[Big Mac]

Anyone else getting alarmed over ACTA? You know, it's the new anti-counterfeiting (read as anti-copyright violation) international treaty/agreement that is being negotiated completely in secret, and people are saying that because it's being proposed as an extension of existing American regulation (that is supposedly in accordance with existing law) rather than a new treaty, it could be signed by the executive branch without the consent of Congress. In general, it appears to be DMCA Part II for all countries that sign on. Among other things, it will make ISPs responsible for user activity and probably contain "three strikes" Internet prohibitions. One person who was allowed to see the text said that if it were shown to the public it would be overwhelmingly rejected. I'm wondering when it's going to appear on WikiLeaks. Freaky stuff.

Here's a recent Slashdot article on it.

[Chuckit]

I think there's a good chance the Supreme Court will get involved eventually if Congress isn't allowed in on this. Based on the rumors, it's simply too horrifying to get so little oversight.

[Dork.]

If it really is an extension of existing law, than that means that in the US, we're merely agreeing to laws that are already on the books, which is entirely appropriate to do without Congressional approval -- Congress already approved them at some point in the past, after all, or else they wouldn't be existing law.

Based on what I've read, the really nasty stuff in ACTA involves exporting all the worst parts of our DMCA to other countries. Here in the US, we're already screwed....

[Wiskedjak]

Definitely concerned about it. Regardless of where you stand on the issue itself, anybody who believes in democracy should be concerned when lobby groups abuse loopholes that allow them to push their position in ways that bypass the democratic processes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Definitely concerned about it. Regardless of where you stand on the issue itself, anybody who believes in democracy should be concerned when lobby groups abuse loopholes that allow them to push their position in ways that bypass the democratic processes.

Or is the "democratic process" allowing lobby groups to have an undue influence?

There was a time when elected leaders went behind closed doors with other officials, made decisions on what they thought was the best route to take, and then walked out of those doors and told people what was going to happen. They were, after all, elected because presumably people trusted them to make decisions for them.

America's obsession with "open and transparent democracy" since the 1960s in particular has had its benefits in some respects, but on this particular matter I'm afraid it's done far, far more harm than good. Elected officials no longer go "behind closed doors" and make decisions; now they've got TV cameras and lobby groups tweeting in their faces. Not exactly a situation designed to minimize external influence, is it?

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

If it really is an extension of existing law, than that means that in the US, we're merely agreeing to laws that are already on the books, which is entirely appropriate to do without Congressional approval -- Congress already approved them at some point in the past, after all, or else they wouldn't be existing law.

Based on what I've read, the really nasty stuff in ACTA involves exporting all the worst parts of our DMCA to other countries. Here in the US, we're already screwed....

The US has no graduated response laws. We would unquestionably be importing that one.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, we have Three Strikes for felony convictions. We don't have any such thing currently for mere accusations of copyright infringement that come without due process protections.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Anyone else getting alarmed over ACTA? You know, it's the new anti-counterfeiting (read as anti-copyright violation) international treaty/agreement that is being negotiated completely in secret, and people are saying that because it's being proposed as an extension of existing American regulation (that is supposedly in accordance with existing law) rather than a new treaty, it could be signed by the executive branch without the consent of Congress. In general, it appears to be DMCA Part II for all countries that sign on. Among other things, it will make ISPs responsible for user activity and probably contain "three strikes" Internet prohibitions. One person who was allowed to see the text said that if it were shown to the public it would be overwhelmingly rejected. I'm wondering when it's going to appear on WikiLeaks. Freaky stuff.

Here's a recent Slashdot article on it.

How is it any different than MacNN?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

How is it any different than MacNN?

I don't understand. What is this post all about?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

How is it any different than MacNN?

One is the federal government cutting off your access to the primary source of discourse and information without due process and the other is a Mac forum on the Web chiding you for misbehavior. They could hardly be more different. Similarly, the government cannot ban free expression of religion, but you don't have to allow people to hold their religious ceremonies in your house.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

One is the federal government cutting off your access to the primary source of discourse and information without due process and the other is a Mac forum on the Web chiding you for misbehavior. They could hardly be more different. Similarly, the government cannot ban free expression of religion, but you don't have to allow people to hold their religious ceremonies in your house.

I guess it depends on what the definition of house is. Dylan "... it's not a house it's a home.."