IP Enforcement Treaty Still Being Kept Secret 172
Hugh Pickens writes "More than a thousand pages of material about Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), are still being withheld, despite the Obama administration's promises to run a more open government. The EFF and Public Knowledge filed suit in September of 2008, demanding that background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 'We are very disappointed with the USTR's decision to continue to withhold these documents. The president promised an open and transparent administration,' said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel. Publicly available information about the treaty shows it could establish far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of anti-counterfeiting measures. Additionally, multi-national IP industry companies have publicly requested that ISPs be required to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, force mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adopt 'Three Strikes' policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement. 'What we've seen tends to confirm that the substance of ACTA remains a grave concern,' said Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Sherwin Siy. 'The agreement increasingly looks like an attempt by Hollywood and the content industries to perform an end-run around national legislatures and public international forums to advance an aggressive, radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced.'"
EFF is nice.... (Score:5, Interesting)
but it would be nice if the ACLU stepped in. They have vastly greater influence and funding.
If ratified, a treaty such as this could have far reaching consequences for privacy and leave ISP customers beholden to 3rd parties under the guise of 'IP enforcement'.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It'd be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. The ACLU seems to be more interested in civil liberties when it's something like terrorists being tortured, than when it's something that affects all freedom-loving internet users. Mind you, I'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty, and all of whom are foreigners vs. an issue that affects the citizenry at large, I think the latter is far more important and de
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:5, Insightful)
'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty
So most of those held at Gitmo were guilty? As were most of those at Abu Grab? All that was required to end up at Gitmo was for a person to be turned over to the US military in return for some money.
'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted' [uslaw.com].
Falcon
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication. That's EFF's domain, and they're pretty damn good at it, even with their scarce (compared to ACLU) resources / influence.
And yeah, I know it's a local custom to latch on to any minor point of an argument you disagree with, and blow that one point the hell out of proportion while ignoring the rest of the post, and I'm also keenly aware of the irony of a 7-digit-UID'er lecturing a 6-digiter on the finer points of discussion board etiquette, but still... Unintentional *WHOOOOSH* or intentional nit-picking?
Falconwolf, you're missing the forest for the tree (Score:5, Insightful)
No, missing the forest for the trees would be falsely imprisoning 10 innocents to get 1 guilty person. The 10 innocent is the forest whereas the 1 guilty is the tree.
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
Except the ALCU supported American NAZIs' [stlbeacon.org] right to protest. Like the ALCU I disagree with them but I support their right to peacefully protest. As one slashdotter's sig says, paraphrasing, "I may disagree with your speech but I will support your right to say it."
I'm also keenly aware of the irony of a 7-digit-UID'er lecturing a 6-digiter on the finer points of discussion board etiquette
My point had nothing to do with netiquette or any other etiquette but was about facts and the truth. The person I replied to expressed the opinion that it was better to torture a bunch of innocents to get intelligence, while the USA's Founding Fathers fought for a free society which I support myself.
Falcon
[citation needed] (Score:3, Informative)
Re:[citation needed] (Score:5, Informative)
[citation needed] If you could point out where the parent said torture of anyone was OK I would appreciate it, thanks.
Right here [slashdot.org] where he says "'m not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty, and all of whom are foreigners vs. an issue that affects the citizenry at large, I think the latter is far more important and deserves more energy." Waterboarding is torture. One the U.S. Labeled Waterboarding a War Crime in 1947 [digg.com].
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the point was the ACLU should focus on an issue that effects the whole population (the story topic of a group of companies trying to control the internet in the name of "IP") rather then focus on a issue effecting a small number of people (torture/waterboarding).
It does affect everybody, er every American. If government csn torture one person it can torture anybody. But even if not the ACLU does focus on everybody, free speech is everyone's right.
As opposed to the way you seem to take the argume
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was not saying you believed in torture, but that you understood the original poster as arguing that torture is ok to save the majority. I was trying to point out that the original poster was not making this point, but that the ACLU should be focusing on issues that are affecting the majority of the population such as online privacy, rather then going for the political points of the to
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the answer is "whoosh" (Score:2)
Explain it then.
Falcon
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Falconwolf, you're missing the forest for the trees, just like the ACLU is missing the forest of "everyone's rights" for the trees of "those few guys in prison".
I'll make this as simple as possible:
A) Torture is a violation of basic human rights.
B) ACTA is, at best, an example of governments bowing to corporate interests and at worst and example of corruption.
You tell me which issue is more related to "everyone's rights".
Here's a recent article to give you context: [wral.com]
"Never in my worst nightmare did I ever think that it would be my own government that I would have to protect my children from," Lundeby said. "This is the United States, and I feel like I live in a third world country now."
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:5, Informative)
ACTA is far worse than that as it sets some terrible precedents.
1) The right of corporations to censor the communications of their customers.
2) Guilt upon accusation and you must prove your innocence at your own expense.
3) Prison terms for copyright infringement with no profit motive and regardless of the extent.
4) The gross and deceitful intent to place the artificial and arbitrary asset of IP above that or of real property by providing it laws which radically exceed those for the protection of real property.
5) The corruption of the political process with absolutely no benefit to society and to only serve the greed of a minority. Especially egregious as the harm caused to society by some of the copyright protected works can be demonstrated and in fact is considered so harmful that distribution of the copyright protected content to minors is considered a criminal offence.
Before any more laws are changed to protect copyright, first and foremost current copyright should be forced to align with current laws ie. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". So until the criminal abuse of the basic principle of copyright is corrected and that the work must actually promote the progress of science and useful arts (the intent can not be more glaringly obvious), not one cent of taxpayer dollars should be spent on protecting any of it. If fact it can literally be argued that as the value of any copyrighted has not as yet been substantiated as conforming to that requirement, no one can be charged with copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for laying out and supporting a argument.
Your specific points go a lot further in my book than writing off an opposing idea with "a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty, and all of whom are foreigners".
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
You gotta be friggin kidding me. Terrorist rights vs. American rights? What about Human Rights? You are aware that treaties the United States enters into are the supreme law of the land?
What if you were a "terrorist" turned in by your neighbor because he was upset about a deal over some goats 10 years ago? Would you be worried about American rights or Terrorist rights? AS MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
I don't know, I always see the ACLU defending unpopular causes, such as the right of the KKK to hold a rally, or a person to freely practice their locally unpopular religion such as Wicca or Judaism. Hel, they even did a lawsuit to prevent Rush Limbaugh's medical records from being released for his court case.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that treaties the United States enters into are the supreme law of the land?
They may be but unfortunately the US has broken a bunch of treaties.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Torture bad; ACLU good (Score:5, Insightful)
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication.
ORLY? http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/index.html [aclu.org]
I think he's just ACLU-bashing, not comeone with a point.
From the "2009 ACLU Legislative Priorities" pdf, I see
Repeal the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
Codify binding open Internet principles to discourage public and private
online censorship, to assure online privacy and to pursue equal access free
from discrimination.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 the same day that it was enacted into law. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - could be compromised by the new law. [wikipedia.org][15] The complaint, captioned Amnesty et al v McConnell and filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.
which look a lot like defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication to me. They were on top of that one day one, punctuality is a virtue.
Took me a minute in google to find that information. I don't know if or why they don't get involved with that treaty. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to it. Maybe they're understaffed, out of their jurisdiction and over budget. Maybe they're reptilians who pretend to defend civil liberties but they really want to drain your precious bodily fluids.
He's ranting against the ACLU, against foreigners, and against opposing torture. And he's calling that "freedom-loving". If he's pointing out anything, it's his perceptions, and I'm pretty sure he's perceiving that through the lenses at Fox News.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's talking about he xxAA executives.
you are not a good person (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty
On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. "Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned that most of the interrogators had in fact believed Mr. Dilawar to be an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time [wikipedia.org].
Re:you are not a good person (Score:5, Insightful)
So I guess by your logic its OK to torture people to death so long as someone is saved or vindicated at the end.
Been said before by for your benefit I'll say it again, the ends do not justify the means.
If that was accomplished with the torture of another 6 million catholic Germans would it still be OK?
BTW, it was 5 Million Jews and 1 Million various other minorities like Gypsies. Pleas learn about the Holocaust before using the Holocaust as hyperbole.
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is NOT a fringe case to suspend Habeas corpus and enact retrospective laws to keep one of my countrymen [wikipedia.org] locked up for political reasons. And no, this does not make me a "Hicks supporter" as our prime minister was fond of saying about anyone who thought keeping Hicks as a political prisoner was morally repugnent and illeagal.
You are making the same "mistake" about the ACLU as our PM did about me and others in this country who were appalled to see a "kangaroo court" sweep the rule of law under the rug for political reasons. The ACLU are not "defending terrorists" they are defending the rule of law and the civil liberties that those laws enshrine.
"when it's something that affects all freedom-loving internet users"
Specifically, what rights does a "freedom-loving internet user" have that are being abused by keeping treaty negotiations secret?
Re: (Score:2)
Simply put, the ACLU seems to be more interested in fringe cases.
If by fringe cases you mean attention whoring I agree.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had a privacy issue that I wanted some info on (and some help with) with my landlord. ... it seemed like an invasion of privacy would be something they'd handle.
It's the American Civil Liberties Union. Civil liberties are rights the people have with respect to keeping the government in check, not necessarily other private parties like your landlord.
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Civil liberties are rights the people have with respect to keeping the government in check
Which makes it particularly puzzling that the ACLU is not interested in protecting the second amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes it particularly puzzling that the ACLU is not interested in protecting the second amendment.
That is because the NRA handles that issue.
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:4, Informative)
Not to diminish your issue, but public-policy organizations (whether it's the ACLU or the EFF) only have the resources to handle specifically chosen cases, with the intent to draw publicity and influence wider policy. You shouldn't expect the ACLU to swoop in every time a cop finds weed in your car, or have the EFF drop everything and write a amicus brief when your landlord eavesdrops on a phone conversation.
You might try calling your local Legal Aid society, which DOES have the primary goal of helping individuals rather than making broader social statements. Better yet, you could drop your sense of entitlement, stop being such an insufferable freeloader, and pick up the phone to call an actual private attorney. You can almost always get a consulation on whether or not there's a legal action there before you pay anything.
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a privacy issue that I wanted some info on (and some help with) with my landlord.
The ACLU wouldn't take your case when you has a problem with your landlord? Hos did this get modded Informative?
Here's a clue: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects you from the government, not another private individual that you enter into contract with.
aclu IS worthless to the average person.
It's not their job to provide free legal service to everybody in the US. Call them when the government prevents you from practicing your religion, or when you get locked up in a cell without charges or a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EFF is nice.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "ACLU" should be named the AFSCS (American Federation for the Separation of Church and State) or something like that. It seems to me that they're only interested in committing serious time and energy to supporting the Establishment clause. I definitely applaud them for that effort, but the organization shouldn't pretend to be a global "Civil Liberties" organization when they cherry pick the civil liberties they want to protect(or narrow the definition of "liberties" if you prefer).
What sort of hacktivism efforts have we seen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like the quickest way to stir up some controversy here is to hack the computers of the people running these agencies and see if they're into salacious yet legal pr0n or, even better, nasty illegal stuff. Not that I'm advocating this sort of thing, of course, but there was news of this sort of thing being done to Justice Scalia. He saw no problem with privacy violations and a law professor had his class comb the interwebs for PI on Scalia. They put together a very revealing dossier with all his info. Word was that Scalia was not amused. Heh. Payback's a bitch.
Re:What sort of hacktivism efforts have we seen? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a brief article. [abajournal.com]
Scalia's response left a little to be desired.
And FWIW, I do advocate this sort of thing as long as it is within the bounds of the law. If we're going to point out why the law is flawed, then we need to show what the law really means in practice.
WRT to the ACTA situation, we have no recourse, since we cannot even examine the proposed treaty. Our only hope is to intercede with the Senate before the treaty is ratified. The chances of a successful intercession at that point are close to zero; furthermore, the US has acted within treaties it has signed even without ratification (assuming, generally correctly, that ratification would come at a later date).
In the end, though, we're SOL. IP is the only major area where the US has a dominant share of the global market. You can bet your bottom dollar that attempts to legally protect this valuable export will be made, regardless of how it suits *our* notions of freedom, or our notions of personal rights.
Big business rules the US, and they'll get what they want. Welcome to the future.
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:5, Insightful)
When did you type that, 1963? Big business has ruled the US for decades.. welcome to the past.
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:4, Insightful)
It was a reference to the dystopian societies always set in "the future" -- like 1984 (when it was written), the Shadowrun world, etc.
But you're right, the 70s and 80s really saw the rise of the corporate-controlled government. Although even Reagan bothered with lip-service to the people ("trickle-down economics") -- Bush didn't even bother with that, and it appears Obama's method will be to pretend that's what he is really doing... and the sheeple will believe it.
That's the one common factor to all the leaders we've had since time immemorial... the sheeple. There's nothing quite like the fact that most people are happy to be ignorant.
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:5, Informative)
Its only in the past 20 years that big businesses have managed to make everyone a criminal and charge them with a crime. Prior to that, unless you were making money off of it, you were safe. Today, anyone is a potential target.
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:5, Insightful)
if you can be arrested for almost anything, you are now living in fear and are controllable by the state.
by design!
this is no accident. when everyone is potentially a 'criminal' then the state has fear-control over its populace.
fully by plan. not by accident.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
really wise idea!
the ONLY way for the IGNORANT judges (yes, I consider many of them too far detached from reality to make any sensible decision these days) to understand what they're doing is to live in a glass house (so to speak) and be under the very rules they are passing.
if they don't like it, that's your litmus test right there.
in fact, new rule: any lawmaker who has a 'bright idea' should have to experience it directly, to see if its really just or not. or to that effect.
if they are entirely detached
people still have not yet figured out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... that all internet communications needs to be done over encrypted connections or sessions
Re:people still have not yet figured out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Encryption unfortunately only works if you trust everyone you communicate with.
This gradual strangulation of internet freedoms needs to be stopped now, or perhaps all people who don't want to be sued/arrested/punished randomly for crimes you may or may have not have committed need to start protecting themselves with more serious countermeasures.
Something like a layered approach of Truecrypt+One Swarm/TOR/other anonymization. That will of course also benefit people who commit actual crimes, as they can hide in the crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
how 'funny' - but you are right. and the reason we need encryption is to keep big brother OFF our backs.
put the genie back in its bottle and cap it. to that effect.
however, this won't happen easily and probably not without a huge fight. this could be the 'shit hitting the fan' that everyone these days seems to be talking about.
watch for the first legilation that says that encrypting data is 'terrorist'. that will be telltale sign that we've slipped into an abyss and will need some serious revolution to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The content mafia will see that you are having traffic with people who are generally filesharing. It doesn't matter if you use darknets and encryption, because they will kick in your door and look at what's on your screen and then lock you up.
You can fight them with technology, but there is no way in hell that you can win the war without removing the ones who are bribed by the content mafia from power. That means that you have to run for office and get your organizations created.
Pirate parties are forming
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... that all internet communications needs to be done over encrypted connections or sessions
Encryption doesn't protect your right to freedom of association.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Slashdot needs to be fixed so it doesn't redirect back to the unencrypted URL. This is the real Slashdot, right? I hope.
Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully in the next election, the people that though Obama would bring such great 'change' won't think that their new favorite choice will be bringing great 'change'.
To those 'flamebaiting' posts critical of Obama... (Score:2)
Learn to grow up a little. These people are rightly pointing out that there is not difference between the R's and the D's. Don't like it? It doesn't mesh with your view that Obama is the best thing ever? Tough.
Re:To those 'flamebaiting' posts critical of Obama (Score:5, Informative)
No informed adult believes that Republicans and Democrats are the same. The two parties agree on certain issues, which is unfortunate for those who hold a different view on those particular issues. But that does not mean that the parties are the same.
Gay marriage? They differ.
Abortion? They differ.
Gun control? They differ.
Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ.
Amount of regulation for the markets? They differ.
Torture of key terrorists? They differ.
Most foreign policy matters? They differ.
Stem cell research? They differ.
Universal health care? They differ.
Immigration reform? They differ.
Only someone completely ignorant of US politics would try to claim that they're the same.
Re:To those 'flamebaiting' posts critical of Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To those 'flamebaiting' posts critical of Obama (Score:4, Informative)
Re:To those 'flamebaiting' posts critical of Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun control? They differ. Agreed. Don't forget flag burning.
>>Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ.
Red herring. The "wealthy" earn much more on capital gains than on wages. Raising the "INCOME" tax rates of top earners is hardly a major policy shift.
>>Amount of regulation for the markets? They differ.
HA! Don't confuse what they SAY with what they DO. They're working hand in hand to sell out the U.S. citizens to wealthy corporate interests.
>>Torture of key ter
I can't cite any references (Score:4, Informative)
Mostly due to the fact that my brain is currently swiss cheese,
but I know there have been great big loopholes in things past that would be unconstitutional, slipping through because treaties are consider on equal legal footing with the constitution. If you can get the USA and another country to sign off on it, then it does not have to pass muster with the nine judges in DC...
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't it still at least have to be ratified?
The problem I see is that a treaty by any other name might not be treated as such, like what happened with the Status Of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which sounds like it should be considered a treaty and require ratification, but no one really made a fuss about it.
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't it still at least have to be ratified?
Yes, by the Senate, which is why treaties are on equal footing with federal law (subject to the Constitution).
The problem I see is that a treaty by any other name might not be treated as such, like what happened with the Status Of Forces Agreement with Iraq, which sounds like it should be considered a treaty and require ratification, but no one really made a fuss about it.
Well, SOFAs shouldn't commit the US to anything that is not already within the purview of US military commanders, so they shouldn't need to be treated like treaties. SHOULDN'T.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IP Enforcement Treaty Still Being Kept Secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama showed what he thinks of liberty when he decided to appoint someone as an "intellectual property czar".
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what if he had appointed Richard Stallman?
And what if he had appointed Richard Stallman? (Score:2)
First I doubt Stallman would ever accept a post as an intellectual property czar. Whether he would or not, Obama creating it has shown he doesn't value liberty. Unless you want to deny rights you don't need any "intellectual property czar". But then again he showed that he didn't care more than a year ago when he voted to give telecos immunity for spying on Americans.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he would or not, Obama creating it has shown he doesn't value liberty.
Obama did not create the job, it was created before he was elected by a bill passed by congress. [npr.org]
Who knows, he may yet hamstring the office by ignoring the people working in it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you believe in freedom on the Internet, Obama is your enemy. Get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
How many more content-mafia lawyers does he need to appoint to the DoJ before everyone here can admit that you've been sold down the river?
I dunno, how many MAFIAA lawyers has he appointed out of the total appointed?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama did not create the job, it was created before he was elected by a bill passed by congress. [npr.org]
According to the very link you provide the bill didn't create a czar: "In fact, the House version of the bill did call the position a czar, but it was taken out in conference." If it wasn't there then since Obama is appointing one he did create it. As for how he voted on the bill in the senate, I couldn't find out however Biden his VP is a big supporter of the MP/RIAA.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
According to the very link you provide the bill didn't create a czar
Big deal, its the same job. A turd by any other name...
I couldn't find out however Biden his VP is a big supporter of the MP/RIAA.
Yes he is, probably the worst thing about having him as vp.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually find a kernel of hope in this particular deal, however. I'm hopeful that maybe the Obamas have realized that this is a sleeping dog issue, and maybe they're trying to figure it out now. That could take some time. I would like them to take their time to really understand the issues. They certainly haven't explored these issues too deepy in the past--but that was before
Re: (Score:2)
I actually find a kernel of hope in this particular deal
What deal, this treaty? Or appointing an IP czar?
I would like them to take their time to really understand the issues. They certainly haven't explored these issues too deepy in the past
The issues of IP has been studied. For instance here's a link to some Independent studies of Copyright Term Extension [google.com]. The Commission On Intellectual Property [iprcommission.org] has more. Amazon sells the book "Intellectual Property (Studies in International Economics) [amazon.com], published in 2
The New Way Around Pesky... (Score:5, Interesting)
...voting populations and legislative bodies.
Just sign a treaty that has many important-to-world-trade parts in the agreement, while also including what you're *really* seeking to put into law. With the other important stuff thrown in with the garbage in a take-it-or-leave-it treaty up-or-down vote, this puts a lot of pressure on legislative bodies to accept what they normally wouldn't for either ideological or re-election-fear reasons while giving them an "out" to deflect criticism from their constituents and opposition members.
It's small wonder they don't want to reveal anything about this treaty. That would simply give the various countries' legislative bodies and populations time to think about possible ramifications and ways to defeat it once they start to "get it" and realize what this may do to their freedoms and economies.
It's nearly the same game they play with domestic intelligence. It's generally illegal for a US agency to spy on US citizens without a warrant, but there's no law against the UK (for example) spying on US citizens and handing the info over to a US intelligence agency.
Basically it's using treaties and agreements with other nations as a way to get around domestic laws, controls, oversight, and the will of the citizens. It's what happens when governments get too large and powerful; they forget that they are the *servants*, NOT the masters.
I'm very afraid though that at this point, correcting this imbalance and returning the reins of the country's government and its' destiny back to the citizens will require much violence, chaos, and the blood of many patriots, as the citizenry has been asleep for far too long and allowed far too much encroachment of central government power over their lives. That powerful & greedy government will not relinquish any of its' wealth or power without a tremendous fight.
I fear we are cursed to live in "interesting times". I wonder if the guillotine of the French Revolution will make a comeback, and if it will be televised?
Strat
Re:The New Way Around Pesky... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do they rabidly want such control over thoughts, ideas, words?
Money. The US is losing ground on making physical things. Some of the few things that is left that the US actually makes is movies, tv shows, music and computer programs.
It shouldn't be surprising that the US is going to defend these things tooth and nail as very valuable and vital to the national interest.
Whether this is misguided or not, and whether the actions taken is not ethical is a different issue.
Treaties don't trump the Constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
The gist? Treaties don't trump the constitution. PJ summarizes thusly: "I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution."
What do you think of that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this article [groklaw.net] puts a finer point on it:
The gist? Treaties don't trump the constitution. PJ summarizes thusly: "I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution."
What do you think of that?
Given the USSC has yet to strike down any heavily backed corporate-engineered legislation (like those demanded by this "agreement") it's a safe bet the constitution means nothing but a red herring or object of jingoist stumping.
Eldridge vs ashcroft
Buckley v. Valeo
The souter eminent domain ruling
The betamax case, and subsequent reversal in MGM v grokster in particular illustrate starkly how the courts unwaveringly side with whoever has the most corporate power.
and end-run? (Score:3, Interesting)
ok, so we have our OWN end-runs.
you guys want an IP based battle (IP in both contexts) - you will SURELY LOSE.
we don't agree with 'your' rules and we have been doing our OWN end-run around you, fuck-heads.
so increase your 'surveillance'. we'll just up our arms race to match.
you won't win, you creepy government spooks. but if you really do need an arms race in encryption, bring it on!
(god, I hate this level of 'playing' but when they fuck with your freedom, you MUST fuck wtih them, back.)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that you are likely wrong. Very wrong.
The problem is that the masses are simply not equipped to fight this battle, assuming that you can find a group of people that can agree on what the battle is. I'd say for the largest group the battle is simply not having to pay anymore for what they want. And that is doomed.
You see, there is a temporary situation where people can use general-purpose computing devices to defeat the intent of content creators - the intent to get paid, that is. Seemingly,
Re: (Score:2)
Music in 2010 will be rare and pretty rough, sort of what you expect on the first couple of episodes of American Idol.
It'll take longer than 2010, but music will be high quality, diverse, more plentiful than it has ever been, and completely free. Rather than a few hundred (at the outside) millionaire musicians, we'll have tens of thousands of musicians making a good white collar-level living performing live shows while distributing their recordings for free as advertising. Very few of them will get rich, but many, many more people who would love to make a living with their musical talents will be able to do so, and as a
Damn radicals (Score:3, Insightful)
...radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced...
Re: (Score:2)
...will bring on radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are broken...
+1 if I had mod points.
As many will point out, you cannot suddenly decide to install regulated borders in a massive global network that so far has developed without meaningful borders.
If ACTA comes to pass, this may be the case. This is scary. Of course any attempt at putting up walls around the internet with interception and monitoring of traffic, will be initially trivial to circumvent with encryption and tunneling traffic and even more advanced P2P. This is already coming to pass.
Now this i
Is this America? (Score:3, Insightful)
"We are very disappointed with the USTR's decision to continue to withhold these documents The president promised an open and transparent administration," said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel.
So it looks like, if the government, even a new presidential administration in which some have hope, wants to keep the pesty people from derailing a law the administration likes, what it does is HIDE IT until it's too late for the people to be heard? Honest to God, is this America?
transparency in Government (Score:3, Insightful)
hold on a fucking second. (Score:2)
If this is solely about anti-counterfeiting, what does ISPs cancelling accounts for copyright infringement really have to do with that?
first, intellectual property is not really adequately covered by copyright.
second, stopping people from making and selling counterfeit merchandise is really more of a police effort, not a treaty effort.
What will a treaty do to stop criminals from downloading music online and burning massive quantities of discs to be sold at market?
They are most likely using an ISP which does
wikileaks has a draft (Score:2)
The assault continues . . . (Score:2)
I had ZERO hope that the Obama administration would do anything positive with regard to civil liberties, but I thought we might at least get a short breather. Instead, the all-out assault continues, and is even accelerating. Remember that a treaty only needs ratification by the U.S. Senate. The government is trying to do an end-run around The Constitution with this "ACTA" treaty. They're trying to do the exact same thing to get back door gun control established with "CIFTA"(some Spanish acronym about we
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans = Less govt = Less social benefits for citizens
When was the last time that Republicans ever brought about less government? 50 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Funny... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's definitely a difference between Dems and Reps. The Dems will openly tell you that they think a bigger government will solve our problems, and when in power, they increase the power of government. The Reps, on the other hand, will openly tell you that the government needs to be smaller and less intrusive, but when in power, they increase the power of government.
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're a bit off.
Dems == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on citizens via social programs]
Reps == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on business via defense programs].
Please note that "defense programs" includes things like war.
Re:Funny... (Score:4, Insightful)
The two parties in this country are more alike than you think. And they both want more power and money in their pockets than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats = More govt = More regulation of citizens
Republicans = Less govt = Less social benefits for citizens
This is wrong, this is how they really are:
Democrats = more socialist programs and regulations.
Republicans = more military and police, plus controlling people's private lives.
Both Dems and Reps want bigger government, the only thing different is what part of government is bigger. Republicans haven't been for smaller government since before Nixon. Democrats haven't been for small government maybe
Re:filed suit in September of 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank you, Mr. President. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I'm truly amazed that the invasion of personal freedoms in the UK and US have gone as far as they have as fast as they have.
Its only to be expected. People are wanting to sacrifice personal liberty for "safety" safety for what they don't know though. People always think its not going to happen to them. They see a few college kids get busted for using P2P to download music at college, they figure, its not going to happen to me because I'm not on a college network. They see a single mother get sued for using P2P to download new, popular music, they figure its not going to happen to me because I only download obscure '70s hits an
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking the wrong people. Ask the phone companies who are still complicit in their active warrantless wiretap program. (Did anyone say it stopped or that it would be stopped?)
Thank you, Congress, the Courts, and Mr. President (Score:2)
Why does anyone think its not done on our phone lines? Weren't the telcos just give retroactive immunity for this last year? Didn't the Feds prosecute and jail the only telco head who refused to co-operate?
They are boiling the frog slowly. At some point it will be said that "people who have nothing to hide" don't need curtains, later that they should not object to having cameras in every room in the house ( a la 1984). Then these things wi
Re: (Score:2)
They would say, "I'm not saying or doing anything illegal, so why should I care if they listen in on me? They can probably capture more terrorists and criminals by doing this. I have nothing to hide." Most people don't understand our civil rights and why they are important.