Remember How ACTA Wasn't Supposed To Be A 'Major' Change To Copyright Laws?
from the yeah...-not-so-much dept
One of the excuses given by the various trade representatives negotiating the ACTA treaty for the fact that they were keeping it quite secret, was that it wouldn't represent any significant change to copyright laws, and thus it was no big deal. Yet, the various drafts of the proposed treaty have suggested otherwise. TorrentFreak examines one of the latest leaked drafts and notes that it would require agreeing nations to change copyright laws concerning damages, pushing judges to consider every unauthorized file to be considered as a lost sale for the calculation of damages. This is a key point that plenty of folks have made clear over the years: assuming that every shared file would have been a lost sale is absolutely false. Putting that into the law and suggesting judges use that false concept as a basis for calculating damages is quite troubling. In the meantime, we're still trying to figure out why ACTA is even necessary? And... on top of that, no one has yet explained why industry lobbyists have been integral to the negotiations, but the public and public interest groups are being blocked from any information based on bogus national security claims.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Because the copyright industry wants draconian laws in place but the legislatures of the world are hesitant to pass them in fear of pissing off their constituents. So this back-door approach compels the laws to be passed and lets the legislators off the hook because they can say that they "have to enact the laws to be in compliance with the treaty. It's completely out of our hands."
"And... on top of that, no one has yet explained why industry lobbyists have been integral to the negotiations, but the public and public interest groups are being blocked from any information based on bogus national security claims."
This one is even easier. Because the copyright industries do not want the public and public interest groups getting in the way. God, how hard was that?!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Democracy?
I suggest the next election be conducted by an open auction: the highest bidder will get to choose the president. The bidding will also include specific laws.
That way everyone will know who paid for what.
This will save a lot of time and money for the candidates and the parties.
It will also be a truly honest election as compared to the BS election system currently in place where millions of idiots vote for president based on looks and marketing ability.
Now that is change I can believe in...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Democracy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Its the Chaney way
Reminds me of Chaneys Secret Energy summit where experts like Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling helped shaped American Energy Policy in secret (prior to being convicted of fraud of course), hidden from the undue scrutiny of the meddelsome American People.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sure, you could blame the Senate. But your incorrect assumption is that the system is fair and works for us. Or to put it another way, that the Senate looks out for our bests interests and that it really does have a choice in this matter. It's doesn't and doesn't. The copyright industry wants these laws and will get these laws. The Senate is just a cog in the wheel.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Democracy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Its the Chaney way
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
the answer is simple
Don't buy it.
Don't support it.
And, for heaven's sake, don't STEAL it.
Let the evil companies crash and burn, wondering what went wrong all the way down...
Don't EVEN get me started on why we should have let the BANKS all crash and burn...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the answer is simple
If you're going to propose a boycot of the RIAA and the big music companies, you might not want to adopt their incorrect usage of the word "steal".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Which nations's copyright laws are you talking about? The "problematic" verbiage replicated in the link largely reflects the law currently in force in the US.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Business as usual, kids.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Business as usual, kids.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Transparency is the opposite of secret.
They can negotiate it all they want, but it doesn't mean citizens will sign on to it.
Transparency, on the other hand, breaks secrets. If it wasn't about a nefarious landgrab of power, it wouldn't be secret!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
In a nutshell
Bad, veeery bad :(
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Business as usual, kids.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democracy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You better include lots of cash with those requests if you want your senator to give a rat's behind about what you think.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They'll still be reelected. Blame the American people for that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Democracy?
I just thought yogi was confused.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the answer is simple
Yup. The RIAA and others of their ilk should have a list of their clients whom they are supposed to represent.
Use that list as the boycott list.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: the answer is simple
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Democracy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment