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."
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.
ACTA is TRIPs+. Who wants to understand what it is really about should read the Susta draft report of the European Parliament Trade Committee.
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
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?
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?
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
The U.S. government has become EXTREMELY corrupt.
...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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
National policy should not be determined by foreign policy.
I'm a Canadian and I do NOT approve this underhanded political maneuver.
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read radical news here
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.
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">
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.
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...
I completely agree and would add:
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.
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.
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."
'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!
He's pointing out that it's already the case for some things.
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
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.
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.
>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.
Murder does actually seem to be a cultural thing. The UK has roughly 1/6 the murder rate of the US.