Experts Say ACTA Threatens Public Interest 107
langelgjm writes "In the lead up to next week's Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations in Lucerne, a conference that drew over 90 academics and experts from six continents has released a statement issuing a harsh condemnation of both the substance and process of the agreement. Held last week at American University's Washington College of Law, the attendees say, 'We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.' The 'urgent communique' covers more than the usual ACTA topics of interest on Slashdot: in addition to the agreement's effect on the Internet, it also considers the effects on access to medicines, international trade, and developing countries. Meanwhile, Public Knowledge has an action alert where you can send a note to the White House expressing your opposition to ACTA."
Crazy radical extremists (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it isn't in the public interest (Score:5, Informative)
The question is not whether ACTA is in the public interest, but whether it's in the collective interest of those empowered to enact it. It's safe to assume that with the supporters of ACTA in control of a lot of cash and the majority of television airtime, the folks in power are very likely not giving a rat's behind what these professors and petitions are saying.
Re:developing countries will not just sit by and l (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not just experts (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not just experts (Score:1, Informative)
Not necessarily. Some of the bracketed text would require change in American law. So the Executive Treaty route might not be available. That is something that the Americans are fighting for, trying to ensure that the EU's proposals don't make it change US law.
getting pretty close to Tree-of-Liberty time (Score:4, Informative)
This kind of bullshit is not going to stop. It's going to get worse for the rest of our lives. Eventually, they will push it too far and all of these assholes are going to wake up with a rope around their neck and discover themselves dangling from the nearest tree. ACTA is a great symbol for everything that's wrong with this world, and exterminating every one of the parasites who is participating in it would definitely make the world a better place.
In the meantime, we get to watch as they chip away at our civil liberties and systematically corrupt and dismantle one of the best innovations the human race has come up with -- a giant network for the free exchange of information. Aren't we lucky, those of us who witnessed its creation and over the next 15 to 20 years are most probably going to witness its downfall too.
Re:The US is _designed_ as a socialist country (Score:3, Informative)
Remember for a moment that the word "socialist" wasn't coined until the early 1900's
Sorry to be splitting hairs, but that one is wrong. The word were used in the Communist Manifesto, written in 1847, and is likely a lot older. Indeed, wikipedia [wikipedia.org] suggests that it came into usage in the 1830s from the French word "socialime". The rest of your post is interesting.
Re:Is the End of Internet Liberty Coming Soon? (Score:2, Informative)
Is this a Socialist move? Yes, I believe it is because I believe that the current Administration has an undeniable Socialist bend, and an aspect of Socialist regimes is the clamping down on liberties.
I can't understand why so many americans are so fracking frenzy about socialism. No country is absolutely capitalist or socialist, and as long as the government has public bodies like the police, judges, teachers, firemen, soldiers etc, your country is at the same time capitalist AND socialist up to some degree.
ACTA has nothing to do with socialism, because not everything that is done in the name of a greater good is actually a good thing for the mayority. This is not socialism because it makes a few a lot richer. It looks like Fox News convinced you that socialism is the same as communism and all that is the demon you have to fight. Fight merciless corporations instead, man!
Re:Yes there is, it is called revolution (Score:1, Informative)
The US? Obama won? Bush won? Hardly. Both "victories" are well in the margin of counting errors and even then you are NOT counting the voters who didn't vote.
McCain would have needed 97 more electoral votes to win. I only see 53 Obama electoral votes that were close enough to be wrong due to counting errors. BTW, margin of error [wikipedia.org] is a term that only applies to sampling. Elections are full counting, so the margin of error is zero. Voters who didn't vote aren't voters, by definition. Which states adding up to >97 electoral votes do you think could be wrong due to counting error? Like it or not, Obama had a very clear victory.
Re:I think so (Score:3, Informative)
Fair enough, I accept the clarification.
it was aimed at sycraft_fu more than yourself. I just saw your comment about "we are smug, intelligent self-assured" and it seemed like a neat way to link in the point. I do think "we" are considerably more diverse than you give us credit for, but it was a bit of a cheap shot in your case, and for that I apologise.
And if he'd devoted equal effort to trying to expand the midset of the pro-ACTA lobby as well, then I'd probably agree with you. As it is I don't propose to know what he intended, which is one reason I called him on his post, but I think I had grounds enough for what I posted, thank you.
Perhaps I should have used "sarcasm" tags. It was an attempt to point out the absurdity of suggesting that someone someone's judgement was called into question by the lack of universal consensus on the subject. Because that would mean you could only logically be confident in your judgement if your opinion was universal; which in turn would require a judgement call that you're now not qualified to make ... and so you wind up needing some authority figure to tell you what everyone thinks so you can think it too. Maybe I tied to condense that down too much.
And again, if he'd applied it to both sides equally, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.
Or alternatively I might have just meant the sentence I quoted, you know? That is the convention, I believe.
He just seemed to advocating that anti-ACTA slashdotters etc etc etc. That's the point, really.