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!

Google Attorney Slams ACTA Copyright Treaty

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-would-think dept.

Google 157

Hugh Pickens writes "CNET reports that Daphne Keller, a senior policy counsel at Google, says ACTA has 'metastasized' from a proposal to address border security and counterfeit goods to a sweeping international legal framework for copyright and the Internet that could increase the liability for Internet intermediaries such as, perhaps, search engines. 'You don't want to play Russian roulette with very high statutory damages.' One section of ACTA says that Internet providers 'disabling access' to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized 'transmission of materials protected by copyright' would be immune from lawsuits but if they choose not to do so, they could face legal liability. Both the Obama administration and the Bush administration had rejected requests for the text of ACTA, with the White House last year even indicating that disclosure would do 'damage to the national security.'"

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

Industrial Last Gasp? (5, Informative)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32140884)

Why would ACTA have been vital to "national security"? Is this an admission of sorts that the US no longer makes actual things but instead the majority of its GDP is based on intangible products? So, piracy as the issue: what if the world doesn't play ball with the situation the US has worked themselves into? If the world does not recognize ideas as property, where does that leave the future revenue source of the US?

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32140904)

In this case "national security" means the stability and financial success of their supporters and corporate overlords.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (3, Interesting)

dcollins (135727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141372)

In some sense it always has. One book I recently enjoyed was "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kagan. It maps out the key expansionist cycle of the U.S. in its role as the first modern, liberal, mercantile-driven nation: (1) Free U.S. private merchants enter neighboring or foreign nation. (2) Merchants get in some kind of dispute with local business, people, or government. (3) U.S. military steps in to control or annex area in name of protecting U.S. citizens and property. From the earliest days this cycle was explicitly noted by both U.S. and European politicians.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141928)

One book I recently enjoyed was "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kagan.

Be careful. Kagan is a neo-con kook at heart. His writings assume a US-Israel hegemony and he represents the worst kind of conventional wisdom that posits the world would be better off if we just let smart people like him make the decisions. He's also tends to be an "ends justify the means" kind of guy when it comes to military entanglements, with the ends usually meaning oil or profits for military contractors. He's an excellent writer, but his books tend to be delicious apples with worms at the core. Basically, an apologist for the military-industrial complex, masquerading as a liberal with "everyone's best interest in mind" as long as their "best interest" involves a huge adventurist US military and support for Israel. He and Bill Kristol were co-authors of the "Project for a New American Century" which was the neo-con blueprint for the Bush Administration's plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11 or even the 2000 election.

Caveat emptor. I suggest digging for some of the critical reviews of his books before accepting any of his conclusions as gospel.

Google (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141608)

I am glad Google seems to be taking exception to ACTA. They have a big voice, they will be listened to.

ACTA and the Overblown Threat of Piracy (3, Informative)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141666)

Pruning Shears [pruningshears.us] has an excellent analysis of ACTA.

Re:Google (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143346)

I agree, and I disagree.

The real problem is, there aren't nearly enough voices protesting ACTA. Google will be listened to, but there are to many other big money voices clamoring in favor of ACTA. Google will be bullied and whipped into conformance. Understand that ACTA seems to have the backing of some of the deepest pockets in the United States, and around the world - not to mention the United States government.

Google may have enough clout to temper some of the most vile clauses of ACTA, but IMHO, ACTA is going through, and it's going to suck galaxies of money through garden hoses.

Google bullied??? Gooogle? (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143402)

they could lose on this one, but nobody will ever bully Google, not even the Chinese.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32144430)

Yes, the shareholders (not you sparky!) will not be amused. ACTA is the Association to Control The Apes. If you work for someone like an animal, and they treat you like an animal, then you get labeled an animal. ACTA is like most laws in the US, designed to control profits and wealth for the 5% richest people in the world (the people with 95% of the wealth). With that much money, politicians are bought. If you don't play, you either lose or die. There hasn't been a politician elected in the US in the last 30 years that wasn't on someones payroll. They pay both sides. They win, no matter who gets elected. Its like playing in the casino. You can claim that after only spending $20 you won $10 (and feel all good about yourself). You might even be one of the rare ones who wins $100 after only spending $90, ultimately the house always wins. The people paying the politicians always win. Didn't grease the palm of a politico lately? They aren't going to listen to you if you don't grease them. They listen to the ones who grease them. No grease, go push a rope. It was likely a meeting on the beach of a privately owned island a few years ago. The people with money had a meeting about staying rich. You weren't invited. ACTA is a stick that makes sure that you will always owe them money. The internet made sharing information and ideas very easy. Too easy. Governments can't control what people think anymore. They see unrest in Iran due to the internet (or Korea or Seattle or anywhere else), and openly they cheer, but privately they wring their hands. They see that they don't have control over media like they once did. People can share video, text, ideas. If it doesn't benefit a government or corporation (and lately governments have been only listening to corporations), then products can be made to fail, and without corporate support, governments can fail, and thats where the national security part comes in. The government relies on certain corporations for funding (they have 95% of the money). If those corporations fail, then the government gets no money (and the government could fail). A free (free to exchange ideas, content, etc) internet is not something corporations want. ACTA seems to be the tool used to do the damage. You were wondering why its all done in secret? Of course its there to stamp out freedom! They will try to spin it in some 'National Security' lie, but its something to take away freedom. If it was something to stand up and cheer about, you would have already heard about it. You will only find out about how bad it really is when it takes a big wet bite out of your ass.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32140908)

*cough* [wikipedia.org]

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (4, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32140964)

Why would ACTA have been vital to "national security"?

Because saying so means they don't have to show it to you.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141110)

The same reason Nixon claimed his incriminating tapes were.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (4, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141190)

More specifically, the "national security" claim is the only way to get an exemption from the disclosure requirements imposed by FOIA. It is undemocratic and insulting that it is abused so often. It is appalling that the Obama administration is working so hard to best Bush II in the scope of this abuse.

"Intangible products"? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32140984)

Is this an admission of sorts that the US no longer makes actual things but instead the majority of its GDP is based on intangible products?

Umm, I think ACTA is bullshit, but if you don't think a movie or TV show is an "actual thing" made in the USA, you're fucking batshit crazy.

Don't believe me? Try writing a screenplay sometime. Done? It sucks. It beyond sucks. It's an unreadable POS that makes no sense to anyone but you. But you think it's awesome, so go ahead and make it. Yeah, you'll need some money and a crew and some actors and some VFX houses. And props, makeup, locations, insurance, transportation, post-production, Foley, sound mixing.

You get the point. They make "actual things" and employ real people.

Same goes for video games, computer software, and those other "intangible products" that believe it or not are also "actual things".

Again, ACTA sucks donkey balls. I'm just saying that it is related to a "real" industry with "real" products, not some ephemeral, intangible anti-product. If you're going to debate this, you can't just dismiss the concerns (or existence) of the "IP" industry out of hand, because you'll lose on the facts before you've even started. There are plenty of rationals for criticizing ACTA. Saying they don't make actual things isn't one of them. Hope you enjoyed Iron Man 2 this weekend.

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141016)

you're fucking batshit crazy

ACTA sucks donkey balls

Eric Cartman is posting as AC?

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141062)

Respect muh authoritah.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141034)

The product is intangible in that it can be infinitely duplicated. There is no longer any scarcity.

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141148)

I'd like to see the rest of the world duplicate the most recent Chryslers that have been imported into the UK.
They are the fastest depreciating vehicle on the market today.
Their quality is shit.
The rest of the world is not duplicating them. They are sitting back and laughing loudly.
I worked for a US Company for 20 years. We made stuff. We actually made it far too well. The cheap imports killed the business.
I still make a living by servicing the kit we made. Some if it 20+ years ago and sits there working just like the day it was installed.
The far newer stuff (mainly from China) lasts 3-4 years max.

I think the US manufacturing base is going the way ours has. Down the pan apart from the really specialised things like F1 race cars, Satellites and Jet Engines (Rolls Royce)

The ACTA is nothing more than an attempt by the US Govt to make the rest of the world beholden to Hollywood and a few other 'dead wood' industrials congolomerates.
In the majority of the world, it will be ignored especially in France where I live now.

Just my 2p worth.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141570)

must be nice to live in a country with a functioning health care system. I hear the food is ok too.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142110)

Yes, we've all seen Ratatouille.

Actually, from the few examples of French tourists I've met, that was not the case; they even put Mayonnaise in our stew [dkimages.com] . The horror, the horror.

Re:"Intangible products"? (4, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141170)

The scarcity is not the product, but the person/creativity/talent behind the product.

Darwin Reedy [youtube.com] is probably the best known example of how far lack of talent can get you. A bit more scarcity would have been good in this case.

The problem is, once the product is made today it is worthless. Just because it cost tens of millions to make Iron Man 2 doesn't mean I can't download it for free now. So why should I pay for it if it is being offered? Respect? Bah, there is no respect outside of the streetcorner thugs.

Until we have a good answer for this there is no possibility of revenue from digital goods. We are training schoolchildren to take whatever is offered without any thought of payment. These children will grow up and utterly destroy whatever revenue model is left for digital stuff.

Personally, I think the end is coming like a freight train.

Re:"Intangible products"? (3, Insightful)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141212)

Right, so that's why Iron Man 2 is going to lose money! /s

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32144070)

In part, yes. Just like the part of representing private military contractors will save the world, next summer blockbuster will be what?
Private health insurance companies saving the american people, from un-insured employed and un-employed, to too fat babies while at the same time punching CEO's and big shareholders while shooting lawsuits agaisn't fast food companies and other multi-national comporations and banks?

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32144190)

It will, but under the model that ACTA is trying to preserve.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141500)

Urg, damn you, I actually clicked on that Darwin Reedy link. It made me wished I was rick-rolled instead.

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32142012)

Until we have a good answer for this there is no possibility of revenue from digital goods.

Where do you live, Bizarro World? Film makers, musicians, authors etc. all seem to be doing fine. (That is, not every last one of them is doing fine, but enough are doing fine for the respective groups as a whole to be considered economically successful. The continued creative output we're seeing and the ever-larger of movies, books, CDs etc. we can actually access is further proof of this.)

We are training schoolchildren to take whatever is offered without any thought of payment.

Right. I remember when my daughter came back from school last week, she mentioned that the pinko commie hippie fascists had just made the class undergo their monthly re-indoctrination by watching "Piracy is a-OK!".

What the fuck are you talking about?

Personally, I think the end is coming like a freight train.

Even if you had a point, we'd still only be talking about movies, music, TV shows, books and so on.

Maybe you can't live without being able to watch The Simpsons or the newest Hollywood blockbuster, but personally, I'd reserve terms like "the end" for events that'd actually deserve them.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142690)

I've always said they need to deliver a product we can't at home. They have big screens , now we do also. We can make popcorn 1000% cheaper and just as good , our stereo equipment is WAAAY better then that theater shit system that has one speaker "flapping" with bass. Now the entertainment companies have 3D the only thing we can't experience at home ... wait now we can as well with 3d TV's coming out! They nee some Holo shit now. As long as we can have a better experience at HOME with more options (not less) then we shall continue to watch at home. Is exclusivity really all they have to offer? If so then it serves them right for going broke depending on that factor! Give me some shit I can't reproduce at home better! Then I will drag my ass to the movies. Like I do for cool 3d movies!

iron man 2 will be seen IN THE CINEMA HOUSE (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142840)

a controlled real world venue

even if they gave iron man 2 out free on dvds this weekend, it will still make a shit load of money in the cinema house. people pay money to watch movies in the cinema. they don't want to see it on their 17 inch monitor in their basement by themselves. or on their little netbook on the train. or even alone in front of the 52" hd in their den. they want to ooh and aah with strangers. its sociological. even all the cell phones and babies don't dent this concept of going to the movie house

this is how you make money in movies, and always WILL make money in movies: the cinema house

the only thing the internet is going to kill is the dvd after market. and who cares? how many crappy direct to video movies to do we need? avatar made a shitload of cash: all in the cinema. so the movie making model is completely safe, completely untouched by the internet, NO ACTA NEED APPLY, despite all the whining and panic and hand wringing by people who apparently don't even understand the business

the movie making business is completely safe: it will not be destroyed. it will not be touched by any internet, dvd, vcr, or television (the original "destroyer" of the cinema because of free over the air signals... in the 1950s they said the cinema house was dead!)

Re:iron man 2 will be seen IN THE CINEMA HOUSE (2, Interesting)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143656)

this is how you make money in movies, and always WILL make money in movies: the cinema house

Only because the release of the movie in the cinema house is before the release on download/disc. I know many people that can fit more than enough close friends for a sociological experience in their home theater, myself included. The great part is that I don't have to listen to some idiot chomping popcorn while his son sends another text message with the light of his phone killing everyone's view of the screen.

i don't believe you (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143694)

i don't know anyone who has a bevy of friends they can program to come over to their house and to all agree on a movie at the exact moment you want to see it

furthermore, all the babies and cellphones do not rise above the oohs and aahs in the dark around you that heighten your experience

if you honestly believe otherwise, you don't even know yourself

i am asserting that your complaint is false and contrived. box office returns say so. and EVEN IF your complaint is truthful and factual, you are a fragment of the population, a small shrill overly fragile minority that is so bothered by a cellphone. so your opinion is without merit

sorry dude

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32142938)

These children will grow up and utterly destroy whatever revenue model is left for digital stuff.

Personally, I think the end is coming like a freight train.

The end of what? An outdated, failed business model? Even if - hypothetically - major blockbusters would no longer be made, what would we lose? Perhaps digital entertainment in the future will cost nothing to consumers and be filled with ads or then made with zero budgets by those who do it out of passion. Indie films are getting better and better since sufficient quality equipment costs less and less. And maybe live theater performances might gain popularity? Or are you telling me that we have no culture legacy from before recordings could be made?

Especially in music, I think artists are overcompensated as it is and most of those making money are just overhead that we'd be better off without. What purpose does a record label serve anymore? And why would it be a bad thing, if the incomes of artists were limited to what they make from concerts and the recorded material would only constitute promotion. Isn't the status of a pop star and groupies etc. compensation enough? Since really, when copying now costs nothing, we really need to question whether copyright should be changed too. Perhaps the only right now should be giving credit where credit is due so that major artists in whatever their field is, gain status that way. I've also played with the thought that how could we explain the concept of forbidding others from playing their music to someone from the era before any recording devices had been invented. I'd say that composers then, when all music was live only, would've been quite pleased, if others appreciated their music so much that they played it and that thus more people got to hear what they had composed.

Now, my prediction is that if sanity prevails, software that everybody needs simply will be FOSS whilst specialized software, which very few need, will be custom made or only come with the hardware itself (such as medical instruments etc.).

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32144502)

If people stop making digital stuff then the consumers will change their behavior since they certainly won't forget about their appetite for it. Its naturally self correcting, like probably most systems in which we fear imminent apocalypse.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141174)

I think the other AC's point (I am YAAC - Yet Another AC) is that there is consumption of real goods and services required in order to transform idea into movie. It isn't something done super cheaply - at least not in a quality level that people want to watch. Since production costs of the first copy are high (and yes, the marginal cost of subsequent copies extremely low - basically hosting and bandwidth costs), the industry must have a way to make money in order to produce the product. We can argue all day about their pricing, their business model, etc. - but it comes down to a simple equation: If people want to watch movies with major actors / actresses, superb visual and audio effects, etc. there will need to be a business model in which the people producing these movies can make money. The actors, set builders, makeup artists, visual effects people, caterers, property managers, etc. all need to be paid.

If, instead, we want to watch a bunch of home movies on YouTube - we can have that instead by just continuing to eat away at the movie business model by violating copyright.

Re:"Intangible products"? (3, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141764)

it comes down to a simple equation: If people want to watch movies with major actors / actresses, superb visual and audio effects, etc. there will need to be a business model in which the people producing these movies can make money. The actors, set builders, makeup artists, visual effects people, caterers, property managers, etc. all need to be paid.

If, instead, we want to watch a bunch of home movies on YouTube - we can have that instead by just continuing to eat away at the movie business model by violating copyright.

Doesn't bother me any. In the end, writing, acting, and directing are important. The rest of it is nice, but not essential. For example, I remember seeing 'Driving Miss Daisy' -- the play, not the movie based on it -- back, oh, over 20 years ago, now. IIRC, the whole thing had only three actors, and the props consisted of two stools, a telephone, and a table to put the telephone on. While lower budgets might change what sorts of movies get made, I think that there will continue to be plenty of good ones. And if audiences are called upon to use their imaginations a little more to fill in details, then I don't think that's a problem either.

Re:"Intangible products"? (3, Informative)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142308)

Not infinitely. Recording media are physical; pushing bits down a wire takes energy. Strictly speaking, it's not that there's no scarcity, but that scarcity need not be a problem anymore. The costs are not zero, but negligible.

This is an important distinction. Some people will treat information technology as if there were zero costs, and so it's incommensurable with other commodities. But it's not fundamentally different, just the leading edge of abundance. Take, by comparison, food, which is massively and wastefully overproduced, yet people still go hungry.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141086)

Don't believe me? Try writing a screenplay sometime. Done? It sucks. It beyond sucks. It's an unreadable POS that makes no sense to anyone but you. But the marketing guys think it's awesome, so go ahead and make it. Yeah, you'll need some money and a crew and some overpriced crap big name actors and some VFX houses. And props, makeup, locations, insurance, transportation, post-production, Foley, sound mixing.

While I don't disagree with you Hollywood doesn't seem able to get the first part right very much lately. They think spending more (and then artificially inflating their costs by 500-1000%) on the other parts makes up for not having a good story. Or they'll take a good story and redo it countless times. Then they get these kinds of stupid laws passed because it didn't do quite as well as they were expecting.

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141232)

Agreed, whenever anybody says that the majority of the US economy is based on intangible goods, it is an indicator that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. In fact, the majority of the US economy is based on manufactured and tangible goods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States_by_sector

Are you new here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141328)

This is slashdot, we don't let facts enter into it!

Re:"Intangible products"? (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141578)

That manufacturing base is rapidly becoming devalued. It is no longer anything special, it has been and is being duplicated all over the world. The competition of the future is going to be over the designs of the products and then they can be built anywhere at all.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142344)

They can also be designed anywhere at all.

If we're lucky, this will undermine nationalism and similar bigotries.

Re:"Intangible products"? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142610)

Sure, movies and TV shows are things; the question is whether someone should be able force others to refrain from forming their own property into the same shape as this thing.

Re:"Intangible products"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32142874)

Perhaps.

Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [wikipedia.org]
and this
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/1957497156.shtml [techdirt.com]

Then tell me why I should take these guys seriously. When they say Star Wars and Forest Gump are 'financial disasters'. I think when I stop laughing they can go to hell.

They do not 'make' anything other than ripping off the very people who make them money. Want to know why you hear about actor xyz getting some crazy check up front for some bomb of a movie? Because they have been burned so many times it is the *ONLY* way to get it back. They know its a crap movie and that it will actually *BE* a financial disaster. But they get checks up front this time.

Ask the cast and crew of one of the lowest budget horror films of all time Texas chainsaw massacre how much money they got out of the movie. Then remember it was one of the highest grossing file of its time.

They do not even bother to keep track of what the actual losses are. So that way even if by some magic it does 'break even' they do not have to pay anyone as they do not even really know.

Its funny when I hear about artists bitching about people 'stealing' their shit on the web. They go after the the brats who may or may not have bought something. Then ignore how much money they are loosing in their contracts.

Think this is only 'movies and music'? Think again. You think infinity ward and half the crew just walked out because of a personnel issue? No Activision is playing fast and loose with the numbers and not wanting to pay out one of the highest grossing games ever. Think this is a new thing? Go watch videos on the old Atari guys.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (2, Interesting)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141030)

where does that leave the future revenue source of the US?

Same as if it does; you assume such IPR wouldn't be made and owned by non-US interests as well. In reality there's little reason to expect such production wouldn't follow the pattern of other manufacturing.

Fundamentally, IPR is equivalent to any other taxation form; stronger protection and enforcement for IPR is equivalent to raising taxes. Depending on where the money goes taxes may or may not serve their purpose well, but they rarely make the economy more competitive.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141042)

Why would ACTA have been vital to "national security"?

Well Gee... why would Wall Street ever have started an organisation like the CIA?

*shrug*

Blatant corruption (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141402)

Secret laws and laws passed out of the public eye for the sake of corporate interests are nothing but simple corruption. Call it what it is.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141506)

This would seem to be the dark secret of all financial evolution both past and present. The draw of free wealth and thus power with little to no investment is the flame to the moth. Intellectual property as an industry relies on the honor of individuals to respect and follow the rules. And when the honor of individuals cannot be expected, either the intellectual property industry collapses or the intellectual property industry must take up arms to defend itself.

The intellectual property industry is weak in and of itself. It is the agreements, the laws and ultimately the enforcement that makes this industry strong and this strength cannot exist without fear and oppression.

Hugh Pickens == Roland Piquepaille (0, Offtopic)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#32140954)

Hugh Pickens is the new Roland Piquepaille

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141012)

What are you trying to tell us?

YMBNH (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141090)

"You must be new here."

Obama=Bush in a new suit. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32140988)

The new boss is just like the old boss.

Actually, I'm worried about Obama. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141038)

I wonder if he is really a Republican undercover...

Re:Actually, I'm worried about Obama. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141330)

You must have been one of the folks who thought he was a "liberal". He isn't - he's a Democrat. Democrat is a term that means "not a Republican" and that's about all it means as far as politics goes. There are conservative Democrats, liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats - just saying someone is a "Democrat" is kind of meaningless as far as predicting ideology goes. (Used to be the same with Republicans, but all of the liberal and most of the moderate Republicans have been driven out of the party over the years, so they're mostly in two camps now - "conservative Republicans" and "batshit crazy cloud cuckoo land Republicans").

As far as Obama goes - it was pretty obvious to anyone who remembers the 1990s that Obama was campaigning as someone slightly to the right of Bill Clinton as he actually governed (not Bill Clinton as he campaigned in 1992). Who was the finest Republican president the US had seen since Dwight D. Eisenhower, so no one should really be all that surprised by how he's been acting as President. To be fair to people who were fooled into thinking that this somehow meant he was "liberal": he was up against Hillary Clinton who was campaigning as someone even further to the right of Bill Clinton than Obama was, so in comparison between the two of them Obama would seem like the "more liberal" of the pair. But neither of them ran as "liberal" candidates - at best most of their platforms were moderate, middle-of-the-road, pragmatic technocrat policy-wonk stuff. Delivered with pretty language, of course -- much like Bill Clinton, come to think of it.

Re:Actually, I'm worried about Obama. (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143560)

I don't think I want to live in a country where Obama and Clinton would be considered conservatives.

At least in the US, the only ones that say things like this are people who are so far left, most people realize them for what they are.

Re:Keep in Mind (5, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141362)

Just how right-wing the US is generally. Even your left-wing politicians are more rightwing in a lot of cases than the most rightwing politicians in some other countries. Our "Conservative" government up here in Canada gets along just fine with Obama's administration, and the association - like that with previous administrations in the States - continues to move Canadian politics to the right.

You folks have no idea what a normal political spectrum is I am afraid, the influence of the Republicans over the past 100 years or so seems to have skewed things greatly to me.

actually the usa is left of center (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142790)

sure, places like canada and the netherlands are to our left, but far more are to our right: the entire muslim world, for example, plenty of third world countries. we even have better freedom of speech protection than up in canuckistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#North_America [wikipedia.org]

i consider myself left leaning and greatly admire canada, there's plenty about your country that the usa would be wise to emulate

but its pretty silly to see you castigate the usa for being so right leaning from a GLOBAL standpoint when you can't even keep track of how far left canada itself is on the world stage

go ahead and castigate the usa from a canda-centric point of view, that's perfectly in your right. but when it comes to wordliness, you have a ways to go, as you don't have a good grasp of the true international range of ideologies. unfortunately, its quite right wing out there. really

Re:Keep in Mind (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143590)

You folks have no idea what a normal political spectrum is I am afraid, the influence of the Republicans over the past 100 years or so seems to have skewed things greatly to me.

If Canada is as liberal as you state (where our liberals look like conservatives to you,) maybe it is Canada that is lacking a normal political spectrum.

Or maybe, different countries have different founding ideologies and the normal political spectrum is based upon those ideologies. In which case, it makes sense that there would be different political spectrum from country to country.

Please, for the kids... (5, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141050)

I really, really hope that everyone remembers everything that BOTH the republicans AND democrats have done to take steps to gradually make our country into a police state in the name of "National Security" over the past few years. In reality, personal freedoms are being controlled and restricted by corporate interest and they have little interest in anything other than making a buck.

Please, come election time, research independent alternatives for public office. The offerings may be slim, but can you really say that it would be any worse than what's been going on?

Re:Please, for the kids... (3, Informative)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141112)

I started looking for some "independent" websites to help people become more informed. I'm not even sure there is an #1 source for this information, but if you have some independent websites, please list em.

All I know of are these two:

  • http://www.newamericanindependent.com/
  • http://www.gp.org/

On a side note, we need a catchy slogan. How about "Vote to Revolt"?

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141228)

On a side note, we need a catchy slogan. How about "Vote to Revolt"?

Here are a few:
* Vote Independents, they can't do any worse!
* Independents, the only party to start with a vowel!
* Vote for Independents, the true minority
* Ron Paul can do everything!
* An Independent would vote for you if you were running for office
* Vote Independents, we've already spent enough on R & D
* Independents put the "try" in tripartisan
* Vote for someone you've never head of
* Go Independent, it's the new "rogue"
* Independents for Independence, say that three times fast!

Re:Please, for the kids... (3, Funny)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141978)

Coming to a voting booth near you on November 6th, 2012: Independents' Day.

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141272)

Things like ACTA, DMCA, PATRIOT, etc are what you get with a government that's big enough and powerful enough for a national healthcare system, cradle-to-grave entitlements, etc.

A) Healthcare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, student loans, foodstamps, Cash For Clunkers, Stimulus (aka Money for Mobsters), etc etc etc.

B) Freedom.

Choose one.

Strat

Re:Please, for the kids... (3, Insightful)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141658)

Things like ACTA, DMCA, PATRIOT, etc are what you get with a government that's big enough and powerful enough for five permanent standing armed forces, seventeen different armed civilian agencies. the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of anywhere, ever, and a permanent state of war against a non-political entity (drugs) being fought on over two dozen fronts. You can close down every single one of the programs you listed and there will be exactly as many government employees bearing arms as now.
      Your post is like the case of a man running past with a pack of rabid weasels clinging to his form and his shoelaces untied, and you saying "I know how to fix the whole problem, let's just tie his left shoe!".

Re:Please, for the kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141852)

Did someone say they think they know about drugs?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/militarized-swat-drug-raids-on-the-rise.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-admits-they-deal-heroin-yet-terrorize-families-for-pot.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/keeping-america-safe-swat-team-storms-family-home-shoots-pet-dogs-over-small-bag-of-marijuana.html

Wouldn't be using state secrets being used to cover up corruption would they?

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141876)

You can close down every single one of the programs you listed and there will be exactly as many government employees bearing arms as now.

It's not the programs themselves but the *powers* the government has either just outright taken from the States and/or the people in clear violation of the plain Constitutional language or given to it by greedy/lazy voters, that it has used to set these things up and run them. These are the same powers used to take away freedom.

A government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take everything away at its' whim.

Government is made up of imperfect people. You cannot have a government that is powerful enough to provide all that the US government does to its' citizens without that power being abused & misused.

Strat

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143892)

...or given to it by greedy/lazy voters, that it has used to set these things up and run them ... Government is made up of imperfect people...

^this; you almost had it this time. Your government is preciselly how your voters, people of your country want it to be (don't look at what they say when determining what they want, look at their actions - who they choose, whether or not they become part of the structure if given the chance); it's a reflection of the society.

Re:Please, for the kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32143036)

Explain Western Europe then. They have universal health care, social security, free education etc. but ACTA and DMCA didn't originate there and they certainly don't have the PATRIOT act.

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143680)

Explain Western Europe then. They have universal health care, social security, free education etc. but ACTA and DMCA didn't originate there and they certainly don't have the PATRIOT act.

Yes, because there are not camera's in almost every British street watching its citizens.

Because Britain did not used to strip search passengers going to and from Ireland.

Because Britain does not have a state controlled news channel.

Man, I wish the US was as "free" as parts of Western Europe are.

Look at the countries that still have mandatory conscription [wikipedia.org]

And bring up ACTA and DMCA as US evils only works if Western Europe was doing something different instead of adopting it as well. (Heck, they are even surpassing us - just look at Newsbin [slashdot.org] )

Re:Please, for the kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32144512)

Western Europe != Britain

Re:Please, for the kids... (4, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143790)

The countries which, as a group, dominate all the "nice things" stats show you to be quite incorrect. As a matter of fact, those occupying top of that group, the Nordic countries...have way more social mobility than the US (which is at the bottom of "highly developed" countries, together with the UK). Canada is equally good.

So much for "American dream"; it's just that, a dream that has been sold to you. With "nanny states", as you surely like to call them, actually having more freedom.

PS. Student loans? Trashing good cars? Ridiculous stimulus packages? What's that?

PPS. Governments are a reflection of theor society. Don't kid yourself that isn't the case.

Re:Please, for the kids... (4, Insightful)

FranticPedantic (1787220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143944)

This is just 'free market as a panacea' nonsense, and I say this as a registered libertarian. A good public education system propelled America into the 20th century. The money you invest in teaching your children is reaped when they become skilled workers. Health care can have the same benefits - you take care of people, and they get back to work.

Saying that you can't have health care and freedom is just as absurd as arguing you can't have education and freedom. I'm curious how furious you are at our entitled 8 year olds.

The free market is usually a good idea. It does not solve every problem. Get over it.

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32144568)

This is just 'free market as a panacea' nonsense

The US hasn't had a free market for many decades. The problems the US is facing economically & socially are largely due to government fiddling in economics and attempts at social engineering.

A good public education system propelled America into the 20th century.

What has this got to do with anything I said? I will note, however, that the public schools that were one factor (but not the only by a large margin) that brought us into the 20th century was mostly completely funded in the local community, that community determined the bulk of the curriculum, and received extremely little if any Federal money.

The biggest problem with the US education system isn't a lack of money, the problem is the NEA & other teacher's unions, and the Federal Dept. of Education. They suck up tremendous amounts of money and resources, hinder learning, and protect poor teachers that would be more benefit asking if I want fries with that.

Saying that you can't have health care and freedom is just as absurd as arguing you can't have education and freedom.

Strawman, much? We had healthcare and freedom until they passed HC "reform". Now we have less freedom, healthcare is still getting more expensive, and people will be giving more of their money to the government, as well as giving up their right to make their own healthcare choices.

The government is sometimes a good idea. It does not solve every problem or even most problems, free people do. Get over it.

Fixed that for you. You needn't thank me.

Strat

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

ShadowEFX (152354) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141884)

On a side note, we need a catchy slogan. How about "Vote to Revolt"?

Or better yet, picture this short commercial:

A man and woman are talking, he's complaining about his current incumbent elected official. She says "Don't just complain vote him out of office"...fast forward a few weeks and he's voting (using an old-timey lever voting machine) for the incumbent because it's the only name he recognizes.

Immediately upon reaching the bottom of the arm swing he gets hit with a whole lotta USDA Grade A prime DC, prompting him to remember all his complaining and swing the other arm. He leaves the booth, shaking his head and muttering "close call."

Screen fades to black, slogan appears character-by-character from left to right:

"Volt to re-vote".

Re:Please, for the kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32142478)

On a side note, we need a catchy slogan. How about "Vote to Revolt"?

How about voting for the US Chapter of the Pirate Party [pirate-party.us] ?

Re:Please, for the kids... (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141180)

Unfortunately the US system is rigged so that if you vote for the party you like a lot instead of the party you like a little, the party you don't like at all wins. You can substitute the last two with "lesser evil" and "greater evil" if you want but it still holds true. The US will have either the Democrats or Republicans in office until a armed revolt introduces proportional representation. I assume I don't need to tell you why the incumbents won't help...

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

dropadrop (1057046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141588)

I'd still rather vote for the party I like, that's the point of voting. On minimum if the party you like a little understands people are voting elsewhere BECAUSE of their prior action they might clean up their act. However your attitude will ensure they never face those hard decisions.

Now I'm not from the US, so what I think does not really matter that much. Where I live we have three big parties and two or three smaller ones that also make a difference. However despite voting for almost 20 years, my candidates have never actually been chosen. Should I vote some asshole into the government just because he's the best I can get through? Would everybody doing that just ensure we never end up having people in the government who have a clue?

The fact that nobody I ever voted got elected occasionally has me feeling that my vote really does not matter. However I feel that if I was not expressing my real feelings with my vote then it REALLY would not make a difference. I might as well stop voting.

Re:Please, for the kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32141918)

Actually the point of voting is to have your vote actually be counted. To actually get a publicly overseen count of the process is impossible when part of the process converts analog paper votes to digital signals, or just a digital signal from the start, at that point nobody, not an election judge, not a supreme court, not the president, nor you, nor I nor god can tell what happened. It doesn't matter what electronic devices or what arrangement the semiconductors are in. Even if stupid people were to ignore these facts, the public didn't oversee the doping process of each semiconductor either. The only way to find out what's in such devices is to destroy them under an electron microscope.

So go ahead pretend voting matters.

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143568)

You know, some places (yes, also in the so called "developed world") rely on paper ballots; and for some reason with no apparent push to change that. Hey, if the paper documentation must be kept anyway and results are routinelly known within few hours...

Re:Please, for the kids... (2, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141772)

Unfortunately the US system is rigged so that if you vote for the party you like a lot instead of the party you like a little, the party you don't like at all wins.

But that's the problem, I no longer like either party and I'm not alone in this. It's sounds cliche, but in all reality if you don't stop thinking this way, then it will never change... ever. The best thing you can do is vote neither of these parties and start making some change. Start locally, grow nationally.

Yes, it won't happen over night, but if we start electing some independent congressman and senators and get rid of the status quo or at least throw a monkey wrench into the existing system, then I'm afraid of what this country will become in 20-50 years. We're slowing turning into what we fear, a police state nation. Our freedoms are being stripped in the name of liberty and corporate profit.

It's sad really, but looking back in history you see all these government controlled "police" agencies, like the KGB, SS, etc, things we were brought up to fear so much all got their start the same way. To protect the people in the name of national security. Look at what's happening with the TSA and Border Police. I'm not saying they're that evil yet, but we are just seeing the tip of what happens when someone gets to much "power". We have to make a change.

Re:Please, for the kids... (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142190)

But that's the problem, I no longer like either party and I'm not alone in this.

I haven't yet run into an American who really likes any of them, actually. But if you start making change it'll get much, much worse before it'll get better. A good example is the UK, which has the same lame system and recently held an election - you can find the results here [wikipedia.org] but I'll quote the most important bits:

Conservative - 306 seats - 10,706,647 votes - 47.1% of the seats - 36.1% of the votes
Labour - 258 seats - 8,604,358 votes - 39.7% of the seats - 29.0% of the votes
Liberal Democrat - 57 seats - 6,827,938 votes - 8.8% of the seats - 23.0& of the votes

Now the liberals are a huge third party with 23% of the votes - numbers a US third party can only dream of. What do they get for that? Next to nothing. 9% of the seats while a party only 6% larger gets 40%. Everything is rigged against a third party rising, you can see that even if labour and the liberals joined forced they would barely be larger than the conservaties despite having 52% of the votes between them. The conservatives could form an alliancewith some of the smaller parties and rule with less than 40% popular support. Democracy in action.

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

Undead Waffle (1447615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142776)

I still prefer to vote for the candidate I like the best, whether he be Republican, Democrat, or other. Usually this means "other" lately. Because at the end of the day it's a winner take all system and my vote will not affect the end result. The most significant impact i can have is to be part of the statistic of people who are ready to take some other candidates seriously. Too many people follow the logic that they don't get votes so they won't win so you shouldn't give them your vote.

That said most of the third party and independent candidates are still extremists I wouldn't vote for, but I have found a few I liked.

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143958)

What makes you think that, by the time they get big & important enough, the "independents" won't just revert to the usual state of affairs?...

BTW, Gestapo is a better example here than SS.

i am against corporate cash in our government (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142884)

however i am far more against armed revolt. plus, it won't happen unless people are hungry

the point is: don't romanticize revolution. it is ugly and brutal and full of more suffering and cruelty than the worst corporatistic abuses of our democracy. peaceful change is the way to change things. armed revolt is for idiots who don't even understand the problem and will only make things far worse

finally, you have no control over the outcome, when you write about "an armed revolt introduces proportional representation" is just a fucking joke: NO ONE controls a revolution, and no one controls the outcome. you don't throw a revolution to get {xyz}, you throw a revolution... and anything is possilbe. in fact, the range of choices about what comes on the other end of a revolution are far, far worse than our current problems

so please stop romanticizing revolution, it is far, far worse than our problems with corporations, really. romanticizing revolution is for true idiots only

Re:i am against corporate cash in our government (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143604)

Something close to revolution is sensible though if those on top of oligarchy start to get too "ugly and brutal", not much choise really at this point (and probably only at this point)

There's of course the problem that too many idiots might believe that they are treated in "ugly and brutal" manner, even if its far from the truth...

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141254)

Well the way I look at it is like this.
I used to say there is no where I would rather live than America.
Now other places are starting to look more and more inviting.
It isn't because of the people, work, education, money, healthcare.
It is because of corruption, greed, politics, and law.

Without freedom America is just a chunk of dirt.
I know my capabilities and I'm not the right person to help the situation or to really say I could do it better.
I just know a train wreck coming when I see it.

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143526)

It is because of people and education (chiefly those two among the factors you listed; though of course work ethics, decent living and a sense of security from good healthcare come into play too)

Ultimatelly, the state of governance ("corruption, greed, politics, and law") is determined by its people, by the society. Or where do you think "public servants" come from?

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143584)

Well with a population pool as large as ours you would think finding a few thousand who represent the best in leadership, ethics, and morality would be fairly easy.

I personally cannot tell what a politician really is like behind closed doors.

But if you ask me very few truly represent what I would consider worthy of their position. But you just don't know for certain until they screw up or their true character comes out.

If you ask me what we need to do is just record all of their conversations and make the ones that don't involve national security public after a year or so.

Would give us a good insight to the political process as well as the parties involved. And would seem to have the possibility of keeping them honest.

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143654)

But the point is exactly that your society doesn't choose to find ethical leaders; in practice it prefers the "greedy and corrupt"

Don't look at what your society at large claims to prefer; look at actions! And don't kid yourself that it doesn't value "greedy and corrupt"; it is almost a rule everywhere that members of "underclass", even if complaining at the system of governance in their place, start to play along if they have the chance... (and benefits)

Re:Please, for the kids... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141288)

I thought I would never say that seriously on /. but : Won't someone think of the children ? What kind of world do you want them to grow into ? The read-only culture is not how our civilization was done. I'd like to raise kids that will become a bit more than consumers.

What's the difference again? (2, Interesting)

codecore (395864) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141890)

I no longer see any distinction between the Republicrats and Democans. Under this political cartel, we've seen our social security go broke, our government bankroll the financial industry, and juice the mortgage market. Foreign policy is a disaster, supporting evil regimes, and standing by while NK gets nukes. There is no more debate on the idea of limited government. Political dissent may now get you tracked and arrested. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011780363_spysettle05m.html

acta schmacta (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141168)

'damage to the national security.'
Dumb schmucks.

bjd

Perhaps I'm dense, but... (3, Interesting)

opus_magnum (1688810) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141394)

...how can you abide to a secret law?

Re:Perhaps I'm dense, but... (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141426)

...how can you abide to a secret law?

Once it is no longer secret, it is a law.

Re:Perhaps I'm dense, but... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141828)

Laws are made to be broken.

ie. Many laws are made to trip you up and give the government an excuse to punish whoever they feel like.

Re:Perhaps I'm dense, but... (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142180)

The *treaty* is secret, the laws that will be "required" by the treaty once it's ratified will be public, because you won't be able to do anything to stop them being enacted by that point.

Lawsuit Lotteries (2, Funny)

quantaman (517394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141428)

"You don't want to play Russian roulette with very high statutory damages."

I've always preferred to refer to things like the RIAA lawsuits as lawsuit lotteries. It bears a lot in common with lotteries, although millions are eligible to be selected only a handful ever are, however in the unlikely event you are one of the few the amount of money involved is extreme.

Immune how? (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32141624)

One section of ACTA says that Internet providers 'disabling access' to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized 'transmission of materials protected by copyright' would be immune from lawsuits

Just immune from lawsuits for aiding piracy, or immune from any lawsuit, including those from users who were affected or copyright holders who felt their material was wrongly blocked?

Kropotkin 1890's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32142392)

Wrote that western countries would not be able to stave off the spreading of knowledge and technology. The uk would soon no longer be the workshop of the world. USA and other countries would catch up.

When manufacturing moved elsewhere finance took it's place. Now finance is wobbly and the only way to maintain dominance is to own all knowledge.

Good luck is all I can say. It's gonna get ugly though.

Big Media makes Bad Law (1)

gink1 (1654993) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142584)

The Trouble with laws / treaties made by Big Media is exactly the same trouble as laws made by Big Corporations: perspective.

Both groups fail to see beyond their legislative goals and this results in laws that impact far more than the areas they intend.

Laws ought to be studied and debated by the public and all of the consequences understood and taken into consideration in the law or treaty.
Otherwise the collateral damage will outweigh the gains sought by the special interests involved.

Ultimately special interests and Corporations care only about their agendas and profits and not about the impact to society they have.
Only Congress should be allowed to make laws and treaties like this and only when circumstance or the people require it.

All proof to the contrary (4, Insightful)

jvillain (546827) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142586)

Just a few stories down from here on /. is a story that they just charged a bunch of people with selling counterfeit Cisco gear. They even confiscated it. Yet the powers that be (big buisness) would have us believe that is completely impossible with the current laws. It is just like when the US came up to Canada and threatened a trade war if we didn't put in an anti cam-cordering law. Well we did. And some one was convicted of recording a movie in a movie theater. Only they didn't use the spanky new law that was put in just for that purpose, they didn't need it. So what was the point of the US interfering in the laws of a sovereign country again?

If the US wants to make themselves completely incapable of competing in the global economy because they give only a few companies the right to produce any thing, and those companies no longer feel a need to compete then fine. That is their business. But leave us the hell alone!!!

Scary that the one who is saving us from The Man (1)

moxsam (917470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142802)

also seems to be the most privacy intruding corporation of them all, Google.

How low did the internet folks sink to let Google lawyers speak up for them?!?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?