Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Rep. Darrell Issa Requests Public Comments On ACTA

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the how-do-you-really-feel? dept.

Censorship 186

langelgjm writes "After repeated dismissals by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Congressman Darrell Issa has taken matters into his own hands by posting a copy of ACTA online and asking for public comments. ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a secretly negotiated multilateral trade treaty with the potential for profoundly affecting the Internet. 'ACTA represents as great a threat to an open Internet as [do] SOPA and PIPA and was drafted with even less transparency and input from digital citizens,' Issa said."

cancel ×

186 comments

about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287095)

I thought it was already approved and signed by the US.

Re:about time (1, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287173)

Maybe it's been signed by a rogue diplomat but it's never made it to the Senate floor. Maybe the Congressional Dictionary should read:

ACTA: See SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate for rejection details/

MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287469)

As I discovered looking for Obama's stand on the issue, the "rogue diplomat" who signed ACTA is the PotUS himself. This makes no sense...

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (2)

grantus (261016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287553)

Obama administration has been pretty consistent in supporting strong copyright laws. The only real change was when it appeared to express concerns about SOPA and PIPA, and even that statement wasn't definitive.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (3, Interesting)

Creepy (93888) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289677)

If you RTFA, one of the concerns was that the President approved it, bypassing congress by an executive decision. Both Republicans and Democrats have been doing this a lot since Reagan's term in office. If you can't beat congress, Executive Order around it.

So far I haven't seen as many major of issues as I saw reading PIPA, but there are some vague areas. Only at page 2, though :P

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289795)

If you RTFA, one of the concerns was that the President approved it, bypassing congress by an executive decision. Both Republicans and Democrats have been doing this a lot since Reagan's term in office. If you can't beat congress, Executive Order around it.

So far I haven't seen as many major of issues as I saw reading PIPA, but there are some vague areas. Only at page 2, though :P

Not to the extent Obama's done so:

1. Utterly ignoring the War Powers Act regarding Libya, to the point of saying that dropping bombs isn't "hostilities".
2. Openly saying the US needs international approval before it might us force against the Syrian government, but saying that Congress only needs to be "notified".

N.B. that those two involve actual or potential hostilities with other countries.

3. How many recess appointments has Obama made? Even though the Senate was in session? Bush II made one (Bolton) and there was a firestorm.

And that's just off the top of my head.

Obama's taken the "BooosHitler is teh EVIL" crowd's fantasies of an imperial Presidency and made them real.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287675)

May just have something to do with the fact that the entertainment industry is one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors (or, as anyone else would call them, "bribers").

Re:about time (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287889)

Are women allowed to post to the public comments?

Can't get a law, try a treaty... (0, Troll)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287105)

What we essentially have is International SOPA 2.0 here... and it requires only the signature of a diplomat (who works for the PotUS) and 60 Senators. Why a Rep is getting involved is a sign we've got a publicity hog who doesn't know what he's doing. If you want to do the right thing for this, send a campaign contribution to Obama's primary campaign... even though he doesn't have a credible challenger for the Democratic nomination he can use the money, and if you can afford to max things out your limit resets when he accepts the nomination at the convention.

Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (1)

Zondar (32904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287145)

Maybe I'm confused. Has Obama said he is opposed to ACTA? If so, why are we even having this discussion?

I for one have new hope... (5, Interesting)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287199)

...and his name is U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa. Darrell Issa is kicking ass and taking names out there 'in the open' and he deserves your support too.

Re:I for one have new hope... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287281)

Unless you're a woman, in which case Darrell Issa thinks you don't have an opinion worth sharing.

Re:I for one have new hope... (3, Informative)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287387)

Hey AC, I googled a citation for what you're talking about, because I honestly had no clue. This is very interesting also.

“It was just crushing to hear the chairman’s reason to not allow my testimony,” Fluke told ABC News. “I can understand that [the issue] is connected to religion, but I don’t understand how you can have an open conversation without hearing from the women who have been personally affected by this.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/ [go.com]

Re:I for one have new hope... (2, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287611)

There are two things about that story that are quite interesting. The first is that the "story" Fluke wanted to tell was a personal anecdote (hardly fit material for a discussion, unless you are attempting an emotional appeal... which again, is not exactly what we want our laws to be based one). Second, they put the fact that she was a minority in the headline (as if that was the issue) when clearly at least one of the witnesses was already black (so, not the actual issue). And finally, since when was a student at a university considered an expert witness on anything like this? Seriously. A professor, sure. A random person they happened to find in a university with a (no doubt) heart wrenching story? I'm sorry, but she doesn't actually have any standing to testify. I can demonstrate that with an easy (ridiculous) example: have a white person testify that black people beat him up, at a hearing to pass a law to throw all black people in jail. Does that testimony offer any credible reason to pass the law? No, and neither does Fluke's.

Also, the best part was this quote:

She criticized the Republican committee chairman, Rep. Darrel Issa, for wanting to “roll back the fundamental rights of women to a time when the government thought what happens in the bedroom is their business.”

Actually, Issa wants the government to not be involved in the bedroom: i.e. not to have the government fund their contraceptives, or, rather, to force religious organizations to provide them (which contradicts religious principles).

Re:I for one have new hope... (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287733)

And finally, since when was a student at a university considered an expert witness on anything like this? Seriously.

Seriously? A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.

Let's not forget that she was the oppositions ONLY witness at that hearing. Darrell Issa was only interested in shutting down debate. Shame on him.

Re:I for one have new hope... (-1, Flamebait)

Sarius64 (880298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287833)

Yep, too bad Brian Terry's family can't even bitch about him not being around. I'm sure this woman's contraception is far more important than the Executive branch supplying weapons to drug lords and circumventing U.S. Code and/or treaties with Mexico. Just blame whitey.

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288005)

"oh crap, we're on the wrong side of this issue, quick bring up a completely unrelated one!"

Re:I for one have new hope... (2, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288183)

No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience, i.e. to provide health insurance that must includes contraceptives. This isn't government policy on contraceptives: it is government policy setting organizational policy on birth control. As the good Rabbi says in the linked article,

“We are not here because we seek to hurt preventative care of anybody. We are here today because the administration is showing insensitivity to the liberty of conscience.”

You wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing vegan restaurant to server meat, would you? This is very similar, except even more so: this is more like the government forcing the vegans to slaughter the animals on-site, then serve the meat. Flukes argument (in this analogy) is that her friend didn't get enough protein because the vegan restaurant doesn't serve meat. But I suppose it's OK to force people to act against their conscience, because it's for the common good. Right?

Re:I for one have new hope... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288245)

I feel like you might be missing the larger issue here. If we're going to require employers to provide health insurance to their employees, it probably isn't a good idea to allow them to refuse to cover some treatment to which they have a "religious objection", because the end result of that is "an employee doesn't get any medical care that the employer does not like". Contraception is the easiest one for the Republicans to attack so it came up first, but it's by far not the only one. Jehovah's Witnesses are morally opposed to blood transfusion, ultra-Orthodox Jews are opposed to organ transplants, and Christian Scientists are opposed to just about every medical procedure. Should I be denied a blood transfusion (or required to pay the disastrously high out of pocket cost, which is almost as bad) just because my boss doesn't like them? This is a bad precedent to set.

Re:I for one have new hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288443)

> No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience ...

The answer: sometimes, yes, it is. Whether this issue qualifies, the fact that an organization is related to a church does not exempt them from the law. Nothing is absolute (yes, there is irony in that statement).

It gets even more complicated when the organization is not a church - in this case, it's a law school.

Re:I for one have new hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288635)

But who made up that *religious* reasoning? The chosen god of said religion(s)? Or the men who wished to spread their seed? (chosen men to lead said religion(s))

Many religious beliefs were driven into the churches just to keep control of the masses.

(oddly enough, my captcha is unseeded)

They also support drug users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288655)

Since the money they spend may go to be spent on drugs by their employees.

Healthcare, in the USA, is part of the EMPLOYEES renumeration, NOT part of the owners' taxes.

Re:I for one have new hope... (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288931)

No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience, i.e. to provide health insurance that must includes contraceptives

Of course it is. I have to pay for all sorts of things that violate my conscience. As a matter of fact, the great majority of my tax dollars are spent on things that are absolutely repugnant to my conscience.

Also, remember what the first amendment says. It doesn't say "religious liberty shall be unrestricted". It says "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Laws that give, e.g., the Catholic church special treatment are laws that respect an establishment of religion.

Besides, if you really care about religious liberty, what of that of the employees? It's not the personal religious liberty of the Catholics that's at stake, but their ability to force their religion on their employees. As an athiest employed by a Jesuit research institution, I find this every bit as repugnant to my conscience as they must find contraception.

You wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing vegan restaurant to server meat, would you?

If serving meat had as great of an effect on public health as providing universal birth control, then absolutely.

But I suppose it's OK to force people to act against their conscience, because it's for the common good. Right?

That's the problem! It's for the public good. Why is it that conservatives only object to coercion when the coercion is for the public good? They have no problem forcing people to violate their conscience and pay for harmful wars, or the persecution of Cannabis smokers, etc. But when it comes to a policy that is universally recognized as good for public health, only then do they whine about conscience.

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289625)

Besides, if you really care about religious liberty, what of that of the employees? It's not the personal religious liberty of the Catholics that's at stake, but their ability to force their religion on their employees. As an athiest employed by a Jesuit research institution, I find this every bit as repugnant to my conscience as they must find contraception.

OK, you lost me on this one. Georgetown University doesn't BAN contraception, it just doesn't include it in its insurance plans. If you want contraceptives, you have to pay for them yourself. (Cost: $12 per month without insurance. Cheaper if you get it from a charity or have insurance.) What are they forcing Fluke to do?

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288997)

No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience, i.e. to provide health insurance that must includes contraceptives

The hypocricy amongst these religious organizations is massive. Surely the religious people that are employed by those organizations won't make use of the availability of the contraceptives will they? Noooo. That would never happen. And, as for non-religious employees of those organzations, why should the religious beliefs of the the employer be forced onto the employee? Freedom of religion does not include the being able to impose your beliefs onto others.

Re:I for one have new hope... (2)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289307)

You wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing vegan restaurant to server meat, would you? This is very similar, except even more so: this is more like the government forcing the vegans to slaughter the animals on-site, then serve the meat.

Actually this is exactly like allowing a vegan restaurant to refuse to pay for health insurance that covers heart surgery because they decided their employees shouldn't be eating meat (and thus shouldn't have cholesterol issues).

The problem with allowing an organization to choose an official religion and use that to determine acceptable health coverage is that you'll find some of the less enlightened businesses are suddenly Christian Science businesses and offer no actual health coverage. It's not right for the employer to force their religious beliefs on the employee. It tramples the employees right to freedom of religious expression.

The primary message of this issue seems to me to be that employers shouldn't be involved in providing health insurance for employees.

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

oldspicepuresport (1551767) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288185)

Seriously? A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.

I strongly disagree. Having people who are clearly biased and acting on their own self-interest are not the type of people that should be used to inform decisions regarding the law. This would be like asking welfare recipients their opinions on welfare, or asking corporations their views on corporate tax... the bias is clear and needs to be considered.

Besides, Sandra Fluke's arguments were weak at best, giving anecdotal evidence of the importance of birth control pills for medical reasons other than pregnancy prevention. She gave an example of a woman who had a clear medical need for these pills, yet then extended this to include all uses of contraception. There are many women (my girlfriend included) who are 100% pro-contraception, yet believe that you should pay for your own sex life.

Re:I for one have new hope... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288449)

Like it or not, you are paying for the sex lives of others. The poor have sex, and they go to hospitals to give birth. When they can't pay, who do you think pays? You do.

The only question is, are you going to pay for a very expensive birth, and the social problems that come from people with few resourses having large families? Or are you going to pay for the birth control that will save you a lot of money in the long run?

Re:I for one have new hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289547)

easy solution. Pay for birth control. Do not pay out any welfare. Seems like a good compromise

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

oldspicepuresport (1551767) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289593)

Like it or not, you are paying for the sex lives of others. The poor have sex, and they go to hospitals to give birth. When they can't pay, who do you think pays? You do.

The problem with this is that there are literally thousands of other "harm-reduction" strategies that could be implemented that would certainly result in a lower future cost to society. Should the federal government mandate coverage of liposuction? gastric band surgery? nicorette? condoms/spermicide? weight-loss drugs? trips to the dentist?

The truth is that the poorest don't have insurance to begin with... they have to go to planned parenthood as they can't afford a doctor and prescription costs. Subsidizing the personal sex lives of the middle-class lucky enough to even have insurance is a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere IMHO.

If we are concerned with the poor's access to contraception, then address that specifically... but please don't tell me that we need to do this to help the poor, because it doesn't help them at all.

Re:I for one have new hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289729)

Hmmm.... Maybe if there were more jobs to go around and less poverty they could pay it themselves?

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289903)

Maybe if there were more jobs to go around and less poverty they could pay it themselves?

Excellent. The president should just say that there should be more jobs, then. We'll worry later about what they'll be doing, who will be buying whatever it is they spend their time producing, and who will cover the costs. Or are you suggesting more debt and busy-work jobs?

Or are you arguing for government policies that do less in the way of preventing the business growth that actually causes more jobs to be available?

Re:I for one have new hope... (2)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288463)

Forget Fluke's arguments. What about the National Institute of Health. You know -- the /EXPERTS/. Of couse, experts are merely ideologues when it comes to political issues. Both liberal and conservative selectively ignore science whenever they see fit.

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

madro (221107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288535)

Discussion of the law *must* include those whom it affects. When people file lawsuits, one of the concepts is that the person filing must have standing. Wikipedia: "In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law."

Cigarette companies testify about nicotine regulation, car companies testify about gasoline efficiency standards, and wall street bankers testify about the impact of bailouts. Members of Congress are supposed to be a proxy for the taxpayers they represent, and then bring in viewpoints from different sides. Typically, the party in control of a hearing stacks the group with speakers who favor their own pre-determined stance. So it was in both the Republican and Democratic hearings on this topic.

Standing (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289205)

Discussion of the law *must* include those whom it affects. When people file lawsuits, one of the concepts is that the person filing must have standing. Wikipedia: "In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law."

That's Article III standing. It applies to courts, not Congress.

Re:Standing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289843)

So just ignore everybody who might be impacted by a law? Ban every religion except Christianity, and only listen to Christians on the matter, because, after all, they are the only ones who aren't affected and therefore have no bias for or against the law, right? Right?

Not listening to the people a law is going to (or is intended to) affect is lunacy in its finest. I'm not saying you blindly trust everything they say, and I'm not suggesting that you can't consider their bias; all I'm saying is that it is appropriate to listen to people who are actually impacted by a law when that law is being considered.

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

_8553454222834292266 (2576047) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288825)

Bias is where all our laws come from these days. We could at least start listening to more than one side.

Pluralism (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289175)

Having people who are clearly biased and acting on their own self-interest are not the type of people that should be used to inform decisions regarding the law.

Actually, this is how pluralism works. People bring evidence and arguments and support to positions that are in their self-interest for financial, politicial, or moral reasons and try to convince their elected officials why they are right.

If people not biased and acting in their own self-interest are the ones determining policy or giving input into it, you wind up with a very paternalist state that has no input from the people whose freedoms are affected by government policies before those policies are made.

Sandra Fluke's arguments were weak at best, giving anecdotal evidence of the importance of birth control pills for medical reasons other than pregnancy prevention. She gave an example of a woman who had a clear medical need for these pills, yet then extended this to include all uses of contraception. There are many women (my girlfriend included) who are 100% pro-contraception, yet believe that you should pay for your own sex life.

She is not asking others to pay for her sex; she is asking that the health insurance she pays for include birth control.

The reason for the extension--aside from being pro-contraception, if we adopt that terminology--is that the difficulty in convincing an insurance carrier to cover contraception for non-contraception purposes when they don't cover it for contraceptive purposes creates a practical barrier to getting contraception for non-contraceptive reasons.

Re:I for one have new hope... (-1, Troll)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288191)

Except she's a feminist plant. Or an Obama operative. One of the two.

Re:I for one have new hope... (4, Informative)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289501)

Let's not forget that she was the oppositions ONLY witness at that hearing. Darrell Issa was only interested in shutting down debate. Shame on him.

The Democrats had originally asked for Rev. Barry Lynn (head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) to be invited, and the Republicans invited him. The Democrats changed their minds and told Lynn not to show up, because they'd rather make an issue out of Fluke being denied. Shame on you.

A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.

Fluke is a 30 year old woman. She lives in a $500,000 house, which she can afford because she has a career as a liberal agitator. She went to Georgetown specifically because she wanted to hassle the Catholic institution over the teachings of the Church on birth control. She's EXACTLY the kind of woman who should be paying for her own birth control.

Re:I for one have new hope... (2)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288425)

Actually, Issa wants the government to not be involved in the bedroom: i.e. not to have the government fund their contraceptives, or, rather, to force religious organizations to provide them (which contradicts religious principles).

Well, this is a health issue -- according to health /experts/, like doctors. As for "forcing" religious organisations -- nobody is forcing them to do anything. The government /does/ give them wheelbarrows of cash. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288691)

It's a health issue in, what, 5 percent of cases (being extremely generous)? For the most part, it's just women wanting to have sex without the inevitable consequences, to wit, pregnancy ("horniness" is not a health issue, IMO). BTW, that extends to the men too: they want their girlfriends on birth control too (lest you think I am being sexist here).

Also, don't know what your talking about giving religious organizations wheelbarrows of cash. Do you mean they aren't taxed at the same rate? Because not taking money is not the same as giving people money (much as the government likes to claim so for political reasons). In any case, it doesn't matter: yes, the government is in fact forcing, under the current plan, religious organizations to provide health-care that includes birth control (which means, de facto, that they are funding birth control directly).

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289387)

It's a health issue in, what, 5 percent of cases (being extremely generous)?

Guess you should read the NIH material and examine the empirically based cost benefit analysis. Much better then back of the envelope calculations.

Re:I for one have new hope... (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289417)

Also, don't know what your talking about giving religious organizations wheelbarrows of cash

Not talking about tax breaks. I'm talking about 67% of catholic charity comes directly from government sources [catholiccharitiesusa.org] .

Re:I for one have new hope... (4, Informative)

tj2 (54604) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288659)

Don't take this wrong, but you're a fool.

"Minority", in this case, refers to the fact that she was a witness for the Democratics, the minority part. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity. Try reading the actual article next time. Feel free to ask if the big words confuse you. If all else fails, try looking at a picture of Sandra Fluke and telling us all how you came to the amazing conclusion that she's black. Really, I'd like to know.

Re: expert witness. Do you consider a random group of *male* religious figures more expert in the area of health care than someone who actually has experience using contraception? I'm curious as to why you're not opposed to their presence at the hearing. Also, I'm pretty sure that anyone affected by a proposed law does (or should) have standing to testify as to how it would affect them.

Finally, those religious organizations don't seem to have a problem with paying for Viagra prescriptions, which they've been doing for a number of years. I have no proof, but I very strongly suspect that few if any of the recipients of that particular drug only use it when they are having a sexual experience strictly for procreative purposes.

Despite their efforts at re-framing this as a matter of religious persecution, it's health care. We don't allow people to have juveniles handle rattlesnakes (even if their parent's religion says it's important), and it's okay (or mandatory) to provide medical care to badly injured kids despite Mom & Dad's belief that a little prayer will fix that arterial bleeding right up, so religious belief does not trump the law. The legislation *never* said that a religious organization had to provide it to their members, but had to make it available to their employees. Or do you believe that every employee of the Catholic health services (650+ hospitals) is a member in good standing of the Catholic church?

Sandra Fluke (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289007)

The first is that the "story" Fluke wanted to tell was a personal anecdote (hardly fit material for a discussion, unless you are attempting an emotional appeal... which again, is not exactly what we want our laws to be based one).

Of course personal anecdotes are fit material for discussion when you are trying to determine the effect of a policy. A policy-maker should consider the worst part of a policy. Here, a girl had a cyst the size of a tennis ball form on her ovary because of the former policy, needed surgery and lost the ovary, and went into early menopause--all because an insurance policy *that was supposed to cover* birth conrol for non-contraceptive purposes regularly makes it almost impossible for people to get that birth control. Ms. Fluke was there to share that story and other stories. The men were religious people (e.g. priests) there to testify about their faith. Neither one is particularly scientific, but a policy maker should listen to both.

In addition, Ms. Fluke shared some polling data collected on an affected campus.

Second, they put the fact that she was a minority in the headline (as if that was the issue) when clearly at least one of the witnesses was already black (so, not the actual issue).

There have been over seven thousand stories about this. You are saying there is a problem with one headline? And even if the differences were as you say, it could easily be explained because (1) she was trying to testify for the minority party in the House, and the minority party had no other witnesses, or (2) she was the only woman to testify in the morning, and being black doesn't make one a woman.

And finally, since when was a student at a university considered an expert witness on anything like this? Seriously. A professor, sure. A random person they happened to find in a university with a (no doubt) heart wrenching story?

A professor is not necessarily an expert, nor is a student necessarily a non-expert. Here, you're talking about a student who has a passion on a subject, who has researched it extensively, and who has had many stories shared with her by people who have been affected by it. That makes her an expert, especially compared to Congress, which has just taken up the issue and does not have anywhere near the same level of experience with it.

I'm sorry, but she doesn't actually have any standing to testify.

Um, no. One needs standing in order to bring a lawsuit. One does not need standing in order to testify before Congress.

I can demonstrate that with an easy (ridiculous) example: have a white person testify that black people beat him up, at a hearing to pass a law to throw all black people in jail. Does that testimony offer any credible reason to pass the law? No, and neither does Fluke's.

I fail to see how having a black person testify to that would make the law any more legitimate. Your analogy fails because you chose a law which necessarily would note be open for debate. How about a law prohibiting the sale of condoms without a prescription? Should women be able to testify who were forced to have abortions because of the law?

Actually, Issa wants the government to not be involved in the bedroom: i.e. not to have the government fund their contraceptives, or, rather, to force religious organizations to provide them (which contradicts religious principles).

It's just not that simple. The religious organization needs to set the Cost of Attendance, which is the amount students can borrow. The CoA covers insurance purchased through the University. That insurance does not include contraceptive coverage, and discriminates against people who try to use contraceptive drugs for other medical needs. The University already provides contraceptive coverage to its employees. This is not a question of forcing the university or taxpayer to provide contraceptive coverage; it is a case of stopping the University from preventing students from getting contraception coverage by the manner in which it arranges financial aid and insurance coverage.

Re:I for one have new hope... (4, Informative)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289367)

Here's a BETTER citation, for what ACTUALLY happened. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-dems-played-games-over-sandra-fluke/408036 [washingtonexaminer.com] In short, the Republicans decided on having this hearing, so they told the Democrats it was happening and asked the Democrats who to call as a witness. Being the minority party, they get one witness. The rule is that the Democrats had until three days before the hearing to come up with their witness so they have time to prepare questions and whatnot. The day before the hearing, the Democrats say that they want two witnesses, Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans for Separation of Church and State, and Fluke. The Republicans say they can't have both, so they pick Rev. Lynn. Then the Democrats tried to switch their choice back to Fluke, and THAT what was denied.

Issa would have let her testify if the Democrats had given the committee time to prepare questions to ask her, like they were supposed to.

Re:I for one have new hope... (0, Flamebait)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287659)

Darrell Issa is the jerkoff who thinks it's appropriate to have an all male panel in congress discussing women's health issues.

Re:I for one have new hope... (2)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289545)

Actually, there were two women that testified to the panel that day. They weren't in the room when the idiot Democrats pulled their little stunt because they were scheduled to testify in the afternoon, and so didn't come until lunchtime.

Re:I for one have new hope... (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288479)

He's not a hero, he's just another scumbag politician doing the right thing for the wrong reason here. He's a Republican looking to embarrass the President and Dems because he knows the entertainment industry are Democratic supporters. If this bill were something evil the *oil* industry supported, he would be leading the charge for adoption of it.

*Every* politician is a scumbag. Every. One.

Yes, that means your guy too.

Re:I for one have new hope... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289125)

Issa makes me crazy. On one hand he has been a stident advocate against these IP related causes. But on the same hand, I want to shake the guy because of his almost bizzarre social conservative stance on "Religious Freedoms" and the whole Sandra Fluke thing.

Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (2)

grantus (261016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287321)

Obama administration supports ACTA.

Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287345)

Obama hasn't taken a public stand on copyright law in a while now, mostly because both SOPA and PIPA never made it to his desk. Anger the part of Hollywood who will never vote for him anyway, reassure the other part of Hollywood that he's still the guy they supported in 2008....

MOD THIS ONE DOWN TOO (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287497)

Where was I January 29.... that's the day Obama signed ACTA and now we've only got the Senate remaining for a chance to keep the ball out of the end zone.

Re:MOD THIS ONE DOWN TOO (2)

Sarius64 (880298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287883)

Whoa mate! No facts allowed here! We're all scientists and engineers with no agendas or political influences! Besides, Obama is allowed to discriminate because all the guilt he generates is more important than anything; lives included.

Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288091)

The guy is facing an election. He'll say anything that earns him more votes than he'll lose.

publicity hog (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287239)

its election season.

Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287267)

I voted and will vote again for Obama, as he was and is The Lesser Evil. But he is, along with the majority of his party, bought and paid for by Big IP and Wall Street. The US has been a driving force in ACTA thus far, and he's been president for 3 years.

Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (4, Informative)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287357)

Both sides are bought and paid for by Big IP and Wall Street. This is why you saw virtually 0 votes against the DMCA (unanimous consent in the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House) and why many of the sponsors and co-sponsors of these Pro-IP bills are Republicans (lest you forget the originator of the DMCA in the House was Republican Howard Cobel, SOPA was introduced to the House by Republican Lamar Smith, etc). And also the RIAA CEO and Chairman from 2003 to 2011 was a long time staffer to various Republicans for 26 years before taking the RIAA CEO position.

Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287603)

You're voting for an image, not decent policy for our country and way of life.

Obama NEEDS to go. His marketing campaign is slick, but much more evil than the other party.

Don't be a fool and reelect the devil. Seriously.

Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288481)

but much more evil than the other party.

Is that you Santorum?

Are you being dense? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288933)

So you're admitting the President himself is pushing ACTA, considers it a done deal, in violation of the Constitution and your own personal beliefs.

But your reaction is that anybody publishing ACTA who is not a president or senator is simply a publicity house.

And so your reaction to a President who is violating the Constitution & Your Personal beliefs is to *DONATE MORE MONEY* because you don't like Daryl Issa, *EVEN THOUGH DARYL ISSA ISN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT*.

I will refrain from making any sort of partisan jab here, because frankly, the jokes write themselves.

Please (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287179)

Please, dear god, read some of it and post an intelligent comment. If you put in a generic rant, you merely become a statistic. However, if ou present a relevant comment, they are required to annotate it.

My comment is thus (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287297)

This agreement was written by the U.S. entertainment industry. It was written by them with one, and only one, purpose in mind: to advance the interests of their own industry at the expense of the freedoms of every other group and citizen in every country that signs it. It was secured in the U.S. by the open bribery of the U.S. Congress and President. It has been foisted on the rest of the world through the hostile use of U.S. economic might, in illegal secret negotiations that violate the laws of almost every country involved. It only serves to harm the international reputation of the U.S. and its citizenry at the expense of the interests of one industry.

It should be soundly rejected by all remaining free counties.

Re:My comment is thus (4, Informative)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287403)

This agreement was written by the U.S. entertainment industry.

No it was originally written by the entertainment industries of both the US and Japan and then the Canadian and EU entertainment industries joined in. I know it's popular to blame all such things entirely on the US but there is just as much complicity from other countries in these treaties than these one-dimensional criticisms would lead you to believe.

Re:My comment is thus (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287605)

The European entertainment industry is owned by American companies. Although you are right about Japan, Sony plays a major part in these legislations.

Re:My comment is thus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287967)

Sony plays a major part in these legislations.

Which is why we should boycott Sony as much as possible. Don't play on a PS3, get an Xbox 360 instead. Don't buy any music that is made by RIAA, choose indie instead. Also stop listening to the radio, unless it's a radio station that ONLY plays indie bands.

Re:My comment is thus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288147)

How exactly does listening to the radio support Sony? Sure you hear the music but it's strictly a one-way medium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there shouldn't be any way for people to track what is being listened to on the radio without active feedback from people - they can't just poll the receivers to see what is tuned to which station.

How about this? (4, Informative)

Idou (572394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288099)

This agreement was written by the global entertainment industry in order to advance their own interests at the expense of the freedoms that make a modern democracy possible. It was secured in the U.S. by the open bribery of the U.S. Congress and President. It has been foisted on the rest of the world through the hostile use of U.S. economic might, in illegal secret negotiations that violate the laws of almost every country involved.

This single agreement represents the undermining of thousands of years worth of social evolution, and those in public office who support it should be immediately dismissed, criminally charged, and incarcerated for their remaining years on this Earth.

Changelog:
elrous0 - original comment
Idou - revised to blame global entertainment and added some action items

Re:How about this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288793)

I was going to go with "this agreement was written by an international crime syndicate..." but your approach is more diplomatic and thus less likely to be dismissed out of hand...

Re:My comment is thus (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288407)

So... take out the "U.S." and we're good to go.

Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287449)

Okay, this may have me holding my nose and filling in the oval next to Romney or Gingrich in November.... Obama signed ACTA in Janurary 2012 [webpronews.com] Mr. President, how could you?

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (4, Insightful)

savi (142689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287537)

Because those two certainly won't uphold corporate interests? If you hold your nose and vote for either of them, it won't be taken as a sign that the American people oppose ACTA. It will be taken as a sign that people want more government intrusion in their bedrooms and more rights for corporations. If you want to give more power to the women-are-sluts-and-corporations-are-heroic-people party, don't come crying when the obvious results.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287619)

Are you retarded?! Romney would have signed ACTA with far less reluctance than Obama. And don't kid yourself, the Republicans are more likely to go to war with Iran than Obama. Sure, at some basic level Obama and Romney are alike, but the Republican entourage that would follow Romney in to power would have us heading toward the same lameness of the Bush years.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (1)

Divide By Zero (70303) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287623)

If you think Romney or Gingrich wouldn't have, you should absolutely vote for them.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (2)

cbeaudry (706335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287729)

How can you be surprised?

At what point during his presidency has Obama shown he is anything other than a corporate stooge?

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287895)

He's not in the lame duck second term yet... he could be out of office as early as January 2013 if he keeps this {bleep} up.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289529)

He's not in the lame duck second term yet... he could be out of office as early as January 2013 if he keeps this {bleep} up.

What, so we can let a MEGA stooge into office? I'm not exactly seeing any viable alternatives here. Unless "impotent whining and bitching on a website quickly losing its relevance" is going to be a candidate on the ballots this November. What's the campaign platform going to be, "MOD PARENT DOWN!!1!!!"?

Seriously. Wake me when TEH INTARNETS bring forth a viable candidate to elect to sort all this bullshit out. A viable one. Not just someone with equally narrow interests and concerns (if not moreso) than what we consider the sociopaths we have now, only they agree with us this time. I've been waiting. And all I've seen is more kvetching and complaining, backed with "action" that simply tells The People(tm) that we're a minority of unstable anarchists with no clear message and no particular concern for the day-to-day lives of anyone outside our message boards, and we therefore should be marginalized as much as possible as quickly as possible.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288097)

Not that I'm not thoroughly disgusted that he supported this thing... but before we make this one partisan, please note that ACTA was being developed under the prior administration as well (and both were keeping the details secret from the public.)

In other words, of course a Democrat will rubber-stamp something for Hollywood, but don't trust a Republican to automatically do the right thing on this issue. A ton of them were supporting SOPA too. Make sure they're on record and loudly opposing this stuff like Rep. Issa thankfully is, and keep on them to make sure they aren't just sinking this to bring in their own "save the children" bill to do the same thing.

Software developers, web designers, and other Internet-connected forces are woefully underrepresented in Congress, whether it's regulations or worker protections, and they don't typically unionize so the Democrats don't seem to have much use for them. A lot go Ron Paul but I'm kind of surprised Republicans don't see this as a group they could reach out to. Especially since it's obsoleting traditional media and Hollywood. I'd rather the Democrats do it, but they seem to think treating Internet users like garbage is the way to go... but then the Republicans will happily screw them over as well by sinking Net Neutrality. No wonder a lot go Ron Paul.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288323)

By all means you should voter against Obama; everyone should. But vote for a Republican? WTF?! How can you see that's not a totally absurd reaction? That's just like voting for Obama.

If you want to punish this kind of activity, you're going to have to vote against the kind of people who routinely do it, not just angrily punish one of them, while also sending a message that you're ok with what he did, by voting for another one of them.

People will tell you that voting against them is "throwing your vote away" but all voting is "thrown away" except when lots of people vote the same way. And if lots of people vote against Republicrats, then we'll finally get rid of the Republicrats.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288341)

Please just vote third party. It doesn't matter which. As you realize, both major parties are unacceptable. Voting for one over the other is throwing your vote away. The only vote that matters is a vote for change which simply cannot come from either major party.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289291)

Is there anybody running a 3rd party campaign that has managed to get themselves onto enough ballots to potentially capture enough electoral votes to win?

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289441)

A two-party system is an inevitable consequence of the winner-take-all voting system we have in this country. It's not voter apathy, it's mathematics and game theory.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289163)

Obama signed ACTA in Janurary 2012 [webpronews.com] Mr. President, how could you?

So which is worse. That Obama signed ACTA or that Obama signed ACTA as an "executive agreement" sidestepping the Constitutional requirement that the Senate must approve all trade agreements?
--
"Well, you know, it turns out that our Founders designed a system that makes it harder to change than I would like sometimes." Barrack Obama, onetime lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, currently President of the United States.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289459)

If you have to hold you nose while voting, you're probably voting for the wrong people. Vote for the pirate party or the libertarian party or anyone else, really. If there's a significant increase in votes for other parties that'll scare both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (2)

jobiwankanobi (1878400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289771)

Obama, the constitutional law professor, also signed NDAA unlimited detention of United States citizens by the military without trial.

Karma whore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287577)

Soooo, after internet went belly up on SOPA/PIPA somebody from the government critizises it? Cry me a river. Maybe they wanted to get rid of him and he is using the Streissand effect to try to shield himself?

reading it will just piss me off but I will do so. (4, Insightful)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287647)

So a republican wishing to jab Obama does the right thing by posting a secret treaty online. And he's a California republican as well - land of the Entertainment Industry. Does this count as a good thing or a bad thing? I'm thinking it's both but it works out for the citizens so it's a net good despite potential partisan motivations.

Re:reading it will just piss me off but I will do (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287989)

So a republican wishing to jab Obama does the right thing by posting a secret treaty online.

It's no longer secret. It has been officially opened as soon as the first countries started signing it.

Re:reading it will just piss me off but I will do (2, Insightful)

Sarius64 (880298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288041)

Your smugness smells like the shitpile it appears. If you knew anything about Darrell Issa you would understand that Hollywood did not elect him. Hollywood is funneling money to Obama. You should pull your head out of your ass sometime and at least try to research your own bias.

Re:reading it will just piss me off but I will do (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288071)

Yep, Issa is very partisan. It gets complicated when somebody does the right thing for what are not necessarily the right reasons. I wonder what'll happen when this issue no longer garners him any press coverage?

Some Issa info: http://www.salon.com/topic/darrell_issa/ [salon.com]

Two faced sludge (2)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287657)

Tries to stop government from demanding Open Access to scientific publications sponsored by government.

How much Elsevier is paying you, Darrell?

My comment on ACTA (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39287723)

Opening Paragraph - "The Parties to this Agreement"
This chapter establishes the tone of the treaty and from the beginning obfuscates the differences between actual property/trademarks (and their centuries of legal baggage) and the relatively new concept of intellectual property and copyright infringement. it also emphases focus on the digital world and copyright. The treaty itself offers few guidelines in respect to protecting citizens from specifically dangerous counterfeit products, making no differentiations based on physical safety, low quality counterfeits.

Also introduced here is the concept of balance of the the rights and interests of the relevant right holders, service providers, and users. This is a common talking point of the media lobby, and is used often to justify increasing the rights of IP holders at the expense of the rights of internet operators and citizens fundamental rights to free speech, privacy. The language is crafted to imply a sense of fairness and balance, however, civil liberties and human rights are enshrined at the highest levels in law. Weather the ideology of Intellectual Property should hold equal standing should be an issue of vigorous debate and not an issue to be taken at face value.

Article 5 part (l)
Right holder is defined in the treaty as including "includes a federation or an association having the legal standing to assert rights in intellectual property". it's worth mention that this agreement is designed primarily to hold these organisations interests ahead of individuals creative rights holders.

Article 8: INJUNCTIONS
"Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to issue an order against a party to desist from an infringement, and inter alia, an order to that party or, where appropriate, to a third party over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce."

This definition is vague and very much open to interpretation. What goods are we talking about here? physical goods like VCRs, Cassette recorders, DVD burners, or even computers? Software goods that allow the copying of home videos and music production, Real player, Adobe Premier, etc? or even goods in the form of packages by internet service providers, would providing access to a means of a communications channel to the internet, through which copyright infringement might occur count as providing goods that involve copyright infringement?

This kind of uncertainty is often passed down while making local law, and opens individuals and small business to the threat of defending themselves from injunctions, involving expensive legal fees.

Article 9: DAMAGES
This is a tricky section, paragraphs 1 and 2 are presented as mild suggestions of damages, but paragraph 3 states that these suggestions must be implemented as an alternative at the request of the rights holder (defined earlier as media companies). This to me requires participants of ACTA to sign into effective law, the myth that every single illegal download of a copyrighted work represents a lost sale and that the right holder should be compensated as such. In reality this is not the case, and there are several conflicting studies carried out by interest groups and independent researchers around this topic.
This topic is important as you will see later, as an individual downloader of a single song can be classified legally as a mass distributor of the same song and charged for tens of thousands of lost sales as a result. This is what happened in the US thousands of times over since the introduction of the DMCA act, on which ACTA is based.

Article 10: OTHER REMEDIES
This article has huge impact on on physical copyright infringement liability because of it's vagueness, there is no reference to the suitability of the product or regard of if it's fitness for purpose or completely dangerous. I can offer several examples of 'good copies' of physical goods and initiatives that would be declared illegal under this article.

1. Generic drugs, 100% perfect copies of expensive medications that can be cheaply distributed to the poor or made en mass in the event of an epidemic emergency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug
2. Genetically Modified Seeds, natural reproduction of GM plants could be classified infringing the Intellectual Property of the corporation who produced it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...ed_controversy
3. 3D Printing, a new emerging technology that allows people to print downloadable objects, the same as they would download and print a document today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fScRYhq-5M0
http://www.thingiverse.com/featured

If ACTA is to really prevent dangerous counterfeits, then this notion should be clearly defined here in article 10. It is not.

Article 11: INFORMATION RELATED TO INFRINGEMENT
This Article suggests that a legal framework be set up to allow rights holders to request personal information on suspected copyright infringers through the courts, and that framework be defined within the frame of existing personal data protection law. in the case of existing data protection law I understand that individuals personal details records are secure, but that there are outstanding issues with ISP data logging and data retention that are as yet unresolved. I want to point out that because of the nature of how file transfers occur on today's internet, that from a legal perspective, anyone downloading illegal content using the popular bit-torrent protocol would also be liable for distribution and copyright infringement. This article although vaguely worded, opens a quagmire of messy law that flies in the face of the right to privacy for a huge proportion of EU citizens.

Article 23: CRIMINAL OFFENCES
Paragraph 1 declares the one-word description of cases of "copyright" as being criminal offences with corresponding criminal judicial procedures. Page notes go on to define commercial trademark infringement being defined by scale rather than commercial profit made by the counterfeiters.
Paragraph 3 allows for the criminalisation of operating a video camera in the vicinity of a performance of a copyrighted work, E.g. recording a childrans party in a cinema.
Paragraph 4 allows for the criminalisation of aiding and abetting copyright infringement!

Article 24: PENALTIES
Defines the penalty for copyright infringement or the aiding and abetting copyright infringement to be imprisonment and/or large, disproportionate fines based in the criteria of the '1 Download = 1 Lost Sale' myth detailed above.

Article 25: SEIZURE, FORFEITURE, AND DESTRUCTION
Paragraph 5 allows for property of equal value to perceived 'lost profits' be ceased from a copyright infringer. under this section, someone sharing a handful of movies online with could potentially have their home and possessions ceased.

Article 27: ENFORCEMENT IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT
Paragraph 5 implements law that protects DRM (Digital Rights Management) and copy protections systems designed to protect media from being copied. This is an enormous issue in the tech world. summarised here:

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

In short DRM is the worst thing for consumers who pay for media and products, it is the technology that prevents you from playing songs you paid for on itunes on non-apple devices, it is the reason you can't fast forward through the ads and trailers on DVDs, it is the reason you can't play a video game you have paid for because your internet connection is down.

For an example of someone who circumvented DRM copy protection, look at the case of Jon Lech Johansen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Jon ...a Norwegian teenager who wrote a software DVD player so that he could watch his own films on his linux computer
this bright young man was dragged through the courts for many years under existing laws, under ACTA, he would be in prison.

Article 30: TRANSPARENCY
Missing transparency and accountability for the ACTA committee and sub-committees set up and detailed later in Article 36

Article 31: PUBLIC AWARENESS
Outlines a taxpayer funded propaganda campaign to promote the myths and ideology of Intellectual Property.

Article 36: THE ACTA COMMITTEE
Paragraph 3 (a) and (b) allows committee to invite undefined groups including media industry representatives, without regard for balance, or for stakeholders in other industries, or civil rights group consultation.
Paragraph 3 (d) gives the committee directive to recommend 'best practise' methods of monitoring citizens for copyright infringement activity.
Paragraph 3 (e) gives committee an open ended directive to do whatever it wants

Issa? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39288193)

I'm really confused. I thought Issa was a completely evil bad-guy. Is this just pandering on his part, or does he actually have some virtue?

Re:Issa? (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289509)

He's pandering, he sees that Obama's supporters want the deal so he's determined it is bad because of that. He's right this time, but a stopped clock is still right twice a day.

Re:Issa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289553)

You thought wrong.
  Issa is one of the few congresscritters who have earned my respect.

Re:Issa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39289755)

It's Issa. He'll find a way to fuck everyone except the rich and powerful. Assuming good faith on his part anytime ever is silly, since there's mountains of evidence pointing to its complete absence.

My comment: Bury that absolute. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39288265)

piece of shit.

Fuck ACTA and anything like it.

Arrest that pirate! (3, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39289715)

He's posting copyrighted material on the internet!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...