Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Oct 2011 13:31 UTC
Legal A few days ago, several countries signed ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. As you are probably aware, ACTA was drafted up in secret, and is basically Obama/Biden's attempt to impose the US' draconian pro-big business/big content protection laws on the rest of the world ('sign it, or else'). The European Parliament still has to vote on it, and as such, Douwe Korff, professor of international law at the London Metropolitan University, and Ian Brown senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, performed a 90-page study, with a harsh conclusion: ACTA violates fundamental human rights.
Thread beginning with comment 491783
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What human rights violations?
by Yamin on Tue 4th Oct 2011 15:53 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm just curious as I didn't see in the article. Just what human rights are being abused here?

As far as I can tell, it talks about fines and seizing property in counterfeit cases.

Maybe in some kind of libertarian paradise, this would be a violation of human rights. But in a world of income taxes, heavy regulation, attempts to monetize every kind of work, globalized free trade, patents, legal trademarks... this hardly seems extraordinary.

Edited 2011-10-04 15:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

I'm just curious as I didn't see in the article. Just what human rights are being abused here?


Justice and/or due process.

Reply Parent Score: 5

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Due process isn't a right, it is a procedural restriction on the government to prevent it from acting arbitrarily and in conflict with the law, so that is doesn't illegally infringe on actual rights. So in other words: you don't have a right to due process, you have rights and the government cannot infringe on those rights without first following the due process of law.

Copyright is itself a violation of individual rights that is created and enforced by the government because the law allows for it. "Fair use" is a common law creation of the courts that have poked limited holes in the monopoly granted by copyright law. But common law precedent can in most cases always be superseded by statute or treaty where those statutes/treaties aren't in violation of some superior law such as a constitution.

How this all applies to civil law systems found throughout Europe, I'm not sure because I'm no expert in them. But it seems to me that deep philosophical debates about inalienable human or natural rights are so 18th century... governments these days, and most sheeple for that matter don't care as long as they aren't too inconvenienced while getting strip-searched at the airport or being spied on by CCTV on every corner.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Did you not read beyond the first paragraph?


As the study points out, encouraging the 'cooperation' between internet providers and the content industry amounts to privatised policing, violating the rule of law and the right to fair judicial process.



ACTA also allows for the monitoring of internet users without initial suspicion, the handing over of their personal data to rights holders on the basis of mere claims and the transfer of this data even to countries without adequate data protection, all of which is in clear conflict with legal guarantees of fundamental rights in the EU


Sure, it's an EU based study so they are using EU law as a benchmark but "countries without adequate data protection" and I'll add the potential of countries already known to institue human rights violations.


The agreement does not contain 'fair use' clauses or exceptions for trivial or minimal infringements. It therefore tilts the balance - both in terms of substance and of process - unfairly in favour of rights holders and against users and citizens.



Overall, ACTA tilts the balance of IPR protection manifestly unfairly towards one group of beneficiaries of the right to property, IP right holders, and unfairly against others. It equally disproportionately interferes with a range of other fundamental rights, and provides or allows for the determination of such rights in procedures that fail to allow for the taking into account of the different, competing interests, but rather, stack all the weight at one end," the study concludes, "This makes the entire Agreement, in our opinion, incompatible with fundamental European human rights instruments and -standards.


I think much of the issue is around imposing US draconian enforcement on other nation states primarily through removal of due legal process. It's a nice political document designed to allow RIAA to take the law into it's own hands by whatever definition of "evidence" is convenient at the time.

("RIAA" being used to mean it and it's counterparts outside the US.)

Reply Parent Score: 6

sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

Basically, the UK has a parlimentry act that was passed in 1998. This is 'The human rights act, 1998.

These are:
•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty



Trying to inforce these USA laws on the people of the UK, violates at least these

•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property

and if the USA did push for this in the UK, then they'd also violate;
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms


Laws around the world differ, even in the states of America the laws differ. You can not expect the Law of the land from one country to be replicated in another, and you certainly can not force your law upon another.

That is oppression, and there will be war.

Reply Parent Score: 9

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

But you can convince them to enact it of their own accord. Thats not war, silly, thats politics.

Edited 2011-10-04 22:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1