Future of ACTA, Europe's SOPA cousin

/facepalm

Subby, I know you read the Slashdot article that called it that, but both you and that article were wrong. Stop repeating this, because it makes you sound like you've never read either SOPA or ACTA - and you have read both SOPA and ACTA, right?
But, for those who haven't read SOPA or ACTA, or are confused by Subby's misleading headline:

ACTA is an international trade agreement, like the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the TRIPs treaty, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, NAFTA, etc. It's not legislation, but rather an agreement between signatory countries to pass legislation in their own countries. Accordingly, ACTA sets out minimum standards that each country has to meet. Contrary to what some people think, it doesn't need to be ratified by Congress, because it's a non-enabling treaty... instead, Congress has to write legislation implementing it, at which point they get to weigh in on what it means. Until they pass that legislation, ACTA effectively has no teeth in the US.

SOPA and PIPA are house and senate bills, respectively. They implement many of the provisions of ACTA, but they differ in important ways. Unlike ACTA, however, they are legislation that would create statutes.

As an aside, if SOPA and/or PIPA were to pass, various government agencies would have to pass regulations that would detail how to follow procedures under the statutes. Things like "how to file a request" or "what color paper it should be on".

So, the hierarchy is:
Treaties/trade agreements are implemented by statutes which are implemented by regulations.

Now, Subby notes, Europe is debating whether to sign ACTA. If they do, then at some point, they'll have to write legislation. That legislation would be Europe's SOPA cousin*.

*or it may be very different. ACTA sets out minimum standards, so different legislation implementing it can look very different.

It's not in doubt and it goes wayyyy beyond SOPA. Go read about what ACTA is.

European countries are only a few of the many signatories - currently standing at 30 with only 6 ratifications needed to bring ACTA into force. The US is a signatory. The Canadian government signed ACTA in September and is now trying to ratify it via passing bill C-11 in this session of Parliament, which you can read about here.

bobbette: It's not in doubt and it goes wayyyy beyond SOPA. Go read about what ACTA is.

No, it doesn't. ACTA, by definition, goes wayyyyyyy less than SOPA.

kingoomieiii: Seriously, Ars posts an article every few days about how ACTA isn't the goddamned devil spawn the internet at large seems to think it is.

Shiat, even if it was the goddamn devil spawn... it's a trade agreement. Even if every country in the world signed it using the blood of an infant clone of Hitler, it still wouldn't do anything until those countries passed statutes to implement it.

Theaetetus: bobbette: It's not in doubt and it goes wayyyy beyond SOPA. Go read about what ACTA is.

No, it doesn't. ACTA, by definition, goes wayyyyyyy less than SOPA.

What are you talking about? SOPA addressed online copyright infringement and ACTA is about intellectual property as a whole - it's setting up an entire new international level of cooperation going around the existing bodies on intellectual property, on so-called "anti-counterfeiting measures", for things as wide-ranging as clothing items and pharmaceuticals and addressing not only the internet, but issues like border security and trade. As such it is far beyond the scope of SOPA. Indeed some of the biggest problems with ACTA are not even related to the internet but to generic drug production in developing countries.

But, related to the internet, within ACTA are measures that would address the issue of digital copies and significantly affect ISPs and users: by introducing liability for ISPs and software developers, and practically anyone else for users' file-sharing (by "aiding and abetting" the activity), introducing massive and ridiculous damages for copyright violators, by forcing ISPs to reveal user data to content industries, by potentially criminalizing whistleblowers and newspapers or online websites who display leaked government documents in the public interest (since governments often copyright their documents.) Software developers who release products online will be in a really tricky situation and probably on the wrong side of the law and will be targeted by patent trolls. Significantly problematic from an internet standpoint are the measures criminalizing copyright infringement for 'commercial' purposes without attention to scale and an incredibly vague definition of what makes something 'commercial' (goodbye, remixed music and mashups, and very likely, goodbye ad-supported music blogs) and import/export of copyrighted material, which obviously can become a problem if you're at the border and your laptop has copyrighted material on it.

Theaetetus: Future of ACTA, Europe's SOPA cousin

/facepalm

Subby, I know you read the Slashdot article that called it that, but both you and that article were wrong. Stop repeating this, because it makes you sound like you've never read either SOPA or ACTA - and you have read both SOPA and ACTA, right?
But, for those who haven't read SOPA or ACTA, or are confused by Subby's misleading headline:

ACTA is an international trade agreement, like the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the TRIPs treaty, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, NAFTA, etc. It's not legislation, but rather an agreement between signatory countries to pass legislation in their own countries. Accordingly, ACTA sets out minimum standards that each country has to meet. Contrary to what some people think, it doesn't need to be ratified by Congress, because it's a non-enabling treaty... instead, Congress has to write legislation implementing it, at which point they get to weigh in on what it means. Until they pass that legislation, ACTA effectively has no teeth in the US.

SOPA and PIPA are house and senate bills, respectively. They implement many of the provisions of ACTA, but they differ in important ways. Unlike ACTA, however, they are legislation that would create statutes.

As an aside, if SOPA and/or PIPA were to pass, various government agencies would have to pass regulations that would detail how to follow procedures under the statutes. Things like "how to file a request" or "what color paper it should be on".

So, the hierarchy is:
Treaties/trade agreements are implemented by statutes which are implemented by regulations.

Now, Subby notes, Europe is debating whether to sign ACTA. If they do, then at some point, they'll have to write legislation. That legislation would be Europe's SOPA cousin*.

*or it may be very different. ACTA sets out minimum standards, so different legislation implementing it can look very different.

You need to put that explanation to music; it'd be huge on the tubes.


/hot

bobbette: The US is a signatory.

Not really. Obama signed it as an "executive agreement". It has not been ratified or even submitted to the Congress as a treaty. As such, it has a very tenuous foothold here in the US. Congress is not bound by it at all, for instance.

TsarTom: And so, once again my ancestral home comes through.

Poor Poland is upside down the whole time... No wonder he is so confused :( .
/or is it Indonesia in disguise ?

Tusk!

It's easy to miss, all tucked away down there.

You know who didn't forget Poland?

came for poland ball leaving happy

Dear subby,

Please learn what the hell you're talking about before submitting a headline.

Thanks.

bobbette: Theaetetus: bobbette: It's not in doubt and it goes wayyyy beyond SOPA. Go read about what ACTA is.

No, it doesn't. ACTA, by definition, goes wayyyyyyy less than SOPA.

What are you talking about? SOPA addressed online copyright infringement and ACTA is about intellectual property as a whole - it's setting up an entire new international level of cooperation going around the existing bodies on intellectual property, on so-called "anti-counterfeiting measures", for things as wide-ranging as clothing items and pharmaceuticals and addressing not only the internet, but issues like border security and trade. As such it is far beyond the scope of SOPA.

I don't mean to make fun of you, so I'mma try not to. But once more:

ACTA is a trade agreement. It doesn't actually do anything, just establishes minimum standards that signatory countries have to meet when they pass laws.

SOPA is one of those "law-passin' things" so that the US can meet its obligations under ACTA. SOPA, however, goes a lot farther than the minimum standards required by ACTA.

Think of it this way:
ACTA is like a vague idea for dinner, saying "you should include a meat, and a veggie, and a starch of some sort, but not potatoes, because they can lick my balls."
SOPA is like a menu that includes steak and pasta primavera.
Responsive to SOPA, the Copyright Office would then write some regulations, which would be like "the steak should be medium rare, and the pasta primavera must include carrots, broccoli, and zucchini."
Treaty - Law - Regulation, in that order. ACTA doesn't go nearly as far as SOPA, which wouldn't go nearly as far as the implementing regulations.

And yes, SOPA is bad. We're all in agreement on that.* But ACTA is not SOPA.

*PIPA isn't as bad as SOPA, actually

Theaetetus:

The EU already signed ACTA, Poland is just protesting it now. The U.S. signed it awhile back, so the most inaccurate part of the headline isn't the "cousin" part it's the "Europe's" part. As a treaty it does not require new statutes, only ratification by Congress. After they (and 5 other governments' legislatures) do that the executive has the power to enforce the treaty through regulations as needed.

If only there were some way that Polish people could somehow stand in solidarity, to make sure that laws like ACTA/SOPA don't get passed in their country ...

Also, for the specific points you raise:

bobbette: Indeed some of the biggest problems with ACTA are not even related to the internet but to generic drug production in developing countries.

Yes, ACTA relates to copyright, trademarks, trade secrets. That alone doesn't make it bad. It's broad, like it's supposed to be.

But, related to the internet, within ACTA are measures that would address the issue of digital copies and significantly affect ISPs and users: by introducing liability for ISPs and software developers, and practically anyone else for users' file-sharing (by "aiding and abetting" the activity), introducing massive and ridiculous damages for copyright violators, by forcing ISPs to reveal user data to content industries, by potentially criminalizing whistleblowers and newspapers or online websites who display leaked government documents in the public interest (since governments often copyright their documents.)

But it doesn't... All ACTA says is "countries must provide for liability, but how they do that is up to each individual country." ACTA says nothing about "massive and ridiculous damages," or "forcing ISPs to reveal user data" or "leaked government documents." Now, sure, a country could pass laws for those things and be in compliance with ACTA, but they don't have to.
Hell, technically, a country could comply perfectly with ACTA by saying "we will imprison everyone who reads, uses, watches, or otherwise interacts with a work whose copyright has been registered." Mind you, that's a bit insane, but it would be fine under ACTA, because ACTA establishes a floor, not a ceiling. But slippery slope arguments about what could be passed don't really have anything to do with ACTA.

Software developers who release products online will be in a really tricky situation and probably on the wrong side of the law and will be targeted by patent trolls.

Respectfully, you're either very confused or haven't actually read ACTA. ACTA explicitly says that Section 2 does not have to apply to patents. In fact, patents are only mentioned twice in all of ACTA... in two footnotes saying that ACTA doesn't apply to patents.

So, "patent trolls"? Not so much.

Significantly problematic from an internet standpoint are the measures criminalizing copyright infringement for 'commercial' purposes without attention to scale and an incredibly vague definition of what makes something 'commercial' (goodbye, remixed music and mashups, and very likely, goodbye ad-supported music blogs) and import/export of copyrighted material, which obviously can become a problem if you're at the border and your laptop has copyrighted material on it.

... except that, as noted, ACTA doesn't actually include those measures. Even those links you include don't say that ACTA includes those measures... instead, it notes that countries could pass broad, vague, and intrusive criminal copyright statutes. And if they do, or if they start to, then we should address that. See, e.g. SOPA.

But ACTA is not those statutes.
But hell, don't trust me... Go to the relevant sections of ACTA:
23:1 "Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale. For the purposes of this Section, acts carried out on a commercial
scale include at least those carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect
economic or commercial advantage."

Okay... what criminal procedures and penalties? 1 day in jail? No jail time, but a $50 fine? And what's "willful" mean? Malicious, or just intentional? And how do we define "direct economic advantage"? Is it money-making, or just not money-losing?
ACTA doesn't answer those. It's up to each country, in those implementing statutes. And it could be a very, very, very low penalty.

NobleHam: Theaetetus:

The EU already signed ACTA, Poland is just protesting it now.

Oh? They hadn't as of this morning... Got a link?

The U.S. signed it awhile back, so the most inaccurate part of the headline isn't the "cousin" part it's the "Europe's" part. As a treaty it does not require new statutes, only ratification by Congress. After they (and 5 other governments' legislatures) do that the executive has the power to enforce the treaty through regulations as needed.

... Uh, sorry, that's simply not correct. Look up non-self-executing treaties.
Or, go look at ACTA and tell me how a treaty that says "Each Party shall make available to right holders civil judicial procedures concerning the enforcement of any intellectual property right as specified in this Section" doesn't require some sort of statute making those procedures available. (new window).
Or even tell us what those procedures are. How many days do you have to file? Are there statutory damages available? If so, how much? How do you provide notice? Which courts can you file a suit in? What's the statute of limitations?

ACTA is non-self-executing. It does require statutes to answer those questions and others, and therefore does not require ratification by Congress.

Theaetetus: NobleHam: Theaetetus:

The EU already signed ACTA, Poland is just protesting it now.

Oh? They hadn't as of this morning... Got a link?

FTFA: According to reports, Tusk said on Friday that his government had made insufficient consultations before signing the agreement in late January, and it was necessary to ensure it was entirely safe for Polish citizens.

bolded text goes to:

The countries signed the treaty, which aims to harmonise copyright enforcement across much of the world, in Tokyo on Thursday. However, the signatures of the EU member states and the EU itself will count for nothing unless the European Parliament gives its approval to ACTA in June, and digital activists have urged citizens to lobby their MEPs against voting yes.
EU signs ACTA

Only five EU countries did not sign ACTA, which aims to harmonise copyright enforcement.

Poland, which was one of the signatories, saw thousands demonstrate in the streets on Wednesday, protesting against the signing.

An EU diplomat also added his signature. However, five EU countries did not sign, namely Germany, the Netherlands, Estonia, Cyprus and Slovakia. Many other countries, such as the US, Japan and Australia, signed the document in September.

So, vaguely accurate, but still needing Parliamentary approval.

Theaetetus: bobbette: Theaetetus: bobbette: It's not in doubt and it goes wayyyy beyond SOPA. Go read about what ACTA is.

No, it doesn't. ACTA, by definition, goes wayyyyyyy less than SOPA.

What are you talking about? SOPA addressed online copyright infringement and ACTA is about intellectual property as a whole - it's setting up an entire new international level of cooperation going around the existing bodies on intellectual property, on so-called "anti-counterfeiting measures", for things as wide-ranging as clothing items and pharmaceuticals and addressing not only the internet, but issues like border security and trade. As such it is far beyond the scope of SOPA.

I don't mean to make fun of you, so I'mma try not to. But once more:

ACTA is a trade agreement. It doesn't actually do anything, just establishes minimum standards that signatory countries have to meet when they pass laws.

SOPA is one of those "law-passin' things" so that the US can meet its obligations under ACTA. SOPA, however, goes a lot farther than the minimum standards required by ACTA.

Think of it this way:
ACTA is like a vague idea for dinner, saying "you should include a meat, and a veggie, and a starch of some sort, but not potatoes, because they can lick my balls."
SOPA is like a menu that includes steak and pasta primavera.
Responsive to SOPA, the Copyright Office would then write some regulations, which would be like "the steak should be medium rare, and the pasta primavera must include carrots, broccoli, and zucchini."
Treaty - Law - Regulation, in that order. ACTA doesn't go nearly as far as SOPA, which wouldn't go nearly as far as the implementing regulations.

And yes, SOPA is bad. We're all in agreement on that.* But ACTA is not SOPA.

*PIPA isn't as bad as SOPA, actually

It's more like ACTA is a shiat andwich, and SOPA/PIPA is a shiat sandwich with corn and beans in it.

Thank fark.
Dont live in Ireland anymore but this is still good news

Where will they bury the survivors.

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Theaetetus: bobbette: Theaetetus: bobbette: It's not in doubt and it goes wayyyy beyond SOPA. Go read about what ACTA is.

No, it doesn't. ACTA, by definition, goes wayyyyyyy less than SOPA.

What are you talking about? SOPA addressed online copyright infringement and ACTA is about intellectual property as a whole - it's setting up an entire new international level of cooperation going around the existing bodies on intellectual property, on so-called "anti-counterfeiting measures", for things as wide-ranging as clothing items and pharmaceuticals and addressing not only the internet, but issues like border security and trade. As such it is far beyond the scope of SOPA.

I don't mean to make fun of you, so I'mma try not to. But once more:

ACTA is a trade agreement. It doesn't actually do anything, just establishes minimum standards that signatory countries have to meet when they pass laws.

SOPA is one of those "law-passin' things" so that the US can meet its obligations under ACTA. SOPA, however, goes a lot farther than the minimum standards required by ACTA.

Think of it this way:
ACTA is like a vague idea for dinner, saying "you should include a meat, and a veggie, and a starch of some sort, but not potatoes, because they can lick my balls."
SOPA is like a menu that includes steak and pasta primavera.
Responsive to SOPA, the Copyright Office would then write some regulations, which would be like "the steak should be medium rare, and the pasta primavera must include carrots, broccoli, and zucchini."
Treaty - Law - Regulation, in that order. ACTA doesn't go nearly as far as SOPA, which wouldn't go nearly as far as the implementing regulations.

And yes, SOPA is bad. We're all in agreement on that.* But ACTA is not SOPA.

*PIPA isn't as bad as SOPA, actually

It's more like ACTA is a shiat andwich, and SOPA/PIPA is a shiat sandwich with corn and beans in it.

No. ACTA says that there shall be sandwiches, the nature of which is determined by individual countries. If a country decides to comply by serving up a turd sandwich that's entirely up to them and is not part of ACTA.

Theaetetus: ACTA is a trade agreement. It doesn't actually do anything, just establishes minimum standards that signatory countries have to meet when they pass laws.

And you don't think countries signing treaties and establishing harsher international IP regimes is important? Look at your own wording: it establishes standards that signatory countries have already agreed to meet, to enact harsher provisions to protect an outdated business model at the expense of online freedom, and which in many non-American countries are completely new. I'm concerned that increased scrutiny of transmission of information online is becoming a part of international agreements on IP, particularly considering the strong-arming of previous IP regimes in linking them to WTO membership. An additional and very serious concern is that civil society groups were excluded from the negotiation of ACTA, despite being important stakeholders.

You noted,
countries could pass broad, vague, and intrusive criminal copyright statutes. And if they do, or if they start to, then we should address that.

Countries are already starting to ratify ACTA to meet their obligations. For example, the Canadian government introduced legislation last fall that begins that process - Bill C-11, which will be taken up this session, and very likely passed with terrible measures on digital locks and DRM circumvention that originated in ACTA. ACTA is thus a major concern here, and protests are planned for the upcoming weeks. ACTA is literally about to become our reality in Canada.

I want to also mention that the fact that patents aren't specifically mentioned in ACTA doesn't mean it isn't intended to apply to patents, particularly since ACTA explicitly states that everything in TRIPS Part II sections 1-7 are included in ACTA's purview. You might want to re-read Section 5 with that and the internet distribution of software in mind. I believe that is what a lot of European software developers are fired up about.

bobbette: Theaetetus: ACTA is a trade agreement. It doesn't actually do anything, just establishes minimum standards that signatory countries have to meet when they pass laws.

And you don't think countries signing treaties and establishing harsher international IP regimes is important? Look at your own wording: it establishes standards that signatory countries have already agreed to meet, to enact harsher provisions to protect an outdated business model at the expense of online freedom, and which in many non-American countries are completely new. I'm concerned that increased scrutiny of transmission of information online is becoming a part of international agreements on IP, particularly considering the strong-arming of previous IP regimes in linking them to WTO membership. An additional and very serious concern is that civil society groups were excluded from the negotiation of ACTA, despite being important stakeholders.

You noted,
countries could pass broad, vague, and intrusive criminal copyright statutes. And if they do, or if they start to, then we should address that.

Countries are already starting to ratify ACTA to meet their obligations. For example, the Canadian government introduced legislation last fall that begins that process - Bill C-11, which will be taken up this session, and very likely passed with terrible measures on digital locks and DRM circumvention that originated in ACTA. ACTA is thus a major concern here, and protests are planned for the upcoming weeks. ACTA is literally about to become our reality in Canada.

I want to also mention that the fact that patents aren't specifically mentioned in ACTA doesn't mean it isn't intended to apply to patents, particularly since ACTA explicitly states that everything in TRIPS Part II sections 1-7 are included in ACTA's purview. You might want to re-read Section 5 with that and the internet distribution of software in mind. I believe that is what a lot of European software developers are fired up about.

Thing is, Theaetetus is technically correct on all counts but I think that's hardly a good reasoning to not protest an agreement that went behind the backs of so many stakeholders like you rightly said bobette

I mean, who's pushing for all this bollockery? Is it the RIAAs MPAAs of the world? Can't they really not adapt to this wonderful new world the internet has made possible?? I was talking with a friend about this and she pointed me to the whole Nine Inch Nails Ghosts I-IV thing (full disclosure: I never got around to even listen to it at the time it came out. I know, I know, I know...)

Food for thought from the wiki:

The entire album was also made available for download directly from the band for US$5. Physical copies of the album were available for pre-sale online, with immediate access to the digital version. A two-disc version includes two audio CDs and a 16-page booklet for $10 (...)
The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license (...) The album's initial release on the official Nine Inch Nails website suffered problems as the website was inundated with traffic, and was not fully operational until extra servers were added to handle the influx of downloads.[27] A week after the album's release, the official Nine Inch Nails site reported over 750,000 purchase and download transactions, amassing over $1.6 million in sales .[38][39] Pre-orders of the $300 "Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition" sold out in less than 30 hours of its release, and grossed $750,000 overall.

The above is on the assumption that this is another way to get at "lost sales" from piracy. Obviously ACTA is not just about that but I think the point is relevant when we all are considering adding* yet another layer of potentially draconian legislation where it is not clear it would be ethical, and much more importantly even effective to do so.

/opinions, arseholes, etc
*because if all countries sign this, nothing bad will happen right? it will just be a guideline, right? no parliament/congress will develop half-arsed legislation based on the agreement, right? we can't all be possibly be that pants-headed stupid, right???

bobbette: And you don't think countries signing treaties and establishing harsher international IP regimes is important?

Those are two different things. The treaty doesn't establish harsher IP regimes.

Look at your own wording: it establishes standards that signatory countries have already agreed to meet, to enact harsher provisions to protect an outdated business model at the expense of online freedom, and which in many non-American countries are completely new.

That's not my wording. My wording was that it establishes minimum standards. A country can meet those standards without doing anything harsh.

My favorite example of this is the Paris Convention and Switzerland. The Paris Convention established minimum standards for protection of patents, specifically that countries couldn't treat foreign inventors differently. You let your own inventors have 20 years of protection? Then you have to let foreign inventors have the same 20 years. Same fees, same examination, etc. Simple, right?
And then along came plucky little Switzerland. They said, "we don't have many native inventors, but Germany is right over the border... So, we will not protect our inventors at all. Patents have no protection in Switzerland, for both native inventors and foreign inventors."
And that complied with the Paris Convention, and no one could say boo.

ACTA is similar. Countries can establish truly minimal procedures and penalties if they want.
Now, not all will - like the US with SOPA/PIPA. But that's not a problem with ACTA, it's a problem with the US and SOPA/PIPA.

You noted,
countries could pass broad, vague, and intrusive criminal copyright statutes. And if they do, or if they start to, then we should address that.

Countries are already starting to ratify ACTA to meet their obligations.

That's again a different thing... ACTA doesn't need to be ratified, it needs to be implemented.

For example, the Canadian government introduced legislation last fall that begins that process - Bill C-11, which will be taken up this session, and very likely passed with terrible measures on digital locks and DRM circumvention that originated in ACTA. ACTA is thus a major concern here, and protests are planned for the upcoming weeks. ACTA is literally about to become our reality in Canada.

No, Bill C-11 is going to become your reality. Once again, ACTA isn't the issue, and it doesn't include any of that digital locks language.

I want to also mention that the fact that patents aren't specifically mentioned in ACTA doesn't mean it isn't intended to apply to patents, particularly since ACTA explicitly states that everything in TRIPS Part II sections 1-7 are included in ACTA's purview. You might want to re-read Section 5 with that and the internet distribution of software in mind. I believe that is what a lot of European software developers are fired up about.

Yes, and? TRIPs already applies. ACTA doesn't go any farther, even in section 5.

A-Rth-Urp-Hil-Ipdenu: Obviously ACTA is not just about that but I think the point is relevant when we all are considering adding* yet another layer of potentially draconian legislation where it is not clear it would be ethical, and much more importantly even effective to do so.

/opinions, arseholes, etc
*because if all countries sign this, nothing bad will happen right? it will just be a guideline, right? no parliament/congress will develop half-arsed legislation based on the agreement, right? we can't all be possibly be that pants-headed stupid, right???

Yes, but you're protesting the wrong thing. It's like saying that we should abolish the FDA because they could pass regulations requiring rat feces in all our beer. That's not a reason to protest the FDA generally, though.

Theaetetus, you are overlooking why this is being pushed and by whom. The intent of ACTA is to force a new round of legislation written by IP stakeholders to once again screw over everyone else.

The current regulatory regime is counter to the original intent of IP laws, particularly in the area of copyright. IP laws were drawn up to ensure an orderly transition of creative and useful works into the public domain. Thanks to Disney, etc this is likely to never happen in the future as corporations can now control copyright indefinitely.

And eventually this will apply to patents as well. Don't kid yourself. Corporations are looking at a literally endless stream of royalties for innovations whose developers were sacked as soon as the patent paperwork was filed.

All they need to find is the one country that will go along with this legislative agenda and move their operations there. And they will, too. Banks are talking of moving to China of all places over more airtight regulations. China, where the government will do pretty much anything they want to with your company and likes to dictate how business is done on a daily basis. I can see them pushing one legislature into passing perpetual IP laws and then using that to pressure everyone else into following suit. End result? A complete stifling of innovation as independent engineers and researchers get cut out of the loop altogether. Big companies are not innovative, but they will be the only ones allowed to innovate because they will have a lock on much of the IP out there. Think genetic material, and particularly how companies like Monsanto operate.

The current system already brings out the "civil disobedience as a duty" stance in me. ACTA and the current way that laws are literally purchased by corporations around the world downright scares me. I see the death of innovation and of collaboration between individuals in this. Most engineers I know already have to sign away all ideas they come up with to their employers regardless of whether they are job-related or not. Already a creative person hired by a company typically has no "intellectual property," it automatically is awarded to the employer through the boilerplate in the employment contract. Even the independent contractors I know have that language in their contracts.

That is the problem with ACTA. It is an attempt to force this regime on everyone else. You can argue that it doesn't require it, but it requires companies to be given the opportunity to buy the laws that make it so, and force every country to recognize such contracts signed elsewhere.

Did you know that what they often patent isn't the product, but how to make the product? My father worked for a decade to develop manufacturing processes for a particular molecule. The molecule itself was already 20 years old. But they locked down every process to synthesize the molecule and filed all the papers at once to license it to other companies. Then this multinational company fired everyone in their R&D department and pilot plant. The severance packages forbade working in the same segment of the industry long enough that their skills and knowledge were beyond rusty. They had their profits locked in for the next 20 years on a 30 year product, and had no use for the literally hundreds of people who were involved, and made sure nobody else would have a use for them either. I think they retained a handful of interns to clean out a 4 story office and lab building after the paid employees vacated the premises.

That is the kind of mentality behind the push for ACTA. And anyone who knows anything about business knows exactly what kinds of laws are being pushed on every government involved by trade groups. All it takes is one to grant perpetual patents and the rest of the countries will follow suit in several more years or face losing their "corporate citizens." It is part of the ongoing "slash and burn" mentality that modern businesses thrive on.