It should be pointed out that he is referring to the UK. Just because UK (and EU) citizens have allowed their rights to be taken away from them doesn't mean that Americans should not be outraged at what this treaty forebodes. It is an affront to anyone that values the freedom of speech and due process.

I agree; the "well, it's almost like that already, so what's a little more law" argument is unconvincing to my ears.

True.

But he's still right about the "don't panic" part. Until this actually shakes out into the real world, we don't know how much of an issue it will be. If it's one of those things that no one bothers to enforce, then who cares? If they do try to enforce it, then there will be class action suits and it will eventually go away.

In short, I don't think we can prevent it, but I do think we can get rid of it if need be.

You're not considering the worst-case scenario: "they" don't enforce it for a while, just so the public outcry wears out, then "they" start to threaten some ISPs...

At which point the lawsuits and such start up. I don't see the problem--the delay before enforcement is irrelevant, it's only the question of enforcement that matters.

It should also be pointed out that this person is a partner at an intellectual property law firm. Forgive me if I'm not persuaded by the placations of an IP lawyer on this particular matter.

I'm not inclined to panic over the "copyright treaty" part, I am inclined to panic over the "secret" part. If there was nothing to worry about, why is it secret? The article above seems to hold the position, "Don't panic, we don't really know what is in it." My position is "Panic now so that we can know what is in it!"

"Though it is thoughtful of trade negotiators to spare us the ugly sight of the horse-trading and chicanery that makes up every law-making process"

This sentence relates point of view is so misaligned with my own that I'm not sure I can take the rest of the article seriously, if at all.

I read that sentence as tongue-in-cheek. It's a jab at both the normal way of doing law and also the trade negotiators (they're still doing chicanery, just behind closed doors). The second part of the sentence also makes it seem like the author is laughing at the negotiators: whatever their scheming intentions, the plan blew up in their faces.

Overreaction in this case is absolutely rational. You lose nothing by panicking loudly, but you bring more public attention to the issue.

Only if your worries prove valid.

And only then iuf your government is inclined to listen to the loudest amongst us.

If the the treaty appears less extreme than is complained about it pretty much invalidates all the panicking.. wrongly of course but that is politics.

They're playing a game; we should too. Stay calm and see what appears - then go out all guns blazing :)

> Stay calm and see what appears

It is easier to fix bugs earlier in development

The parts of the ACTA that were leaked terrify me to no end. I work from home, and therefore I absolutely rely on my internet connection for my well-being. So what happens if the RIAA makes a mistake and tells my ISP that my internet needs to be cut off? Since such proceedings would not work through the legal system, what recourse would I have?

When I saw the headline for this article, I was really hopeful that maybe the leaked ACTA documents had been discounted, or maybe misinterpreted, and therefore I could stop panicking. However, the headline was an absolute lie; especially for those of us in the US that still have a few freedoms left.