#p

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/

Who are the REAL pirates? Those rallying behind the 'Bill To Combat
Online Infringement' seem too quick to label internet users as
pirates, an archaic term which refers to terrible crimes on the high
seas. Exploiters from Hollywood and the likes of Viacom rallied
behind the Senate bill. Entities such as these are well known for
their seemingly endless capacity to harm both their customers and the
artists that toil and create the works. If we are to call something
piracy, surely THAT is piracy. Can we trust people given to such over
the top rhetoric, and with so little respect for our rights. Can we
sensibly give them the keys to our internet access?

There are concerns that the proposed bill violates the safe harbor
provisions of the DMCA, forcing ISPs to police their users and the
network, and holding them accountable for what their users are doing.
There are also concerns about inflating copyright violations into an
act of piracy, a grave crime. If I make a copy of something, is it
such a grave crime as that? Please use some sense! This is not
piracy.

The bill has broad implications. For example, I am happy to have
copies of GNU-Darwin wherever they exist, on whatever server,
whereever. I am the originator of much of the work and you are free
to copy it as you like. I give you the source code. That is software
freedom. Servers offering GNU-Darwin torrents are likely to be
targeted under the bill, contrary to my wishes and common sense. We
cannot let this happen.

We need to remember who we are and exert our energies to defeat this
bill. Moreover, we need to defeat the idea that it is akin to piracy
to copy a file. It is simply a false notion, and freedom to copy is
at the heart of free and open source software.

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