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 491793
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And like I said, given our current state of laws, this is hardly a big deal.


Presuming that's true it still doesn't mean we should just let things erode even further.

Reply Parent Score: 5

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Privatized policing is everywhere... private security guards at events, private security at homes and malls.

Security guards is not "policing". Those people can't charge you with anything, can't conduct investigations and can't arrest you - that what policing means.

And what about speed cameras, DUI check points...

So... In what country are there privately operated DUI checkpoints and private speed cameras?

Isn't this pretty much what most laws do? Pit one group against another.

Nope... In countries with a proper legal system, constitutional courts actually review fairness of laws. Remember that Franch three strikes law actually was stopped by the constitutional court.

Public sector union negotiations tip the balance of power to the public sector unions against the rights and property of the general population.

The term negotiations is not the eye candy in that sentence.....

These laws just aren't that out there... especially when you consider the general state of affairs in the EU.

Really? EU? Considering UK with it's archaic laws and non-codified un-constitution is part of EU along with Scandinavian and Baltic states with very modern laws, you can't talk about EU in general.

Reply Parent Score: 6

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

You don't give your location in your profile but you do give your website address. So, from your August 2nd posting:


So here's what I came with as a reasonable state of a free society.

A free society is one in which the default position is freedom. It is up to the government to prove the harm caused by individual freedom in any area is so great that the government must intervene


The default is freedom (liberty, lets say).
It is up to the government to prove harm.

Yet, in your responses in this discussion, you are questioning why it is wrong to remove police/government from the situation and place the powers of law in the hands of corporations (RIAA and similar) along with granting them authority over other companies (ISP). You don't think authority for a corporation to act without due legal process conflicts with "proving harm"?

And, you suggest that the default in a free society is freedom yet you suggest we suspend individual's freedom at the mere unsubstantiated claim of wrongdoing by for profit corporation. So "innocent until proven guilty" - "er.. unless it's a major content providing corporation in which case 'guilty until proven less guilty'".

Am I the only one having a little cognitive dissonance in trying to correlate all this?

Let's make it simple;

- the law should not be places in the hands of for-profit corporations or any other entity with a vested interest in the guilt of the accused. The law should remain within the hands of an independent third party.

- the law of one nation should not be forced on another independent state. (sign ACTA or else you get put on the "do not trade" list)

No one is saying "go infringe copyright all you like". The issue is the legal cock waiving being done expressly for the purpose of removing rights granted to the individual by copyright law.

Reply Parent Score: 3

fossil Member since:
2009-05-29

Sounds like a corporate-run police state is fine by you ... maybe even desirable. Or am I missing something? That's what we're moving to here in the U.S. & both major parties, plus the so-called "Tea-Party" (=$$$-party) are on board. Personally I'm not enjoying it.

Reply Parent Score: 2