> Until European Union authorities began leaking the document’s text, the Obama administration was claiming the accord was a "national security" secret.
I cannot even begin to express how much this disgusts me. This is the government that I fund with my tax dollars, that is supposed to work on my behalf. There should no operation in the dark.
I hope Europe does not sign this nonsense, although I am not keeping my hopes up.
The notion that "piracy" (even that word is the result of well oiled marketing campaign) will destroy the content makers (rather than the crappy, repetitive stuff they create) is widespread among politicians.
While I don't agree with this agreement, I don't see any particular problem keeping the negotiations and drafts secret. I mean, the final deal is obviously made public (otherwise there would be no way of enforcing that countries abide by it), but I don't think the negotiators needs to disclose every thought they brainstorm. It would create a lot of public and political pressure on the negotiators and instead of trying to reach something that every country can agree on, they'd be trying to appease domestic lobbyists.
They're already trying to appease domestic lobbyists; making the process public would risk them having to satisfy the public, and since no part of this has any correlation with the public interest...
The problem is that there's no agreement. It's kept secret because they know the people don't want the law. There's no need to keep just laws secret, because they don't offend the citizens in whose name the country is ruled.
ACTA is a corrupt and abusive law. Enacting it was treasonous, especially because the public had already spoken.
Wow, this is scary. The technology that the pirates will develop to trade files unnoticed, combined with anonymous payment systems like Bitcoin, mean that people in the business of child abuse will have it even easier than they already do. It's great to criminalize college students sharing mix tapes or whatever, but the side effects are what's really frightening. (Also, if we're going to fine someone $1.3MM for sharing music, shouldn't we just kill them instead? Their life is ruined either way, but a quick and painless death seems much more humane than spending 60 years living in poverty as a slave to the recording industry.)
Won't someone please think of the children?
(Do we really want to start fighting a losing War On Sharing alongside our War On Drugs, War On Liquids-on-planes, and War on Afghanistan? Can society afford another losing war?)
> Their life is ruined either way, but a quick and painless death seems much more humane than spending 60 years living in poverty as a slave to the recording industry.
In general you cannot discharge fines and similar judgments through bankruptcy; at best you can potentially arrange to pay it over the course of the rest of your life.
If they'd just remove the circumvention device part from the new bill it wouldn't be so bad. But That thing never expires so even if the copyright does you still can't break them. That's infinite copyright in disguise.
Well as an Australian I am pretty unhappy that our government is copying your government's stupid ideas. Which is more disappointing, someone jumping over a cliff or the person that follows them? :(
I can only hope that this won't pass through our parliament successfully, there are a couple of fairly clued in left wing politicians holding the balance of power right now in Australia. But then again this seems like the type of thing both the major parties will rubber stamp with barely a raised eyebrow.
Hey look mainstream Australia look that way, there are people on boats.
Thanks to Wikileaks, I don't think traditional government is possible. It probably never worked, but it certainly isn't now.
Just government would require the death penalty for politicians who deal in secret. Until the citizens are actually the bosses we've merely got 'democratic' prisons.
Off topic linguistic nitpick, but does it ever irk anyone else that America refers to these people as 'Czar'? I assume the term is meant to imply absolute power to cut through red tape, prosecute a particular policy objective (drug war, etc.), and just get shit done which all Americans appreciate, but still, couldn't the 'land of the free' come up with a better term for our public servants than that used for deposed Russian authoritarian despots?
You have to understand, this is a national security interest because the US isn't making much money these days, from anything other than exporting its intellectual property.
What else does America export besides weapons of mass destruction, pharmaceuticals, and Hollywood? Not much, kids.
When will these idiots learn? I see this going down the same route the war on drugs has taken. Lots of harmless people going to prison, and very little success in actually stopping illicit activities. At least it seems unlikely to produce dangerous organized crime, as the prohibition and the war on drugs produced, but who knows?
The better solution would be for companies that produce music/films/software/etc to revise their own buisness models and adapt to the reality of piracy. Heck, some companies, like Adobe for example, probably -profit- off their product being pirated.
I much prefer the anti-ACTA. Overall, these days we probably need more protection from the companies, than they need from us.
>> The better solution would be for companies that produce music/films/software/etc to revise their own business models and adapt to the reality of piracy.
Adapting to the reality of piracy would probably mean lower prices. Why do that when they can just stick the government with the cost of enforcement and then keep prices high? Plus lobbying costs are a fraction of the enforcement costs.
Not saying it's right, but unfortunately such is the perverse relationship between big business and government nowadays.
Key - that will be John Key (NZ) does seem to be smitten by the US. Please come back Helen (she knew what side the bread was buttered on). [edit - dropped the s's - thanx]
i can see whats in it for the US... and korea and japan prominently consume indigenous media, so it's not going to be such a big deal for them... but aus and nz are massive importers of american media, wtf is in this for us antipodeans? do we get access to US agricultural markets in return or anything of any value whatsoever?
Perhaps I've become cynical but before the 2008 election I (as a non-US citizen so I can't vote) strongly supported Obama, not because I necessarily agreed with his positions but because of the race situation in America.
It's an understatement to say that African Americans between slavery, segregation and just general racism have had a torrid history in the United States. Honestly I can't imagine the consequences of what that kind of cultural heritage would do to you.
Obama's election was seen by many as a symbol. Having the first African American president holding the highest office in the land was seen as (and is IMHO) a bellwether moment in American history.
Had he lost I think there would've been a lot of anger (and there's already a lot of anger in American society), possibly even feelings of despair and being deprived (as a race). Whatever the case, it certainly seemed important.
What I predicted would happen--and IMHO has happened--is that Obama as president has been deeply disappointing to many of his supporters. The US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama administration is basically the political wing of the RIAA/MPAA between ACTA, federal judgeships, ex-RIAA lawyers filling the DoJ and so on.
It has turned out to be worse than my own cynical predictions. Obama the candidate was great. He spoke frankly and intelligently whereas Hilary Clinton (and most others) would give bottled answers to questions that made it seemed like they were just going through the motions and, in many ways, felt entitled to the office.
So what we have now is, I believe, a partial catharsis of race relations in America (which is good) and also the reality that politicians are politicians first and foremost, regardless of race or creed.
As for ACTA, at least the stupid three strikes Internet stuff is gone but the treaty is still an embarrassment both in content and execution. It was negotiated in secret. So much for government openness. Thank God for Wikileaks (and similar).
But I guess we can't call it a treaty. To do so would be a de facto admission that it requires Senate ratification. Instead words like "accord" and "agreement" are bandied about to dodge due process. Another embarrassment.
The fundamental problem is that the extreme concentration of wealth in the US increases the power of industry groups like the recording industry, banking industry, oil, defense, etc. relative to the citizenry, and those groups capture and have their way wth the government.
Obama had the most effective grassroots funding in US history, but even then it only made up ~half his campaign donations. The other half came from industry groups and wealthy individuals. But the latter not only fund campaigns, but hire high-powered lobbyists who were usually prior Congressional staff members, and also provide well-paid revolving door jobs, directorships, etc. for politicians when they leave office. Politicians are funded, courted, bribed, and basically controlled from their political life's cradle to grave. The entire system is almost completely captured.
Unfortunately there are no wealthy special interests who particularly oppose ACTA, just segments of the populace, which don't have the financial clout to buy access to Congress or the President. Hence things like ACTA is the result, even with a president like Obama.
I thought Australia had already agreed to follow America's mistakes on copyright and patents, ten years ago, under the pretence of free trade. Has anything changed?
I don't authorized my government to deal in secret. I never did and I especially wouldn't have since Wikileaks has shown us the crimes they commit. And to deal with the USA despite their ongoing wars, 'rendition' for torture, etc, is unconscionable, especially when done in secret and to enact unpopular treaties.
Can we get some UN peacekeepers to help us enforce a democracy in Canada?
I cannot even begin to express how much this disgusts me. This is the government that I fund with my tax dollars, that is supposed to work on my behalf. There should no operation in the dark.
I hope Europe does not sign this nonsense, although I am not keeping my hopes up. The notion that "piracy" (even that word is the result of well oiled marketing campaign) will destroy the content makers (rather than the crappy, repetitive stuff they create) is widespread among politicians.