Unpacking the Secrets of ACTA

An anonymous reader writes "As negotiations in the 7th round of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement talks continue this week in Mexico, Michael Geist has been posting a comprehensive guide to the secret copyright treaty. He started with a review of the substance of the treaty, then posted links to all the leaked documentation, and has now unpacked the secrecy associated with the talks, including why governments have made it secret, the public concern, and why this isn't business as usual."

Comments

Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary?

Re:Hello?

[haderytn]

Do you really think of it as stealing?

Re:Hello?

[biryokumaru]

No, this is bad because it will make it harder for me to use products and media I have legitimately paid for.

The making it harder to steal part is less important.

Re:Hello?

[Monkeedude1212]

Anything? Anything at all?

Michael Geist is like the skinny short Brunette in all the Slasher flicks from the 90's. He's always shouting "YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS" but everyone else is like the dumb Jock who isn't afraid of a guy with a knife and ends up getting diced into french fries.

So - the only opinion you really need to form is whether ACTA is metaphorically a serial killer. It hides under the same deceptive mask of Anonymity, so we don't actually know very much about it.

Re:Hello?

[jgtg32a]

More or less I usually don't worry too much about semantics. I've found that explaining things in basic terms is the easiest way to get through life. When it comes down to it the difference between (C) infringement and stealing is if $RETAIL is getting screwed in the deal as well. For the most part I haven't heard $RETAIL complain that much, then again I see a whole lot less record stores than I used to...
In the end it's the pirate vs (C) holders. Stealing basically means that someone isn't getting paid and the (C) holders aren't getting paid, therefore piracy is basically stealing.
 
I wish I could think of another example because its a bit inflammatory but its lunch time so:
Manslaughter, 1, 2 deg Murder: end result someone's dead
Stealing, (C) infringement: end result someone didn't get paid.
 
Unless we're talking about punishment its a waste of time to argue semantics.

Re:Hello?

[jedidiah]

The problem with such definitions is that they also apply equally for a wide range of legal gratis alternatives.

"Yes Billy, I've enjoyed your works for years but I've never once paid for one." (no piracy required)

Re:Hello?

[s73v3r]

The other side of it is that said (C) holder wasn't looking to get paid, or at least wasn't attempting to charge for the work. Granted, even if someone is giving something away for free, it is still possible to infringe their copyright on it.

Re:Hello?

[icebraining]

No, stealing results in someone being deprived of the stolen goods.

Re:Hello?

[shutdown -p now]

This is bad becuase it will make it harder for me to steal things off the internet.

This is bad because it violates my right to free speech (due to anti-circumvention clauses).

Re:Hello?

[jgtg32a]

Let me guess what you read

haderytn (1232484)

Do you really think of it as stealing?

jgtg32a (1173373)
More or less
 
Then you though time to post, am I right?

Re:Hello?

[jgtg32a]

I should have been a bit clearer at the end. What I mean is for general discussions and what not the differences don't really matter.
 
Semantics don't matter until they do.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Global DMCA means no more uncrippled-yet-DRM-compatible media players, meaning no more DRMed content, meaning piracy (as opposed to violating DMCA in your own home where no one will ever know) becomes the only solution. This means more pirates, more seeds, and therefore easier stealing.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

when you deprive someone of their exclusive publishing rights, that would be stealing.

Re:Hello?

[mcgrew]

This doesn't make it harder to steal, it makes it easier to steal -- from us. We are being robbed of our cultural heritage. Copyright is supposed to be so new works will go into te pubic domain. WE own the art; the "content creators" only own a monopoly on its distribution.

The theift isn't copyright infringement, it's the copyright holders themselves who have stolen from us. Disney should NOT have a monopoly on Steamboat Willie, JRR Tolkien's heirs should not have a monopoly on LOTR. In a sane world all images, music, movies, books produced before 1989 should be in the public domain. They belong to US, and have been stolen from us by the corporatti.

Nothing produced in your lifetime will reach the public domain. That is the REAL theievery, and it's an abomination.

Re:Hello?

[alexo]

If you are a Canadian, contact your MP and tell them that if their party does not go all out against ACTA, they can forget about your vote forever.

Hopefully someone more fluent in English than myself can draft an example letter.

Re:Hello?

[multisync]

when you deprive someone of their exclusive publishing rights, that would be stealing.

When you deprive the general public of the ability to make fair use of a copyrighted work, that would be stealing. If you prevent the copyrighted work from ever entering the Public Domain, that would be stealing. If you use copyright and the hammer of the DMCA to prevent people from watching movies they purchased on the hardware - or in the geographical location - of their choosing, that would be stealing.

Hey, this is starting to sound like one of those "you may be a redneck" rants ...

Re:Hello?

[temcat]

Nope, because these "exclusive pubishing rights," being a government-granted monopoly privilege, themselves constitute violation of physical property rights.

Re:Hello?

[Foobar of Borg]

Michael Geist is like the skinny short Brunette in all the Slasher flicks from the 90's. He's always shouting "YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS" but everyone else is like the dumb Jock who isn't afraid of a guy with a knife and ends up getting diced into french fries.

Interesting analogy, but couldn't you at least come up with one involving cars? Perhaps I should try.

Michael Geist is like the guy who knows Pintos will shoot fire at you if you so much as bump the front bumper, but everyone else just decides to drive the damn things and get their fat scorched all over the car after being burned alive.

Re:Hello?

[mrchaotica]

Semantics don't matter until they do.

Semantics always matter, because otherwise people never learn them in the first place.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Theft and violation of copyright are separate things. Once we can agree on that, and stop trying to extend metaphors to the point of drawing conclusions without establishing strong arguments first, perhaps we can get something done.

I'm tempted to suggest that ACTA stands for "All Countries, in Tandem, Accusing", "All Countries, in Treatise, Avoidant" (get the pun? an ironic pun, at that), "Antagonist Corporate Territories Absconding", "All Civilians Treated as Apostate", "All Countries Treacherous and Arrogant", "Arbitrary Copyright Treaty for Aspersing"
(... must I go on? I can only think of a few patterns to try to fit words into...)
-os

Re:Hello?

[Anci3nt of Days]

Can somebody please post anything so that I can get an opinion without reading the summary?

They did... but were removed by your ISP following a flurry of DMCA takedown notices.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bad becuase it will make it harder for me to steal things off the internet.

This is bad for you because it makes you look like an idiot.

It is bad for (almost) everyone (including you, whether you believe it or not) because it makes far worse intrusions into the lives of people than all terrorist activities combined.

Then again, you're just an idiot, so why bother replying...oh, well.

Re:Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.

how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

Because from where I sit the new master looks and smells a lot like the old.....

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

We replaced Halliburton with RIAA. That's change!

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.

One of my problems with regulation is that big business actually welcomes it. Why do you suppose that is? Because they know that it's easier to shut out small businesses that might challenge their business model when you put regulatory hurdles in the marketplace. A large company will have no problem complying with whatever regulations are imposed on it. They have legions of lawyers working on compliance and lobbyists in DC working to ensure that the regulations protect their existing business while shutting out competitors. The small start up has neither of those advantages.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I HOPE you have some CHANGE you can spare

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[eldavojohn]

One of my problems with regulation is that big business actually welcomes it. Why do you suppose that is? Because they know that it's easier to shut out small businesses that might challenge their business model when you put regulatory hurdles in the marketplace. A large company will have no problem complying with whatever regulations are imposed on it.

I think you're oversimplifying things with that statement. Take for instance a new regulation in healthcare which states that every healthcare provider shall audit their records daily by hand (no machine automation) in order to reduce the number of errors in prescriptions. It's an outrageous regulation but certainly a small highly specialized practice would have less of a problem implementing than a big behemoth county hospital sitting precariously atop an urban population in downtown metropolis.

They have legions of lawyers working on compliance and lobbyists in DC working to ensure that the regulations protect their existing business while shutting out competitors.

I kind of agree with you. However, if you can provide names and conclusive proof and evidence of this, I urge you to submit a complaint to the FTC with said details falling under the Sherman Antitrust Act. They actually do take that stuff very seriously.

The small start up has neither of those advantages.

They also don't have that overhead or those complications and so should be able to find a niche in the market where people would like a lower priced product and are not afraid of litigation and licensing headaches.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my problems with regulation is that big business actually welcomes it. Why do you suppose that is?

Because they still pay off the people who write the regulations.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Duradin]

Large corporations like regulations that they write. That's pretty obvious.

Now if regulations were written without all the clauses and loopholes and in a plain enough language for the average entrepreneur to understand without a team of lawyers the large corporations wouldn't like that (which is why they aren't written like that).

Also, being a small business isn't an excuse to ignore regulations. "Hi, I'm a start up nuclear waste disposal company so I'll need all these regulations waived so I can compete."

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[eldavojohn]

Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.

And what is social security? A mild form of socialism. What are taxes (especially those that go to public owned parks, libraries and schools)?

I believe that we've slowly warmed up to the idea that the best economic system lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism. And even on a state by state basis you will find a wide array of where each state sits. Take Minnesota versus Texas, in Texas it might be well known to all the patriotic 'wing-nut conservatives' that Socialism is Evil but in Minnesota I can tell you that the patriotic 'bleeding heart liberals' that Socialist programs are necessary to protect the poor and sick. I know that the political winds of politics are different because I grew up in Minnesota under the poverty line on Minnesota Care and received college grants based on need. Everyone around me loved it. I now live in Northern Virginia where I leave that out of conversations after listening to a few folks rail on "Communist Minnesota." Fine.

Decentralization of power back to the states is good. And shows that many models can work for many different people. I speculate that socialism is evil locally to you. Please don't extrapolate it to a national scale.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[DustyShadow]

and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.

There's a difference between a government running corporations and a government regulating corporations. The current Congress and Administration prefer the former. I call that socialism and I don't care if that offends you.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[OttoErotic]

I'm always a little torn on regulation. I can see the virtue in trying to use it to fix a system that's heavily weighted towards corporate interests, but it seems like the law of unintended consequences inevitably causes it to backfire. For instance, I wonder what the real effect of regulating the stock market has been. By making it safer for investors than a total free market, did it artificially create an environment where bloated corporations thrive? It seems to me like people would have been a lot more prone to invest in local, known companies, and that stock prices would be a lot more realistically tied to income and profit if we didn't try to shield people from the inherent danger market investment. Generally I'm a free market guy and would oppose regulation, but I also don't think the current system is the product of a free market; how far can you go to correct an imbalance before you choke out innovation with over regulation?

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Nerdfest]

the new master looks and smells a lot like the old

Too bad we already stepped in it.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

Also, being a small business isn't an excuse to ignore regulations. "Hi, I'm a start up nuclear waste disposal company so I'll need all these regulations waived so I can compete."

That's a nice strawman, but where did I say it was an excuse to ignore regulation? All I suggested was that some regulations are put into place with the implied intent of codifying the business model of the big boys and locking smaller players out of the market. Do you disagree with that notion?

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[QuantumRiff]

One of my problems with big business, is they seem to welcome whatever is best for the executives. Take for instance, health care. One would think that most business would LOVE some reform, since its the single greatest increasing cost for any business. (Unless maybe your a shipping company, then its second to diesel prices). They are constantly battling foreign companies that don't have to pay for their employees health, its taken care of by slightly higher taxes (or in many countries, lower taxes, with much less military spending!). Hell, when they outsource American jobs, they don't have to pay insurance or other benefits in many of the companies, so the savings is much more than the difference in salary!

Yet the executives forget they could save a billion a year, and look at the fact that out of their $10 million salary, they would now have to pay the $20k a year for their super high end health plan for them, their 3 ex wives, and handful of kids that hate them, since they make too much to qualify, or would want something much nicer than a basic government plan. So, the might of the company is against it, because the leaders are, even though, for 99.9% of the employees, as well as the business itself, would be better off.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot be a small company in many industries because in order to sell anything, you have to be expensively licensed. For example, there is no "niche market" for fire detectors, so we still have 30-year-old technology as the primary detection device. There is no "niche market" for producing road-legal cars. There is no "niche market" for many things, because the licensing costs millions.

On the other hand, there is a "niche market" for useless medicines and treatments. Go fig.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[interkin3tic]

Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations...

Some of the other parties are also funded by corporations, for instance Lieberman is probably going to get a lot of money from his masters in the health insurance industry, and I guess he's technically not a democrat? Anyway, just wanted to point out that what's keeping corporate funding for the other parties low isn't a magic number greater than 2 or any ideological differences, it's that they haven't been winning and are therefore poor investments. If that were likely to change, corporate interests would invest in 3rd, 4th, or 9th party candidates faster than flies land on poop.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[JonStewartMill]

It's too soon to tell, really. At least this administration has yet to commit treason.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[CrimsonAvenger]

(or in many countries, lower taxes, with much less military spending!).

Note that if the US military budget were zeroed, the budget deficit would drop to about $700 billion per year.

Note further that this year, mandatory spending (SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt, that sort of thing) is approximately equal to income from ALL taxes.
So if we were to zero out the entire discretionary federal budget, we might reduce the deficit to zero.
This year.
Next year, SSA and Medicare expenses will be higher (and it's possible that debt servicing will be higher as well, since we're at historically low rates right now).

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[HeckRuler]

And we haven't preemptive invaded anyone (else) yet. That's always a plus.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[s73v3r]

Really? I would say there definitely is a "niche market" for cars. Electric roadsters? High end luxury vehicles?

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Hurricane78]

Yeah right. Because a global treaty clearly is a America-only thing, and even more it is clearly the work of one single person with all-encompassing control over everything.

I’d call you a retard to your face. But I won’t insult the retards of this planet. That just crosses the line.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[ciggieposeur]

At least this administration has yet to commit treason.

I voted for this administration, yet I think that it has indeed committed treason.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[icebraining]

And the last preferred the government rune by the corporations. That's Fascism.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[shutdown -p now]

All I suggested was that some regulations are put into place with the implied intent of codifying the business model of the big boys and locking smaller players out of the market. Do you disagree with that notion?

I agree that this is definitely the case in U.S., and, to some (albeit lesser) extent, in other Western countries. However, this again points at the fact that it's regulation by and in favor of the corporations that is the problem, not regulation per se.

If you want a counter-example, look no further than huge fines megacorps (both local and foreign) often get in EU for abusing the marketplace.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[s73v3r]

You know, I grew up right next to Minnesota, and while I had plenty of reason to hate your state (a certain professional football team with a propensity to lose important games comes to mind), I've never heard of it referred to as Communist Minnesota.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Jawn98685]

Bravo, sir! You have just illustrated that the "free market" is a myth in an society where regulatory influence can be bought at rates low enough to make it pay. Which is to say, it is a myth, totally.
Now, if it were illegal for businesses to spend money in order to influence the government of the people, things would be different. Alas, that horse has left the barn.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[eldavojohn]

You know, I grew up right next to Minnesota, and while I had plenty of reason to hate your state (a certain professional football team with a propensity to lose important games comes to mind), I've never heard of it referred to as Communist Minnesota.

Well then you might find your state's history interesting as well as a certain Sconnie Senator from 1947 to 1958 during which it was the fashion at the time to get anyone and everyone on a particular list for being a 'Commie Sympathizer.'

Despite your idiotic sports elitism complex that runs rampant through your state and trickles into my home state (so annoying), the two are really not that different nowadays.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Jawn98685]

There's a difference between a government running corporations and a government regulating corporations.

[citation needed]
...and no. Fox News and the usual assortment of "reliable tea-bagger sources" doesn't count.
Ahem...
[crickets...]

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[cayenne8]

"They are constantly battling foreign companies that don't have to pay for their employees health, its taken care of by slightly higher taxes (or in many countries, lower taxes, with much less military spending!). "

I guess it depends on your definition of "slightly higher" taxes. I already pay easily over 30% of my salary (currently working W2)...with state, federal, SS and medicare taken out right off the top. You add onto that the sales taxes I pay on things, property taxes...etc. My effective tax rate is quite high enough for me thank you kindly.

I suppose it wouldn't be so bad..if MORE people in the US paid taxes..at least starting with income taxes. From what I read, about 40% of the US does not pay income taxes, I'm appalled that not only do many people pay no taxes, but that many actually GET refunds on taxes they do not pay?!?!?

No, until they make it more fair and have everyone that is able bodied and can work do work and PAY taxes...I'm not willing to foot the bill for any more. If we did away with the 'progressive' system we currently have, and went for ONLY a VAT type tax...I'd be more inclined to be a bit more liberal with what we do for it since I'd feel more that everyone that could, was putting into the system. Everyone has to buy things...even those in illegal activities, so we'd rope more from everyone, and lower the burden for everyone. But only a national sales tax...I'd want a constitutional amendment saying no other taxes (income..etc) to prevent the congresscritters from coming back and hitting us with multiple more taxes.

As for the US's military spending...you do realize that is we were to drastically cut out spending...all the other countries that depend on us for protection, etc...would seriously have to start ramping up their military expenditures, eh?

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[dpilot]

> And what is social security? A mild form of socialism.

The last administration tried to do away with (privatize) social security. One of my pet fears is that the new 2012 administration with same-party Executive and Legislative branches will enact the "Fiscal Responsibility and Recovery Act" that will sunset social security, medicare, medicaid, and who knows, maybe even the FDIC/FSLIC in order to undo the last traces of "Socialist FDR". Of course that *might* correct the deficit problem, if it weren't followed almost immediately by the "Economic Stimulus and Recovery Act" that removed the top tax bracket and sunset capital gains and inheritance taxes - pushing the deficits back up to where they were prior to the two "recovery acts". Except by this time, the federal government would be so small that you could snuff it out with a blanket, or whatever the phrase was.

> I believe that we've slowly warmed up to the idea that the best economic
> system lies somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism.

I'm there, and I'll agree that states are moving along the spectrum. But there are strong forces pushing the nation toward pure capitalism - savage, green in tooth and claw. Personally I think/fear it's really heading toward feudalism, not capitalism or socialism.

> Decentralization of power back to the states is good.

In theory I can agree with that. The problem in practice is that corporations wield much more economic power relative to the states. Ever watch the states start lifting their skirts whenever a corporation says, "We want to build a new plant." The real problem is the concessions the states make, and there's no guarantee that all of those new jobs won't get outsourced and the plant shut down a few years later.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[causality]

One of my problems with regulation is that big business actually welcomes it. Why do you suppose that is?

Because they still pay off the people who write the regulations.

That isn't a complete sentence. The complete sentence would be, "because they still pay off the people who write the regulations and for some reason we put up with this." Sheep need a shepherd.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[hiryuu]

One of my problems with regulation is that big business actually welcomes it. Why do you suppose that is? Because they know that it's easier to shut out small businesses that might challenge their business model when you put regulatory hurdles in the marketplace. A large company will have no problem complying with whatever regulations are imposed on it.

My experience, anecdotal as it is, offers a slightly different take. I work in a large specialty chemical company, one of the three largest globally in a relatively niche-but-widespread industry. We frequently encounter products out in the marketplace, put there by competitors who are 1/10th our size, that are flatly illegal - they may contain banned substances, or are sold without proper or warnings labels or documentation or transport containers, etc. Many times, the cost of using allowed substances (or the cost of maintaining compliance with the appropriate regulations) puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

The reasons for this include the lack of education in the marketplace as to the law, lack of enforcement on anything but the largest and most visible participants in the market, and sometimes a complete ignorance of the law and regulatory requirements on the part of the small players. (Often, they're violating the law simply because they may not even employ anyone whose responsibilities and/or knowledge include any purview of the regulations.) If the regulations were to mysteriously vanish, we'd crush all the small players because of our purchasing power for raw materials - but with the detrimental effects to the environment, our customers, etc., that occur in the absence of regulation.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[dkleinsc]

And now thanks to the US Supreme Court, you can now have "this candidacy brought to you by Initech". The dissent by John Paul Stevens is something to behold. Although I'm in agreement with those who think Congresscritters should wear Nascar-style outfits, so everyone knows exactly who their corporate sponsors are.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[QuantumRiff]

Actually, the "Fair Tax" sounds pretty much exactly like you describe, except for the fact that they mail you a check every month to cover the taxes a family at poverty level would pay. (which does make it slightly progressive, but not nearly so much as we have now)

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[thetoadwarrior]

Exactly. I'm tired of these idiots (and generally they're old too) crying about socialism when we're paying into social security, medicare and medicaid.

If socialism is such a bad thing then don't be shelfish and just try to stop younger people from getting healthcare, take it away from the old people and stamp it out for good.

I also don't like that the people most vocal about socialism also typically come from the dead weight states who are taking more from the government than they're paying in. Must be nice to have the best of both worlds.

All I want is equality and that is what it should be. Either *everyone* should have access to free healthcare or take it away from the elderly and the job shy poor people and everyone can fend for themselves. From an evolutionary stand point this is the best option. Let the weak fall to the side.

The eldery have less reason than the 20 somethings for not being able to pay their own way. They've had their whole life to prepare for retirement. The 20 something has barely been working and won't get paid much. He technically deserves free care more than the eldery who did not prepare for the end of life.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[fhage]

They have legions of lawyers working on compliance and lobbyists in DC working to ensure that the regulations protect their existing business while shutting out competitors.

I kind of agree with you. However, if you can provide names and conclusive proof and evidence of this, I urge you to submit a complaint to the FTC with said details falling under the Sherman Antitrust Act. They actually do take that stuff very seriously.

Here's a good example I know from first hand experience. The FTC won't do shit.

Baron Services, Inc., of Huntsville, Alabama filed a formal protest with the GAO after they lost a bid, knowing it would seriously harm their competition. See http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402109.htm

They knew they had little chance of success, but they know by filing protests against awards to small, innovative competitors, they have a chance of killing off the small company due to the induced long delays in distribution of contract funds. Based on comments from our contract administrator, this is standard practice, with well over 90% of protests being dismissed.

Here's why it works. Right after we are awarded the contract, we ordered $100+k of parts so we can meet the contract deadlines. Then, Barron steps in and files a complaint. At this point all contact with PNNL and all money stops. We still have to pay for parts we ordered. Try to get a small business loan these days. Banks tell us; "If you deposit that amount of the money in our bank, we'll lend it back to you". Really. Thanks for all the help with the US economy, Wall Street. Fascist Bastards. I'll never forget.

Large corporations work hard to create Fascist states. In the US, they seem to be succeeding, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS decision. Some of us actually had hope things would change. Silly us, the GOP won't stand for that and the Dems have clearly demonstrated they can't pick their nose without gaining "bipartisan support".

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[mcgrew]

I welcome regulation, as long as they're good regulations in the public interest. Take Monsanto, for instance. When I was a kid, you could not drive past the Monsanto plant in Sauget with your windows rolled down, even though it gets damned hot in the summer and few cars had AC. The pollution was horrible; lung-burning horrible. And you couldn't get to St Louis from Cahokia without driving past it.

After the Clean Air Act was passed, they were forced to clean it up, and rarely do you smell anything while driving past there.

Look what happened in California after they deregulated power companies.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

California didn't "deregulate" power companies. If they had deregulated power companies they would have been allowed to enter into long term contracts to purchase electricity and wouldn't have been as vulnerable to Enron'ish manipulations of the spot markets.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I speculate that socialism is evil locally to you. Please don't extrapolate it to a national scale.

I suspect you missed the mocking/sarcastic tone of the OP's last sentence. Here's a hint, the quote marks around the first, "socialism," tend to imply that.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

Large corporations work hard to create Fascist states. In the US, they seem to be succeeding, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS decision.

I actually agree with most of the rest of your post but I wish that people would consider the ramifications of the legislation that SCOTUS just struck down before they condemn the ruling. You do realize that the ban on corporations participating in the political process also extended to organizations like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?

I hope that you can see why such a prohibition is inherently incompatible with the notion of free speech and expression.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Minnesota? About the only thing they have going for them is the scotch tape plant, which will probably be moved to China if it hasn't been already, and the pretty much the rest are hardscrabble subsistence farmers who try to scratch out a living during the two months of the year when the ground isn't frozen. At least that's what I heard down in Texas.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally that kind of cynical, trite, anti-republic smugness is enraging, then I recalled it was Clinton who first sold the nation's soul to Disney. Got some kewl-time playing sax on late night TV though. Like the Patriot Act was the Right just expanded on the tools the Left created for the War on Drugs. Hoist meets petard.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[DustyShadow]

lolwut

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

I rather thought that SCOTUS got that ruling right. You do realize that the old law was so broadly written as to infringe on the political advocacy of groups like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dislike this administration. Betrayal, yes... but treason?

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[fhage]

Large corporations work hard to create Fascist states. In the US, they seem to be succeeding, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS decision.

I actually agree with most of the rest of your post but I wish that people would consider the ramifications of the legislation that SCOTUS just struck down before they condemn the ruling. You do realize that the ban on corporations participating in the political process also extended to organizations like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?

I hope that you can see why such a prohibition is inherently incompatible with the notion of free speech and expression.

I've come to the conclusion that corporations are not people, and those rights should be highly limited to prevent a Fascist takeover of government. Only people should have the constitutional right to free speech and expression. Corporations, including non profits are government sanctioned entities that limit the liability of the individuals that make up that organization. In exchange for that substantial benefit, there should be reciprocal limitations, far in excess of the restrictions on people. Corporate speech is highly regulated already. For example, Newcorp can't claim their snake oil cures all cancer.

I think it should be illegal for any LLC to contribute to political campaigns or try to bribe our elected officials by helping them get elected. That includes non-profits like the NRA, EFF, ACLU. The only reason we have the ACLU, EFF, NRA in Washington is to gain parity to those who currently spend millions and millions trying to consolidate and strengthen their power over government decisions.

In the US, our representatives have to raise on the order of $30k every day they hold office. When CEO's get the call asking for a donation, don't you think that CEO gets their concerns heard and addressed? As a regular citizen, I have no such access or influence. Currently, it takes lots of money to gain access to and influence our politicians. The voter is now nearly powerless, and even more so if LLC's are permitted to influence political campaigns without restrictions or limits.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[myowntrueself]

Note that if the US military budget were zeroed, the budget deficit would drop to about $700 billion per year.

Well... I guess that the only option for the USA is to invade the rest of the world sometime really soon. May as well use that military budget to annul any problems with budget deficit and pesky foreign nations potentially 'owning' the USA.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[SETIGuy]

You do realize that the ban on corporations participating in the political process also extended to organizations like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?

Actually I believe that the EFF is a 501 (c) (3) charitable organization, and as such it has given up many rights to free speech in exchange for privileged tax status. You are correct about the NRA and ACLU, though. But even if the EFF were permitted to fund pollitical ads, I'm sure that the EFF's budget is somewhat more constrained than the RIAA, MPAA, SPA, and the colluding corporations they represent. Ditto, the ACLU. The NRA is different because they have a separate lobbying arm (the NRA-ILA), and because the gun manufacturers, importers and exporters will bankroll whatever ads they need.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[SETIGuy]

That's exactly why I favor a repeal of the income tax and it's replacement with a wealth based tax. People think what they make is the important thing to tax. I disagree, how much you have is what should be taxed. If all your income goes to living expenses and you are unable to build an asset base you should pay no taxes. Bill Gates, on the other hand, should pay taxes whether he has income or not. In addition, your stake in the country, how much you have to lose if it's not protected, is proportional to your wealth.

I'm guessing you wouldn't be too keen on a system like that, would you?

Probably not. I know 10,000 people who have said they would die for this country. I know very few who have said they would give up all of there possessions for it. I guess that shows which we value more, life or wealth.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

I think it should be illegal for any LLC to contribute to political campaigns

It's still illegal for LLC's to contribute to political campaigns. The SCOTUS ruling didn't change that. If you were told otherwise then you were misinformed. All it did was free up LLC's to spend their own money directly. They can now legally produce mailings/TV advertisments/Youtube clips/etc to participate in the political process.

Only people should have the constitutional right to free speech and expression

I think it should be illegal for any LLC to ... try to bribe our elected officials by helping them get elected. That includes non-profits like the NRA, EFF, ACLU.

Can you honestly not see the inherent incompatibility in those two statements? First you claim that people should have the constitutional right to free speech and expression. Then you claim that we need to muzzle the organizations that people setup to exercise their free speech and expression.

When CEO's get the call asking for a donation, don't you think that CEO gets their concerns heard and addressed?

What makes you think CEO's are the only ones getting calls? Politicians call anyone they think can donate a sizable chunk of money. If you can afford to donate the maximum (currently $2,400) then you stand a good chance of being able to talk to the candidate. The last time I checked $2,400 wasn't a particularly large sum of money and as well within the reach of many professionals whom aren't CEOs. Again though, why are we talking about this? This ruling did not change the law as regards to donations to political campaigns. It remains illegal for LLCs to donate money to campaigns. It remains illegal for LLCs to coordinate their activities with campaigns.

The voter is now nearly powerless, and even more so if LLC's are permitted to influence political campaigns without restrictions or limits.

What you are really saying here is that voters are too stupid to make informed decisions on their own and need to be protected from the evils of limitless speech.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

My mistake on the EFF. But I do hope you can see the danger in a law that prohibits an organization like the ACLU or NRA from attempting to influence the political process. Those organizations were set up by American citizens seeking a redress of grievances from their government. If you can muzzle them then the 1st amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

George Will published an op-ed today regarding this issue. Did you know the Sierra Club was fined by the FEC for distributing pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental views of various candidates for office? WTF is wrong with that picture?

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

If being a charitable organization means giving up free speech rights, then they should get the evangelicals off the air.

What's that you say, they're not charitable?

Then they're not a religion either :P

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is a puppet in the hands of the Congress->corporations. He'll surely be much better than GWB, but he still jumps when the Congress or some big corporation say so. You wanted capitalism, here's capitalism, but completely out of hands.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[sounds]

Nice theory, but a 3rd party candidate cannot get on the ballot in all 50 states. Thus, it's impossible for a 3rd party to win, and I really don't see corporate interests investing in that kind of situation without due diligence. 4th and 9th parties are completely out of the question.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[the_womble]

No, GP is quite right. Big businesses just hire a people to sort it out. They are specialists and know exactly what to do and get it down quickly. The regulator gets to know them, which helps as well, and they can afford to takes disputes with regulators to the courts.

I have heard Ted Tuppen, who founded a company that ended up owning about the fifth of the pubs in Britain*, say that there were always free houses (independent pubs) for the chains to buy because the owners could never cope with the paperwork.

*Enerprise Inns, they may have had to shrink a bit post credit crunch.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[mrchaotica]

You do realize that the ban on corporations participating in the political process also extended to organizations like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?

It's worth it. The NRA, ACLU, and EFF aren't natural persons either!

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in my country (and I've understood that something similar applies in many other European countries) there is a pretty heavy income tax and a pretty heavy wealth tax on top of that. They're highly progressive. Oh, and we have free healthcare too, and very extensive and high quality public services. Avoiding paying taxes is very difficult and can lead to prison sentences for those who played around with a lot of money. Even if they manage to pull it off, they'll get featured in a scandal tabloid about it. It's easier for this to work out in a reasonably sized country. Maybe the US is just too big of a bureucratical nightmare to function with the efficiency that many hope for.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[Shakrai]

Their members are.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[ciggieposeur]

Betrayal, yes... but treason?

In continuing the treasonous policies of the prior administration, yes:

* Telecom immunity is a direct assault on the 4th Amendment.

* The "unitary executive" theory is a direct assault on the Constitution itself.

* Indefinite detention + torture is a direct assault on the American civilian population. (Yes, American citizens have been caught up in the War on Terra.)

This isn't "our predecessors did this bad stuff, and we're working to shut it down, just give us some more time."

This is "actually, we agree with the previous administration's policies and seek to expand them."

So: treason.

Re:how's that hope and change working out for you?

[interkin3tic]

Nice theory, but a 3rd party candidate cannot get on the ballot in all 50 states. Thus, it's impossible for a 3rd party to win, and I really don't see corporate interests investing in that kind of situation without due diligence.

How is that different from what I said?

Re:G$$Gle

[cromar]

Lately when anyone uses some like that, something like G**gle, I immediately fill in the blanks as "giggle." I get a small laugh out of it...

Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is far more of a threat to freedom and democracy than terrorism ever could hope to be.

Governments negotiating secret treaties with corporations concerning the dispersion of information? That's a stake right through the heart of liberty, far more damaging than suicide bombers or terrorist attacks.

Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.

[jbeaupre]

Don't worry, there will still be plenty of dispersion of information about suicide bombers and terrorist attacks.

Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.

[Hurricane78]

Well, a real threat about imaginary property is more important, than an imaginary threat about real property?

Gee. News at 11. Who'dda thunka that?

Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but a building full of people don't die when you sign a piece of paper so you can't sensationalize that or incite alarm.

Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.

[Large_Hippo]

Hmmmm... everyone on here seems to think the secrecy must be because the government is worried about "the public" finding out about horrific terms. That seems unlikely--remember, IP law doesn't even make the top ten of most US voters' important issues. War, health care, income taxes, education, research, crime, terrorism, etc... all trump IP law. So a politician's concern over public negotiations isn't likely to be that it may trigger some vague public discontent. The politician's main concern is that a corporation that cares *immensely* about copyright law will find out that something proposed in the treaty isn't to their liking, and then spend a ton of money to remove that politician from office before the treaty is finalized. Different wealthy corporations have different goals for copyright law (think Google vs. Publishers) and balancing them is probably impossible without making many very mad.

The treaty might be good, might be bad, and there are lots of reasons to be against secret negotiations (remember, the final treaty has to be presented and voted in public). But assuming that secrecy means the end product MUST be bad seems unfounded. Think of it this way: if you were in charge of the negotiations, and wanted to write the most Slashdot-friendly IP treaty possible, you would HAVE to keep negotiations secret. Otherwise the RIAA et al. would spearhead a $10B campaign calling you soft on crime, mean to elderly people, etc, etc..., removing you from office before the treaty could ever be passed.

Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.

[causality]

... everyone on here seems to think the secrecy must be because the government is worried about "the public" finding out about horrific terms. That seems unlikely--remember, IP law doesn't even make the top ten of most US voters' important issues.

Does it occur to you that perhaps they are trying to keep it that way?

The more visible copyright becomes, the more it gets discussed in media, and the more it becomes a well-known "issue" the more likely it is that there will be demand for reform. That's not what the interests behind it want.

Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.

[tlhIngan]

... everyone on here seems to think the secrecy must be because the government is worried about "the public" finding out about horrific terms. That seems unlikely--remember, IP law doesn't even make the top ten of most US voters' important issues.

Does it occur to you that perhaps they are trying to keep it that way?

The more visible copyright becomes, the more it gets discussed in media, and the more it becomes a well-known "issue" the more likely it is that there will be demand for reform. That's not what the interests behind it want.

Given what we know from ACTA, it's quite likely that currently-legal things involving very popular products will become illegal.

The public will care when you start saying that stuff like iPods are illegal, as is music ripping, and that you can't brin gan iPod across the border because it'll have to be searched for illegal materials. Or your cellphone, since most can play MP3s these days.

Or that timeshifting devices like DVRs will be illegal, too, and the number of programs marked with "no timeshifting" flags will increase. Or even worse, "no recording" flags that don't even let you do DVR things like pause live TV.

Or maybe reading a book out loud, or selling used books (or anything else - ACTA will probably trump first sale doctrine).

Yes, that's why ACTA is secret - common activities we do today are probably being blocked, and if the public knew that politicians around the world were going to take away their iPods and DVRs/VCRs.

Hell, the newspapers put it best - the "Anti-iPod law - your iPod may be illegal tomorrow".

Re:Terrorism is nothing compared to this threat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed - while it doesn't make the top ten of most US voters' important issues, it DOES make the top ten of most US politicians and CEO's important issues. This disconnect SHOULD be disturbing.

Michael Geist

[Trepidity]

For what it's worth, in case you (as I) were wondering who Michael Geist is (I don't want to end up passing on links to some guy who turns out to be a conspiracy theorist or something), he's a University of Ottawa professor, serving as their chair in Internet law.

Re:Michael Geist

[Anonymous Coward]

He's really the Lawrence Lessig of Canada. Really a very impressive guy.

Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[openfrog]

From the European Parliament (quoted in TFA):

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will contain a new international benchmark for legal frameworks on what is termed intellectual property right enforcement. The content as known to the public is clearly legislative in character. Further, the Council confirms that ACTA includes civil enforcement and criminal law measures. Since there can not be secret objectives regarding legislation in a democracy, the principles established in the ECJ Turco case must be upheld

From TFA:

The inescapable conclusion is that the ACTA approach is hardly standard. Rather, it represents a major shift toward greater secrecy in the negotiation of international treaties on intellectual property in an obvious attempt to avoid public participation and scrutiny.

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[debrain]

The inescapable conclusion is that the ACTA approach is hardly standard. Rather, it represents a major shift toward greater secrecy in the negotiation of international treaties on intellectual property in an obvious attempt to avoid public participation and scrutiny.

Sir —

As a matter of interest, ACTA represents a greater shift towards secrecy of negotiations of multilateral treaties. Bilateral treaties have traditionally been negotiated in secret, or at least in private.

I recall that before the 1900's most treaties (bilateral and multilateral) were negotiated -and often held- in secret, and I believe it was the post- World War I discussions that lead to open multilateral discussions. (I'd be much obliged for references on this).

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[Trepidity]

A particularly large shift for either kind is that ACTA is, in the U.S. at least, not being called a "treaty" at all, although it clearly is. Rather, both the Bush and Obama administrations claim that it can be implemented as an "executive agreement" that does not require Senate ratification.

On the plus side, an "executive agreement" has only the legal force of an executive order under U.S. domestic law, which is generally subordinate to both statute law and the Constitution (unlike treaties, which have constitutional force). On the down side, it would still be seen as a treaty under international law, so if a future U.S. administration tried to back out of it, that would be perfectly legal under U.S. domestic law (if it were never properly adopted as a formal treaty), but not under international law, setting up a conflict.

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[CrimsonAvenger]

I believe it was the post- World War I discussions that lead to open multilateral discussions. (I'd be much obliged for references on this).

Post WW2. There were texts of secret treaties captured by the Germans in the fall of France. Made for some great propaganda, I understand.

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[Hurricane78]

Well. This means that the treaty can not possibly be legal.

Which means it is not law, no matter what politicians say. Because they are not above the law.

Which means, we do not have to follow it.

And, yes: If that means I will go to jail in such a terrorist oppressive state, then so be it! I will walk every single step with pride in every single of my fibers.
And so should you!

(Which does not mean, that if I can, I will move to a more free country.)

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[mooingyak]

On the down side, it would still be seen as a treaty under international law, so if a future U.S. administration tried to back out of it, that would be perfectly legal under U.S. domestic law (if it were never properly adopted as a formal treaty), but not under international law, setting up a conflict.

Yeah, that's always been a show stopper for us.

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[Trepidity]

Depends on who it benefits. I'd be willing to bet that the copyright lobby will immediately point to, "but you'd be violating international law!" if any future administration tried to amend the way this non-treaty were applied in domestic law.

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[mcgrew]

I recall that before the 1900's

Wow, and I thought I was old!

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[Anonymous Coward]

*chirp*





*chirp*

*chirp*

Re:Unprecedented secretive legislative attempt

[mcgrew]

Tough room...

indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

The "make it harder to steal" part is less important to you.

You, however, are not rich. Therefore, you do not matter.

The "make it harder to steal" part is very important to a small group of rich people who usually get their way.

Re:indeed

[jedidiah]

The lame attempts at "making it harder to steal" don't matter to ANYONE.

Why is this so? BECAUSE THEY DON'T WORK!

So ultimately, the only person is inconvenienced by any of this nonsense
is "me the paying customer". The pirates are not slowed down by any of
this nonsense one bit.

That's rather the point of digital distribution. It only takes one cracker
in order to enable a billion pirates.

Re:indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a pirate, it slows me down one bit, from one week to one month usually, to 6 months rarely, which doesn't matter because of the huge backlog of stuff I could enjoy, pirated.

At this rate media is actually fighting for my attention, movie studios should be paying me to watch their stuff.

Literally so because I don't care about anything the MPAA or the RIAA produce anymore, for the last 10 years, it's mostly Japanese stuff, that is not even released here sometimes, with horrible subs that can't hold a candle to fansubs.

And yet I watch youtube videos all day.

Seriously if this stuff was really impossible to pirate they would start giving them off for free., kinda like the google vs newspapers problems, it's a be careful for what you wish for kinda deal.

Re:indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

There's 2 methods of deterrence.

1. Try to make it impossible to do in the first place. As you note, not happening.
2. Try to make it impossible to get away with. Adding in requirements for everyone on the net to help in making anonymity as impossible as can be and making the current RIAA expenses look like pocket change with a massive try-to-catch-everyone-on-technicalities right off the bat to put everyone in mortal fear of the law. (What the RIAA's real goal probably is, not directly making money off the suits, but creating terror...)

#2 MIGHT be do-able if they can sue enough people. Of course the amount it would take might be enough to start a pitch-fork style revolt.

A coup

[wytcld]

This is quite plainly a coup against democracies worldwide. Those attempting it should be jailed and prosecuted. If that action proves untenable, President Obama has a clear option for dealing with the US members of such conspiracies.

Re:A coup

[CrimsonAvenger]

Those attempting it should be jailed and prosecuted. If that action proves untenable, President Obama has a clear option for dealing with the US members of such conspiracies.

Given that he's the President and that ACTA is being treated as an Executive Agreement (a deal between the President and other head of state), it seems pretty clear that he approves of both the process and the eventual outcome.

In other words, I doubt seriously he'd add his own name to a KoS list....

Notes from an ACTA information meeting

[Hermel]

I went to an ACTA public information meeting that was organized by the Swiss delegation ten days ago. They couldn't openly talk about the positions of the different countries, but from what they said, I concluded that we don't have to fear as much as the internet rumors suggest. For example, they wouldn't sign the treaty if it contained a three-strikes-provision as this would be against Swiss law. They also publish quite some information on their website, including a transparency paper that roughly describes the content of ACTA:
https://www.ige.ch/en/legal-info/legal-areas/counterfeiting-piracy/acta.html

Overall, they made a good and competent impression and it also seems to me that they are open to input from the public. I'm quite proud that the Swiss government seems to handle this much more democratically and transparently than others.

Re:Notes from an ACTA information meeting

[Nerdfest]

I see right through their blatant astroturfing. Their reassurance is full of holes.

Re:Notes from an ACTA information meeting

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you believe the same government that came up with IPRED?

Re:Notes from an ACTA information meeting

[deepershade]

Thats Sweden, not the Swiss

Re:Notes from an ACTA information meeting

[noidentity]

What will be the effects of ACTA on citizens?

The main goal of ACTA is to combat the large counterfeiting and piracy activities which present big risks for public safety and health. The agreement is not meant to intrude in the private sphere of individual citizens. The consequences of counterfeiting and piracy touch everyone and are daily hazards. Counterfeiting and piracy do not only infringe on intellectual property rights and cause enormous economic losses. They present a direct threat to consumer and patient health and safety. ACTA intendes to attack this problem and is only one of various initiatives on the part of Switzerland to fight counterfeiting and piracy.

Wow, just wow.

ACTA will kill people

[BlueParrot]

Forget filesharing for a second. Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents?

If you think the main issue here is about file-sharing and the MPAA, think again. The ACTA negotiations involve representatives from the Pharmaceutical industry but notably absent is the WHO , Amnesty, Doctors without Frontiers , and a number of other human rights organizations.

Basically if this treaty is allowed to go through it is likely millions will continue to die a morbid death needlessly. Focusing on file-sharing and the RIAA is only going to result in the Pharma industry getting to screw over the citizens of developing countries.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[denis-The-menace]

Face it.
ACTA will only make 2 groups of people:
-Those care to get a product that is sold as legit is legit. (eg. Those who want a REAL Rolex watch for $5000 not a FAKE one for $5000)
-Corps that want to make $ at all cost. (cost=Life, liberty, health, happiness, family, progress, etc.)

ACTA will hurt EVERYBODY ELSE.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[jbeaupre]

When people start complaining about the high price of patented drugs, I ask them this: are you fine with just the drugs available today? Ok, then eliminate patents. You won't get any new drugs, but we don't need them. If you think new drugs are needed, then you might want to back off eliminating patents for pharmaceuticals.

Don't think you can rely on governments to pick up the slack. Seen any phase three clinical trials paid for by a government lately? Not to mention that government disease research funding is allocated by politics, not by need. That's unlikely to miraculously change with drugs.

So, happy or want more? The choice is yours.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[Hurricane78]

I don’t think the developing countries care much.

Just like Brasil. They simply took the recipe, produced it themselves, and told the foreign country to go fuck themselves.
Now that is what I call a (rare exceptional case of) government for the people!

Re:ACTA will kill people

[Polumna]

You do, of course, have a legitimate point. However, unless you honestly believe that if all the pharmaceutical companies in the world closed their doors, the NIH and other analogous organizations would have no change in funding or purpose, you also have an egregious false dichotomy.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as Big Pharma spends as much on research as on marketing you will have a case. Until then: STFU fucking industry shill.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[TubeSteak]

Forget filesharing for a second. Anybody have the latest stats off how many have died as a direct result of us refusing developing countries generic antiretroviral drugs since they are covered by patents?

Ever heard of compulsory licensing?

Off the top of my head, India, Thailand, Brazil, and South Africa had all told the pharmaceuticals that the prices for retrovirals were too high and that they were going to get paid far less under a compulsory license. I believe Thailand then started importing from India. Big pharma got butthurt and has pulled products from those markets as well as refusing to develop drugs/pills for diseases/conditions specific to those regions.

Just to get an idea of the prices, Americans get charged ~$7K/person/year, Thailand was being offered $2K, India produces it for ~$1K, and pharma sells it to countries like Kenya for $500.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[bws111]

I don't know. Do you have the latest stats on how many lives were saved because these drugs were developed in the first place? In most cases, they were developed because the companies can make money on them. Take away patents, they lose that incentive. Is that better?

Re:ACTA will kill people

[Hurricane78]

Oops, I meant“foreign COMPANY”. Sorry for the typo.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[RobertLTux]

How about this change

1 the patent on the active ingredient lasts for X years
2 patents on different "mixes" are automatically denied
3 patents on delivery systems last for X+Y years
4 patents on ways to make an active ingredient last for X+W years
5 a company is required to make X% of the production of a patented drug availible to the government while the patent is active at shipping cost only
6 a company is allowed to use people for testing IF THEY PROVIDE FULL CARE FOR THESE PEOPLE (and have only a minimum "wasteage") and they can not be sued for same (but will go up on charges if they make to many mistakes)

Re:ACTA will kill people

[gd2shoe]

... unless you honestly believe that if all the pharmaceutical companies in the world closed their doors, the NIH and other analogous organizations would have no change in funding or purpose...

I think you have an unintentional straw man.

... the NIH and other analogous organizations would have insufficient change in funding or purpose...

It's a minor change, but a very important one. This is also ignoring corresponding arguments about public and private efficiency.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[gd2shoe]

[citation needed]

(Yes, I mean that. It's an interesting point, but AC has no credibility.)

Re:ACTA will kill people

[Anonymous Coward]

You must live in the US. Other countries DO contribute to phase III clinicial trials and have disease research funding that is guided by a WHO-backed watchdog.

The drug system is very similar to the audo/video system -- limited "content providers" but many many researchers, who usually have to go through Big Pharm to get their research funded and international stardom for the resulting products.

These researchers aren't going to vanish if Big Pharm implodes; what WILL vanish is the large amount of speculative research that currently goes on -- which could either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[Philip_the_physicist]

-Those care to get a product that is sold as legit is legit. (eg. Those who want a REAL Rolex watch for $5000 not a FAKE one for $5000)

Isn't this what existing local trademark laws are supposed to be about? Also, trade practices and fraud laws would cover this, if you are purchasing from a readily-pursuable source (if the source isn't easy to pursue, ACTA won't help anyway).

Re:ACTA will kill people

[Anonymous Coward]

When people start complaining about the high price of patented drugs, I ask them this: are you fine with just the drugs available today? Ok, then eliminate patents. You won't get any new drugs, but we don't need them. If you think new drugs are needed, then you might want to back off eliminating patents for pharmaceuticals.

Don't think you can rely on governments to pick up the slack. Seen any phase three clinical trials paid for by a government lately? Not to mention that government disease research funding is allocated by politics, not by need. That's unlikely to miraculously change with drugs.

So, happy or want more? The choice is yours.

Perhaps the government is overly reliant on bigPharma to fund research and if bigPharma had less power, alternative funding arrangements would allow scientists to return to the public domain of the academia?

Also, another issue is copyright and publishing within academic journals. I'm yet to meet a competent research scientist who doesn't kick a big kick out of of the idea of being peer-reviewed. But I'm also yet to meet an academic who has full access to the scope of research material for their field, and this is largely because of the licensing fees academic libraries are forced to pay to access the journals.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[jbeaupre]

All of those are pretty much in effect today except #2 and #5. For #2, a novel, non-obvious interaction is currently required by law, so we are part way there (and some drugs do dramatically when combined). For #5, you might have meant at production cost only, since some drugs really do cost thousands of dollars a dose to make, but only cost a few bucks to ship. There are some based on processing blood from thousands of donors to make a single dose that can even cost $100,000.

I think the big lesson is if you're going to get sick, don't get something rare.

Re:ACTA will kill people

[jbeaupre]

You bring up a different debate (US R&D vs OUS R&D). Pharmaceutical research worldwide (US or not) is still dominated by for profit companies that are self funded. These companies rely on the patent system as part of their business model. Even India, famous for generic drugs, has patents on the manufacture of drugs.

Governments do fund basic research, and all of them have watchdogs (WHO being only one of many). But it is exceedingly rare for any chemical to go from the "Hey this does X in rats" to "This cures XX in humans without killing them" with only government funding. Some vaccines are government subsidized, and maybe that's a model. But I worry about politics intersecting with medicine.

But it sounds like you and I agree on one point: a lot of speculative research will go away, which could be good or bad. Which is why I pose the question to people the way I did: to get them to think of the secondary and maybe tertiary consequences of what they want to do.

Me, I think the current system is the worst, except for all the others.

How's that rope and chair working out for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer government running corporations than corporations running government.

Re:How's that rope and chair working out for you?

[gd2shoe]

I hate to tell you this, but those two are actually the same thing in practice.

who

[anonieuweling]

Who has given the EU the right to represent me (EU citizen) with these criminal talks that will rob me from even more freedoms and rights?
Who in the EU decided the course? What was my part in deciding/controlling?
In other words: where is the democracy?

Re:who

[coofercat]

Statistically, you didn't vote in the last European elections. That's where the democracy you speak of has gone.

The EU Parliament is a gravy-train. Your MEP most likely doesn't even turn up most days of the week, least of all on the days when stuff you care about is being debated.

If like a lot of people you're about to say "yes, I but don't even want my country to be in the EU", well, again, we all got to vote for our respective governments, and we voted for parties who wanted to join up. For those of us that didn't vote for our government, and even though they didn't get 50%+ of the votes, well, you still voted for your version of democracy. What's wrong in the EU/your country today got set that way 10+ years ago.

I'm not saying this is good, and I'm not saying I feel any more 'in control' than you do, but we are all to blame here. Democracy sucks like that.

* yes, I know my citations aren't brilliant, but I couldn't immediately lay my hands on better ones ;-)

Re:who

[Hurricane78]

Nobody did. The EU “government” is in fact not your government. No matter what they tell you.

The “laws” were just written in everything, without asking anyone, any against the law! In fact those who did it, committed high treason. A crime that is usually punished like murder etc.
So they legally have to go to a real dirty pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Not one of those nice ones.

The only reason it’s not happening?
Because the cattle that call themselves nations, are constantly fed the media bullshit reality distortion. Just like the Matrix. But without machines. Psychology suffices perfectly.

So what can you do?
Well, for starters, you can do the same thing they did: Become a master in social engineering, learn your psychology, rhetorics, etc. Become a hacker of minds. Make people your botnet. (Instead of their botnet, which they are right now.)
On top of that, surpass their skills! Put skill on top, and on top. Stop comparing yourself to them, but lead, and let them try (and fail) to catch up.

And then, go and change the world.

Impossible?? Don’t be silly. If it were impossible, then how would they have done it. Or do you think they are more than ordinary humans?
No. Stop making excuses on why you can’t do the same. There are no excuses. Just do it, dammit! Just. Do. it.

Or else, never ever dare to complain again.

Re:who

[dkleinsc]

My understanding was that the ultimate decisionmaking power in the EU was either the European Parliament (which you could have voted for as an EU citizen) or the European Commission (which has representation appointed by your government). So you either need to pay more attention to European elections, or hold your national government responsible for its role.

The EC is less democratic than the EP, certainly, but that's not to say you have no democratic controls over it.

Re:who

[Zigbigadoorlue]

You, like most of the rest of the world that exists under "democracy", live in a representative democracy not a direct democracy and do not have a part in the formation of the vast majority of legislation. Hence you don't have anymore part in the negotiation of treaties than you do in the criminalization of theft. This includes treaties that "rob [you] from even more freedoms and rights." The public, of which you belong, voted in those politicians who are "representing" you.

Revolting

[psYchotic87]

Frankly, I find this whole business revolting. Several large countries are working on a framework for lawmaking, which would eventually turn into laws all citizens aren't supposed to break.
The problem with this (and laws in general) is that no single citizen has any idea how not to break the law anymore. Furthermore, I was under the impression that lawmaking within democracies is supposed to be a process where every voting citizen has a say in, directly or indirectly.These ACTA negotiations are essentially about making laws noone but the big shots really want to be enforced.

To summarize: I believe these negotiations to be utterly and completely undemocratic, unethical and criminal.

Re:Revolting

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly; it doesn't matter if the result of ACTA is God's gift to humankind -- the negotiations themselves should not exist in their present form.

True in some cases

[copponex]

Big businesses welcome regulation that they lobby for. They despise regulation that comes from any other source. In an nutshell, your problem isn't regulation but lobbyists and corruption.

When big businesses really ran the show a hundred years ago, you had kids working in sweatshops, factory fires that killed scores of people, and the government literally sending in the marines to break up union strikes. Businesses have been forced to become civilized, not by their own will, but by government regulation and public pressure.

Americans could change the way business is done, but collectively, we have been hoodwinked into believing that we can't do anything, and that football and famous twats deserve more of our attention than the decisions that really do affect our lives. The real issue now is that so much money is being diverted to the military and away from education and infrastructure that each successive generation is dumber and more apolitical than the last.

It CAN'T be good

[sjames]

There are really only a few explanations for the secrecy and ALL of them strongly suggest that the public should oppose any ratification.

Simplest is that it's secret because they know we won't like it. Perhaps they don't want the people of the world to understand all the tricks and traps they're building in.

Next up, they don't talk about it openly because they imagine themselves above the opinions and thoughts of the vast unwashed masses. If they let us in on it it might encourage us to give them our annoying, uneducated, simpleton input. If that's what they think of us, how likely is it that ACTA in any way respects us?

Compounding factors include that they're SO divorced from reality and human psychology that they never imagined secrecy would breed distrust. If so, anything they come up with is likely to be equally divorced from reality and human nature.

Finally, perhaps they don't give a damn how it all comes out so long as someone foots the bill for the hookers and blow.

Re:G$$Gle

[mdm42]

That's OK... whenever I read of a version control system with the command "bzr" I read it as "boozer". Dunno why...

Wrong, sort of

[justinlee37]

You're half right and half wrong. They don't like regulation that costs them huge chunks of their profit margins, sure. However like the parent poster suggested, businesses like regulation that makes it hard for new players to enter the market.

If regulation makes it hard for new businesses to start but is trivially expensive for big business, then they are going to love that. Like say forcing all of the businesses in a particular sector to pay $10,000 for a license. That's nothing to a big company like Microsoft but to us it could mean life or death.

Imagine if we made it legal to manufacture, sell and serve liquor out of your home without a license as a small business. Do you think that local breweries and bars would support or oppose that decision?

you dont deserve democracy

[unity100]

because you are dim enough not to understand that with this treaty, there are criminal punishments that are being brought by into your country's citizens, including you, WITHOUT going through the legislation process of a democratic country. basically, democracy is being bypassed, and NATIONAL criminal charges and punishment are being brought over your citizens without your parliament's approval.

its a violation of democracy. and if you are unable to comprehend what this means, you dont deserve democracy. not that you would need it, if you didnt comprehend the meaning of this anyway.

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[Jaysyn]

Nice post, other than the fact that this treaty still has to be ratified by the Congress before it becomes the law of the land. And then it can still be found unconstitutional.

Here is a little info on treaties for you:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

All that being said, call / write your congresscritters folks. We can kill this fucker in it's crib.

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[gd2shoe]

unity100 mentions Parliament and you mention Congress and Constitution. I think you and I are in the US, and he is not. US constitutional law (treaty law, etc) might not have the same checks and balances in the country that he lives in. Your post applies to a great many here on Slashdot, but hardly everyone. (There's strong international participation here.)

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[SETIGuy]

Well he's also just plain wrong, too. It's still an undecided question whether treaty obligations superceed the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held that a treaty provision was invalid because it contravened the Constitution. For the current court that decision would be based upon whether it's good for large corporations or not.

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[Ihmhi]

We can kill this fucker in it's crib.

Just like we killed the DMCA and Patriot Act...

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Like we did with the DMCA...

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[Jaazaniah]

Yes. I totally agree. I hope there's a massive storming of political email accounts (particularly the two picked up by Obama's cherished Blackberries) to highlight the largest threat to democracy since the cold war.

I'd dub it the Corp War, WE are the resistance - the people. The masters of this 'agreement' dream us their slaves rather than remain relevant by competition.

We must pull together and storm the political strongholds of those who conspire against us lest we grow complacent to wake in a survailence society from hell. Do ANYTHING you can to sway those in your country of Citizenship (and elsewhere if able). We must organize.

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[Jaysyn]

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[Jaysyn]

Thanks for pointing that out. I fail at reading comprehension sometimes. :D

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[Jaysyn]

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267

Re:you dont deserve democracy

[gd2shoe]

No problem. Same here, from time to time.

So what can we do?

[T Murphy]

I've written my senator (I wont bother with Burris), and for the heck of it wrote to my congress representative too, but otherwise there is nothing I can do. I would recommend everyone writes their representatives (any country where it makes sense to do so)- it takes 5 to 15 minutes, and at the worst it gives you more right to complain when your government doesn't listen to you.

At the least, getting more politicians asking questions can be a good thing. If they find that people care, they might even race to be the first to announce their opposition to the treaty. I realize one letter doesn't do much to change things, but if you complain, there is political gain to be made by someone. There will never be an anti-ACTA candidate to vote for until politicians know there are votes to be gained from taking that position.

What's the impact anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

So there may be a treaty between sovereign states. These states, at least most of them, do have a constitution that describes the process of law-making. Until something is not made into law by that defined process, the individual living in such states is not bound by treaties between states.

Even if it's totally secret, latest when the law-making organizations the public will notice "where do these strange new laws come from" and vote for a different government. Hopefully.

On the other hand, given other totally weird new laws today, there might be some even more secretive things than ACTA (so that no-one even knows of their existence) that cause creation of them.

Uh oh. Not good.

Will have to check if Switzerland still has some free space.

ACTA: a topic at 1st Annual World's Fair Use Day

[kjcole]

About two weeks ago, Google, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and the Consumer Electronics Association sponsored an event hosted by Public Knowledge: The 1st Annual World's Fair Use Day (WFUD), which kicked off at Google's DC offices with a talk on ACTA. The following day was at the Newseum, also in Washington DC. Details at http://worldsfairuseday.org/

Binding authority

[gd2shoe]

... it would still be seen as a treaty under international law...

And other countries don't have access to the US constitution? If he doesn't have the authority to make a binding agreement, then he doesn't have the authority, and they know it.

I don't mean to belittle. You seem to know more about the subject than I do. I just can't quite wrap my head around this. Is there a congressional mandate involved somehow? How would this become binding under International Law?

As an aside, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale...

Re:Binding authority

[jambarama]

I had a discussion about the G20 summit the other day with a rabid anti-globalist. This person was vehemently opposed to any international organizations as affronts to US sovereignty. The fear is that some US diplomat (maybe the president) can use international treaties to get results they couldn't get through the political process. In this discussion, it was suggested that Obama could ban guns and curb free speech in the US through an international treaty, although congress would never pass such a law. I have a similar discussion with another individual about this when a non-binding UN resolution came up which this person didn't like (strangely, it was about child trafficking).

I think this feeling is exists among nut jobs on both sides of the traditional political divide. Unfortunately, it is based on a gross misunderstanding of the American legal system. The G20, and globalization generally, provides lots of good reasons for concern, but generic fear of international agreements overriding US sovereignty is not one of them.

For America, there is no such thing as international law

International treaties and laws don't become binding on US citizens automatically, or just because the president signed them. All international agreements must be approved by congress and signed by the president before the agreement becomes binding on Americans.

Congress cannot give up law making power to any other body. For example, Congress couldn't pass a law that says "from now on, the UN can make laws for the US." It would be unconstitutional. Laws cannot be constructed so as to bypass either/both houses because of the bicameralism principle. For example, congress passed a bill which gave power over deportation to the inspector general, but retained a veto over his actions for one house of congress. The issue came up to the Supreme Court, and a one house veto was considered unconstitutional because of bicameralism. Laws cannot be constructed to pass the president either, because of the presentment principle. US diplomats and negotiators have agreed to countless international laws, only to have the proposed laws killed or modified beyond recognition in congress.

All "international laws" must become national law before they are enforceable. I don't know about other countries, but this is how the governmental system in the US works.

Unconstitutional agreements, even if they became law, would not pass SCOTUS

The Supreme Court had the power to review any law or action binding on a US citizen. They've already held the principles of bicameralism, presentment, and non-delegation of lawmaking powers are unconstitutional. A law in violation of one of these principles wouldn't even get to SCOTUS, it would be killed by a district court.

For the specific fears of the person I was talking with, SCOTUS has already held handgun bans unconstitutional. Even if somehow a gun ban got past congress & the president, the Supreme Court would strike it down immediately. Ditto for free speech, the Supreme Court has long pushed free speech jurisprudence beyond what was popular at the time. It was the Supreme Court striking down libel suits, media shutdowns, and restrictive speech laws. The Supreme Court has demonstrated ability and willingness to strike down unconstitutional laws & actions

In sum, the president can't act unilaterally, the Supreme Court can strike down any law or government action abridging constitutional rights, and this broad fear of international agreement or cooperation is irrational and unfounded.

As a side note, the response to my argument was, "well I guess we have nothing to fear, like when the IMF sacked Argentina." I don't know enough to evaluate the truth of that statement, but it doesn't matter. My statement was about US citizens fearing a loss of US sovereignty to international cooperation, not about Argentina being rescued by the IMF.

Again, there are lots of good reasons to worry about the

Re:Binding authority

[gd2shoe]

I agree with most of what you just said... in principle.

There are politicians who would like to push for greater "International Unity" (and such) at the cost of sovereignty. As long as they remain a minority, things will keep working as they should. Never underestimate the ability of a bunch of politicians to ignore something inconvenient (ex: The Constitution).

Oh, and I thought that treaties only required approval by the Senate... (and doesn't define the word "Treaty".)

Re:Binding authority

[debrain]

Sir —

A few notes.

International treaties and laws don't become binding on US citizens automatically, or just because the president signed them. All international agreements must be approved by congress and signed by the president before the agreement becomes binding on Americans.

This is called ratification. Many countries have such a two-step process. Incidentally, it is the Senate that ratifies treaties signed by the President of the United States (with a 2/3rds majority).

Congress cannot give up law making power to any other body. For example, Congress couldn't pass a law that says "from now on, the UN can make laws for the US." It would be unconstitutional. Laws cannot be constructed so as to bypass either/both houses because of the bicameralism principle. For example, congress passed a bill which gave power over deportation to the inspector general, but retained a veto over his actions for one house of congress. The issue came up to the Supreme Court, and a one house veto was considered unconstitutional because of bicameralism. Laws cannot be constructed to pass the president either, because of the presentment principle. US diplomats and negotiators have agreed to countless international laws, only to have the proposed laws killed or modified beyond recognition in congress.

Congress delegates authority to create laws to all sorts of regulatory authorities, ranging from the U.S. Treasury through the Environmental Protection Agency. There is nothing wrong with such delegation. The Senate can delegate to foreign authorities as well. For example, when the Senate ratified NAFTA they created an extra-national binational arbitral authority that can strike down or read into U.S. laws (Congress reacted poorly to this authority, but the U.S. Courts have upheld it, as I understand it), notably Chapter 19 (Anti-dumping and countervailing duties).

For the specific fears of the person I was talking with, SCOTUS has already held handgun bans unconstitutional. Even if somehow a gun ban got past congress & the president, the Supreme Court would strike it down immediately. Ditto for free speech, the Supreme Court has long pushed free speech jurisprudence beyond what was popular at the time. It was the Supreme Court striking down libel suits, media shutdowns, and restrictive speech laws. The Supreme Court has demonstrated ability and willingness to strike down unconstitutional laws & actions

It is unconstitutional for the U.S. federal government to create laws that would prevent gun ownership laws within states. States still have the sovereign right to ban guns, as I understand it.

The Supreme Court has two relevant powers with respect to free speech. First, they can read out or modify state and federal laws that are unconstitutional (thus protecting citizens from the state). Second, they can overturn any decision by lower courts in a civil dispute between two private people so as to uphold each individual's constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court had the power to review any law or action binding on a US citizen. ...

This statement is incorrect for a number of reasons. First, the Supreme Court of the United State can only hear two types of disputes:
1. those between the federation and states and between states (e.g. New York and California); and
2. appeals from the highest Court in any state, which appeals involve federal or constitutional questions.

Second, SCOTUS cannot directly review any decision made by foreign courts or arbitrators, whether those decisions apply to US citizens or not (they could, however, review lower-court decisions involving arbitrations and/or decisions of foreign courts- namely in the comity/enforcement context). Citizenship is irrelevant.

Third, SCOTUS can review any law or action th

it's worse than I feared

[KwKSilver]

Casual perusal of the linked pages and the links there suggests that the civil aspects of require judges to take action based on unsubstantiated allegations by the "rights holders," oddly(?) I saw nothing to suggest that "rights holders have to prove that they have any rights. However, its the criminal enforcement aspects of what is being proposed that are really scary:

The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties - including imprisonment - sufficient to deter future acts of infringement (specific language is "include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines, from the first link:

Item (2) would include Jammie Thomas, what are we talking about here? Prison time for downloading songs? Looks like it. Lets see, she had what 3 +/- 1 hours worth of listening time ... extending the financial damages ratios to the criminal case suggests .... Nah too complicated: one year in prison per song is simpler. Ta-da: 20 years for Jammie. Ought to make Big Media happy. Wow! You know, if some 19 year old girl gets 50 (or 500) years in prison for downloading songs and her father or husband takes a potshot at some media mogul or Bono with a high powered rifle, they won't understand why. In-fucking-credible.

People seem to think that this stuff needs Congressional approval. I'm not so sure, as it been pointed out by others that this is being negotiated by the Executive Branch as a trade agreement rather than a treaty per se so that at least some parts could be established by Presidential proclamation in the U.S. Assuming that some Congressional action is needed, who here really thinks that the U.S. Congress gives a shit about individual rights? The same Congress where Orrin Hatch proposed making it legal for media companies to blow up the computers of accused infringers by remote control? Good luck. If Congress gets hold of it, we'll be lucky if downloading paid-for songs from Amazon or iTunes does't make you subject to the death penalty. The courts, maybe, yeah like the Supreme Court, which just essentially negated the laws regarding political bribery. Good luck, there, too.

The EU is not democratic

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not a single citizen of any European country who was consulted about, let alone offered to vote on, EU membership.

The only people actually thusly consulted were the Irish and the Swiss, and they both refused. Repeatedly.

The EU parliamentary members are not elected, and yet EU law now overrides local jurisdictions.

Bravo to the Irish and the Swiss for repelling this disgusting fascist imposition.