Slashdot Mirror


EFF, Public Knowledge Sue Over Secret IP Pact

Cowards Anonymous writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge have filed a lawsuit against the Office of the US Trade Representative in an attempt to get the office to turn over information about a secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty being negotiated to step up cross-border enforcement of copyright and piracy laws. ACTA could include an agreement for the US, Canada, the European Commission and other nations to enforce each others' IP laws, with residents of each country subject to criminal charges when violating the IP laws of another country, according to a supposed ACTA discussion paper [PDF] posted on Wikileaks.org in May."

104 comments

  1. Show us the money! by mfh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why hide it if it's beneficial to the elected people? Isn't that your argument for trampling our rights, each and every time? If you have nothing to hide...

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Show us the money! by bill_kress · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly what I thought. This day and age, virtually anything our government keeps from it's people is due to some sort of corruption.

      Even military secrets aren't a very big deal any more because nobody can do much to counter them anyway.

      There still is certainly time-sensitive information like specific troop tactics and attack locations, but nobody's going to question that (Yet whenever you question secrecy of some government project, that's the straw-man that is thrown up)

  2. ACTA by Elektroschock · · Score: 4, Informative

    ACTA is TRIPs+. Who wants to understand what it is really about should read the Susta draft report of the European Parliament Trade Committee.

  3. Obviously by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are too many old people waving money around, not enough young people to do the work to keep society operating, and not enough cheap oil to cover the missing labour. The old people have a sense of entitlement, and they lack the sense of interconnection that would preclude them from sacrificing our future on the alter of their comfortable old age.

    So, the agenda is going to be, deprive the young of more and more, paying particular to attention to young immigrants who haven't been indoctrinated into the incumbent system through centrally controlled education. This way, you can bully them more effectively. Make sure you keep them divided so you can keep em under control.

    These things are all inevitable. It's a generational war to the death. It doesn't matter what particular law is fought or not fought, or who gets elected. It doesn't matter how many pieces of paper with numbers on them get shuffled around. None of these meaningless activities alter the nature of the problem, none of them will change how it all pans out, none of them will change when it all pans out, it's simply a matter of towering inevitabilities rooted in flawed cultural values that were created long ago finally coming to their natural and painful conclusion.

    All you can really do is laugh and try to be psychologically prepared for the coming conflict.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:Obviously by mfh · · Score: 2, Funny

      The old people have a sense of entitlement, and they lack the sense of interconnection that would preclude them from sacrificing our future on the alter of their comfortable old age.

      Malachai: What has the Lord commanded?

      Isaac: In the dream the Lord did come to me, and he was a shape, it was He Who Walks Behind the Rows, and I did fall on my knees in terror, and hide my eyes lest the fearfulness of his face strike me dead! He told me all that has since happened, he said, "Joseph has taken his things and fled this happy place because the worship of me is no more upon him, so take you his life and spill his blood! Like water upon the earth, but let not the flesh pollute the corn, cast him instead upon the road!

      Malachai: And so it was done, Joseph the betrayer was cast out!

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    2. Re:Obviously by plen246 · · Score: 1

      I'm a young person who would like to wave some (small amount) of money around.

      Does anyone know who is taking action on this issue in Canada (aside from Michael Geist)?

      I'd like to give them money.

    3. Re:Obviously by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      If you want to take action, work on breaking our dependence on their central infrastructure. Look into how you can get people involved in setting up mesh networking in your area, then do it. You do that, you totally take the existing controls out of the loop.

      Waving money around isn't going to accomplish squat. The things that need to be done run contrary to the things that create scarcity, control and profit, so people motivated by money aren't going to be interested. Save your money to buy the raw materials you need to get started.

      Personally, I'm working on creating a local culture around the RepRap project, and once I get that rolling, I'm going to create web infrastructure to upload and share the 3D models that it consumes. I envision something that resembles eBay, except free, and if you see something you like, you just print it. If there's mesh networking infrastructure in place to prevent authorities and IP holders from shutting this down at a central point, it's going to be almost impossible to assert control over what people can make with the tools.

      Step up. There's lots of work to do, and the potential for a great new way of life.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realistically, money isn't the answer. A rifle is a much simpler. You want to change things? Change the players. Rapidly, in a way that sidesteps current corruption.

      No stomach for the rifle route? OK, you don't want change that badly.

  4. Means nothing in the UK - they could do it anyway by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its meaningless in the case of the UK anyway. Once you give the right to a foreign power to extradite anyone without having to produce evidence why, even if they have never left the UK or committed a crime in this country then this is permitted by default anyway.

    When will we get a government that cares about our people more than appeasing the playground bully?

  5. piggy backing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that we shouldn't be able to go around and violate the laws of other countries. With this new world of "globalism" that we live in, it is easy enough to break laws that we are unaware of. But, just because we don't know it is against the law, doesn't change the fact that it is a violation.

    The only thing that I don't agree with is that we would be held accountable to another country's laws. We are sovereign citizens, living in a sovereign country. This means that any other country DOES NOT have jurisdiction over us, while we are in our country.

    But because we are violating laws of another country, SOMETHING should happen to correct this...so why not make it a law that it is a violation of our law to violate the laws of another country. Then when we do violate another country's IP or Financial or other laws, we would be arrested, tried, and convicted of that right here in our country.

    While this still isn't a perfect solution, it is better than handing a sovereign citizen over to another authority.

    1. Re:piggy backing by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Umm, because as sovereign nations the people in each nation should be deciding their own laws, surely?

      If I have to abide by US law, or French law, I want a say in their elections too.

    2. Re:piggy backing by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My argument against that:

      Country A and Country B enter into this agreement.
      Country B makes it illegal to teach a black person to read.

      Now, you are prosecuted in Country A, because of Country B's law.

      I would NEVER agree to be bound by a law of a country in which I have no representation.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    3. Re:piggy backing by FST777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that we shouldn't be able to go around and violate the laws of other countries.

      Ridiculous. I shouldn't be able to go around and violate the laws of the country a live in, since I have full democratic rights within that legislature. Any other country is not my business. I can't vote there, so they have no right to put me under their law (except when I'm on their soil).

      The exact same reasoning is applied to countries with oppressive regimes, because we find that their population has the right to oppose the government.

      If the population is stupid enough to support a government that enforces bilateral treaties that enacts the law of foreign states on its population, so be it. But it sure as hell shouldn't be so because it sounds logical to someone.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    4. Re:piggy backing by ouphie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's assinine - have you seen the USA's laws? As a non-american, I have no desire to be subject to their insanity.

      As an American I don't want to be subject to our insanity.

    5. Re:piggy backing by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree that we shouldn't be able to go around and violate the laws of other countries.

      I assume you'll be giving up alcohol, then, as is the law in certain Middle Eastern states? And also giving up the practice of your religion, as is the law in North Korea? You'll certainly be surrendering your gun, as is the law in the UK. And according to the rules of various legislatures, you'll not say anything disparaging about Ataturk, the king of Thailand, Mohammed the Prophet, or beef.

      Seriously, did you even think this through at all? Of course you should be able to violate the laws of other countries, as long as you're not in that country. A nineteen-year-old in England can drink all the beer he likes, and the Yanks have no fucking say in the matter. Neither do the English have any say in the matter when a man in America carries a gun around the place. The Sharia laws against apostasy from Islam hold no force in Japan. And American laws forbidding linking to copyrighted material do not apply in Sweden.

      When you're visiting another country, of course you obey that country's law. But in your own land, you shouldn't have to give a damn what the idiot politicians of some foreign place decide to ban or not to ban.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:piggy backing by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      we shouldn't be able to go around and violate the laws of other countries.

      Why not? Did you have any say in those other countries' laws?

      You shouldn't have to live under Sharia just because a bunch of Muslims somewhere else have decided that you should. If anything, we need to further fragment jurisdictions and let people choose their own societies. I don't even want to live under the laws of my next-door state Texas, much less Iran.

      And I'm pretty pissed off that even though my state's voters chose to defer to doctors' judgement about the merits of prescribing marijuana to their patients, the politicians in Washington say they know better and send their goons to threaten those doctors' patients and their medical suppliers.

      Fuck other peoples' laws!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:piggy backing by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Umm, because as sovereign nations the people in each nation should be deciding their own laws, surely?

      A nation state can have national sovereignty without being a democracy (sarcasm: just look at iraq). A sovereign state should be free to decide its laws without interference from other states, subject to the conditions that the sovereign state has put in place.

      Whether the sovereign state has its laws made and enforced by a king who is king through the mercy of god (or through the magic power of cleanliness and the launching of blades by well-hydrated bitches) or by a trinity of mutually distrustful watchmen elected in whole or in part by the people makes no difference.

      I would think the defense (not that I claim whether I agree or disagree with it) of extradition laws is that it's a quid pro quo: we can steal your criminals, you can steal ours. You get the benefit of people not breaking your laws.

      </fart origin="cortical">

    8. Re:piggy backing by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Oh, absolutely true, a citizen of non-democratic country has no such expectation. A sovereign dictatorship could easily force a law exchange on its people.

      However, in democratic countries, this sort of thing out to be a fundamental enough change to the very makeup of the country to force a popular vote, or be rejected outright. You're basically becoming a superstate with local seats of power and no central democratic government organisation or representation in other sectors.

      Something that's not really a democracy any more anyway.

    9. Re:piggy backing by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I completely agree and would add:

      The Sharia laws...

      I'd like to see how long the Entertainment Industry would support a "we must follow everyone else's laws also" bill once they realized that all of their pop stars and actresses would have to wear burkas. I guess my wife would have to be stoned to death since she has the audacity to go out to the store with her face uncovered and without being accompanied by a male relative. We're Jewish also so I'm sure that'll drive Sharia law into spastic fits.

      Even if we were to (in a moment of insanity) think about doing this, how would we resolve conflicts like women being able to vote in the USA and being barred from voting in Saudi Arabia? As with all the sane minds here, I think that you should be held accountable for breaking laws only if you are in the country whose law you have broken.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  6. Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed comments offering suggestions for the trade agreement. Among its recommendations: Countries should allow investigators to treat piracy like organized crime, giving IP enforcement efforts additional resources used to fight organized crime. The RIAA also wants laws requiring ISPs to remove infringing materials posted by subscribers, the trade group said in its comments.

    Organized crime?

    1. Re:Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... by unity100 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They mean themselves.

    2. Re:Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Organized crime?

      You have playlists, don't you? That's pretty organized right there.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    3. Re:Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... by boredandatwork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do they picture a bunch of people running a hidden music speakeasy upstairs of some dingy storefront? I know piracy is somewhat 'organized' in China with the bootleg market, but I did not think most of that stuff occurs everywhere this abomination would affect. I've never been able to drive down the road, knock 4 times on a door and get myself a $2 copy of whatever the kids are listening to nowadays.

      --
      Yeah, I feed the trolls. Can't help myself. Sorry.
    4. Re:Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've always been able, but you were never informed.

      This was intentional, as you clearly can't be trusted not to pass out our secret codes. Kids these days, just giving everything away like it has no value. Where does it end? Next thing you know they'll elect a chimp to the highest... er...

      Nevermind. The password is YARR! Knock on the black door with the white tape looking thing on it, use a browser. You won't need any money.

    5. Re:Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Yes, organized crime. Although they could go after YOU for copying a few CDs, they are really interested in the people who make a living selling pirated IP. The people who ride the train through the hood selling the latest movies and music. The people who setup sites on the internet where anyone can download whatever they want. The people in foreign countries who make software available for little more than the cost of the CD it is burned onto. In many cases those people are organized criminals.

    6. Re:Leave it to the RIAA for suggestions ... by dave562 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've obviously never been to the hood. There are plenty of people in America who can't afford to pay the retail cost for the newest CDs but who do have the newest CDs. I can say this now because I'm no longer involved in it, but about five years ago I made a decent amount of money helping a guy in south central maintain his DVD production facility. He had three, 7-disc towers of DVD burners that were cranking out the latest movies. They also did standard audio and MP3 CDs filled with whatever people wanted. They had a long list of songs, people would check off the songs that they wanted and the next day they'd stop by with $5 and pick up their CD.

  7. Re:Means nothing in the UK - they could do it anyw by JosKarith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good luck with that. Who's gonna stand up to America - Labour? The Tories? Maybe the Lib Dems? The Green party would, but there's no hope of them getting anywhere.
    The Labour party is shafted anyway. Gordon Brown's desperate clinging to power is exacerbating the mess left in the wake of Tony B.Liar. The Tories are at the highest popularity since Maggie's heyday and Labour are too busy fighting each other to do anything about it.
    So we end up being at the mercy of EU bureaucrats who just rubber stamp anything to make their lives easier and wonder how we got in this mess.

    --
    'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  8. Shine a light on these roaches! Protest! by freenix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ACTA is something that has not seen public debate and that's remarkable for such sweeping and draconian legislation. Because the U SAP at RIOT ACT was passed without time for legislators to actually read it, and torture is AOK bills, I'm not surprised by much the US does anymore.

    What, exactly do they tell EU and Asian officials to make shit like this happen? It looks like they convinced/bribed key legislators that this is all dry technical stuff best handled by subject matter experts and then stuffed the panels with copyright/IP warriors. The sad fact is that most legislators are too old to realize the implications of the laws they are producing. John McCain, who has never used email, may be sadly typical. Protest will surprise these legislators and start to convince them there's more to this than dry technical details.

  9. Hmmm. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ignorance of the law isn't a defense.
    So all you need to do after you make the laws. Is put them on display in the Cellar, where the lights have gone out and so have the stares, in a locked filing cabinet, in a disused bathroom, with a sign on it saying beware of the leopard. And you are liable for breaking a law.

    Ignorance of the law should be a defense if you can prove the government tried to make it so you wouldn't know it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Hmmm. by v1 · · Score: 1

      be sure you put it in the bottom drawer of the cabinet, just to be sure.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      Ignorance of the law isn't a defense.

      It is if I'm on jury duty.

      --
      FGD 135
    3. Re:Hmmm. by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Ignorance of the law should be a defense if you can prove the government tried to make it so you wouldn't know it.
      We don't need to go that far. When the law is a profession with specialties, ignorance must be a defense to any reasonable person.

    4. Re:Hmmm. by G00F · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. If on jury duty I chose right vs wrong more than law. Or does the punishment fit the crime.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    5. Re:Hmmm. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I'm with you. If on jury duty I chose right vs wrong more than law. Or does the punishment fit the crime."

      I've heard it said that when you are in the jury box, you are one of the most powerful people in the US.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  10. Executive Agreement by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the most worrisome part of it all. No oversight, no public control.

    The only advantage is that it isn't technically constitutional and can be corrected with a more "pro-rights" legislature.

  11. The Bush Administration by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am so pissed off at this administration. They just simply don't care, regardless of what they say, about the constitution or the laws of the country, or even the intensions of the founding fathers.

    They make "law" by executive order, which are held as valid unless challenged by the courts or the legislature, then stall the legislature with fillibuster so that no corrective action can take place. Then fight every challenge up to the supreme court, which takes years.

    So, in essence, the president is a king because although there is "balance of power" the time between executive order and any sort of push back is years, and the span of time, they have reaped the benefits of the unjust actions.

    Disgraceful, but effective, this needs to be stopped some how. I think that, unfortunately, means passing laws that limit the effectiveness of the presidency.

    1. Re:The Bush Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      sounds like you think there should be some legal document written to force the president to accept that his decisions should be bound by common law and to explicitly protect the rights of citizens.

      I think the right of habeas corpus should also be reinstated for all....

      hang on, this reminds me of something:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta

    2. Re:The Bush Administration by PhilipPeake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Executive orders are an affront to the constitutional principles of the US Constitution.

      This is NOT a power of the President as enumerated by the constitution. It has been tolerated by congress and the judiciary because they see it as useful. If very fast response to some issue is needed an executive order can be made in hours, as opposed to days, weeks, months or years if it has to be passed by congress. From that point of view, it is reasonable to allow this power.

      What is wrong with it is that the orders are permanent. IMHO, it should work like this:

      Executive orders should automatically expire after one year or at the end of the presidency, whichever comes first. A president *may* renew an order, but only one he has issued. No president may renew an order issued by a predecessor, either in word or effect (no re-writing it in his own words) - if congress thought it a good idea, there has been time to convert it into (real) law.

    3. Re:The Bush Administration by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would go further:

      executive orders last 6 months, then they must be approved as if they were laws by simple majorities of both houses.

    4. Re:The Bush Administration by PhilipPeake · · Score: 1

      That was effectively what I was saying.
      We could argue over whether its 6 or 12 months, but the principle is the same -- the order will expire, but may be renewed (how many times?) by the same president - no games by changing a few words, if any part of the effect is the same as a previous order - its invalid.

      They will ALL expire permanently when the presidential term expires (4 years max)and the effect of the order may not be incorporated in any new order, ever again.

      To become permanent, it must be passed into law by congress.

      There are HUGE numbers of executive orders, including some really scary ones from the Clinton years. These all need to go (not *just* the Clinton ones!)

    5. Re:The Bush Administration by PhilipPeake · · Score: 1

      One of my other thoughts was that these orders should probably be provisional for (say) 30 days. During that time the Supreme Court *must* review them and declare them constitutional.

      If they are not reviewed, or if found unconstitutional after 30 days, they are void, and any convictions or penalties on individuals are rescinded - with appropriate compensation.

    6. Re:The Bush Administration by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      That's not particularly helpful - at times it may be necessary to reinstate an executive order when an identical situation arises. For instance, in 1862 Abraham Lincoln issued an order establishing military courts in Louisiana. Let's assume that, under your system, such an order has since expired (as it was no longer necessary). Now imagine some hypothetical situation in the future where military courts are again needed in Louisiana - they could not be instituted by an executive order. (I'm not commenting on wether the original order was right, or it would be appropriate to do it again.)

      --
      FGD 135
    7. Re:The Bush Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make "law" by executive order

      In all seriousness: I've heard this complain a lot, but can someone please give an example of a particular executive order that actually carried some weight? The "executive order" complaint sounds like total bullshit, but if I'm wrong I'd like to hear about it.

    8. Re:The Bush Administration by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      he "executive order" complaint sounds like total bullshit, but if I'm wrong I'd like to hear about

      Well, this article is about an "executive agreement"," ACTA.

      http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18769prs20041220.html
      http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/25/military_cites_risk_of_abuse_by_cia/
      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051217-5791.html

      Just google for:
      "bush abuse of executive order"

    9. Re:The Bush Administration by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The balance is the court system. 12 people in the box. Laws are worthless if the citizenry isn't willing to convinct the people who violate them because they recognize that the laws are ill conceived. It just takes an informed and compassionate citizenry to maintain balance in the country.

  12. Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The U.S. government has become EXTREMELY corrupt.

    1. Re:Corruption by Pichu0102 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Government everywhere are always extremely corrupt, it's just the US government lately hasn't been covering their tracks. Don't worry, they'll learn soon and start covering their tracks again.

  13. Speaking as an old person... by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...but minus the fistful of dollars...

    To put it succinctly: we're pissed off, too.
    I'm not at all happy about what's been happening to our civil rights, our constitution or our country's image in the world. The last eight years have been a boon to the corporations and a disaster for the rest of us. Our elected officials are either too lazy, too stupid, too scared or too much beholden to the corporations. It is on their watch that the PATRIOT act, the TSA and the DMCA have been passed.

    So, it's not just the young who lose, it's all of us. Some of us old geezers feel just like you do.

    And by the way, you're damn right we have a sense of entitlement. Entitlement to do what we want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Entitlement to human rights and fair use of copyrighted material. Entitlement not to be treated as suspected terrorists every time we board an aircraft.

    Bitter? No, just angry, and hoping more people get that way. Democracy only works if you make it work.

    1. Re:Speaking as an old person... by MindKata · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Democracy only works if you make it work."

      That statement is so true and its not something I fully realized, even just a few years ago. I had thought that as my ancestors and people like them had fought so long and hard to finally win Democracy. Then surely as we now have Democracy, we therefore much now just keep Democracy. I didn't realize there are people constantly trying to undermine Democracy for their own gain and so over time, Democracy has to be constantly defended against these people.

      The people trying to undermine Democracy for their own gain are almost by definition people without empathy towards others. They actually choose to violate Democracy for their own gain.

      Its good to see that there are still groups around that will stand against the people who undermine Democracy. I have never been that interested in politics until this year, but the almost constant news in 2008 has shown me that 2008 should go down in history as the start of a massive move towards a global Big Brother. This year has finally shown me the danger of letting this minority of powerful people undermine Democracy. Its sad that in every generation, we have to suffer this minority of power seekers constantly trying to dominate others and undermine Democracy for their own gain.

      "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken (September 12, 1880 - January 29, 1956) ... it was true in his time, and sadly its still true now.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    2. Re:Speaking as an old person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!!! I am 25 And only really figuring out global politics. Im finding this IP stuff to be quite the deity of the enemy.

      Time to paint our faces blue and go into battle I think. There is no greater cause than freeing people from an oppressor.

      People should not be afraid of the govt. The govt should be afraid of the people if the govt makes mistakes.

      When did this whole thing super IP + terrorist stuff start happening?

    3. Re:Speaking as an old person... by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, 2008 is the year that the USA became a Socialist state and nationalized a big chunk of its economy. Most other things are minor compared to this.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    4. Re:Speaking as an old person... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not at all happy about what's been happening to our civil rights, our constitution or our country's image in the world. The last eight years have been a boon to the corporations and a disaster for the rest of us. Our elected officials are either too lazy, too stupid, too scared or too much beholden to the corporations. It is on their watch that the PATRIOT act, the TSA and the DMCA have been passed. So, it's not just the young who lose, it's all of us. Some of us old geezers feel just like you do. And by the way, you're damn right we have a sense of entitlement. Entitlement to do what we want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Entitlement to human rights and fair use of copyrighted material. Entitlement not to be treated as suspected terrorists every time we board an aircraft.

      Exactly.

      You think you're entitled to do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And now that you did what you wanted, you wake up and there's grey hair everywhere. The decision to save money hiring the old experienced guy instead of taking responsibility for nurturing the young guy who doesn't know leaves the young guys helpless and inexperienced and unable to pick up the reigns now that you're tired and old. The decision to treat children and families as an individuals preference rather than the most pressing social need of all left society facing a future where there isn't enough population to sustain the infrastructure.

      You did this, with your choices, with your inattentiveness, with your passing the buck to other people, to other nations, or just dropping the ball entirely and denying that you were ever responsible.

      And now you think your hard work and your pieces of paper are going to magically deal with these issues, because you are entitled to the retirement your parents had, even though you didn't bear the large families that support such a retirement.

      Thing is, the best thing that can happen is that we manage to divest ourselves of responsibility for you old bastards and turn our limited resources to caring for and creating more young people. The worst thing that can happen is that we exhaust what little we have in a misguided attempt to care for you as our civilization spirals towards oblivion.

      Why do you think the property values are going down? It's not specultation, it's surplus. There aren't enough people to fill the houses, therefore, they are practically worthless. You'll be trading your deeds for a hunk of bread before it's all done, if anyone is even interested.

      As far as I'm concerned, you and your entire generation can go to hell, and any of the young people who idolize your way of life can go with you.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:Speaking as an old person... by superdave80 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The last eight years have been a boon to the corporations and a disaster for the rest of us....It is on their watch that the PATRIOT act, the TSA and the DMCA have been passed.

      Bush has screwed up a lot of things, but you can't blame him for the DMCA:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
      " ...signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998,.."

    6. Re:Speaking as an old person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an imigrant to this country, the US, some 20+ years ago, one of the things that has always amused me was the unshakable faith the majority of Americans put into the Constitution. It seems to be held right below God, Jesus, and maybe the Virgin Mary. What they have failed to realize is that the constitution is nothing more than a principled piece of paper. This country was held true to the tenets of the constitution by PEOPLE that BELIEVED in the principles set forth. It was their tears, sweat and blood that made it matter, not the piece of paper upon which it was written. The constitution never lifted a finger to fight for or defend the nation, it was the lives of fellow Americans, our neighbors, that protected the rights and privileges we have so grown accustomed to. Now we have a government to which it all doesn't really matter. And we the people have sat and allowed the government to institute laws with which we do not agree, with no accountability what-so-ever. Time and again they have inflicted laws upon the populace which were of benefit to those in charge and detrimental to the vast majority of the citizens. And yet no one is held accountable. And worse, the streets remain quiet, as we sit idly home watching cable in our lazy boy chairs and cushy sofas. In a few countries around the world, governments are still held accountable. the numbers are decreasing, but there are still a few, where people actually take to the streets to FIGHT for what is their country and belief. The vast majority of us Americans have lost that fight, we have fallen victim to someone else fighting OUR fight. There are still a minority amongst us that still have that desire to fight, and have done so, but they are now being depicted in the media as misfits etc. The anarchists looking to take away our comfy chairs and cable/satellite TV, burn and pillage our living rooms and standard of living. Or worse yet decrease our property values! One of the most un-American things I have seen as of late, is the new policy of herding protesters into 'penned' areas at political rallies etc. IN AMERICA? and yet, for the most part, we all sit home, and some of us rant about the injustices being tossed upon the populace, but, we SIT HOME! and yes, it is difficult, with working for next to nothing and family obligations etc, but we have no right to complain while being beaten, having forfeited that right by inaction when it mattered!

      As to the new ACTA treaty/law, just don't buy/support the crap that is impacted by this until it (this so called law/treaty) is repealed.

    7. Re:Speaking as an old person... by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      As an imigrant to this country, the US, some 20+ years ago, one of the things that has always amused me was the unshakable faith the majority of Americans put into the Constitution. It seems to be held right below God, Jesus, and maybe the Virgin Mary. What they have failed to realize is that the constitution is nothing more than a principled piece of paper.

      That might be the most dangerous thing of all. The belief that 'it can't happen here'. It's quite safe to pass all these laws allowing all manner of abuses, because no villain will ever arise who will use them to implement a true police state and become a dictator. That can't happen, because hey, the constitution!

      The Weimar Republic had a constitution too. Constitutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on once powerful people stop caring about them. As I recall my history, when it happened in Germany, the problem was that their politics had become totally polarised, fairly equally between the Communists and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, with shifting alliances of smaller parties providing the balance of power. With no stable overall government, the executive under Hindenburg got into the habit of ruling by decree (that's 'executive order' to you, chum), pretty much bypassing the constitution. Once the aforesaid National Socialists finally got their man into a position of power, he was perfectly happy to continue ruling in just the same manner. Goodnight, democracy.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:Speaking as an old person... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "I'm not at all happy about what's been happening to our civil rights, our constitution or our country's image in the world. "

      Not to mention, it won't be too long till we lose the last generation of people that lived under and know what it was like to live before the current times of expected loss of privacy, sanctioned ovt. spying, and going to the airport before there were strip searches or metal detectors. (I remember the days of always going to the gate to greet incoming guests, and to see them off from the gate).

      Hell, we have little kids in schools today with cameras on them at all times...soon, if not already, they will take this situation of being watched 24/7 as being 'normal'.

      Sadly, what one generation tolerates.....the next generation embraces.

      Protest now, before the freedoms we once took for granted become a forgotten memory.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Speaking as an old person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last eight years have been a boon to the corporations and a disaster for the rest of us. .. DMCA

      When you concentrate on that one scapegoat, you miss what is really happening, even when examples (DMCA) are right in your face. It ruins your chances of correcting this decades-long trend.

    10. Re:Speaking as an old person... by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, 2008 is the year that the USA became a Socialist state and nationalized a big chunk of its economy. Most other things are minor compared to this.

      I think that this comment perfectly demonstrates the problem. Warmongering, corruption, ever more absurdly draconian copyright laws, the slow decay of democracy, violations of human rights - all those are minor things compared to how closely the leaders of the country follow some particular economic ideology in the middle of an economic crisis. It's just insane.

      Nothing matters as long as the Invisible Hand can work unhindered, come Hell or high water. It's the current western equivalent of Sharia law: absurd, and most people don't want it, but there's always a vocal minority which wants to pass it anyway.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:Speaking as an old person... by dave562 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You're obviously pretty bitter, but you make a good point. I had a conversation with my parents a couple of months ago. They are baby boomers, my dad was born in 1946 and my mom in 1950. They were right there when things were falling apart. They watched Kennedy stand up and get shot. They watched MLK stand up and get shot. They watched RFK stand up and get shot. I asked them why they didn't do anything about it. Their answer was the same answer about why you aren't doing anything about it, and why I'm not doing anything about it. We don't have the power to do anything about it. The system is so entrenched that all you can attempt to do is not take part in the system. But then you realize that our entire life is controlled, our access to food and shelter is predicated on taking part in the system.

      Before you let your bitterness completely kill you, wake up to reality. The people who came before us were working with the tools given to them by the greatest generation. That generation didn't even realize that the government had been co-opted. They didn't have the internet and access to information at their fingertips. They looked around and saw prosperity and they took part in it and did their best to maintain the prosperity for future generations. It has only been the last 15-20 years that large numbers of people have REALLY started to see what is going on.

      The reality of the situation is that if you don't like it, don't take part in it. If you don't want the country to fight wars then don't go fight. Educate people who might fight about how misguided our foreign policy is. Don't invest in the market or in companies that fight wars. Don't put your money in banks, keep it for yourself and spend it in your local community. If you don't want to eat poisons, shop at your local co-op and farmers markets and give economic incentives to those who are doing the right thing. If you don't want your country dependent on foreign oil then stop driving your car. If you aren't willing to take the steps RIGHT NOW to change things, you're part of the problem.

    12. Re:Speaking as an old person... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "The decision to treat children and families as an individuals preference rather than the most pressing social need of all left society facing a future where there isn't enough population to sustain the infrastructure."

      You're saying it is everyones obligation to find a mate, fuck and reproduce...that if they don't, they are somehow letting society down?

      What about those that don't want to have kids...that would not make good parents and turn out criminal kids? What about people that just don't find a good mate? You think it is better to marry someone, have kids and split? Yep...all those kids from broken homes these days sure seems to help things out.

      I guess I'm shocked...I've ever seen it put forth before that people should feel an obligation to have a family and raise kids.

      I frankly, don't see the need to. I don't have any kids (that I know of)...and if I had, I wouldn't have reached the level in life that I am at now. I don't need kids for support...I'm saving, puttin g back for retirement. I fully respect others wanting to have and raise kids...especially if they make all the personal sacrifices that raising a good kid takes.

      But, I don't see how anyone can see reproduction as a moral obligation.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Speaking as an old person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact that the kind of endless exponential population growth he is advocating will cause much, much, MUCH bigger problems than the ones he's complaining about...

    14. Re:Speaking as an old person... by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      Very well said.

    15. Re:Speaking as an old person... by moxley · · Score: 1

      My guess is that you don't even know him; yet you're throwing all of these sweeping generalizations against "his generation," (tell me, which generation is he from? Which generation are you from)?

      Seems to me I could make sweeping generalizations against you based on how you are attempting to blame the complacency and procrastination of the general public on some undefined "other generation" that you have assumed he is part of and has participated in, instead of getting outside of your comfort zone and doing whatever is necessary to take the country back.

      How do you know he didn't do anything? Maybe the guy has been an activist.

      All he is arguing for is liberty - the way you're reacting to his post it's as if he said: "I want to do what I want, damn the consequences for the rest of America" - but I didn't see anything like that - His argument is that he's tired of the government taking away his rights. I am too.

      The thing is that you make a few decent points but they're buried in this "blame the people who came before" bullshit. Well, that is the same thing the politicians are doing. Some of the boomer generation haven't sold out and have fought all of their lives against the kind of crap that you're referring to. I'm in my mid thirties and know several.

      The problem cannot be laid purely on "older people;" - However, one of the many problems is that all people in general have become apathetic across the board, but more than that they have been misled, conditioned and lied to by politicians, television and all of this bullshit for so long - and now the general public are either too cmplacent, dumbed down, controlled, (or too scared of stepping out of line and protesting). The government knows this, this is one reason why they are behaving extralegally/unconstitutionally in places like Seattle 99, St Paul and Denver this year, etc). People are just too caught up to truly get out there and do what is necessary.

      Unfortunately from what I can tell things are going to get much worse, I think we;re headed for an economic crash that will make 1929 look like cupcakes. The powers that be are preparing for this, and their plans for the masses (from what i can tell) certainly aren't what I would call accomodating...or even "American."

    16. Re:Speaking as an old person... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm shocked...I've ever seen it put forth before that people should feel an obligation to have a family and raise kids.

      I frankly, don't see the need to. I don't have any kids (that I know of)...and if I had, I wouldn't have reached the level in life that I am at now. I don't need kids for support...I'm saving, puttin g back for retirement.


      That's because you're an idiot. Do you understand supply and demand? Do you understand that when you are old, there will be a massive demand for young people to wipe your ass and bring you food, and there won't be enough supply. So, it doesn't really matter how much paper you have saved for retirement. Assuming there isn't an outright economic collapse, which is not a safe bet right out the gate, but we'll assume, there's still going to be two groups getting cared for. Those who are so uber rich as to make you look like a chump, and those who earned the love of their kids enough that their kids choose to care for them and ignore you.

      The gambit now is, create a draconian police state, then ship in enough immigrants to fulfil the need, but keep them enslaved, so they can't go "Hey, we outnumber these grey haired bastards... lets change the laws so we don't have to respect their rules and their needs, lets just hang them out to dry and take over."

      My ex had that happen in her country of Mauritius. The Indians moved in, then they just stopped giving votes or jobs to those who weren't Indian by descent.

      Course, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you agree with me, or not, or if you want to change things, or you don't. It's all inevitable anyways at this point. Enjoy your illusions.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    17. Re:Speaking as an old person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem in Germany was that they were being economically punished to a degree that the entire population was finally ready to kill those who were doing it to them, so they did. There was only one man around crazy enough to say "Enough is enough. Lets kill those bastards.", so they followed him, despite his quirks, because he was ready to lead them to war against those who would make his countrymen slaves.

      The problem was, he lost.

    18. Re:Speaking as an old person... by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      All the things you are upset about had their inception in the regulation of the free market by the state. But you don't see that. Almost no one does. We are doomed.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  14. Write to your representative! by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

    It is vitally important that people write letters - actual paper letters, with a stamp - to their MPs, Congressmen or equivalent. MAKE NOISE.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  15. If you think the EFF is doing a good job ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now is the time to donate ...

  16. I say again... by BloodyIron · · Score: 1

    National policy should not be determined by foreign policy.

    I'm a Canadian and I do NOT approve this underhanded political maneuver.

  17. How ACTA kills your job by dermond · · Score: 4, Informative
    How ACTA kills your job

    Intellectual Property" is called the The Oil of the 21st Century". Workers here are told that strong protection of that the protection of this so called property" is necessary for our economy and a means to protect jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    With the ACTA-negotiations, the protection of this IPR should be made stronger once again. What is really behind it?

    Global corporations need to maximize their profit. One way to do this is to offshore production into countries with lower wages. There is one problem with this approach. By transferring know-how into these countries there is the risk that these countries will produce product on their own and this breeds competitors [1]. And competition is bad for profits. Thus the global corporations need to find a way where they can utilize the cheap labor while protecting them self from competition.

    Where the enforcement of copyright only protects them from direct clones the protection of trademarks ensures that only those who have the financial power to run a marketing campaign on a global scale can sell products at inflated prices. The most important tool is the enforcement of patents. This allows to protect" abstract ideas which potentially cover a wide range of similar products and technology.

    So while it is true that IPR protection is good for the european economy" the workers here will not benefit from it. It will increase the profits of the global corporations but it will increase the trend towards offshoring protection. Your boss will get rich but you will loose your job.

    It will not help the developing countries neither as it ensures that the profits are extracted out of this countries while access to cheap medicine and other goods is prevented. Most developing countries now oppose the WTO-TRIPS treaty as they are now forced to implement it. This is why ACTA was started. Now that the developing countries are ware of the neo-colonial effects of IPR it is not possible to conduct the IPR protection within the WTO anymore. So the rich countries decided to take it in their own hands.

    ACTA is a way of economic warfare that is pursued against developing countries and against the working people in Europe, the US and Japan at the same time.

    This should help to explain why the negotiations are held in complete secrecy.

    Franz Schaefer, September 2008

    1. Re:How ACTA kills your job by cliffski · · Score: 1, Informative

      yawn.
      since when does copyright only defend huge evil global corporations? I'm a one man company and without copyright, I'd be out of a job. Don't spin such bullshit to pretend that all IP is TEH TOOL OF TEH SATAN, in some lame attempt to excuse mass copyright infringement.

      If you are Chinese and own factories, it makes sense not to care about IP. If you are educated and in the west, only a suicidal maniac tries to undermine IP, it's what your economies are built on these days.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:How ACTA kills your job by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If you are educated and in the west, only a suicidal maniac tries to undermine IP, it's what your economies are built on these days."

      Not all of it.

      "IP" is multifaceted and in some forms (masses of trivial software patents) starts to strangle the very industry it's supposed to serve. There are companies that patent these useless "inventions" and sue others as there sole business model, there are many companies that feel they have no choice but to keep patenting every little thing so that when they inevitable step on someone else's patents they have something to trade or countersue with.

      Patents are granted too easily and are getting in the way of progress, they need to be undermined.

      Copyright now extends far too far, it is supposed ot be a limited term, it is a social contract between producers and consumers, such that both parties win. One side has recently pushed their powers far too far.

      Trademarks, as applied to internet addresses, have resulted in rulings where people with legitimate uses for domain names have been walked all over by companies that decide they want it for their new product.

      The economy of the west and individual IP holders would not be badly affected by reduced copyright terms, weakened trademark rights (or weakened trademark enforcement) and restrictions on what is and is not patentable.

    3. Re:How ACTA kills your job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Global corporations need to maximize their profit. One way to do this is to offshore production into countries with lower wages. There is one problem with this approach. By transferring know-how into these countries there is the risk that these countries will produce product on their own..."

      Hmmm. Maybe offshoring was not the best way to maximize profits. It is is well known that for years, software was often pirated across the Pacific. Some companies have avoided offshoring or plain expansion for that reason. Just like drug laws, IP laws may not have much impact where they are not so popular.

    4. Re:How ACTA kills your job by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 2, Informative

      since when does copyright only defend huge evil global corporations? I'm a one man company and without copyright, I'd be out of a job

      And are you, the little guy, involved in the secret negotiations of this treaty? I doubt it. Is there even a representative of the little guys involved in the secret negotiations of this treaty? Again, I doubt it. So, in effect, your straw-man argument is lacking, as the only way to ensure that the treaty is for the benefit of little guys, is for some of them to be there and have their voices heard. Which is, sadly not the case.

      To answer your question; Copyright law only defends the the huge evil global corporations when they are the ones who write the law. Which is the point I believe the parent was attempting to make before you contorted it to be a diatribe against ALL copyright laws and not the treaty at hand.

  18. Re:Shine a light on these roaches! Protest! by Artraze · · Score: 3, Informative

    > John McCain, who has never used email,

    Wow... Not to go too off-topic here, but I'm surprised people are still parroting that. It's been rather clearly shown that McCain understands and uses email he just can't type it himself. Here's an article from 2000; ctrl-f "Vietnam" to jump to the relevant paragraph.

    Back on topic, age has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that most Americans do not care about these copyright issues. Most are only barely aware of their existence. It's therefore not too surprising that most people in office don't really care either. If this became a hot issue than you can damn well expect that the politicians would start caring, but right now things like health care and what-have-you are what count.

  19. Ninja legislation, pirates rebel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are attempting to pass the laws before the public can voice their opinion. Usually it's either time-consuming and cost-intensive to introduce and repeal bad laws.

    1) Create law secretly.
    2) Advertise it everywhere (Ignorance of the law can not be a defence).
    3) People live at least 6 months with the law (pure speculation from someone who doesn't do Law).
    4) Corporations make individual profit without individual responsibility.

  20. Re:Shine a light on these roaches! Protest! by Nursie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Given that several millions of americans are breaking the law in this area, one would think they'd look at it.

    OTOH, that never made anyone reconsider drug policy.

  21. Re:It's called WIPO and the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    WTF does that mean? He presented a clear abstract argument as to why it's a bad idea. I don't think you understood it. That puts you in the retard column.

  22. Bleh by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    with your logic, you can easily justify feudal overlordship.

    feudal overlordship provided a system that those serfs living under it had been assured of jobs. even though it was little short of slavery.

    you think that you are happy you have a job. and maybe, you may be happy with what you get, and it may make you live a comfortable life - or so you think - . but, i assure you, you are very probably getting WAY lower than what GNP (or any assessable value) you produce.

    its due to bad distribution of wealth, monopolization - corporatism, basically.

    IP laws of this date protect this. not protect you at all. you dont have the power to market any copyrighted stuff you may hold efficiently, nor you have the cash to protect your interests, and it wont be any different when shit like ACTA, or copyright cops come. they will be so busy protecting prioritized, big corporations that, you, as citizen or small business, will have to shove your copyrights up in your ass, at best.

    so dont even think that there is anything for your interest in such bought-out laws.

  23. Re:Shine a light on these roaches! Protest! by Artraze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Politicians make laws in the same way that PHB's manage people. They make the laws and if you break them it's because you're a criminal. After all, they made the laws to protect you, don't you want to be protected?

    The trouble is that they make the laws with (mostly) good (but very ignorant) intentions. When they see people frequently breaking the law they think it's more a matter of law enforcement not having the right tools to stop the crime. Therefore they increase law enforcement's power. It would be nice if they instead just figured that the law was unenforcible or otherwise bad, but again, since they wrote it and passed it in good faith, they believe the failing must be elsewhere...

  24. Re:Means nothing in the UK - they could do it anyw by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    When will we get a government that cares about our people more than appeasing the playground bully?

    When someone pries it from their cold, dead hands.

  25. A Dangerous Treaty by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

    If this treaty goes through, citizens of each signatory country will be subject to the longest terms and the strictest restrictions among those of all the countries that sign the treaty. It means Canadians will have to follow the DMCA, and websites such as Project Gutenberg will not be able to publish public domain books if they're otherwise still under copyright in a signatory country.

    This is bad.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  26. Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people make the laws, not people governments. The second a government passes law against the public's interests, especially in a covert way, is the second they become a tyrannical regime. So long America, Land of the Free. It was a great dream while it lasted.

  27. Re:Shine a light on these roaches! Protest! by cdrguru · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Murder is one of those things that no matter how many public service advertisements come on television, people seem to just keep getting killed. Law enforcement is powerless to stop it. Tens of thousands of people are murdered each year on the average.

    Should laws against murder be considered bad because the enforcement isn't having much of an effect?

  28. How many murderers you got? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'cos there's 40 million copyright breakers in the US at a time.

    If you had that many murderers, you'd not have 40 million people!

    1. Re:How many murderers you got? by kayditty · · Score: 0

      That's the issue, though. On the one hand, you have a direct democracy, and, on the other, you have some arbitrary line that some random person decides to draw when making decisions which affect us all. Is 0.01%, 0.1%, 1%, or 10% of the population required to use marijuana before it's realized that perhaps this substance shouldn't be illegal? Does 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40% of the population have to regularly break "speed limits" before it's realized that perhaps these laws should be changed or expunged?
      Is it 11, 13, 14, 17 years of age before a person should be able to make a decision to engage themselves in uh.. carnal acts?

      The thing about that is: it doesn't make sense. We've elected representatives to make decisions which affect us. These decisions are tempered by the decisions of other such people, and some whom were not necessarily elected by us (appointees?). The answer should be obvious: start fresh -- stop making laws and allow a system to thrive in which ALL people are free to exist under conditions unrepressive to them and in which they are able to express themselves. That is the only way to encompass the views of the various people, and to ensure that one group's ideas of how people should exist don't dictate how everyone has to exist. This kind of society would probably be categorized, contemporarily, as libertarian. There don't seem to exist many such systems today. The one in which we live (in the United States) is a lot more socialistic, fascistic. Not only is that the failing of the representatives, but it is largely the failing of the people. Many or most of our populace is seduced by the idea of having others conform, even if it doesn't immediately seem that way to them. "I think it is a good idea that everyone should believe in god" is supposed to be somehow different from the so-called "liberal" viewpoint of "I think it is a good idea that everyone should take care of everyone else and everyone should be equal."

      Either one of those may or may not be a good sentiment, but their premises are not accepted by all. It just happens that a lot of people think these things (and, coincidentally, the two don't seem to overlap that frequently). For that very reason, people tolerate fascism, although the so-called "conservatives" might prefer a more authoritarian brand. If I have these ideas about people and they restrict the freedoms of that small minority of people who do things differently than I, then why the hell would I care? So far as I can discern, _I_ am free. Thus it may boil down to an educational problem. I don't mean that any public school should indoctrinate anyone. I don't even know if public schools should exist. But it's quite evident that the average person has some pretty fucked up ideas about the world, and I have no idea what the solution to that is, if there is one.

      The ONLY way to have a fair system is to allow for all sorts of ideas to thrive freely. And the religious might be happy that Bush, McCain, or Obama are the people making decisions for them (okay, technically, the president does very little in the way of legislation, but they're uh symbols for the state of our political understanding and human condition [and another thing I might note is that it's striking how few people actually really do understand the insignifiance of the presidential position {which results in a lot of ridiculous dogma /and perhaps the very expectation that the system should take care of us, since these people aren't even supposed to be making half of the decisions we want them to @and I've never had to go this deep parenthetically before@/}]). But, of course, it is possible that one day they will be quite uncontent with the decision they have made (more passively accepted than made, perhaps). One day soon we might elect some crazy leftist worse than Obama--perhaps as an atheist!! Imagine how the religious right are going to feel then. Before they didn't give a shit, because it didn't matter. It is entirely possible to make them realize the err of their ways.

  29. Re:It's called WIPO and the WTO by wombley · · Score: 1

    He's pointing out that it's already the case for some things.

  30. That is fine by someone1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem is that country USA makes its law a law in country Everywhere.
    I don't mind if they 'export democracy', the problem is when they start to export their corporate laws which don't even have a wide consensus in the USA.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  31. Ooh, a Ponzibreeder... by marxmarv · · Score: 1

    And now you think your hard work and your pieces of paper are going to magically deal with these issues, because you are entitled to the retirement your parents had, even though you didn't bear the large families that support such a retirement.

    Well, personally I'll be more than happy to die when I can't live for myself anymore.

    Thing is, the best thing that can happen is that we manage to divest ourselves of responsibility for you old bastards and turn our limited resources to caring for and creating more young people. The worst thing that can happen is that we exhaust what little we have in a misguided attempt to care for you as our civilization spirals towards oblivion.

    The absolute worst thing we can do right now is create any more young people. Have you noticed that land area, ocean area, available landfill volume, oil production, etc. isn't keeping pace with the size of your brood?

    Why do you think the property values are going down? It's not specultation, it's surplus. There aren't enough people to fill the houses, therefore, they are practically worthless. You'll be trading your deeds for a hunk of bread before it's all done, if anyone is even interested.

    Yes, yes it is surplus that home values are down. It takes a certain amount of capital to buy a house. Fewer people have that kind of capital, in many cases because ignorance -- of their sexual options and of others' rights -- led them to create children they weren't ready for.

    Also, people are starting to ask what they get from all that extra interest paid for home ownership that they don't get by renting, and are finding that the extra income is better spent buying staples like food, transportation and heat for their living spaces rather than lawns to mow, furnaces/windows/pipes to replace, and someplace to live in 30 years if they are fortunate enough to stay in one place that long due to a volatile economy.

    As far as I'm concerned, you and your entire generation can go to hell, and any of the young people who idolize your way of life can go with you.

    I sure as hell don't idolize your way of life. Call me in 20 years when you're fighting against your own kids for your job.

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  32. Attn: twitter sockpuppet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. BITFUCKINGTORRENT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since nobody has mentioned it! This stupid little treaty is trying to kill the wonderful protocol. As a side effect, the Free Software ecosystem. You want to host Debian without bittorrent? (massive volumes) Not to mention all the small projects. (not enough economical muscle to distibute)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#ISP_cooperation

    It's a _huge_ disaster and nobody even mentions it.

  34. Impairment of sovereignty due to excess govt debt by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

    A government is only as politically sovereign over its territory and persons (human and corporate) as it is fiscally sovereign. When governments owe money to other nations, the laws of the creditor nations begin to creep into the nation of such government. Political sovereignty begins with fiscal sovereignty.

    It is a given that laws are to govern conduct. However, the laws of many nations regard identity as a form of conduct. What if one's identity based on immutable traits (ethnicity and/or phenotype) and/or matters of conscience (religion and/or ideology) is regarded a crime in another nation?

    The division between property crimes and political crimes is not always as clear as it appears.

    Imagine a world where one cannot vote with one's feet?

    --
    Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  35. POW != excuse for everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Here's an article from 2000 [forbes.com]; ctrl-f "Vietnam" to jump to the relevant paragraph.

    Aside from the fact that it's not true, I find it interesting that you merely have to search for something about his POW days to find his excuse for everything.

    1. Re:POW != excuse for everything by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >I find it interesting that you merely have to search for something about his POW days to
      >find his excuse for everything.

      I couldn't find his excuse for not knowing that Spain was (1.) in Europe or (b.) an ally of the United States.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  36. Re:Shine a light on these roaches! Protest! by Nursie · · Score: 1

    Murder does actually seem to be a cultural thing. The UK has roughly 1/6 the murder rate of the US.