#p

As usual, we expect major problems with the ACTA treaty. Here is some info from Public Knowledge about the current text. I am also posting a link to the notes I published regarding last month's ACTA revision to the twitter. Here is the link for your convenience. More on this later.

proclus: #ACTA notes - #drm #law #dmca #coica #music #freedom #downloads #internet #software #technology http://xi.nu/gd369

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

USTR releases finalized ACTA text: Concerns remain

via Public Knowledge - Blogging, Events, and Action Alerts by Rashmi Rangnath on 11/15/10

 

Today the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released the finalized text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), claiming to smooth out disagreements among the negotiating parties. However, our concerns with respect to some provisions remain. I had outlined these concerns in my previous post. Here are the changes in the new text.

read more

Hi!

I just signed up for the Commit to Vote Challenge, and I wanted to
invite you to join me.

It's a great new tool from Organizing for America that lets you show
your commitment to vote in the upcoming 2010 elections, share your
reason for participating and inspire your friends to commit as well.

You can track your progress, see who you've inspired to commit, and
even compete against your friends (like me) to see who can inspire the
most voters.

With the elections so close in dozens of states and districts around
the country, our friends could end up making all the difference.

So get the wave started -- join me an try out the Commit to Vote
Challenge today!

http://my.barackobama.com/commit

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Hey -- have you heard about this new Internet blacklist bill? It would allow the Attorney General to censor entire websites in the United States -- even if the site hasn't been convicted of any crime!

President Obama has been denouncing countries like China and Iran for censoring the Internet -- but now the U.S. Senate is about to do the same thing here at home. And they're trying to rush the bill through right after the election without having any debate.

Can you take a second to sign a petition opposing this bill? Click here.
http://act.demandprogress.org/go/4?akid=6.45919.J_5eKt&t=2

Already over 200,000 people have signed and they're trying to hit 250,000 before they start delivering petitions at the end of this week. Adding your name could make a real difference.

Please forward this email far and wide -- people need to hear about this bill.

Thanks!

Regards,
proclus
http://ww.gnu-darwin.org/

Activists may wish to go straight to Section 5, which deals with digital enforcement and explicitly stipulates that the provisions preserve fundamental principles, such as free speech rights.  A caveat would be that these stipulations are not present in the first part of the document, which deals primarily with non-digital property.  Section 5 is about the restriction of access to knowledge.

The treaty uses a peculiar term which I have not encountered before, fair process.  This principle appears to be similar to fair use, but it is best thought of in another way.  For example, If I put your logo on the top of a document, I am free to list the reasons why I don't like your organization under the logo as long as I don't say the communication is from you.  That is my understanding of fair process, which is essentially the clear right to use your logo as a designator to make comments, comparisons to competitors and so forth.  If this is not a correct conception of fair process, then someone please clue me.

As I noted previously with respect to the onerous COICA legistlation, it is far too tempting for corporations to use trademark enforcement to quell unfavorable expression, and they should NOT be encouraged to do so.  This is a MAJOR problem with ACTA as well, and the trademark provisions are among the most controversial perhaps for this reason.

It is no surprise to see such stipulations of basic rights spelled out explicitly in the digital enforcement section, because such provisions are often so problematic.  For example, ACTA says effectively in this section that governments shall promote the adoption of DRM by corporations. It is simply a contradiction in terms to promote DRM at the same time as free speech, fair use, and privacy rights, which are basic principles and protected liberties.   The fact that people don't seem to see this contradiction is a huge problem which transcends the ACTA treaty.

The fallacy that DRM is compatible with fundamental rights is what makes ACTA so onerous, and this fallacy blooms full in the anti-circumvention provisions.  They are legal sophistry and an offence to basic liberties, while at the same time claiming to support such liberties.  It is the same problem with the DMCA.  Saying that you support free speech, fair use, and privacy is different than actually supporting them, and neglect of this fact has led to many problems.  There will be more and more problems until the DRM fallacy is recognized.  DRM and liberty are incompatible, and the anti-circumvention provisions of ACTA make this OBVIOUS.  Attempts to enforce such provisions constitute an illegitimate authority.

In the case of ACTA, sections subsequent to section 5 are tainted with this fallacy and illegitimate notion of authority which violates the very basic principles that it claims to uphold.  It is really quite a power grab.  As such, the document is very troubling indeed, and will no doubt continue to receive vociferous opposition.  Although the problems with trademark infringement are troubling, in actuality, the document is deeply flawed. If the ACTA treaty is ratified, I am predicting that many parties will withdraw from it. 

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/