LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
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.European Commission "advance warning" summary on ACTA Internet Chapter, 30 Sep 2009
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.The content of the summary ( a draft paper) reflect details that have appeared in the media recently, including rights management and especially related enforcement, as well as the US-centric development of enforcement on the Internet.
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??Secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement discussions conclude without any public input, and leaked details include a laundry list of entertainment industry demands
There's a bit more from the above link.
Watch out boys and girls.The latest round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations wrapped up ..... and by all indications it has little to do with combating counterfeit goods and everything to do with forcing ISPs to become copyright cops.
This is actually really bad.
Here's more from the article:
a regime, eh??First, ISPs would have to proactively filter copyrighted material from their networks and hand over the names of those accused of illegal file-sharing.
Second, ISPs, in order to benefit from safe harbor provisions, would have to disconnect the Internet connections of illegal file-sharers for up to a year. Copyright holders would be able to sue those ISPS that fail to stop customers from illegal file-sharing.
Third, it will force countries to prohibit circumventing DRM or the manufacture of traffic of devices that allow people to do so.
Fourth, it would create a “broad” global notice-and-takedown regime where ISPs will be forced to remove copyrighted material without first weighing evidence to the contrary.
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....there are specifics that have been shielded from public view...
One last thing from the link above:
I do agree....governments should not be supporting secretive copyright talks. ...
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.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
Thread: Wikileaks: internet enforcement
-
09.11.09 21:24 #1
Wikileaks: internet enforcement
Last edited by SealLion; 09.11.09 at 21:24.
God, from the mount Sinai
whose grey top shall tremble,
he descending, will himself,
in thunder, lightning, and loud trumpet’s sound,
ordain them laws.
- John Milton, Paradise Lost
-
10.11.09 02:11 #2
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)Code:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
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
-
10.11.09 03:45 #3
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.God, from the mount Sinai
whose grey top shall tremble,
he descending, will himself,
in thunder, lightning, and loud trumpet’s sound,
ordain them laws.
- John Milton, Paradise Lost
-
10.11.09 17:17 #4if 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)
Originally Posted by SealLion
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 ofor 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.
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
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks