BSA Falsely Claims ACTA Is A Treaty That Has Already Been Signed By 37 Countries (original) (raw)

from the do-they-get-anything-right? dept

Many ACTA supporters get very upset any time anyone refers to ACTA as a “treaty.” That’s because, technically, it’s an “executive agreement.” Of course, in reality, it is a treaty. The only real difference is one requires Congressional approval and the other does not. Even the State Department seems to admit that. Of course, technically speaking, a treaty can carry the weight of law in the US, while an executive agreement, by itself, cannot. And yet, in reality (again), there is little difference, as lobbyists will point to executive agreements, often calling them treaties, insisting that we need to “comply with our international obligations” and get lawmakers to change the law anyway.

Still, given how incredibly careful supporters of ACTA have been to scream “it’s not a treaty!” every time anyone calls it a treaty, it’s quite amusing to see the BSA, an active ACTA supporter, flat out call it a treaty and falsely claim that 37 countries have already signed on and agreed to imposing criminal penalties for software infringement. That’s not true. No countries have signed on yet. 37 countries may have been involved in the negotiations, but that’s no guarantee that any of them would sign on and some of the text is still very much in flux (thanks to Jamie Love for pointing out the BSA announcement).

Given the BSA’s track record on accuracy, it should be no surprise that they would be so sloppy here as well. But, it does show how those involved view ACTA. To them, it’s a treaty, and it’s a done deal. In this case, perhaps the BSA is being a lot more honest than others in admitting what’s really going on…

Filed Under: copyright, executive agreement, treaty
Companies: bsa