ACTA can be used to stifle open h/w projects, stifle information flow,
file-sharing and more.
Also see https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/acta-discuss
http://www.stopacta.info/
Put this on your website:
http://a.lqdn.fr/acta_en_horizontal.html"; style="width:
650px; height: 160px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0;"
scrolling="no">
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6269/125/
\quote{
The ACTA Fight Returns: What Is at Stake and What You Can Do
Friday January 27, 2012
The reverberations from the SOPA fight continue to be felt in the U.S.
(excellent analysis from Benkler and Downes) and elsewhere (mounting
Canadian concern that Bill C-11 could be amended to adopt SOPA-like
rules), but it is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that has
captured increasing attention this week. Several months after the
majority of ACTA participants signed the agreement, most European
Union countries formally signed the agreement yesterday (notable
exclusions include Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, Cyprus and
Slovakia).
This has generated a flurry of furious protest: thousands have taken
to the streets in protest in Poland, nearly 250,000 people have signed
a petition against the agreement, and a Member of the European
Parliament has resigned his position as rapporteur to scrutinize the
agreement, concluding that the entire review process is a "charade."
Some are characterizing ACTA as worse than SOPA, but the reality is
somewhat more complicated. From a substantive perspective, ACTA's
Internet provisions are plainly not as bad as those contemplated by
SOPA. Over the course of several years of public protest and pressure,
the Internet provisions were gradually watered down with the removal
of three strikes and you're out language. Other controversial
provisions on statutory damages and anti-camcording rules were made
optional rather than mandatory.
While the Internet provisions may not be as bad as SOPA, the remainder
of the agreement raises many significant concerns.
Countries such as India have expressed concern that it conflicts with
the TRIPS Agreement. Other elements of the agreement increase the
standards in the WIPO Internet Treaties and the commercial scale
definition at the WTO. The agreement adds new criminal provisions,
pressures ISPs to take greater action, and heightens border measures.
There remains ongoing debate as to whether the substance of ACTA
requires legislative change in many signatory countries (a somewhat
dated site on many ACTA issues here).
Beyond the substantive concerns, the ACTA process remains a major
issue as it sets a dangerous precedent for international IP
agreements. For years, the ACTA process was shrouded in secrecy, with
only the occasional leak bringing plans to light. Wikileaks cables
confirmed that the secrecy was viewed as a serious problem in many
participant countries. In fact, even as most countries supported
greater transparency and the release of draft texts, the U.S.
steadfastly refused, using transparency as a bargaining chip to
extract concessions from other negotiating partners. In addition to
the transparency problems during the negotiations, the express
exclusion of many countries from the process raises real fears that
they will face increased pressure to meet ACTA standards in the years
ahead.
Given the ongoing concerns, the big question now is whether much can
be done. The majority of ACTA countries have signed the agreement, but
it will only take effect once five countries have formally implemented
and ratified it. That is not expected until at least May 2013, opening
the door to stopping the agreement from taking effect. While there are
global initiatives such as the AccessNow petition, much of the
activity has shifted to specific countries or regions:
Europe is home to the most active anti-ACTA effort since there is
still a possibility that the European Parliament may reject the
treaty. There remain serious doubts about whether ACTA is consistent
with the EU Acquis. Learn more about what can be done at La
Quadrature du Net, EDRI, the Open Rights Group, and FFII.
In Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs is conducting an open
consultation on ACTA. Email your comments to the department or write
Consultations and Liaison Division (BSL), Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement (ACTA), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada,
Lester B. Pearson Building, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A
0G2. A March 2011 Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage report
recommended limiting Canada's ACTA commitments.
In the U.S., much of the focus is on whether ACTA must be approved
by Congress. Senator Wyden has raised questions about the issue. KEI
has extensive coverage of the U.S. perspective on ACTA.
In Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is
accepting submissions on ACTA until January 27, 2012 (Kim Weatherall's
submission here). Australia tabled the agreement in Parliament on
November 21, 2011 and has taken the posi
