I thought you would all like to know this, since i havent seen it posted yet, and it is quite important and all, and i thought i might as well let you know and discuss.
source
i have a quote from somewhere else which sums my feallings completely on this.
As the 6th round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations get underway in Seoul, Korea, a dispatch has been sent to President Obama expressing concern over the ?lack of transparency and openness? surrounding the initiative.
The letter notes that ?Unlike nearly all other multilateral and plurilateral discussions about intellectual property norms, the ACTA negotiations have been held in deep secrecy.?
While a curious mix of entities have been allowed to see ACTA documents, after signing a non-disclosure agreement, the letter states that ?there were no opportunities for academic experts or the general public to review the documents,? adding that ?very few? public interest or consumer groups were included as well.
Among the signees of the letter were The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Students for Free Culture and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.
Countries negotiating the agreement include the U.S., Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Switzerland.
BoingBoing (thanks Torven) sums up a few leaked bullet points from ACTA, among them:
? That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
? That the whole world must 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.
? Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
The EFF tears into the leaked material in a post on its website, saying that, ?The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations.?
They continued:
The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.
source
so all in all what do you think about this.http://gamepolitics.com/2009/11/04/letter-obama-seeks-acta-transparency
i have a quote from somewhere else which sums my feallings completely on this.
Originally Posted by GoodRobotUs
What this seems to be, to me, when combined with the attack on Net Neutrality, is an attempt by larger businesses to turn the Internet into a purely business venture, where the 'great unwashed' are little more than a minority whose opinions are worthless, rather than the large social network it currently is.
Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, it occurs to me that the last thing any organisation wants, is for customers to communicate with each other and share their experiences. They'd much prefer a feedback page that they can edit to suit themselves, destroying social groups like youTube, famous for exposing several bad practices by companies, attacking people who publicise problems with companies by accusing them of filesharing and having their page removed without trial, and the DRM thing is just a continuation of the attack on personal property, where companies feel they should still own the stuff you've bought, and should control your ability to criticise them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin_Lewis
I wonder what effect this would have on Ripoffreport.com . That site was a fantastic idea, and it'd be sad to see it go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neeneko
It is not just companies.. governments do not want popular access to information either. Even democratic governments are generally against the idea since when it comes down to it, the same kinds of people end up runing things regardless of what structure the government or company takes.