Making Sense of ACTA

Fuck ACTA by haderytn · 2010-01-31 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

That is all.

Re:Fuck ACTA by couchslug · 2010-01-31 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.
I don't advocate what he did, but as the proponents of secret government become more and more abusive they are going to provoke the fringe...first.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Fuck ACTA by hairyfeet · 2010-01-31 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem with that theory is how can you kill that which is not alive? And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts, along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.
Sadly short of armed revolution (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants) I just don't see things ever getting any better, and more likely will get far worse. At least China and India have strong nationalistic streaks and tend to put their own people first, whereas our traitors will happily sell us out to foriegn multinationals for 30 pieces of silver. I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area) while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough. Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.
I am only glad my grandfather who fought in WWII isn't alive to see how pathetic and corrupt our government has become. You could probably already power the entire south with the revolutions the man is spinning in his grave at how far his once great country has fallen. Sadly there is simply no way to compete with income tax dodging multinationals who have more money than most third world nations.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Fuck ACTA by pydev · 2010-01-31 08:56 · Score: 3, Funny

In Soviet Russia, ACTA fucks you. Oh, also in Europe and the US.
Re:Fuck ACTA by dissy · 2010-01-31 09:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.
I don't advocate what he did, but as the proponents of secret government become more and more abusive they are going to provoke the fringe...first.
Can't feel too bad for them. If they want people to take their arguments the legal route, they perhaps shouldn't outlaw all the legal routes.
Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them.
Re:Fuck ACTA by freakinangry · 2010-01-31 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's sad to see the result that is this country after so many have fought for what is truly a dream and nothing else. I'm a foreigner having lived in the US for almost my entire life, and seeing the unfortunate direction on so many different levels that this country is speeding towards has me looking elsewhere for relief, meaning moving out of the US. I hope that people one day wake up and take action to correct the country's course, but it doesn't seem to be likely. All empires come to an end.
Re:Fuck ACTA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 10:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice ... you don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying ... lobbying, to get what they want ... Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want ... they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that ... that doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers ... Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They'll get it ... they'll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people ... white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means ... continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you ... they don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about you at all ... at all ... at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain wilfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream cause you have to be asleep to believe it... -- George Carlin
Re:Fuck ACTA by martas · 2010-01-31 11:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

While I agree with the general idea behind your post, I fail to see how immigrants (evil, evil immigrants) fit there. IHMO, the biggest problem with the US gov't today is that it is a "democratic" government where elected officials are more worried about money than their own voters, especially since these days votes are won not through argument and opinion, but through ads and shady campaigns that overwhelm the voter with so much garbage that he no longer thinks about what's best for him, but rather what some cheap slogans that have been crammed in his brain tell him to do. Even language, what is supposed to be a tool for communication, has become tainted and twisted and bent into something that provokes animalistic emotion in the listener, not thought and reason. I bet if you looked at the brain of the average American through an fMRI when he heard words such as Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, healthcare, terrorism, etc, the areas you'd see lighting up would imply something very disturbing. Immigrants aren't this country's biggest problem. Nor is it terrorists, oil, healthcare, global warming, etc. The biggest problem is that government is no longer for the people, or by the people (if it ever was, of course).

--
weinersmith
Re:Fuck ACTA by hairyfeet · 2010-01-31 12:29 · Score: 2, Informative

I have NO problem with immigrants, what I have a problem with is slaves. H1-Bs are nothing more than indentured servants brought in to lower the wages for everyone else. You bring in someone from India that paid maybe 12k for a master's degree, pay him peanuts and give him NO recourse or he's on the next boat back home, and we are supposed to compete with THAT? It is like saying "We should just compete with Chinese manufacturing" while ignoring they can use slaves and political prisoners, can poison their workers, and dump toxic waste into the air and water at will.
So you misunderstand me. I have no problem with those that want to come over here legally and become US citizens. No problem whatsoever. What I have a problem with is H1-Bs and illegals being brought in and paid peanuts while so many Americans and barely surviving. Several of my neighbors are seriously talking about buying tents and living in the woods, simply because they are nearly out of money and there is simply no work of ANY kind to be found, yet you go to the construction sites and there is ONE white foreman and a whole bunch of illegals. One of my relatives said "maybe they are just Mexican workers". I said "Oh really?" and yelled "Immigra!" and watched as the ENTIRE workcrew ran off like the hounds of hell were chasing them. Now THAT I DO have a serious fucking problem with!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Fuck ACTA by martas · 2010-01-31 13:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

well yes, that much i agree with - american workers are "protected" by many laws (e.g. minimal wage, workplace conditions, etc) that make them much less attractive to an employer than illegals/quasi-slave labor in developing countries. though it's not obvious to me how this problem can be solved. how can you stop outsourcing without severely damaging the competitiveness of american companies? how do you stop illegal immigration without some very disturbing campaigns reminiscent of witch-hunts? i got nothin'.

--
weinersmith
Re:Fuck ACTA by Monsuco · 2010-01-31 15:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts
The courts did absolutely nothing to legalize bribery. Quid pro quo exchanges of money for votes are still very much illegal, and unless you have been huffing paint thinner, you'd have no way of interpreting what SCOTUS said this way.

along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.
Regardless of your views on the case, money already was a huge player. It always has been, it will continue to grow, the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act" did absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of money in politics, as is clearly evident in the fact that we saw some of the most expensive elections in history in the campaigns since it passed. The only thing it really has done is made candidates put those awkward "approve this message" lines in their commercials (which is still in place),encouraged increased use of 3-rd party campaigns (still in place but less relevent), and reduced the competativeness of most elections since it is much more of a pain to criticize opponents (hence its critics have dubbed it the "Incumbency Protection Act"). A politician still must earn your vote and the extreme majority of campaign contributions tend to go to candidates that already favored a viewpoint. Suppose you are a gun company. It is a lot easier to promote a candidate who is already pro-gun than to persuade an anti-gun candidate to join you. All the recent court ruling did was make it so companies can more directly contribute to political speech, rather than indirectly contribute via third parties.

I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area)
Actually, the rate of illegal immigration appears to be declining due to the poor economy. I also would doubt legal H1-Bs hold too negative an impact on the US economy. What do you assume those workers do with the money they've earned? Do you think they eat it? They turn around and re-spend it here, creating jobs or they ship it overseas which removes currency from the US, thus reducing inflation. (It isn't the presence of dollar bills in the economy that make it worth money, it is the asset value the economy has, money is just a token to represent that value.) Illegal immigrants cause problems largely because of the high crime rates associated with illegal human trafficking not the taking of jobs. Also, the US unemployment rate as calculated by the department of Labor (not the Fed, they are a semi-independant central bank) is based on a survey of about 60,000 households to estimate a national average. It is currently about 10%. Your claim of it being underrepresented is a myth that derives from the fact that a few state and local governments compile their stats that way.

while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough.
Have you ever read history books? Have you ever heard of the Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, the leader of the 19th century Democrat political machine of New York City? Have you ever read about the Teapot Dome scandal? The current levels of corruption pale in comparison to these.

Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.
Social Security might be something of a Ponzi scheme, but the rest of the federal government really doesn't come close to the defe

--
The Gospel according to lolcat
Re:Fuck ACTA by DangerFace · 2010-01-31 21:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare? They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals. I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's people talk about how we should all have national healthcare.
Nothing these people say make me think that they give a damn about us.
Seriously? I don't like people dying. I really don't like people dying of easily preventable causes. I hate people dying in hospitals of easily preventable causes because they aren't millionaires. I couldn't care less about what you want to do with your life, if you're doing ok, but if you use "I'm alright" as an answer to "Why are you letting all these people die?" then you are morally reprehensible. If you are just happy to have people die through lack of money in the richest country in the world when much poorer countries do much better, then that's fine.
The New Scientist had a brilliant graph plotting expected lifespan against annual government spending on healthcare. Guess who spent the most? The US. Guess who had the shortest lifespan? The US. Guess what the only explanation is? Profits on such an epic scale even European levels of corruption don't achieve them.

Not all Europeans are like this. In fact, I imagine that the majority of Europe either likes the US or is apathetic to us. But there is a strong and loud anti-US online sentiment that drowns out the rational ones.
The majority of Europe hates America. Really, really hates America. However, most European people understand that most American people are alright. The basic values of the Founding Fathers are pretty noble and good.
But
Your country and its citizens dare to lecture China on human rights when you don't recognise the International Criminal Courts, you hold unnamed suspects with no evidence and no charges against them for unlimited amounts of time with no access to legal representation. You invade sovereign nations in the name of regime change. You defend these invasions with the words freedom and liberty, and yet have no care for the millions dying in far worse regimes throughout Africa and Asia. You announce wars on abstract ideas like 'terror' or 'drugs' - unwinnable wars that nevertheless get people whipped up into a nationalistic frenzy.
You know what the worst part is, though? The reason people throughout Europe really, really hate the US? Our governments copy you like fscking monkeys, spending more in order to get less, joining in with your pointless wars in far off lands - at least you have companies that profit from rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. Our school systems get more and more like yours, even though our schools have always turned out smarter kids. Nationalised public services start being seen as some left-wing ideal, rather than centrist and part-of-the-basic-ideals-of-the-free-market.
The truth is that the venting you get on the interwebs is actually pretty mild compared with the venting you get at dinner parties, in pubs - basically wherever there aren't Americans, because you bastards are all so fscking nice.
Have a nice day.

--
Be smart, help people!
Re:Fuck ACTA by IndustrialComplex · 2010-02-01 01:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Geneva Convention even specifies the status of non-uniformed combatants; they have no rights and may be executed on the spot. I'd say in light of that, Guantanamo detainees have been treated with far more compassion than they legally deserve. After a thorough no-holds-barred interrogation, when I was certain they were of no more intelligence value, all I'd give them is a blindfold and a cigarette
It's heartening to know that you hold yourself to such high moral standards.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj

Could someone explain to me by MrEricSir · 2010-01-31 07:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."

Re:Could someone explain to me by Sique · 2010-01-31 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?
How would it not? There is a parliament, whose members are elected by the public, and whose task is it, to enact laws. That's how it is put down in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public. That's what the debates in the parliament are for.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Could someone explain to me by peragrin · 2010-01-31 07:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

if true i do hope that everyone calls that bluff. that way American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Could someone explain to me by BadAnalogyGuy · 2010-01-31 08:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.
That's an awfully subjective view of American media. The objective view is that the most popular content worldwide is produced by America.
Say what you want about the quality of "American content", but you'll find that most people will not agree with you.
Re:Could someone explain to me by sjames · 2010-01-31 08:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

That won't work. The 'content' just isn't that critical and the natural retaliation to it being too expensive suggests itself!
Instead of the stick, I suspect they'll offer the carrot under the table to legislators who agree to betray their country, just like always.
Re:Could someone explain to me by Fjandr · 2010-01-31 08:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quite easily. There is no requirement for public debate or notice in passing legislation or signing treaties. It is assumed that people will vote out politicians who do such things. The fact that there are enough of them currently elected that this is even a possibility shows that US citizens get exactly the government they want and deserve. Otherwise, we wouldn't have as many slimy people in office.

Actually, the question above is exactly why this is a problem: US citizens have no idea how their government works in practice, let alone how it should work in theory.
Re:Could someone explain to me by Nefarious+Wheel · 2010-01-31 09:12 · Score: 3, Funny

Parliament and Constitution in the same breath? I don't think we're in Kansas any more, Toto...

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Re:Could someone explain to me by Nefarious+Wheel · 2010-01-31 09:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

if true i do hope that everyone calls that bluff. that way American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.
You know, I remember a story my Father used to tell me about why there weren't any new brick buildings in Southern California (this was long before the Sylmar earthquake). He drove a concrete mixer, and his attitudes were probably colored by it - he said "There are no more brick houses because the unions priced themselves out of the market."
Now I'm not trying to bash the unions here, they have their place - but the fact is, raise the price too high for a quality product and buyers will re-define their concept of what they like. And if the interest moves away from the traditional stuff, the quality will too. Fashions will get redefined.
My point is that the content of media controlled by ACTA and other attempts at legitimatizing RIAA and MPAA enforcers will have the effect of more and more music and video coming from indie sources. Good stuff, too. Put too tight a control on your contributions and the world will pass you by.

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Re:Could someone explain to me by maxwell+demon · 2010-01-31 09:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe there should be an amendment to the constitution:
"The gut feelings of people posting on Slashdot always overrule the congress."
Well, maybe we should exclude low-scored postings.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Could someone explain to me by Patch86 · 2010-01-31 10:19 · Score: 2, Informative

The British Motor Corporation (/British Leyland/Rover MG) will back you up on that one. Unions are wonderful, but the overzealous ones have killed off many a healthy local industry.
In the case above, the union kept making demands, and the incompetent management never managed to balance them out properly, in the end the company was busy producing the fewest, shoddiest, most expensive excuses for automobiles available this side of the iron curtain, before duly going bust for the final time.
(Car analogy five?)
Re:Could someone explain to me by Neoprofin · 2010-01-31 11:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have the discussion with my German girlfriend (gasp, sorry, "guy I know") when she derides American cultural imperialism and then sits down to watch the Simpsons or True Blood. If you wish America would stop infecting the world stop buying the DVDs!
Re:Could someone explain to me by AthanasiusKircher · 2010-01-31 13:12 · Score: 2, Informative

There is no requirement for public debate or notice in passing legislation or signing treaties.
And in general, we have no need for more "notice." What "debate" happens is mostly wheeling and dealing behind the scenes before the bill comes to the floor, and any "debate" on the floor is usually for soundbites for the evening news. I'm not sure how one could require an "actual" debate, except through media and individuals being more critical during the process... which they can be.
Most non-trivial pieces of legislation take months to go through both houses and get to the President's desk for signature. Once a bill is introduced, it's a matter of public record, and current legislation under consideration can be found on the websites of both houses of Congress.
Yes, there are last minute amendments, but the negative effect there is usually more about pork rather than some more nefarious purpose... and there's generally still a delay while the bill winds its way through the other house or takes a few days before the President has to decide on it.
But the vast majority of this stuff is available for anyone who wants to look, and usually weeks or even months ahead of time. No one looks.
As for the implication that secret meetings are a common occurrence... they aren't. The Senate has only held secret sessions a couple dozen times in the past century, and the House has only had less than a handful since the early days of the US.
So, I'm not sure where this great public outcry against secrecy is... 99.9% of the stuff is already there (and most of the actual secret meetings had to deal with national security briefings). That doesn't mean there isn't a potential for abuse, but I'm not sure why everyone's acting like what Congress does is some big secret or that they are continuously hiding things from the public.

The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance by Opportunist · 2010-01-31 07:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's be level headed here for a moment. Let's assume for a moment ACTA was a "fair" agreement. Designed to give all affected parties a fair share of the cake. Even then, it would be met with incredible resistance once it hits the fan. Why? Because it's kept secret. You design a contract that will affect me but I don't get to read it until after it is signed. How in the world could I not resist it with all the force I could possibly have?

Also, they will soon notice that all the secrecy around it only makes it more interesting. If ACTA was published and discussed in plain view, it would soon be drowned in the noise of everyday politics. A few activists would care and as usual, nobody would listen to them. Do you think it would be on /.'s frontpage every other day if it was public? This way, it's kept in our minds, fresh and looming, a secret deal that will affect us but we don't get to see it. Can you imagine anything more interesting?

Of course (please put on your tinfoil hats now), it could all be a gigantic plot to keep our interest on it so we overlook something else. But generally, if ACTA is supposed to become reality some day, the whole secrecy around it will ensure that every government will have to fight an uphill battle to get it ratified and codified and every single step will be monitored closely and reported widely, simply because ACTA got that much limelight. Due to its secrecy.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-31 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

You design a contract that will affect me but I don't get to read it until after it is signed.
If its passed I will simply use every means at my disposal to ignore it.
Do you think it would be on /.'s frontpage every other day if it was public?
So what? Its on the front page of a half-dead geek website every other day. How often is it mentioned on the cover of a
national paper? How often is it mentioned on a news channel on TV? What percentage of the population has even heard of
ACTA? Maybe 5%? How many care? 1%?
But generally, if ACTA is supposed to become reality some day, the whole secrecy around it will ensure that every
government will have to fight an uphill battle to get it ratified and codified and every single step will be monitored
closely and reported widely, simply because ACTA got that much limelight
I think you're seriously overestimating the power of the people. Your lobbying dollars will never equal the amount the
RIAA/MPAA/BSA members and others can generate. The public are mostly weak-willed sheep who gladly swallow every word of
the crap they're fed by the media. They are easily distracted and change their minds based on the slightest whim or on
what they believe is popular opinion. The people behind ACTA are totally single-minded in their desire to increase their
power, influence and profits.
Dont get me wrong.. I wish you were right but the simple fact is that most people just dont care.
Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance by mikael_j · 2010-01-31 08:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

So what? Its on the front page of a half-dead geek website every other day. How often is it mentioned on the cover of a national paper? How often is it mentioned on a news channel on TV? What percentage of the population has even heard of ACTA? Maybe 5%? How many care? 1%?
Well, here in Sweden it's been mentioned in the national media, but then we also have Pirate party representatives in the EU parliament...
/Mikael

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4

Re:No Jokes Here by Opportunist · 2010-01-31 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Batman is a comic, you know that I hope? Because in reality, someone like Batman would be hunted by the executive worse than any criminal you could imagine. No country on this planet lets a private citizen crack the force monopoly.

Well, not without a reasonable kickback.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the US by BadAnalogyGuy · 2010-01-31 07:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's all about standardizing shipping documents between countries. If you have ever tried to ship something bigger than a letter to the U.S., you'd find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time filling out forms just to get it into the American borders.

ACTA aims to make this pain equal across the board. In some ways it will protect shippers because the better they describe the contents of the package, the less likely it will be to be targeted for extra search measures. On the other hand, who in their right mind ever tells the complete truth on shipping documents? Shipping company hardware overseas isn't a gift, and it isn't really a "customer sample", and it definitely isn't a "commercial sample" or any other category listed on the document. So you usually just mark it as something random and give it a value of 50USD and hope for the best.

God help you if you try to send anything that could possibly generate radio signals. There is an additional form just for that.

The ACTA will pass because it will make it easy to manage documentation for shipping. There won't be a need to keep different forms for different countries at the post office or FedEx counter anymore. Everyone just uses the same ridiculously difficult forms that require signing in triplicate and exact descriptions of the shipment items.

Good day, Citizen. Papers please.

waggers by epine · 2010-01-31 07:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

USTR head Ron Kirk has reportedly said that countries would walk away from the treaty if the text were made available

I don't get this. If our elected leaders walk off on the job, we already have a mechanism in place to fix this: a general election. Maybe the next batch is willing to contend with the issue under democratic conditions, such as open consultation.

Oh, you mean only the tinpots will walk away from the table, which will hurt us more than it hurts them. Why didn't you make yourself clear in the first place? Democracy is good, except when negotiating with tinpots, which necessarily takes place on their terms, in the best interest of all concerned.

Nice tail-wags-the-dog justification for subverting democratic transparency.

Or is there something I missed here? Did I skip an essential chapter in Democracy for Dummies? I feel so stupid. Our politicians are willing to shine their eminent sensibilities on this problem and all they want is a little secrecy to work their magic for the good of humanity? There's just no respect in this world, is there?

Re:waggers by PPH · 2010-01-31 07:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Perhaps this is the best solution. If the current proposals are so embarrassing (or whatever) to the parties negotiating them that they don't want to do so in the light of day, then drop the whole thing. Step back, take another look at the problem and come back when everyone has some ideas that they're not ashamed to publish.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Acronyms... by RocketRocketship · 2010-01-31 07:48 · Score: 3, Informative

Not mentioned in the summary or the first two linked articles is what ACTA actually is. It stands for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

Re:Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the by PPH · 2010-01-31 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

That seems pretty reasonable. So why don't they negotiate the terms out in the open?

I suspect that there's more to it than just this. Someone is trying to slip some funny language into the agreement. Often, when negotiating contract terms, one can deduce where such language is being injected into the document by observing how dearly one party has become attached to some particular wording or content. And in finding these particular terms, one can guess at what sort of hidden agendas the various parties might have.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

unauthorized IP distribution = piracy by Ifni · 2010-01-31 08:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

From the article: efforts at the international level to fight counterfeiting and piracy

I have to wonder at the increase and sudden newsworthiness of Somalian piracy during the private talks around ACTA. When it comes time to present it to the public, talk of counterfeiting and piracy will elicit images of counterfeit currency and Somalian pirates and the average Joe that hasn't read much about the document will assume that those opposing it are a bunch of crazies. Finally, the years of equating unauthorized IP distribution with piracy will come to fruition for our dark masters.

</tinfoilhat>

In all seriousness, though, whether planned by some diabolical secret cabal or not, I can see this confusion being purposefully used to sway the view of the common citizen.

--

Oh, was that my outside voice?

Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy by martas · 2010-01-31 11:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

i agree that the possibility exists, and that in itself scares the shit out of me.

--
weinersmith
Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy by Zerth · 2010-01-31 11:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Have you noticed that, with the increased mention of Somalian piracy, that this winter has been a bit chill?
I think it is a sign from the FSM, but I'm not sure if it is positive of negative.
Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy by ldrydenb · 2010-01-31 15:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, just as Disney used the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy to glamorise piracy & promote their pro-sharing, anti-copyright agenda.
Oh, wait...

Re:They do realize it has to go public at some poi by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2010-01-31 08:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Politicians haven't been held responsible for this kind of shit ever since they realised the full extent to which they could abuse redistricting.

--
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."

how to defeat acta: by circletimessquare · 2010-01-31 09:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

ignore it

technology has gotten to the point that piracy is simply the best distribution model around, for creators and consumers (oh, you thought the law was supposed to protect creators? it protects distributors: look at the contracts distributors sign with creators and tell me who really benefits). consumers get bounty, creators get ancillary revenue streams and distributors die. end of story

let them pass any law they want. no really: what is the value of an unenforceable law? people are getting upset about acta, but i really have to ask everyone: acta may sound diabolical and severe, but its toothless: there's no enforcement of it possible. sure, they may get the occasional grandmother with an unsecured router or a soccer mom who's kids friends take advantage of her hospitality, but that's going to stop technological progress?

let them fund stables of tens of thousands of lawyers and put behind them far reaching draconian laws. whoop de friggin doo. tens of millions of media hungry, technologically savvy and POOR teenagers has them all beat, and then some. the contest is a joke, the laws mean nothing, the game is over: technological progress wins, distributors die

we are simply living in a transition period in which we must suffer the bluster of morons from another media era who simply don't get the fundamental changes taking place around them

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:how to defeat acta: by misexistentialist · 2010-01-31 10:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd like to think your right, but once people start having their internet connections cut off (maybe even having their "internet passports" revoked) piracy will likely revert to a much more limited community. Hopefully people will read and fuck more, but they will probably just watch more TV.
Re:how to defeat acta: by syousef · 2010-01-31 10:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

let them pass any law they want. no really: what is the value of an unenforceable law?
It's not unenforceable. The tech can be turned against it's users. Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged. We're not that far off such a thing. So people stop using the net and start copying files. What do you think "trusted" computing is about. There will be a day when hard drives start dobbing their owners in. Imagine mass round ups of teenagers that are guilty until proven innocent and go to jail for years over copyright infringement. It's all possible if no one stands up to this madness.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:how to defeat acta: by selven · 2010-01-31 11:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nobody is worried about the future of distributing content. There will always be crackers, and the effort of one is enough to liberate some piece of content for everyone. What we're worried about is that the *AA will destroy the internet trying.
Re:how to defeat acta: by BitZtream · 2010-01-31 13:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

The law only works because the majority of the population respect it.
As you say, once you make a law that the majority don't want to honor and respect, the law is unenforceable.
As they say, they can't put us ALL in jail.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:how to defeat acta: by ratboy666 · 2010-01-31 14:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes, I can see it coming.
I still have my old analog modem, and I still control my own network. We hackers will simply retreat to UUCP ("bbs" for the micro-computer generation). With known and trusted peers only.
About the only thing added will be full crypto on the UUCP links.
And when they come for that...
It will go back to physical data exchange.
Too bad, though. But the level of discourse may become reasonable again, and maybe, just maybe, SPAM will go away. At least on the darknets.

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061

Re:No Jokes Here by lennier · 2010-01-31 09:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually.... there have been people rather like Batman in the 1930s era. Private millionaires who bankrolled much of WW2 military R&D.

Look up Howard Hughes, Alfred Loomis, Floyd Odlum, William Stephenson, 'Wild Bill' Donovan. Those boys got up to interesting stuff, sometimes working for 'the government' and sometimes on their own time (and dime). They weren't all friends of Hoover and FDR.

And to be honest, that heritage still exists today. Some of the same types of characters surfaced in teams Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Private military contractors, private defense contractors. Wackenhut/Group4, Blackwater/XE, KBR, Halliburton...

Batman is alive and well.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC

American Criminal Transportation Authority? by zaivala · 2010-01-31 10:38 · Score: 2, Informative

I have just read this article and two layers down in links, and have YET to find what "ACTA" is or means. Please add this information to the article -- not all of us can remember the tons of alphabet soup we are being fed.

Re:No Jokes Here by martas · 2010-01-31 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

that's not batman, that's greed. there's a slight difference.

--
weinersmith

If you haven't already by T+Murphy · 2010-01-31 13:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Write to your representatives in the national government. It might not mean much, but it's the best (legal) way to get your voice heard. The same arguments why not voting is a bad idea generally apply here.

The best thing is, it might only take one country pulling out to put the ACTA into question everywhere.

--
My webcomic

Won't/Can't happen by Mathinker · 2010-01-31 13:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged.

Cannot happen. Well, at least effectively. Because of things called "steganography" and "perfect forward secrecy".

So, no. The only closed Internet is a a read-only Internet.

It does lower the bandwidth a lot. But as Thing 1 already replied to you, the high-bandwidth stuff can be done by sneakernet.

Your fear from Trusted Computing is more real. But even there, we are close to the point where third-world countries can host illicit fabs for untrusted computing platforms. Well, I suppose if possession of untrusted computing would be punished draconianly.... but if it gets that bad, the third world will be looking like a really good place to live for a lot of us technophiles....

Outsourcing is a lie by shmlco · 2010-01-31 21:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

"How can you stop outsourcing without severely damaging the competitiveness of american companies?"

I'm beginning to think that this is a lie.

We're told over and over again that American companies have to outsource production to other countries in order for them to remain "competitive".

Okay, fine. But tell me this: How do Honda and Toyota and Kia and Hyundai BUILD PLANTS HERE IN THE US???

Are they not competitive? If FOREIGN companies can build plants here and produce products here for sale here AND hire American labor to do so... AND still make a profit...

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS OUR PROBLEM??????

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.

51 of 155 comments (clear)