Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

FTAA Treaty Threatens Innovation 386

Posted by simoniker from the we-like-innovation dept.
The Importance of writes "IP Justice has published a white paper on the intellectual property aspects of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) treaty, which is an attempt to create a single free trade agreement for the Western Hemisphere. Read the press release. The analysis is pretty devastating. The proposed language of the agreement has a number of serious flaws, including (but certainly not limited to) enhanced criminal penalties, a super-DMCA provision, reduced scope for fair use, and database protection elements. The proposed treaty is supposed to be complete by January 2005 and go into effect December 2005. Now is not too early to let your representatives and others know what a bad idea the intellectual property elements of the treaty are."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTAA Treaty Threatens Innovation More

FTAA Treaty Threatens Innovation

Comments Filter:

  • total information lockdown (Score:5, Funny)

    by joeldg ( 518249 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:04PM (#7261900) Homepage
    It will require all countries to change their domestic laws on a wide range of topics, including intellectual property rights.


    All your mind are belong to us..

    just great.. now we will have mexican's filing patents for velcro.

  • Same old story (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) * on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:08PM (#7261923) Homepage Journal
    It's sad to see massive amounts of garbage like this getting stuffed into what is supposed to be a Free Trade treaty. In typical fashion, special interests are attaching their wish lists to an initiative that seems to have a good chance of becoming law. Hopefully this nonsense will get stricken out and the real work of expanding trade within the Americas can proceed...

    • In typical fashion, special interests are attaching their wish lists to an initiative that seems to have a good chance of becoming law.

      Congressman 1: "Then it is unanimous. We are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of..."
      Congressman 2: "Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill. Thirty million dollars of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts."
      Congressman 1: "All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-Pervert bill?"
      (jeers and boos)
      Congre

    • "Free Trade" is not about free trade (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TPFH ( 92944 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:38PM (#7262172) Homepage Journal
      If these so called Free Trade agreements were really about free trade, they would be a lot less complicated. They would just be about reducing tarrifs. What these "Trade Agreements" are really about is granting special rights and privilages to corporations, sometimes even making them above the law, at the expense of our national sovereignty.

      For example, with NAFTA Canada sued the United States saying that banning asbestos is an infringement of Free Trade.

      A few years ago before the WTO became a household word (err Acronym) they were trying to pass the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which would have given coporations an explicit Right to Profit above and beyond a citizens rights and privilages.

      And just look at the current example. In the name of Free Trade they are trying to make fair use of our own legally purchased IP illegal, such as bypassing DVD Region codes.

      It is not a matter of U.S. vs. Mexico or whatever. NAFTA has been bad for the general population of all three countries, and now they want to extend it to the entire western hemisphere.

      It is all about the special interests.
  • At least we have time to formulate an appropriate response to this. Remember, folks, Congress can move pretty damned fast when they want to (remember the DNC vote?)

  • Remember (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:08PM (#7261931)
    Remember: When you contact your representative, do NOT e-mail. Congressmen do not take e-mails seriously. E-mailing tells the congressman that you don't care enough about the issue to actually sit down and put effort into your contact.

    There is only one way to actually get your congressman's attention: A good, old-fashioned letter, with $10,000 in hundred-dollar bills paper clipped to it. Please keep this in mind and act accordingly.
    • That is the ONLY way the will take what you say seriously.

    • Re:Remember (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pmz ( 462998 )

      I don't think $10,000 would cut it, anymore. A Congressman would wipe his ass with it and send it back to you for being so cheap.

    • Remember: When you contact your representative, do NOT e-mail. Congressmen do not take e-mails seriously. E-mailing tells the congressman that you don't care enough about the issue to actually sit down and put effort into your contact.

      This is pretty much true. I know a number of persons who work as Congressional staff; many House and Senate offices aren't really up to speed with email, and even those that are ususally just count pro and con emails: "we got 40 for the bill, and 10 against." Phone calls are
    • A good, old-fashioned letter, with $10,000 in hundred-dollar bills paper clipped to it.

      It's often hard to be sufficiently cynical, but this goes a little too far. Like, far enough to earn you a date with a court and a prosecutor for contribution irregularities.

      Look, policy is made by the people who show up, and by those who show up with the money. If you really care, MAKE LEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS and PARTICIPATE. Go to fund raisers. Host some. Send your letters too, but SHOW UP.

      When was the last time

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:08PM (#7261932)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Wow, harsh... (Score:2, Informative)

      by jrsimmons ( 469818 ) *
      The heading of this particular piece of the outline is a bit misleading. The story summary is also misleading -- this whitepaper is a very biased view of the treaty, not at all what I'm used to when reading a "whitepaper", which is usually from the developers of whatever the paper describes. The actual articles, from the text summary in the whitepaper, state that the concern for P2P filesharers is that they may now be in violation of the artist's new right of communication if they are already in violatio

      • I also didn't see anything that made me thing prison terms would be the likely punishment.

        From the 2nd draft of the treaty, article [4.1] under the IP section:

        Each Party shall provide criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or infringement of copyrights or neighboring rights on a commercial scale. Each Party shall provide that significant willful infringements of copyrights or neighboring rights that have no direct or indirect motivation of

    • Even if it's fines as opposed to prison, I don't see the reason for processing such things criminally as opposed to via a civil suit. Giving folks a criminal record for what is traditionally -- and makes sense as -- a civil infraction just Doesn't Make Sense from where I stand.

  • Sugar (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:10PM (#7261940) Journal
    If they really want free trade, how about not subsidizing american farmers at the expense of thrid world farmers, who are, in economic terms, vastly more efficient?

    The "free trade" agreements seem to support incumbent businesses at the expense of innovation, which is the opposite of their intended use.

    I'm no free trade nut - I think there's plenty wrong with unfettered free trade - but in the scope of problems it can address, let's use it to address them, and not further protect entrenched ways of doing things.

    • "The "free trade" agreements seem to support incumbent businesses at the expense of innovation, which is the opposite of their intended use."

      It IS in line with their intended use. It is NOT in line with their stated use.

    • Re:Sugar (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wayward_son ( 146338 )
      "If they really want free trade, how about not subsidizing american farmers at the expense of thrid world farmers, who are, in economic terms, vastly more efficient?

      The "free trade" agreements seem to support incumbent businesses at the expense of innovation, which is the opposite of their intended use."

      No kidding. I, on the other hand, AM a free trade nut. But I believe that if you are going to have free trade then all sides should play by the same rules. This "I want free trade, but industry X, Y,
    • when superior alternatives [fairtradefederation.com] are available?

      Wouldn't it be great if the country was set up for the well-being of its citizens and not its corporations? Oh well.
  • b) Article 4.2 Permits Additional Criminal Procedures and Penalties Against Non-Commercial and Non-Willful Infringers c) Articles 4.3 and 4.4 Permit Seizure and Destruction of Property and Assets d) Article 4.6 Permits Criminal Charges Without the Need for a Private Complaint soooo, basically, if middle-class stockbroker Bob Schmoe doesn't know his son is downloading mp3s and warez, the feds can just hop in and seize his comp, and put him away without ever having to hear from some company? Whatever happened to "Stop, thief!".... bleh...
    • From the whitepaper:

      A second possible option for Article 4.3 is even more extreme. It would give all judicial authorities the power to seize goods suspected of infringement and any materials and implements suspected to be used in the commission of the offense, as well as any traceable asset. This is much broader than the first option proposed for Article 4.3 where a suspicion is insufficient and there must be an actual finding of infringement before a judge is permitted to order the seizure of a citizen'
  • When posting something like this, a bit more details and less inflamitory language would be nice.

    How is it a Super-DCMA law? How exactly will this treaty effect us.

    Just reacting like this tends to be counter productive.

    Ted
    • its called THE STORY [ipjustice.org]

      what now people don't even know there is an A to RTFA!?

    • More Details (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jameth ( 664111 )
      IP Justice Presents the Top 10 Reasons to Delete the IP Chapter of the FTAA Agreement:

      1.
      Threatens to Imprison Millions of People for P2P File -Sharing of Music
      One option proposed for Article 4.1 of the intellectual property rights chapter in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Treaty would mandate that countries must send noncommercial infringers such as Peer2-Peer (P2P) file-sharers to prison. By changing the standard that triggers criminal penalties from commercial infringements to "significant wi
  • Innovation depends upon the flexibility to create new responses to an environmental situation or need. Treaties that fix rules around the environmental conditions restrict those responses, and ergo, they restrict innovation. One might also argue that many of our laws restrict innovation--like immediate execution for DNA-proven rapists and murderers as a response to prison overcrowding--but hey, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  • Not likely. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quaoar ( 614366 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:14PM (#7261978)
    I think this has a snowball's chance in hell of actually being ratified. This isn't the terrorist-frigtened congress of 2001, you aren't going to be able to slip this under people's noses this time like with the DMCA. I can guarantee that only one of those 33 countries will be pushing this. Guess which one.

    • Re:Not likely. (Score:3, Informative)

      by MarkusH ( 198450 )
      This isn't the terrorist-frigtened congress of 2001, you aren't going to be able to slip this under people's noses this time like with the DMCA.

      Um, the DMCA was passed into law on Oct 28, 1998. It had nothing to do with the terror attacks, and the frightening thereof.
    • >> you aren't going to be able to slip this under people's noses this time like with the DMCA

      Sure you can, just put the word "Patriot" in the name of your bill.

      MadCow.
  • is not passed exactly as written, if any of the wise, necessary provision worked out by our government are in any way altered, if anybody raises any dissent on the actions that the government takes in order to protect our freedoms (or even harbors doubts in their hearts), then the terrorists win.

    Boy, political discussions are so much easier now that we have that one to fall back on. I'm going back to my nap.

  • "hey, why don't we ... kick you out of the band, and keep all your songs? OK sure! That sounds fair."

    It devastates me that there would be a further restriction on fair use... not in that I think protections aren't necessary, but it is already way too hard to do things like "clearing" a sound clip (getting permission). Anything worse would make techno either illegal or even slower to produce legitimately, stifling the creative process.

  • I hate to be so pessimistic/cynical but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rhadamanthus ( 200665 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:15PM (#7261990)
    "Now is not too early to let your representatives and others know what a bad idea the intellectual property elements of the treaty are."

    Why bother? Honestly, what is the outcome here? I have written to my congresspeople probably on the order of 10-15 times each about an item specifically regarding the myth of intellectual property and its associated devestation. I have recived neat and grammatically precise responses each time, full of absolutely nothing of value or substance regarding the issues. Not even my representative's opinion on the matter. You don't get congress to go against measures like this (i.e., measures that assure corporate "donations") unless there is a *really* massive demonstration. The kind that the American public has not shown any sort of willingness or poise to do in oh-so-many years.

    I will write my congressperson again this time, only with a heavy hand, and a large dose of bitterness in knowing that I don't have the pocketbook required to make a real impact.

    Corporate politics is ruining what's left of the U.S., and is pulling a lot of other nations down with it.

    --rhad

    • Corporate politics is ruining what's left of the U.S., and is pulling a lot of other nations down with it.

      No, it's just politics that is dragging down the USA. Politicians don't take the Constitution seriously, anymore, as they've found it very easy to push tyrannical policies over on their constituencies. People are so conditioned regarding things like income tax and social security, that further incremental crimes like the PATRIOT Act go through easily. Nationalized health care will probably be the n
      • You are correct. But so am I.

        What you refer to are provisions/bills passed by congress regarding civil rights and welfare. Which lately roll over the citizens so that the power-hungy warmongers can do what they see fit and imprison the dissenters.

        My comment regards those policies/bills/treaties that impact corporate holdings. I would venture to say that patents, trademarks, copyright, and other forms of "intellectual property" are more important to companies today then the quality of there respective pro

        • You are correct. But so am I.

          Okay, I'll agree with this. The underlying theme is one of corruption for short-term political and financial gain along with a long-term goal of consolodating power until the transition from a free state into a de facto oligarchy is complete.

          This is why I can no longer vote for Republicans nor Democrats in any federal race. It's harder to do in local races, but I'll try.
        • Very well put, but getting everyone else motivated/informed is a very hard task, which most people aren't willing to undertake. Most people tend to not care about subjects that they don't understand.
    • ..anyone who watched "Shawshank Redemption" probably realized the truth of the scene about an individual getting anything done by the government...

      Constant and unwavering pestering.. and when they show signs that they've acknowledged you.. increase your efforts.

      A dozen letters while it seems like a lot isn't going to do squat until in impacts the workflow of the congressmans office...

      *You* know they aren't listening.. let them know that! Keep pestering them until they ACTUALLY answer you. Right now the
    • Face it, we're screwed. The only question is who's doing the screweing, the politicians or the corporations.

    • We Are Only As Powerless As We Choose To Be (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @02:45PM (#7262818)
      Why bother? Honestly, what is the outcome here? ... You don't get congress to go against measures like this (i.e., measures that assure corporate "donations") unless there is a *really* massive demonstration. The kind that the American public has not shown any sort of willingness or poise to do in oh-so-many years.

      Moveon.org was able to get together a very large public outcry against the FCC's recent attempt to further diminish diversity in the American media. Although the fight is not over, this 11th hour effort has managed to get congress to vote overwhelmingly to revoke Baby Powell's attempt to use the FCC as little more than a frontman for the media cartels. It appears likely some (though not all) of Baby Powell's appalling sellout to the media cartels is going to be reversed, in a manner that is extremely rare in Washington.

      This was done as a belated reaction to an already done "insider" deal among Washingto Republican Burocrats (the FCC vote was divided precisely along party lines).

      We have over a year to get our act together. Doing so would allow us to speek with at least as loud a voice, quite possibly as effectively, but only if people actually GET OFF THEIR ASSES and actually do it. If, on the other hand, everyone follows your advice, nothing will get done and the tyranny of evil, corrupt men will continue to erode our freedom of expression, our freedom of thought, our freedom to innovate, and ultimately our freedom to live, until there is nothing left.

      This is what was meant when the founding fathers said "Freedom requires eternal vigilance," and quite frankly, this is the acid test our generation is failing miserably.

      The question is really this: will we continue to fail miserably, until there is no freedom left in our lives, or will we stand up and be counted? Given the degree of forwarning we have on this particular issue, any failure to stand up and be counted will be our own, not "the system's" or "those corrupt people over there." No, it will be our apathetic selves who are at fault, and the freedom we would in that event be so unfit for and undeserving of is almost certain to diminish as a result.

      If dispirited and demoralized liberals could finally grow a backbone and stand up when the chips were down with the radical right's recent media power grab at the FCC and get congress moving in record time to stop it, surely we technophiles, who transcend such traditional left-right, liberal-conservative, democrat-republican lines should be able to do at least as well ... provided we have the will and the sense to try.

  • The proposed language of the agreement has a number of serious flaws, including (but certainly not limited to) enhanced criminal penalties, a super-DMCA provision, reduced scope for fair use, and database protection elements.

    Well, it really isn't free trade, then. If you want to call it free trade, then make it free trade and not some half-assed political pile of shit.
    • Oh, it's free trade, all right. As in, the corporations are free to trade your ass into wage-slavery for their own profits.

      Or: the affluent 1% of the world are free to trade the environment to make a bit more money, while widening the econimic gap between them and everyone else.

      Or: governments are "free" to trade basic human rights (such as the right to live) for corporate money.

      You get the idea.

      • In a genuine free trade environment any of the transgression you cite will be temporary. Free trade levels the playing field to the extent that China, India, and Mexico won't be cheaper forever. It seems Mexico is already seeing these effects as their wages are pricing them above the SE Asian job markets. Eventually, the global markets sort themsleves out, as radical international differences can not be maintained forever.

        Of course, these mixed-up half-ass protectionist "free trade" agreements are the r

  • Representatives? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:17PM (#7262004)
    If you live in the USA, contacting your representative will be fruitless. The Senate ratifies treaties without consulting the House. Try contacting your Senator instead.

  • buh-bye Fair Use (Score:5, Informative)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) * on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:17PM (#7262006)

    Article 1 of the copyright section in the draft FTAA Treaty proposes the following new definition for "fair use":

    "Use that does not interfere with the normal exploitation of the work or [unreasonably] [unjustifiably] prejudice the legitimate interests of the author [or right holder]".

    FTAA's proposed definition is dramatically narrower than the current open-ended definition of fair use guaranteed by the US Constitution and codified in Section 107 of the US Copyright Act.[40] The US Supreme Court stated that fair use must be decided on a "case-by-case basis" and that there can be no "bright line rules" for deciding matters of fair use. Fair use is intended to permit unauthorized, but socially beneficial, copies of copyrighted works in cases such as personal use, research, and criticism.

    In determining whether a particular use would be fair, traditional US copyright law focuses the question primarily on the use engaged it. In contrast, FTAA's definition for fair use focuses solely on the commercial interests of the copyright holder in determining whether a particular use would be ruled fair. No consideration is given to the social benefits of the use under the proposed FTAA Treaty.

    FTAA's narrow definition of fair use also gives short shrift to Americans' freedom of expression rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. For example, copying something in order to criticize it can easily prejudice the rightsholders' interests (since it could discourage patronage); and traditional fair use, which accounts for free speech interests, would permit such copying. But under FTAA's definition, copying for critical purposes will count against the use being considered fair, chilling freedom of expression throughout the hemisphere.


    If Fair Use is redefined in this manner, it seems like the FTAA could be interpreted to outlaw public libraries. If you check out a book as opposed to buying it, under the FTAA's new economic-based model of assessing Fair Use, a library would be liable for causing financial damage to the publisher.

    Kudos to our corporate overlords for their foresight and wisdom.
    • That's a VERY relevant point- and one which you might also want to write about to the schools in your area. There are a large number of industry-wide processes that will be affected by this, and if you alert those industries to this possibility (including the national associations that libraries/librarians belong to) the message will go a lot further than one letter to a senator.
    • Kudos to our corporate overlords for their foresight and wisdom.

      The irony is even thicker considering the number of libraries. I remember an author saying that if every library bought just one copy of his book, it would be a bestseller just from that volume. Given the vast number of books published each year and the competition that ensues, authors and publishers should be grateful for any book sold, regardless whether it is to a library.

  • This one's a gem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GreenCrackBaby ( 203293 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:18PM (#7262011) Homepage
    "... significant willful infringements of copyrights ... that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain shall be considered willful infringement on a commercial scale. ..."

    Let me get this straight....there is no direct or indirect financial motivation, yet this is somehow equated with commercial infringement?

    I'm all for throwing the real IP pirates in jail -- the ones who copy CDs and DVDs, press 1000's of counterfeits, then sell them for a huge profit. Making money like this really is piracy (in a newer, less-traditional use of the word anyway). But to equate that kind of crime to that of the college student sharing a few tunes on their computer for free....mind boggling!

    • That jumped out at me too. Had to read it twice to make sure that's what it said.

      I want to know who wrote this. If the author[s] were sent to jail for a while for a crime they didn't commit, it would surely help them understand this better.

  • Civil Disobedience (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PetiePooo ( 606423 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:19PM (#7262020)
    My favorite quote:

    As of October 2003, an estimated 60 million Americans use P2P file-sharing software in the US alone and the number of overseas users is even higher. This level of civil disobedience sends the crystal clear message that intellectual property laws are in stark contrast with the will of the people and should be changed to clearly legalize P2P file-sharing. Without the consent of the governed, FTAA's policies have no legitimate place in an international treaty between democracies.

    That's the most succinct way I've yet heard to describe the people's demand that Hollywood drag themselves into the current century!

  • NAFTA, MMT, UPS, & Canada Post (Score:5, Insightful)

    by temojen ( 678985 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:23PM (#7262057) Journal

    NAFTA threatens environmental protection [wcel.org] will FTAA be any better? NAFTA threatens public services [newswire.ca] will FTAA be any better?

    Lower barriers to trade is a good Idea, but the FTA, NAFTA, and FTAA has little to do with trade, and everything to do with making governments subservient to trans-national corporations.

    • Most insightful post this month.

      No free trade agreement has been good for the people, just for businesses.

      • And businesses are run by and for a bunch of robots, is that correct?

        As I recall, people own businesses.
        People earn incomes by working for businesses.
        People buy food, clothes, and a staggering array of goods from businesses.

        Business is every bit as much an activity as it is an entity, folks. And free trade is largely about freedom.

    • the FTA, NAFTA, and FTAA has little to do with trade, and everything to do with making governments subservient to trans-national corporations.

      Then, dump all trade "treaties" in favor of real free trade that even my neighbor's dog would understand. Real free trade does not play favorites, nor does it need to be overly complicated nor ratified by nations. Free trade just happens ("Do you want to trade widget X with us?" "No? Well, okay" OR "Yes? Great, thanks for the P.O.; we'll ship 'em out tomorrow."

  • Just through it in with the other __AA abreviations.
  • Although forbidden by the US Constitution, FTAA's copyright section would allow companies to copyright facts and scientific data.

    Last time I checked, the US Constitution didn't expressly prohibit companies to copyright facts and scientific data. The whole article sounds a little too overblown to me (sounds almost like Indymedia stuff), but if they mention the US Constitution, they should make darn sure they know what they're talking about.

  • I'm not sure those FTAA provisions would pass here in Brazil. There simply isn't much political support for it. In the current state of matters, President Lula is trying to become kind of a leader for Latin American countries, and has already partnered with President Kirchner of Argentina in FTAA-important matters. Brazil was one of the founders of Mercosur (Common Market of South Cone Countries), and intends to, first, strenthen Mercosur, and then negotiate with US as a unified block. This makes sense, sin
  • The "Free Trade Area of the Americas" would really restrict trade and freedoms in certain areas, the "Clear Skies Initiative" would allow older power plants avoid costly upgrades and continue polluting, and the "Patriot Act" was truly one of the most unpatriotic things the US Govt has ever done to it's people.

    Coming next: The Bush White House announces "Take a Muslim to lunch week" ...

  • memories (Score:3, Informative)

    by barryfandango ( 627554 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @01:34PM (#7262140)
    For those who remember, the FTAA was the reason for the massive protests in Quebec City in 2001. It was the biggest shindig since the Battle of Seattle. Ah, the memories of getting teargassed while peacefully protesting... damn that CS gas is wicked stuff.

    http://members.tripod.com/infobank1/
  • The FTAA has been in development since 1998, and its not even supposed to be completed until 2005, there's still a lot of room for changes in it. Luckilly, Brazil has led the push for more reasonable IP rights including compulsory liscensing for drugs, allowing governments to produce pharmacuticals at lower prices. Also, the Brazilian govt. is pushing to leave out of the FTAA the more contentions parts of IP laws as well as restricitons on providing services and allowint the WTO to deal with that. Finally,
    • The FTAA has been in development since 1998, and its not even supposed to be completed until 2005, there's still a lot of room for changes in it. Luckilly, Brazil has led the push for more reasonable IP rights

      I am Brazilian, and I really doubt that our government really cares about "reasonable IP rights".

      An example... Our relatively recent law that regulates Software Property says that once you've worked for a company developing software, the company can claim ownership of ANYTHING you do. For 2 years.

  • a comprehensive regional trade agreement between all 34 democracies in the Western Hemisphere, including the US, and covering a population of over 800 million people

    Given the US already has allowed the feared draconian legislation (DMCA, Patriot Act, etc) to take hold within its own borders, it's the 500-million citizens of other countries that should be scared.

  • people hijack their planes and crash them into their buildings....

  • Your rights to the free flow of information may be severely curtailed.

    The story on tonight's Eyewitness News at 11.

    Uh. I've just been handed a programming update.
    Tonight's news report will be preempted by an extra special,
    exclusive interview with Barbara Bush, America's Mom.

    Coming up after tonight's episode of Fear Factor.
    Keep it right here on News Center 4.

    Or else.
  • This fits right in.
  • If FTAA stood for Free Trade Association of America, I'd probably be freaking out a lot more.
  • I can't believe that nobody has mentioned the upcoming protests against the FTAA in Miami. There's tons of websites regarding the upcoming mobilization. I got these links off of FTAA Resistance [slashdot.org]:

    Stop FTAA.org - a great resource for information on the FTAA and how to organize against it. this page is slightyly outdated, but they are working to update it.

    FNB NO FTAA - this is the 'official' organizing site for the anti-FTAA Food Not Bombs. FNB chapters from all over the U.S. will come together to do what
  • To get the hell out of the western hemisphere before this law goes into effect (or at least out of the US.) This treaty is just plain wrong on so many levels. Reminds me of Athens, 411 BC. The democracy voted itself out of existance. The United States, 2004. The democratic republic sold out its future for want of a better present.

  • WTO (Score:2)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 )
    At least finally someone is waking up. .I've been talking about this very thing for years..

    All I ever got ' its not my countries laws bla bla bla'.. what no one understands is once you sign up with the WTO you MUST conform to the lowest common denominator...

    We need to be OUT of the WTO totally.. tell you congressman that... TOTALLY OUT... before it gets worse.
  • "This is the FTAA. Come out with your hands up or we'll be forced to use innovation."

  • 2005? (Score:2)

    by dcs ( 42578 )
    It is scheduled for 2005 indeed. Only everyone knows it won't be finished by 2005.
  • Now is definitely the time to contact your representative.
    Let them know that if they don't fight this, you will replace them with someone else who will.

  • Ross Perot was essentially correct. NAFTA and the US involvement in the WTO has been accompanied by massive transfer of US technological infrastructure overseas. This has been facilitated by substantial government deficits, massive immigration and transfer of US capital and real estate assets(as well as an increasing trend of the US government to vote on the basis of political donations rather than popular will). The problem was less apparent in the 90's because there was a brisk trade associated with facil
  • It appears that there is a Free Trade of the Americas website [ftaa-alca.org]. They also have links to who to call [ftaa-alca.org] if you feel the need to sound off. I trust we all know what to do with this information. :)

  • not much thought outside of Slashdot... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bigmaddog ( 184845 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @02:49PM (#7262848)

    Sure, IP restrictions are evil and so forth, and there will be many rants here about how terribly the nerds, visionaries and innovators will be oppressed, but that's a whole lot of narrow, selfish thinking by said nerds, visionaries and innovators (there goes my karma). This discussion misses the larger picture and focuses only on what the enlightened, educated, US-based majority of the readers care about and/or can be affected by: bigger, stronger RIAA's and MPAA's, and draconian corporations hoarding more and more knowledge.

    What's left out is that the spirit of the whole treaty is basically to make the Central and South American nations subjects to the rule of the US economy and the corporations that feed off it, much like what NAFTA has done to Mexico and Canada. It will create one huge Export Processing Zone all the way from Mexico to the Southern tip of Chile, where such peachy corporations like Nike, Adidas, Ralph Lauren, Walmart and so on will practically enslave thousands of displaced farmers while other corporations rape their land for natural resources. It's already happening in countries all over the world, with more localized treaties and deregulations, where the governments don't care, are blinded by the money or have their arms twisted by the might of their patrons. Free Trade in this context is a euphimism for economic conquest by transnational corporations.

    Canada has a unique position in all this, because unlike the other (soon to be) subjugated countries, we have a high standard of living and an educated, skilled workforce. Hence, we don't have sweatshops - instead, our manufacturing left for the sweatshop factories of Mexico and the Export Processing Zones in the Phillipines and China along with that of the United States. Still, we're very much slaves of our big brother, constantly battered over fishing, softwood lumber, grain and so on. No political action that contravenes the US ideology goes without the consideration of what it will do to our economy. Legalize weed? Sure, sounds good, but can't you see Dubya over there shaking his head? Don't want to go to war with Iraq? Just you wait 'til the next time we set lumber tariffs.

  • Stop the FTAA (Score:3, Informative)

    by radicalsubversiv ( 558571 ) <.gro.sdrarrehs. .ta. .leahcim.> on Monday October 20, 2003 @02:55PM (#7262889) Homepage Journal
    This is the just the tip of the iceberg with the FTAA, affectionately known as "NAFTA on Steroids." It would wreck havoc on the hemisphere, bringing living standards, wages, environmental protections, etc. down everywhere. This isn't about free trade, it's about a corporate-driven race to the bottom.

    Conveniently, the next meeting to plan it is in Miami next month, giving us the convenient opportunity to deliver our thoughts on these matters in person. For more info on the FTAA and the Miamo demonstrations, check out the Citizens Trade Campaign [citizenstrade.org].

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close