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!

India Attempts To Derail ACTA

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the derail-defang-deny dept.

Government 162

Admiral Justin writes "Ars Technica is reporting that India is attempting to gather support from other large countries that have been intentionally left out of the ACTA process to actively protest it. India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries that were given no chance to be a part of the process of drafting it. Among the primary concerns are the possibility of medical shipments being seized if they use a port in transit that is controlled by a country with a patent on the pharmaceuticals."

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

GNAA 4 LIFE!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438056)

I just jizzed in my own face. It was awesome!!

-Gary Niger

GNAA 4 LIFE!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438290)

I just jizzed in my own face. It was awesome!!!

-Gary Niger

GNAA 4 LIFE!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438356)

I just jizzed in my own face. It was awesome!!!!

-Gary Niger

Re:GNAA 4 LIFE!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438586)

I just jizzed in my own face. It was awesome!

-Gary Niger

Re:GNAA 4 LIFE!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438812)

That's nigger, you dumbass cracker.

Wipe after you (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438068)

poop

I can relate (5, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438088)

India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries who were given no chance to be a part of the process drafting it.

As a US citizen, I can relate to that.

Re:I can relate (5, Insightful)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438172)

[India] fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it.

I find that quite sweet actually. The whole point of excluding the next economic power house is precisely to frame laws which may delay their rise to the top. It is not if ACTA gets used against India but when.

Re:I can relate (4, Insightful)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440114)

So how do we help them derail it?

Re:I can relate (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438212)

As a citizen of any of the countries that are in it, we can relate.

Re:I can relate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438426)

Wow. Excellent citizenship there dude. How'd you manage it?

Just The Facts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438318)

Sperm taste is affected by what you eat, as are all secretions from the body. It is a fact that your sperms taste can be improved and making your semen taste better, can be done with a few simple diet changes. Diet has A major influence on sperm taste as it's a secretion from the body like any other. Just as your sweat can smell strongly after eating a heavily spiced meal your sperm will also reflect the spices in its taste. The make up of sperm Semen is made up of ninety percent (90%) seminal fluids including fructose (sugar) protein, and various trace minerals and nutrients. The PH of semen is 7 and scientifically neutral, yet it tastes slightly acidic. Let's take a look at the actual ingredients of semen. A man's ejaculate is actually only 1% sperm. The rest is composed of various proteins, vitamins, sugars, salts, cholesterol, and water. All the extras are what protect, feeds, fuels the sperm in its journey. As you can see in terms of semen's composition, it's fairly obvious that what you eat will make it taste better or worse! Getting a sweeter taste With sperm taste, the aim is to make it taste sweeter. All men have a semen taste that is exclusive to them, but the major complaint on sperm taste is normally always the same: It tastes bitter or salty; let's look at how to make semen taste sweeter 10 Tips for better semen taste Here then are 10 simple do's and don'ts to improve the taste of your sperm and make your semen taste better and sweeter: 1. Cut out alcohol, caffeine, recreational drugs and nicotine- they're all pollutants. 2. Drink lots of water 1 - 2 liters a day to flush out body toxins. 3. Fruit get plenty each day and sweeten your sperm taste Pineapple, papaya cranberry, melons, mangos, apples grapes are all good choices. These fruits are high in natural sugars and offset the bitter taste. 4. Eat plenty of vegetables which are generally good for improving sperm taste. 5. While it is true vegetarians generally have better tasting sperm there are vegetables to avoid: Any vegetables from the cabbage family big offenders also include Cauliflower, broccoli, or asparagus: 5. Cut red meat consumption this is one pf the main offenders when it comes to making sperm taste salty. Dairy produce such as milk and cheese also make sperm taste salty. Make sure when you eat protein you get good quality lean protein such as chicken and turkey. Fish is claimed by some to be an offender in terms of taste, but this seems to vary between individuals. Try it and see the affects before cutting it out, fish is a major part of a healthy diet, so don't cut it out! 6. Avoid heavy spices such as Garlic and onions, they're big offenders when it comes to sperm taste, as they have a high sulfur content. 7. Do not buy products that claim to make your semen taste better there is no evidence that they work. Your semen can be made to taste better by overall changes in diet and lifestyle, it's a complex formula and a good healthy diet has the biggest affect. 8. Parsley, wheatgrass, and celery are particularly recommended for sweeter semen taste, because of their high chlorophyll content. 9. Cinnamon, cardamom, peppermint and lemon are particularly recommended for making semen taste sweeter. 10. Avoid junk food, they're loaded with chemicals and preservatives that pollute your body and your semen's taste. Try and eat food "from the earth" i.e. as naturally as possible. Also consider taking a zinc and selenium supplement, both are needed for healthy sperm and can make the taste better. Finally, strong smelling semen may indicate an infection, so if your semen taste doesn't change when you change your diet, you should consider a visit to the doctor. Your aim with your diet is to eat one that helps your overall health and the above recommendations will not only make your semen taste better you will also feel fitter and healthier as well. Keep in mind that you can eat some of the foods we don't recommend for sperm taste. You can enjoy red meat and the occasional spiced curry just keep in mind the following when considering sperm taste: What you put into your body takes between 12 and 24 hours to secrete out and you should simply keep this in mind before eating and deciding whether you want a better sperm taste on that particular day or not! For more sensible advice on sperm taste and making your semen taste better, as well as male fertility, general health and sex advice including: Articles ezines, magazines and downloads visit: http://www.net-planet.org/sexhealth.html [net-planet.org]

Glenn Beck: The Uber Counterfeit +3, Incendiary (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438116)

Glenn Beck: Rand-Ron Paul Wannabe. [youtube.com]

Enjoy.

Yours In Ashgabat,
Kilgore T.

software patents and DRM (4, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438136)

They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that :-/ I do have info on ACTA and software patents:

FWIW

Re:software patents and DRM (4, Insightful)

unix1 (1667411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438286)

Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO

DRM is not a problem; criminalizing talking about DRM is.

Re:software patents and DRM (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438854)

DRM is still a problem.

Especially when chicken shit companies abuse it to revoke rights we already have.

Re:software patents and DRM (2, Informative)

unix1 (1667411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439056)

Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.

The real problem is when governments come in and single-handedly criminalize certain speech when such speech doesn't agree with corporate interests that got them elected in public office.

Re:software patents and DRM (4, Insightful)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439160)

Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.

I will agree with that statement if and only if one concurrently has the right to write and distribute software that easily cracks said DRM. "However you like" goes both ways, in such a case. If my rights to break it can be restricted, yours to use it can be too. If either of us can write software however we like, you can write your DRM, and I can crack it. The problem occurs when that "right" only applies to one side.

Re:software patents and DRM (3, Insightful)

unix1 (1667411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439436)

That was the point in both of my previous posts. You've said nothing that disagrees with it.

OP (of this thread) said: "DRM is actually the most worrying problem."

Again, DRM is not a problem. The erosion of rights of free expression and speech is. The solution should not be to outlaw DRM, or place some legal restrictions on its implementations. This could have many unintended consequences. The solution should be to not restrict everyone's rights w/respect to DRM in the first place (i.e. cracks, discussion, research, etc.).

Re:software patents and DRM (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439686)

Wasn't sure what you meant, but if that's what it is, I absolutely agree with you.

Re:software patents and DRM (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439828)

I will agree with that statement if and only if one concurrently has the right to write and distribute software that easily cracks said DRM.

This is precisely what GGP meant when he said that "criminalizing talking about DRM" is a problem, rather than DRM itself.

Re:software patents and DRM (1, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439270)

DRM is a problem.

(See, you did not say why. So I also don’t, to refute your statement. But I can add arguments on top anyway, to make it an actual argument. Like:)

DRMed information is lost, when the server or decoding system is gone.
Criminalized circumventing DRM also is why it is a problem.
I’d go so far as saying that being a problem is the point of DRM.

Re:software patents and DRM (2, Informative)

unix1 (1667411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439508)

DRM is a problem.

(See, you did not say why. So I also don’t, to refute your statement. But I can add arguments on top anyway, to make it an actual argument. Like:)

It's not a problem because it's your right to write whatever software (DRM or otherwise) you please - that is your right. Outlawing DRM would take away your freedom to write such software.

DRMed information is lost, when the server or decoding system is gone.

Writing with disappearing ink also causes information to be lost. Let's outlaw disappearing ink.

Encrypting information and throwing away decryption keys would also cause information to be lost - let's outlaw deleting encryption keys and passwords.

Criminalized circumventing DRM also is why it is a problem.

Then you didn't read my (oh, so short and to the point) post. Because that is what I said was the problem.

Re:software patents and DRM (1, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440058)

It's not a problem because it's your right to write whatever software (DRM or otherwise) you please - that is your right. Outlawing DRM would take away your freedom to write such software.

That's a strawman argument. No one has ever said it should be illegal to write DRM. However, it would be reasonable to not allow copyright protections to content under DRM. Something "protected" by DRM is not released to the public as is required for copyright. It's purposefully crippled and often laden with a time bomb. That would prevent free use once the limited time for copyright has passed. As such, and since it is under license and not "sold" I would argue it's a trade secret, and should be protected as such, and without and regular copyright protections at all.

So, you can write all the DRM you like. That's your right. But I'd assert that it should be illegal for you to then try to enforce copyright law against someone for it because it wasn't released as required for copyright.

Writing with disappearing ink also causes information to be lost. Let's outlaw disappearing ink.

If you write something with disappearing ink, then it too should not be under copyright. After all, if there's only the one disappearing copy, once it's gone, how would you prove it was infringed upon? And again, assuming you made ink that lasted one day less than the length of copyright, then you'd be abusing copyright and directly violating the "law" (being the Constitutional requirements for protections, not necessarily the implementation as currently written by Congress).

Then you didn't read my (oh, so short and to the point) post. Because that is what I said was the problem.

Circumventing and talking about are two different issues. It's like the difference between talking about robbing a bank and actually robbing one (and, incidentally, both of those are illegal as well - assuming you have the means and intention to actually carry out the robbery).

Re:software patents and DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440232)

Among the primary concerns are the possibility of medical shipments being seized if they use a port in transit that is controlled by a country with a patent on the pharmaceuticals."

Their focus is also on an issue which is solved by circumventing the patent by the government assuming the patent is owned by the multinationals. The wording there is a bit funny, though. What is a patent hold by a country?
  The Indian attitude towards fair-use was reported somewhere to be very nice which makes one wonder about the attitude towards the DRM.

Yep. Yer boned. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438162)

Agreed. As a us citizen i can say for sure we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone.

In both real world terms and on the net.

We like pushing our laws on other countries.. But theres no way we will allow it to work the other way around.

America is like the largest group of hypocrites on the planet... Who put us in charge anyway... That wasnt too smart.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438244)

As a us citizen i can say for sure we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone. In both real world terms and on the net.

Will there be a line, or will it be an auction-type system? I'm hoping for a pretty Swede, but I'll take not-ugly.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438452)

We like pushing our laws on other countries.. But theres no way we will allow it to work the other way around.

Question is, are these even your laws? How many elected officials have insight into these negotiations, let alone the public?

The whole trade agreement thing is mostly just a way to get countries to commit to laws without letting the democracy thing getting in the way. Just sign here mister prime minister, it's good for business!

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438836)

Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (4, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439214)

Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.

No they aren't. This is the lie they want you to keep repeating until it becomes the truth.

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm [lexrex.com]

http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm [uhuh.com]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1 [findlaw.com]

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (3, Interesting)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439930)

Yea, you are going to want to spend some time digging through all the supreme court rulings in that last 40 years or so regards Indian treaties. Granted, the Indian treaties are a very different legal animal from say treatise over copyrights with other countries, but treatise do in fact carry more weight than the constitution in at least very important cases.

If you are not up for the time to do that here is the basic legal theory upheld by the supreme court on the subject (and I am sure there are better ways of putting it):

The territory that the U.S. occupies was found by recognition of a set of treaties that in many cases predate the territorial space of the United States. Thus, the existence and enforceability of those treaties makes everything else contained in the constitution possible. The most important of which is the territorial definition of the U.S., along with lots of nice things like mining rights, water rights, hunting rights, and so on.

For example, this is why Indians have casinos and the individual States in most cases can not really do a whole lot about it. Essentially, most of the United States is under some sort of lease to another government, and if you ignore those "rental" agreements the whole legal mess called the U.S. starts falling apart. Even when the U.S. breaks those treatises, they still have to pay up in court for the damages. One that comes to mind would be things like the Black Hills land claim at the moment. There are hundreds if not thousands of other rulings, and why the U.S. government tends to get its rear eventually handed to them in a court room over breaking those treatise sooner or later.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (4, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438554)

While I agree that we are exporting America's laws (for better or for worse) I refuse to lay claim to them. Just about every politician out there is a lawyer or former lawyer with absolutely no connection to their respective constituencies. They live privileged lives and pass laws that only benefit themselves. Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing. When there is so little difference between D and R who can blame people for simply letting themselves get railroaded.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (2, Insightful)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439506)

Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing. When there is so little difference between D and R who can blame people for simply letting themselves get railroaded.

Uh, me? The people have the power to vote in whoever they want. The fact that they choose not to use it is their own fault.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440220)

Voter apathy is ungodly high simply because we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing.

No, it's because the two parties both do a satisfactory job at running the country, and they don't really mind which one gets in.

Think about it. Ideally, votes are used as a tool for actively changing between governments and government policies. Ideally, politicians maintain their beliefs, present their policies, and we choose between them, thus giving us maximum possible choice in how our country is run. This, of course, is not the case. Politicians realised pretty quickly that they get a much better result with compromise, and pre-empting the public with what they want. Suddenly, you have multiple parties aiming for the same target, so they become pretty similar. The point of this target is to satisfy a sizable portion of the population, so a sizable portion of the population is generally satisfied by both parties.

This is democracy working. "Voter apathy" (it's not truly apathy) simply means a job well done.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440236)

> we've been conditioned to believe that anybody not in one of the two parties isn't worth electing.

That's like saying that my conditioning to not touch a hot stove is false.

Seriously. I've been following the non-major candidates for over a decade now, looking at their platforms, reading their public statements... and they've universally *sucked*. At best, they fail to even tie the moderates of the big two parties in terms of "would I trust this person with these powers". They tend to be single-issue candidates - who may well have a good position on that single issue - and then you look at their position on other issues and realize that they're lunatics. The sane independents (who you may notice do occasionally win) tend to be ones that were driven out of a major party by its internal party squabbling.

Instead of blaming some vast conspiracy, instead realize the simpler truth: the moderates got absorbed by the big two before you or I were even born. If we all paid a little closer attention, we could make better choices in the party primaries, which would then provide us with better available choices in the real elections. (And if you're unfortunate enough to live in one of the states that won't let you vote in more than one party's primary, then apply a little game theory - go vote for the sanest candidate in the crazier party's primary).

Yep. Yer boned too. (4, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438644)

we're going to use this new treaty to really screw over pretty much..... everyone

Heh, "we". Who are you? A top executive in the MPAA? Major share holder in Big Pharma?

Otherwise, you're not in the "we". Whether you're in the USA or not, you're at the other end of the stick.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (1)

yariv (1107831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438838)

Who put us in charge anyway... That wasnt too smart.

You did, so it makes sense.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438970)

The US is definitely not 'in charge'.

Re:Yep. Yer boned. (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439348)

Honestly, it’s not America. It’s not even the USA. It’s the US government (and|,) a bunch of criminals.
And in this case also the EU fake government (as it’s not legally an actual government).
The people of our unions are mostly OK. I don’t have a problem with them.

I have a problem with some dicks who are full of themselves thinking that they deserve to be in charge and to profit trough abuse. I have a problem with them intentionally dumbing down the population (or letting it dumb down), and then using them like a herd of cattle, making them angry with lies or using the “don’t care” that they developed, or so they can make new rules with the sole purpose of abusing people for profit.
It’s how Hitler and Stalin did it. It’s now it’s still done.

Come on. We’re the intelligent people here! It’s our obligation to figure out a antidote for this.

obbud obbud bud bud (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438188)

Bud bud buddabudda bud. Bud bud, buddbuddbuddbud.

Pleasepleaseplease (5, Insightful)

dasdrewid (653176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438216)

Ars Technica is reporting that India is attempting to gather support from other large countries which have been intentionally left out of the ACTA process to actively protest it.

Please let this mean they're planning an all-out media blitz here in the US. I can see the commercials now, something between between a Tea Party "the government's gonna get you!"/"One World Government is coming!" campaign booster and a Broadview Security "THEYRE GONNA RAPE YOU AND STEAL YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" commercial.

Seriously, plan the message carefully and you could run the same commercial on Fox News and PBS/NPR 24/7 and *everyone* would freak out and, hopefully, do something about this filthy excuse for a treaty.

What about the WTO What if they say no to this? (2, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438494)

What about the WTO What if they say no to this? What they set the price for some IP to Free?

Profits are more important than lives. (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438280)

So expect ACTA to pass and expect medicine to remain patented and restricted only for use by the richest 1%. It's the way society is designed, whether ACTA is instituted or not.

The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?

Corporations have chosen profits but what do individuals choose?

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (5, Insightful)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438414)

We're not a capitalist country anymore; we're corporatists.

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440126)

we're corporatists

Which is just a nice word for fascism

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (2, Interesting)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438438)

Considering it took deaths at Apple's iPhone manufacturing plant to get a 20% pay raise that caused a 0.7% increase in cost of making the iPad, I would have to answer your question: profits.

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438604)

Considering it took deaths at Apple's iPhone manufacturing plant

Except that Apple doesn't own the plant and Foxconn (the actual owner) manufactures parts for pretty much any hardware company you can name.

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (5, Insightful)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439120)

you're missing the point. i'm saying we're willing to go to cheap labor to make an extra $1.20 per ipad. to answer the OP's question, we're obviously after profit otherwise we'd make electronics here in the states to boost our economy without needing to resort to ACTA

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438444)

Profits, of course!

We elect officials.
Some officials are corrupted.
We elected corrupted officials.
Corrupted officials take bribes.
Bribes are given by corporations.
Corporations expect the support of the officials.
Corporations exist to profit.
Officials take bribes and support the corporations.
We elect officials to help corporations profit.

If profits are more important, why so many laws? (0)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438512)

If profits truly are more important than lives, why haven't we created the death engine? Why have we not taken it to the extreme of betting on who lives and dies via tontine to increase profits to the maximum?

At some point, somewhere in our system, somebody has made the calculation that certain lives matter while the rest of the lives don't matter. If you are wealthy you can bet on when millions of poor people will die indirectly, but if you are poor the tontine is outlawed.

So it's a bit more complicated. It's a situation where some lives are worth more than others, and wealth has a lot to do with it. Unless you think this is wrong and if so then how would you say society values life in the context of ever increasing profitability?

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438526)

The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?

The answer is C: the size of the retirement nest eggs of the congresscritters. (aka "B")

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438632)

At the risk of a very unpopular response, here goes. The "evil" drug companies did not spend billions of dollars so that they give away the fruits of their labor for free. The drugs were developed in hopes of getting some kind of return on investment. If all of you "drugs should be free" types force companies to lose money on every drug they develop, those evil companies will get out of R&D altogether. You wanted a cure for cancer? Too bad.
The answer is not circumvent patents and IP laws on drug companies, it's to remove the billions of dollars of dollars of red tape that it costs to bring new drugs to market, thereby reducing the costs of the drug to the company and thus the consumer. The pills will cost a lot less if R&D costs to recoup are only $200 million, instead of $2 billion.

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438904)

The drug companies could drop their costs by, oh, more than half if they'd stop advertising their newest placebo all everyone's TV. They could probably recoup more costs if they stopped bribing doctors to stick every single patient on hypertension, cholesterol, and mood-altering drugs that likely have worse side-effects than they have benefits. I have zero sympathy for the leeches.

You miss several points (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438946)

> The drugs were developed in hopes of getting some kind of return on investment.

You make the same assumption the the **AAs make: every infringement is a lost sale (at premium prices). This is obviously silly in some cases. One can imagine an expensive drug which is too expensive for the Indian government to provide to its citizens under its national health plan. Lets assume that this drug is necessary to treat a pandemic within India, so the Indian government decides that it would rather legislate a special exception to respecting the patent on the drug than letting millions of people die. In this case, without the exception, the drug company would not have gained any appreciable income from use of the drug in India, so the "infringement" costs the drug company nothing.

Unless, of course, the widespread use in India enables the detection of undesirable side-effects which weren't known previously.

> The pills will cost a lot less if R&D costs to recoup are only $200 million, instead of $2 billion.

That's a good point, but it doesn't go far enough. There should also be legislation which limits the liability of drug side-effects for companies which deal in good faith, but strips a drug company of its patent in the case where it has been found to be actively negligent with respect to testing the safety of the drug (i.e., in a case where the drug company wouldn't be able to sell the drug anyway, because of the risk of too much liability --- so the patent actually ends up doing nothing but totally blocking the use of the drug). If we had had such a law, for example, then generic Vioxx could have been continued to be used by patients who are much less at risk for its bad side-effects.

That has been answered by law. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439884)

The question the modern capitalist must ask themselves is a question of priority. What is more important to you, the lives of poor individuals or profits?

That has been answered by law:

  - Corporate officials have a duty to run the corporation, within the constraints of the rule of law, to attempt to maximize the value to the stockholders. "Value to the stockholders" is usually financial, though stockholders may decree that other values are to be primary or considered in the mix. (i.e. Hershey's, Google, ...).

  - The government sets the "constraints of the rule of law" such that coercive harm to individuals is prohibited or penalized and strategies to maximize return also promote, rather than hamper, the general welfare.

So the corporate officers are REQUIRED BY LAW to put the law first and the profit second, considering fallout on others only to the extent that it affects legal constraints and the bottom line (or other desires of the stockholders). If they're causing harm to the "lives of the poor" in a way you think that's improper, one of the following is true:
  - They're breaking a law and should be enjoined and prosecuted or sued for damages.
  - They made poor decisions, harming the interests of their stockholders, and should be educated or replaced.
  - The law needs adjustment.

High punitive damage awards in lawsuits are part of the way the law maps "not harming others" into "maximizing stockholder value".

(BP, for instance, seems about to be remapped rather fiercely, unless the corruption of the current government allows them to buy their way out. That's being reflected in their stock price, especially over the last couple days.)

As for medicine prices, the main problem there is the excessively tight requirements for drug approval by the FDA, where bureaucrats get dinged for letting a drug through that causes some birth defects (i.e. thalidomide) but not for blocking a drug that would otherwise have saved 100,000 a year (i.e. beta blockers for heart attack victims). When the agency was created the congresscritters thought that delaying drugs by more than six months would result in a cost-benefit hit. Now it takes decades and tens to hundreds of million dollars to TRY to bring a drug to market. That price - for the ones that make it to market and the many more that don't - must be paid from the money made on the ones that make it. This prices them out of reach of the third world. Cut those costs and delays and the drug companies would be happy to sell lots of inexpensive stuff. Fast nickels are LOTS better than slow dollars. A few more people would be damaged - and very many more would be helped.

Re:Profits are more important than lives. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440350)

Well, as an individual, I think that maintaining IP is, in general, good practice, not just for corporations, but also individuals as well. Making medicines available to poor people when they're invented seems like a good idea (and it is), but instituted poorly, you can end up hurting everyone: poor people, rich people, corporations, etc. If we make medicine X available for free (or cheap) today, then that jeopardises the future existence of medicine X v2, or X v3. Corporations are the ones who hold the budget required to successfully research, and actually create these medicines, but if they can't justify their medicine research budget, then they're going to perpetually pass the buck, which does nobody any favours. A short period where medicines are expensive is a small price to pay for the many subsequent years of their existence as cheap, universally accessible medicines (or even their years of existence, period).

Now, giving medicines to the poor is a great idea, but weakening patents is not. All it does is punish medicine companies. What we should do is raise taxes (for companies as well), and institute a subsidy scheme for distributing these medicines at low cost. That way, the financial burden is shared reasonably fairly amongst everyone. The poor pay little to nothing for this scheme, the middle class pay a small part of their wages, and the rich/corporations pay for the majority of it. Nobody spends more than they can afford, medicines are distributed, unnecessary deaths are reduced, and companies have a reasonable amount of incentive to continue work on X v2.

what about Antigua free ip that the WTO GIVE them? (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438464)

what about Antigua's free ip that the WTO GIVE them? What if they get locked out under the ACTA? can they use to for there on line gameing to not be blocked?

It's a shame... (4, Insightful)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438484)

that we (the good ole USA) need to rely on other countries' governments to protect us from our government and its corporate puppet masters.

Re:It's a shame... (4, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438630)

It's a shame, but it's not unprecedented.

We won the Revolution only because we had copious assistance from the French.

And despite what the militia fucktards think, armed insurrection is not going to topple the U.S. government if it gets out of hand. If you need to revolt, you're either going to need the military behind you (probably not the revolution you're looking for), or bring a tougher one. Hint: a tougher one don't exist.

Re:It's a shame... (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439734)

"And despite what the militia fucktards think, armed insurrection is not going to topple the U.S. government if it gets out of hand."

They need only be part of a mass movement that sustains them.
The government doesn't have enough personnel to secure the whole US against serious _popular_ resistance. The thing about modern armed forces designed to destroy other sophisticated modern armed forces is that they aren't capable of putting all that many boots on the ground. Iraq and Afghanistan are difficult enough, and tiny compared to the USA, and not full of people Americans object to killing.

In any mass movement, the military itself would be in play, with results depending on the allegiance of individuals or units. There are lots of folks in Combat Arms who aren't going to shoot their kinfolk, and might savor putting politicians against the wall if the situation is right. Direct "toppling" isn't necessarily the mechanism by which government might be changed. Coup and other methods might offer themselves.

Never underestimate the appeal of mass movements. Should the economic situation get bad enough (the major reason people revolt, not for freedom but for food), ANY conduct becomes reasonable. The ghey and genteel Civil War was a long time ago. In modern civil wars, there is no useful reason to let enemies survive so they are often liquidated (why save them so they can fight again?). The best way to fight any serious internal conflict would be to exterminate ones enemies since they have no worth.

Everything is cozy now, so none of this is more than speculation. The US isn't hurting, no one is starving, and the economy is showing some signs of health. Crime is low, even auto fatalities are low. It's boring and there is every reason to keep it that way.

Re:It's a shame... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440510)

You're assuming that our soldiers will fire on their own countrymen.

India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (4, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438572)

that will constitute approx half of world population.

versus, hollywood.

who do you think will win ?

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438708)

Hollywood. :D

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438818)

china. india. russia.

the last of those countries wouldnt hesitate to kill an entire plane full of holywood executives and artists in a freak plane crash.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439242)

I'd buy tickets to see that.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439838)

I'd buy tickets to see that.

This can be arranged; same plane only, though.

-FSB

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439450)

I would hesitate to NOT do it! ^^

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440306)

That was funny and insightful. I was going to propose an even tighter restriction, namely the 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, to be precise.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438808)

hollywood

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438948)

India, China, Russia.

One of these three is not like the others.

Hint: Russia has less than half the population of the USA. It's hardly noticable compared to China and India.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439602)

170 million in russia, many more in satellite 'republics' and 'commonwealth' members. also, its about also being a superpower. not only population.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440060)

142 million in Russia.

And China plus India plus Russia making up about half the world's population (which it doesn't, by the by, more like 40%) isn't about being a superpower. It's about having a lot of people.

And Russia doesn't have a lot of people. It's number nine, not number three. Note that Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria all have more people than Russia.

And Pakistan even has the Bomb....

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (5, Informative)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439030)

Well the way its going in Canada, Hollywood is already entrenched in out gov pockets even though the majority of Canadian voters don't want the new DMCA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5079/125/ [michaelgeist.ca] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5017/125/ [michaelgeist.ca] and many more http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php [michaelgeist.ca]

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32439086)

FTFA:

"We will hold talks with like-minded countries (read Brazil, China, Egypt, etc.) and may oppose the ACTA proposal jointly as well as individually by holding talks with countries involved," said an anonymous government official.

In short, China is trying to be included which can make this a very interesting and powerful movement. China is already being considered around the levels of a superpower with the US. And since China has $1 trillion invested in the US government [nytimes.com] , it could be one hell of a powerhouse against ACTA if it does indeed join with India in this.

So, if China does join in it would become more of RIAA/MPAA verse China and a few others. Support the **AA's and the US could see a LOT of problems from China and it's investment. Join with China and the the **AA's will try to give as much hell (no doubt saying that they sold them, an american business, to a foreign country.) Either one and it will be one hell of a mess.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439624)

'problems' ?

if china sells those $1 trillion us govt bonds its holding over one day, it would practically zero the worth of us govt bonds, make us govt unable to cycle its debt by selling bonds, and bankrupt it. also, bottom the dollar in the process.

usa IS china.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

Nysul (1816168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439096)

China probably wants this. They want protections for their IP, and they know they will just ignore the IP of everyone else.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439638)

hahahahaahah.

china ? what ip ?

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439116)

With half the world trained to have a peasant mentality, don't think that Hollywood won't win.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440106)

The Coalition of Hollywood and Bollywood (and the Chinese and the Russian counterparts) will win.

Re:India in. Now we only need china, and russia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440408)

that will constitute approx half of world population.

versus, hollywood.

who do you think will win ?

Computer programmer Max Geiger will now enter all the data collected and run the battle scenario 1000 times to determine who is the... Deadliest Warrior!

American laws laid down on the World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438594)

This is just American corps. pushing the American government to extend American laws on sovereign nations. The reason is to force the whole world into accepting US dominance in the information age. The US is transitioning away from production and manufacturing towards an information-based economy (entertainment, design, etc.) and they don't want competition in that space.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32438834)

Once India starts protesting we can subvert it from within by staging our own shit in the US and it will gain attention because of the ruckus.

what i'm wondering is (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438940)

how do these assholes actually expect to enforce acta?

you can pass all the laws you want. but in terms of actually stopping the spread of pirate media, they would have to fundamentally alter the internet in such a way as to also negate any value anyone attaches to the internet. in other words, they would start a revolt. not an armed revolt, just a sort of utter rejection of their vision of complete centralized control

it would also be extremely expensive, and they would also have to somehow control the internet internationally AND completely. they would, paradoxically, turn those outsider countries that aren't on the usa's bff list, into outposts of internet freedom

acta, to me, it seems like a completely desperate ploy, or clueless (or both)

really, in terms of enforceability, acta is a fucking joke

Re:what i'm wondering is (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32438990)

We all know that people are free to congregate and exchange information on the Internet, and they cannot stop that. But they can stop cheap drugs from being shipped to a poor country and use patents as an excuse.

i'd like to see them try (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439088)

india already flouts laws on hiv drugs. no one is stopping them because it pits humanitarian ideals versus craven corporate interests. the negative pr hit is far larger than any pittance they'd get from a poor country (nevermind the moral argument of lives in the balance, we are talking about corporations here)

so acta can be as draconian as they want. again, i'd like to see them actually try to enforce the bullshit

Re:i'd like to see them try (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440062)

india isn't a fucking poor country though. they have god damn nuclear weapons.

Re:i'd like to see them try (3, Informative)

oiron (697563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440502)

Flouts is too strong a word. Indian law allows the government to license other manufacturers to produce any drugs deemed to be "life saving"...

Re:what i'm wondering is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32439168)

how do these assholes actually expect to enforce acta?

you can pass all the laws you want. but in terms of actually stopping the spread of pirate media, they would have to fundamentally alter the internet...

Thats the plan, from what I remember. ACTA is worded that it would make ISP's liable for what happens on their lines (aka, forcing them to filter everything on the net like the great firewall of China). So if someone pirates something over the internet then groups like the **AA's will be able to sue both the infringer AND the ISP. Combine that with what has been shown as an 'acceptable' fine of a few million dollars and then every ISP will heavily filter the internet just to save their own asses. Complain against the filtering and you'll just be labeled as just wanting to pirate online so only pirates want to be free... or some other BS line they will give.

i understand what you are saying (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439566)

they would basically turn the west into the corporate equivalent of the bullshit that goes on with the internet in china or iran: centralized monitoring and control, for the sake of $ (rather than political control)

in other words, they would force a conflict: the ideals of western liberal democracy, versus the corporate imperative to strangle everything to make a buck

now you can be a complete cynic and pessimist about this conflict, but personally, talking completely out of realism i think, they're fucking out of their mind: people won't stand for it. some of us will make it their passionate life pursuit to circumvent such controls, and those who are successful at routing around the controls will be folk heroes

i really don't see this weak ass acta subsuming the ideals of western liberal democracy. i'm sorry, but every goddamn teenager will take it as a personal joy to render acta a joke, and they'll be able to do it: all you need is technical knowhow. it beats all the lawyers, all the laws, all the international agreement

acta is a form of delusion, its doomed. but let them try, just see them crash and burn

Re:what i'm wondering is (2, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440022)

What Hollywood wants is active policing of the internet by all world governments with prison terms handed out to infringes. If governments did go to that step I guarantee they would succeed, at the cost of imprisoning a few million more people while paroling truly violent criminals.

This is the reason the US government hasn't pursued it, but you should be very afraid of the influence the MPAA can exert, before it was just the RIAA, but now with Hollywood behind it there is a very good chance ACTA will force all the WTO countries to enforce restrictions (that includes China). Once the WTO starts imprisoning people the major easy distribution channels will go dead leaving only secure encrypted and very low volume exchanges, reducing the trade to very minimal which is Hollywood's goal. The tax increases to support the enforcement and the destruction of millions of lives will be enormous, but Hollywood doesn't care.

but what you described is a joke (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440070)

no one is going to allow hollywood to do that. even in the most cynical pessimistic point of view where that might happen in the usa, there's no leverage the usa has that would make that acceptable to other countries, even very close friends of the usa

i really wonder why these assholes believe acta is anything but a farce

completely unenforceable, really

Two sides (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439040)

There are two sides to this argument, if you ever visit Africa the place is flooded with cheap fake drugs with a 10-20% true dosage mostly coming from!!! yep you guessed it INDIA. The question for me is, is the Indian government complaining because the ATA may restrict real sales or are they using this argument as a trojon horse as they are being bribed by the fake drug industry. It is hard to say when dealing with India as corruption at the official level is so endemic.

Re:Two sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32439148)

Please read this http://allafrica.com/stories/200909210807.html before saying India supplies fake drugs to African countries.

Re:Two sides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32439208)

You did see your close fliend the china and made India the poster boy for your uninformed comment. Please read this news article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/China-passing-off-fake-drugs-as-Made-in-India/articleshow/4633377.cms
NEW DELHI: Are fake drugs manufactured in China being pushed into various African countries with the `Made in India' tag? The Indian government has long suspected this to be the case, but it now has definite evidence for the first time.

Last week, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) of Nigeria issued a press release stating that a large consignment of fake anti-malarial generic pharmaceuticals labelled `Made in India' were, in fact, found to have been produced in China.

Re:Two sides (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440102)

This would have worked if the BBC had not sent a reporter to India as a fake buyer and actually found they could buy fake drugs "made locally" in India.

Eventually? (5, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439126)

I quote:

“Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”

meringuoid (568297) [slashdot.org] @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454 [slashdot.org] )

Isn't this what it was for? (1)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439266)

I know we all hate ACTA. And I agree 100%. But don't I seem to recall that the 'official' reason the US proposed ACTA in the first place was to use it against indian and chinese companies ripping of US PRODUCTS. Not software patents, not DMCA bullshit, but to prevent china and india from stealing from us with impunity?

Don't get me wrong, I hope india wins this. But if they do, it will be because we have so far subverted the treaty from its original purpose into this DMCA bullshit.

Quixotic Attempt I'm Afraid (4, Interesting)

TuballoyThunder (534063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32439750)

I'm glad India is taking a stand that supports its national interests and that position coincides with my belief that intellectual property rights have gone to far. The big "however" is that India does not have a great success rate of stopping a treaty. They did not sign the NPT nor the CTBT and the NPT is in force and the CTBT would be if it was not for the Annex II requirement.

The only thing that will kill the ACTA treaty is if a significant number of countries refuse to sign it or reject it during ratification. Unfortunately, I fear that any US administration would gladly sign the treaty and the US Senate would readily ratify it. If only the treaty would harm the gay unborn whales...

Live in China (-1, Offtopic)

xiaoling1027 (1824932) | more than 4 years ago | (#32440108)

India's three, ha ha rosetta stone italian [discountrosettastone.com] rosetta stone spanish [discountrosettastone.com] Rosetta stone reviews [discountrosettastone.com] Rosetta stone [discountrosettastone.com] p90x [buydvdmall.com] p90x workout [buydvdmall.com] insanity workout [buydvdmall.com] Affliction [affliction...ngmall.com] Affliction clothing [affliction...ngmall.com]

India USA Strategic meeting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32440404)

wonder how this will play out in their strategic meetings..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/First-India-US-Strategic-Dialogue-to-be-held-today/articleshow/6005810.cms

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?