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!

Mexican Senate Votes To Drop Out of ACTA

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the outta-acta dept.

Government 96

An anonymous reader writes "The Mexican Senate has voted unanimously to drop out of ACTA negotiations, saying that the process has been way too secretive, left out many stakeholders and appears to deny access to knowledge and information. Of course, it's not clear if this 'non-binding resolution' actually means much, as the negotiators are not under the Senate's control. At the very least, though, it appears the Mexican Senate is going to fight to keep the country from agreeing to ACTA."

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

first_post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33819656)

first post

Re:first_post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33819694)

Congrats, you got the first post.

Do you feel validated now? Or would you like to join in the discussion like a normal person?

Re:first_post (-1, Troll)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 4 years ago | (#33819806)

How about I rape your fucking mother until she bleeds out of her asshole and kills herself just to get my dick out of her mind?

Re:first_post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820194)

Someone forgot to check the AC box.

Re:first_post (0, Offtopic)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 4 years ago | (#33820000)

I was going to mod you up, being the first to post is quite difficult and requires skill and quick reaction time. But A/C's don't count for first post. Don't you realize it takes longer to login and then join a discussion?
You didn't really want to write the first post, you just wanted to claim first post. Your cheating, Play fair [humorsphere.com]

Re:first_post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820332)

Your cheating, Play fair

You're unable to handle easy things correctly. Children in elementary school are expected to get this right. What the fuck is your excuse?

Re:first_post (1)

SudoGhost (1779150) | about 4 years ago | (#33821052)

You're right. You're Anonymity however, makes you're post seem trollish, and/or offtopic. If you're going to post like that, you might want to uncheck you're AC tickbox. Wouldn't want to cheat karma, would we?

At any rate, I applaud Mexico for this. The more countries that do this, the more ACTA isn't looking so good.

Not at all (5, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | about 4 years ago | (#33819666)

That's not what the resolution [google.com] says at all.

First .- The Senate agreed to form a Plural Working Group to follow up the negotiations for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, known as ACT (for its initials in English Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) in order to assist in the transparency of the multilateral negotiations and ensure that the provisions of this Agreement are in accordance with the guarantees and fundamental rights that our Constitution provides for Federal

Second .- The Senate agreed to hold, through the Working Group Plural provided in resolving previous public forums and consultations with officials, academics, experts and interested parties in order to build a position on it, and its case, to form an agenda and an alternate route to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), in order to prepare and submit bills related to the Internet, the industrial property rights and copyrights, as well as freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Third .- While setting up a position by the Senate on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), requesting the owner of the Federal Executive, Mr. Felipe Calderón Hinojosa , stop the process of negotiations for our country to sign the international convention.

This says nothing about dropping out at all. It is asking for negotiations to be paused while they set up internal discussion and review groups. The tone of the entire thing supports the general need for something like ACTA but is against the secrecy of the negotiations. The healine there is misleading.

Re:Not at all (1)

cappp (1822388) | about 4 years ago | (#33819678)

Dammit, sorry I bolded the third proposal there instead of putting in a space, my apologies.

Re:Not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33819754)

It says "stop the process of negotiations for our country to sign the international convention".

That is, kind of, the definition of "drop out of negotiations".

Re:Not at all (1)

cappp (1822388) | about 4 years ago | (#33819780)

Read the part right before that - it says While setting up a position by the Senate - the guy is specifically asking for a pause in the negotiations until his review panels get their say, that is not the same as dropping out.

Re:Not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33819826)

Yes, they are asking the government to (temporary) stop the negotiations. That is exactly what "drop out" means, they won't be there. Which part of that is so hard to understand?

Of course, they aren't going to burn all bridges, given that their largest trade partner is twisting hands right and left for ACTA.

But if you read the long section with the motives, it is pretty obvious the summary is spot on.

You're nitpicking on a sideline.

Not that there is anything wrong with it.

Re:Not at all (1)

cappp (1822388) | about 4 years ago | (#33819850)

Ah maybe its just a language thing then - when I read "drop out" it suggests that they've pulled out completely, abandoned the attempt, and washed their hands of the whole thing. Kinnda like when you drop out of college, you don't traditionally appear back at classes 3 weeks later ready to tackle new material.

Re:Not at all (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 4 years ago | (#33820218)

I'm with you on this one. I'm not sure if the AC you're going back and forth with is a native English speaker or not (or if they are, if they use a different dialect), but "drop out" indicates a finality. "Postpone" or "suspend" are far less harsh words to use if the intention is to later resume negotiations.

Saying "we're droping out" doesn't mean "well be back later". It's more like "Fuck ya'll, peace out!".

Re:Not at all (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | about 4 years ago | (#33822404)

Think like a diplomat does, and then you'll see why they use the language they do. I would guess (since I'm not a mind-reader, and even if I were, I don't speak Spanish) that this is indeed a withdrawal from ACTA just couched in diplomatic language.

drop out (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 4 years ago | (#33821154)

> when I read "drop out" it suggests that they've pulled out completely

Same here. Other example: when a runner drops out of a race. They don't stand around thinking and then suddenly start sprinting to catch up because they've decided the race is actually pretty cool :-)

Re:Not at all (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 4 years ago | (#33820508)

they are asking the government to (temporary) stop the negotiations. That is exactly what "drop out" means

For sufficiently small values of "exactly."

Re:Not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33821088)

I thought that drop out was more like a version of causing something to fall.

"He was dropped from the window so I guess you can say that he was defenestrated."

Re:Not at all (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820012)

What if, just, what if... you looked upon your nutsack and discovered that it was hit by giant silent papoohies?

Re:Not at all (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820378)

Nice info.... thank you for share My Dream [blogspot.com]

Re:Not at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33821740)

Agree,
the Google translation is bogus and misinformative.
The core point is the following:
The Senate is asking the president to step a side and let the senate do the negotiations.

So... (5, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | about 4 years ago | (#33819668)

Another "backwards" country cares more about the freedoms of its people than the United States.

Re:So... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33819840)

Why do I always feel like the Imperial March should play any time our ambassadors arrive to negotiate some new onerous "IP law" treaty with a wide-eyed, third world country?

Re:So... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 years ago | (#33821496)

Yeah right, it should be the dance of the clowns or something. Sure, they'll pass whatever law, and then continue selling pirated CDs/DVDs in the capital.

Re:So... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33824972)

Why do I always feel like the Imperial March should play any time our ambassadors arrive to negotiate some new onerous "IP law" treaty with a wide-eyed, third world country?

I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. (And unlike Vader, they won't even tell you what the deal is. The process is clearly intended to confuse everyone and Mexico is only doing the right thing because it has nothing left to lose. The papers are publishing articles saying shit to the drug lords like "We are your bitches, tell us what to do, we are your people.")

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33832812)

Same about Canada. But legislators are stupid and wish to be neighbourly with USA, so they will vote as does the USA.

Wow. (3, Interesting)

ignavus (213578) | about 4 years ago | (#33819672)

Unanimous ... I bet the US senate would be closer to unanimous in the other direction.

Smaller countries know when they are being taken to the cleaners.

Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (4, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 4 years ago | (#33819894)

> Smaller countries know when they are being taken to the cleaners.

Yeh, but the only institutions that complain are ones with no power.

The European Parliament, the European Privacy Commission, and the Mexican Senate aren't in charge of the ACTA negotiations for their countries. They can stomp off and their citizens can feel proud that the elected officials are looking after their interests, but ACTA goes ahead. Funny, huh?

I didn't understand how society let TRIPS go ahead in 1994. I guessed it was snuck in while citizens weren't looking at the global level, and it would thus never happen again. Now my generation is letting it happen, and we're watching it unfold, and it's unfolding...

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_overview [swpat.org]

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (4, Insightful)

tongting (1905748) | about 4 years ago | (#33819972)

The future's so bright I gotta wear shades, not. "Democratic" societies are sort of a joke. The masses are easily distracted with a combination of glittering objects and FUD while they are increasingly put under the boot of the powerful.

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 4 years ago | (#33820958)

The future's so bright I gotta wear shades, not. "Democratic" societies are sort of a joke. The masses are easily distracted with a combination of glittering objects and FUD while they are increasingly put under the boot of the powerful.

something in the news disturbing you? here's some X-factor and Big-Brother gossip to distract you... why Gamu is getting deported, it's just not fair, the contestants had already been picked...

oh and while we're at it, heres a spoiler on Coronation Street's upcoming "disaster" episode...

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33823736)

The future's so bright I gotta wear shades, not. "Democratic" societies are sort of a joke. The masses are easily distracted with a combination of glittering objects and FUD while they are increasingly put under the boot of the powerful.

That's not true! Real democratic countri... hey! butterflies... on an iPad!

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (1)

Kvasio (127200) | about 4 years ago | (#33860528)

hey! butterflies... on an iPad!

you probably wanted to write "hey! butterflies... on emacs [xkcd.com] "

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (1)

josech (98417) | about 4 years ago | (#33820710)

Not in this case. By law, the Mexican Senate has to approve the ACTA.

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | about 4 years ago | (#33821500)

Regardless of what is negotiated, Senate is the one that can simply not sign the treaty once it's done.
So if they would really say that they are dropping out (which they aren't at the moment) then there would be no point in negotiating with Mexico.

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 4 years ago | (#33822264)

Ok, agreed. ...on that subject, does it ever happen that a country other than the USA (Kyoto protocol) negotiates and signs a treaty and then national elected body refuses to ratify it?

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | about 4 years ago | (#33822386)

Now my generation is letting it happen, and we're watching it unfold, and it's unfolding...

Hmm. Are we? Is it Gen-X and Gen-Y doing this, or is the Boomers and grown-up Gen-Z kids doing it?

Surely 30-somethings aren't buying into this tripe are they?!

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33824156)

Surely 30-somethings aren't buying into this tripe are they?!

No, 30-somethings are buying into T.R.I.P.S. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Nice sideshow alright, but ACTA marches on (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33822428)

Well, the Parliament could stop SWIFT [spiegel.de] . Especially since Lisbon's Treaty they have more vetting powers, AFAIK.

might be bad to drop out :-( (2, Interesting)

r00t (33219) | about 4 years ago | (#33819712)

The negotiating countries will need to sign this treaty from the start, but at least they get a chance to water it down.

Other countries get dragged into signing it later, with no chance to change anything. Ever notice how the USA makes DMCA-like laws a requirement of any trade-related treaty?

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (2, Informative)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 years ago | (#33819746)

Like Mexico cares. Their biggest trade item is illegal anyway. (Weed and labor) And the backlash is building elsewhere.

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820040)

Like Mexico cares. Their biggest trade item is illegal anyway.

So far, this country hasn't had much of a shortage on shortstops.

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820150)

To be fair, it's not their fault it's illegal, and they can't exactly *stop* it.

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820600)

Your comment is inaccurate and the main reason the rest of the world thinks Americans are uninformed and arrogant. Mexico is the 12th largest economy in the world and headed for the top 5 - counting the EU as one entity of course. The 1950's stereotypes no longer apply, it is not "the west, the commies and the 3d world" any more.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico#Remittances

Remittances, or contributions sent by Mexicans living abroad, mostly in the United States, to their families at home in Mexico, are a substantial and growing part of the Mexican economy; they comprised $18 billion in 2005.[27] In 2004, they became the tenth largest source of foreign income after oil, industrial exports, manufactured goods, electronics, heavy industry, automobiles, construction, food, and banking & financial services

The full article on the economy of Mexico is quite interesting, and can be an eye opener.

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 years ago | (#33849038)

Those numbers are only the official economy. They do not included the massive amounts of drug money and cash remittances smuggled back in. They also include world trade. While the US is 75% of the official economy, it is not all of it. However, it is a large part (if not all) of the remittances. This skews the numbers back towards what I was talking about.

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (1)

mangamuscle (706696) | about 4 years ago | (#33819756)

That was all nice and good when the USA had the upper hand in economics, right now I do not see US goverment forcing anything upon say Saudi Arabia, China or India. Mexico already has NAFTA, so there is no carrot to catch.

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820432)

So, we just pull out of NAFTA. It's our only choice in an attempt to recover any economic vitality.
Some must suffer, so we can grow.

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (1)

mangamuscle (706696) | about 4 years ago | (#33823092)

Huh? Quite unlikely, unless you want the USA economic situation to worsen even further. NAFTA is a boon to both economies,unless you drink the kool-aid the political extreme right and left likes to pour in anyone who drinks it.

Re:might be bad to drop out :-( (1)

orasio (188021) | about 4 years ago | (#33823214)

That's one of the reasons their FTA iniciatives don't work with countries that have a choice.
Here in Uruguay, the president was negotiating an FTA with the US 4 years ago. It also conflicted with other treaties, like Mercosur, but unfair subsidies, patents and copyrights were the main reasons it got rejected. They sell an FTA, but without the "Free" part.

Made In America (5, Insightful)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 4 years ago | (#33819782)

I can't understand why any country other than America would even care about draconian copyright enforcement. Given that America is a huge media maker and most of the world are consumers of this media with a small amount they produce themselves, their citizens achieve a higher quality if life with existing copyright enforcement. ACTA really only benefits the US. All the other countries should figure this out.

Re:Made In America (1)

Pteraspidomorphi (1651293) | about 4 years ago | (#33819888)

Other countries also have companies making profits from american entertainment and buying their own politicians. Also, Japan's a big media producer as well (outside Asia, mostly games, cartoons and comics, but still).

Re:Made In America (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | about 4 years ago | (#33820328)

"(outside Asia, mostly games, anime and manga, but still)."
fixed, pls try to not mistake the waterdowned storys disney makes, mindless violents vs. the show i watch (higurashi ftw)

Re:Made In America (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 4 years ago | (#33820420)

Oh come on, Japan pumps out just as much pop-culture garbage as the US does. There are gems from both sides of the Pacific, but let's not forget that the majority of entertainment that both countries produce is mass market crap. Insisting on unique nomenclature to hide this fact just shows your culture preference for Japan.

Re:Made In America (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | about 4 years ago | (#33820734)

where are the gems from cartoons? while i`d agree that most of anime is crap they at lest they try to do stuff differently,

ive never seen one cartoon that actually has any sort of deep meaning/descent storyline

Re:Made In America (1)

yayotters (833158) | about 4 years ago | (#33820994)

I take it you haven't watched Adventure Time?

Re:Made In America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33821752)

Futurama! South Park! Family Guy!

Oh wait..

Re:Made In America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33821990)

There was Avatar, but that was really just a Canadian animation studio realising that anime was getting popular and thus was worth trying to copy.

Re:Made In America (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | about 4 years ago | (#33821970)

I also prefer anime and manga to "japanese cartoons" and "japanese comics", but I admit they are just shorthands and cartoons and comics is an understandable designation.

However I'd dare to say that Japan's profit from anime and manga isn't on the same league than what it gains from electronics.

Getting back on top, there is no way my government is NOT going to screw us again with this one, we need a new revolution, hard. Of course a modern day Fransisco Villa will be targeted by the CIA as a terrorist.

Re:Made In America (2, Insightful)

Mr. Pibb (26775) | about 4 years ago | (#33821000)

I can understand how there may be some Mexican Senators who have their fingers in the Piracy pie. *Any* Mexican street market is guaranteed to have at least one "clon" stand, with the larger markets having 20-25% of their stalls selling warez of all kinds: CD/MP3/DVD/PS2/XBOX, as well as counterfeit clothing and handbags.

A widely believed rumor is that the stands are tied to organized crime. Another rumor is that the Senators are corrupt. It doesn't take a Latin conspiracy theorist to connect the dots.

Re:Made In America (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 4 years ago | (#33822914)

I can't understand why any country other than America would even care about draconian copyright enforcement.

Because we'll bomb the everloving fuck out of any country that doesn't do what we want.

Re:Made In America (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 4 years ago | (#33824236)

It is rather difficult to bomb countries who have capability to bomb you back to stone age as a response. This discounts much of the Europe, Russia and China from the list.

Re:Made In America (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 4 years ago | (#33830534)

True. But remember, we Americans are fucking nuts.

Re:Made In America (2, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#33824516)

Sony Pictures: Japan
Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd: Britain
Lord of teh Rings: New Zealand.
Rush: Canada
ACDC: Australia
Universal Pictures: France
Jackie Chan: Hong Kong

Re:Made In America (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | about 4 years ago | (#33827338)

Because none of the other countries want to risk losing trade status with the US. If you piss off the biggest kid on the block, he can make your life a bit unpleasant. Considering the the United States is still the leading dealer of armaments and defensive technologies in this world, losing trade status with it over music, movies, and art would appear to be a foolish move to a lot of rulers.

Re:Made In America (1)

rdnetto (955205) | about 4 years ago | (#33833702)

We don't. What we do care about is not pissing off America, since many of us (Australia, Canada, etc.) rely on them to protect us if anyone decides to declare war on us.

IP economy vs. Freedom (5, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | about 4 years ago | (#33819792)

I just think IP economy is incompatible with freedom in general. I know you guys can follow thru.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820112)

I completely disagree. Suppose your livelihood depended on creating intellectual property; like if you were a video game developer. Now let's say your hot new video game gets distributed in a way that results in heavy losses for your employer. Now let's take this one step further - your bonus/raise/benefits have all been drastically reduced due to heavy damages. Then what are you going to do? What if you were a writer, and someone plagiarized your material? Or a musician, and someone else was making money off of your hard work?

I don't agree with ACTA, but I don't think freedom and IP rights are incompatible.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 4 years ago | (#33820152)

There are different kinds of "IP rights". The ones that say essentially that you can't think or imagine something are definately against freedom. One thing is verbatim copies of your work, no creative process involved, and another thinking in the same or even reaching the same conclusions.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | about 4 years ago | (#33820510)

What you are suggesting is clearly impossible. Maybe if we had millions or perhaps billions of people, they might often have overlapping ideas. However, in our world, so few people actually think, that strict enforcement of intellectual monopoly is the only way to secure a brighter future for us all. God bless our corporations for undertaking this burden.

More seriously, this is exactly why IP should be banned outright; it infringes on peoples' freedom of thought.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1)

jbengt (874751) | about 4 years ago | (#33824218)

The ones that say essentially that you can't think or imagine something are definately against freedom.

What kind of "IP rights" essentially say that you can't think or imagine something?

Oh, wait, I know: none of them do. (even though sometimes IP owners try to enforce them as if they do)

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 4 years ago | (#33820174)

All those things are sorted by giving simple brand name protection, as has been done for centuries.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | about 4 years ago | (#33820534)

Brand names simply protect the brand not the product - so you could make a 100% same coca-cola, you just wouldn't be able to brand it so. While established companies might be able to trade on their "good names" and beat out copiers, emerging companies would have a much more difficult time to establish themselves - not to mention that established companies with "good names" could just steal from emerging companies and get the best of both worlds while completely stifling innovation.

I'm not the OP but I agree that you need copyright protection - it makes it possible to be in the creative profession, and actually encourages scientific sharing (as you have no fear that they will steal the end product of your research).

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820874)

Brand names simply protect the brand not the product - so you could make a 100% same coca-cola, you just wouldn't be able to brand it so.

I believe that's exactly the GP's point (though your example is not a good one: see below).

While established companies might be able to trade on their "good names" and beat out copiers, emerging companies would have a much more difficult time to establish themselves - not to mention that established companies with "good names" could just steal from emerging companies and get the best of both worlds while completely stifling innovation.

You've got that precisely backwards. Established companies would be the ones having to work hard to retain their reputation; emerging companies would have precisely zero barrier to entry. Remember, in the present state of things it's the established companies that can afford to license pre-existing work; but a small start-up will find it very hard to start a printing press, because of licensing costs.

I'm not the OP but I agree that you need copyright protection - it makes it possible to be in the creative profession, and actually encourages scientific sharing (as you have no fear that they will steal the end product of your research).

You are confusing copyright with trade secrets. They're different things. It's not only possible to have legal protection for trade secrets in the absence of copyright; in fact, it is already normal. That is the case with the Coca Cola example you mention: the recipe of Coca Cola does not have copyright protection (you can't copyright a recipe), but It is a trade secret.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33820530)

"Now let's say your hot new video game gets distributed in a way that results in heavy losses for your employer."

What losses? The same old tired bullshit. "You downloaded it, so you would've bought it otherwise!" Completely spurious reasoning. I'd have a Big Mac for lunch if someone - perhaps a manager I know who isn't paying for it - gave me one, but I'm rather unlikely to go to McDonald's and buy one.

"Now let's take this one step further - your bonus/raise/benefits have all been drastically reduced due to heavy damages."

So, your bonus/raise/benefits have all been drastically reduced due to the fact that you or your company failed to produce a product that the market was willing to pay for. Physician, blame thyself.

"Then what are you going to do?"

Get a job doing something you don't suck at?

"What if you were a writer, and someone plagiarized your material? Or a musician, and someone else was making money off of your hard work?"

These would both fall under the idea of for-profit infringement, which I'm personally entirely against. But you make it hard for anyone to take you seriously, given that while YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A LOAF OF BREAD, it's merely the equivalent of your local library. Thank the gods that our founding fathers weren't beset with the Printing Press Association of America.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33821514)

Suppose your livelihood depended on creating intellectual property;

... Then you represent a minority amongst your countrymen. So why should all the patent/copyright/trademark laws be biased to favour you? It's always a trade-off between you (the producer) and your countrymen (call 'em the consumers).

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33822490)

Yes, some people depend financially on copyrighted content. How is this an argument against the previous statement?
Lots of people make money out of extortion, does it mean it's compatible with freedom too?

IP laws take away freedom of speech and the right to private & personal property. Your argument does nothing to disprove it.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (3, Informative)

mcvos (645701) | about 4 years ago | (#33822496)

I completely disagree. Suppose your livelihood depended on creating intellectual property;

Suppose your livelihood depended on creating hot air. It's not the law's job to enable business models, its job is to enable a healthy society. And at the moment, a lot of IP laws don't seem to do much good to society.

There are already ridiculous amounts of money and lawyers involved in IP at the moment. We're creating more content than ever before. More than we can ever hope to consume. Why do we need a new treaty to make IP even more powerful? We need some balance.

Now let's say your hot new video game gets distributed in a way that results in heavy losses for your employer. Now let's take this one step further - your bonus/raise/benefits have all been drastically reduced due to heavy damages. Then what are you going to do?

Try something that works, rather than go whining to the government for more draconian laws.

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1)

jbengt (874751) | about 4 years ago | (#33825268)

Suppose your livelihood depended on creating intellectual property . . . Or a musician, and someone else was making money off of your hard work.

I sort of agreed until that one about musicians. Musicians (I'm not including composers here) make music, and their livelihood was not helped by the copyrighting of recorded music (except for a handful that made it to the very top of the recording chain).

Re:IP economy vs. Freedom (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33821556)

property is limited in a state of nature, laws have created artificial rights that offer protection in the best interest of corporations, not the public.

Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33819828)

Can anyone tell me if ACTA is "anti counterfeit trade agreement" or something else?

Can we get a fucking editor who can identify this sort of thing?

It is 2010 now.

ACTA and software patents (2, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 4 years ago | (#33819834)

Here's the problems caused for software patents:

I've seen people claiming that ACTA will require countries to allow software patenting, but that's not correct at all. On the contrary, the latest leaked draft (25 August) explicitly says that there will be no substantive requirements on scope:

ARTICLE 1.3: RELATION TO STANDARDS CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY AND SCOPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights contained in a Party's law.

2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under the laws and regulations of that Party.

Re:ACTA and software patents (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | about 4 years ago | (#33823580)

The leaked draft is not the final agreement. Do not tell me that people won't try to have that changed before it is finished. People with lots of money and influence throughout the world.

Single Nation Treaty? (2, Funny)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 years ago | (#33819868)

Heh, at this rate, it won't be long before the United States is the only country left. Then the RIAA, MPAA, and the henchmen Obama appointed to the DoJ can write whatever they want and sign us on as the sole participating nation. Signing a treaty without another nation involved has to fall somewhere in the executive branch scale between extraordinary rendition and summary execution, so it's totally legit!

Re:Single Nation Treaty? (2, Interesting)

mykos (1627575) | about 4 years ago | (#33819926)

Lol...I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it doesn't seem like there's anything standing in the way of them doing just that. We could have a whole mess of laws written by "treaties" between zero outside parties, or calling an agreement with the **AA a "treaty". Stranger things have happened...we've had presidents using "executive orders" to get things done that lawmakers would never originate or approve of.

Re:Single Nation Treaty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33822532)

It's even simpler than that and no laws have to be broken. I hereby claim "prior art" on the idea of treaties of convenience. Unpopular laws may be put in effect at home by adding them as secret riders into commercial treaties with third-world countries small enough to be easily bribed. Given that international law has precedence...

Why secret? So the gov't can invoke national security and refuse to even say what the new laws ARE.

Mexico has much bigger things to deal with (1, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#33820122)

Mexico has much bigger things to deal with like a big drug war and the drug cartels paying off cops.

Re:Mexico has much bigger things to deal with (4, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | about 4 years ago | (#33820406)

I would argue every nation has bigger things to deal with, but that's just me.

Re:Mexico has much bigger things to deal with (1)

dangro (1687738) | about 4 years ago | (#33821936)

And yet someone in the Congress thought about changing the official name from United Mexican States to Mexico.

A big step, but not the last (1)

josech (98417) | about 4 years ago | (#33820442)

The Point of Agreement from the Senate is a political plead to the President to stop the ACTA negotiation process. Although it's not legally binding at the moment, by law all the International Trades with Mexico have to be approved by the Senate.

The Senate is asking the President to stop the ACTA negotiations, but if the President fails to do it, eventually he must send the ACTA for approval to the Senate.

How does this happen? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 4 years ago | (#33820616)

... as the negotiators are not under the Senate's control.

So how is it that negotiators who are negotiating a treaty that will have far-reaching implications for the people of Mexico not be under their government's control? That sounds about as thoroughly fucked up as it is in D.C.

Re:How does this happen? (2, Informative)

josech (98417) | about 4 years ago | (#33820758)

The negotiations are not under the Senate control, but the final approval is. ACTA must be approved by the mexican Senate in order to be legally adopted.

And yes. The lobbyist and factual powers in Mexico are very powerful an evil, just as anywhere else.

Acai Max Cleanse Promo Code (-1, Offtopic)

georghughes (1916960) | about 4 years ago | (#33820680)

I was going to mod you up, being the first to post is quite difficult and requires skill and quick reaction time. But A/C's don't count for first post. Don't you realize it takes longer to login and then join a discussion? Acai Max Cleanse Promo Code [healthprod...iewers.com]

ALRIGHT MEXICO!!! (1)

Heebie (1163973) | about 4 years ago | (#33821522)

Hopefully more countries will follow Mexico's lead!

Go Mexico! (3, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 4 years ago | (#33821898)

Mexico may have been turned into a lethal hellhole by the drug cartels, but you have to credit their government with more integrity than most of the developed world, as far as that treaty is concerned. I hope the EU makes good on its promise [futurezone.at] and follows suit.

Re:Go Mexico! (1)

randyleepublic (1286320) | about 4 years ago | (#33856900)

Mexico may have been turned into a lethal hellhole by US drug cartels...

FTFY

From the heartland, (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 4 years ago | (#33823650)

Gracious.

Oh ACTA (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | about 4 years ago | (#33834208)

We get to vote and the big companies get to make all the rules...
Isn't it great.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?