Slashdot Mirror
Purported ACTA Wishlist Would Put DMCA To Shame
ulash writes "Ars Technica has an article about the (alleged) leaked 'wishlist' that RIAA submitted to the US government back in March of this year listing what they wish to see as a part of ACTA. The list includes such gems as forced filtering of materials by the ISPs, gutting the parts of the DMCA that provides safe harbor to the ISPs, and even restricting supplies of 'optical grade polycarbonate' in countries 'with high rates of production of pirated optical discs.' While the effectiveness of such a 'wishlist' on the law is not by any means objectively measurable, if one takes into account how *AA was instrumentative in the passing of DMCA, I think it is more than likely that they will get at least some of their wishes."
Well, except for the fact that the RIAA is controlled by four large multi-national firms. EMI is British, Universal is owned by Vivendi, a French company, the head of Warner music is Canadian and Sony BMG is about as multi-national as you'll find anywhere. If anything, the RIAA and the companies that control it are trying to do this everywhere. US politicians are going along for the ride, but so are governments all over the world.
Interesting excepts:
Section D.1 basically says that when you pirate something, they can confiscate anything they deem "related" to the infringement (all your PCs are belong to us).
Section I.1 says that all optical disks must be approved by MPAA/RIAA thought police prior to pressing.
Section J.6 requests that ISPs are guilty until proven innocent.
Section J.10 says that MPAA/RIAA should be able to directly spy on your Internet use.
Section K.1 implies that IP pirates are tied to terrorists and organized crime.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
The problem as I see it is the fact that they even can be owned, and that is because they are professional politicians instead of the original citizen-statesmen that was envisioned by the founding fathers.
They act more like an aristocracy than a representative body, but because they are constantly on the re-election tread mill, money has great influence over them, and these types of organizations (i.e. RIAA/MPAA) have lots of money.
It would seem, then, that a simple solution would be for the individual States to enact term limits. And this doesn't need to be a US Constitutional Amendment to limit Congress Critters as the 22nd Amendment limits the Presidency, because Congress are not Federal employees (which means they actually shouldn't get Federal pensions either). They are elected solely by their State, so a given State should be able to enact term limits that affect their own representation. Only the President and VP are nationally elected, thus the need for the 22nd Amendment.
If you eliminate the permanent politician in Washington, then there wouldn't be as much need for the money chase and we might actually get better laws.
Of course all the Congress Critters would scream bloody murder and pass all types of legislation to prevent term limits that would need to be challenged to the Supreme Court, but based on how they responded to Gore vs Bush, indicating all voting rules are the province of the State to decide, it would be an interesting fight.
Pipe dreams, I know.