The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting Pieces Together
ACTA Guide, Part 1: The Talks To-Date
ACTA Guide, Part 2: The Documents (Official and Leaked)
ACTA Guide, Part 3: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy
Global ACTA Coverage Picks Up Again |
| Print | |
|
Wednesday December 02, 2009
|
|||||||||||||
The global coverage of ACTA picked up again this week with the leak of the European analysis of the Internet chapter. New coverage includes:
Comments (6)
Andrew Butash
said:
|
|||||||||||||
|
... Clement's comments make me cautiously optimistic. At least he's publicly acknowledging, in parliament, the threat ACTA poses to our copyright consultation and subsequent reforms. Actually, between this and the consultation in general, as well as his various comments thus far, I have to say that, without actually seeing what he's going to put forward as of yet, I'm much more optimistic about Clement than I ever was about Prentice. He actually seems to "get it" half-decently. |
|
We may hope so... ...but let's watch these guys like hawks on squirrels anyway. Just in case. |
|
hmmmmm This is one of those things that make you go "hhmmmm" ... if there is no threat then why the big secret. Why on earth would the Canadian Government want to sign a "secret" trade agreement that will have direct consequence on the people of this country? For all we know there are bills being tabled in the house that will make this treaty compliant with the final laws ... but because we are not privy to the bigger picture we can't spot the cases. SO in the end Clement's statement would be technically correct (that the agreement is secondary to our laws) but in practice it may not be the case. The whole point of these trade agreements is to formalize a set of generally acceptable rules that sovereign countries believe is principled and beneficial to the greater good. We are still yet to hear any of the "good" in this agreement. |
|
All he really said is that ACTA wouldn't become law without going through Parliament. He didn't say that we wouldn't see a bill tabled to implement ACTA surrounded by "we have to pass this legislation because we signed ACTA" rhetoric. |
|
Gucci should kick the IPR-lobby out of ACTA ACTA started as an anti-counterfeiting agreement. Fair enough; Prada, Rolex, Armani, Tiffany, Gucci, Calvin Klein, Louis Vuitton, Versace, Ralph Lauren, etc. should be allowed to stop fake products. But are these incredibly high profile trendy life-style youth culture brands willing to have their reputation tarnished by the IPR-lobby. What will the damage to these brands be if they are made responsible for a future ACTA agreement with massive police state methods, ruining teen agers for life for the crime of file sharing, internet ban, border control with searches of your laptop, mobile and MP3-player, etc. My advice to Gucci, Prada and others: kick out the IPR lobby from the ACTA process. |
|
The secrecy The reason why it is a secret is because of the obvious cop-out nature of the “agreement”. The US, despite “change”, is still trying very hard to impose it’s lopsided views on the World. Despite “change”, it’s no different from the “project for an american century”’s reliance on the information economy. CAPTCHA: Calley bewares |
Subscribe to this comment's feed