ACTA Negotiations Are 'Done'… But Negotiators Still Getting Together For A 'Legal Scrub'
from the that-sounds-dirty dept
The ACTA negotiators were pretty insistent that the last round of negotiations would be the last round — and came out of that round with claims of a “near final” document, though many of us noted that there appeared to be substantial areas of disagreement. Since then, many people have noted significant legal issues with the current document. So what’s an ACTA negotiator to do? Well, not set up another round of negotiatons, but just get folks together in something that kinda sorta sounds like another round of negotiations in lovely Sydney, Australia and just refer to it as a “legal scrub,” rather than an actual negotiations (found via Glyn Moody). The document also covers the various issues that still need to be worked out — and it certainly seems like (a) there’s a lot and (b) some of them are very substantial in terms of their potential impact. But, it’s not like the negotiators have any plans whatsoever to allow the public and actual stakeholders to take part in any of this discussion. Why, that might involve having to actually pay attention to what those folks have to say.
Filed Under: acta, legal scrub, negotiations
Comments on “ACTA Negotiations Are 'Done'… But Negotiators Still Getting Together For A 'Legal Scrub'”
Is it wrong to pray to the god of technology to have their aircraft fall out of the sky?
Re: Re:
marak, I’ll join you in that prayer (noting, of course, that there are seveal gods of technology).
There’s nothing wrong with wishing for a reduction of evil in the world.
Re: Re: Re:
Can we also pray that Darryl is on the plane with them?
(oops, did I say that out loud)
Re: Re:
Just send them on a Qantas Airbus-380 or 747 – they seem to be having fun with those lately…
Damn the thing is almost complete! Time to hide yo wives, hide yo kids!
So..
“As far as ?counterfeit trademarks goods? are concerned the definition includes the expression ?and that thereby infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in question under the law of the country in which the procedures? are invoked?. However, ?pirated copyright goods? are defined as goods that are made abroad in a certain way, ??where the making of that copy would have constituted an infringement under the law of the country in which the procedures are invoked?. This definition may create a legal fiction of an infringement in cases where no such infringement has been committed. The reason for this is, of course, that it otherwise would be impossible for the customs to intervene against copyright goods (import as such does not constitute a copyright infringement). As a consequence, the proposed wording in ACTA would in respect of copyright mean that we may have to provide a possibility to destroy goods produced abroad when there has not been an actual infringement in the EU. This is not in compliance either with the EU acquis or with the aim of this Article as negotiated during 11 rounds.
The suppression of a reference to an ?infringement? is a mistake made by the Chair during the last night of the negotiation to adapt this provision according to the global agreement between Parties on the scope of the civil chapter. It was not the intention of the Parties to modify the substance of the provision but just to adapt the scope.
The Commission intends to address this ?technical? problem during the next legal scrubbing of the text. Parties could re-adapt the current text using the version dated 29 September where a clear reference to the necessity of having an infringement is mentioned. The final text could therefore be read as the following:
?At least with respect to goods that have been found to be pirated or counterfeited, each Party shall provide?.?”
Ofcourse, they COULD NOT check the legality of their negiotations.
After all, what is the point of coming to an agreement if it is not legal.
So they CHECK their homework, the negotiations are over, but they still have to fact check, dot the I’s and cross the T’s.
Are you suggesting that there should be no legal checking ??
They just want to be legal, when they come and convict you !!!. Make sure you go to jail..
@marak, yes it is wrong to idealise false gods, or to wish death on someone. So what you want a heap of people to die, so you can get free copies of music ?? ok, you are SICK..
Re: So..
Still as incomprehensible as ever.
Never change darryl, never change.
Re: Re: So..
Yes, I cut and paste what the report says, and you say its inccomprehensible, as if “I” wrote it LOL..
Its not my problem if you cannot comprehend much.
You guys that refer to Mike as “THE MIKE” or those who disagree with Mike TAM (THE ANTI-MIKE) one would think you have promoted Mike to a God !!!.
Do you really consider “THE MIKE” as some form of God ? therefore to argue against him you must be the ‘ANTI-GOD’ or
TAM (The Anti-Mike).
You must be really really ‘into’ Mike.. sorry “THE MIKE”..
I think I need to refer to him as “THE MIKE” from now on 🙂
Re: Re: Re: So..
Speaking of incomprehensible.
Re: So..
Yep, I sure hope a bunch of people die so I can have a couple free mp3’s. Of course it’s worth pointing out that ACTA will have pretty much no impact to the availability of free mp3’s.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression. Nothing to do with what is best for society vs what is best for a small number of private corporations. There is of course no possible argument against, or downside of, permanent pervasive ‘intellectual property’ of all kinds.
/sarc
Re: So..
So I have to be stripped of my rights by these back stabbing pricks and it’s wrong to preying to the flying spaghetti monster to do something? This is far from sick. What is sick is the lengths these people go to skirt the normal open process.
Re: So..
…Why is infirngement in a counterfeiting agreement?
Counterfeiting =/= copyright infringement.
Who are these "actual stakeholders"?
And by what information do you imply that “negotiators” aren’t minions of the “actual stakeholders” who’ll benefit from ACTA? (As I’ve explained before, all advocates of the corporate / police state.) Because I think the process is fairly on track, initiated by and for the benefit of the usual suspects; the only separation is that between minions and oligarchs.
hosed
we’re all totally hosed, you do know that.
from one of the leaked documents ( http://bit.ly/ds7dUT ) comes these gems concerning their dystopia of digital enforcement:
and
in the name of jesus, mary and ralph…what planet do these people come from??? how do people, on a taxpayer payroll, run around in such a cluless fog?
Re: hosed
…infringements in digital world are not different from infringements in physical world…
I keep saying, this means that penalty adjustments have to be made, so maybe it’s not the worst case scenario. I don’t think petty thieves get 1.5 million dollar awards for stealing a CD, nor are they held liable for the miserable failure of the corporation who failed to profit from their rights.
But IP laws are for the public, not the corporations, so there is no reason to exclude the public and only include corporate interests into these non – negotiation discussions. After all, the general public believes in IP and so why exclude them if they agree with it?
Bonus Round in ACTA
A Bonus Round of talks coming up. I think they’ll secretly put the “3-strikes” and “Private Acts of Infringement” (Non-commercial and not internet related) activities in the agreement and put some additional surveillance procedures in there as well, including requiring phone companies to become the “Phone Police” to monitor people’s calls and install wireless surveillance cameras in residential homes to monitor a person or family’s everyday activities to determine whatever and whenever they do infringes copyright.
Singing a song in the shower: Strike One
Thinking of a song: Strike Two
Drawing or thinking of a copyrighted or non-existent cartoon character: Strike Three
3 strikes and it’s full frontal lobotomy for you and your family.
Re: Bonus Round in ACTA
That’s pure FUD