____________________________________________________________________________________

Forgive me for not typing in the entire Title as labled on Wikileaks.


1. It's too long

2. Reading the actual title won't make much sense to you unless you know what's what.

3. The title that I used above is exactly what this article from Wikileaks is about (described below).

The actual title is:

This is a recent article leaked to Wikileaks.
And this is what it's about:


It doesn't deal with any customs procedures or even enforcement to combat commercial piracy. Instead it's gone into the area of noncommercial illegal file-sharing.

Firstly, let me clear some things up for you.

ACTA is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.


Here's a quote from Wikileaks:

Link to the below quote is here:

This is untrue and incorrect as you'll see.

When going to the Wikileaks site, you'll be given 3 links which you'll find more in depth information on.

Check this out:

Link to the below information is here:

No input from pple like you and me. Also, having to read about a demand list from the entertainment industries shouldn't sound too unfamiliar, yes??

There's a bit more from the above link.


Watch out boys and girls.

This is actually really bad.

Here's more from the article:

a regime, eh??

Part and parcel of the NWO??

Overall. Not good news for you and me.
secret meetings without any public input.
A global regime to potentially control your internet activities.
No transparency.

Here's what I mean re: transparency.

LInk to the below quote is here (taken from one of the Wikileaks link):

No kidding.

One last thing from the link above:

I do agree.
Governments are designed to be transparent. But not much is transparent in any government over anything these days.

You know the reasons why.

in one word: Control.

__________________

GreedyTorrent Tutorial

RatioFaker Part I

RatioFaker Part II

we had a few articles/threads on sbi that were discussing recent attempts at controlling the internet (there was even a petition for german citizens on the matter aimed at their EU representatives to preserve the net neutrality)

as the entertainment industry efforts to eliminate, for example, file sharing have mostly failed & proven ineffective or costly, without having a proper underlying legal framework that would allow them to easily/successfully accomplish their claims/accusations/lawsuits it looks like they changed the strategy & now are trying to take a global move on the issue, at the same time expanding the attempts by including other forms of intellectual property 'offenses/crimes':

This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies. Similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty,[11] and critics have argued that the anticircumvention provisions of Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were similarly passed after policy laundering via treaties negotiated through the World Intellectual Property Organization.[

this approach is naturally more effective, since if accepted by the EU, it applies to all its members, otherwise they get penalized ie. have to make substantial payments to the EU for 'breaking the law' - the part where it says that the agreement would be optional/voluntary is imo a trap in order to make other countries accept such legal framework, while somewhere down the line it will change its status from optional to mandatory (as we know, in diplomacy things are never rushed, instead they negotiate with many options or watered down demands that may at any given opportune moment turn into a more aggressive version of the demand)

in any case, net neutrality should be preserved and similar industry demands rejected, as the right to a freedom of information on the internet is of crucial importance in order to avoid further censorship or similar abusive attempts by different interested parties

Now there is one thing that I don't understand here. Since the EU is basically a number of countries that have come together for a number of reasons, economic, political, etc..etc..
The representatives of each of those European countries which sit in the EU parliament represent the national interests (besides the interests of the EU as a whole too, I imagine)
of thier representative national asssemblies, yes??

So would you be suggesting that the EU representative person is or doesn't have to take into consideration his or her respective national assembly's interest to maintain net neutrality as opposed to that EU country being forced ( so to say via the legal framework) to comply with the EU's desire re: this approach??

---------- Post added at 20:45 ---------- Previous post was at 20:43 ----------

Because if he or she is able to, at least I'm saying this under the consideration that, that EU rep isn't under some kind of political duress, wouuldn't they be able to vote against it??

or at least make some kind of revision of it so that it would be more suitable??\


Maybe not suitable to ACTA, but suitable to the EU member states.

__________________

GreedyTorrent Tutorial

RatioFaker Part I

RatioFaker Part II

____________________________________________________________________________________

if such framework is presented to individual countries, then their parliament has to vote on it (with many different country parties involved), but when put to an EU parliament, the voters are usually members of the ruling parties of each country (no more hassle with other parties from those countries), further, the lobbying can be done within only one organization (UN) targeting specific country representatives, furthermore, the implications are automatically global (UN members)

also, in the light of warnings about the global organizations, like UN, being steered by only a few of their 'more important' members, with games being played on which country gets what privileges (maybe even on personal financial level considering the country representatives) if it supports the aforementioned members, it may be reasonable to believe that this course of action will be more effective than the previous attempts

it is questionable how much influence has the public opinion on the UN - as i see it, ordinary citizens are 'far' from decision making/influencing in their own countries, let alone some global organizations with global agendas (with heavy multinational corporate pressure)
sure they can, but whether their vote has enough power or their character enough honesty or regard towards the public is hard to say or be sure of

ACTA is just one attempt (out of many similar) to enforce corporate interests ie. grant them legal framework in their favor, not to mention that such already established frameworks can be used as stepping stones towards more severe global regulations