RSS
IFPI & Other Lobbyists Tell Parliament That ACTA Protests Silence The Democratic Process
from the actually,-it's-the-opposite dept
This is really incredible. Apparently IFPI (the international RIAA, basically) penned a letter to European Parliament members concerning the widespread ACTA protests claiming that these "protests silence the democratic process."
Over the past two weeks, we have seen coordinated attacks on democratic institutions such as the European Parliament and national governments over ACTA. The signatories to this letter and their members stand against such attempts to silence the democratic process. Instead, we call for a calm and reasoned assessment of the facts rather than the misinformation circulating.That's quite a statement. We'd heard some SOPA/PIPA supporters hint at views like that, but not quite so blatant. Let's be clear: the protests and the public speaking out are the democratic process. They're not silencing the democratic process in any way. To suggest that people speaking out over their own viewpoint somehow silences the process, is to redefine "the democratic process" to be something entirely different than what most people believe.
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
I have an idea...
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...in order to determine who gets to receive lobbyists funding and dole out the lobbyists' laws.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, the 5th of November?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guy Fawkes Night
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this is far better than in the 1700s UK. There, if you were a woman or not a Christian, you couldn't vote, and hte only person you could vote for was the Baron for the borough. AND they didn't get paid, so only the rich (who could afford a second home in London) could do it.
Those Brits were right pros at rigging elections!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suspect
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suspect
republic contrasts with monarchy.
a democratic republic could be direct or representative (or, in fact, oligarchical, but the oligarchs vote on stuff, though that would be stretching the term somewhat)
a constitutional monarchy is usually run largely on a mix of representative democracy and bureaucracy, these days.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
P O W E R
They are not fully wrong when corporations often control the Government. But then the Government aims to serve the people while being paid to not do so by the corporations. This makes the whole system confused about who does wield the real power.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: P O W E R
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AL,VH!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Further, it also is an issue of the noisy 1% of the population dictating to the other 99% how things should go. Are we seeing a majority of the population protesting, or just (gasp) a smaller group, mostly centered around the student demographic making the protests?
It ends up as politics by who yells the loudest, rather than by doing what is good for the people as a whole. That isn't very good, is it? It's certainly not very democratic.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The talks for ACTA were held in secret....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So...when people voted in Obama, who campaigned on such promises of transparency in government and closing Gitmo, it's now the people's fault that he's reneged?
Besides, I'm Irish and I can't recall the last time I was asked to vote for an MEP.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't mean Obama who...
...stopped the hemorrhaging of the economy by Republican policies that favored the rich over the middle class
...lowered the unemployment rate
...believes that what happens to a woman's body is the woman's choice, not a male religious fanatic's whim
Yeah, must be that Obama....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...stopped the hemorrhaging of the economy by Republican policies that favored the rich over the middle class
...lowered the unemployment rate
...believes that what happens to a woman's body is the woman's choice, not a male religious fanatic's whimction with Obama... I'll need a citation on that please.
Oh my, take me to that sweet reality of yours! The last sentence is gold, he may believe that. I also believe every teenager should have a pony and yet most of them don't have one.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ftfy
Nobody lowered the unemployment rate except the economy. Hell, Gingrich even claimed that while he was House speaker so and so many jobs were created. Puh-leeze! Just at the right place at the right time.
You should have thrown something about the children onto the list.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're an idiot. Elected representatives take input from those they are representing. This is why they host meetings, correspond with constituents, etc.
"Further, it also is an issue of the noisy 1% of the population dictating to the other 99% how things should go. Are we seeing a majority of the population protesting, or just (gasp) a smaller group, mostly centered around the student demographic making the protests?"
Ah yes, that evil noisy democracy. The sneaky 0.01% of lobbyists influencing policy are a much better choice.
"It ends up as politics by who yells the loudest, rather than by doing what is good for the people as a whole. That isn't very good, is it? It's certainly not very democratic."
And now we're back to: you're an idiot. But you know that already. No one is stupid enough defend lobbyists, who by definition are "yelling the loudest" without a single care about what is "good for the people as a whole."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your argument incorrectly assumes that people are psychic and can possibly know what a politician will do before voting for him or her. So, when Obama promises transparency and doesn't deliver, it's not the fault of voters for not knowing he was telling a lie and so we ought to protest.
I do agree, to some extent, that we could somewhat know what a politician might do based on his voting history and that can raise a valid argument. Such should have lead us to vote for Ron Paul, if only the government established mainstream media didn't traditionally try to ignore him and paint him as an extremist (though he has been getting a lot more positive attention in more recent elections partly thanks to the Internet and the Internets influence on the MSM). But, aside from our lack of protesting, it's otherwise not our faults that the government has established a one sided self interested mainstream media (through government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies) that brainwashes us into voting how they want us to vote (ie: By censoring arguments, information/data, and positions they don't like while presenting only their own position of various issues). The solution is that we should protest.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And when I pointed out the most of what he was claiming as accomplishments, he was merely a co-signer at best on, I got called a racist.
When I pointed out shady doings by him and his wife in Chicago, I got called a racist.
We do know what a politician will do based on his voting history and that SHOULD raise a valid argument, but most will just ignore it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Further, it also is an issue of the noisy 1% of the population dictating to the other 99% how things should go. Are we seeing a majority of the population protesting, or just (gasp) a smaller group, mostly centered around the student demographic making the protests?
It ends up as politics by who yells the loudest, rather than by doing what is good for the people as a whole. That isn't very good, is it? It's certainly not very democratic.
Is it just me or did this whole comment feel like a snake oil sales pitch as to why our elected officials should keep on listening to all those very well paid "policymakers" inside the Beltway instead of the constituents who elected them?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sounds to me like he's against lobbyists, or any special interest group that can be heard above the din, paid or not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for it ends up in politics by who yells the loudest, isn't that what's been happening already? A small group, mostly centered around the studios/labels (and not the entire creative industry as a whole) making protests about their own interest and bottom lines being hurt (contrary to actual evidence which shows they're still raking in record breaking profits on a regular basis).
These protest DO NOT limit the democratic process. The people elect representatives to REPRESENT THEM (GASP!). To do what is in THEIR (the people's) best interest. Not to do what is in the best interest of a handful of legacy players who refuse to adapt to changing times and technologies and market practices.
But yes, continue trying to dismiss this as a minor group of "students" dictating to politicians and circumventing the democratic process. Apparently the back peddling and temporary shut down of SOPA was accomplished because of the voice of a "minority".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're ridiculous!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's just a little confused as to which 1% is doing the dictating.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh you mean the lobbyists and big content industries.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that there has NEVER been a choice on these issues -
and of course representative democracy elected HItler - should everyone have just accepted the result of that choice?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They have been able to get away with it for a while now, because people weren't really paying close enough attention to hold them accountable. People are paying attention now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Voters
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Point of view
To IFPI and RIAA, the anti-SOPA and anti-RIAA crowds aren't acting in a manner that fits their democratic reality. The crowds should by their own legislators and let them "compete" with IFPI and RIAA in that way. They can't "compete" if there is single entity to compete against.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilt by Conflation
If you pull off some traditional civil disobedience, like chaining yourself to a tree or marching in the streets without a permit, you may be inconveniencing others, but you're not taking away their freedom of speech or their ability to be involved in the democratic process. But if you take down a website which represents an opposing opinion, you are in effect censoring their speech. So, at least in this way, they may be right.
But overall, these attackers do more harm than good. Yes, it may draw attention to the issue, but it allows big media companies to use one of their standard tricks, Guilt by Conflation: associate two different things together and respond to objections using whichever one better supports your position. They did it with counterfeiting and infringement and certainly looks like they're doing it now with "attacks" and "protests".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilt by Conflation
No - that's not censorship - since it is short lived and doesn't effectively prevent them from communication - it's really just electronic heckling.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guilt by Conflation
I would agree that it's not cencorship in the same way that taking down a whole site for an undefined period of time for an indefined reason is, but it's close enough for the big media companies to have some justification in their claim of curtailing their ability to participate in the democratic process.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
-Giving big bags of cash to politicians as 'campaign contributions' so that they vote how you want them to is the democratic processes' way!
-Protesters protesting bills that politicians who received big bags of money are supporting is stifling free speech! In the words of other politicians it's also 'thuggery'.
If these protesters really wanted to engage in the democratic process then they'd start throwing big bags of cash around the politicians to buy their own votes on these issues!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
That favors incredibly the corrupt politicians, who shed their party beliefs and even their personal ones. After all, all you need to do is get elected and wait for the lobbyists to start throwing their money at you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 16th, 2012 @ 9:56am
Companies that rely in unethical behavior or benefit from not being liable for causing great damage to the common wealth also get a free pass, since it is cheaper to buy politicians to legislate in your favor than to respond for your crimes.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
peasants
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:RE
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
what have they ever given to the democratic process? nothing. that's what.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, it always helps if those protesting, emailing, etc. are doing so with accurate information in hand, which was hardly the case regarding SOPA and PIPA.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know. If you compared who had more generally factual info: those in favor of SOPA/PIPA or those against, I'd argue that those against were generally more factual.
And, since those in favor were almost exclusively professional lobbyists/industry interests I find their dishonesty much more questionable, because it was almost certainly willful.
The public's -- quite justified -- concerns with SOPA/PIPA may have strayed into hyperbole at times, but mostly it was based on factual information.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In my view the major proponents attempted to rely on legal arguments, which were...again in my view...hamfistedly wrapped up as "it's all about jobs". Many who opposed the bills did so with great sincerity and concern, but far too many of them focused almost exclusively on extreme hypotheticals to make their point. I happen to believe it was from these hypos that the buzz-words were created which rapidly took root in the minds of others within the US and elsewhere.
I have no doubt that "Son's of SOPA and PIPA" will once more be presented in Congress. Hopefully, both sides will engage in reasoned debate next time around so that the bills can be examined on their merits with all relevant facts fairly presented.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Currently, SOPA/PIPA style enforcement is becoming more commonplace, so why do we need it? Currently, the content industries are making more money than ever before, so why do we need it?
Stop the war on drugs, it has failed and we loose more than is gained.
Stop the war on terrorism, it has failed and we loose more than is gained.
Stop the war on piracy, it has failed and we loose more than is gained.
Reasonable debate would be debating why we need to keep expanding copyright once every 2 years. Reasonable debate would be debating why we need to keep allowing patents that are common sense. Reasonable debate would be allowing the process to be transparent, and actually listening to all sides, not just the side throwing money at you.
It is not about profits, they have them.
It is not about channels, they can make them.
It is not about protecting the artists, they are still exploiting them.
It is all about control. Total, and complete control. Don't kid yourself, the government also does not object too heavily, since they can use the same laws to expand their own control.
Feel free to respond to these issues. I will be waiting with bated breath.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Eventually ... only after the documents leaked.
and these negotiations took place in secrecy, with industry interests present, exactly because the government-industrial complex knows that the public doesn't want these laws, otherwise there is no good reason they should have taken place in secrecy. A representative government has no business passing non-representative laws.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
hahahahahahahahahahaha
It's so amusing to see Masnick spout this tripe and think any rational person would actually believe it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So the RIAA/MPAA were accurate in that foreign sites couldn't be taken down without SOPA?
Are you sure they had accurate information?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Democracy can be inconvenient for aristocrats
There, I fixed that for you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF!
The most ridiculous statement ever to be delivered by an idiot yet.
The sad part is that I will have to endure some bought politician piece of shit talking in the same terms trying to convince the public that protesting for your rights is bad for democracy.
This is a lesson to all you morons who believe that people are stupid and would not raise to the occasion, there you have it, all your plans are belong to us now.
The next time you pieces of $h!% try to ram BS rules to the world through backroom deals and trying to hide it from the public be prepared to pay the price.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
https://userscripts.org/scripts/search?q=techdirt&submit=Search
I never thought about how big Techdirt is, I just assumed it was just another blog, but it is not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
You Know What They Say ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
protesting IS part the democratic process
backroom deals hidden from public view is what silences the democratic process
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Sign the petition
There's a new petition SIGN IT.
WE NEED 1 BILLION AT LEAST
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
IFPI (secretly internet terrorists?)
Throw them all in jail...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What it REALLY means
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment