back to article Europe's ISPs object to secret copyright treaty talks

Secret trade talks on counterfeiting and copyright threaten to undermine citizens' rights without giving them a voice in negotiations, European internet service providers (ISPs) have warned. EuroISPA, a trade body representing 1,700 European ISPs, has called the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) talks 'heavy handed' and …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    If the ACTA becomes law in the EU then

    Queue a class action suit from all over the EU against the EU. This goes against the whole tenet of Justice and evidence.

    Wait a moment. Sort of like the US-UK extratition treaty where the US does not have to produce any evidence of wrongdoing to a UK court.

    Fail all round. Mines the coat with a one way ticket to International Waters where this sort of crap does not apply. Waterworld anyone?

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      So you think that anal rape is an appropriate punishment for the crime of being opposed to copyright? Nice.

      1. John Lilburne

        Proportionality pish!

        Those packaging knock off and pirated designs are not kids in bedrooms downloading the last disney movie, space shifting some mp3, or whatever. These are large commercial outfits making a lot of money from the designs of others. Why would you defend someone creating packaging for drugs that don't actually contain the drugs? Why defend someone creating packaging for a an iPod that doesn't contain an iPod?

        Some anti-copyright twonks need a smack upside their head, or indeed a good anal fucking.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    So [family] faces [penalty] for [3 accusations] unless [successful challenge]

    And this breaks 2 fundamental rights, it's a collective punishment, and it's a punishment on accusation sans judicial process. It also suppresses free speech if the Internet becomes the dominant mechanism for expressing yourself.

    It also sets the template, if you accept that you can break 3 fundamental rights for such a minor reason then it can be broken for all more serious reasons.

    So [men] face [penalty] for [rape accusation] unless [successful prove innocence]


    [teens] face [penalty] for [possession white powder] unless [prove it's not drugs]

    And on the flip side, it is to increase the profit from copyright material to support creative industries like music, however recent studies of music show the reverse, that actually under the new regimen MORE money is going to the creators of music.

    So if they want to go back to the old regimen, by this 3 strikes laws, then LESS money goes to musicians and MORE to Geffen? The opposite of what they say they're after?

    In software, more of the games/software/service is being moved to live servers, making client side piracy a non issue (World of Warcraft et al) and movies will move from selling plastic disks to pay per view, meaning they have a fix too. Musicians are already better off now they can bypass the record companies.

    So what problem are we trying to fix that doesn't already have a fix? This one?:

    "LORD Mandelson has promised tough action on illegal downloaders in a bid to help close friend David Geffen achieve his dream of owning the world's four biggest yachts."

    "Every time you download a track illegally you're stealing a tiny fragment of one of the diamonds in David's massive pile of diamonds that just sits in a big heap in one of the enormous houses he doesn't even know he's got."


    One more point, they were supposed to be negotiation a COUNTERFEITING treaty, yet it's morphed into another SPECIAL INTERESTS *COPYRIGHT* TREATY. The people involved do not have the mandate to negotiate anything other than a COUNTERFEITING treaty, this shouldn't even be in discussion.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Dear Numpty ISPs

    Long version:

    For those of us with a vision and hope to see online technical innovation not only at device, operating systems and applications levels we also hope equally visually that said developments will also be mature with increased safety and security.

    These risks are not only related to the technologies they are also related to the people making use of such technologies. Some of these people are really a bit bad if not downright naughty.

    While one can understand that ISPs don't really seek to do more than the minimal efforts they are putting it really is time ISPs stepped up to the mark with a view to upholding moral and social standards.

    Short version:

    C'mon dood! Get on wiv it yeah?!

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Dear Numpty

      It is NOT the reponsibilty of ISPs "to uphold moral and social standards", so stop talking crap.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Paris Hilton



        It is NOT the reponsibilty of ISPs "to uphold moral and social standards", so stop talking crap.


        there are no moral or social responsibilities on ISPs at all?


        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward


          The two - 'to uphold moral and social standards', and having 'moral or social responsibilities' - are different things. They could be the same if you define them that way but at face value they're not, whcih is the point.

        2. PT


          Yes. Glad to see you got it at last. Their responsibilities are purely commercial, to provide the service for which they have been paid.

  5. Paul 5

    turned out not to be true?

    How can you say that "rumours of... border searches of iPods and computers for pirated music... turned out not to be true" when the proposals have STILL not been released? At best you could say "have been neither confirmed nor disproved".

    Why the sudden outbreak of credulity towards ACTA?

  6. g e






  7. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    one word


    1. Anne Frank

      encryption isn't a viable method

      the "encryption" option is a good idea, however under many national laws (in the UK and US for example) then any encryption that is not crackable by national security agencies (GCHQ in the UK, or the NSA for the US) is illegal.

      So... you can encrypt your data, and transfer it as you previously did, but if the authorities can't crack it, then you're under arrest for using an algorithm that cannot be broken, and if it can be broken, then what's the point as any "suspect" files can then be referred on to those agencies for unlocking, and you'll get nicked if there's anything in there that's deemed illegal (such as that Spice Girls CD you've mp3'd)

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Absolute rubbish

        "any encryption that is not crackable by national security agencies (GCHQ in the UK, or the NSA for the US) is illegal"

        That's bullshit of the highest order.

        1. CD001


          yes it is bs, technically - however in the UKKR (United Kingdom of Kremlin Replication) you can be arrested for refusing to decrypt the data for the fuzz - so while it might be technically illegal, if you're (rightly) suspected of illegal filesharing you can be forced to incriminate yourself or be arrested for refusing to incriminate yourself... nice choice.

          We don't have a constitution let alone a 5th amendment.

        2. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart

          @ AC Absolure rubbish

          *ALL* encryption *IS* crackable, the only question is how much computing power and how hong it will take....

  8. Anonymous Coward


    So what penalties are to be applied to companies making false or unproven accusations ?

    Initially 1 million pounds fine to be given to the accused in a public ceremony, and a perpetual ban on accusing the same person or their family again.

    I consider this a fair and proportionate response

  9. irish donkey

    Another example of Big Business

    How can it be illegal to take you iPlod on holiday in a global market.

    Oh that's right, its only a global market when it is making Big Business money. When it comes to us we just have to do what we are told.(

    So how long will it be before when you me-ja you will have a choice of two licenses. A local license which you are allowed to listen to in your own bedroom but not to share with any girls you bring home that public performance) or a global license which you can use in your car or when going on holiday?

    Maybe an extra tax on flights and fuel to support all the me-ja movements around the country/globe. It would be cheaper to charge everybody a surcharge that it would be to route out the criminals.

    But never fear we have consumer groups to protect our rights. Oh right they aren't allowed to investigate core business are they. No matter how unfair. Supreme court says so…

  10. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: Europe's ISPs object to secret copyright treaty talks

    Ah yes, well done, someone managed to sneak a bit of Bubba past me. Don't post that crap, you infant.

    And it's 'cue', not 'queue'.

  11. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart

    Its just another name for the MAFIAA

    Well, Dah!, of course the ACTA negations are secret, the whole purpose of conducting the “negations” in secret is to engage in policy laundering to hide the real motivation behind ACTA. The negotiations for ACTA are not part of any international organisation and are being are being conducted in secrecy for one reason, to keep secret who is really driving the process and what they are asking for.

    The European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and consistently refused to revel anything about the discussions, George Bush refused on the grounds that it was is classified for 'national security', and the EU stated that they could not reveal anything about the negations because "disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations, would weaken the position of the European Union in these negotiations and might affect relations with the third parties concerned". So must for the Lisbon treaty improving openness and accountability within the EU

    What third parties?

    Would it be the “Advisory Committees”? Some of whose members are, Time Warner, the Entertainment Software Association, and the copyright mafia, the RIAA and the MPAA.

    It may also seem strange the senators Leahy and Specter are coming out against ACTA, however Leahy (who in 2004 received $178,000 in campaign contributions from the entertainment industries) but he is complaining that the ACTA may limit congresses ability to introduce other measures against copyright infringement. That’s the same senator Leahy who sponsored the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act ( the wording is so woolly that merely providing broadband could be used as inducing someone to engage copyright infringement).

    The usual crap is also being trotted out about ACTA being used to combat the trade in fake medicine, Induce is on an anti-porn trip, the reality of all this legislation is that it is the result of secret MAFIAA lobbying in the corridors of power; they still think that they can legislate copyright infringement out of existence. They tried it with the DMCA and failed, and now the MAFIAA are having a second go.

    They say there are only two groups of people that laugh at the law, those that make it and those that break it. The reality is that piracy will continue, it’ll be just harder to spot as the pirates become more sophisticated in their technology.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Mandy, oh Mandy!

    I have no issues with catching dirtbags who rip stuff off for the sake of it, those with no intention of buying anything. We have laws for those already, why do we need more? I occasionally pull down the odd TV episode from the states, after airing, but come release day my order it usually first out the door from Amazon. If I like it I owe the creative people, not the corp, something for their hardwork, especially music and more so if it's some form of niche music where the artists are just scraping by on the what they manage to make.

    I do have a problem with the media corps who automatically assume that anyone and everyone is a criminal out to rip off their bottom line. No room for doubt. You like music/films? You have internet connection? YOU ARE A CRIMINAL! No doubt this attitude will carry over to Mandy's wonderful new world, where you will all be guilty until proven innocent, not the correct other version which should be used!

    Either way Mandy will have his Gestapo media hoods out there, hauling in those grannies and 8 year old kids for a grilling, put 'em up in front of the new kings and barons of our global world, the media execs!

  13. Buzzby
    Big Brother

    What do you Expect

    Surely now just about anyone's definition of a politician is;

    "A Professional Liar & Cheat"

  14. Rob Foster 1

    Lisbon Treaty?

    I would draw our secretive Overlords attention to section 8A para 3 of their new Lisbon Treaty.

    Quote:- "Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen."

    So I read that as meaning anything decided secretly cannot be enforced without defying the terms of the Treaty. It would at least give ground for a challenge in the courts I would imagine.

    Any thoughts?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020