Ambassador Claims ACTA Secrecy Necessary 407
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of US Trade Representatives, the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy, people would be 'walking away from the table.' If you don't remember, that treaty is the one where leaks indicate that it may contain all sorts of provisions for online copyright enforcement, like a global DMCA with takedown and anti-circumvention restrictions, three-strikes laws to terminate offending internet connections, and copyright cops. FOIA requests for the treaty text have been rebuffed over alleged 'national security' concerns. One can only hope that what he has said is true and that sites like Wikileaks will help tear down the veil of secrecy behind which they're negotiating our future."
The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
ACTA secrecy needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise people would know the extent and bounds of the laws, and avoid breaking them.
Police states need lots of secret laws.
Well then (Score:5, Insightful)
If the contents of this treaty are so abhorrent that politicians cannot survive being associated with it, then that seems like a great reason why everyone should walk away from the table.
What else scurries when the lights are turned on? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people will walk away from the table if they become associated with the effort, then what does it tell you about the effort?
It tells me that ACTA is something that companies want to increase their profits without the bad publicity of trying to throw their "customers" in jail.
Perhaps it's better if we stopped the charade here.
Re:Well then (Score:5, Insightful)
What do the negotiations matter? The politicians, or most of them, aren't usually involved in negotiations anyways. What counts is the ratification. That's where the politicians wear it.
ACTA may be the worst thing to come along... or not. We will all find out when our national governments begin debates on it. That will suck if you live in a place like China, where the technocrats will decide, but in places like the US and Europe, well, those are democracies states, and there will be debates. But negotiations have to have a certain amount of privacy and autonomy. How else would you even reach agreement?
Re:Down with the Government (Score:4, Insightful)
agreed with all you said.
we need more people to see thru the 'BS cloud'.
we need democracy 2.0. 1.0 is bug ridden and ceases to function, at this point. the only thing working IN favor of government is that they're too large to really do the evil they want to do, effectively. imagine the harm this government could do if they really had their act together? scary!
sadly, I don't expect a revolution in our lifetime timeframe. we would have to hit rock-bottom for americans to take to the streets. we've been softened by TV and 'gaming' and other distractions for a long time. we would not know what it means to 'take to the streets' and those in power know this and depend on it.
our system sort of worked about 200 yrs ago. its not at all working now. the sooner we re-invent ourselves, the better. but again, it won't happen because - just because ;(
Re:Should all treaties be public? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, treaties concerning the military powers should be secret, except of the most general gist ("we are cooperating", "we have a non-aggression pact" and such.)
But this is a treaty about the fucking entertainment industry. Using the "national security" excuse here is a sign of the absolute abuse of power.
Re:Walking away from the table (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is Kirk hinting to us? (Score:4, Insightful)
If he really wanted it to survive, you'd assume he'd be a tiny bit more subtle than, "If this shit is known, this treaty is fucked."
Can't get your way? Lie. That's what sociopaths are supposed to do, isn't it? How in the hell could copyright have anything whatever to do with national security?
How stupid do they think we are?
Hard to see the redeeming qualities (Score:5, Insightful)
However, everything I've heard about it, admittedly "leaked", is terrible. They're using the secrecy of the process to hide the severeness of the treaty rather than "working out the kinks". Also, the treaty seems very much focused on protecting America's corporate copyrighted interests rather than respecting the authors and the people who use the author's works. This is a huge opportunity to fix our system, but instead it's being used to make everyone else's more broken.
White Male Land-owners? (Score:5, Insightful)
It worked because 200 years ago the only people who had say in gov't were wealthy white land owning men. A fairly homogeneous class that didn't have too many internal divisions. Now-a-days we have a huge spectrum of voters which makes it much harder to agree on anything.
Most of these ideas will pass (Score:3, Insightful)
... and though most of us won't want it, most of us won't really do or say anything until our friends, family, and selves, are spending time in jail or paying huge fines for actions we generally thought were harmless.
Like the opinion machine on TV is gonna spin it any other way than 'we need it, you just don't know it'.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:5, Insightful)
America has problems, but to spout revolutionary rhetoric over copyright laws is just as silly as the mountain men in Montana holed up with 100s of guns and 10 years of canned food. It's just that, rhetoric. Stop being an ostrich, a sheep - get involved, get your friends involved. Let your elected officials know exactly how you feel. You are but one voice, but one voice among many - motivate them.
Politics isn't just for the politicians, you know.
Corporate lobbyists public ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, so the text *is* shown to corporate lobbyists, but *not* to the public?
He's worried about people walking away from the table? No kidding. People *should* walk away from such a table!
Indefensible (Score:3, Insightful)
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.
George Orwell
Secrecy is necessary to plan the indefensible; what's rare is the Ambassador's honesty in admitting it.
Except in the US ACTA does not have to be ratified (Score:5, Insightful)
What do the negotiations matter? The politicians, or most of them, aren't usually involved in negotiations anyways. What counts is the ratification. That's where the politicians wear it.
Well, ratification would count, except that in the U.S., ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, and thus doesn't require ratification by Congress.
A few Congresspeople have sent a letter to Obama expressing their concern over the secrecy of the treaty, but others are just parroting the line about protecting American business and innovation, etc.
I agree there are good reasons for some negotiations to be kept private, then ratified later. However, when there is no ratification, the negotiation is entirely secret and simply presented to us as a fait accompli, where is the opportunity for public involvement and comment?
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, since we're talking about the entertainment industry, it's obviously National Security theater.
In other words, it's bullshit spouted by pathological liars.
Re:Well then (Score:3, Insightful)
How else would you even reach agreement?
Have something agreeable to agree on.
Re:Well then (Score:4, Insightful)
What do the negotiations matter?
Because that is where the treaty is constructed. Ratification can potentially occur without substantial debate. The sooner that the details of the treaty are known, the better the terms in my view.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody will revolt as long as food, shelter, television and mind altering drugs are cheap and widely available. Even in places like Haiti, which has much worse conditions than the USA, no significant part of the population is revolting.
That being said, I'm skeptical that our new soviet planners in the Congress of Goldman Sachs can continue that happy situation indefinitely. Central economic planning tends to fail eventually.
Sounds like a lot of bad ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
I just wrote the President, I urge you to do the same. I think they deserve to get slashdotted in that way. Tell them what you think and that there Is interest in the topic and that you have an opinion. Then they have some more information on which to base a decision, especially when you think that this is an issue that effects all the people.
What I am concerned about is that this looks like an end run by another group that was seeking net non-neutrality. In this case the corporate owners of copyrights, here we know that it is not the singer song writter (like it ever was) that is being effected, or for that matter consulted. It appears as though big corporations, I suspect news and entertainment are a big part of it as well as software companies. That want to get a hand on the internet spigot to have prior-constraint control over information especiall information they feel they own. But then I suspect a handful of countries would love to have access to request internet connection be broken for filtered if they think the message is not what they want. That is being done in China now certainly and the some Middle Eastern countries. That is not a good trend. It would be like only being allowed to listen to Fox news all day, is it really fair and balanced and calling it news might be a stretch. And it is a small step from corporate control to a corporate state (or one that is corporate controlled).
The key here is the controls that are being hinted at may not be in the countries , or the worlds best interest. We need to know what they are contemplating before we as a people are committed to an action that effects our information infrastructure. We own it, not them. They forget that sometimes.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble with Democracy 2.0 is that it will be designed with "Rights Management." May as well call it "Government Vista."
Re:The question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
When the state considers its citizens the enemy, treaties like this are kept secret for "national security" reasons from the "enemy" that is to say the public, not other states.
Re:ACTA secrecy needed (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't need to be secret ; they just need to be complex and numerous. You and I probably already broke several laws today, without realising it. Unhappily for us, ignorance is not a defence.
A state that keeps it's law secret wouldn't be bothered about due process either - because they couldn't try these cases in the open, for fear of revealing these laws. At this point, you're just disappearing people you don't like, so you don't need laws, secret or otherwise. The one law becomes "don't piss off The Man".
Of course, there is a point where you just have the appearance of justice. Perhaps we're approaching it. Perhaps we've passed it.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, you seem to have missed the entire point.
If you are merely satisfied with having enough calories per day and enough clean water to continue surviving, that's fine. Some of us, however, feel that more than mere physical necessities are necessary for our happiness. Free discourse, without threat of retribution or harm, the freedom to travel as we see fit without the Government saying who may or may not go where based on how politically 'risky' they may be (as the TSA watch-list brings back memories of McCarthy era communist-blacklists), and the ability to be allowed to live our lives in peace so long as we harm no one.
The Government may not punish us for what we may do. It may only punish for what we have done. You cannot lock a man up on suspicion of likelihood of his committing murder, only once he has in fact attempted or committed said murder.
The attitude of the common people, the faex populi, is that security can be purchased. We have been lulled into believing that the world can be made 'safe.' Life in inherently unsafe. Being 'free' means that you give up security.
We are coming all too quickly to a nation where papers are required to move about, where every single aspect of our lives is monitored by the Government for 'suspect' information exchange, and where we, Human Beings, are being treated as commodities and resources to be traded, purchased, and sold, instead of being treated as Human Beings, with inherent dignity and with respect afforded to us.
One need look no further than any modern corporation and its "Human Resources" department to see this mindset. I am not a resource. I am a human being. We have been desensitised to the callous manner in which we commonly treat each other. We have lost, as a nation, the concept of personal responsibility for our actions. There is always someone to blame.
The death of Democracy (which we are, in fact, not -- we are a representative republic) is that of scapegoating.
The People want their bread and circuses. They want someone to blame when things seem bad, be it the Anarchists, the Communists, the Pinko-Commie-Sympathisers in Hollywood, the Hippies, the Socialists, the Terrorists. These targets are paraded in front of the people to drum up the necessary excuse for the acquisition of greater and greater power by the Government. The Government does not need to read my e-mail, or tell me what weapons I may and may not own. If people truly wanted to be safe from gun-totting madmen, the easiest way to do so would to arm everyone so that as soon as a man opened fire on a crowd, everyone in that crowd would be able to respond in kind.
If people truly cared about the lives and living conditions of prostitutes/sex-workers, they would legalise prostitution so that pimps cannot beat their girls without fear of the girls going to the police, so that prostitutes would not be raped in back alleys because their trade would take place in safety and not in secret.
The right to swing one's fist ends where the other man's nose begins. Likewise, the right to dictate correct behaviour ends where your body ends. Murder is not a curtailment of one's freedom (as something being illegal does not stop anyone from doing it), but is a protection of the freedom of others to remain unmolested in their person.
You, and the people like you, are what have driven this country to the dire straits it is in. Government is not a good, sir. It is a necessary evil. It must necessarily, therefore, be kept as small, impotent, and powerless as it can be.
We need no great standing army to defend our nation. If every man and woman who has reached the age of majority was required, as in at least one country I can think of, to keep in their home a fully automatic military weapon, then any invading force would be met with resistance the likes of which our standing army with its tanks and planes and bombs could not match.
The only true way to security is through freedom -- the freedom of the
Re:Is Kirk hinting to us? (Score:4, Insightful)
Very. For the most part they'd be right.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:1, Insightful)
really, you get free clean water? I have to pay for mine. Seriously. I get a bill every month and if I don't pay it, my source of clean potable water gets shut off.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:3, Insightful)
America has problems, but to spout revolutionary rhetoric over copyright laws is just as silly
and until they come for YOU (by mistake or othewise) things are just Fine and Dandy(tm), yeah?
let me guess, you're a 20something who thinks things are 'just fine'.
wait until you see a bit more of the world and its reality. the time to worry about our trend is now, not later.
but I see your point; you have enough NOW to eat and your TV has not shut itself off and your gaming console still works. you have a mall to go to each weekend and your parent's basement has not rejected you, yet. life is great. why complain?
(grow up! this isn't about copyright, its about FAR reaching things. can't you see that? guess not.)
Re:Well then (Score:5, Insightful)
You're either joking, or you wear rose colored glasses.
That will suck if you live in a place like China, where the technocrats will decide, but in places like the US and Europe, well, those are democracies states, and there will be debates
Yeah, like the debates on the PATRIOT act, the Bono act, the DMCA? Dream on, son. Your vote is meaningless. You have two Senators and one representative you can vote for, Time-Warner gets to vote for ALL the Senators, all the congressmen, and all their opponents.
Debate? Yeah, I liked the debates I heard between all five viable* Presidential candidates last election. Oh wait...
* Five parties had their candidates on the ballots in enough states to win, had those candidates actually been reported by the corporate media. Most people think they only have two choices and that a vote for anyone else is wasted, thanks to corporate propaganda spewed by corporate media.
Re:ACTA secrecy needed (Score:3, Insightful)
With the ability to fabricate arbitrary evidence, the laws need not be secret. The scary thing about a police state isn't that people disappear without explanation...it's that explanation is manufactured upon demand.
Re:Should all treaties be public? (Score:4, Insightful)
But Copenhagen still would be public
Sounds great to me.
Do you have additional changes to the moral law of publication that would encompass Copenhagen?
Why would we want to?
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On the Obama bit (Score:5, Insightful)
But I suppose you have to slam the black man, in case he slams your women, huh?
Typical, someone raises a question about what the government is doing, but because the president is black then anybody who questions him must be racist right? "You're a racist" is such an effective way to censor people these days.
I hope you recognize the irony of just how incredibly racist it is to call "racism" when nothing racist was even hinted at.
Asshole.
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
(from the quote)
confidentiality in international negotiations among sovereign entities is the standard practice to enable officials to engage in frank exchanges of views, positions, and specific negotiating proposals
So in other words, they feel comfortable talking frankly and freely with other nation's representatives and the representatives of corporations, but not their voters?
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Re:Down with the Government (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh please.
I'm a decade past being a 20something. I know things aren't "just fine". But there's a profound difference between "we have problems" and "we have problems so bad we should scuttle the whole thing". Having a functioning infrastructure is a huge accomplishment, and if you've seen what it's like in countries that don't have that, you would be more appreciative. Plus, rosy nostalgia aside, this country (the US), like all others, has had waxing and waning authoritarianism for decades. Or are you ignorant of internment camps, McCarthyism, union busting, etc.?
The real problem here is that the people as a whole have abdicated their responsibility as citizens, either by completely ignoring the problem except on voting day (at best), or by spouting revolutionary rhetoric. Nobody wants to do what is ACTUALLY necessary, i.e., getting their hands dirty in the political process, with the full understanding that they may see little if any direct result. When you have a field full of garbage, picking up one piece won't make a noticeable impact, but over time and with enough people doing it, it's how you clean up your messes. "It's hopeless, I give up" is a fundamentally lazy and cowardly position.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:5, Insightful)
While I do agree with many of your sentiments, technology has rendered the citizen-militia / obscenely-funded-military balance untenable. Other nations can muster weapons of such power that assault rifles become a laughable response. Your assumption that an invader has to occupy - and therefore engage in the kind of warfare which USA is waging in Iraq - is false (also note that even though Iraqis had a lot of AK-47s in pretty much every house, their "liberation" was crammed down their throats despite of that, with millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed). I case of vast riches hoarded by a population armed only with anti-personnel weapons, a nation-state enemy has only to employ a sufficiently powerful WMD system with reasonably short lived post-effects. Then there are also issues of naval blockades etc.
So clearly something beyond the home-kept assault rifles and RPGs is required.
Re:The question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
You make the presumption they all have voters.
The sad thing about foreign policy is that it's a game that sometimes it's hard to get players for. While there's certainly an argument that the US position should be made public to the US voters, if the US government made the position of say the Chinese or the Russian or whoever the hell else is at this thing's position public to the US voters, the leaders of those countries might refuse to continue negotiations.
If you're a typical "Information wants to be free" type you might think that this is a good thing because ACTA can only be bad from your perspective, and you might be right. The point is though that opening the doors on international negotiations is a tricky business. Asking for transparency from your own government is one thing, but asking for it from someone else's is a horse of a different colour. Personally I'd like to know what my government is asking for and what they're giving up to get it, but I don't really have the right to ask for that for someone else's government. Openness in politics would be nice, but it's really not completely realistic, even at the national level, forget when you've got a dozen different countries with differing agendas arguing with each other.
Who will ACTA benefit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly not me.
Re:What IP is it trying to protect exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are pretty close to the mark.
Empires of Earth developed and evolved and eventually moved into an "economy based economy" and that's when their empires eventually fall -- people realize that it's a house of cards at that point... an economy that works only when people are in a "good mood."
Now we, in the U.S., are essentially at that point -- an economy based economy that only works when people are not panicking or doubting that the system actually works. (People who are paying close attention to the economic crisis must realize by now that the market is based on the mood of the traders...more specifically, that selling is better than buying at the moment.) So what do we do when the bottom is about to fall out of this economy based economy? Make laws to protect and support it of course!
I have an unlimited supply of data. I can copy and copy and copy it without loss or error. How can I get people to pay me for it? Make it illegal to do otherwise of course!
We are nearing a breaking point. What happens when things break? Who knows. But whether or not such treaties and supporting laws are passed, we will see the break.
Let them discuss this in secret.. (90 day penalty) (Score:3, Insightful)
We will lobby Congress to keep this law in the penalty box for 90 days (one senator on a filibuster) once it is revealed so that the layperson can review it.
Re:The question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because one countries starting position is so ridiculous, it's embarrassing for other countries to be seen even acknowledging it.
Re:The question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with negociating publicly is it will push some parties to do some public statement to their countries: for example, saying that they will never approve X or that they will fight for Y. Pure human psychology, it seems that when you declare publicly something it is kind of hard to publicly switch your position. It makes you look weak. So keeping stuff secret, especially at international level, is certainly helping - as it would help at every level.
The real problem is not that the negociations are done in secret, it shouldn't be: in theory you sent there people you trust, elected representative
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a lot of bad ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
And it is a small step from corporate control to a corporate state (or one that is corporate controlled).
There can be no doubt that Americans are already living in a corporate-controlled state. Sure, elections are held, but it's nigh on impossible to get elected to high office (U.S. House, Senate, President) without enormous political "contributions" from corporate coffers. How many times have we heard the old trope about "protecting American businesses" from our elected officials? Indeed, they've said it so many times that people actually *believe* businesses need protection rather than the other way 'round. However you feel about the healthcare debate, or the TARP bail-outs (too big to fail? WTF!?!), or no-bid defense contracts, etc, one thing should be eminently clear to those on all sides: these days, it is impossible to tell where the government ends and the corporate board room begins.
Re:Is Kirk hinting to us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, the mortgage crisis was actually and primarily caused by the removal of the Glass–Steagall Act in the late 90s. Freddie and Fannie certainly played a part but without this act being removed, there wouldn't have been the mortgage security mess that ended up causing the crisis in the first place. No investment banks merging with real banks to create the massively screwed up financial instruments nobody understood. And of course you had Dubya (and everybody else) massively encouraging loans for everybody. Almost the definition of a perfect storm.
Single payer healthcare would in fact SAVE the country money. Even the completely stripped, watered down Bill currently in the Senate will save something like 600 BILLION dollars going forward. Imagine how much more it would save if we had actual health care reform and choices. Yet the Republicans are fighting giving people CHOICE. Funny they usually like the 'free market'.
I don't know that anyone promised anything like that unless you're talking Dubya who cut taxes by a TRILLION dollars and then started 2 wars that he wouldn't account for in the budget. Everything Obama has done has a plan to pay for it.
Last I checked, Iraq is doing well enough that we might actually get out earlier than planned. The GOP has harped on Obama precisely BECAUSE he is planning for our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Libertarian policy is putting your head in the sand. It works great until there are disagreements about who can take what resources. That's exactly what government is for. Anti-trust laws exist because the libertarian philosophy run amok. Monopolies need to be regulated hence the need for government.
You can claim less is better, but then you need to also claim that the most recent financial crisis was just 'works as designed'.
Re:The question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but international politics is no different from national politics,
Not really. Generally, Texans Senators re not worried that Californians are spying on them to steal trade secrets or are trying to use Austin as a beachhead for a full-blown invasion. This means that negotiations between national entities are far more complex: you know you can't be seen talking to the enemy, but at the same, you have to find a way to talk anyway. Why do you think that the Swiss Embassy is a popular stop-over for Iranian, Venezuelan and US officers?
Granted, your full quote makes sense - but unfortunately, there are a lot of forces at work in foreign relations that make secrecy a sine-qua-non condition for any talking happening at all. And I'd rather people talk than be forced out in the open and be silent.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:2, Insightful)
You're a patriotic cliche-spouting quack that would destroy society. So?
Sure, there are problems with corruption, much of it systemic. While you're calling it "stupidity and evil", other people are thinking about ways to fix it (try Lawrence Lessig, whose essays on corruption are quite insightful). Your notion of the state of things is deficient (Royalty? seriously? and our government actually does a lot of things pretty well), your notion of history is ignorant (the founding fathers had very serious disagreements with each other, had problems with corruption more severe than we have today, and the first government they made was even more lousy than the one we have today because it was far too decentralised).
A few criticisms of yours are appropriate, but what you want to do about them is utter rubbish.
Re:From the actual law... (Score:5, Insightful)
but it clearly means foreign policy in this instance.
And like most classified material it actually means 'in the interest of protecting the people involved from political embarrassment'.
But it's great way to launder policy; take an internal policy for which you have no democratic political support, push it in a secret international forum as 'foreign policy', then take it back home and adopt it, claiming it's an international treaty requirement. Great way to bypass any democratic forms.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that the second always disintegrates into the first, eventually. Of course, at some point the people rise up, throw off their overlords and for a brief period we have a situation where people are free and well off. But then, small groups begin to vie for power, and the people that just want to be left alone ignore them. We progress to the second stage, which leads to the first stage, which exists until the people rise up....
Re:The question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting, true, but (FTFA) ...
it was untrue that IPR negotiations are normally secret, mentioning as examples that drafts of the other IPR texts, including the proposed WIPO treaty for disabilities and the climate change agreement language on IPR, as well as several drafts of the FTAA text and the 1996 WIPO copyright treaties had been public. Kirk said that ACTA "was different" and the topics being negotiated in ACTA were "more complex."
Perhaps because instead of dealing with nations, they were dealing with corporations? "Corporate paymaster" tin hat comments aside, the corporations may simply not have as many cut-outs as they like in this discussion.
Don't imagine that even public sessions are innocent affairs [eff.org].
Re:Is Kirk hinting to us? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you "walk away from the table" if an international treaty was being drawn up that affected you? Maybe Mr. Kirk needs to call a bluff?
Government: "People are getting upset, we need to open up about what we are talking about"
Content Owners: "No! They aren't going to like it. You're only helping the pirates! Only the pirates would object! Whine! Whine! If you want to talk to them, then we'll just leave!
Government: "Crap! They said they would leave! Hush up! Down with the pirates!"
seriously...if someone would walk away from an agreement just because it is "out in the open" then they are either not representing their constituency or they are really able to gain a competitive advantage by screwing someone else. Everyone that matters would want a say regardless. International politics are not hard to understand - ever observed a kindergarten class?
Re:The question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad thing about foreign policy is that it's a game that sometimes it's hard to get players for. While there's certainly an argument that the US position should be made public to the US voters, if the US government made the position of say the Chinese or the Russian or whoever the hell else is at this thing's position public to the US voters, the leaders of those countries might refuse to continue negotiations.
GOOD! I'd rather it die here and now than become subject to a secret agreement. It's not like this is a disarmament negotiation where genuine issues of national security might be at stake.
Re:Welcome to the Brave New World! (Score:2, Insightful)
What better way to revive your failing business models than by destroying competition by using a Secret "Government" Treaty that you have funded?
Who can blame the bloated record companies and overpriced distribution companies pushing DRM compromised media?
After all it wasn't them that slammed a repressive set of draconian laws down on once-free countries! It was their pawns the Congress! It was their pawn Obama!
So hurry to buy the wares of these companies and blind your eyes to the "special" new prices that have sprung up overnight (and that is part of the plan).
It's all just a special deal to make bigger fortunes more quickly for the rich - presumably with our bewildered cooperation.
And of course Obama feels it's Change We Can Believe in! Gotta love that man.
Re:Hard to see the redeeming qualities (Score:3, Insightful)
News stories fall under copyright laws, so your ability to hear about the state of the world will be affected by ACTA. I'd say it's a very important, especially since we all know that people like Rupert Murdoch are intent on locking up information as tightly as possible to squeeze every last dime out of your pocket.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. Our system is "working" just fine. 95% of American's get plenty to eat (too much, including me). We get fresh clean water at a moments notice - even the poorest among us can get free clean water. We can even manage jobs for 30+ million illegal immigrants.
My cat gets plenty to eat, fresh clean water at a moments notice (she'll let you know). And, she has a "job" keeping rodents away. But... she desperately wants to go outside, and I won't let her. She doesn't have Freedom, she has creature comforts.
Re:Is Kirk hinting to us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, the mortgage crisis was actually and primarily caused by the removal of the Glass–Steagall Act in the late 90s.
Close. It was actually and primarily caused by the notion that we need a Federal Reserve Bank to specify what interest rates needs to be, and that this entity can use its discretion to artificially manipulate the world market. So while you're correct that deregulation was (and continues to be) an issue, it is the artificial manipulation that's actually to blame here. No entity - not even one as powerful as our government - can create money from thin air. It will all come due in the end, and it has to if the currency is to retain any value.
Even the completely stripped, watered down Bill currently in the Senate will save something like 600 BILLION dollars going forward.
Most of this money is 'savings' and 'cutting waste' which has absolutely zero connection to reform. These changes could, and should, be made IMMEDIATELY, with the discussion on reform a completely separate topic. Bills to that end have been floated and shot down principally because they remove this carrot from the package thus watering down the desire to undergo reform. Never mind how they're unconnected in any way, common sense need not apply.
Imagine how much more it would save if we had actual health care reform and choices.
Amen. Take for example a free market system without any insurance at all. We could simply adopt social security as the backdrop for those left destitute by illness and allow people to pay as they go for what they need, and for that alone. 'Reform' is actually doing the opposite by mandating not only carrying coverage but mandating both the features and (with a public option) the price. This cannot and will never work. It is positively incorrect to assume otherwise, and anyone with a high school education understands the economic reasons why this is doomed to fail.
Yet the Republicans are fighting giving people CHOICE. Funny they usually like the 'free market'.
Confusing 'Republicans' with 'Libertarians and Independents' is like claiming all Democrats work for Acorn, but these both fail a simple fact-check. Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same party with the only difference being which corporate interests hold power over them. They're both the 'Status Quo Party', and neither support any form of freedom in the market.
I don't know that anyone promised anything like that unless you're talking Dubya who cut taxes by a TRILLION dollars and then started 2 wars that he wouldn't account for in the budget.
The wars are wrong and need to stop immediately. More on that in a second.
I firmly believe that those who are rich and in power avoid their share of taxes anyway. It actually makes a lot of sense to allow them to prosper in the hopes their greed will be sated. Otherwise you have something similar to what we have where to ease their own suffering they slaughter the little guy's livelihood like so much chattel. I know of examples personally, and I'm willing to bet you do as well, where cuts are being made where executive bonuses are being held constant. More negative dollars against these people will result in more cuts for the little guy. These kinds of greedy bastards will likely never cut their own profits until their company goes under. Then, like robber barons of old, they use their wealth to start a new enterprise.
Everything Obama has done has a plan to pay for it
Obama is presiding over the largest deficit ever. The notion that he isn't making our debt worse is demonstrably false. Most wouldn't even make this claim. More popular is to blame the economic crisis and bailouts, etc. But to simply deny his involvement in this monumental deficit is almost a discussion-ender right there.
Last I checked, Iraq is doi
Re:Down with the Government (Score:3, Insightful)
No different than Adams and several other founding fathers.
Re:White Male Land-owners? (Score:3, Insightful)
No they don't. Look at turnout for US elections: apathy has had more votes than the winning party
A non-vote is a vote for the two ruling parties.
Re:Hard to see the redeeming qualities (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations.
That's not desirable at all.
Each nation should pursue the copyright policy, and enact the copyright laws, that serve its own people best. This could be no copyright, or minimal copyright, or broad copyright, depending on the circumstances of each particular country. The only international cooperation on copyright matters ought to be that various countries will work to ensure that whatever copyright laws, if any, each has, they are not mutually incompatible such that an author might have to choose between a copyright in Canada, or a copyright in China, being unable to get both due to some sort of technical issue.
In the US, we should only enact copyright laws when doing so will promote the progress of science more than if we did not enact them, and then only to the extent that we enjoy the greatest public benefit for Americans. This can include granting copyrights on works created by foreigners without concern for reciprocity by their country, since one of our goals is to encourage authors to create and publish works, wherever they're from, and wherever they are working.
There's no reason for laws to be uniform, and in any event, it has helped get copyright laws in the fucked up state they are in now, and the various international agreements on the matter are significant obstacles to reforming the laws so that they can best serve the public interest.
Other than some fetish for it, I just don't see why anyone would want uniformity anyway.
As for the treaty, the reason major copyright legislation is conducted by means of treaty, rather than in national legislatures, is so that there is no public debate. The representatives of the people never have an opportunity to work out the details of the treaty according to the interests of their constituents. Instead, executive branches agree to the treaty and either bind their countries to it directly, bypassing legislative bodies, or present it to the legislature as a fait accompli which cannot be altered and which has too much riding on it to be rejected.
It is profoundly anti-democratic, and should not be tolerated under any circumstance. Treaties negotiated and agreed too without being worked on publicly, and without the direct involvement of both executive and legislative branches of government should be routinely trashed as a matter of principle. There is no issue so important that the underhanded methods being used here would ever be acceptable.