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.
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.
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
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...
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