Slashdot Mirror
India Attempts To Derail ACTA
Admiral Justin writes "Ars Technica is reporting that India is attempting to gather support from other large countries that have been intentionally left out of the ACTA process to actively protest it. India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries that were given no chance to be a part of the process of drafting it. Among the primary concerns are the possibility of medical shipments being seized if they use a port in transit that is controlled by a country with a patent on the pharmaceuticals."
India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries who were given no chance to be a part of the process drafting it.
As a US citizen, I can relate to that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that :-/ I do have info on ACTA and software patents:
FWIW
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Agreed. As a us citizen i can say for sure we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone.
In both real world terms and on the net.
We like pushing our laws on other countries.. But theres no way we will allow it to work the other way around.
America is like the largest group of hypocrites on the planet... Who put us in charge anyway... That wasnt too smart.
Ars Technica is reporting that India is attempting to gather support from other large countries which have been intentionally left out of the ACTA process to actively protest it.
Please let this mean they're planning an all-out media blitz here in the US. I can see the commercials now, something between between a Tea Party "the government's gonna get you!"/"One World Government is coming!" campaign booster and a Broadview Security "THEYRE GONNA RAPE YOU AND STEAL YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" commercial.
Seriously, plan the message carefully and you could run the same commercial on Fox News and PBS/NPR 24/7 and *everyone* would freak out and, hopefully, do something about this filthy excuse for a treaty.
No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
So expect ACTA to pass and expect medicine to remain patented and restricted only for use by the richest 1%. It's the way society is designed, whether ACTA is instituted or not.
The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?
Corporations have chosen profits but what do individuals choose?
We like pushing our laws on other countries.. But theres no way we will allow it to work the other way around.
Question is, are these even your laws? How many elected officials have insight into these negotiations, let alone the public?
The whole trade agreement thing is mostly just a way to get countries to commit to laws without letting the democracy thing getting in the way. Just sign here mister prime minister, it's good for business!
that we (the good ole USA) need to rely on other countries' governments to protect us from our government and its corporate puppet masters.
While I agree that we are exporting America's laws (for better or for worse) I refuse to lay claim to them. Just about every politician out there is a lawyer or former lawyer with absolutely no connection to their respective constituencies. They live privileged lives and pass laws that only benefit themselves. Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing. When there is so little difference between D and R who can blame people for simply letting themselves get railroaded.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
that will constitute approx half of world population.
versus, hollywood.
who do you think will win ?
Read radical news here
Heh, "we". Who are you? A top executive in the MPAA? Major share holder in Big Pharma?
Otherwise, you're not in the "we". Whether you're in the USA or not, you're at the other end of the stick.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
how do these assholes actually expect to enforce acta?
you can pass all the laws you want. but in terms of actually stopping the spread of pirate media, they would have to fundamentally alter the internet in such a way as to also negate any value anyone attaches to the internet. in other words, they would start a revolt. not an armed revolt, just a sort of utter rejection of their vision of complete centralized control
it would also be extremely expensive, and they would also have to somehow control the internet internationally AND completely. they would, paradoxically, turn those outsider countries that aren't on the usa's bff list, into outposts of internet freedom
acta, to me, it seems like a completely desperate ploy, or clueless (or both)
really, in terms of enforceability, acta is a fucking joke
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I quote:
— meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.
No they aren't. This is the lie they want you to keep repeating until it becomes the truth.
The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm
http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1
There is a war going on for your mind.
they would basically turn the west into the corporate equivalent of the bullshit that goes on with the internet in china or iran: centralized monitoring and control, for the sake of $ (rather than political control)
in other words, they would force a conflict: the ideals of western liberal democracy, versus the corporate imperative to strangle everything to make a buck
now you can be a complete cynic and pessimist about this conflict, but personally, talking completely out of realism i think, they're fucking out of their mind: people won't stand for it. some of us will make it their passionate life pursuit to circumvent such controls, and those who are successful at routing around the controls will be folk heroes
i really don't see this weak ass acta subsuming the ideals of western liberal democracy. i'm sorry, but every goddamn teenager will take it as a personal joy to render acta a joke, and they'll be able to do it: all you need is technical knowhow. it beats all the lawyers, all the laws, all the international agreement
acta is a form of delusion, its doomed. but let them try, just see them crash and burn
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The only thing that will kill the ACTA treaty is if a significant number of countries refuse to sign it or reject it during ratification. Unfortunately, I fear that any US administration would gladly sign the treaty and the US Senate would readily ratify it. If only the treaty would harm the gay unborn whales...
Yea, you are going to want to spend some time digging through all the supreme court rulings in that last 40 years or so regards Indian treaties. Granted, the Indian treaties are a very different legal animal from say treatise over copyrights with other countries, but treatise do in fact carry more weight than the constitution in at least very important cases.
If you are not up for the time to do that here is the basic legal theory upheld by the supreme court on the subject (and I am sure there are better ways of putting it):
The territory that the U.S. occupies was found by recognition of a set of treaties that in many cases predate the territorial space of the United States. Thus, the existence and enforceability of those treaties makes everything else contained in the constitution possible. The most important of which is the territorial definition of the U.S., along with lots of nice things like mining rights, water rights, hunting rights, and so on.
For example, this is why Indians have casinos and the individual States in most cases can not really do a whole lot about it. Essentially, most of the United States is under some sort of lease to another government, and if you ignore those "rental" agreements the whole legal mess called the U.S. starts falling apart. Even when the U.S. breaks those treatises, they still have to pay up in court for the damages. One that comes to mind would be things like the Black Hills land claim at the moment. There are hundreds if not thousands of other rulings, and why the U.S. government tends to get its rear eventually handed to them in a court room over breaking those treatise sooner or later.
Living in Chile
Flouts is too strong a word. Indian law allows the government to license other manufacturers to produce any drugs deemed to be "life saving"...
Any capitalist will answer: profit.
If you want someone to care about people find a socialist or a communist. Capitalist are not nice people, it is in their motto:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."
-- Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776)
Read it and try to understand its true meaning. Not the meaning for when you are well off and society is running smoothly but when there is some problem. Like say a disaster.
Adam Smith says that in a disaster, it is perfectly reasonable to charge a premium for emergency supplies and only a beggar would expect a fair price. For a capitalist, profits are the only thing that counts and the butch, the brewer and the baker under Adam Smith will let people die who can't pay the prices they charge. Of course, this also means that if ever something was to happen to them, they would be the ones doing the dying.
And it works, when society is doing well. You can life your entire life as a baker and never be faced with someone who is on the edge of starvation. I was a baker in my younger years and I never had someone beg for bread.
In practice supermarkets charge a "low" price for food and accept truly minuscule mark-ups on essential items. Eating in the west can truly be cheap, eating healthy is another matter. But this doesn't mean the Adam Smith way is a nice way. It is not for nothing that the poorer people often eat unhealthy, go and check the prices for healthy food (fresh vegetables) with the cost of absolute bottom line food. 50 cent frozen pizza etc. You can live on that for a day, no way you can cook a decent meal for that. So, the delivers off cheap food for all also deliver unhealthy food. Not so nice of them after all is it? Their profits are more important then the health of their customers.
Free choice? yes, you are free to eat bad. YOU are free to eat bad, because you can probably afford to eat better. But with ever lower wages and ever higher costs of living, a lot of people cannot. It is already well known that Africa is a dumping ground for western food that is no longer sellable in the west. Chicken refrozen a dozen times over is flooding the market, ruining the local industry. Profits of western capitalists again more important then decency.
Read up on the true effects of free market economy and you will see just how badly real capitalist are for people who do not belong to the elite. And you like me are most likely part of that elite or at least close enough not to be harmed by them to much. For now. Until something goes wrong. Like the economic crisis. Notice how the truly rich are not hurting at all. No, loosing 1 billion when you got a dozen is NOT hurting.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
morality check: which is more important?
1. saving human lives
2. enforcing ip law
if they pirate the drug design and make the drugs without a license, guess what happens? THEY SAVE HUMAN LIVES
i think that pretty much trumps every goddamn thing you wrote, no?
poor countries can't afford to abide by ip law, genius
so they have my blessing and the blessing of everyone else with a simple moral compass, to rip off a rich country's pharmaceutical research TO SAVE LIVES
corporate profit is not important than human life, despite the fact that so many douchebags like yourself think otherwise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A point many people probably didn't notice is that India is not really pissed off at the whole ACTA treaty.
The major reason for India's tirade seems to be the fact that (in addition to Pharmaceutical situation, of course) it was left out of negotiations. In a multi-polarized world, India increasingly sees itself as an important node in the global market. Had the negotiations proceeded in an all-inclusive manner, I am pretty sure most countries' governments would have happily and silently signed oppressive laws into place.
In a way, this "unfair" tactic by western countries, I believe did push India over the edge, but surely the humanitarian, people-friendly position is not why India and other countries are opposing this law. It benefits the Indian Pharmaceutical companies and it is in India's benefit to fight this both for trying to keep its industry alive and asserting its influence.
For the record - I am Indian. And yes, I am opposed to many tough measures in the ACTA -- but I have this sneaky suspicion that just to appease India and other countries, the other countries will throw a ball in their direction -- give them some special concession in a very limited area -- and then all these countries will happily climb on to the ACTA bandwagon!
For all those expecting a showdown between India/China vs. the rest of the world -- chances are that it will never actually develop into something more than a few provocative statements here and there -- fervent negotiations will go on to give them some choicest concessions, so they can all start oppressing people everywhere asap... of course, this will be marketed heavily as something "amazingly good" for the people of the world!
EFF is looking for people to contact their representatives in the US, especially if you are in a state with a senator on the Finance committee, or the House Ways and Means / Trade subcommittee.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs