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!

CAFTA Treaty Exports DMCA

timothy posted about 9 years ago | from the how-pleasant dept.

United States 377

PingXao writes "The BSA, RIAA and MPAA successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress to include DMCA-like provisions in the recently approved CAFTA treaty, according to CNet. Among other provisions, Chapter 15 of the treaty requires treaty signatories to allow software patents, extend Copyright protections to 70 years after the author's death, and make it illegal to produce 'circumvention devices' for protected works."

cancel ×


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

Great (1)

Eugene Webby (891781) | about 9 years ago | (#13227005)

So maybe now I can at last patent my hello world program and copyright it until 2170. (yes, I plan to live that long)


LOL PATENTS RULE LOL (903720) | about 9 years ago | (#13227035)



Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227242)

Let's Define "circumvention" (1)

VernonNemitz (581327) | about 9 years ago | (#13227415)

"...make it illegal to produce 'circumvention devices' for protected works."

If I buy an good-quality book, the data is "protected" reasonably well for several hundred years, provided I don't seriously abuse it like throwing into a fireplace. But if I buy a good-quality CD or DVD, somehow it always picks up scratches that eventually makes the data lost. Where is the "protection" of the data???

Dare we say that the companies making those discs have deliberately CIRCUMVENTED the ability of the discs to protect data for centuries? Dare we therefore throw all their CEOs in jail for illegal activities?

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227169)

(yes, I plan to live that long)
Or die in the attempt!


Do lawmakers really think (1)

m93 (684512) | about 9 years ago | (#13227009)

that there will be one line of code written today that will require copyright protection in 70 years time? But then again, it's good to have a nice buffer...

Re:Do lawmakers really think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227028)

The copyright isn't about the code, mate. It is about Disney losing its exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse, etc, etc.

They want to be able to milk those cows forever.

Re:Do lawmakers really think (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | about 9 years ago | (#13227037)

that there will be one line of code written today that will require copyright protection in 70 years time?

Yes, if that line of code is written in COBOL

Re:Do lawmakers really think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227074)

"Do lawmakers really think"

That is a question we often ask, but the answer is clear from how often we need to ask it.

More seriously, lawmakers think about financing their reelections, and maintaining a positive public profile.

Re:Do lawmakers really think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227173)

I hear a giant sucking sound, I tell 'ya. A giant sucking sound. Kill all the software authors, and in 75 years this will all be just a bad dream.

Re:Do lawmakers really think (1)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#13227211)

Uh lawmakers couldn't give a shit about code, this is about making songs, books, Mickey Mouse, their movie scripts, etc, last as long as possible. American corporations have gone so incredibly IP happy that absurd lengths of 75 years are almost required, as things that are close to going out of copyright (like Mickey Mouse for a good example) might lose the company a few bucks..

I call horseshit to the whole thing, as "intellectual property" was meant to eventually be turned over to the public domain anyways.. this is why the Copyright and Patent system were devised.

Cue angry rants. (1, Insightful)

TexasDex (709519) | about 9 years ago | (#13227012)

Yeah. I know this is a bad thing. But I'm starting to suffer from 'outrage fatigue'. It's getting damn tiring hearing about our rights being eroded and getting angry about it. So I have decided it's time to give my blood pressure a rest. I think I'll make a cup of tea instead.

Re:Cue angry rants. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 9 years ago | (#13227076)

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Re:Cue angry rants. (1)

ToasterofDOOM (878240) | about 9 years ago | (#13227137)

Ahh, it's refreshing to see that some people in this world have some sense.

Re:Cue angry rants. (1)

pcmanjon (735165) | about 9 years ago | (#13227175)

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

        -- Benjamin Franklin

Seems like they knew what they were talking about. Politicians just don't say things like that now days.

~Security - ~Freedom (1)

geekee (591277) | about 9 years ago | (#13227221)

" They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

                -- Benjamin Franklin"

Liberty cannot exist without security. Therefore, this statement makes no sense. Threat of physical harm while performing an activity that one should be free to do, dissuades someone from performing that activity. Therefore, liberty is lost.

Re:~Security - ~Freedom (2, Insightful)

955301 (209856) | about 9 years ago | (#13227278)

essential liberty. temporary security.

These things, these adjectives, they actually mean something and serve the purpose of specificity. Try not to ignore them, will you?

His point was that you must endure the threat of physical harm while engaging in those activites required to promote and emphasize those principles which are essential to our spirit and freedom (actual freedom, not how the word is used today).

Re:~Security - ~Freedom (1)

Stalyn (662) | about 9 years ago | (#13227377)

Liberty cannot exist without security. Therefore, this statement makes no sense. Threat of physical harm while performing an activity that one should be free to do, dissuades someone from performing that activity. Therefore, liberty is lost.

This seems to be a new meme that without security freedom cannot exist. I'm not sure what spawned it most likely the ongoing "global struggle against extremism". I guess it depends on your definition of freedom. If you believe freedom is a space that you're allowed to roam guarded by outside powers then yes this kind of freedom by definition requires security. However notice this type of freedom is not much different than the freedom possessed by a sheep. It can roam around in its little pasture protected by the shepherd from wolves. However all your freedom depends on the competency of the shepherd and that the shepherd is an agent of mercy and good will. Basically you remove the responsibility of the entitlement to freedom to someone else. Is that really freedom?

Liberty cannot exist without security. (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 9 years ago | (#13227407)

Secure from whom, government? It's government that threatens liberty by force of arms at the bidding of the corporate aristocracy.


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Thomas Jefferson

Re:~Security - ~Freedom (1)

Lord Pillage (815466) | about 9 years ago | (#13227482)

They still have the choice to do that activity if they wish, do they not? Liberty is defined [] as the condition of being free from restriction or control.

As long as no person imposes any restrictions on what they will or will not do then their liberty remains intact. The only things that permanently limit liberty are the laws of physics.

Threat of physical harm may not always dissuade someone from doing something as you should know from all the stupid things people do getting themselves hurt (ie. skydiving, mountain climbing, etc.).

Re:~Security - ~Freedom (2, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | about 9 years ago | (#13227527)

Liberty cannot exist without security. Therefore, this statement makes no sense. Threat of physical harm while performing an activity that one should be free to do, dissuades someone from performing that activity. Therefore, liberty is lost.

The key words in the phrase are essential liberty.

It does not appear to me that CAFTA deals with any issue that Franklin would have considered an essential liberty. Franklin was talking about freedom of speech and due process of law.

On the other hand Franklin would no doubt be saying that imprisonment without trial, military tribunals and the use of torture were exactly the type of abuses that the constitution was drafted to prevent.

There is a big difference between national security and a pretext for a power grab by the executive. The administration does not seem to have much interest in Osama Bin Forgotten, except when it comes to getting the vote out for elections.

Re:Cue angry rants. (2, Interesting)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 9 years ago | (#13227228)

Fuck y'all. I'm moving to a place where the people wrapping themselves in the flag aren't the same people who are holding a subpoena for all the books I read in the library. You go right ahead and keep vigil over your "freedom." What you are calling vigilance looks to me more like sitting shiva.

Re:Cue angry rants. (1)

oberondarksoul (723118) | about 9 years ago | (#13227087)

I think this works quite nicely for the lawmakers. People get full of righteous indignation to begin with, but by the time their final rights are taken away, people grow apathetic. It's the seige tactics of the 21st Century: continually erode people's rights, until they capitulate and you can seize the whole bally lot of them.

Re:Cue angry rants. (1)

mmeister (862972) | about 9 years ago | (#13227095)

But I'm starting to suffer from 'outrage fatigue'.

I agree -- but it isn't leading me to stop. Rather I'm getting to the point where I'm going to go and kick some ass. I'm really sick and tired of these greedy companies and these greedy Congressmen stripping me of my rights for the sake of the all mighty dollar.

Unfortunately our politicians are SO CORRUPT that they've sold their own soul as well as the souls of their constituents to these FAT ASS companies. I'm already planning to take several weeks out of the next election and devote it to throwing out the incumbent, whatever party he/she may be.

Waste of time (3, Insightful)

hackwrench (573697) | about 9 years ago | (#13227152)

The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.'"

'Odd,' said Arthur, 'I thought you said it was a democracy.'

'I did,' said Ford, 'It is.'

'So,' said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, 'why don't the people get rid of the lizards?'

'It honestly doesn't occur to them,' said Ford. 'They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.'

'You mean they actually vote for the lizards?'

'Oh yes,' said Ford with a shrug, 'of course.'

'But,' said Arthur, going for the big one again, 'why?'

'Because if they didn't vote for a lizard,' said Ford, 'the wrong lizard might get in'"

-- Douglas Adams

Run with this. (2, Interesting)

955301 (209856) | about 9 years ago | (#13227453)

How about we all get together and write an application which makes tracking bills and resolutions easy for the layman. You can pick and choose the ones you agree with and the app will create a report during election season sumarizing who to vote for based on your picks?

Instead of the crap the politicians are spewing.

Then it won't matter who belongs to what party.

Re:Cue angry rants. (1)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | about 9 years ago | (#13227229)

[1] But I'm starting to suffer from 'outrage fatigue'.

[2] I agree -- but it isn't leading me to stop. Rather I'm getting to the point where I'm going to go and kick some ass.

If you really want to help, devote yourself to helping these guys [] or these guys [] , or you can start your own project. No offense to anyone here, but if I was a betting man I'd put my money on the average Slashdotter's Technical skills, not his/her ability to win hearts and minds...or affect social opinion.

The demographic that voted us into this mess are beer drinking, flag waving yehaw walping wash my soul on sunday types. Until Bubba and Jinny have suffered enough from $3 gas prices, unemployment, and no health care...we're pleading into deaf ears.

Then the Emperor has already won (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 9 years ago | (#13227121)

Tiring of getting angry over your rights eroding and making a cup of tea is exactly what they want you to do.

If the people all get sick of hearing about this stuff and sink into apathy, they are much easier to control.

Don't give up, dude.

He's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227455)

> Don't give up, dude.

He's not giving up.

He's hinting about a certain event more than two centuries ago, which led to the U.S. independence.

Some English dudes decided to change a measuring unit to pay less for American tea. Americans got mad and threw all tea into the sea -- not bad, it even rhymes!

Well, one thing leads to another and soon it's ex-colony for you, Mr. King.

Now, pardon if I was not accurate (I'm not even from U.S.A.). But what will the world do about all this bureaucrat unit-changing-like-moves such as DMCA etc.?

I guess some people really are getting upset. What if some countries decide to really get though on "piracy"? What if they begin to enforce already existing so that people can no longer copy proprietary programs illegally for free?

Well, that would be dangerous, because almost every desktop runs the same desktop proprietary program, no?

The only way out is promoting a GPL desktop so that it becomes a viable alternative -- and then, only then, getting though on "pirates".

And guess what 3rd world countries are doing now?

Re:Cue angry rants. (1)

jmv (93421) | about 9 years ago | (#13227256)

Thanks. Can you make one for me while you're at it?

muahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227276)

eggggscellent. The barrage of outrageous legislation seems to be wearing them down.

Re:Cue angry rants. (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 9 years ago | (#13227280)

Yeah. I know this is a bad thing. But I'm starting to suffer from 'outrage fatigue'. It's getting damn tiring hearing about our rights being eroded and getting angry about it. So I have decided it's time to give my blood pressure a rest. I think I'll make a cup of tea instead.

Instead of a cup of tea perhaps a cup of traiters' blood? Well I guess we could have another Boston Tea Party.


Work Arounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227013)

Copyright protections to 70 years after the author's death
Wow, no wonder Disney is able to keep extending its copyright on Mickey Mouse, I mean Walt Disney is in his cryogenic chamber, so he isn't really even dead yet. I wonder if they will put George Lucas' live head in a jar, that way there will always be official Star Wars merchandise.

Airholes? (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | about 9 years ago | (#13227067)

"I wonder if they will put George Lucas' live head in a jar, that way there will always be official Star Wars merchandise."

Depends on if you put airholes in the jar. Jar...

Re:Airholes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227220)

I think Lucas' head has been dead some time now.

Today I realized exactly how stupid this is (1)

El Cubano (631386) | about 9 years ago | (#13227017)

extend Copyright protections to 70 years after the author's death

Today in class, the professor handed out some copies that came out of IEEE Computer from January 1982. Under current copyright law, the copyrights on those articles will not expire until well after I do. But to what end?

Really, how commercially valuable is a 23 year old article about parallel computing? It makes me shake my head. If you can't extract the majority of the commercial benefit of your creation in the first couple of decades, I don't think you deserve the ability to even get a copyright.

Re:Today I realized exactly how stupid this is (1)

Quasar1999 (520073) | about 9 years ago | (#13227044)

that's right, YOU don't get the copyright, the mega-worldwide-super-uber-dooper big ass company bent on world domination that you work for does.

Re:Today I realized exactly how stupid this is (1)

anubi (640541) | about 9 years ago | (#13227186)

Thats assuming the mega-worldwide-super-uber-dooper big ass company has hired you.

With this current trend in outsourcing, while leaving all sorts of highly trained people adrift in the wake to fend for themselves, how long will it be before even the super big corporations end up tripping over the very laws they had lobbied to have passed?

I know in my case, I used to work for an aerospace company. Laid off. Now working for myself, and have several patents in the mill.

I realize companies are unwittingly making huge "and" gates which control whether or not production can function. In days past, mostly one had to have mainly skills and financial resources in order to begin production of a salable product. Now, one has to have increasing arrays of permissions as well to run production.

Like a huge engine can be disabled for lack of one bolt, a huge industrial production process can be disabled by lack of one permission of rightsholder.

Yes, there is a problem of 'eminent domain' where we have already seen Connecticut landowners stripped of their property because a business wanted it. I believe this will happen in patent law too.

I will quote something taught to me as a kid...

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One Nation, under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All."

If the last three words are not valid, I guess the first three words aren't valid either.

If we landmine our intellectual property landscape, we all will get blown up; the only secure job is that of the morticians.

Re:Today I realized exactly how stupid this is (1)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | about 9 years ago | (#13227352)

If we landmine our intellectual property landscape, we all will get blown up; the only secure job is that of the morticians.


The lawyers are playing both sides of the fence, and they are reaping all the rewards.

Re:Today I realized exactly how stupid this is (1)

SirSlud (67381) | about 9 years ago | (#13227081)

The irony is that copyright was originally created to give legal teeth to nobodies. Today, copyright is really only useful to the same 'friends of the king' that the original copyright law was written to legally de-fang.

It's da Mouse! (1)

khasim (1285) | about 9 years ago | (#13227088)

It's not about whether a tech article or other informational writing will be worth protecting.

It's all about entertainment and keeping those few songs, movies and such securely locked up for as long as the corps can turn a profit.

We continue to stay the course. (1)

tamrood (821829) | about 9 years ago | (#13227022)

And I continue to be disgusted, angry, and write to my congressmen and senators. I am not however, surprised.

Re:We continue to stay the course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227055)

Off topic, but why would you expect them to care about you ?

Because the government is supposed to represent the will of the people in this mis-classified democracy of ours ?

What will of the people can a government possibly represent when the populace is ignorant ?

Clearly the government is representing someone's will, but it most assuredly is not that of the people.

Why would they care what you want, it's not you the government is in power to represent.

Re:We continue to stay the course. (1)

SlimFastForYou (578183) | about 9 years ago | (#13227251)

I wish that the government/corps would at least be a little more honest in the way they names stuff.

For example:
"protect Intellectual Property Rights" (from ch 15)
Digital Rights Management
Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Patriot Act

All of these sound positive based on the names. A purposeful shortage of rights should not be called "rights", it should be called "restrictions". For example, "Digital Restrictions Management". Or "copyrestriction" laws. Though it is a bit cowardly, they use tricky names because they know that they could not get support any other way. It's pitiful, but no senator or organization want's to be seen as "anti-rights" or "anti-patriotic".

I suggest that we call such laws/bills/technology what they really are. "Intellectual Property Restrictions", "Copyrestriction law", "Digital Restricitons Management", etc etc. If they are going to take our rights, they should at least do it without the guise that they are giving us more rights when in reality they are doing the exact opposite.

Re:We continue to stay the course. (1)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#13227265)

And they will continue writing laws that you go against, no matter who you vote for, because all of the higher ups and re-electees are getting paid by the companies and all of the young guns are learning from the higher ups.

Meanwhile, the average American is getting fucked in the ass, while the upperclass American politican is pulling down a cool hundred grand or two doing nothing more than arguing why their company should get a tax break.

I'm so sick to death of American politics, but there's nothing, and I literally mean nothing, we can do about it until we get competent people into the legislator, which simply can't happen because the people who are voting are the people being swayed by the political pressures that may be, which, once again, are controlled by the big companies.

As more and more American jobs get outsourced to other countries, I hope more Americans realize the driving force behind this migration. They realize they simply can't pay you any less and get the same amount of work done, so they pay someone else who can do the work for less.

The real truth of the matter is, no matter how pissed we get about things, the very corporations we support by buying into them are the very corporations who keep us down. It's like paying an endentured servant to come to your house and work for you, but then turning around and charging them rent at your house.

Sadly, we're at the point where not even a new American Revolution could take care of the problem. Our military's so advanced that if the general public were to turn out to fight it, the American war machine would be able to keep the American people at bay. So much for the "Right to bear arms".

We've got one last right to support us now, and that's our freedom of speech, and for goodness sake we had better exaust it before the policitians can.

Circumvention devices? (1)

Zweideutig (900045) | about 9 years ago | (#13227029)

That wording sounds dangerously ambiguous. This seems to make bit torrent illegal as it can be used to circumvent purchasing the software (I also realize it is intended for legal things.) But where does the liability lie? If I write a program that I intend people to use legally, and they used it to circumvent some DRM, am I liable. If I include "do not use this program for circumvention of copyright protection measures," does that mean I could put that ona file sharing p2p client and not have the RIAA/MPAA after me?

Re:Circumvention devices? (1)

shark72 (702619) | about 9 years ago | (#13227063)

"That wording sounds dangerously ambiguous."

"circumvention devices" is shorthand for what Chapter 15 covers for at least three pages. You're right to be worried -- but your first step should be to read the actual treaty, rather than extrapolating off of a two-word phrase.

The summary contains a handy link to the chapter.

liscensed code (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227420)

It makes you a hacker, in the future anyone caught programming without a liscense will be treated no differently than a medical professional.
Convicted of 1st degree hacking. lolz.

Slightly better (1)

Lord Marlborough (897605) | about 9 years ago | (#13227030)

At least it's not democracy we're exporting this time. Crazy laws are less likely to get people killed.

Re:Slightly better (1)

Goeland86 (741690) | about 9 years ago | (#13227531)

mmm, you're forgetting the essential here, it's "attemting to". Trust me, it's gonna shut down more commerce than it's going to benefit to the exporters. I'm guessing that sooner or later Europe will refuse to import stuff from the US and we'll end up with a loss of international business making the big corps reanalyze their views. I hope Europe makes a good stand on this, I mean, why would you give your GRAND-children your copyrights over stuff that's so popular it's made all the cash it can already! The Rolling Stones aren't the richest because of copyright laws but because they're doing good stuff and still making new songs, not just selling their oldies!

It'll be interesting how many countries adhere to those conditions... I don't expect that many to do so, which will cripple their whole business idea.

Naptime (1)

cdills (879529) | about 9 years ago | (#13227033)

There really isn't any other way this could happen. I'm tired of being angry about all of this, because in reality it's completely logical.

Corporations are 50 years behind the times, and will continue to be forced to play catchup for the indefinite future. The government will legislate based on who they hear, and money speaks louder than words. Meanwhile people like me sit in thier rooms thinking about what could have been.

Maybe I'll take a nap.

This sucks (1)

ToasterofDOOM (878240) | about 9 years ago | (#13227036)

Agreements like NAFTA and the new CAFTA are good in concept, but suck in application because people play politics and tack all sorts of useless or counterproductive crap onto them. This just makes me angry. ALL I WANT IS FREE TRADE! ITS CALLED A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT, NOT FREE TRADE AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW ALL OF THESE RULES AND KISS OUR ASS. </rant>

Anarchy is not freedom (1)

poptones (653660) | about 9 years ago | (#13227057)

Defending "Freedom" is why we have laws. if "free trade" meant anything goes there would be all out trade wars as one country tried to dump its most profitable exports on other nations in order to win control of markets.

The US has a history of negotiating treaties and then abandoning them and resorting to force to retain control they should have sacrificed when they left the treaty - but that doesn't negate the inherent value in a treaty so long as all parties play by the rules.

Re:Anarchy is not freedom (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | about 9 years ago | (#13227089)

"meant anything goes there would be all out trade wars as one country tried to dump its most profitable exports"

Sounds good to me: it would lower the price of the goods.

Re:Anarchy is not freedom (1)

ToasterofDOOM (878240) | about 9 years ago | (#13227109)

Exactly, thank you. People think that without restrictions, the global/international economy would fall into chaos. NOT TRUE! Sure, some rules help but most are useless restrictions. Also, if companies flooded the market with their most profitable goods the prices would plument, but so woud their profits. People aren't that dumb GP.

Re:Anarchy is not freedom (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | about 9 years ago | (#13227185)

Exactly. Protectionist trade laws too often are mainly to "protect" those who do a bad job of producing something.

Whether or not people are that dumb is irrelevant. (1)

hackwrench (573697) | about 9 years ago | (#13227197)

Companies are supposed to flood the market with their most valuable goods. The companies that can't make a profit collapse and those resources become free to produce goods in other sectors of the economy. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Re:Anarchy is not freedom (1)

timmarhy (659436) | about 9 years ago | (#13227108)

there is no such thing as free trade with the usa. they play by their own rules, when it suits them. america is nothing but a big bully boy

Re:Anarchy is not freedom (1)

nagora (177841) | about 9 years ago | (#13227458)

there is no such thing as free trade with the usa.

Nor for that matter, and for the same reasons, does America ally with anyone. America has lots of allies that will and do help it out, but the US is totally unreliable when the boot's on the other foot. American treaties, of all kinds, aren't worth the paper they're written on.


Re:Anarchy is not freedom (1)

SirSlud (67381) | about 9 years ago | (#13227113)

Cmon, the sad part of this is that if only side of a party of people has the might to push the rules through, they reallyt wern't that 'inherently valuable' too all in the first place.

Its just persistance. If I have enough money and power to just keep arguing, eventually you will fold (or eventually do something that tips the moral scales in your favour.) That doesn't mean my ideas were inherently valuable in the first place, just that I wore you down to the point where conceeding was cheaper than putting up a fight in the first place.

Re:The key word is TRADE (1)

symbolic (11752) | about 9 years ago | (#13227164)

And where there are willing parties, trade will occur. On the flipside, where one party is unwilling, trade ceases. When trade ceases, it forces the vendor into the position of having to re-evaluate their offerings - including their terms. It is so easy to put an end to this garbage once and for all, but as long as people feel like their short-term entertainment fix is far more important than the choices they have, and the freedom to exercise those choices, this nonsense will continue. I have no sympathy- consumers are putting themselves into this mess.

free trade: no such animal (1) (807087) | about 9 years ago | (#13227427)

these latest treaties are just icing on the cake / contingency plans. the us has been extorting foreign markets pretty effectively using the imf and world bank up to this point...

Where were EFF and CDT? (1)

geistbear (51242) | about 9 years ago | (#13227048)

Normally EFF( [] ) and CDT( [] ) send out alerts. As close as this legislation was with only a two vote passage in the House, it's a real shame they fell down on the job. I think they would have been able to make a difference on this vote.

Re:Where were EFF and CDT? (1)

smeager (792621) | about 9 years ago | (#13227085)

I remember getting and email about this from EFF about 2 months ago, (I think), right after the first bill they tried this with was shot down. I guess that Congress isn't there for the well-being of the public just the well-being of the those that have the money. Say goodbye to public domain.

CAFTA means (1)

The Hobo (783784) | about 9 years ago | (#13227050)

Central American Free Trade Agreement

Captain Obvious (?)

Only one thing to say.... (1)

pionzypher (886253) | about 9 years ago | (#13227053)


    Seems to me that we're almost at a breaking point where the rest of the world simply says screw it and blows us off to a point.
  Look at what we're doing to Japan with steel. Trying to enforce our shit on the world can only go on so long before it's simply not worth it. The EU's had this software patent battle waging for how long? If the *AA thinks they're going to just give it up now... well I don't even know how to respond...

Re:Only one thing to say.... (1)

pionzypher (886253) | about 9 years ago | (#13227129)

Actually, looking at the list of countries this affects.(Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua)

I can't see this being enforced well, nor a big deal. Unless I'm largely mistaken, none of those countries are even in the top 5 for pirating software, music or movies. Then again, I suppose that Russia, China, etc. wouldn't stand for it, and would just tell us where to go put that lovely round piece of paper.

The copyright extension clause makes sense too. The mpaa/riaa don't care about code or computer articles. They care about movies and music. Elvis is still selling CDs, so are the beetles. Gone with the wind and the wizard of oz are still selling. So are all the old disney cartoons. Old books, etc. It's not that they haven't made a boatload of cash off of this stuff yet as someone suggested... simply that they don't want to give up the relatively steady revenue stream that comes from the classics. I can't blame them for that, but to make it so broad and in such a cheap way.
Screw it, tea time for me as well.

EU Constitution problem solved (1)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | about 9 years ago | (#13227059)

just use ours. it's not like we are anymore

Free Trade Bills (1)

SirSlud (67381) | about 9 years ago | (#13227064)

Good idea, but its like asking foxes to write chicken-protection laws.

You just cant have freetrade after not free-trade. You have to both work towards it as a common goal, and transition your way off. Do many Americans really feel like America espouses free-trade as an end-all-be-all, because it seems to me like an idological dream along the lines of communism; good in theory, but unimplementable via legislation.

Free trade is supposed to equalize producers of actual product, isn't it? It doesn't seem fair that one side starts off with more money for "education" (advertising) and still subsidizes via tax breaks thanks to a large tax base and a good legal team.

There is a thin line between flamebait and just saying what you think is 'fair' these days.

Exporting the DMCA is a good idea. (1)

xScruffx (546751) | about 9 years ago | (#13227105)

export DMCA
sudo "rm -rf $DMCA"

There is no future, only the now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227116)

What you do now is all that matters. The future is already a mess. Let the things of tomorrow think for themselves.

The future of UNITED STATES is hell, and I don't mean Hell Michigan. All these problems wouldn't happen if there were no corporations. It's difficult to demand to be responsible for your own actions. Now, in any cause of UNITED STATES, I may be held responsible for the actions of a corporation. Name the most used products, and you will find the conspiracy. DRIVER LICENSES; because it is immoral (licentious [] ) to exercise your duty of movement the common ways. Military-enforced Insurance, because you are estoppeled for drafting a Promisory Note in exchange for property damages.

Now my friends are being fined for not registering their bicycle with DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES. If it demands money, it is not law; it is commerce. Is not the President for a corporation known as UNITED STATES, not to be confused with the united States of America?

USC TITLE 28, 3002
  15, "United States" means
      (a) a Federal corporation

Re:There is no future, only the now. (1)

Peyna (14792) | about 9 years ago | (#13227160)

USC TITLE 28, 3002
    15, "United States" means
            (a) a Federal corporation

I shall never feed this troll again. I promise.

Read the context of the statute you cite. Treat it like a #define statement.

#define UNITED_STATES a federal corporation an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or an instrumentality of the United States.

So, where ever you see "UNITED_STATES" in a sentence, you replace it with what follows in the #define statement for that statute.

In other words, when a statute in that section refers to the United States, it is at the same time referring to any and all government agencies, federal corporations, etc. Thus, the law applies to all of those groups.

Go ahead though, keep your tin foil hat, but stop with this nonsensical troll.

Ughh... (1)

WindozeSux (857211) | about 9 years ago | (#13227125)

I didn't RTFA.

Yet I know why this was passed, it wasn't passed to protect the rights of, was passed so that the RIAA and friends would generate more money. I mean seriously 70 years after they die?! If someone is young and you're old, well, you ain't gonna have that peice of work.

Two words to describe this: Illogical and stupid. (1)

slashpot (11017) | about 9 years ago | (#13227128)

Will this affect my cheapskate ( ) iPod habbit?

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227136)

So we manage to get the countries to agree to our IP laws before we'll trade, but fair labor standards? Well that's just too much to ask of them.

Superpowers flex their wings (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 9 years ago | (#13227139)

It must be kind of nice to be a superpower, I think. You can make laws that inhibit productivity and innovation, without fear of hurting your position in the world, secure in the knowledge that you can impose the same laws on others. I mean, even if the countries this treaty pertains to don't like the intellectual property part of it, they still have much to gain by signing it. It's an opportunity I can imagine they wouldn't easily pass up. A nice illustration of how bad lawmakers aren't only a problem to the country they make laws in...

Good thing.... (1)

PenguinBoyDave (806137) | about 9 years ago | (#13227146)

I'm sure glad Special Interest wasn't allowed to influence US policy. BOHICA


bk4u (682315) | about 9 years ago | (#13227161)

BSA, RIAA, DMCA, MPAA, CAFTA Someone call the AAAAA (American Association Against Acronym Abuse), we've got one serious offense here!

Capitalism Cocktail (1)

mpapet (761907) | about 9 years ago | (#13227165)

For CAFTA members. Developing countries get increased access to our markets and we get to enforce our IP schemes.

Move along because their's truly nothing to see here.

It never ceases to amaze me that the savvy /. crowd is outraged about this kind of thing.

-Capitalism is about owning things so you can capture the wealth making capacities of that thing. Variations of capitalism that conflict with the american version are not welcome.

-The U.S. gov't wants IP/whatever to remain in total control of the current owners. Anything less is giving away the store.

-The modern american political administration is focused on making it safe to make a profit and create wealth. DMCA and the rest is just an extension of that belief.

-I don't want to hear complaints about rights being trampled on either. In exchange for remanding whatever right you feel has been violated, you will likely get something else in return. (Generally speaking, it's entertainment)

It's capitalism and everything is for sale, including your precious rights.

Re:Capitalism Cocktail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227257)

Let me make a correction for you:

-The modern american political administration is focused on making it safe to keep a profit and keep wealth. DMCA and the rest is just an extension of that belief.

You can make a profit and wealth by creating good competitive products (capatilism). This is the RIAA/MPAA/any other monopoly putting in laws so that they can keep their money and keep their outrageously high profits (especially for only being a middle man). I dont know why microsoft was the only company slammed with a monopoly case when instances like the RIAA and MPAA are much more clear cut.

more and more than just that (1)

thjayoromanov (903870) | about 9 years ago | (#13227423)

but the u.s. gov't protects its own agriculture and forces IP laws on developing countries. how the fuck will they develop? they can't export food, they can't export tech. all they can export is products from american multinational industries that installs factories in developing countries because of the low cost of work. oops china just a little south

Re:Capitalism Cocktail (1)

sol_geek77 (742238) | about 9 years ago | (#13227426)

I really hate to say this but I agree with you.

Over the years America has turned from a manufacturing country to an R and D country. I think this further emphasizes that by making money off IP and not the goods.

To paraphrase BASF "We don't make things, we just make money off those that do."

Gunboat diplomacy rewritten (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 9 years ago | (#13227216)

People have rightly called Teddy Rooseveldt's foreign policy "Gunboat Diplomacy", and you might ask a Japanese national how much they appreciated it. It has been rightly condemned for decades. (Ignoring that somewhat similar tactics continued to be practiced under differing names.)

But last time, at least the country that was underwriting the gunboats got some of the money. This time it's a rip-off of everyone. This one is targeted at unions, workers, the environment, environmentalists, fair trade, truth in packageing, and a miscellaney of other good causes...good being defined as "doing good for people", or "helping people that chose to help themselves (or each other)".

Who can trust any "representative" that would vote for something like this? This is in the best interest of no individual. Even those with large stock holdings stand to lose more than they gain. Managers, qua, managers, and corporate executives, qua, corporate executive may stand to gain more than they lose, but as individuals even they stand to lose more than they gain. And people aren't really defined by their job, that's only a part of who they are.

Did the vote divide along party lines? Not from what I hear. Both parties voted for this abomination. BOTH. If someone tells you that the Democrats should be elected because the Republicans let things like this happen, just ask them how did their representative vote on CAFTA? How did their senator vote?

Who represents people, rather than corporations? I'm not talking about the janitor vs. the CEO...those are both corporate job descriptions. BOTH. Neither describes people. People may be homeowers, and they may be renters. This doesn't describe who they are, this describes a temporary attribute. Likewise a manager and a janitor are temporary attributes. If laws are written to benefit the structure, the corporation, rather than people, then there can be no goodness inherrent in them. Laws can only be good if they are written for the benefit of people. (This doesn't guarantee that they are good, by any means, but it makes it arguable. Good laws have other characteristics. Just exactly what those are has never been decided, though I generally tend to side with T. Jefferson.)

Who cares? (1)

Ray Alloc (835739) | about 9 years ago | (#13227223)

Don't know about that particular treaty, but treaties are meant to be broken sooner than later. Anyway, US influence over the rest of the world is rapidly vanishing, so there is nothing to worry about.

Countries with more realistic copyright and patent policies are the ones with the fastest growth, which show the vanity of all that tired stuff.

What about if i'm a terrorist (1)

rawwa.venoise (881755) | about 9 years ago | (#13227238)

I'm a terrorist (GRRRRR) Does the DMCA give me the right to refute evidences in an american court if by some reason some police force take my computer and my protected files? Well, they just circumvented my files. What about child pornography? I alredy see the picture: My client is innocent. Under the DMCA they can not circumvent my client password protected files.

do77 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227241)

intenti08s and []

just realized (1)

Amouth (879122) | about 9 years ago | (#13227243)

you know i started to read this article while i was burning a cd (one i own) so that my wife can listen to it in the car without messing it up..

and i just realized.. when are they going to start sueing everyone with a computer..

becuse logic states that in a computer to view the content is to view a copy of it.. as the orginal is not on your screen but stored in pits or magnetic marks..

so realy when are they jsut going to start this crap.. becuse that is when i am going to open a media company and just start beating the crap out of people for no reason becuse aperntly that is a right granted by out government for owning a copy right on anything..

Where does this end? (1)

Stratochief (903095) | about 9 years ago | (#13227248)

What will it take for the majority of americans to become outraged enough about this to stop it. I know one thing for certain that will bring the Slashdot masses into the streets to stop this, but I don't think anybody has obtained a copywrite on masturbation yet.

Let's stop this now (2, Insightful)

Rambo666 (699645) | about 9 years ago | (#13227277)

Here's an idea. Let's find out who these asshole law makers are and publish their names and make sure they don't get re-elected or work in the tech industry again?

WTF (1)

Thaelon (250687) | about 9 years ago | (#13227279)

What a bunch of fucking bullshit!!!

What the fuck is congress doing making laws that benefit massive coroprations at the expense of the fucking citizens? And then trying to inflict them on other countries?!

I think we're fast approaching the time to switch to the jury box, if not the ammo box.*

*"There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now." - Ed Howdershelt

Way to go Slashdot !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227305)

Post on an important topic that affects American workers ... after the deal has gone down and we get screwed (again).

Way to go, Taco !!!

Nothing New (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227306)

This is pretty pathetic, but hey its not as if the governments of the countries in the CAFTA are not American dominated.

When this kind of crap goes down (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 9 years ago | (#13227337)

I just sit and laugh. The USgov is in debt for TRILLIONS of dollars. [] Like Pretty soon, the people buying these bonds wil figure out what the corporate masters figured out decades ago:

It Ain't Gettin' Paid Back. EVER.

The idea is to loot the treasury while they can, and then move on to greener pastures elsewhere. 70 years on copyright? Who cares? Once the economy implodes, the USA will crumble like the CCCP did in the early 1990s. The debt will disappear because the USgov disappeared. Oil will be largely unavailable, the sauburbs will implode, and North America will become just another impoverished shit hole backwater, while the Steel Wheels of Corporate capitalism crush the life out of some other up and coming part of the planet. Remember: YOU VOTED FOR IT.

Sure: 70 years on copyright? Fuck - make it a 1000. It's not going to matter. And for that matter - up the national debt. I want to see the USA in the hole for $10 quadrillion bucks.

As it is, if the USgov paid back its debt at the rate of $1,000,000 a day (HA!)it'll take over 21,000 years to pay it back. So who cares? Blow that out by a factor of 10,000x. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

Stick a Fork In America, kids. She's done.


We are going to.. (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 9 years ago | (#13227362)

...legislate ourselves in to irrelavence.

You watch, in 20 years we will be second to China or Russia in the grand scheme of things.

And maybe that's for the best, with the kind of people we have in this country.

Re:We are going to.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13227493)

They already are

Central America: You're not alone (1)

serps (517783) | about 9 years ago | (#13227412)

As an Australian IT professional, I'm well aware of the USA's tactics; it's political suicide for a foreign government to knock back a free trade agreement with such an august country as the US. So, the really nasty DMCA/IP laws get inserted into the country's laws as a predicate to signing the agreement.

It has already happened in Australia [] , and I believe it also occurred when the Singaporeans signed their FTA.

Now, I don't begrudge the USA for trying this; hey, each country is out for all it can get, right? What I'm dismayed about is the position these other countries are now in: forced to enact bad laws for marginal FTA returns on a population base that will be paying the cost long after the politicians who signed the agreement retire.

So where do I send my check? (1)

bburdette (556965) | about 9 years ago | (#13227414)

Yes, we all agree our IP system is broken. What I want to know is, who is out there lobbying to change it? Is there a political organization dedicated to patent reform? If such a thing exists, they can certainly count on a donation from me.

Rampage (1)

blueadept1 (844312) | about 9 years ago | (#13227438)

Time for you americans to go on a rampage. I think it is well deserved. Go massacre some riaa/mpaa officials.

Easy solution to Intellectual Property protection (1)

freelock (755655) | about 9 years ago | (#13227500)

If the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA really want their copyrights, trademarks, and patents treated like other property, making it a crime to "steal," treating it as a coveted asset, why don't we let them? ... and then, treat that IP like other property: tax it!

After all, how many countless millions is the government spending, lobbying other countries to crack down on "pirates," all without the entertainment industry paying for it? If they insist on it being their exclusive property, they should get charged a property tax, like the rest of us have to do for our real property.

I would feel much more sympathetic over their claimed lost sales to piracy if they actually applied some of those dollars to our social security problems ;-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>