Forgot your password?
Electronic Frontier Foundation Your Rights Online

Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions 136

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the they-just-never-give-up dept.
rrohbeck writes "From 'The shadow of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is back in Europe. It is disguised as CETA, the Canada-European Union and Trade Agreement. A comparison of the leaked draft Canada-EU agreement shows the treaty includes a number of the same controversial provisions, specifically concerning criminal enforcement, private enforcement by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and harsh damages.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions

Comments Filter:
  • You can't win... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun (571051) on Monday October 15, 2012 @08:22PM (#41664757)
    they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing. I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf, but who's got enough disposable income for even that. Basically, if you're rich enough to fight ACTA you're probably rich enough to a) not care and b) benefit.
  • by Mitreya (579078) < minus herbivore> on Monday October 15, 2012 @08:39PM (#41664833)

    It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote.

    Voting is a very delayed response mechanism. By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.

    We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence. So that X people sign a petition/vote and then the politician gets recalled and banned from running for a year

    Then those bastards would step carefully, at least on things that are universally hated.

  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Monday October 15, 2012 @09:28PM (#41665049) Journal

    By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.

    Why the hell are you waiting for the general election. You should be voting in the primaries, at least. Your rep doesn't vote the way you want? Deny him renomination for his party's slot on the ballot.

    If you're really serious, get involved in a party's other activities. Become an officer, a delegate, etc. And be aware that it's a WAR, not a bunch of nice people playing by the rules. You have to hold their feet to the fire at all stages.

  • Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday October 15, 2012 @09:42PM (#41665113)

    Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.

    And we haven't lost it. In fact, democracy is what has accelerated the problem: How many well-meaning lawmakers and citizens have clamored for "tougher laws" after a high-profile incident? Those tougher laws often remove critical elements of criminal law and due process, as well as tougher punishments under the (false) statement that it'll act as a deterrent. In truth, those tougher punishments aren't there as a deterrent, but as retribution. A critical element of our judicial process is satisfying the public's idea that the criminal "got what he deserved", which is in sharp contrast to the idea of rehabilitation or restitution. The democratic process results in a lot of people's emotions being used as the basis for justice -- but there's a fine line between justice and vengance, and when you have a democracy, it tends to fall more on the side of second than the first.

    These problems can be fixed; But it won't be through fighting or dying for our country, nor will it be through blind faith in democracy. To achieve the changes needed, unneeded complexity must be removed. Control must be ceded. Our understanding of the problems need to be improved, and our personal interest and emotions removed. That is a lot harder to do for your country than taking a bullet for it -- it's easy to die. It's harder to change how we live.

  • Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday October 15, 2012 @10:04PM (#41665263)

    We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.

    It's not an illusion; we really do have democracy. But that doesn't mean we don't also live in a police state. And a lot of it is because we're a democracy, not in spite of it. We threw away trillions of dollars and our civil liberties willingly to combat terrorism -- that was popular opinion after 9/11, and it still holds a slight majority today. Nevermind that we didn't have to do either, that there were more effective and cheaper options available. Democracy doesn't prevent mass-stupidity and hysteria... if anything, it reinforces and amplifies it. The greatest thing about democracy is also the worst thing about it. While we have freedom of speech, we also have anti-gay legislation on the books. We have the right to vote, but the candidates we vote for were bought and paid for by corporate interests, not us. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point; Democracy is just a method of selection. It does not give any promises about the selection itself; We can vote ourselves into an oppressive government just as well as a military dictator can create one.

    Democracy promises the vote: It does not make promises about the result.

  • by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday October 15, 2012 @10:09PM (#41665291) Journal

    All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.

    For some reason, governments are allergic to consumer advocate groups and sunlight.
    Which is why those groups were never invited to the ACTA negotiating table and will never be invited to participate in negotiations for any other copyright-related treaties.

    I am a stakeholder in my country and I should not be frozen out of the process that creates my laws.

  • Obvious cheating. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @02:25AM (#41666331)
    How, in a democracy, does one go about passing a highly unpopular law? Easy: One simply does it in secret, making no announcements and not revealing the purpose or text to any but a select few. The public cannot oppose what they do not know about.
  • by tlhIngan (30335) <(ten.frow) (ta) (todhsals)> on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @11:25AM (#41669397)

    Bonus if we could get that done with vote tracibility. Know how your neighbors voted, if you wish. If you aren't comfortable with that, then don't vote like a jackass.

    Is voting for abortion being a jackass? Against? Voting for gay marriage? Against? Hell, in the US, I'm sure you can say the same about creationism (which what, 40% of the people believe in?). Unionize? Break the unions?

    The secret ballot is actually one of the most important tools - because coercion is real and has been demonstrated. Hell, there is evidence for example, in voting to unionize. In places with secret ballots the rate of unionization is far lower than at places where the voting is open - not by a little bit, but by a lot (a lot of old style thuggery and bullying).

    And yes, you'll find without a secret ballot a lot more vote buying. The population doesn't care about ACTA - so all pro-ACTA forces have to do is say "Vote yes and we'll pay you $10". If you're a "I don't care, but by doing this I get a free $10, I'm game!". And your vote tracability website offers perfect proof and a perfect list of people to send the money to. These people who would probably just ignored the vote to begin with have now got economic interest.

    Open voting simply does not work at all - there have been way too many documented instances of coercion. It's why we have secret ballots to begin with.

    Need one final example? Take our fine goverment representatives. On critical issues (e.g., budgets) the party "whips" will basically demand the members vote one way. Anyone who doesn't is reprimanded out from plum positions (getting kicked out of cabinet, tossed onto the backbenches, basically being ignored, etc). And you know it's an open vote when they can do things like "Republicans X, Y and Z voted against the motion while Democrats A, B and C voted for the motion".

If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some. -- Ben Franklin