"I was thinking that part of the logic here is that the only side of the story they are hearing is what comes from leaks, fear mongering blogs, and others who have a vested interest in shooting down TTP. If all you hear is horror stories and rumors, do you honestly think they would have a good opinion?"
Then, why are they being so secretive? If defenders of such trade agreements assert that benefits outweight the adverse consequences, secrecy would not be the norm and the rest of the people would not need to depend on leaks to know whats going on.
"Also, there will always be some who see advantage, and some who see disadvantage. Some companies work well within regulatory frameworks, others are more freewheeling and think they can benefit by less regulation. There will never be 100% agreement, no matter how you slice it."
Irrelevant, this isn't about companies benefiting from more or less regulation, is about presenting actual trade agreements, laws, regulations that could possibly benefit all, not a minority composed by certain corporate interests who are unable to compete due to their outdated business models who seek more and stronger industrial protectionism regulations.
"The concerns in the area of public domains works are valid. However, as is often the case, those who seek to destroy copyright overall are using these valid concerns as a way to try to tear down copyright completely."
We don't need to destroy copyright, copyright cartels are doing that by themselves by showing how abusive they are and losing the respect of the younger generations, buying and paying for laws that allows them to mantain the game rigged to the advantage of the thieving middlemen and unnecesary gatekeeprs, all that while they try to cause moral panic by saying that people who criticize any aspect of copyrights, including the unfairness of the current system perpetuated by those dinosaurs and their cronies in the halls of power, are immoral thieves, freetrds, freeloaders, grifters, etc.
"I feel sorry for those who are being used to support a cause they don't truly believe in."
I would say the same for the bought and paid shills from those corporate interests, but recent history tell me that they are being willfuly dishonest, so no, I dont feel sorry for you and your ilk.
Nah, he won't bother to prove anything, people like him, who keep seeing infringers as immoral egotistical thieves, are only capable of attacking the strawman they think is the correct depiction of online infringers, I wouldn't waste my time asking them to provide evidence of what they claim.
"You can't really use the moral argument of "what is right" here on Techdirt, because it's been long established that moral arguments aren't valid.You can't really use the moral argument of "what is right" here on Techdirt, because it's been long established that moral arguments aren't valid."
Just to clarify, I and many others object the moral argument regarding copyright issues because copyright has never been about morality but practical utility, is just a red herring meant to create moral panic and bringing the whole issue to a purely emotional level where someone can claim the moral high ground and make detractors look as the inmoral ones.
"The law here isn't evil. Rather, it's an attempt by the people (as a whole) to keep a small minority from ruining their lives by being able to protest and harm their enjoyment of life. Authorities did what they have to do to enforce the law and not give unfair advantage to one group or the other."
Lawful =/= ethically acceptable, and since we are not talking about copyright but currupt athorities who use the "free trade agreement" label to rig the game in favor of a minority made up of corporate players interested only in filling their pockets while ignoring the adverse consequences for the rest of the people, so it follows that using physical force to disband a peaceful protest with demonstrably harming techniques is questionable at minimum, since they are just excercizing their right to protest against a corrupt system, unless I live in a dictatorship, I can't see your point.
Get them while they're young... I agree, I don't think this is different than religious indoctrination.
They need to do this to secure their obsolete ideas and ensure they will prevail when their generation die off, they know more and more people are starting to call BS on their lies and propaganda, thats why they are targeting children.
Not happening IMO. Banning encryption or making it hard/impossible to use proxies/VPN is possible ONLY if a new standard is implemented globally where no person can be allowed to be administrator on their own computer. They would need to make it illegal to have administrative rights over your own computer or any device capable of connecting to the internet.
Even trying is highly likely to remove every business relying on VPN's, cloud services and proxies from the market, https would have to go as well so no more services using encrypted login; banks, Amazon, online franchises, personal cloud storage, etc.
Because if you want to ensure a high percentage of your economy moves to another country, banning encryption would be it.
I think his point was that they are being "transparent" to some degree, they fear another ACTA if text is released to the public.
This is an admission that the agreement is bad and will certainly cause another massive backlash like SOPA/PIPA and ACTA caused a couple years ago, they fear history will repeat unless they can keep it as secret as possible.
Your intellectual myopia never ceases to amuse me, Darryl.
"But as usual, no examples, no "this is what fair use has given us", none of that.. " "SUCH AS ????"
Industries that rely on fair use exceptions to copyright law grew faster than the rest of the US economy from 2002 to 2007, according to a study commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which counts the likes of eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo among its membership.
The CCIA study found that fair use-reliant ndustries grew by 5% and accounted for 23% of real US economic growth during the five year period under examination, while companies benefiting from limitations on copyright-holders’ exclusive rights, such as 'fair use' generated revenue of USD4.7 trillion in 2007 – a 36% increase over 2002.
The research indicates that the industries benefiting from fair use and other limitations and exceptions make a large and growing contribution to the U.S. economy. The fair use economy in 2006 accounted for $4.5 trillion in revenues and $2.2 billion in value added, roughly one-sixth of total U.S. GDP. It employed more than 17 million people and supported a payroll of $1.2 trillion. It generated $194 billion in exports and rapid productivity growth.
The protection afforded by fair use has been a major contributing factor to these economic gains, and will continue to support growth as the U.S. economy becomes even more dependent on information industries.
The most significant growth over this period was in Internet publishing and broadcasting, web search portals, electronic shopping, electronic auctions and other financial investment activity.
There is indded an economic growth and a practical benefit in the distribution of culture and information with fair use.