Slashdot Mirror
Harm From The Hague
wfrp01 writes: "Richard Stallman has posted a new essay entitled Harm from the Hague, which presents his take on international enforcement of extra-national court decisions. 'The Hague treaty is not actually about patents, or about copyrights, or about censorship, but it affects all of them. It is a treaty about jurisdiction, and how one country should treat the court decisions of another country. ... Or suppose you publish a parody. If it is read in Korea, you could be sued there, since Korea does not recognize a right to parody.'"
No, really, I don't care what international law says - my work is my own, unless I release it. But unless someone is deliberately making money by deliberately robbing my idea/work, I won't care anyway.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
This yet another Illuminati plot at a one world government! Put on your tin foil hats folks because we're in for a bump ride!
YOU GOTTA FIGHT...FOR YOUR RIGHT...TO PARODY!!!!
Enter cranked guitar effects as necessay...
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
It seems to me that the UN and all the world governance crap needs to go. Their only true usefulness is to keep the peace between countries, so leave the Security Council in place. Other than that, screw them.
:)
*The UN is bad, mmkay.
"Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
Or, at least, I hope it won't. US Corporations would want this ratified so that they could go after patent-breakers in other countries, but how will they feel when other countries' governments go after them? That'll end it sooner than you can say "capitalism".
This article is frightening in that you can publish something legal here, and face litigation in some country you've never been to. Does this mean that anyone who publishes some sort of derivative work need to research the pertinent laws from all other member countries?
This is stifling creativity and the spread of ideas at its finest.
Fact is, we are only beginning to deal with this on an international scope. It is entirely conceivable that within the next few decades the major powers of the world will become more and more entwined, until there is little difference between the citizens of the United States, Japan, France.
Soon it may not matter much whether you are Canadian or Dutch, because the laws that affect you daily will be commonly shared across borders.
This, I suppose, will cause a worldwide shortage of lawyers, thereby increasing demand and pay for lawyers. It will also increase the tedium in the law profession (how many jobs devoted to knowing the laws of all rinky-dink-Hague-members?), and thereby the purported excitement of law in Hollywood shows. Soon we shall see enless gun battles and car chases among lawyers in lawyer shows.
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Scenario:
.cx, .tv) pass laws such as justifiable homicide in response to corporate espionage, or maybe patenting the entire idea of the telephone, or making it illegal to register a domain name.
German company A patents process "bob" in Germany. American company B patents process "bob" in America. B sues A for patent infringement in America, and wins, enforcing it in Germany against B. B sues A in Germany for patent infrigment and wins, enforcing it in America against A.
The end result: no one can use process "bob", and they both go out of business.
This sounds like a great idea to me, bring it on.
I particularly like Stallman's idea of "shopping for laws", where corporations find countries who will sell anything (cough christmas island, tonga,
When the first American gets cained in Pancake Ohio in the town square because they were sued in Singapore for spitting gum on the sidewalk, the fit is gonna hit the shan.
I can't wait.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
You forget that the US multinationals behind this have more money than many (most?) of those governments, and can easily buy off their pols and judges.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
The world of the future will have international laws that override local ones, international courts to interpret the law, international economic unions to do "what is best for the world" (instead of for a person's native country), international military forces (the UN's working on this), an international police force (i.e., the United States), and a council of probably-unelected international leaders who are concerned about "the greater good."
What gets lost? Individual rights and community rights. Americans will no longer be able to act as Americans, because of how it might affect a Korean, a Swede, a South African or a New Zealander.
I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to it.
Got Rhinos?
Well, everybody on earth needs to have "Western Values" -- Commerce!
Anybody can work under ideal circumstances. -- Jeff K. (January 4, 2001)
Not gonna work - it will end up being used only for laws shared by two countries.
what happens when pasta and antipasta collide in your stomach??
Can I just say that, for the record, this is the most misguided hunk of trash ever pushed in the UN? Thank you.
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
They're just going to love this. Of course, it is made simply to make things harder for small business; only big-business has the resources for such daft schemes.
Not that this would be all bad, but the bad things should become harder and more expensive and the good things should become cheaper and easier. E.g., the UN should have voting restrictions based on the nature of the member government; dictatorships shouldn't be able to vote on many (most?) items. It should also have strict limits on the nature of the measures it's allowed to take, a la the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States but without the loopholes.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
What it boils down to is, "in case of conflict between two countries' laws, the most severe one takes precedence". This is absolutely insane, and will only contribute to widespread contempt of the very concept of Law.
Get rid of the Security Council first.
It was because of the UN Security Council that the aid mission of the US, Asia and Europe in Somalia turned into a "nation building" mission. A nation building mission that got alot of US, Pakistani, and Somali fighters and civilians killed.
It was because the UN didn't want to interfere in Bosnia back in '94-'95 that so many civilians were killed.
In my mind, the UN is just as bad as the League of Nations, unable to do anything right.
Keep the Economic and Social Council, and International Court of Justice. But do away with the military and security aspects of it.
For instance, if your local country grants you the right to parody, can the treaty take that away because other country does not recognize this right?
IANAL, but normally traties only apply as long as your constitutional rights and warranties are not breached. I suppose most countries would also give higher precedence to their local laws than to this convention.
I thik that everyone is over reacting. This is not what everyone is saying, it is not so you can kill people in U.S. and use some Lichenstein Law to say "I didn't kill him". This treaty is so that all those countries will stop stealing our software.
Now that the e-everything bubble has crashed and world has come to it's senses, software vendors are feeling the hurt.
"Vietnam has the world's highest piracy rate at 97 per cent, China has 95 per cent"
With numbers like that, can you blame the software business for wanting people to start paying for their products? Red China's idea of "buy the people, for the people" is great and all, but in America we have decided that you must pay for a product. And that is what this treaty is intended to do: help lawmakers get people to pay for a product.
If they have failed to word this clearly, that is their fault, and if Stallman has blown it out of proportion - well, that is his fault. But please keep in mind that this treaty is intended to combat piracy, not create a illuminating conspiracy.
Let's not Rush to judgement?
So do I have to put a click-through EULA on all my sites, stating that only US/EU citizens may view them without waiving their rights to sue me?
Then if I end up parodying someone in Bourkino Faso, and they sue me for the parody, I can counter-sue for license violation? Of course, in Bourkino Faso, the penalty for parody could be a flogging, whereas a licensing violation penalty here in the US is a fine or probation.
I guess the only way to make that scheme work is become the resident of my own autonomous, sovereign nation where I can effectively control the local laws.
Yup. It's a big ol' mess, that's fer sure.
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
that, according to Stallman, only the bad laws propagate, and not the good? Otherwise, couldn't I seek protection under the laws of whatever country most liberally interpreted freedom?
Rather than this article, I'd prefer to read something written by a specialist in international law.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
So then China's laws would end up ruling the world. Fantastic. Brilliant. You'd better hurry up and say what you want about politicians, the government, the police, and the military now. Once this brilliant vision happens, you'll be arrested and disappear for any of these 'crimes against the People'.
Now that it's become fashionably leftish to oppose "globalization" as mindlessly as it was once pursued, it would be nice if protesters would acknowledge Jesse for keeping the lonely faith through the '80s and '90s.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Software patents? Create an anonymous ID, digitally sign everything, build a reputation so people know they can trust your work, put any source code you want on the net. Crypto. RSA. One Click. Clients for Microsoft services. Lists of filtered words.
Parodies? Criticism? Secrets of the Co$? Whistle-blowing? Rabble rousing? Sedition? You name it. If anyone can make your life miserable for saying something, say it with Freenet.
In 1908, Kipling wrote a story about the ABC, a board (not unlike ICANN) that oversaw a global communication system in the year 2000. (Details weren't perfect: the system was based on mail delivered via dirigible.) He had this to say about the ABC:
Yes, I have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist. What threat are we acting against here? What crime are we pre-empting? At present, individuals can engage in "regulatory arbitrage" operating in areas in which regulation is less onerous. As if it isn't bad enough to have countries increasing control of communications within their own borders, they are now willingly giving up sovereignty in exchange for a global reach?
There are two ways to look at this. On the one hand, it may be that the cases raised by such an agreement would open more eyes to the problems with intellectual property. But this is an unreasonably rosy outcome. The more likely result is that Romanian cops will (with the cybercrime convention in place) be searching your hard drive--with US complicity--in the next few years.
> What it boils down to is, "in case of conflict between two countries' laws, the most severe one takes precedence".
True. Until this treaty was noised about, the rule of the Internet was that the country or nation with the most liberal or free laws in practice prevailed. This proposed treaty will turn the whole matter on its head.
>This is absolutely insane, and will only contribute to widespread contempt of the very concept of Law.
I wish it were as simple as that.
For about ten years now, the Internet has been a valuable tool for investigating what some people want to keep hid, & sharing information despite censorship. Now the (literally) Barons of Big Business have noticed this, & want to tie us back to the soil of our national regulations. (Who else would be pressuring so hard for this kind of screwy logic in applying laws?)
Too bad RMS did not propose a way we, the average folk, might apply pressure against this fettering proposal.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I know for a fact that we could have gone in and done a pure "peacemaking" operation and done it well. We had several documented opportunities to act swiftly and assert control, but we failed to because we had to wait for clearance from the UN, zillions of miles away.
Same story in Bosnia. Just ask the few who survived Srebrinica. The UN commanders sat by and watched as their own troops on the ground were overwhelmed, and civilians were massacred.
A military presence controlled by a posse of non-elected, unaccountable Geneva suits is obscene.
Let the UN stick to law, economics, and poverty. But keep them out of military and security matters.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Through the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, MAI the goal is to reduce the power of elected government to a minimum while increasing the power of corporate control over public life. I think we need a world government in place to check the power of multinationals, and to set level playing field in the marketplace. Unfortunately, one can't have a consistent set of rules in a marketplace a government to oversee and regulate the market. It's clear to me that completely deregulated world markets will lead to global monopolies unlike anything we've seen yet, and this will lead to a catastrophe for the citizens of the world -- never mind democracy as an institution.
So, to me the issue is not should we implement a world government, but HOW? As far as I'm concerned it must be democratically elected, is must fairly represent all of the nations' interests throughout the world, and it should restrict itself to matters of commerce. Currently the WTO is an unelected body which holds the contents of it's meetings in secret. If the world business community continues to control international regulation through secret organizations like the WTO it doesn't matter one bit that you may have elected your officials to power; their ability to write laws in accordance with your (and citzen's wishes) will be circumvented by these unelected bodies for the purpose of "free trade" making local and national government moot.
That's the potential future I fear.
--Maynard
Of course, I'm sure there are a few Swedes who aren't particularly happy about how this might affect them. The reality of the arrangement is that lowering of legislative borders will likely affect others even more than those of us in the US. We are living in a country that breeds lawyers like rabbits--don't tell me that some of them are not salivating at the possibility of taking their practices global. Frankly, although I am not happy with the idea of Korean law extending to Americans living in the US, I can't imagine how such an agreement has found any favor in small countries that hope to maintain some autonomy and local democracy.
In China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Iraq, and Sierra Leone. By extension, it is illegal everywhere. Individuals running Freenet Servers will be interned in re-education camps.
If a company does not like what they can file a lawsuit. You filed a complaint for discrimination in the United States. They go to Mexico and file a libel lawsuit against you there. You may have a right (and duty) to file a complaint the United States, but it is illegal in Mexico. It does not matter that you never been to Mexico and the EEOC published the press release (and not you) and it could be seen in Mexico, after they mailed it to Mexico.
I suspect (and hope) that at some point, the court will consider the local laws when enforcing a judgment locally.
Fight Spammers!
Does anyone else see a great polarzation comming here?
To counter the problem with this convention, some will argue that we need more global laws, and less power to the individual nation. The other half will argue for the opposite.
Polarization is never good as it alienates people, but it is probably hard to avoid when facing such great changes in the world.
Another problem is that the side pushing for more international laws are the one with the most money, big corporation etc.
I think the answer lies in between, as it usualy does. "We need to hurry slowly..."
I finally agree with something RMS says!
This treaty (call a conference by the Hague) is just one step closer to a one world government that trades simplicity and market efficiency for my rights. While it does not apply to criminal activities and thus have the teeth to lock me for criticizing say, Tony Blair, it does have economic teeth allowing Mr. Blair to attach my wages for criticizing him. We are already seeing rampant abuse of the civil justice system with wrongful death suits and intimidation of individuals by commercial entities. With the ratification of this convention, the scope of these abuses will pass from the US to international courts. Large corporations with a multinational presence will have the ability to shop the world for a sympathetic court where they can setup a shell presence and dictate their own decisions.
For an example of this kind of abuse, American need only to look back half a decade or so to the company towns set up in Appalachia. These towns were run by corporate interests, giving them regulatory and enfrocement over worker safety conditions. Fortunately in this case pressure was placed on the federal government to pass safety regulations that placed a check on corporate power in these towns, and workers were allowed to sue the corporations for compensation for the health problems they faced as a result of the conditions they worked in. Now imagine for a second, if the state based analog of this treaty was in effect, and there was no federal government responsible to voters to override it. The corporation would essentially be able to block any action brought against them by workers regardless of the jurisdiction....they would simply find a sympathetic court in the town. With a lack of court heirarchy, this court could not be overridden and the issue would be deadlocked or at least stalled until the workers.
Call you senator and have US ratification of this conference blocked.
On this issue, however, I'd bet they could draft a letter that RMS, Jesse Helms and Ross Perot would all sign. Now that would be something else.
World democracy probably wouldn't work unless you had the same values world-over -- try mixing, say, strict theocracies (Iran), with secular dictatorship by single-party state (PRC), with capitalist federalists (~US), constitutional monarchists (UK), and vaguely socialist republican states (France). Some nations, for instance, have historically and are currently quite willing to trade a fair bit of freedom for stability, while other states local individual freedom much more.
And finding compromises that'll make 'em all happier-than-pure-loathing probably isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
They are using jurisdictional differences between nations to avoid (usually) United States law. Having a world government does not mean having the United States rule the world. It means that whatever laws, rights, and priviliges we have as Americans are secondary to whatever laws are enforced on a global level.
Through the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, MAI the goal is to reduce the power of elected government to a minimum while increasing the power of corporate control over public life. I think we need a world government in place to check the power of multinationals, and to set level playing field in the marketplace. Unfortunately, one can't have a consistent set of rules in a marketplace a government to oversee and regulate the market. It's clear to me that completely deregulated world markets will lead to global monopolies unlike anything we've seen yet, and this will lead to a catastrophe for the citizens of the world -- never mind democracy as an institution.
Your argument is that we should have a world government regulating things in order to protect our freedom? Absurd.
So, to me the issue is not should we implement a world government, but HOW? As far as I'm concerned it must be democratically elected, is must fairly represent all of the nations' interests throughout the world, and it should restrict itself to matters of commerce.
Why should it restrict itself to matters of commerce? That's an arbitrary decision on your part, and such a government would only result in a world primarily focused on corporate endeavors.
In addition, there is no way to "fairly represent all of the nations' interests throughout the world." Ask the Korean government their opinion of parody, and you'll see that it's impossible.
Got Rhinos?
Especially for soldiers from the US. The European view of human rights is very warped because it considers a soldier guilty for using "excessive" force against civilians in police actions and war, yet will not execute the leaders that order it. If pvt Bob kills a civilian in Kosovo that attacks the Serbian minority, he could be charged with crimes against humanity under plans similar to the one that Stallman opposes. Yet Bill Clinton wouldn't be executed for ordering the USAF to bomb the civilian infrastructure of Serbia into rubble even if the USAF vehemently opposes it behind the scenes.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that actually pays attention to treaties involving the Hague that the players involved are seeking new, innovative ways to destroy freedom.
I would go to a small country that has little or no copyright laws. I would promise a billion or two to the country if they would copyright my, ahem, programs. You know, Office, Windoze etc. Then I would sue M$ for "illegal" copyright infringement, and press the issue all the way around the Globe.
I am guessing I could make a fortune on this scam. Ooops, I was thinking outloud again. Damn that blond dye job.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So, to me the issue is not should we implement a world government, but HOW? As far as I'm concerned it must be democratically elected, is must fairly represent all of the nations' interests throughout the world, and it should restrict itself to matters of commerce.
Pardon me, but fuck you and the horse you rode in on! I happen to live in a country (USA) that recognises rights and freedoms available no where else in the world. I'm not about to willingly let someone in another country vote away my freedoms.
Before you know it, Europe will be voting to restrict american's right to own cars, China will vote to restrict american environmental regulations, etc..., etc... The list is endless. Take a look at all the things the US feds control under the guise of "interstate commerce". Ever hear of the tyranny of democracy? Thanks, but I like to have my elected represenatives responsive to me and my culture & countrymen. This would simply be carte blanche for the have-not's to pick apart the have's.
Temkin
Notice that nowhere did I state that the world body should have a sovereign right to enact laws beyond regulating commerce. You presuppose that a world elected body would have total authority to write any and every type of law -- our problem is not enforcing murder laws in every nation, but creating a standard for commerce in an open and transparent manner. Without some democratic elected body responsible for creating these regulations no citizen in the world should trust the regulatory body which currently possesses this power. I certainly don't.
--Maynard
That's because Black Helicopters are invisible, you are not supposed to see them, dude! The fact you don't see them is the proof they exist.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), this means that certain things (such as national borders) need to be looked at again. Because routers can direct traffic that goes from A to B through ANY intermediate point C, the laws of C cannot meaningfully govern that traffic.
This automatically rules out border taxes, laws governing telecommuications, etc. So, once you've accepted those changes, you start on the path of accepting other changes, such as whos laws govern what.
Now, I'm not saying that this treaty is a good thing. I think it's probably the worst possible agreement that could have been made. All I'm saying is that =SOME= agreement WILL happen. It's not a case of whether, but when.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You've got it half right. Jesse Helms thinks international law should not apply to the US but that US law should apply to all other nations. Witness his part in the "Helms-Burton" law that punishes companies or individuals of other nations for trading with Cuba. Just a bit hypocritical.
- status and capacity of natural persons
- Marital status and obligations
- Maintainance obligations (what are these?)
- wills
- insolvency
- arbitration
- maritime law
Only civil and commercial law are included. This means it doesn't have any effect on criminal laws. So don't worry about having your hand cut off by a Afghanistani store clerk if you are accused of stealing bubble gum. He could however sue you, take your house, car, and...in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Obviously, the men who have been elected to lead this country, those involved in the drafting of the proposed Hague Treaty (and, yes, the U.S. was involved in writing it - they did the same with the WIPO treaty) have either never read those words, do not understand their simple meaning, have forgotten they are supposed to support/defend the ideology of the Constitutioin, or else they no longer care about the duty and responsibility inherent in their position.
And I haven't even brought out the 1st Amendment. This proposed treaty violates the ideals of the Preamble.
Establish Justice - under OUR laws, not some other nation's (if the law should apply to us, it would already apply.)
Insure domestic Tranquility - I may be one of those rioting in protest over this one!
Secure the Blessings of Liberty - As signatories to the Hague Treaty, the only liberty would be to have no international dealings without fully understanding the pertinent laws of ALL affected nations.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
Why I should "trust" a multinational corporation with an income greater than more third world nations yet distrust elected government because it's "inherently evil" is an equation I simply don't understand. Because they have the guns? You don't like it when a government owns guns (but it's OK for a orporation to have a private "security force")... well then, why not write to your congresscritter and ask him/her to disarm our military?
So yes, I consider elected government a more "free" institution than private corporations simply because as a citizen I have at least a say in how policy is enacted and enforced.
--Maynard
Why go to such lengths, when so many of us are giving software away for free? Or by 'our', do you mean Microsoft? It's kind of scary to think that major changes in the legal system are occuring just to improve the profits of a company that's already extremely profitable.
So instead of enforcing murder you want this body to enforce tax levels in member countries.
In another words, tax cut currently enacted by Bush administration would have to be reviewed and approved by international body. Knowing how ridiculously high are tax levels in Europe I highly doubt this would be approved.
I think we will do just fine without it.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
If you think handling elections in florida is bad try dong it rural China. Democracy American style is not the universal solution. While I agree with you that those who make and enforce laws should be answerable to the people, I can see no way of giving people throughout the world an equal voice in a single world government. As it is individuals don't have an equal voice, but their governments have the responsibility of doing their best to represent their interests. If they do a bad job of it they will be replaced and another advocate for those people will rise. Not equal, but better than nothing.
The Hague and similar institutions seek to implement global laws. The laws they implement are flawed and uneven and there is no concensus. But look at the world today - every issue of global significance had economic implications which prevent rational discussion at G7 and US/Europe/Asia summit levels.
It would be a shame to perfect the Hague Treaty as it relates to intellectual property and leave the human rights unfinished. But, because the politicians who must conduct the negotiations are so influenced by the corporate lobby, this is what may happen.
RMS makes some good points though!
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
Again, your views of how "elected government" works is biased. I am assuming by the way you write that you're an American citizen, and thus your idea of a free and (reasonably) fair government are highly skewed.
Got Rhinos?
Though I would probably support a world capital gains and corporate income tax. --M
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Any Seattlite knows that on any given night you are likely to see the black helicopters, despite lack of coverage in our local media. It seem strange that anyone could avoid s sL:JKFnxxxxxxxxx
I disagree completely. I'm not frightened by the prospect of a world unified government -- in fact I think we desperately NEED one. Global corporations are using jurisdictional differences between nations to avoid child labor and anti-slavery laws. They're misusing tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
How would you set up such an organisation such that it has at least some resistance to corporate lobbying (and lobbying from political "crackpots").
Currently if such an organisation were to form then odds on it would be in the pockets of some combination of US big business and sexist and racist lobby groups (again primarily from the US).
Effectivly you'd make most of the world subject to the worst excesses of the US, without even the (theoretical) "protection" of the US constitution.
You call my views "biased" and "highly skewed" yet do not state in what way. Care to elaborate? --M
Mod this down as obvious if you wish, but I'll say it anyway...
Ultimately, what is a law? It's a restriction on freedom.
What the Hague treaty does is to impose some of the laws of every country on earth (or, at least, the signatories) onto everyone. Now each person is subject to the superset that contains all said laws. The result? It minimizes freedom.
Worse, it means that individuals may be simultaneously subject to laws which are diametrically opposed, so the individual can in one country be convicted (or sued) for breaking a law forbidding an action that in his own (or some other) country requires that action.
While I believe the Hague treaty doesn't address criminal law in general (please correct me if I'm wrong), it's a very significant move in that direction. Its passage will set a precedent that will make remote enforcement of criminal law more palatable and thus more likely.
Bad stuff indeed.
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Seriously, all you people on earth have been stealing our photons for many millenia now. We've kept quiet about the issue because up to last century you really havn't known what a photon was, and frankly we dont have the time to explain it to you, but that's not the point! You dont have any laws that say people have to pay for photons!! They're just rolling around haphazardly, with people giving photons to their friends and selling them at movie theatres -- it's just rediculous! Dont you know that our people have to work very hard to make those photons? It takes significant investment for us to make all those photons and you've essentially devalued the currency by throwing them around willy nilly. Luckily there is an multidimensional treaty being proposed that will combat this photonic piracy and we expect the people of earth to sign it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Might be worth getting some advice from Michael of Sealand. But it can be quite exciting,as reported here.
freedom, n. Allowing people you don't like to do things you disapprove of.
Allow me to suggest how to apply pressure against proposals like this. Organize. Agitate. Educate. Resist. Take it to the streets if that is what it takes.
One does not need to study that much history, to come to the conclusion that it's through direct action that all advances of freedom and human rights have been made. And it's through direct action we have to defend and further advance our rights.
In the so called western world, things have been sleepy for quite some time. But the powerful people that have everything to gain by taking our rights away have not been at rest. This one-sided war can not go on for ever. People everywhere are taking up the many struggles that need to be won. This have been visible recently in places like Seattle, Nice and Prague. And this very weekend, in Gothenburg, it will happen again.
But it's not at the top meetings the battles are won. So find some like-minded people and start making some trouble!
Do the world's nations then continue ceding soverign authority to private organizations like the WTO to form treaties like MAI without any public review? Is this a better solution to these problems than elected transparent government? I understand that a world elected body would be subject to all the problems of lobbying, abuse, and corruption which exist in any other congress or parliment, but it seems much better than just giving up and handing world policymaking over to unelected and undemocratic private institutions which meet and act in secret. --M
It is not the same thing. I believe stealing and breaking into someone's property is still illegal even in Russia.
The difference is that Russians chose not to act simply because, well the rule of law there is close to non-existent.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
I don't see how that's hypocritical. What we're talking about here is opposition to forcing US courts to enforce foreign laws, or forcing say German courts to enforce US laws. Having US courts enforce US laws, even if against non-US companies, is not the same thing, and is done by nearly all countries (take for example France's attempt to enforce its censorship laws against the US main branch of Yahoo).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
However, corporations, even multi-national corporations must have customers to exist. Unless a company colludes with the government to be awarded a monopoly, they can be boycotted out of existance. Nobody is forced to purchase their products or services.
Is this a rhetorical question?
You could fight it technically, sure. But the problem with that is, you wouldn't be solving the problem - you may be fixing some of the symptoms of the problem, but the problem would still be there. Symptomatic treatment is a lousy substitute for a cure. This is a political problem, it should be solved politically. The problem is with the lousy ideological reasoning and motivations behind the treaty. By attempting to fight this technically, you allow the ideology to pass, and in doing so you lend it weight, people will believe "ok the ideology can't be all bad because this passed as law". Circumventing the law after the fact by technical means is hardly going to have any benefit. Parodies, whistle-blowing etc all have their valid place, and the fight should be to have these things maintain their status of validity (or in places where they are not valid, to teach others why they are valid). Such things should not be made illegal in the first place. Why allow it to become illegal and then make weak attempts to patch the problem afterwards? There shouldn't have to be a need for networks like freenet in the first place. The existence of such networks implies that their is something at fault with the non-"underground" technologies - the more popular something like freenet becomes, the more sure a sign it is that "above-ground" technologies and laws have problems that should rather be addressed. Why do people always seem to want to treat things symptomatically instead of solving the real problems? Is it because its usually easier?
I happen to live in a country (USA) that recognises rights and freedoms available no where else in the world. I'm not about to willingly let someone in another country vote away my freedoms.
The USA, in terms of it's written constitution protects rights and freedoms. However in terms of it's historical record on human rights it isn't especially notable.
Problem is that whilst there might be plenty of people who can recite the US Constitution there are rather fewer who understand what it means and why it exists in the first place.
As for voting, remember the last US election was viewed as a "joke" by the rest of the planet.
As I understand it, the countries you list also happen to be countries with very high levels of free software usage (Linux, FreeBSD...) and would therefore have large sales of PCs without Windows. And the folks at Microsoft and the other BSA members would assume they were stealing what they are getting legally for free.
So, I say to you: Prove it, put up or shut up.
StoneWolf
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I second your motion!
It would be a bad world were only the bullies could set the rules.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
[Why is it] that, according to Stallman, only the bad laws propagate, and not the good?
Maybe (if I may put words in his mouth) his point is that all laws propagate, and the vast majority of them are bad, some of them egregiously so.
I believe that any law which makes illegal an activity that doesn't deprive another of life, liberty, or property is a bad law.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I don't care what any treaty says, it has to be ratified by congress before U.S. citizens can be affected by it, regardless of what the CIA,FBI, or NSA would like to think. Further, if it's unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can render a treaty invalid. Write your senator/House representative and say 'No' to any international treaties you dislike!
http://www.sheepdot.org
You do realize that the DMCA is a US law, not a treaty, don't you?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Countries trying to solve their disagreements by forming one government? That's like a man and a woman who hate eachother trying to solve their problems by getting married.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
But only if you want to obtain that product from the seller. If you copy a software which you had absolutely no intention to buy at the price the seller was asking for, and you do not subtract anything from the seller in the process, you are not stealing.
On the other hand, if you copy a software which you would have bought anyway at the requested price if you didn't have the opportunity to copy it, then you are indeed stealing something.
And here is another argument for software "piracy": I have never asked the USA to dump all that carbon dioxide in my atmosphere. I do not want their acid rain, either. Those subproducts of American enterprise just happen to come my way and I have to bear with them. Why can't I use something that comes my way and might possibly benefit me, if I have to cope with the harmful things they throw at me?
True, we are talking about different groups here, but the moral principle is the same. If Americans can use the world atmosphere to power their SUVs without paying anything, then, by the same law, I have the right to use the software in the world cybersphere for free, too.
Therefore, a one world governments goal would be to control people. No dissension over decisions, no arguments between 'countries,' because everyone is controlled by a central authority. Your utopian dream world could never exist using our current human nature as a basis for civilized rule.
I'm no history major, but I seem to remember the labor unions opposing a great deal of international dealings for a long time now. As such, it has been a liberal issue for at least as long as the unions have been around.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Protests are fine and all, but more often than not, heads get hot and trouble breaks out. The news covers this trouble with stories not about people standing up for freedom getting smacked down by the man, but rather stories about trouble-makers making life difficult for honest working people and disturbing the public peace.
Now, I would say a good chunk of the American "Joe Sixpack" population gets their news specifically from these outlets and that is how they are "educated" about the current events of the world.
So, here is my modest proposal. Write to your local new outlets (especially to the individual reporters if you can) and point them to a source of information on this proposed treaty. Point them to RMS's commentary on it. Point them to some of the more insightful comments here on Slashdot as well as round the net. Explain to them politely your concern over this, and especially over how scandalous it seems, because the news outlets love a scandal.
Find people like-minded people and get them to do the same. Make enough of this sort of noise, and someone will notice.
You never know. Some up-and-coming journalist trying to make a name for himself might just make a front page story about how outrageous this situation is. And THAT is how you will reach and educate the minds of "Joe Sixpack". And when all of the "Joe Sixpack"s of the US make a noise about it, perhaps then the US government "officials" who are probably planning on trying for re-election will actually listen to the wishes of the people over the rich corporations.
Education is the key, and it seems to me that the system to spread the word is there. Why don't we try to use it?
Just my humble opinion. :)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Were you being sarcastic, or did you just manage to shoot a big hole in your argument? If you build a law based on having 100% freedom, it will have only two paragraphs.
- All citizens has a right to full freedom, and to do whatever they want.
- A citizen who depraves another citizen the rights in 1) loses his freedom.
By this extension, the people of China is in their full right to demand that U.S reduce their pollution made by cars. If U.S is not a responsible party in environmetal matters, other countries are forced to make sacrifices. Such disputes could be settled by letting supra-national bodies have authority.Of course, you could just claim your right to screw everybody else up, and wait for the other countries to attack when they're fed up.
But my point is that freedom is really very cheep. You have the right to receive freedom, as long as you extend that right to other people. If you do not extend those rights, you lose your own freedom. Freedom without responsibility is not freedom, it is tyranny.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
Ah, but with this Hague treaty it can become more of a way of life... ;)
Indeed. This is the fucking age of the Internet... why not have a bunch of virtual nation-states with whatever laws we want? I mean, ya know?
Of course, there is all that enforcement crap and security that only makes sense in a geographical framework, but why not have several virtual nation-states in a particular geographical area? Not to mention that the legacy countries may bitch about losing land, etc...
crazy idea,
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
...where the future of the planet is analogous to that couple's children. At least they are forced to deal with their problems rather than ignore them.
I wouldn't worry about it. It just means we can enforce US laws on 6 billion people instead of just 280 million. Woahhh the lawyers are going to have fun.
If I were to violate Chinese law (which I am doing now because their laws are bad) what do you think is going to happen? Nothing. We got our airmen back.
Now, I can guarantee you that the US governement will get involved in how the Chinese make laws. The Chinese will huff and puff (same as with human rights) saying it's an internal issue and that as a Sovereign Nation, they won't be told what to do internally. To which the US will kindly reply: not so, Chairman, your laws affect the freedom of US citizens, thanks to The Hague Treaty, which you signed. So no more silly laws and we'll not recognize Taiwan's 65+ years of independance--which by the way is longer than yours by a hair.
The US will use that as a way to strongarm all nations into becoming Starbucks-drinking SUV-driving commercial-centric (read corporate-capitalistic) satellite-states of the US, ensuring basic human rights, work rights, and voting rights.
This is a grand coup for US companies, some of which are much more powerful than most countries.
Oh, and thanks to the unproven missile-defense system, we'll feel tall in our technological shoes, so if China or whoever wants to play that game, we'll gladly support dissident movements withing their countries with hundreds of billions of dollars of highly advanced military weaponry, training at some of our finest training centers, while drowning their currency to triple-digit inflation (so they can't import food and medecine) with an economic embargo (see Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam for examples of that policy).
Some people might consider this critical of the US, but I simply state my opinion, and I am free to do that under US laws, so there...[wink]
By the way, It will be found unconstitutional in the US at some point, and the other large countries will just let it fall by the wayside. Smaller countries will mess with each other with it (Zaire and Rwanda come to mind), but that'll be an improvement to killing each other's citizens.
Always optimistic thanks to sci-fi...
"Piter, too, is dead."
Yeah, it's not a treaty itself, but it was created to comply with a WIPO treaty, IIRC.
(Do not sign anything.) -- Fell, Planescape: Torment
That is the theoretical limit on the US federal government that they used to make a huge number of laws that aren't commerce related. Now the federal government can make any law they want as long as it "affects" interstate commerce and isn't otherwise unconstitutional.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
I just wish that all those lawyers and reporters can write on legal/societal issues as clearly as RMS does: in plain human language, that even geeks can understand.
Nice job, Master RMS!
Seriously, we as citizens of the world would be wise to oppose the concentration of national power into an international body just as US citizens would be wise to resist the transferring of state power (what state power is left) to the federal government.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
There's only one other body you've missed, which is the FBI. It's been involved in exporting US laws for a very long time now. Examples include attempts to trick Pengo into coming to the US, the recent Russian hackers, and their involvement in the EU anti-hacking laws just over the horizon.
Unfortunately, they also have the backing of the US's check book which is huge!
Let's hope this gets shot down quickly.
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Laws regarding prostitution and pedophilia already are implemented accross borders, as unfortunate people coming back from sex-tourism trips abroad often find out. Whether it is the Finn doing Russian girls or the American doing Thai boys, both people have the very unpleasant surprise of being arrested in their home country on their way back, based on outrageous jusridiction overlaps about one's country slightly lower or higher age of consent. The usual math is, the country where the tourists come from places the treshold at an older age than the country where the prostitution happens. Rock starts sleeping with their teenage fans in the wrong country also have the same unpleasant surprise
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Stallman pieces raises interesting issues but they are neither new neither correctly asserted. Courts do not need the Hague Treaty today to enforce foreign judgments, in every legal system there is allready mechanisms peculiar to the system that allow for enforcement of a foreign court decision. So the Hague treaty is not this big and awful new thing (at least it is not new)that is going to change the world and promote the idea of a single world order or law or even government as I have read in some threads. On the contrary the idea is rather to organize the mess that is the fact that our legal systems are different are more and more in contact with each other because of globalization and certainly because of the non-geographical nature of the Internet. Now the Hague treaty consequences or the courts rules used to day to assert jurisdiction and more importantly to enforce judgments are not as simple and scary as Stallman describes them. Rather than being those big ugly mechanic things that according to him will make any stupid judgment passed abroad for something displayed on your web site, they allow for plenty of exceptions and subtilities that will avoid the stupid result that he contemplates. And the court deciding to enforce a foreign judgment will be a domestic court (i.e. a US court)that will take into account both the foreign and the US interest before enforcing the judgment. I do not know much about Stallman but this is really scapegoatting about nothing, lack of research on the subject.
IIRC, the US isn't really a part of the International Court of Justice. I think we're an "official observer" or some such fancy name for a sideline position. Something to do with our usual desire to stay out of anything resembling a "world government."
Trying someone in an international court brings up many issues. Will the court's judges be fair and non-predjudiced? American soldiers would probably be SOL because of the biggotry they would face in an international court in Europe. Would there be a bill of rights guaranteeing at least the same things as ours? Would the bill of rights actually carry any legal weight? Who would get to decide what is a "crime against humanity?" Many more, but my wrist is hurting.
Governments ensure Corporate Interest will always win. They put commercial interests before the people. Sign of a corrupt society.
Russians hardly enforce anything. We talking here about a country that is famous for its lack of law enforcement and heavy corruption.
BTW. There was a harm done to US citizens and FBI obligation is to pursue this, they are paid to do so.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
The world's leaders can go screw. I'm arguing that democratically elected government is by definition a more open and transparent system of regulation that what is currently in place at the WTO. What the world's leaders are creating -- right now -- is certainly NOT democratic or in the best interests of citizens. My "utopian dream" (as you so eloquently put it) amounts to a straight up democratic republic to set open market rules for the world. By your line of logic knitting together the United States would have been a utopian fantasy of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington -- yet they succeeded in founding the United States of America.
It's not only possible, it's necessary. We will all regret the outcome of futher corporate consolidation of power at the expense of elected government.
JMO
--Maynard
I don't consider that bias, I consider that the only acceptable form of government for a world elected body. As I've written elsewhere in this thread I think citizens should demand these things, and it should be driven by citizen needs. Not multinational corporations, not nationalist governments, not political parties -- citizens.
JMO.
--Maynard
Problem is that whilst there might be plenty of people who can recite the US Constitution there are rather fewer who understand what it means and why it exists in the first place.
Yes, and there's plenty who claim to be experts who choose to subvert it's meaning to promote their personal agenda.
As for voting, remember the last US election was viewed as a "joke" by the rest of the planet.
Why? Because we didn't have a civil war like many other countries would have? We held an election, it was a statistical dead tie. 500 votes one way or the other is statistically irrelevant, ask any statistician. Legal mechanisms kicked in to try and resolve the mess. The Supreme court ruled the clock had run out, game over. The loosers get to try again in 4 years, and based on the current office holder's performance, I'm reasonably confident it won't be so close next time.
But this has nothing to do with some slave worker in some little country getting to vote on my free speech right to criticize politicians or corperations. They may not have such freedom, and let's face it, you tend to value less the things you don't have.
Temkin
Yep. For anyone that's interested in how bad the "nation building" mission in Somalia got, read Black Hawk Down by Bowden.
A book that looks at both sides of the battle in October of '93...although with more focus on the American side, but talks about things like how the UN forces were split up around the city, and when the US Army needed armor (tanks and APCs) that was the Pakistani's job and we had to beg/barrow/threaten to get some armor, and at the first sign of weapons fire the Pakistani driver starts shouting "We go now!"
But yes...we (US, Pakistan, Italy and others) did a great job of "peacekeeping" and aid distribution, but when the UN decided to start "king making" and "nation building" it all went down hill.
Heck, wern't there occasions in Bosnia where Canadian and British troops held at gun point by the local Serbs after they told UN HQ that they needed to defend themselves and HQ said don't resist?
Now years later, when it's time to capture war criminals in Bosnia, it's US Special Forces/SAS/Canadians under NATO command doing the snatches and gunfights to get the job done.
The UN doesn't work for military operations...because most of the time, the people on either side will belong to the UN...that doesn't make sense.
Actually, there have been attempts by several groups to bring Bill Clinton to trial for war crimes in eastern Europe. Clinton should have known better than to have tried to approve the international courts.
Slashdot readers should not be too quick to mark the Hague Convention as another step toward dominance of society by powerful corporations. The Hague Convention is not unequivocally pro-business; for example, it would introduce an additional burden on a business that wants to sell its products overseas (the business would have to research and comply with laws in multiple jursidictions instead of just its home jurisdiction). Check out the article in this week's issue of The Economist.
It won't be long until a national government is formed. Some bastarized hybrid of the Articles of Confederation, British common law, and other organizations will eventually take over for the purpose of "clarifying" matters of national jurisdiction, among other things. If you've been paying attention over the past few years, you've probably seen it coming.
The America of the future will have national laws that override local ones, national courts to interpret the law, national economic unions to do "what is best for the nation" (instead of for a person's native state), national military forces (the Federalists are working on this), a national police force (i.e., the Canadian Mounties), and a council of probably-unelected national leaders who are concerned about "the greater good."
What gets lost? Individual rights and community rights. Virginians will no longer be able to act as Virginians, because of how it might affect a Rhode Islander, a New Jerseyite, a Pennsylvanian or a Marylander.
I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to it.
[Apologies for the butchered state adjectives]
Visit the
What we're talking about here is opposition to
forcing US courts to enforce foreign laws
Actually the US enforces the most foreign judgements. This is one reason it is pushing for the treaty so hard, it wants to be able to have its judgements extended to other countries.
When have you ever seen a government deal with a problem? I've only seen government make them worse.
Imbecile. It's also the Senate and the moon and the Beatles, but nobody ever said "I just watched a debate on the the Senate floor," or "there's a the moon rock on display," or "I just bought the new the Beatles album."
Hrm, I wasn't aware of that. Judging by the US's stance on these issues though I'd imagine that they wanted to pass a DMCA-like law anyway, and pushed for the WIPO so every else would have to pass it as well. I severely doubt the US passed the DMCA grudgingly only to comply with the treaty (usually if the US doesn't like treaties it just ignores them).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If I publish something in Germany that's illegal in the US (say, DeCSS), and was then threatened with court action in the US over it, my course of action would be to obtain a declaratory judgement in Germany about the legality of DeCSS, which I would then expect to be upheld in a US court. So what it comes down to is that the one with the fastest legal system wins.
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
I'm very picky about what I petition, so....
Being European with a serious interest in Hague not being implemented in its proposed form (I run a controversial English website out of Denmark, which would be sued in no time under US law), I went to noepatents to read more about the European effort against the Hague treaty.
I read their brief note on the treaty, and was quickly lead to their petition linked right next to the Hague description. I wanted to sign it, but the petition does not mention Hague by name and in fact, it's not against Hague directly! It's about epatents.... which I find quite misleading. If it's really the case that my signature will not be used in the case against the Hague treaty, then can someone maybe tell me where I can petition against it?
Or am I missing the point?
Potential terminology mixups are cleared up here (emphasis mine):
"The treaty is called the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, and is being negotiated under the little known Hague Conference on Private International Law."
-Kraft
-Kraft
Live and let live
have you written your representative yet? not e-mail, I mean the old-fashioned way?
I have. the reply was worse than everything else. they don't get it. they don't get that they're signing away the rights of their citizen, and they don't get that they sign away THEMSELVES.
'cause let's face it, if your average multinational corp doesn't have to get it's DMCA or other private law enacted in your country anymore, but a small island kingdom where laws are cheap is sufficient, do you really think they will continue to line to coffers of the representatives so graciously?
one would've thought our business politicians would have thought at least about THAT.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
kankazooi
Which really means "big mess" in very unpolite and obscene terms.
The Hague treaty means "sue all the world", and it means that Europeans can be prosecuted for silly U.S laws. I think if it goes that way, this could cause social disruption.
Every country has its own culture and its own values. Those values are often enforced by law, attacking people under national safe-law within a country with outside hostile-law is the same thing as attacking the country as a whole.
This treaty is one big sucker.
--
Bizar technology?
Corporations have been very successful at co-opting the power of the American government for their own use. Multinational corporations are greedy and clever. They are doubtless the most powerful forces behind the Hague initiative.
Don't you think that they would co-opt a world government just as quickly? Don't you suppose that they've been drooling over the prospect of a world government for decades in order to do exactly this?
Before we all decide to submit to a world government that will protect us all from run-away corporate power, we ought to see at least one instance of this happening on a regional or national level, under living conditions humanity would unanimously find suitable.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
In such an small planet, in which distances are shortening, more people are working in a different country to their own, global commerce is a reality, and so on and so forth, what makes more sense: a global authority that coordinates the efforts of all the people in the planet or 200 national goverments that make a mess out of things that ought to be simple?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You make three broad claims -- complete generalizations -- without any factual basis to back these up. You argue that government -- by it's inherent nature -- makes bad laws. You argue that local jurisdictions allow an escape route for refugees. And you argue -- on ideological grounds alone -- that the larger the jurisdiction the "the stupider the actions of government become."
But you don't argue exactly with what we should replace government. I certainly won't claims nationalistic pride in the behavior of US policymakers (especially our foreign policy), but I'll gladly argue that many of our federal programs have done substantial good throughout the society. For example, the FDA has been tasked with providing a safe food source, and for the most part has done a good job. Medicare gave my father (while he was dying) access to necessary health services -- for him and the many millions of other elderly what do you recommend as the alternative?
For some good examples of government power imploding and leaving a vacuum see Somalia, Russia, Georgia... gangsterism institutionalized. While I don't argue that elected government is without corruption, I do argue that it's the only leverage citizens have against total domination by the wealthy and powerful.
Here's an interesting Chompsky quote: "Costs and risks are socialized, and the profit is privatized. That's called capitalism" When you see the HMO, Nuclear power, RIAA and MPAA industries lobbying congress for legal indemnification from lawsuits or other such perks that's exactly what this quote refers.
Cheers,
--Maynard
The author of the article forgets one key component of enforcing a judgment: jurisdiction. He makes it sound as if all one has to do is go to France--for example--sue someone there, and bring the judgment to any Hague Treaty signatory to get the judgment enforced. However, the Hague Treaty is about jurisdiction, too. It has detailed rules governing how courts can establish jurisdiction over foreign parties.
There are two things which prevent judgments from being enforceable in foreign countries. The first is the simple idea of sovereignty: France cannot send its police over into the United States to seize the bank account of a person who has a French judgment against him. France has no power to enforce its laws outside its own borders (and the Hague Treaty will not change this). The second thing is related to sovereignty: a French court does not have jurisdiction to resolve questions of my rights unless I am within France's borders or have established some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable. In other words, if I am not within France's borders, France does not have the sovereign power to decide my rights, because France's sovereignty stops at the border. However, theoretically, if I have established some kind of sufficient contact with France (opening a store there, or selling goods over the internet specifically to people in France), then it sould be reasonable for France to decide my rights (even if they cannot force me to show up) and have that decision, or judgment, be enforceable.
Things do not work this way now. Right now most countries generally have laws governing jursidiction over foreign parties. For example, French law says that if you are a French citizen, you can obtain a judgment over a foreign party for a dispute that arose anywhere in the world just by bringing the case in French court. Then god help that foreign party when they show up in France and the French citizen gets to enforce that judgment. Further, in the United States we give respect to foreign judgments based on the principle of comity. Comity is basically reciprocal respect: the U.S. will enforce French judgments if France will enforce U.S. judgments. (Note that in practice, right now, the U.S. has more respect for French judgments than France has for U.S. judgments.) However, this principle of comity is limited by our notions of due process of law. The U.S. will not enforce judgments that fail to meet a minimum standard of due process protections. For example, I doubt if a U.S. court would enforce a judgment from a secret, Iranian military court (where people are tried without even being allowed to be present to mount a defense or confront their accusers).
The Hague Treaty will change all this for its signatories. First, of all, it provides general rules for jurisdiction. Thus, France would not be able to keep its law that any French citizen can sue any foreign party in a French court and get an enforceable judgment. Each country would have to provide reasonable rules for jurisdiction. Second, the principle of comity (as between signatories) would drop out of the picture. In the U.S., we would already have adequate assurance that a foreign judgment meets our standards of due process. France would be forced to give the same respect U.S. judgments as the U.S. gives to French judgments.
The upshot is that the article ignores the concept of jurisdiction. Just because a French business obtains a judgment against me in France, even under the Hague Treaty, that judgment is not automatically enforced unless it is valid, i.e., the French court had jurisdiction over me. If the French court did not follow the Hague Treaty rules on jurisdiction, which should be fair to all countries, then that judgment will not be valid (think of it as an ultra vires exercise of sovereignty) and it will not be enforceable in other Hague signatory nations.
For those of you with access to Westlaw or Lexis, you can read more about the concept of jurisdiction and the Hague Treaty in a Cornell Law Review article, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, by Professor Kevin Clermont, published in issue 1 of Volume 85 (November 1999). This is the legal cite: 85 Cornell L. Rev. 89. (You can also read my article for some background on the law of jurisdiction in the U.S., 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1742 (Sept. 2000).)
Not that's he's entirely wrong. Extraterritoriality is a very scary thing. The Hague Convention _is_ seriously flawed. But as things stand now in the US, it is very unlikely to be enforcable in the US. IANAL.
The priority in US law is the US Constitution overrides treaties which overrides Congress. If the Hague were presented as a Treaty (it is) and ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate (unlikely) still it would have trouble: Free Speech is protected under the First Amendment. The power to make Patents and Copyright laws is granted to Congress under the USConst Article I Section 8. Not some foreign entity or even the US President/Senate.
US Courts (especially the USSC) have had little qualm about ruling US and State Laws unconstitutional and invalid. They will have even less hesitation with foreign laws.
For many years the US wasn't even a member of the "Berne Convention" on Copyright for this reason. I think finally Congress passed enabling (word-for-word) legislation.
Now this argument applies only for the US. The UK, Canada and Australia have "Sovereignty of Parlement" without strong Constitutional safeguards. You could say they are elected dictatorships.
As I see this, only safe way is colonization of Moon (right thing to invest in) and/or buying some small country/island out (another). "And" for every case - we need some safe place to launch from once we get UN sanctions after our Moon colony starts teaching Archimedes law to children without paying royalties to biggest American company which puts (c) on it.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
So, basically what RMS requests, is that his interpretation of the First Amendment, namely that the Freedom of Speech has to be bsolute, has to be accepted by the whole world ? Why ? Because the U.S. constitution is superior to any other constitution ?
... must have lost it.
Seems to me that he would impose his interpretation of Freedom of Speech on to the world, not obeying a majority rule based on democratic election of all member countries proportionally represented ?
Aboslute Freedom of Speech is the beginning of the end to it. It allows the destruction of its own request to protect Freedom of Speech. It allows the mob to mentally brainwash the world population and circumvent any democratic process.
If you want to preserve Freedom of Speech, you have to limit its absoluteness. The way Freedom of Speech is limited within the U.S., depends on interpretations which evolved in case law. This means it is dependent on decisions of various supreme courts decisions.
Well, if you think, that the world is willing to accept the interpretation and rulings of U.S. courts with regards to how Freedom of Speech has to be understood, elaborated by its politically appointed judges, you
May be its necessary to define the limits of Freedom of Speech uniformly worldwide.
Once again, let's explain that the judge in France reasoned that since Yahoo was serving ads targeted to French customers, it could also block those identified as French customers from accessing nazi sites that are against French law. It is not a case of censorship, but rather a case where the judge is saying: "if you are able to follow the law, then do it". Up until then, Yahoo had claimed it was impossible to figure out which of their customers were French. The judge consulted a panel of experts and they gave him the targeted ad clue. The judge never asked for an impossibility: to block all potential French customers from the Nazi sites, but rather block the ones you know or assume are French. Great spin action from Yahoo, but theirs was a very dubious ethical position.
See Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(Emphasis added)
I'd like to point out that the US Congress could theoritically designate Saddam Hussein as emperor of the World and the Americas by treaty and probabally get away with it (although they would probabally also get thrown out of office when they run for reelection). This would be the supreme law of the land.
I'll admit if I'm wrong here, and I'd like to know of any case history in regards to overruling an international treaty in US courts. The following is a heriachical view of US laws (from my understanding of US law... IANAL)
As can be seen here, the international treaties have substantial influence over US policy, which is why some people are still complaining in the US about American involvement in NATO.
Article 29(f) excludes 'recognition or enforcement [that] would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the State addressed.'
Such "public policy" would clearly include First Amendment rights in the USA, as explained in this set of answers from the cousel to the US negotiators to questions from James Love.
Similarly, UK judges would be /very/ unlikely to enforce US imposed damages for business-method patents.
While there are some major issues for the negotiators to iron out (see eg this week's Economist article, no longer free online; and James Love's What You Should Know guide), the whole process should still lead to something consumers can welcome -- as reflected in the opening paragraphs of this resolution from a conference of EU and US consumer groups.
DMCA, anyone? The Kyoto protocol? Encryption laws? The Executive Orders amendment? Even though not literally "laws," most judicial review results in twisted government actions that misuse Constitutional powers (the commerce clause is a big one for this). Fact is, people are easily misled by politicians. Politicians are easily misled by corporations and special interests. Ergo, government takes stupid (and often, corrupt) actions (not just enacting legislation--forgot to make that distinction earlier).
You argue that local jurisdictions allow an escape route for refugees.
Not sure how you mean "refugees." Anyway, I'm referring to the above assertion (government making dumb laws). If South Carolina (the state in which I currently reside) makes some really stupid law that I find to be wrong, I can go to a more enlightened state (and hope that it isn't a stupid Federal law). Same thing with nations. In fact, one of the most horrible things about oppressive regimes isn't the persecution--it's that you can't leave if you don't like it! The flip side of this, of course, is if a corporation doesn't like the child labor laws in one country, they can go to another. This is your argument and, believe me, it does have merit. I just happen to feel that third world nations that allow practices like this will have to experience a moral change of their own (and it's mainly a cultural and social problem, *not* a regulatory problem).
And you argue -- on ideological grounds alone -- that the larger the jurisdiction the "the stupider the actions of government become."
It's not on ideological grounds. It's based on common sense and observation. How can someone who doesn't live in my community know what is right for me? Furthermore, even if they *are* right for me, who's to say that they're right for someone in the next county or state? Differences in culture, economics, natural resources, and so on dictate beyond a doubt that what is just perfect for one group will be destructive for another! And politicians who represent a large number of people can't possibly keep up the close relationships necessary to have a proper understanding of the effect of legislation. We see this all the time in the US. What do legislators *really* know about the effects their actions have on farmers, artists, software developers, construction workers, and so on? They have very little day to day contact with the people who actually matter. And this would become even worse with a global government!
But you don't argue exactly with what we should replace government.
I'm not arguing that we should replace government with anything. It's a necessary evil. I'm simply arguing that government should be severely restricted in both power and scope.
I certainly won't claims nationalistic pride in the behavior of US policymakers (especially our foreign policy), but I'll gladly argue that many of our federal programs have done substantial good throughout the society.
Of course they have. But at what cost? Many people seem willing to ignore the Constitution if it appears to offer a quick fix for a social problem. (I say "appears to offer" because it rarely ever actually solves the problem since it usually turns out to be a social one that can only be solved through bottom-up social change.) Now, don't get me wrong, many federal actions (rather than programs) are good. And the FDA (which you cite) is a regulatory agency. All I'm suggesting is that attempting to fix social problems with government solutions doesn't work. One of the best examples is speeding. When most people think that there is nothing wrong with speeding, it doesn't really matter what the government says. The only way to stop people from speeding is to convince them that it is wrong (and/or dangerous). It's a social problem.
Discrimination was like this, too. Even though the government was able to twist the commerce clause to nail a few people for their actions, it didn't do any good because so many people were racists. (And the commerce clause went on to become a favorite of every whacko that wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the works.) What *really* changed things was the effort of activists and orators like MLK. These days, *far* fewer people hold racist views than did just 30 years ago because people were repeatedly faced with excellent arguments that demonstrated the immorality of racism.
For some good examples of government power imploding and leaving a vacuum see Somalia, Russia, Georgia... gangsterism institutionalized.
True. But again, this is the result of social corruption in those places. Where the people are corrupt, businesses, government, and private institutions are corrupt. Why? Because these organizations consist of the people!
While I don't argue that elected government is without corruption, I do argue that it's the only leverage citizens have against total domination by the wealthy and powerful.
I agree in part: government is almost the only way citizens have of avenging themselves of, and defending themselves from, the evil actions of others. I say, "almost" because if someone attacks me, I have the right to self defense in addition to the help the police might give me if I'm lucky enough to have them on the scene. I broaden it because not all crimes are committed by the wealthy and powerful. Many crimes are committed by the poor as well. I really must admit that I don't understand the absolute hatred many have for the wealthy. They aren't all a bunch of evil wankers, you know.
When you see the HMO, Nuclear power, RIAA and MPAA industries lobbying congress for legal indemnification from lawsuits
While this is correct, I have to add one small caveat: many businesses *are* morally run and sometimes *do* need government protection against attacks. Furthermore, government regulation can hurt the honest small businessman just as much or more than the huge multi-national corporation.
All in all, I'm: (1) less trustful of government than business; (2) cognizant of the fact that many nations aren't culturally or socially ready for Western morality; and (3) further cognizant that social change is more important than legal change.
This is truly horrendous. If any signatory country's laws reach out and bite me in another country with very different laws then it effectively makes no difference what country I choose to live in. It treats the laws of all countries as being just as valid and binding as the laws of the country I agree to be a citizen of. It binds me by the decisions of people in another country where I have utterly no say in deciding what the laws are and are not.
This is tyranny, wholesale and without bounds. This must be opposed by all means possible.
Turnout is low because in America a single election doesn't determine who will control 90% of all government in our country. We elect SOOOOO many people to so many positions whereas in Europe and most nations it is all one parliamentary election.
Most of it was written to comply with the WIPO treaty. The unreasonable bits were written to comply with the MPAA's lobbyists.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.