Slashdot Mirror
Ambassador Claims ACTA Secrecy Necessary
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of US Trade Representatives, the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy, people would be 'walking away from the table.' If you don't remember, that treaty is the one where leaks indicate that it may contain all sorts of provisions for online copyright enforcement, like a global DMCA with takedown and anti-circumvention restrictions, three-strikes laws to terminate offending internet connections, and copyright cops. FOIA requests for the treaty text have been rebuffed over alleged 'national security' concerns. One can only hope that what he has said is true and that sites like Wikileaks will help tear down the veil of secrecy behind which they're negotiating our future."
Just saying that such a statement seems like a quiet -- yet deniable -- way to ask folks to tear down the secrecy. If he really wanted it to survive, you'd assume he'd be a tiny bit more subtle than, "If this shit is known, this treaty is fucked."
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
That would be a bad thing? How exactly?
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
Should any draft treaty in Copenhagen be published as it goes, along with all views from all the parties and what they are willing to agree to or not through the negotiations?
As in any other area of life, this is yet another example of "when you want something then create moral laws that give it to you, but when those laws don't work in your favour then forget them".
I am an American Citizen. Not a taxpayer. Not a consumer. A citizen.
My government no longer has my consent to government. I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.
I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.
The only way this kind of stupidity and evil will end is with revolution. From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants, or however the exact original goes.
The Government's only purpose is to serve the people, to do for them what they as individuals cannot do for themselves: Infrastructure, Sanitation, Hospitals, and Emergency Services springing immediately to mind.
The Government of the United States has increasingly grown bloated, incompetent, and has increasingly sold out the rights of its Citizens to corporate interests.
We were once the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Now we are the land of timid sheep, beholden to our corporate masters, constantly sacrificing our necessary freedoms to protect Children who would better be protected by their parents actually doing their job and parenting, and to protect us from Foreign threats caused by our own meddling in the affairs of other nations.
It's time to realize that the problem is not whether the politician in the White House is Black or White, Male or Female, Democrat or Republican or Independent.
The problem is that there is a politician in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty.
We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation: The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.
Down with the Tyrants.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
whoever modded this funny should re-evaluate the state of affairs. Obama is no different than Bush; those of you who saw the next coming of the messiah were shortsighted and ignorant. Those of you who are now saying, "I told you my vote for McCain was right" are just as shortsighted and ignorant if not more so as he would have been just as bad, if not worse.
The only difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain is up front with his tactics; Obama just flat out lied.
-SaNo
There seems to be several issues here:
1) they say they keep it secret to make sure it gets passed.
2) but this has big problems that it denies the ordinary people who will need to follow the law a chance to tell what they think of it _before_ it gets passed.
3) in ideal world the people making decisions have done their homework and asked ordinary people and _all_ interest groups what they think of the law. This should be easy to implement via internet.
The secrecy is not a good thing. How can they decide who is worthy enough to modify the text of it?
It worked because 200 years ago the only people who had say in gov't were wealthy white land owning men. A fairly homogeneous class that didn't have too many internal divisions. Now-a-days we have a huge spectrum of voters which makes it much harder to agree on anything.
And yet, almost all of them seem to agree to limit their votes to two parties.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
>>>Time-Warner gets to vote for ALL the Senators, all the congressmen, and all their opponents.
Then maybe the time has come for the People to rise-up an cut off the Tyrant(s)' Head. No more peaceful protests with waving sings; they don't do any good. Time to scare the ____ out of the CEOs, and take back what is ours
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The "private army" idea came about as part of the "peace dividend" for the most part. The US Army was pretty famous for an extremely high ratio of support personnel vs. guys with guns. The ratio following WW II was claimed to be as high as 12 to 1. Yes, this meant that for every one man with a gun facing the enemy there were 12 supply sergents, cooks, laundry people, etc. Somewhat absurd.
Well, with the cracking of the "peace dividend" it was decided that while these people were necessary it was no longer reasonable to have them as part of the direct US Army (or other branch of the services). So these were moved to being "civilian jobs" on military bases. This greatly reduced the military headcount and made things look much better come budget time. The only problem, of course, was that they continued the cuts down to base security and every detail that could possibly be done by someone other than uniformed military.
With the Iraq War, Version 1, we have the silly situation of there simply not being enough cooks, laundry staff, supply sergents, potato peelers, etc. Unlike around a military base in the US, hiring local Saudi staff was out of the question. Contractors to the rescue! All of this was "outsourced".
Come Iraq War, Version 2 we now have the need for sentries at gates. Can we increase the military headcount for this purpose? No. So now we have contractors with guns standing sentry duty. Security details for Iraqis was next. It all makes sense, in an odd twisted way once you understand how we got there. And for the most part, it was all a budget dodge and something that was supposed to make us believe the military was leaner, cheaper and more adapted to the post-Cold War era. In reality, nothing much has changed and the military is the same size it was.
It is not the status quo. This fact is critical for context.
Read the discussion on boingboing, where you'll find a conversation with both Cory Doctorow and the author. This negotiation is a departure from the norm, and it is precisely due to the trouble that people like Doctorow caused the last time around, afaict.
Unfortunately, we have now pretty much reached the point where everyone pirates. Why not? You can't be caught - unless you are silly and decide to redistribute. Or try making an example out of yourself. Yes, trying to make a civil lawsuit into a political statement using university professors as defense counsel is probably a mistake.
The end result is that recorded music used to have value and today does not. Certainly not the value it once had. And in a few more years will clearly have zero value - because nobody will pay for it. Movies probably aren't too far behind unless something drastic changes. Software still has some clarity between "legit" and "pirated", but how much longer will that really stand? The BSA can't really enforce copyright on all software, only selected folks.
Look at it this way. If there is no clear distinction between free, pirates goods and expensive, licensed goods - and I believe there is none in nearly everyone's mind under 30 years of age - we have succeeded in taking a big stack of music, movies, books and software and transforming it from a thing of value into a thing with no value. In the US alone we are talking about billions of dollars a year going up in smoke.
Right now, there is nothing to suggest the pirates aren't going to win a complete victory. We have been training an entire generation that if it can be found on the Internet then it ought to be free. And if it isn't free at www.aaa.com but is at www.bbb.com there is nothing wrong with going to www.bbb.com and taking it. That pretty much describes the current P2P scene in a nutshell.
Today, the US and most of Western Europe are pretty much powerless to do anything about digital goods offered from folks based in Eastern Europe or Russia. So these are "safe havens" for distribution. Even some places in Western Europe have decided to turn a blind eye towards certain types of piracy.
If this continues, there will be global economic consequences. The "try before buying" idea is a joke. If I download a movie, watch it and delete it, why would I buy it? I saw it already. Same goes for just about everything else. The biggest thing the governments are worried about is not the billions (or tens or hundreds of billions) in lost revenue to companies but instead the billions lost in tax revenues from the sales of these products. Moving to an environment where entertainment is "user created" for free should be very frightening to governments as it means a huge reduction in tax revenues.
So in some ways, this can be thought of as being for the benefit of all society. Because the alternative is governments figuring out how to raise the same revenue in other ways. And don't think they won't be trying to get just a little bit extra while they are at it. In the US we are likely to be seeing 60% tax rates soon. For places like Canada and Sweden where they already have tax rates like that, look for 70% and 80% rates. Because entertainment is a huge chunk of everyone's economy and while entertainment may still exist in a zero-revenue environment, the taxes from it will be replaced. Somehow.
Er, my impression has been that the secrecy around the treaty has been at the behest of the US government, and not countries like China (who don't believe in openness, but don't give two shits about protecting American copyrights, three-strikes laws, and DMCA style provisions).
This has been kept quiet because if all the details were leaked, the people of the "open" countries would shit a brick, and presumably start turfing out governments come election time.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Still failing to see where 'Copyright, anti-circumvention and DMCA (a U.S. only act, afaik)' has grounds ' in the interest of national defense or foreign policy'. Then again I'm a free thought advocate.
Basically, the lot of us, internationally speaking, are being taken over the barrel at the behest of the Copyright Cartels. I have to wonder where the tipping point is when retribution moves from the electronic playground into physical beatings, or worse.
Think about it. Pretty soon posts to Internet forums will be shrouded in double-speak, misdirection. A language completely dissolved of comprehensible meaning, and thoroughly reviewed by an Association, Bureau, or Committee.
How can ACTA possibly be anywhere close to a 'national security' concern???? If you look at the excerpts so far, there is nothing there to even hint at it. The ONLY possible reason for the secrecy is they don't want people bringing up public furor over a 'world' copyright police act. If that drives countries away from it, then it probably isn't a good idea in the first place. To hide something so that the people can't have a say... sounds like Iran.