Text 29368, 112 rader
Skriven 2012-05-31 07:56:37 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 29316 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Dutch parliament officially rejects ACTA
================================================
31 May 12 11:56, Björn Felten wrote to Robert Bashe:


 RB>> You know, if that quotation is true, what else is that than "forcing
 RB>> (or attempting to force) others to use and apply _your_ laws" or
 RB>> words to that effect? And wasn't that one of the main points Michiel
 RB>> always states in his negative comments regarding the USA?

 BF>    Oh yes, it's true. That's exactly the spirit this so called trade
 BF> agreement has been written in.

1. ACTA is an "international" trade agreement. Meaning that members of the
   EU are subject to the agreement among themselves as well as the USofA
   and others, such as China and other countries in the orient. If they're
   members of the agreement.

2. If the European Commission endorses ACTA, it is the same as 'they own
   the doctrine'.

"As Europe is losing billions of Euros annually through counterfeit
goods flooding our markets, protecting Intellectual Property Rights
means protecting jobs in the EU. It also means consumer safety and
secure products."

"Negotiations of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), like all
other government negotiations, were held in a confidential setting,
however that does not mean that the negotiating process was not a very
open one. The European Commission regularly consulted the European
Parliament during the negotiations, shared all draft negotiating texts
with Members of the European Parliament, and invited, met and debriefed
NGOs, academia and representatives from political parties since the
beginning of the negotiations."

 BF>    So they started a side agreement with a select bunch of countries,
 BF> more likely to be fooled into agreeing with this folly.

LOL! (Full text of ACTA in all EU languages) http://bit.ly/xPDyNj

Obviously, someone (in Europe) took the time to make sure that every EU
member country could read the act in their native language...

 BF>    Mind you, as far as counterfeit products are concerned, stricter
 BF> laws are welcome to most consumers. We don't take kindly in buying
 BF> e.g. a Swiss army knife, and find that it's a cheap copy from China,
 BF> that has nothing of the quality of the original.

"The EU's national customs authorities have registered that counterfeit
goods entering the EU have tripled between 2005 and 2010.
Statistics published by the European Commission in July 2011 show a
tremendous upward trend in the number of shipments suspected of violating
IPR."

Statistics published by the European Commission:

http://tinyurl.com/78tjaa3

 BF>    But then the US media industry entered the scene, and after that
 BF> everything went really bad.

"The agreement is fully in line with the relevant EU legislation, in
particular the E-Commerce Directive, in force since 2000."

Remember: The US and its media have no say in the matters of EU
legislation. Only the EU Parliament has that power.

 RB>> own country. The EU is doing the same.

 BF>    Not really. Well, that depends of course on what you mean with EU.
 BF> The EU Parliament -- with it's democratically members, that we at
 BF> least have a theoretical possibility to have removed if they
 BF> misbehave -- has been kept in total darkness. Not even on direct
 BF> requests has it been given the information it asks for.

LOL! "It is possible that in certain countries, minor changes are required
with regard to the criminal enforcement. This is the chapter in ACTA that
has been negotiated by EU Member States, because there is still no
harmonised European legislation for it, only national laws. During the
negotiations, only Sweden notified the European Commission that it would
have to adapt its national legislation in the area of criminal
enforcement."

 BF>    The negotiations have been performed by civil servants, that are
 BF> not responsible to any voters. And they've been totally screwed by
 BF> the much more experienced US negotiators.

The US has had nothing to do with it.

"ACTA is fighting against piracy; piracy should not be confused with
sharing content. Sharing content is only illegal when the content is
illegal."

In the USofA, sharing of intellectual property is illegal no matter what
the content may be.

"ACTA does not define what is legal or illegal content. It only provides
the tools (civil, criminal or administrative) to react against illegal
content as it is defined today by European and national legislation. (What
are pirated goods? How are Intellectual Property Rights defined in ACTA?
It's all in Footnote 14 of "TRIPS", the WTO agreement on "Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights")."


                R\%/itt



... besides, IMNSHO, Ward Dossche should resign as ZC2 and surrender his
... net node-number to the ZCC !            - Cato the Elder -


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: Roiz Flying \A/ Service * South Texas * USA * (1:387/22)