RSS
EU Apparently Agrees That ACTA Should Be More Transparent
from the ok,-so-open-up dept
Via Jamie Love we learn that at an EU trade policy meeting, EU member states have agreed to push for more transparency with ACTA, including releasing the draft negotiation documents as soon as possible. Apparently, this position was driven by Sweden, who we already noted was unhappy with where ACTA was heading. Since this apparently includes all EU member states, does this mean that Denmark has backed down from its hardline position against transparency? And if this is the case, who is left arguing that the documents need to be kept secret? As far as I can tell from the earlier list, we're now down to Singapore, South Korea and the US. That's odd, because Singapore, South Korea and the US already have trade agreements of this nature. In fact, much of ACTA is actually based on the agreement between the US and South Korea -- which is already proving problematic for those in South Korea.
16 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Debunking The EU Commission's 'Myths About ACTA'
- European Parliament President Criticizes ACTA
- Mass Protests Against ACTA All Across Europe
- It's Time To Let Politicians Know That Using Secretive Trade Agreements To Meddle With The Internet Is Unacceptable
- 'The Economist' And 'Financial Times' Already Writing Off ACTA As Dead
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Good news, however it's amazing how these authorities are suddenly in favor of greater ACTA transparency only AFTER most of the documents they want to keep secret the most have already leaked. Where was this transparency sentiment before these documents leaked?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong, according to the U.S. they ARE being transparent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
apparently murder is bad
Maybe we should....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: apparently murder is bad
B) WTF does that have to with this topic?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: apparently murder is bad
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: apparently murder is bad
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: apparently murder is bad
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
its about the sudden shift to wanting transpancy
out the deal completely NOW. or don't and suffer .....regime change.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The backpedaling the politicians and media executives have to do for the months following ACTA's transparency might constitute exercise.
definition : backpedal - modify one's opinion, make it less strong ... rinse lather repeat.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: apparently murder is bad
"B) WTF does that have to with this topic?"
It has to do with secondary liablity.
Your kid kills someone, you are held responsible and charged with murder ... secondary liability. (iffy)
Someone uploads a file to your site that infringes, you are fined ... secondary liability.
Someone uses your WiFi to download a file, you get your internet access shut off ... secondary liability.
ACTA has secondary liability built into it. It also has guilt based on accusations not proof, and your need to prove you didnt do what you are accused of (proving a negative in most cases is impossible).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: apparently murder is bad
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment