Homenagem Ana Picasso

[Pablo Empanada]

In days, the European Commission will try a last ditch attempt to revive ACTA. But if we intervene now this global attack on Internet freedom will collapse.

We are so close to winning -- our 2.4 million strong petition has stunned politicians across Europe and halted the censors. Now the European Commission is on the back foot and hoping the Court of Justice will give ACTA the greenlight by presenting a very narrow legal question that is sure to receive a positive answer.

But if we all raise our voices now we can ensure the Court looks at all the legal impacts of ACTA, and releases an opinion that tells the truth about ACTA's attack on our rights. Sign the urgent petition to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso to call on the Court to tell the whole truth:

http://www.avaaz.org...7696223&v=12958

Não sei é até que ponto isto serve para alguma coisa mas...

Edited March 1, 2012 by Pablo Empanada

[Pablo Empanada]

ACTA dealt major blow as Europe rejects the controversial treaty

The European Parliament has rejected ACTA, the controversial anti-piracy and anti-counterfeit treaty, blocking any signing EU member

The European Parliament has voted to overwhelmingly reject the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement, also known as ACTA, following an all-parliamentary vote today.

Members of Parliament in Poland express their opposition to ACTA by holding paper Guy Fawkes masks in front of their faces. The masks are used by members of Anonymous.(Credit: Polish media via Forbes)

The controversial treaty is intended to harmonise anti-counterfeit and copyright protection measures across all EU member states and other signing countries, including as the United States.

The Parliament voted 478 votes against, and only 39 in favour. There were 146 abstentions.

The European Parliament vote means the signing 22 European member states cannot ratify ACTA into their local sovereign law. However, non-EU countries will still be able to shape laws around the treaty's mandates, although ACTA's scope will be significantly reduced without Europe's backing.

To date, 22 of the 27 European member states have signed up to the treaty, including the United Kingdom. Germany, however, has yet to subscribe to ACTA following its foreign ministry calling for a delay to the signing process.

The politician charged with investigating the treaty, rapporteur David Martin MEP, took over from Kader Arif following his resignation in protest earlier this year. He was the first to recommend that the European Parliament should not accept the treaty, firing off a chain reaction of similar rejections.

Martin said today: "It's time to give [ACTA] its last rites."

In late May,

three major European Parliament committees voted against ACTA: LIBE, the civil liberties committee; JURI, the legal affairs committee; and ITRE, the industry and energy committee.

EU trade committee INTA

also rejected the ACTA in a vote three weeks later, sending the strongest signal yet to the European Parliament to reject the treaty.

Related stories

• ZDNet: EU sends strongest signal yet to reject ACTA
  
• How ACTA would affect you: FAQ
  
• CNET: Anonymous takes aim over Europe's SOPA
  

ACTA stirred further controversy in June when EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht

said in a speech that the Commission would nonetheless press ahead with the treaty should it fail to pass the European Parliament.

"If you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me tell you that the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the current procedure before the Court, as we are entitled to do. A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice," he said.

The court's judgment could come as late as 2014, and the European Parliament did not want to wait.

In the speech, Karel also hinted that the treaty could be reintroduced at the next parliament in 2015 should it be rejected in the current parliament.

Earlier this year, protests erupted on Europe's streets

and parliament buildings alike in opposition to ACTA.

At one point during the early negotiation process, ACTA specifically targeted illegal file-sharers, and included the implementation of widespread website blocking systems, such as those seen in SOPA.

Such

particularly controversial elements of ACTA were eventually eliminated from the final text of the treaty.

Qual sera o nome do proximo, Taco ?

Edited July 4, 2012 by Pablo Empanada

[Mini0n]

Acho que fica bem nesta thread:

[PunK_BoY]

Depois do SOPA, foi chumbado hoje, no Parlamento Europeu, em Estrasburgo, o tão polémico acordo ACTA – Acordo Comercial Anticontrafação.

O protocolo internacional que havia gerado controvérsia e dividido opiniões dentro da União Europeia, foi hoje a votos e acabou mesmo por ser chumbado com 478 votos contra e apenas 39 votos a favor. As abstensões foram 169.

Este chumbo indica, assim, a ‘morte’ deste acordo que fica sem efeito na União Europeia.

Após a votação, vários eurodeputados exibiram pequenos cartazes onde se lia «Hello Democracy, Goodbye ACTA»

O Acordo Comercial de Anticontrafação, ACTA, foi hoje chumbado com uma esmagadora maioria de votos contra [478], sobre os votos a favor [39].

O protocolo ACTA é um acordo que começou a ser negociado no ano de 2007, e obteve o seu documento final publicado em 2010. Envolvia dezenas de países como os Estados-membros da União Europeia, Austrália, Canadá, Japão Coreia do Sul, Marrocos, México, Nova Zelândia, Singapura, EUA e Suiça, e foi assinado pela União Europeia a 26 de Janeio deste ano.

Segundo a Comissão Europeia, a ACTA iria ‘ajudar os países a cooperar para combater de forma mais eficaz as infrações aos direitos de propriedade intelectual” e seria também “essencial para as empresas que operam a nível mundial”.

Muitos foram aqueles que estiveram contra este acordo, ocorrendo, assim, várias manifestações, inclusivé em Portugual, organizadas pelo Tugaleaks e pela ANSOL. Uma teve lugar em Fevereiro e outra recente no mês de Junho.

O movimento activista Avaaz angariou 2,5 milhões de assinaturas contra o acordo ACTA, dizendo que seria um acordo que iria permitir às empresas censurarem a Internet: “Apelamos que lutem por uma Internet livre e aberta e rejeitem a ratificação do ACTA, que a destruiria”, indicaram no texto de petição dirigido aos legisladores europeus.

Ainda um grupo de grupo de 75 professores de Direito de várias Universidades do Mundo, organizaram uma carta ao presidente Barack Obama a apelar contra o protocolo.

Podemos assim dizer que, tal como o SOPA, a ACTA is DEAD.

[Revenge]

Mais uma vitoria

[Kinas_]

:thumbup:

Edited July 4, 2012 by Kinas_

[cRaZyzMaN]

até que enfim

[EsCk]

Será que daqui a uns tempos voltam a insistir na mesma tecla ou vão finalmente aprender a adaptar-se?

[Spark]

Não tinha visto isto ontem, mas que bela notícia :y:

Será que daqui a uns tempos voltam a insistir na mesma tecla ou vão finalmente aprender a adaptar-se?

A próxima será PILA (Piracy Internet Law Anti-counterfeiting)

:trollface:

[Vasco G]

Isto é uma guerra que nunca vai acabar.

[Pablo Empanada]

ACTA IS BACK: Leaked docs show Canada/European Commission trying to sneak ACTA into Canada & back into Europe

Last week, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject ACTA, striking a major blow to the hopes of supporters who envisioned a landmark agreement that would set a new standard for intellectual property rights enforcement. The European Commission, which negotiates trade deals such as ACTA on behalf of the European Union, has vowed to revive the badly damaged agreement. Its most high-profile move has been to ask the European Court of Justice to rule on ACTA's compatibility with fundamental European freedoms with the hope that a favourable ruling could allow the European Parliament to reconsider the issue.

While the court referral has attracted the lion share of attention, there is an alternate secret strategy in which Canada plays a key role. According to recently leaked documents, the EU plans to use the Canada - EU Trade Agreement (CETA), which is nearing its final stages of negotiation, as a backdoor mechanism to implement the ACTA provisions.

The CETA IP chapter has already attracted attention due to EU pharmaceutical patent demands that could add billions to provincial health care costs, but the bigger story may be that the same chapter features a near word-for-word replica of ACTA. According to the leaked document, dated February 2012, Canada and the EU have already agreed to incorporate many of the ACTA enforcement provisions into CETA, including the rules on general obligations on enforcement, preserving evidence, damages, injunctions, and border measure rules. One of these provisions even specifically references ACTA. My post includes a comparison table of ACTA and the leaked CETA chapter.

http://boingboing.net/?p=170057

ACTA Lives: How the EU & Canada Are Using CETA as Backdoor Mechanism To Revive ACTA

The

CETA IP chapter

has already attracted attention due to EU pharmaceutical patent demands that could add billions to provincial health care costs, but the bigger story may be that the same chapter features a near word-for-word replica of ACTA. According to the leaked document, dated February 2012, Canada and the EU have already agreed to incorporate many of the ACTA enforcement provisions into CETA, including the rules on general obligations on enforcement, preserving evidence, damages, injunctions, and border measure rules. One of these provisions even specifically references ACTA. A comparison table of ACTA and the leaked CETA chapter is posted below.

The EU has also proposed incorporating ACTA's criminal enforcement and co-operation chapters into CETA. The criminal provisions were the target of European Parliament criticism for their lack of proportionality and uncertain application.

Comparem as diferenças entra a ACTA e a CETA.

http://www.michaelge.../view/6580/135/

Edited July 11, 2012 by Pablo Empanada

[EsCk]

Foram rápidos.

Será que daqui a uns tempos voltam a insistir na mesma tecla ou vão finalmente aprender a adaptar-se?

[tiagoalvin]

Não sabia bem onde colocar isto:

Copiar filmes e músicas da Internet é legal, diz Ministério Público

Um despacho do Departamento de Investigação e Ação Penal (DIAP) determina que a transferência de ficheiros como filmes e músicas na Internet em redes de Partilha de Ficheiros (P2P) é um ato legal.

O anúncio consta no documento divulgado esta quarta-feira pelo DIAP, no âmbito de uma queixa da Associação do Comércio Audiovisual de Obras Culturais e de Entretenimento de Portugal (ACAPOR) em 2011 à Procuradoria-Geral da República, por entender que dois mil internautas procediam à cópia e partilha, alegadamente ilegal, de ficheiros como filmes ou músicas em páginas de P2P, na Internet.

O DIAP analisou a queixa, entretanto encaminhada para o Ministério Público, e revelou um despacho que legitima o ato.

A revista Exame Informática, que teve acesso a parte do despacho, revelou o seu conteúdo: «Acresce que, do ponto de vista legal, ainda que colocando-se neste tipo de redes a questão do utilizador agir simultaneamente no ambiente digital em sede de upload e download dos ficheiros a partilhar, entedemos como lícita a realização pelos participantes na rede P2P para uso privado - artº 75º nº 2ª) e 81º do CDADC, - ainda que se possa entender que efetuada a cópia o utilizador não cessa a sua participação na partilha.»

O diploma do Ministério Público alertou para a necessidade de analisar as questões jurídicas relacionadas com a defesa dos direitos de autor, mas defendeu o direito à educação, à cultura e à liberdade de ação na Internet.

[Vasco G]

Hehehe também andava a ver onde é que podia meter isso, TOCA A SACAR CRL :trollface:

[DSR]

Grande.

[NOX]

CARALLHHHHOOOOOO CADA VEZ QUE FOR A PORTUGAL LEVO O MEU DISCO EXTERNO TERAGIGA VAZIOOOOO !!! ë jä depois de amanha

[PunK_BoY]

Não sabia bem onde colocar isto:

Copiar filmes e músicas da Internet é legal, diz Ministério Público

Um despacho do Departamento de Investigação e Ação Penal (DIAP) determina que a transferência de ficheiros como filmes e músicas na Internet em redes de Partilha de Ficheiros (P2P) é um ato legal.

O anúncio consta no documento divulgado esta quarta-feira pelo DIAP, no âmbito de uma queixa da Associação do Comércio Audiovisual de Obras Culturais e de Entretenimento de Portugal (ACAPOR) em 2011 à Procuradoria-Geral da República, por entender que dois mil internautas procediam à cópia e partilha, alegadamente ilegal, de ficheiros como filmes ou músicas em páginas de P2P, na Internet.

O DIAP analisou a queixa, entretanto encaminhada para o Ministério Público, e revelou um despacho que legitima o ato.

A revista Exame Informática, que teve acesso a parte do despacho, revelou o seu conteúdo: «Acresce que, do ponto de vista legal, ainda que colocando-se neste tipo de redes a questão do utilizador agir simultaneamente no ambiente digital em sede de upload e download dos ficheiros a partilhar, entedemos como lícita a realização pelos participantes na rede P2P para uso privado - artº 75º nº 2ª) e 81º do CDADC, - ainda que se possa entender que efetuada a cópia o utilizador não cessa a sua participação na partilha.»

O diploma do Ministério Público alertou para a necessidade de analisar as questões jurídicas relacionadas com a defesa dos direitos de autor, mas defendeu o direito à educação, à cultura e à liberdade de ação na Internet.

Exactamente o que eu defendi na minha tese de mestrado com uma diferença. Não posso concordar, à luz do CDADC que o upload não seja considerado ilegal.

[Vasco G]

Tese de Mestrado sobre pirataria? BOSS :god:

[PunK_BoY]

Tese de Mestrado sobre pirataria? BOSS

:-.. Já a coloquei algures aqui. Tema inédito defendido em Portugal lol

[NOX]

Tese de Mestrado sobre pirataria? BOSS

Já a coloquei algures aqui. Tema inédito defendido em Portugal lol

So para dizer que so falo maravilhas sobre ti a minha cunhada ...

[PunK_BoY]

Tese de Mestrado sobre pirataria? BOSS

Já a coloquei algures aqui. Tema inédito defendido em Portugal lol

So para dizer que so falo maravilhas sobre ti a minha cunhada ...

Ainda estou a espera do numero de telefone dela...

[Perks]

the Final Leaked TPP Text is All That We Feared

 

Today's release by Wikileaks of what is believed to be the current and essentially final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn't survive to the end of the negotiations.

Since we now have the agreed text, we'll be including some paragraph references that you can cross-reference for yourself—but be aware that some of them contain placeholders like “x” that may change in the cleaned-up text. Also, our analysis here is limited to the copyright and Internet-related provisions of the chapter, but analyses of the impacts of other parts of the chapter have been published by Wikileaks and others.

Binding Rules for Rightsholders, Soft Guidelines for Users

If you skim the chapter without knowing what you're looking for, it may come across as being quite balanced, including references to the need for IP rules to further the “mutual advantage of producers and users” (QQ.A.X), to “facilitate the diffusion of information” (QQ.A.Z), and recognizing the “importance of a rich and accessible public domain” (QQ.B.x). But that's how it's meant to look, and taking this at face value would be a big mistake.

If you dig deeper, you'll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

Another, and perhaps the most egregious example of this bias against users is the important provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright (QQ.G.17). In a pitifully ineffectual nod towards users, it suggests that parties “endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,” but imposes no hard obligations for them to do so, nor even offers U.S.-style fair use as a template that they might follow. The fact that even big tech was ultimately unable to move the USTR on this issue speaks volumes about how utterly captured by Hollywood the agency is.

Expansion of Copyright Terms

Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.

Could it have been worse? In fact, yes it could have; we were spared a 120 year copyright term for corporate works, as earlier drafts foreshadowed. In the end corporate works are to be protected for 70 years after publication or performance, or if they are not published within 25 years after they were created, for 70 years after their creation. This could make a big difference in practice. It means that the film Casablanca, probably protected in the United States until 2038, would already be in the public domain in other TPP countries, even under a life plus 70 year copyright term.

New to the latest text are the transition periods in Section J, which allow some countries a longer period for complying with some of their obligations, including copyright term. For example, Malaysia has been allowed two years to extend its copyright term to life plus 70 years. For Vietnam, the transition period is five years. New Zealand is the country receiving the most “generous” allowance; its term will increase to life plus 60 years initially, rising to the full life plus 70 year term within eight years. Yet Canada, on the other hand, has not been given any transition period at all.

Ban on Circumventing Digital Rights Management (DRM)

The provisions in QQ.G.10 that prohibit the circumvention of DRM or the supply of devices for doing so are little changed from earlier drafts, other than that the opposition of some countries to the most onerous provisions of those drafts was evidently to no avail. For example, Chile earlier opposed the provision that the offense of DRM circumvention is to be “independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party's law on copyright and related rights,” yet the final text includes just that requirement.

The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed. Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.

The parties' flexibility to allow DRM circumvention also requires them to consider whether rightsholders have already taken measures to allow those non-infringing uses to be made. This might mean that rightsholders will rely on the walled-garden sharing capabilities built in to their DRM systems, such as Ultraviolet, to oppose users being granted broader rights to circumvent DRM.

Alongside the prohibition on circumvention of DRM is a similar prohibition (QQ.G.13) on the removal of rights management information, with equivalent civil and criminal penalties. Since this offense is, once again, independent of the infringement of copyright, it could implicate a user who crops out an identifying watermark from an image, even if they are using that image for fair use purposes and even if they otherwise provide attribution of the original author by some other means.

The distribution of devices for decrypting encrypted satellite and cable signals is also separately proscribed (QQ.H.9), posing a further hazard to hackers wishing to experiment with or to repurpose broadcast media.

Criminal Enforcement and Civil Damages

On damages, the text (QQ.H.4) remains as bad as ever: rightsholders can submit “any legitimate measure of value” to a judicial authority for determination of damages, including the suggested retail price of infringing goods. Additionally, judges must have the power to order pre-established damages (at the rightsholder's election), or additional damages, each of which may go beyond compensating the rightsholder for its actual loss, and thereby create a disproportionate chilling effect for users and innovators.

No exception to these damages provisions is made in cases where the rightsholder cannot be found after a diligent search, which puts the kibosh on ideas for the introduction of an orphan works regime that would cap remedies available against those who reproduce these otherwise-unavailable works.

One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family's home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center.

In some cases (QQ.H.7), the penalties for copyright infringement can even include jail time. Traditionally, this has because the infringer is operating a business of commercial piracy. But under the TPP, any act of willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale renders the infringer liable to criminal penalties, even if they were not carried out for financial gain, provided that they have a substantial prejudicial impact on the rightsholder. The copying of films that are still playing in movie theaters is also subject to separate criminal penalties, regardless of the scale of the infringement.

Trade Secrets

The severity of the earlier language on trade secrets protection has not been abated in the final text. It continues to criminalize those who gain “unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system,” without any mandatory exception for cases where the information is accessed or disclosed in the public interest, such as by investigative journalists or whistleblowers.

There is no evident explanation for the differential treatment given to trade secrets accessed or misappropriated by means of a computer system, as opposed to by other means; but it is no surprise to find the U.S. pushing such a technophobic provision, which mirrors equivalent provisions of U.S. law that have been used to persecute hackers for offenses that would otherwise have been considered much more minor.

Top-Down Control of the Internet

ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN's flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

The TPP's prescription of rules for domain names completely disregards the fact that most country code domain registries have their own, open, community-driven processes for determining rules for managing domain name disputes. More than that, this top-down rulemaking on domain names is in direct contravention of the U.S. administration's own firmly-stated commitment to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Obviously, Internet users cannot trust the administration that it means what it says when it gives lip-service to multi-stakeholder governance—and that has ramifications that go even even deeper than this terrible TPP deal.

ISP Liability

The provisions on ISP liability (Appendix Section I), as we previously found in the last leaked text, are not quite as permissive as we hoped. It will still require most countries to adopt a version of the flawed U.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown system, albeit with a few safeguards such as penalties for those who issue wrongful takedown notices, and allowing (but not requiring) a Japanese-style system of verification of takedown notices by an independent body of ISPs and rightsholders.

It is true that Canada's notice-and-notice regime is also allowed, but effectively only for Canada—no other country that did not have an equivalent system as of the date of the agreement is allowed to benefit from that flexibility. Even in Canada's case, this largesse is only afforded because of the other enforcement measures that rightsholders enjoy there—such as a tough regime of secondary liability for authorization of copyright infringement.

Similarly Chile's system under which ISPs are not required to take down content without a judicial order is explicitly grandfathered in, but no other country joining the TPP in the future will be allowed to have a similar system.

In addition, although there is no explicit requirement for a graduated response regime of copyright penalties against users, ISPs are still roped in as copyright enforcers with the vague requirement (Appendix Section 1) that they be given “legal incentives…to cooperate with copyright owners to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyright materials”.

Good Points?

Quite honestly there are no parts of this agreement that are positively good for users. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's not improved over the earlier, horrendous demands of the U.S. negotiators. Some of the areas in which countries rightly pushed back against the U.S., and which are reflected in the final text are:

• The exhaustion of rights provision (QQ.A.11) that upholds the first sale doctrine of U.S. law, preventing copyright owners from extending their control over the resale of copyright works once they have first been placed in the market. In particular, this makes parallel importation of cheaper versions of copyright works lawful—and complementing this is an explicit authorization of devices that bypass region-coding on physical copies of such works (QQ.G.10, though this does not extend to bypassing geoblocking of streaming services).
• A thoroughly-misguided provision that would have extended copyright protection to temporary or "buffer" copies in a computer system was one of the earliest rightsholder demands dropped by the USTR, and rightfully so, given the damage this would have wreaked to tech companies and users alike.

But we have struggled to come up with more than two positive points about the TPP, and even then the absence of these tragic mistakes is a pretty poor example of a positive point. If you look for provisions in the TPP that actually afford new benefits to users, rather than to large, rights-holding corporations, you will look in vain. The TPP is the archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled, politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over the last eight years.

There is nothing in here for users and innovators to support, and much for us to fear—the ratcheting up of the copyright term across the Pacific rim, the punitive sanctions for DRM circumvention, and the full frontal attack on hackers and journalists in the trade secrets provision, just to mention three. This latest leak has confirmed our greatest fears—and strengthened our resolve to kill this agreement for good once it reaches Congress.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared

Só para situar

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. 

---

Já agora a lista das empresas que suportam isto

 

[Perks]

E empresas que não

[Perks]

Já agora do lado de cá do oceano (o acordo é igual dos dois lados) foi entregue uma petição com 3 milhões de assinaturas para acabar com isto

https://euobserver.com/institutional/130587

 

Alguém viu algo nos jornais ou tv sobre isto?

Chamado @royaltartufo à recepção

Espantoso, no Google não encontrei uma notícia sobre isto de cá

Só isto

http://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/os-temas/ttip/sobre-a-parceira/ptci.aspx

 

E uns blogs

https://parceriatransatlantica.wordpress.com

LIBERDADE E PRIVACIDADE: Tentativa de ressuscitar a ACTA. Violação da privacidade e liberdade de expressão.  Transformar os fornecedores de internet numa força policial de vigilância privada do sector empresarial.  Bloqueio de projectos de investigação.  Fortalecimento dos Direitos de Propriedade Intelectual

Apesar de hoje ter decorrido uma manifestação em Berlim que juntou 250.000 pessoas, cá não se passa nada, é surreal como somos facilmente manipuláveis numa era de informação global 

[Perks]

 encontrei um vídeo brasileiro

 

chamando o activista aqui do burgo @skaazi que tens a dizer sobre isto?

Confesso o meu total desconhecimento dos meandros, só hoje vi mais alguma coisas, isto é um bocado assustador