Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

[Enki]

N8Xg_C2YmG0

[monster_gardener]

N8Xg_C2YmG0

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Enki Tinker.

3:16-17 ACTA would put this board and similar out of business yesterday: Quoting news articles..........

Googling ACTA as suggested..............

YIKES: Secret laws!!!!!!!! A treaty that does NOT need to be RATIFIED by the Senate...............

Ron and/or Rand Paul for President!!!!!!!!!! At least they believe in the Constitution!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.[1] It would establish an international legal framework for countries to join voluntarily,[2] and would create a governing body outside international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.[1][3] Negotiating countries have described it as a response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."[2] The scope of ACTA includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet.[4] Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) oppose ACTA,[5] stating that civil society groups and developing countries were excluded from discussion during ACTA's development in an example of policy laundering.[6]

Opponents have argued that the treaty will restrict fundamental civil and digital rights, including the freedom of expression and communication privacy.[7] "The bulk of the WTO's 153 members" have raised concerns that treaty could distort trade and goes beyond the existing Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.[8] Opponents also criticize ACTA's removal of "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers" in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions.[9] According to an analysis by the Free Software Foundation, ACTA would require that existing ISPs no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media, and DRM protected media would not be legally playable with free software.[10]

Canada, the European Union and Switzerland joined the preliminary talks throughout 2006 and 2007. Official negotiations began in June 2008, with Australia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Singapore joining the talks. The negotiations were classified as secret in the US on the grounds of "damage to the national security".[citation needed] Apart from the participating governments, an advisory committee of large US-based multinational corporations was consulted on the content of the draft treaty,[11] including the International Intellectual Property Alliance,[12] (which includes the Business Software Alliance, Motion Picture Association of America, and Recording Industry Association of America)[13] and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.[14] The treaty calls for the creation of an "ACTA committee" to make amendments, for which public or judicial review are not required. Industry representatives may have "consultatory input" to amendments.[15] A 2009 Freedom of Information request showed that the following companies also received copies of the draft under a nondisclosure agreement: Google, eBay, Intel, Dell, News Corporation, Sony Pictures, Time Warner, and Verizon

The final text was released on 15 November 2010,[20] with English, French, and Spanish published on April 15, 2011.[21] A signing ceremony was held on 1 October 2011 in Tokyo, with the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signing the treaty. The European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended but did not sign, professing support and saying they will do so in the future.[22][23] Article 39 of ACTA states countries can sign the treaty until 31 March 2013. European Parliament reportedly has the final decision over whether the treaty is dismissed or enacted

Border searches

Potential border searches are covered by the "Border Measures" proposal of ACTA. As of February 2009, and according to University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, there is significant disagreement among countries on this topic: "Some countries are seeking the minimum rules, the removal of certain clauses, and a specific provision to put to rest fears of iPod searching customs officials by excluding personal baggage that contains goods of a non-commercial nature. The U.S. is pushing for broad provisions that cover import, export, and in-transit shipments."[64] Newspapers reported that the draft agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travellers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.[3][65]

Secret Laws??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

United States

Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration had rejected requests to make the text of ACTA public, with the White House saying that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security."[88] In 2009, Knowledge Ecology International filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request in the United States, but their entire request was denied. The Office of the United States Trade Representative's Freedom of Information office stated the request was withheld for being material "properly classified in the interest of national security."[89] US Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) penned a letter on 23 November 2009, asking the United States Trade Representative to make the text of the ACTA public.[

A Treaty that does NOT need to be RATIFIED????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

http://infojustice.org/archives/5699

It has been reported in the global press this week that ACTA will be signed October 1 in Japan. But that does not mean that ACTA actually goes into effect.

ACTA Article 40 states that the “Agreement shall enter into force thirty days after the date of deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval as between those Signatories that have deposited their respective instruments of ratification, acceptance, or approval.” Although six ratifications is a pretty low threshold for an agreement with 36 parties to the negotiation, it is far from clear that this agreement will get even that.

US Constitutional Problem

In the US, there is no plan to constitutionally ratify the agreement. Indeed, this will likely be the main focus of the US signing statement. The document will be an argument to Congress that the executive can pass this agreement alone – legally binding the US to a trade agreement with no congressional authorization – because, according to the Executive, ACTA is fully consistent with current US law. This, the administration has long argued, is why the US can “implement” ACTA with no Congressional action.

This argument has fault logic. The regulation of intellectual property and of foreign trade through international agreements is an “Article 1” Congressional power. That means that the executive cannot bind the US to agreements in this area without congressional consent. The President lacks the authority to enter a “sole executive agreement” in this area, even if the agreement does no more that require the US to continue follow the contours of current US law. That is because the agreement purports to bind the US not to change its law, and changing US law in this area is a congressional power. This point has been made repeatedly by US law professors with no effective rebuttal. See Submission to USTR of 30 Law Professors, Sean Flynn, ACTA’s Constitutional Problem, editorial by Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig and Bush AAG Jack Goldsmith, article by Yale Law Professor Oona Hathaway and Berkeley Law Professor Amy Kapczynski, and Mike Masnick’s apt description of the issue.

It is worth noting that this is not a purely academic point. It is not true that, because of the constitutional infirmity, ACTA would have no legal effect if only signed by the President, and thus no harm no foul. In fact, if ACTA gets its six ratifications and goes into force with a US Presidential signature, then it could bind the US under international law. This triggers the possibility of trade sanctions for non-compliance with ACTA, even though Congress never entered into the agreement. Although this is true whether or not the agreement complies with US law, it is worth noting that is not uncontested that ACTA is entirely consistent with US law. A report to Senator Wyden, and an analysis by 75 U.S. law professors, concluded just the opposite. At minimum, it should be concerning that the arbiters of these questions of compliance under ACTA will be international bodies.

[monster_gardener]

Have contacted my senators in opposition to ACTA.

I encourage any of US here in the States to do likewise.

Besides being as bad or worse than SOPA & PIPA,

IMVHO whoever the President is, he or she has NO business signing a treaty like this that MIGHT bind US without approval of the Senate............