<i>...refuses to even classify ACTA as a treaty, which would then require ratification by the U.S. Senate...</i><p>If we're modifying huge sections of IP law administratively without legislative oversight, that opens up a whole new area for fun and games. Now you have to petition your Congressman to petition the president to use a certain process just so <i>your elected representative can actually have a say in how the laws are changing</i>.<p>There's nothing new here -- Congress has been ceding it's authority away for decades and this is just a bit of political posturing on Issa's part -- but still, it's really quite breathtaking when you stand back and think about it. The bureaucracy saw what it thought was a problem, then used existing international treaties as a framework to "fix" the problem without having that pesky review or oversight process.<p>Next time they want more restrictions on the net instead of trying to get a bill through the Senate and the House they'll just use this avenue.<p>I gotta admit it, the folks waving their arms and saying ACTA was much worse than SOPA were right. This not only does the same and more, it sets up a process to make future restrictions easier to get by.<p>Wish I had something positive and upbeat to add, but if there's a silver lining here I don't see it. Perhaps the community can use Issa as a prop to get this thing opened up and eviscerated. Using the government oversight committee is probably the only road open at this point.
Congress is angry because usually their approval is needed to ratify a treaty - see the letter below -<p><a href="http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=12a5b1cb-ccb8-4e14-bb84-a11b35b4ec53" rel="nofollow">http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=12a5b1cb-...</a>
I don't get it. The text has been public for a while now, e.g. on the website of the European Commission:<p><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/index_en.htm" rel="nofollow">http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/index_e...</a>
Does this count as a breach of some sort of constitutional duty on behalf of the President? Or would it just be a valid argument that the "treaty" is null and void?<p>Sorry - not intimatey familiar with the US government.
For those looking for more information:<p>Problems with ACTA, from Michael Geist, a Canadian on the EFF advisory board:
<a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6350/125/" rel="nofollow">http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6350/125/</a><p>From his points, the main substantive change from what I can tell is more oversight and liability for 3rd parties, with one likely target being ISPs:
"Within ACTA, Articles 8 and 12 apply in the civil enforcement context, Articles 23 and 24 add “aiding and abetting” to criminal offences, and Article 27 targets third parties in the online environment. "<p>A defense of ACTA from the European Commission:
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/index_en.htm" rel="nofollow">http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/index_e...</a><p>Defense summarized here:
<a href="http://venturevillage.eu/acta-myths-explained" rel="nofollow">http://venturevillage.eu/acta-myths-explained</a><p>All in all it seems like a pretty vague agreement designed to bring all the signers on the same page in terms of oversight and investigation of ip importing and exporting activities. It hardly says that countries must do anything, but that they "may" do many things they agree on. That's not to say that the agreement would be a good thing in its current form. Agreeing to potentially criminalize activities without mandating protections from false charges etc seems like a poor decision to me.
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in-inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awa...</a><p>"That final version has been publicly available for months, but many ACTA opponents continue to focus on these deleted provisions in their arguments against the treaty."
I don't want to ding a politician for doing the right thing, but Issa is also a sponsor of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act</a>, (co-sponsored with a Democrat, btw) so this looks more like an act of political grand-standing than political idealism.