Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Making Sense of ACTA

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the wholly-geist dept.

Government 155

Hodejo1 writes "This past week Guadalajara, Mexico hosted the 7th secret meeting of ACTA proponents who continue to ignore demands worldwide to open the debate to the public. Piecing together official and leaked documents from various global sources, Michael Geist has coalesced it all into a five part ACTA Guide that offers structured insight into what these talks might foist upon the populace at large. 'Questions about ACTA typically follow a familiar pattern — what is it (Part One of the ACTA Guide listing the timeline of talks), do you have evidence (Part Two), why is this secret (Part Three), followed by what would ACTA do to my country's laws (Part Four)? Countering the momentum behind ACTA will require many to speak out" (Part Five).'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck ACTA (5, Insightful)

haderytn (1232484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972542)

That is all.

Re:Fuck ACTA (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972728)

Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.

I don't advocate what he did, but as the proponents of secret government become more and more abusive they are going to provoke the fringe...first.

Re:Fuck ACTA (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972938)

The problem with that theory is how can you kill that which is not alive? And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts, along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.

Sadly short of armed revolution (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants) I just don't see things ever getting any better, and more likely will get far worse. At least China and India have strong nationalistic streaks and tend to put their own people first, whereas our traitors will happily sell us out to foriegn multinationals for 30 pieces of silver. I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area) while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough. Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.

I am only glad my grandfather who fought in WWII isn't alive to see how pathetic and corrupt our government has become. You could probably already power the entire south with the revolutions the man is spinning in his grave at how far his once great country has fallen. Sadly there is simply no way to compete with income tax dodging multinationals who have more money than most third world nations.

Re:Fuck ACTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974458)

Sadly there is simply no way to compete with income tax dodging multinationals who have more money than most third world nations.

Your forgot to mention popular revolutions during the past 200 years:

1. French
2. Russian
3. Chinese
4. Cuban

Each of these took care of issues you have mentioned...with the last two have accomplished laudable aims by (at least initially) improving the health/political standing of the populace. When you start executing those who have been taking advantage of/gaming the system...makes those oppressed feel better & shows the government being serious about those who allow it to govern. What's better than watching some former rich/aristocractic person digging ditches while the former laborers are the boss???

Re:Fuck ACTA (1, Flamebait)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976816)

That must be why all our neighbors are illegally immigrating to Cuba instead of the US.

It also explains why more people apply for Cuban citizenship rather than US citizenship.

To the GP

At least China and India have strong nationalistic streaks

Unfortunetly, any sense of nationalism in the US immeidetly gets shot down as arrogance and ignorance

Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare? They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals. I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's people talk about how we should all have national healthcare.

Nothing these people say make me think that they give a damn about us.

Not all Europeans are like this. In fact, I imagine that the majority of Europe either likes the US or is apathetic to us. But there is a strong and loud anti-US online sentiment that drowns out the rational ones.

Re:Fuck ACTA (2, Insightful)

freakinangry (991056) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974654)

It's sad to see the result that is this country after so many have fought for what is truly a dream and nothing else. I'm a foreigner having lived in the US for almost my entire life, and seeing the unfortunate direction on so many different levels that this country is speeding towards has me looking elsewhere for relief, meaning moving out of the US. I hope that people one day wake up and take action to correct the country's course, but it doesn't seem to be likely. All empires come to an end.

Re:Fuck ACTA (4, Interesting)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974868)

While I agree with the general idea behind your post, I fail to see how immigrants (evil, evil immigrants) fit there. IHMO, the biggest problem with the US gov't today is that it is a "democratic" government where elected officials are more worried about money than their own voters, especially since these days votes are won not through argument and opinion, but through ads and shady campaigns that overwhelm the voter with so much garbage that he no longer thinks about what's best for him, but rather what some cheap slogans that have been crammed in his brain tell him to do. Even language, what is supposed to be a tool for communication, has become tainted and twisted and bent into something that provokes animalistic emotion in the listener, not thought and reason. I bet if you looked at the brain of the average American through an fMRI when he heard words such as Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, healthcare, terrorism, etc, the areas you'd see lighting up would imply something very disturbing. Immigrants aren't this country's biggest problem. Nor is it terrorists, oil, healthcare, global warming, etc. The biggest problem is that government is no longer for the people, or by the people (if it ever was, of course).

Re:Fuck ACTA (2, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975700)

I have NO problem with immigrants, what I have a problem with is slaves. H1-Bs are nothing more than indentured servants brought in to lower the wages for everyone else. You bring in someone from India that paid maybe 12k for a master's degree, pay him peanuts and give him NO recourse or he's on the next boat back home, and we are supposed to compete with THAT? It is like saying "We should just compete with Chinese manufacturing" while ignoring they can use slaves and political prisoners, can poison their workers, and dump toxic waste into the air and water at will.

So you misunderstand me. I have no problem with those that want to come over here legally and become US citizens. No problem whatsoever. What I have a problem with is H1-Bs and illegals being brought in and paid peanuts while so many Americans and barely surviving. Several of my neighbors are seriously talking about buying tents and living in the woods, simply because they are nearly out of money and there is simply no work of ANY kind to be found, yet you go to the construction sites and there is ONE white foreman and a whole bunch of illegals. One of my relatives said "maybe they are just Mexican workers". I said "Oh really?" and yelled "Immigra!" and watched as the ENTIRE workcrew ran off like the hounds of hell were chasing them. Now THAT I DO have a serious fucking problem with!

Re:Fuck ACTA (2, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976006)

well yes, that much i agree with - american workers are "protected" by many laws (e.g. minimal wage, workplace conditions, etc) that make them much less attractive to an employer than illegals/quasi-slave labor in developing countries. though it's not obvious to me how this problem can be solved. how can you stop outsourcing without severely damaging the competitiveness of american companies? how do you stop illegal immigration without some very disturbing campaigns reminiscent of witch-hunts? i got nothin'.

Re:Fuck ACTA (3, Interesting)

Monsuco (998964) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976790)

And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts

The courts did absolutely nothing to legalize bribery. Quid pro quo exchanges of money for votes are still very much illegal, and unless you have been huffing paint thinner, you'd have no way of interpreting what SCOTUS said this way.

along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.

Regardless of your views on the case, money already was a huge player. It always has been, it will continue to grow, the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act" did absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of money in politics, as is clearly evident in the fact that we saw some of the most expensive elections in history in the campaigns since it passed. The only thing it really has done is made candidates put those awkward "approve this message" lines in their commercials (which is still in place),encouraged increased use of 3-rd party campaigns (still in place but less relevent), and reduced the competativeness of most elections since it is much more of a pain to criticize opponents (hence its critics have dubbed it the "Incumbency Protection Act"). A politician still must earn your vote and the extreme majority of campaign contributions tend to go to candidates that already favored a viewpoint. Suppose you are a gun company. It is a lot easier to promote a candidate who is already pro-gun than to persuade an anti-gun candidate to join you. All the recent court ruling did was make it so companies can more directly contribute to political speech, rather than indirectly contribute via third parties.

I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area)

Actually, the rate of illegal immigration appears to be declining due to the poor economy. I also would doubt legal H1-Bs hold too negative an impact on the US economy. What do you assume those workers do with the money they've earned? Do you think they eat it? They turn around and re-spend it here, creating jobs or they ship it overseas which removes currency from the US, thus reducing inflation. (It isn't the presence of dollar bills in the economy that make it worth money, it is the asset value the economy has, money is just a token to represent that value.) Illegal immigrants cause problems largely because of the high crime rates associated with illegal human trafficking not the taking of jobs. Also, the US unemployment rate as calculated by the department of Labor (not the Fed, they are a semi-independant central bank) is based on a survey of about 60,000 households to estimate a national average. It is currently about 10%. Your claim of it being underrepresented is a myth that derives from the fact that a few state and local governments compile their stats that way.

while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough.

Have you ever read history books? Have you ever heard of the Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, the leader of the 19th century Democrat political machine of New York City? Have you ever read about the Teapot Dome scandal? The current levels of corruption pale in comparison to these.

Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.

Social Security might be something of a Ponzi scheme, but the rest of the federal government really doesn't come close to the defenition of a ponzi scheme. Taxes are a real source of revenue for the government and while the debt is liable to be a very serious problem, it is more likely the US will just see its credit score weaken (causing significant economic problems, but not destroying life as we know it) and bad inflation.

adly there is simply no way to compete with income tax dodging multinationals who have more money than most third world nations.

Well, you could just transition from collecting taxes on income and corporate income to collecting taxes on sales. The most co-sponsored piece of broad tax reform legislation is H.R. 25, the FairTax Act, a revenue neutral overhaul of the US tax code. It would repeal the entire income tax , corporate income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, death tax, and alternative minimum tax and replace all of these with a progressive national sales tax (offset payments tethered to the poverty rate are used to make it progressive). This would essentially turn America into a gargantuan tax haven, enabling global businesses to relocate here since taxes would be collected on sales rather than income. You could build stuff here, invest here, or move management here and operate tax free on everything except what you sold here, and a tax on the first retail sale of goods or services is much harder to evade than a tax on everybody and every companies income and there is far less overhead.

Ending gerrymandering and seniority would also be a good start. Gerrymandering is the process of drawing up electoral districts in a way that produces uncompetitive elections. It is why 90% of all US House Seats aren't competitive and remain easily won by one party for decades. California is the worst example. They have 53 US House Seats, and their state house has 80 seats and 40 seats are in their state senate. With exception to an upset in one House district, none of these seats generally have competitive elections since both parties agreed to redistrict in such a gerrymandered way that nobody could ever lose re-election. State's with Initiatives could put ballot initiatives in place to eliminate gerrymandering, and some have. Term limits can eliminate seniority issues. Many states have term limits, but members of the US congress do not. An amendment to the US constitution would be required to enact one. It is likely congress would never propose such a measure, but if 2/3 of all states pass resolutions calling for a convention to propose amendments, then a constitutional convention could draft such amendments instead. A balanced budget amendment, something many of our states have adopted would be a nice touch. 45 of our states allow for a line-item veto, which grants their governor the power to veto or reduce parts of appropriations bills such as pork project (usually subject to some form of override such as the ability for a simple majority in both houses to re-attach it to the bill.

Re:Fuck ACTA (4, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973986)

Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.

I don't advocate what he did, but as the proponents of secret government become more and more abusive they are going to provoke the fringe...first.

Can't feel too bad for them. If they want people to take their arguments the legal route, they perhaps shouldn't outlaw all the legal routes.

Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them.

Re:Fuck ACTA (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975122)

"Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them."

When did apathy get outlawed?

Re:Fuck ACTA (0, Redundant)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976304)

"Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them."

When did apathy get outlawed?

Since when is apathy a counter?

Re:Fuck ACTA (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974700)

Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice ... you don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying ... lobbying, to get what they want ... Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want ... they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that ... that doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers ... Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They'll get it ... they'll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people ... white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means ... continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you ... they don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about you at all ... at all ... at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain wilfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream cause you have to be asleep to believe it... -- George Carlin

Re:Fuck ACTA (1)

Monsuco (998964) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976302)

Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.

Umm, is wasn't a copyright treaty that made McVeigh mass murder people.

Re:Fuck ACTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972890)

Fuck ACTA? More like what the fuck is ACTA?

Re:Fuck ACTA (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973122)

You [slashdot.org] must [slashdot.org] be [slashdot.org] new [slashdot.org] here [slashdot.org] .

Re:Fuck ACTA (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973142)

Follow the money.

There. There’s your sense.

Case closed. ^^

Now where is my giant space ray gun, when I need it?

Re:Fuck ACTA (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973180)

That's not all.
Join the Pirate Party.

Re:Fuck ACTA (3, Funny)

pydev (1683904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973572)

In Soviet Russia, ACTA fucks you. Oh, also in Europe and the US.

ACTA will kill people (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974788)

TRIPS kills people. ACTA will kill vastly more people.

"ACTA will kill people" is the meme your looking for.

Re:ACTA will kill people (1)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975910)

"ACTA will kill people" is the meme your looking for.

But only the sick poor! And US voters in Massachusetts have recently shown what their opinions about them are :-(

Could someone explain to me (4, Interesting)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972578)

how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?

Re:Could someone explain to me (3, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972672)

how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?

How would it not? There is a parliament, whose members are elected by the public, and whose task is it, to enact laws. That's how it is put down in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public. That's what the debates in the parliament are for.

Re:Could someone explain to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30973206)

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public

This is how it should be. Default of 3 months review by public eyes before final decision. Fat chance of that happening.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975770)

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public

This is how it should be. Default of 3 months review by public eyes before final decision. Fat chance of that happening.

WHAT?!? Do you really think that much is being hidden? Almost all legislation already spends months going through committees, and once a bill is introduced (i.e., before it goes through months of committee bureaucracy), it's available to the public. Take a look at http://www.house.gov/ [house.gov] and http://www.senate.gov/ [senate.gov] to see what's currently being considered.

Sure, there are last minute amendments and other things, but the vast majority of legislative text is already available for months for anyone to review by "public eyes before final decision."

You know what the problem is? Nobody cares enough to dig through the mountains of pages of proposed legislation... not individuals, not the media, and certainly not most Congressmen (sometimes even those sponsoring the bill). Since the advent of CSPAN most Congressmen aren't paying attention to debate in the chamber -- they're wheeling and dealing in their office, with CSPAN on mute in the background. That's what "public access" to the live actions of Congress has gotten you.

The only people who read bills are generally the minor staff lawyers who draft them. Do you want things revealed before "public eyes"? Fine. Go to the websites yourself, start reading bills, and when you see something interesting, start blogging about it. Get a couple hundred people doing this, and maybe Congress will pay attention. But stop with the conspiracy theories about Congress -- if you don't know what legislation is under consideration, that's your own fault.

Re:Could someone explain to me (3, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973768)

Parliament and Constitution in the same breath? I don't think we're in Kansas any more, Toto...

Re:Could someone explain to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974030)

I suppose he/she didn't specify his/her nation of origin.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975194)

"That's how it is put down in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public. "

And the judicial branch is for deciding the constitutionality of said laws. They didn't have the technology we have for information dispersion, but the next best thing. Also a lot of decisions are left up to the states which is usually closer to the populace than say Washington D.C. And last it's the duty (not optional) for the governed population to be involved in all aspects of state, from local to national. Our busy lives and sometimes apathy may have caused us to forget that.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972702)

ACTA is basically saying "We got the DMCA in the USA, so why don't you write a similar law where you are... or we're going to raise the price of our content to the point we break your economy!"

Re:Could someone explain to me (2, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972756)

if true i do hope that everyone calls that bluff. that way American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.

Re:Could someone explain to me (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973030)

American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.

That's an awfully subjective view of American media. The objective view is that the most popular content worldwide is produced by America.

Say what you want about the quality of "American content", but you'll find that most people will not agree with you.

Re:Could someone explain to me (0)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973082)

Paraphrasing: "The subjective view is that you're right. The objective view is that you're wrong. Everybody must think the same way I do."

Re:Could someone explain to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974136)

The FACT that today Avatar surpassed Titanic as biggest grossing movie of all time, the FACT that the top 10 viewed movies of all time are all american, the FACT that american sitcoms are syndicated world wide make your "Paraphrase" seem rather silly. That's like saying French champagne sucks even though that's what everyone buys. Just makes you look stupid, because what you're really saying is that the majority of people don't have a clue, when almost certainly it is the minority (ie you) that don't.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

Leynos (172919) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975094)

A good cava will be better than the equivalent Champagne for the same money. It's only when you get to the point of spending £60 a bottle that Champagne becomes worthwhile. The majority really don't have a clue.

Re:Could someone explain to me (3, Insightful)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975328)

I have the discussion with my German girlfriend (gasp, sorry, "guy I know") when she derides American cultural imperialism and then sits down to watch the Simpsons or True Blood. If you wish America would stop infecting the world stop buying the DVDs!

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975728)

The FACT that today Avatar surpassed Titanic as biggest grossing movie of all time

The FACT that I haven't watched either of them and have no intention to.

the FACT that the top 10 viewed movies of all time are all american

Absolutely false Bollywood has a lock on the top 10, in both movies and tv shows, in terms of number of viewers.

Also, 8 of the top 10 grossing movies of all time are either joint productions or filmed on location outside the US. That's not "all-American" either. The days of the US Empire are over, in large part thanks to the US for 50 years exporting "dirty" jobs to "lesser countries". Now the only option the US has is to inflate its currency like crazy and hope that nobody notices.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973152)

Your right America does the producing but I still refuse to watch prime time tv as It is useless. Yes I do live in new York.

American prime time, news stations, etc produce more crap than actual news. It is why watch visit the BBC to realy find out what is going on in my own country.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973168)

It won't die. They'll kick, scream and threaten to hold their breath until they die. They may even be stupid enough to try it. However, just like the bratty kid, soon enough they'll get dizzy, realize they can't win that way and they'll give in.

That is, even though they're demanding $10, eventually they'll settle for $5 because it's better than $0.

Re:Could someone explain to me (3, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973936)

if true i do hope that everyone calls that bluff. that way American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.

You know, I remember a story my Father used to tell me about why there weren't any new brick buildings in Southern California (this was long before the Sylmar earthquake). He drove a concrete mixer, and his attitudes were probably colored by it - he said "There are no more brick houses because the unions priced themselves out of the market."

Now I'm not trying to bash the unions here, they have their place - but the fact is, raise the price too high for a quality product and buyers will re-define their concept of what they like. And if the interest moves away from the traditional stuff, the quality will too. Fashions will get redefined.

My point is that the content of media controlled by ACTA and other attempts at legitimatizing RIAA and MPAA enforcers will have the effect of more and more music and video coming from indie sources. Good stuff, too. Put too tight a control on your contributions and the world will pass you by.

Re:Could someone explain to me (2, Informative)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974506)

The British Motor Corporation (/British Leyland/Rover MG) will back you up on that one. Unions are wonderful, but the overzealous ones have killed off many a healthy local industry.

In the case above, the union kept making demands, and the incompetent management never managed to balance them out properly, in the end the company was busy producing the fewest, shoddiest, most expensive excuses for automobiles available this side of the iron curtain, before duly going bust for the final time.

(Car analogy five?)

Re:Could someone explain to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975138)

My point is that the content of media controlled by ACTA and other attempts at legitimatizing RIAA and MPAA enforcers will have the effect of more and more music and video coming from indie sources. Good stuff, too. Put too tight a control on your contributions and the world will pass you by.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MAFIAA has this already in the plan book. As soon as it looks like Indy is being flocked to, they'll buy a law that makes it illegal to publish something independantly for the good of the public. (disclaimer: public means "stockholders" in this instance.)

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975362)

Then why do all the other countries insist on watching American shoes and movies even though they are frequently in a language they barely understand and conveying topics they frequently can't relate to. Seems like an awful lot of suffering to keep their vastly superior programming off the air, and expensive to boot. I know America is the giant cultural cancer of the world in a lot of people's minds, but apparently the world finds cancer delicious and can't help but themselves with it.

Re:Could someone explain to me (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973096)

That won't work. The 'content' just isn't that critical and the natural retaliation to it being too expensive suggests itself!

Instead of the stick, I suspect they'll offer the carrot under the table to legislators who agree to betray their country, just like always.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974374)

ACTA is basically saying "We got the DMCA in the USA, so why don't you write a similar law where you are... or we're going to raise the price of our content to the point we break your economy!"

Empty threat, as anyone who wants the content but doesn't want to pay can already get it for free from isohunt [isohunt.com] . And even if they couldn't, do you really think that people would get themselves bankcrupt over entertainment?

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975242)

ACTA is basically saying "We got the DMCA in the USA, so why don't you write a similar law where you are... or we're going to raise the price of our content to the point we break your economy!"

Then that speaks more to the scarcity of talent than anything else. Or maybe the drug addict relationship people have with American content? We were trying for the sympathy angle, weren't we?

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972736)

Obviously it would not be in a democracy. However many of us live in a representative democracy where our government represents those who speak the loudest [boston.com]

Re:Could someone explain to me (2, Insightful)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973286)

Quite easily. There is no requirement for public debate or notice in passing legislation or signing treaties. It is assumed that people will vote out politicians who do such things. The fact that there are enough of them currently elected that this is even a possibility shows that US citizens get exactly the government they want and deserve. Otherwise, we wouldn't have as many slimy people in office.

Actually, the question above is exactly why this is a problem: US citizens have no idea how their government works in practice, let alone how it should work in theory.

Re:Could someone explain to me (2, Informative)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976112)

There is no requirement for public debate or notice in passing legislation or signing treaties.

And in general, we have no need for more "notice." What "debate" happens is mostly wheeling and dealing behind the scenes before the bill comes to the floor, and any "debate" on the floor is usually for soundbites for the evening news. I'm not sure how one could require an "actual" debate, except through media and individuals being more critical during the process... which they can be.

Most non-trivial pieces of legislation take months to go through both houses and get to the President's desk for signature. Once a bill is introduced, it's a matter of public record, and current legislation under consideration can be found on the websites of both houses of Congress.

Yes, there are last minute amendments, but the negative effect there is usually more about pork rather than some more nefarious purpose... and there's generally still a delay while the bill winds its way through the other house or takes a few days before the President has to decide on it.

But the vast majority of this stuff is available for anyone who wants to look, and usually weeks or even months ahead of time. No one looks.

As for the implication that secret meetings are a common occurrence... they aren't. The Senate has only held secret sessions a couple dozen times in the past century, and the House has only had less than a handful since the early days of the US.

So, I'm not sure where this great public outcry against secrecy is... 99.9% of the stuff is already there (and most of the actual secret meetings had to deal with national security briefings). That doesn't mean there isn't a potential for abuse, but I'm not sure why everyone's acting like what Congress does is some big secret or that they are continuously hiding things from the public.

Re:Could someone explain to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30973354)

Maybe if you can get a sunshine amendment made to the constitution you'd have a point. Until then you don't have a point.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973914)

It's constitutional because the constitution doesn't include any reference to your gut feelings.

Re:Could someone explain to me (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974228)

Maybe there should be an amendment to the constitution:
"The gut feelings of people posting on Slashdot always overrule the congress."
Well, maybe we should exclude low-scored postings.

Re:Could someone explain to me (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974596)

Its called "representative democracy", you vote your representants, and then they do what they want. If their misbehave, is not their fault, or constitution fault. Is yours, or if you like, your countriy's citizen fault, even if was just gullibility.

The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972580)

Let's be level headed here for a moment. Let's assume for a moment ACTA was a "fair" agreement. Designed to give all affected parties a fair share of the cake. Even then, it would be met with incredible resistance once it hits the fan. Why? Because it's kept secret. You design a contract that will affect me but I don't get to read it until after it is signed. How in the world could I not resist it with all the force I could possibly have?

Also, they will soon notice that all the secrecy around it only makes it more interesting. If ACTA was published and discussed in plain view, it would soon be drowned in the noise of everyday politics. A few activists would care and as usual, nobody would listen to them. Do you think it would be on /.'s frontpage every other day if it was public? This way, it's kept in our minds, fresh and looming, a secret deal that will affect us but we don't get to see it. Can you imagine anything more interesting?

Of course (please put on your tinfoil hats now), it could all be a gigantic plot to keep our interest on it so we overlook something else. But generally, if ACTA is supposed to become reality some day, the whole secrecy around it will ensure that every government will have to fight an uphill battle to get it ratified and codified and every single step will be monitored closely and reported widely, simply because ACTA got that much limelight. Due to its secrecy.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30973022)

You design a contract that will affect me but I don't get to read it until after it is signed.

If its passed I will simply use every means at my disposal to ignore it.

Do you think it would be on /.'s frontpage every other day if it was public?

So what? Its on the front page of a half-dead geek website every other day. How often is it mentioned on the cover of a
national paper? How often is it mentioned on a news channel on TV? What percentage of the population has even heard of
ACTA? Maybe 5%? How many care? 1%?

But generally, if ACTA is supposed to become reality some day, the whole secrecy around it will ensure that every
government will have to fight an uphill battle to get it ratified and codified and every single step will be monitored
closely and reported widely, simply because ACTA got that much limelight

I think you're seriously overestimating the power of the people. Your lobbying dollars will never equal the amount the
RIAA/MPAA/BSA members and others can generate. The public are mostly weak-willed sheep who gladly swallow every word of
the crap they're fed by the media. They are easily distracted and change their minds based on the slightest whim or on
what they believe is popular opinion. The people behind ACTA are totally single-minded in their desire to increase their
power, influence and profits.

Dont get me wrong.. I wish you were right but the simple fact is that most people just dont care.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30973124)

I'm not half-dead, you insensitive clod!

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance (3, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973560)

So what? Its on the front page of a half-dead geek website every other day. How often is it mentioned on the cover of a national paper? How often is it mentioned on a news channel on TV? What percentage of the population has even heard of ACTA? Maybe 5%? How many care? 1%?

Well, here in Sweden it's been mentioned in the national media, but then we also have Pirate party representatives in the EU parliament...

/Mikael

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974572)

but then we also have Pirate party representatives in the EU parliament...

The parliament might be all that stands between us and ACTA being implemented in the EU. Because of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU parliament now has a say in virtually every new law and agreement that is to be ratified by the union. I don't think that they'll take the fact that they have not been allowed to see the draft treaty yet lightly, and might put some heavy grit in the machinery. They are very keen on using the newly acquired powers, and hopefully, they'll use their power to strike down the ACTA.

I don't count on the riksdag to do that, they are a bunch of sheep. The FRA law proved it. As you probably know, those who opposed it were coerced by the administration to vote contrary to their own opinion.

Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975114)

Forget lobbying dollars. Bullets are cheaper. Carbombs are cheaper. We've seen how effective they can be elsewhere in the world. Guess what? It isn't politicians that are the problem. Politicians have always been professional whores. The problems is the people behind the politicians, those people who pay the lobbyists to lobby the politicians. Those people who work at the tops of their respective corporations who pay the lobbyists who lobby the politicians. I suspect that many of them have far less security forces protecting them as politicians typically get the brunt of the blame and have to act accordingly, by having well trained and funded security forces to protect them. Politicians are basically professional whores and "blame magnets" to distract from the real problem makers.

No Jokes Here (1)

Bottles (1672000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972598)

Get it together, people. We understand the implications and can make the right noises to the right people.

The public will sleep safer knowing we're out there, doing something.

Like the Batman.

Re:No Jokes Here (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972626)

Batman is a comic, you know that I hope? Because in reality, someone like Batman would be hunted by the executive worse than any criminal you could imagine. No country on this planet lets a private citizen crack the force monopoly.

Well, not without a reasonable kickback.

Re:No Jokes Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972848)

Well, Batman was a billionaire after all, he could definitely swing a little influence as needed behind the scenes.

Re:No Jokes Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972904)

Batman, like most US comics heroes, was a criminal, by refusing to obey the law, and hiding his identity so he would nof be accountable for his actions.

Re:No Jokes Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975776)

That's what made them so awesome.

Re:No Jokes Here (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973182)

Well, as far as I know, they DO hunt Batman in the stories.
But in a city full of crime, like Gotham, a desperate police force, nearly against its will and nearly against the wall, can absolutely try to get a little help.
Batman is somewhere between calling the swat teams, and calling the national guard.

Re:No Jokes Here (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974730)

Trust me. Any other crime would take a back seat. Swat teams and national guard are under the control of the state, he would not be. That alone, and making the police force look bad, which falls back on politicians, is alone to make him the number one on the list.

Re:No Jokes Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30973472)

Batman has his own huge corporation involved in the military industrial complex and from which he creams the best technology. I think Batman could do this.

Re:No Jokes Here (2, Interesting)

lennier (44736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973928)

Actually.... there have been people rather like Batman in the 1930s era. Private millionaires who bankrolled much of WW2 military R&D.

Look up Howard Hughes, Alfred Loomis, Floyd Odlum, William Stephenson, 'Wild Bill' Donovan. Those boys got up to interesting stuff, sometimes working for 'the government' and sometimes on their own time (and dime). They weren't all friends of Hoover and FDR.

And to be honest, that heritage still exists today. Some of the same types of characters surfaced in teams Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Private military contractors, private defense contractors. Wackenhut/Group4, Blackwater/XE, KBR, Halliburton...

Batman is alive and well.

Re:No Jokes Here (2, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974888)

that's not batman, that's greed. there's a slight difference.

Re:No Jokes Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975704)

You tell those capitalist pigs! They never benefit society! Andrew Carnegie can take those libraries of his, and shove them up his ass!

Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the US (2, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972676)

It's all about standardizing shipping documents between countries. If you have ever tried to ship something bigger than a letter to the U.S., you'd find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time filling out forms just to get it into the American borders.

ACTA aims to make this pain equal across the board. In some ways it will protect shippers because the better they describe the contents of the package, the less likely it will be to be targeted for extra search measures. On the other hand, who in their right mind ever tells the complete truth on shipping documents? Shipping company hardware overseas isn't a gift, and it isn't really a "customer sample", and it definitely isn't a "commercial sample" or any other category listed on the document. So you usually just mark it as something random and give it a value of 50USD and hope for the best.

God help you if you try to send anything that could possibly generate radio signals. There is an additional form just for that.

The ACTA will pass because it will make it easy to manage documentation for shipping. There won't be a need to keep different forms for different countries at the post office or FedEx counter anymore. Everyone just uses the same ridiculously difficult forms that require signing in triplicate and exact descriptions of the shipment items.

Good day, Citizen. Papers please.

Re:Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972958)

That seems pretty reasonable. So why don't they negotiate the terms out in the open?

I suspect that there's more to it than just this. Someone is trying to slip some funny language into the agreement. Often, when negotiating contract terms, one can deduce where such language is being injected into the document by observing how dearly one party has become attached to some particular wording or content. And in finding these particular terms, one can guess at what sort of hidden agendas the various parties might have.

Re:Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974584)

ACTA also seeks to add in some things they have in France like their three strikes law and other goodies that aren't in the US just yet. ACTA will fix all of that though, I also assume fair use will be neutered beyond belief.

waggers (4, Interesting)

epine (68316) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972678)

USTR head Ron Kirk has reportedly said that countries would walk away from the treaty if the text were made available

I don't get this. If our elected leaders walk off on the job, we already have a mechanism in place to fix this: a general election. Maybe the next batch is willing to contend with the issue under democratic conditions, such as open consultation.

Oh, you mean only the tinpots will walk away from the table, which will hurt us more than it hurts them. Why didn't you make yourself clear in the first place? Democracy is good, except when negotiating with tinpots, which necessarily takes place on their terms, in the best interest of all concerned.

Nice tail-wags-the-dog justification for subverting democratic transparency.

Or is there something I missed here? Did I skip an essential chapter in Democracy for Dummies? I feel so stupid. Our politicians are willing to shine their eminent sensibilities on this problem and all they want is a little secrecy to work their magic for the good of humanity? There's just no respect in this world, is there?

Re:waggers (3, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972856)

Perhaps this is the best solution. If the current proposals are so embarrassing (or whatever) to the parties negotiating them that they don't want to do so in the light of day, then drop the whole thing. Step back, take another look at the problem and come back when everyone has some ideas that they're not ashamed to publish.

They do realize it has to go public at some point? (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972964)

All of this secrecy just feeds the intense interest from the public. Everyone from conspiracy theorists, to fringe lunatics will have ample time to take pot shots at it. That said, they do realize that at some point, they will have to put their 'yay' or 'nay' on this thing? It will be obvious to anyone wanting to read it what it says? If it adversely affects millions of Americans in any significant way, the folks who ratify this thing are history. Brown should be a good reminder of that. Piss enough people off, or scare them enough, and they will act out of self defense. I don't see anything in ACTA that is comfortable, and it actually does make me extremely nervous that only folks like the RIAA are invited to attend. I've seen the ridiculous lengths they will go to and what they consider sane and sensible.

Re:They do realize it has to go public at some poi (2, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973110)

Politicians haven't been held responsible for this kind of shit ever since they realised the full extent to which they could abuse redistricting.

Re:They do realize it has to go public at some poi (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974132)

All of this secrecy just feeds the intense interest from the public


The story may have the Slashdot's attention. But you have drill down deep elsewhere to have even heard of it.

unauthorized IP distribution = piracy (3, Interesting)

Ifni (545998) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973062)

<tinfoilhat>

From the article: efforts at the international level to fight counterfeiting and piracy

I have to wonder at the increase and sudden newsworthiness of Somalian piracy during the private talks around ACTA. When it comes time to present it to the public, talk of counterfeiting and piracy will elicit images of counterfeit currency and Somalian pirates and the average Joe that hasn't read much about the document will assume that those opposing it are a bunch of crazies. Finally, the years of equating unauthorized IP distribution with piracy will come to fruition for our dark masters.

</tinfoilhat>

In all seriousness, though, whether planned by some diabolical secret cabal or not, I can see this confusion being purposefully used to sway the view of the common citizen.

Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy (2, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974910)

i agree that the possibility exists, and that in itself scares the shit out of me.

Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy (2, Informative)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975126)

Have you noticed that, with the increased mention of Somalian piracy, that this winter has been a bit chill?

I think it is a sign from the FSM, but I'm not sure if it is positive of negative.

Re:unauthorized IP distribution = piracy (3, Insightful)

ldrydenb (1316047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977016)

Yes, just as Disney used the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy to glamorise piracy & promote their pro-sharing, anti-copyright agenda.

Oh, wait...

Questions are harder than answers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30973138)

Probably we don't know the right questions.

The answers are easy.

-What is it?
A reciprocity agreement about avoiding piracy, to protect the ellusive Intelectual Property. As economies migrate more and more from material to knowledge, it becomes important to create scarcity of ideas, so that it's possible to market them intead of freely distributing them. As we've seen in the Middle Ages, we're about to perform a huge step -- backwards. Countries which will close will become outdated, just like the former URSS. Countries with free exchange of ideas/culture will get an enormous advantage, just like the US when it did not recognize copyright.

Alas, this certainly will also be used for threats and control by some superpower.

-do you have evidence?
No, I don't. It's bad policy warning someone before you shake him. Fair play is so 19th century.

-why is this secret?
Because the shepherd enters the front door. Tautologically, it's secret because it's bad and thus must be made secretly.

-what would ACTA do to my country's laws?
In simple words, subvert your country values. If you live in a musical country (like me), prepare for more unidirectional cultural domination/contamination and unidirectional money flow.

To sum it up, prepare for spending your money non red tape, under the supervision of the law.

how to defeat acta: (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973902)

ignore it

technology has gotten to the point that piracy is simply the best distribution model around, for creators and consumers (oh, you thought the law was supposed to protect creators? it protects distributors: look at the contracts distributors sign with creators and tell me who really benefits). consumers get bounty, creators get ancillary revenue streams and distributors die. end of story

let them pass any law they want. no really: what is the value of an unenforceable law? people are getting upset about acta, but i really have to ask everyone: acta may sound diabolical and severe, but its toothless: there's no enforcement of it possible. sure, they may get the occasional grandmother with an unsecured router or a soccer mom who's kids friends take advantage of her hospitality, but that's going to stop technological progress?

let them fund stables of tens of thousands of lawyers and put behind them far reaching draconian laws. whoop de friggin doo. tens of millions of media hungry, technologically savvy and POOR teenagers has them all beat, and then some. the contest is a joke, the laws mean nothing, the game is over: technological progress wins, distributors die

we are simply living in a transition period in which we must suffer the bluster of morons from another media era who simply don't get the fundamental changes taking place around them

Re:how to defeat acta: (3, Insightful)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974694)

I'd like to think your right, but once people start having their internet connections cut off (maybe even having their "internet passports" revoked) piracy will likely revert to a much more limited community. Hopefully people will read and fuck more, but they will probably just watch more TV.

Re:how to defeat acta: (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974726)

let them pass any law they want. no really: what is the value of an unenforceable law?

It's not unenforceable. The tech can be turned against it's users. Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged. We're not that far off such a thing. So people stop using the net and start copying files. What do you think "trusted" computing is about. There will be a day when hard drives start dobbing their owners in. Imagine mass round ups of teenagers that are guilty until proven innocent and go to jail for years over copyright infringement. It's all possible if no one stands up to this madness.

Re:how to defeat acta: (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976094)

Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged. We're not that far off such a thing.

Imagine a sneakernet.

Re:how to defeat acta: (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976552)

Imagine technically illiterate people with better things to do.

Won't/Can't happen (2, Interesting)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976276)

> Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged.

Cannot happen. Well, at least effectively. Because of things called "steganography" [wikipedia.org] and "perfect forward secrecy" [wikipedia.org] .

So, no. The only closed Internet is a a read-only Internet.

It does lower the bandwidth a lot. But as Thing 1 already replied to you, the high-bandwidth stuff can be done by sneakernet.

Your fear from Trusted Computing is more real. But even there, we are close to the point where third-world countries can host illicit fabs for untrusted computing platforms. Well, I suppose if possession of untrusted computing would be punished draconianly.... but if it gets that bad, the third world will be looking like a really good place to live for a lot of us technophiles....

Re:how to defeat acta: (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974994)

there is no law that cannot be enforced, given sufficient resources. and one thing the MAFIAA has is resources.

you think anti-piracy laws are unenforceable? let me paint you a picture:
the internet has become a commodity like power or water, not in terms of how widespread it is, but because it is thoroughly regulated. anonymity is dead. MAC addresses are impossible to change, and are registered to a specific individual (perhaps a set of individuals, if it's a machine shared by a, say, family). owning a network card with a counterfeit MAC is a federal offense. ISP's are fully regulated, and are required to record if not all traffic, then at least all packet headers. a system is in place by which a government organization can gain instant access to any ISP's records, and even live traffic at any router. a rag-tag group of disgruntled idealists/poor teenagers can't stand up to a fully organized effort to shut them up.
far-fetched? sure. impossible? fuck no.

Re:how to defeat acta: (4, Interesting)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976522)

Yes, I can see it coming.

I still have my old analog modem, and I still control my own network. We hackers will simply retreat to UUCP ("bbs" for the micro-computer generation). With known and trusted peers only.

About the only thing added will be full crypto on the UUCP links.

And when they come for that...

It will go back to physical data exchange.

Too bad, though. But the level of discourse may become reasonable again, and maybe, just maybe, SPAM will go away. At least on the darknets.

Re:how to defeat acta: (3, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975130)

Nobody is worried about the future of distributing content. There will always be crackers, and the effort of one is enough to liberate some piece of content for everyone. What we're worried about is that the *AA will destroy the internet trying.

Re:how to defeat acta: (2, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976108)

The law only works because the majority of the population respect it.

As you say, once you make a law that the majority don't want to honor and respect, the law is unenforceable.

As they say, they can't put us ALL in jail.

American Criminal Transportation Authority? (2, Informative)

zaivala (887815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974674)

I have just read this article and two layers down in links, and have YET to find what "ACTA" is or means. Please add this information to the article -- not all of us can remember the tons of alphabet soup we are being fed.

Re:American Criminal Transportation Authority? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975526)

It's a secret...

Re:American Criminal Transportation Authority? (1)

zaivala (887815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975656)

Then that explains why they are holding secret meetings, but does not explain why they are openly discussing open meetings.

Chuck Norris says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975000)

""This past week Guadalajara, Mexico hosted the 7th secret meeting of ACTA proponents who continue to ignore demands worldwide to open the debate to the public. Piecing together official and leaked documents from various global sources, Michael Geist has coalesced it all into a five part ACTA Guide that offers structured insight into what these talks might foist upon the populace at large"

One World Government.

If you haven't already (2, Interesting)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976174)

Write to your representatives in the national government. It might not mean much, but it's the best (legal) way to get your voice heard. The same arguments why not voting is a bad idea generally apply here.

The best thing is, it might only take one country pulling out to put the ACTA into question everywhere.

Hopefully no laws will come out of it (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976808)

Its difficult to get politicians from different countries to agree on anything. Getting the USA and Europe to agree is hard enough, but expecting Russia and the Far East to agree on a global copyright law, seems incredible to me. I bet these meetings will continue though as the politicians get regular payed for holidays and the expenses of all copyright vested interests.

---

Piracy [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?