Remember that ACTA treaty Obama said was too confidential to release to the public as a matter of national security? Obviously it's not too confi

[link to www.eff.org]

May 6, 2009

Government Still Blocking Information on Secret IP Enforcement Treaty
Broken Promises from the Obama Administration Keep Americans in the Dark About ACTA

Washington, D.C. - Two public interest groups today called on the government to stop blocking the release of information about a secret intellectual property trade agreement with broad implications for privacy and innovation around the world.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge said that the April 30th release of 36 pages of material by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) was the second time the government had the opportunity to provide some public insight into the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), but declined to do so. More than a thousand pages of material about ACTA are still being withheld, despite the Obama administration's promises to run a more open government.

"We are very disappointed with the USTR's decision to continue to withhold these documents," said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel. "The president promised an open and transparent administration. But in this case and others we are litigating at EFF, we've found that the new guidelines liberalizing implementation of the Freedom of Information Act haven't changed a thing."

EFF and Public Knowledge filed suit in September of 2008, demanding that background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Initially, USTR released 159 pages of information about ACTA and withheld more than 1300 additional pages, claiming they implicate national security or reveal the USTR's "deliberative process." After reconsidering the release under the Obama administration's new transparency policies, the USTR disclosed the additional pages last week, most of which contain no substantive information.

However, one of the documents implies that treaty negotiators are zeroing in on Internet regulation. A discussion of the challenges for the pact includes "the speed and ease of digital reproductions" and "the growing importance of the Internet as a means of distribution."

Other publicly available information shows that the treaty could establish far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of anti-counterfeiting measures. Additionally, multi-national IP industry companies have publicly requested that ISPs be required to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, force mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adopt "Three Strikes" policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement.

"What we've seen tends to confirm that the substance of ACTA remains a grave concern," said Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Sherwin Siy. "The agreement increasingly looks like an attempt by Hollywood and the content industries to perform an end-run around national legislatures and public international forums to advance an aggressive, radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced."

"The USTR's official summary of the process, released last month, recognized the lack of transparency so far while doing nothing to broaden stakeholder input or engage public debate," said International Affairs Director Eddan Katz. "The radical proposals being considered under the Internet provisions deserve a more transparent process with greater public participation."

Litigation in the case will now continue, with USTR asking U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer to uphold its decision to conceal virtually all of the information that EFF and PK seek concerning the ACTA negotiations.

For the documents released so far:
[link to www.eff.org]

For more on ACTA:
[link to www.eff.org]

Contacts:

Rebecca Jeschke
Media Relations Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
[email protected]

Art Brodsky
Communications Director
Public Knowledge
[email protected]

Those Basturds.!!

Newly leaked Memo from the EU....
Obama admin seems pretty likely to push this through....not good unless you don't like the internets having any content that makes it worth while...



EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Trade
Brussels, 30.09.2009
Ref. 588/09
[ [[LLi iimmi iit tteedd] ]]
ACTA negotiations
Attached: ACTA – Internet Chapter
This is to inform MS about the state-of-play of the internet enforcement chapter that
should be discussed at the next ACTA negotiating round in Seoul, Korea.
On 22-24 September, DG Trade participated in the EU-US IPR Working Group,
which took place in Washington. In a side meeting with the USTR (US lead
negotiators on ACTA), at their request, the US colleagues informed us about the
progress in the preparation of a draft text of the future Internet Chapter of ACTA.
US reported that they have been working on a draft text since the end of the 5th round
(end of July) and that this was basically finalised. However, they are still involved in
internal consultations with other government agencies and a number of private
stakeholders (bound to strict confidentiality clauses), therefore they were not willing
to share with COM (or even to show us) the text at this stage.
USTR indicated that these internal discussions were sensitive due to different points
of view regarding the internet chapter both within the Administration, with Congress
and among stakeholders (content providers on one side, supporters of internet
"freedom" on the other). Consequently, they have to delay the release of the initial
text longer than initially expected. US expects the text to be circulated within the next
2 weeks. COM noted that if the text is received only 4 weeks before the next round,
this will not be sufficient to conclude internal EU discussions and therefore to present
written counterproposals (if any) in Seoul. US acknowledged the issue.
This being said, the US nevertheless provided a detailed oral description of the text.
Below is a report of such description. It is stressed that this report is provided as an
advance-warning and a preliminary indication of the content of US proposal, but since
it results from an oral presentation it may not fully reflect the final draft and should be
analysed accordingly.
The draft internet text is around 3 pages long and it was generally modelled on the
respective section of the recently concluded US-Korea Free Trade Agreement
(KORUS)1 (Chapter 18), however, in a "simpler" and "shorter" manner. It consists of
the following sections:
Section 1: Baseline obligations inspired by article 41 TRIPs, imposing adequate
and effective legal remedies, as provided in relevant sections of ACTA (civil, penal),
for internet infringements.
Section 2: ACTA members have to provide for third-party liability.
Section 3: Safe-harbours for liability regarding ISPs, based on Section 512 of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)2, including a preamble about the balance
1 Available at
[link to www.ustr.gov]
2 The DMCA is the US domestic law implementing the WIPO internet treaties and regulating, inter alia, copyright
issues on the internet. Available at: [link to thomas.loc.gov]
between the interests of internet service providers (ISPs) and right-holders. See also
KORUS Chapter 18.10.30. According to US, the language proposed is somewhere in
the "middle" between the WIPO internet treaties, KORUS and the DMCA, which
probably means that it is more detailed than the first but not as specific as the latter.
ISPs are defined as in Section 512 (k) of DMCA3
On the limitations from 3rd party liability: to benefit from safe-harbours, ISPs need to
put in place policies to deter unauthorised storage and transmission of IP infringing
content (ex: clauses in customers' contracts allowing, inter alia, a graduated
response). From what we understood, the US will not propose that authorities need to
create such systems. Instead they require some self-regulation by ISPs.
This Section 3 should also contain "broad" provisions regarding notice-and-takedown
mechanisms.
Section 4: Will focus on technical protection measures (TPMs). Language
inspired by US-Jordan Free-Trade Agreement (article 4.13)4, as well as by the WIPO
Internet Treaties (articles 11 WCT and 18 WPPT):
- Parties to provide adequate civil and criminal remedies that are specific to
TPM infringements, i.e. treat these as separate offenses form "general"
copyright infringements.
- TPM infringements would be: (i) prohibition of circumvention of access
controls and; (ii) prohibition of manufacture and trafficking of circumventing
DRM devices.
- There will be exceptions to these prohibitions available to ACTA members.
- "Fair use" will not be circumscribed.
- There will be no obligation for hardware manufacturers to ensure
interoperability of TPMs.
Section 5: Will focus on Rights' Management. Language inspired by US-Jordan
Free-Trade Agreement (article 4.13)5, as well as by the WIPO Internet Treaties
(articles 11 WCT and 18 WPPT):
- Parties to provide adequate civil and criminal remedies for rights' management
infringements.
- Right' management infringements would be stripping (works?) of rights'
management information
As agreed among ACTA participants, the negotiating papers are not public documents
and therefore should be treated with reserve.
___________________
3 See [link to thomas.loc.gov]
4 Available at: [link to www.ustr.gov]
5 Available at: [link to www.ustr.gov]

[link to www.michaelgeist.ca]

"Broken Promises from the Obama Administration Keep Americans in the Dark About ACTA"

Obama broke yet ANOTHER promise? Say it ain't so!

If you had told me on sept 11 ,2001 that a high yellow named Housien Obama would be president of the United states , I would've thought you were nuts. WTF?
The guy should be impeached on several different grounds.
I can't believe anyone could suck as bad as Bush lite, but Obama isn't any better. This country is fucked, like I told you 8 years ago. The plan is almost complete. SO what are they really going to do, nationalize intellectual properties? They've stolen our physical wealth, now they are going for our very ideas from the appearance of things. The national security card is always played when 'they' know if the people know the truth 'their' plans would come to a screeching halt;
Socialism and communism are too restrictive for a free minded person to endure, I am a libertarian and a real conservative [without the 'con') , a fucking neoCON is nothing but a Leo Strauss Zionist STOOGE. BY conservative, I mean that by how I interpret the Constitution. I am not a NUMBER OR A NAME WITH ALL CAPITOL LETTERS, I am a sovereign before the creator. WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL... The government is my servant, and serves at my whim. I am a patriot in that I believe competition is healthy. But I do not believe that war is the basic nature of humanity, I believe, well know, that there are a few at the top who do not recognize borders that control everything, and I am afraid at this point it might be too late.

The real conspiracy in life is that the intelligent often become servants or victims of the elite agenda , and the survivors are brainwashed and assimilated by what they call formal education. There is a Jewish conspiracy but it is a cover for something even more insidious
The "elite" bloodsuckers that view us as 'useless eaters' think we are more of a liability to their well being now that we, the herd , have smelled the telltale odor of a predator getting carelessly upwind. They are going to infect us, starve us and piss us off all at the same time. I am ashamed to see that our children are having to endure this hardship because they are not deemed as worthy to live by a few thousand selfish idiots that serve a particular agenda that actually when you boil it down it all comes down to the decision of only 9 men. The Earth is crowded but the answer is not genocidal eugenics based on the whims of the most reprehensible examples of human refuse that currently exists, the human answer is logical compassion. The human way to do it would be limiting the number of births to 2 that any one woman could bring to term. After a woman had her two children, she would be permanently sterilized. This would of course cause immediate rapid decline in world population, since a large percentage of females are unable to reproduce at any given time, deaths would outrun births by a wide margin. Nobody needs to be killed.Conflict serves the agenda of the few who manipulate it on both sides. Refuse to partake of the Hegelian dialectic