WSJ Says Pro-ACTA Forces Helped Drive Anti-ACTA Reactions 180
pbahra writes with commentary from the Wall Street Journal: "Europeans will take to the streets this weekend in protest at the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, an international agreement that has given birth to an ocean full of red herrings. That so many have spawned is, say critics, in no small part down to the way in which this most controversial of international agreements was drawn up. If the negotiating parties had set out to stoke the flames of Internet paranoia they could not have done a better job. Accepted there are two things that should never be seen being made in public—laws and sausages—the ACTA process could be a case study of how not to do it. Conducted in secret, with little information shared except a few leaked documents, the ACTA talks were even decried by those who were involved in them."
From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone is very keen on sharing until it is their stuff that is being shared.
I guess he has not heard of these people:
http://www.fsf.org/ [fsf.org]
Re:Leaked docs (Score:5, Informative)
It was also released on Pirate Bay, Wikileaks was not the only reason we know of it.
Re:FTFA (Score:4, Informative)
At least quote the whole paragraph, if nothing else it makes discussion *here* a whole lot easier.
“The agreement is seeking to address a number of very different issues of which some are serious problems of public health and public safety, for example trade in fake medicine,” Ms. Schaake said. “But that issue doesn’t compare to the alleged cost to society of online piracy. It seeks to kill 20 birds with one stone. It risks not solving the legitimate concerns but causing incredible collateral damage.”
I read this as indicating that both issues are simply in different leagues when it comes to importance. The phrasing "alleged cost [...] of online privacy" seems to indicate she sees the fake meds as much much more important and that she's worried that the inclusion of anti-piracy stuff is harming these legitimate concerns.
To give you a summary. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, the TFA is the Wall Street Journal, which is (now) owned by News Corp. You remember: Rupert Murdock's gang of yellow journalists, criminals and corrupt police officers.
The article basically bashes anything anti-ACTA while trying to sound neutral. For example, it quotes 2 scholars who say that ACTA is a good thing, while admitting that their some paranoia out their about ACTA.
The whole article basically starts off with the premise that "copyright" is real property and that copying real property is "theft":
If you say copying other people's copyright is an OK thing to do, then you are saying that theft is OK. Everyone is very keen on sharing until it is their stuff that is being shared.
It's a VERY one sided article that sounds like it was sponsored and supervised by Rupert Murdock himself.
Of course copyright is not necessarily a bad thing, but demonizing the opposition to copyright and to ACTA in particular just demonstrates how useless Rupert Murdock's brand of journalism is.
Helsinki protester checking in. (Score:5, Informative)
We're going to protest on Saturday, in Helsinki, in spite of the cold. I hope that there would be at least about a hundred people, but I might be pleasantly surprised.
At any rate, I'll be there: one day my son could ask me what did I do while they were trying to silence the internet - and I don't want to have to say that I was just sitting around. Even if it's a lost battle, I owe it to him.
Re:FTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Hijacking a brand name isn't the only problem with counterfeiting. Sometimes the knockoff products pose true safety hazards.
Re:This is one scary law (Score:4, Informative)
ah... you think the government has your best interest at heart.
They do, if you matter. Unfortunately, 99% of us don't.