Complete text of secret ACTA treaty leaked

[ThomasP]

From Ars:

Last April, the US Trade Representative explained to us that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement had to stay secret in order to provide room for negotiating. In fact, ACTA was so inchoate that "a comprehensive set of proposals for the text of the agreement does not yet exist." In other words: there's nothing to release.

That was true in early 2009, but by 2010, there was such a comprehensive set of proposals—and still we got nothing from the ACTA negotiating nations, except a long series of piecemeal leaks that appear to have emanated from Europe. This week, those leaks became a flood as French digital rights group La Quadrature du Net released a complete copy of ACTA's consolidated text, filled with various textual proposals from the different negotiating countries.

Much of ACTA isn't particularly controversial, and much of the rhetoric around it has been overblown. Back in 2008, we noted that hysterical talk of "iPod-scanning border guards" was unhelpful, drawing attention away from the true area of concern: the worldwide imposition of the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Stung by those headlines, however, the negotiating governments went out of their way to deny that border guards were going to rifle through luggage looking for illicit music, and indeed the consolidated text shows that there are no less than four explicit proposals to exempt personal, noncommercial luggage from ACTA's proposals.

But the DMCA bits of the treaty are also in evidence, demanding widespread adherence to a "no circumvention of DRM" rule. Countries like New Zealand and Japan are fighting this, along with the insistence that ISPs have some sort of "plan" to curtail repeat infringement by subscribers, but the US is pushing hard (and drafted the relevant sections).

Countries like the US could have taken the high ground on transparency, being more upfront about what they wanted from the agreement and pushing hard to release texts like this one. Instead, (leaked) accounts suggest that the US has been unwilling to push for transparency at ACTA meetings—and the main texts all leaked anyway.

The full text of the leaked treaty is available in the article.

[Oscar Wilde]

From what I've seen of it, it's basically a DMCA/RIAA wet dream.

[Molyneux]

So the real question is - how do we stop this?
I'm not sure who in the US government could actually bring pressure against this thing.

[Uraniun235]

How often do treaties need to be negotiated in secret?

So the real question is - how do we stop this?
I'm not sure who in the US government could actually bring pressure against this thing.

The Senate can cold stop it by not ratifying the treaty.

[Molyneux]

How often do treaties need to be negotiated in secret?

So the real question is - how do we stop this?
I'm not sure who in the US government could actually bring pressure against this thing.

The Senate can cold stop it by not ratifying the treaty.

So call our senators...got it. Thanks!

[Ryan Thunder]

I'm in Canada. Does this affect me? My MP's office is gonna get an earful if it does.

[Uraniun235]

Canada is a party to these talks, yes.

[ThomasP]

The talks have gone through some interesting ups and downs since that was originally posted (back in March).

The negotiators were pressured into releasing a draft text when they came to Wellington, due to massive public protest and a large petition.

After that, they clammed back up and recent rounds have seen them going back to secrecy. It was to the point that the Pirate Party MP (in the EU) Engstrom left the proceedings just a few days ago because he was told he couldn't share the proceedings publicly.

Right now, the EU is the major party that could put this thing on hold, as they've had reservations since the beginning (and there is conflict with some facets of EU law). The US, with its corporate masters being the brains of this operation, is of course the main party pushing for it.

China and India aren't too pleased with this, and have taken some actions to form their own opposition.

Interestingly enough, this isn't being pushed as a treaty to be ratified by the Senate. I'll go look for the details, but this is actually being pushed at the angle of an executive agreement, which doesn't require Congressional approval to become law.

EDIT: Techdirt
Citizen Media Law Project

[Uraniun235]

After that, they clammed back up and recent rounds have seen them going back to secrecy. It was to the point that the Pirate Party MP (in the EU) Engstrom left the proceedings just a few days ago because he was told he couldn't share the proceedings publicly.

What do you mean by 'couldn't'? What would have happened to him if he had disobeyed and shared anyway?

[ThomasP]

After that, they clammed back up and recent rounds have seen them going back to secrecy. It was to the point that the Pirate Party MP (in the EU) Engstrom left the proceedings just a few days ago because he was told he couldn't share the proceedings publicly.

What do you mean by 'couldn't'? What would have happened to him if he had disobeyed and shared anyway?

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/ ... in-secret/

[Molyneux]

Interestingly enough, this isn't being pushed as a treaty to be ratified by the Senate. I'll go look for the details, but this is actually being pushed at the angle of an executive agreement, which doesn't require Congressional approval to become law.

How the hell does that work?

[Andrew J.]

Interestingly enough, this isn't being pushed as a treaty to be ratified by the Senate. I'll go look for the details, but this is actually being pushed at the angle of an executive agreement, which doesn't require Congressional approval to become law.

How the hell does that work?

The President, acting as the chief negotiator of the country, makes an agreement that more or less falls within his purview, ie relating to the military or the enforcement of statutory law. These things are actually pretty common. Even at the state level, where it's unconstitutional to make treaties, governors have entered into executive agreements with foreign countries.

[ThomasP]

It's supposed to be an agreement that doesn't involve any change to existing US law, which gets around the need for the house and senate to sign off on it.

Unfortunately, some of the provisions in the thing would require changes to US law despite what the USTR keeps repeating. The whole thing is fishy and has been from the beginning.