice, IP-Watch, Arstechnica, King, EFF,
IQsensato and Patry.)

There is a huge rush to conclude this agreement before Bush leaves office. So far, no Democratic member of Congress has expressed much interest in the details of the agreement, or asked probing questions about why such a potentially far reaching treaty is being rushed through under a cloud of secrecy, described by some as cloak and dagger.

This "patriot act" for intellectual property "crimes" may be one of the late legacies of the Bush Administration. It would be nice to have more transparency about such a far reaching and important global trade agreement. Particularly since the current negotiation strategy seems to be to present the Congress with a fully negotiated text for an up or down vote, before there has been any debate of the actual provisions of the agreement, or consideration of alternative approaches, including those that have fewer negative impacts on privacy, due process or consumer rights.

There are undoubtedly reasons for such tight secrecy and the use of thought-stopping terms like "anti-counterfeiting" to name this agreement. But they are undoubtedly the wrong reasons for the public. They are signals that the treaty would face opposition if more was known and understood about its substantive provisions.

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

Comments

[richardstallman]

So many laws and treaties have been proposed to take away our right to
use published works. Why do they meet with a favorable reception?

Donations from the movie and record companies could give the
politicians a motive to support these proposals, but they need a way
to make them appear legimate and even necessary. For this they use
propaganda terms such as "piracy" and "intellectual property".

The first equates sharing with attacking ships. The second spreads a
false idea of the purpose of copyright law, and mixes it up with other
laws that do totally different things. "Intellectual property"
appears to refer to some coherent thing, which you might approve or
disapprove of, but even that is a deception. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.

We have to oppose each of these attacks on our freedom, as they are
proposed. But if all we do is react, we will only slow the loss of
our freedom--and we will not recover what they have already taken
away.

So we must also fight against the motor behind these attacks--the
propaganda terms that pave the way for them. We have to reject these
propaganda terms. This means refusing to use them, and when others do
use them, explaining why they are wrong.

[americaforme]

We the people didn't agree to global rules, consult the the Bill of Rights,for Petes sake, stand up and be counted...,Sheep, Sheep, Sheep.....The reason Revoultions are so bloody is because the backbone of citizens, refuse to act, in the window of opportunity...Nows the time to shut down this kind of crap. To be or not to be, is not the question!! Ormar Kyams...The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on..nor all you piety and wit and tears, can change a line of it. I challange myself today to do something, anything.

[moAb]

Check out the entry for this act on Wikipedia which has a link to a pdf version of a working paper that describes a gross overview of the act.

[cylindar]

Yeah, it's just like how Clinton pushed NAFTA through and left us all holding the bag.

[Sundialsvc4]

I have no issue whatsoever with the just protection of copyrights ... I very-freely admit that I earn my mortgage payment thanks to a copyright. :-)

But... I surely do have an issue with any piece of legislation that smacks of "guilty until proven innocent."

The esteemed gentlemen who crafted the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution thought about these issues very explicitly, and they crafted the protection against "unreasonable search and seizures." They intended to close-off "the easy way out."

Today, what is "a song?" To a lot of rich folks in LA and Nashville, "a song" is a piece of vinyl or a piece of magnetic tape or a shiny disc that only they have the means to produce. To them, "a song" IS NOT a file of approximately 10 megabytes. They are deathly afraid of the reality in which anyone with a Macintosh can produce AND SELL a song, to a world-wide market, without(!) them.

But that IS "the reality," and it's a perfectly-­legitimate reality that can deliver billions of dollars' worth of pure-profit to people who (like Steve Jobs & Co) like the idea of "99-cents-a-song." Or, maybe, less.

What "the fat cats" want is only what they have forever lost ... monopoly control. Fortunately, "wiser heads prevail." The Customer Has Spoken! Go now, and give The Customer What He Wants. You shall Make Money, and "go in peace."

[fairwitness]

I hope that a strongly Democratic Congress and an Obama presidency will push back on these anti-democratic, dictatorial efforts to engender tyranny. No more secret, deliberately deceptive tactics which gut the Constitution and written law in favor of a defacto police state. Each day presents renewed hope that the evil of the Bush administration will be reversed by patriots of all parties who recognize the damage that has been done under the guise of "national security".

We are no longer terrified sheep.

[heal57]

Amen to that.

[pigsatthetrough]

Or possibly, copy that.

[vippy]

do you really believe we will see much change. Pressure is on from the lobbyists, money talks and that is a fact of life. Obama, though good intentions, will have to cave to congress/senate
and they are "old dogs" to be reckoned with. We need to vote them all out of office and send them
a message come their re-election time. They shamelessly vote themselves an automatic
pay increase every year, collect 100% disability in the case of McCain, while others in wheel chairs
get a percentage, etc. Enough is enough, the people have the power, now let us use it or
forever keep our mouths shut.