Copyright

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
acta, ustr



Now That Everyone's Seen ACTA, USTR Says 'It's Time To Release It'

from the nice-work,-guys dept

So, for years now, the USTR has fought as hard as possible to keep ACTA a secret, while pretending otherwise. It's insisted that ACTA wasn't secret while at the same time refusing to release details of what's in the document, claiming that it was a national security issue. Later, when confronted about it, the USTR claimed that others would leave the negotiating table if the text was made public. However, as more and more info leaked about ACTA, it became quite clear that it was really the US that was behind the level of secrecy. Of course, as time went on, more and more of the document leaked, the whole "secrecy" angle got pretty silly.

So it's almost laughable to see the USTR say on Friday that now is finally the time to release a draft -- as if everyone who didn't already want to see it hadn't seen it.
Overall, therefore, there was a general sense from this session that negotiations have now advanced to a point where making a draft text available to the public will help the process of reaching a final agreement. For that reason, and based on the specific momentum coming out of this meeting, participants have reached unanimous agreement that the time is right for making available to the public the consolidated text coming out of these discussions, which will reflect the substantial progress made at this round.
Yes. That or the massive public rebuke the USTR has been receiving from almost every quarter on this particular agreement. The full document gets "released" on Wednesday, and we expect it to be... well, pretty much like what was leaked last month.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 8:37am

    And I'm suspecting a lot of blacked out words still. But I might just be cynical/jaded.

    I'm too tired with this copyfight. They keep trying to screw our consumer rights, but act all uppity whenever we give them a blow back.

    It's the same on all levels. Be it copyright, patentlaw, and all other "intellectual" "property" "rights".
    Big Media (and other corporations) only have their direct bottom line in mind, and none of the consumer rights. And because they have the big bucks, they can afford good lobbyists and spend money on trips for politicians, who then become shills for them.

    I'm sick and tired of it.

    I wish I truly had a say in all this. Yes, I can vote and I do. But vote on who?
    They all lie and cheat. Big promises during the election, but after they have been elected, it's business as usual. What promises?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:18am

      Re:

      "Yes, I can vote and I do. But vote on who? "

      When's Dark Helmet running?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:25am

        Re: Re:

        "When's Dark Helmet running?"

        Ha! I've often thought of trying to campaign locally with a sort of truthfullness, anti-political correctness shock and awe campaign.

        Then I came back down to Earth and realized it would probably be the most lopsided defeat of all time....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 11:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Maybe, but at least people couldn't say they had no one else to vote for. You'd have my vote at the least. Granted, Ron Paul had my vote and my money, and we see how far that got him.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Free Capitalist (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 11:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          it would probably be the most lopsided defeat of all time..


          It's not about whether you win or lose, it's about how much damage you can do in the process. I say go for it, go forth with the blessings of Ralph and Ross and that one sane two-party guy who got kicked out and swept under the carpet.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Hephaestus (profile), 20 Apr 2010 @ 6:29am

      Re:

      " lot of blacked out words "

      the word you are looking for is redacted


      redact - To obscure or remove the sensitive portions of a data set or document, typically prior to publication or release.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:06am

    wont it be funny if the release document turns out to be nothing like the scare docs that have been distributed by anti-copyright sites?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      deadzone (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:16am

      Re:

      It wouuld be hilarious shill!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:23am

      Re:

      Remember, being nothing like the docs that have been shown on anti copyright sites could also mean it's far worse instead of not as bad.....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:30am

      Re:

      You are drunk!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:53am

      Re:

      Won't it be funny when you're completely wrong for the 500th time?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:22am

      Re:

      wont it be funny if the release document turns out to be nothing like the scare docs that have been distributed by anti-copyright sites?

      It's slightly less likely than the Pope being a Muslim.

      (one legged ducks swimming straight)

      (Bears visiting the local Bar to go to the toilet)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      weneedhelp (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:29am

      Re: Anonymous Coward the shill

      Wont it be scary when its just like the leaked docs?

      anti-copyright sites?

      Never heard about these. Where are they? Most i hear about is FAIR copyright, and FAIR use for the consumer.

      I know FAIR is a difficult concept to understand. Coming from an industry that based itself on ripping off artists. Stealing what others have created for pennies, and although they may agree to your slave terms, it is still taking advantage of someone.

      Case in point, WNOC, a local Philly band, was really great, at a time when the whole rap/rock thin was coming about. Live shows were a blast. Anyway, when it came time to get signed, they would not give up publishing rights. Good for them, but unfortunately it was the reason they did not get signed. So you ether sell the rights to EVERYTHING, or they take the ball and go home. Yeah, but its all in the interest of the "Artist" right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:36am

        Re: Re: Anonymous Coward the shill

        Yeah, there are only two that I can remember being outright against copyright. The rest are more for shorter copyright and/or favor privacy above copyright.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          weneedhelp (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 11:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward the shill

          "there are only two that I can remember being outright against copyright"

          So your previous comment:
          "wont it be funny if the release document turns out to be nothing like the scare docs that have been distributed by anti-copyright sites?"

          "distributed by anti-copyright sites"
          Implying there are many. If so shill, please point them out. You cant. You will try, grasping at straws, you will fail miserably.

          I have been dealing with pieces of shit (sorry mike i dont usually curse) like yourself for many years on YT. You try to LUMP A GROUP TOGETHER BY IMPLYING THEY ARE OF THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, CONNECTING THEM, IN MY CASE WITH THE WORD "CONSPIRACY THEORIST" (no plane-ers come to mind) WHEN MOST HAVE VERY VALID REASONS, NOT CONNECTED WITH ANY CONSPIRACY, BUT WITH IRREFUTABLE FACTS.

          But please dont go away. We need the underbelly of the entertainment world to keep on posting their absurd logic for the world to see, and the rational, critical thinkers, will call your bluff every time.

          Kiss kiss Shill.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 12:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward the shill

            It's good to remember that this site, if you leave the "name" slot blank, adds "Anonymous Coward". So, two posts by someone named Anonymous Coward may not be the same person.

            Confusing, yes, sometimes. I'm not quite sure why it's so hard to just type a name, but that's their prerogative.

            It's sad really, because you used so many capital letters, all for nothing. :)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 12:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward the shill

            Sorry, that's two different people.

            "there are only two that I can remember being outright against copyright" was me.

            The "wouldn't it be funny if" was someone else, possibly the anti-mike.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:17am

    "Massive public rebuke"?

    Hardly. Unorganized emails from individuals does not to my way of thinking even remotely approach a massive public rebuke.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      deadzone (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:22am

      Re:

      The irony in all this to me is the fact that they just don't seem to understand that getting what they want is only going to make things worse for them. Much worse.

      They truly don't seem to understand how bad their ideas are and how negatively it will affect their industry if they are actually implemented.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:32am

      Re:


      Hardly. Unorganized emails from individuals does not to my way of thinking even remotely approach a massive public rebuke.

      says something about your way of thinking - nothing more.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    deadzone (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:18am

    I may be too doom and gloom about this but I think that the fact that they are doing this is a sign that the process is done and they are about to implement it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Joel (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:30am

    About time...

    This is ridiculous but it is about time that they do this. I think we will see an uproar if this were to get on a major network and people could find out what the government is planning!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:32am

      Re: About time...

      omigod did you see last night's American Idol?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Joel (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:53am

        Re: Re: About time...

        Don't watch Idol...lol

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:59am

          Re: Re: Re: About time...

          "omigod did you see last night's American Idol?" is why we will not be able to generate uproar or outrage against ACTA. Because at the end of the day, most people just don't care. Sure, the people pushing ACTA care. Sure, we care. But the vast majority of people do not. They do not want to know about how the prices of their favorite shows will go up over the next 10 years. They care about tonight's episode of Survivor: Heroes and Villains vs. Jason now.

          We, as a vocal minority, will not be able to affect change against the fortunes that have been put towards ACTA. Our success relies upon getting a majority of people to care about something they simply do not care about. They should care, but they don't. Getting them to care will take a lot of time and effort; more time and effort than we have before ACTA is enacted.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 12:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: About time...

            They should care, but they don't.

            They will, one day. Something tells me "I told you so" will be very bittersweet.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:53am

        Re: Re: About time...

        I don't support the **AAs' in any way, shape or form.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:03am

          Re: Re: Re: About time...

          Yes, but would you say the vast majority of Americans do? Would you say they are even aware of the implications of consuming certain media?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    milrtime83 (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 9:38am

    The significance of it being released is that politicians can now officially comment on it which they couldn't do with just the leaked versions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dan (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:26am

    Prohibition won't work now either

    If ACTA passes, it won't matter. People will ignore it to the point that the volume of cases will make it unenforceable and be repealed in some way, like alcohol prohibition in the 20's.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Overcast (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 10:38am

    Another shining example of 'transparency'?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    weneedhelp (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 11:15am

    unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

    unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's, most people are not aware, because it does not affect their lives directly. Not being able to have a beer after dinner is more of a direct impact. Getting kicked off the internet for accused file sharing will not happen to the majority, they will not care.

    What would be a fun experiment, if someone would have the funds to follow through, would be to send really bogus, extortion letters to a vast majority of people in an area, or maybe just a handful of politicians/Judges per a given area demanding payment for alleged file sharing. Better yet, use the threat of being kicked off the internet, along with leaked/official documents of ACTA itself.

    Print the ACTA document and leave it around public areas. Public transport, parks, etc.

    Talk about it to anyone who will listen.

    Poke the beehive with a stick.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 11:33am

      Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

      you mnight be right if people were getting kicked off the internet wholesale which is not the case. you can get all upset and try to raise public protest, but in the end the public wants the content and isnt willing to give it up just to make a few pirates and hacker kiddies happy. if you explain it all to them, they wont agree with your point of view ever.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 11:41am

        Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

        Can I borrow the time machine, TAM?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 12:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

          Might not be TAM. Both of them are idiots, but at least tam had grammar.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 1:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

            TAM Lite.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              slander (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 8:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

              "More tasteless!"

              "Less fulfilling!"

              "More tasteless!"

              "Less fulfilling!"

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2010 @ 5:32am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

                does it matter? none of you answered the point you just called out who you think is the poster. proof that you are idiots not wanting to address the issues.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 11:43am

        Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

        I usually bring up the public domain and the length of copyright and then they're right there with me.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

        "if you explain it all to them, they wont agree with your point of view ever."

        If you explain it in your limited perspective then yes, no one will ever agree with you. Now, if you explain the full situation then people start agreeing (yes, I've already tested this).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          The Infamous Joe (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 12:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

          Care to elaborate on what you say?

          I haven't found a good way to explain it to someone who isn't already concerned, but I'd like to.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 12:15pm

      Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

      "...because it does not affect their lives directly..."

      But it does. And that is the scary part. It affects their lives directly and they do not care.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        slander (profile), 19 Apr 2010 @ 8:52pm

        Re: Re: unlike alcohol prohibition in the 20's

        They do not care, because they do not know. That's the big problem. Whenever the Three Stooges, FOX and CNN mention it, their reports are always focused on counterfeit goods. I have never seen any of the established media outlets mention anything about the more draconian aspects of ACTA. Why would they -- they are part of the force behind it.

        That is what we're up against. All the Techdirts and Slashdots in the world aren't going to influence public opinion, because those voices are drowned out by the noise generated by Big Media. American Idol indeed...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2010 @ 4:10pm

    Inzwischen

    RapidShare wehrt sich gegen gerichtliche Verfügungen
    Auf zum Bundesgerichtshof
    http://www.buchreport.de/nachrichten/verlage/verlage_nachricht/datum/2010/04/19/a uf-zum-bundesgerichtshof.htm

    Rapidshare: Prozess in den USA
    http://www.gulli.com/news/rapidshare-prozess-in-den-usa-2010-04-19

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hephaestus (profile), 20 Apr 2010 @ 6:44am

    Funny this ....

    " they confirmed that no participant is proposing to require governments to mandate a ‘graduated response’ or ‘three strikes’ approach to copyright infringement on the Internet. "

    No government mandated three strikes ... but the ISPs loose their safe harbor if they dont implement it

    How is that not government mandated?

    "There is no proposal to oblige ACTA participants to require border authorities to search travellers’ baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials."

    We all know how governments never over reach, never try to induce fear in their populations, and never try to oppress their populations by any means at their disposal.

    This is going to be fun to watch from an implementation stand point, the legal challenges that will happen, the negative publicity to the record labels and movie studios,
    the sheer quantity of new encrypted applications.

    If sweden, france, and south korea are any example this wont do anything to slow down infringement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.