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."
Is Kirk hinting to us? (Score:5, Interesting)
Walking away from the table (Score:5, Interesting)
Should all treaties be public? (Score:2, Interesting)
Should any draft treaty in Copenhagen be published as it goes, along with all views from all the parties and what they are willing to agree to or not through the negotiations?
As in any other area of life, this is yet another example of "when you want something then create moral laws that give it to you, but when those laws don't work in your favour then forget them".
Down with the Government (Score:4, Interesting)
I am an American Citizen. Not a taxpayer. Not a consumer. A citizen.
My government no longer has my consent to government. I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.
I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.
The only way this kind of stupidity and evil will end is with revolution. From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants, or however the exact original goes.
The Government's only purpose is to serve the people, to do for them what they as individuals cannot do for themselves: Infrastructure, Sanitation, Hospitals, and Emergency Services springing immediately to mind.
The Government of the United States has increasingly grown bloated, incompetent, and has increasingly sold out the rights of its Citizens to corporate interests.
We were once the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Now we are the land of timid sheep, beholden to our corporate masters, constantly sacrificing our necessary freedoms to protect Children who would better be protected by their parents actually doing their job and parenting, and to protect us from Foreign threats caused by our own meddling in the affairs of other nations.
It's time to realize that the problem is not whether the politician in the White House is Black or White, Male or Female, Democrat or Republican or Independent.
The problem is that there is a politician in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty.
We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation: The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.
Down with the Tyrants.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to point out that if you are anyone other than a white male in this country, you currently enjoy far more freedom than at any point in our country's history.
We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation: The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The problem is that there is a politician in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty
The only president we've ever had who arguably wasn't a politician is, and this is just arguable, was George Washington. Everybody after him has been a politician.
No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.
Alright, this is NOT what the Founding Fathers believed in. If this is what you want, fine, I actually agree that ideally this should be the goal of our society (though I would add "harm another living thing unnecessarily"), but our Founding Fathers would NOT agree with this.
Re:Should all treaties be public? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Down with the Government (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the ready access to food with poor nutritional content is one of the primary problems with our current system. Getting food that is adapted to our current way of life requires significant income. Look at obesity among the lower class - it's even a problem in Latin America, where our corporations have convinced people that it's better to drink soft drinks than drink fruit juice from fruits plucked fresh off the vine.
If these companies lost their trademarks, it might be harder for them to run these ad campaigns touting the awesomeness of their flavored sugarwater.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately this is a completely wrong measuring stick. By this metrics, one could claim that Roman Empire was "working" just peachy (just as long as you were not a slave or somehow crossed the rich and important), as any and every medieval tin-pot kingdom (just as long as you were nobility), all the way to Nazi Germany (as long as you were Arian and did not oppose the Fascists), Soviet Union (as long as you were not a dissident) ... and the USA (as long as you were not a slave, a Native and as long as there is enough foreigners to get fleeced/invaded/robbed to keep your show going).
In fact every despotic nation in history could claim the same you do at one time or another (usually at the apex of pillaging conquests of other nations, be it military or economic), that people in it had "plenty to eat". As a matter of fact, Iran and China can make the same claim today - clean water and food are available to pretty much everyone in both.
Re:Is Kirk hinting to us? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
It's not that they think we are stupid, it's that the Slashdot crowd is dumb as shit and doesn't even know it.
The statute they cited offers two reasons to rebuff an FOIA request:
The first is national defense, obviously that does not apply.
The second is foreign policy concerns, however since this is an... international... treaty... oh shit, fuck me! An international treaty would be a foreign policy concern!
Good god you people are stupid.
What I find interesting is how Obama promised the most transparent government to date, and yet for all the things that really matter (and I don't mean copyright, that's really pretty low on the list, but it is indicative of the problem) things seem to be as opaque as ever, maybe even more than ever. Health Care? All backroom dealings, even Congressmen hardly got a chance to read it, fat chance for the American people. "Give 'em some pie charts, that'll make 'em happy! See! Pie charts! We're transparent!"
Obama may be 100 times better at public speaking than Bush (that's being kind to Bush), but he isn't exactly running rings around Bush when it comes to running the country. All we've had so far are lies and broken promises. Sure gives you a lot of hope, doesn't it?
Re:F*CKING BUSH!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The only difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain is up front with his tactics; Obama just flat out lied.
Balance (Score:2, Interesting)
There seems to be several issues here:
1) they say they keep it secret to make sure it gets passed.
2) but this has big problems that it denies the ordinary people who will need to follow the law a chance to tell what they think of it _before_ it gets passed.
3) in ideal world the people making decisions have done their homework and asked ordinary people and _all_ interest groups what they think of the law. This should be easy to implement via internet.
The secrecy is not a good thing. How can they decide who is worthy enough to modify the text of it?
Re:White Male Land-owners? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
And yet, almost all of them seem to agree to limit their votes to two parties.
Re:Well then (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Time-Warner gets to vote for ALL the Senators, all the congressmen, and all their opponents.
Then maybe the time has come for the People to rise-up an cut off the Tyrant(s)' Head. No more peaceful protests with waving sings; they don't do any good. Time to scare the ____ out of the CEOs, and take back what is ours
Re:Corporate Armies (Score:4, Interesting)
The "private army" idea came about as part of the "peace dividend" for the most part. The US Army was pretty famous for an extremely high ratio of support personnel vs. guys with guns. The ratio following WW II was claimed to be as high as 12 to 1. Yes, this meant that for every one man with a gun facing the enemy there were 12 supply sergents, cooks, laundry people, etc. Somewhat absurd.
Well, with the cracking of the "peace dividend" it was decided that while these people were necessary it was no longer reasonable to have them as part of the direct US Army (or other branch of the services). So these were moved to being "civilian jobs" on military bases. This greatly reduced the military headcount and made things look much better come budget time. The only problem, of course, was that they continued the cuts down to base security and every detail that could possibly be done by someone other than uniformed military.
With the Iraq War, Version 1, we have the silly situation of there simply not being enough cooks, laundry staff, supply sergents, potato peelers, etc. Unlike around a military base in the US, hiring local Saudi staff was out of the question. Contractors to the rescue! All of this was "outsourced".
Come Iraq War, Version 2 we now have the need for sentries at gates. Can we increase the military headcount for this purpose? No. So now we have contractors with guns standing sentry duty. Security details for Iraqis was next. It all makes sense, in an odd twisted way once you understand how we got there. And for the most part, it was all a budget dodge and something that was supposed to make us believe the military was leaner, cheaper and more adapted to the post-Cold War era. In reality, nothing much has changed and the military is the same size it was.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.
The government is not some strange alien entity living in Washington. The government is made of people.
Corporations are not faceless office blocks full of hive drones. Corporations are made of people.
There is no them vs. us. There's just us. If you believe otherwise, then you have missed what democracy is all about.
You have a problem with the way the government behaves? Well, you elected them, which makes it your fault. You participated in the democratic process, which means that 1/500e6th of the government's behaviour is your responsibility. You don't like the country largely being run by corporations? Well, you chose for the economy to work in such a way that 1000 people working together have more than 1000 times the influence of one person working alone. It's easy to whine about the Man keeping you down. It's less easy to realise that you are the Man.
You live in a democracy. You chose your government. In about three years you'll have a chance to choose again.
Choose differently.
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not the status quo. This fact is critical for context.
Read the discussion on boingboing [boingboing.net], where you'll find a conversation with both Cory Doctorow and the author. This negotiation is a departure from the norm, and it is precisely due to the trouble that people like Doctorow caused the last time around, afaict.
Re:Fixing the quote... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, we have now pretty much reached the point where everyone pirates. Why not? You can't be caught - unless you are silly and decide to redistribute. Or try making an example out of yourself. Yes, trying to make a civil lawsuit into a political statement using university professors as defense counsel is probably a mistake.
The end result is that recorded music used to have value and today does not. Certainly not the value it once had. And in a few more years will clearly have zero value - because nobody will pay for it. Movies probably aren't too far behind unless something drastic changes. Software still has some clarity between "legit" and "pirated", but how much longer will that really stand? The BSA can't really enforce copyright on all software, only selected folks.
Look at it this way. If there is no clear distinction between free, pirates goods and expensive, licensed goods - and I believe there is none in nearly everyone's mind under 30 years of age - we have succeeded in taking a big stack of music, movies, books and software and transforming it from a thing of value into a thing with no value. In the US alone we are talking about billions of dollars a year going up in smoke.
Right now, there is nothing to suggest the pirates aren't going to win a complete victory. We have been training an entire generation that if it can be found on the Internet then it ought to be free. And if it isn't free at www.aaa.com but is at www.bbb.com there is nothing wrong with going to www.bbb.com and taking it. That pretty much describes the current P2P scene in a nutshell.
Today, the US and most of Western Europe are pretty much powerless to do anything about digital goods offered from folks based in Eastern Europe or Russia. So these are "safe havens" for distribution. Even some places in Western Europe have decided to turn a blind eye towards certain types of piracy.
If this continues, there will be global economic consequences. The "try before buying" idea is a joke. If I download a movie, watch it and delete it, why would I buy it? I saw it already. Same goes for just about everything else. The biggest thing the governments are worried about is not the billions (or tens or hundreds of billions) in lost revenue to companies but instead the billions lost in tax revenues from the sales of these products. Moving to an environment where entertainment is "user created" for free should be very frightening to governments as it means a huge reduction in tax revenues.
So in some ways, this can be thought of as being for the benefit of all society. Because the alternative is governments figuring out how to raise the same revenue in other ways. And don't think they won't be trying to get just a little bit extra while they are at it. In the US we are likely to be seeing 60% tax rates soon. For places like Canada and Sweden where they already have tax rates like that, look for 70% and 80% rates. Because entertainment is a huge chunk of everyone's economy and while entertainment may still exist in a zero-revenue environment, the taxes from it will be replaced. Somehow.
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Er, my impression has been that the secrecy around the treaty has been at the behest of the US government, and not countries like China (who don't believe in openness, but don't give two shits about protecting American copyrights, three-strikes laws, and DMCA style provisions).
This has been kept quiet because if all the details were leaked, the people of the "open" countries would shit a brick, and presumably start turfing out governments come election time.
Re:From the actual law... (Score:2, Interesting)
Still failing to see where 'Copyright, anti-circumvention and DMCA (a U.S. only act, afaik)' has grounds ' in the interest of national defense or foreign policy'. Then again I'm a free thought advocate.
Basically, the lot of us, internationally speaking, are being taken over the barrel at the behest of the Copyright Cartels. I have to wonder where the tipping point is when retribution moves from the electronic playground into physical beatings, or worse.
Think about it. Pretty soon posts to Internet forums will be shrouded in double-speak, misdirection. A language completely dissolved of comprehensible meaning, and thoroughly reviewed by an Association, Bureau, or Committee.
Re:Down with the Government (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't completely unheard of in a modern democracy. You might like to look at the poll tax riots [wikipedia.org] in the UK in 1990. Not only were there numerous protests, so many people refused to pay the tax that it cost the government more money to collect it (including jailing a number of people - including one MP - who refused to pay) than they received in income. It's important to note, however, that a few people refusing to pay tax does nothing. The poll tax was abolished because around a quarter of the population refused to pay. If only a few tens of thousand had refused, they'd simply have been arrested and imprisoned.
If you want something fairer, then the first step might be campaigning to remove the power of enforcement from tax authorities and adopting the Swiss system. In Switzerland, the government is treated as any other creditor and must pursue tax defaulters through the civil court system.
National Security??? (Score:2, Interesting)