7 ms·

Activist ejected from "public" meeting on secret copyright treaty for tweeting

53 points by rms 17y ago

nfnaaron 17y ago
"This is not how the world makes its copyright laws." Apparently it is.
Alex3917 17y ago
"ACTA -- a secret treaty that contains provisions requiring nations to wiretap the Internet, force ISPs to spy on users, search laptops at the border, and disconnect whole households from the net on the basis of mere accusation of copyright infringement" Is there any historical precedent for worldwide corruption on this scale? Not to be overly dramatic, but this feels vaguely like the end of the free world.
- rms 17y ago
  I have to regularly practice a certain amount of emotional detachment from this kind of thing. I am surprised and grateful that human civilization mostly continues to function.
- hga 17y ago
  Well, remember that in the United State it would not be a "self-executing" treaty. Sure, the Senate might ratify it, but without enabling legislation from both houses that also passes muster with the Supremes it's just a piece of paper.
  - roc 17y ago
    It's a trade agreement that benefits US corporations. Whose interests do you think those legislators are truly representing? Take a close look at the health care legislation process and try to find where either party's ideological goals are being represented in writing. There's lip service being paid to helping the little guy and curtailing government, but in writing the entire discussion is laid bare as an argument over whose handouts go to whom. And pardon me if I don't hold out hope for the Supreme Court to defend the public good from corporate interest. Their last few decisions in the general arena have been anything but reassuring.
    - roc 17y ago
      Once again, are we down-voting based on disagreement? Do I need to mention Kelo, Citizens, Exxon, Garcetti or a half-dozen other cases where public interests were given short-shrift in favor of corporate interests? Do I need to post the entirety of the senate health care bill?
      - hga 17y ago
        Kelo is an abomination. Hopefully it'll some day be reversed like the Supremes just did with Austin and the first case that largely upheld McCain-Feingold. I have no trouble with Citizens or Garcetti v. Ceballos (how is that a "corporate interests" case???), but which Exxon case are you referring to (Google comes up with a lot of X v. Exxon cases)? (I'd also note that I believe in the principle of the rule of law vs. the rule of man, but that would probably be pointless.)
- fuzzmeister 17y ago
  While this treaty has the potential to be very bad, all that we hold dear about "the free world" encompasses more than copyrighted content.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    The fact that copyright terms are getting extended is the least of what's worrying here.
  - DougBTX 17y ago
    Privacy and innocent until proven guilty are probably high up that list, ideas being trodden on in the name of copyright.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    If they can do this kind of secrecy with copyright, how transparent do you think treaties that deal with weapons, censorship, spying on citizens and similar, dark, subjects are?
blintson 17y ago
stopacta.org,.com and .net are all registered. It'd be great if there could be a way to directly call politicians to complain from the website. GizmoCalls is an in-browser VOIP client, wikipedia says they've recently been acquired by Google. Google has a HUGE interest in stopping this treaty. Maybe they could donate calls from the US to US politicians to complain about the treaty? It'd certainly be great for marketing. Anybody know how one'd go about contacting google to ask about that? Anybody know of any other in-browser VOIP clients that would be willing to donate phone time to call politicians to stop this?
- tumult 17y ago
  Politicians do not care about what their electorates want once they are in office. They will make the decisions they feel are appropriate until it is time for them to seek re-election. Phone calls, letters, etc. are all just things for them to stew on. Ultimately, they can make whatever decision they want. Volunteer for political work and you'll see: letters will be tabulated and counted to favor one position or another, and at the end of the day it's just a number for the senator or representative to glance at for a few moments when considering what position to take, which in the end will almost definitely be the one handed down from their party.
codyrobbins 17y ago
People realize that the negotiations of the United States Constitutional Convention were secret, right? There’s a difference between a ‘secret treaty’ and a treaty merely negotiated in secret.
- Andys 17y ago
  Cool, does that mean the copyright laws will be as loosely applied as the constitution?
- warfangle 17y ago
  There's a difference between a piece of paper that establishes a government and the limitations on said government and a piece of paper which coerces unjust reactions to accusations of copyright infringement, along with massive violations of privacy.
  - codyrobbins 17y ago
    Petitio principii—you’re saying there’s a difference because the treaty is unjust, but you’re simply declaring the treaty unjust. Negotiating anything among many parties with competing interests involves certain difficulties, and making the negotiations secret provides benefits that facilitate the negotiations.
    - warfangle 17y ago
      I'm declaring the treaty, as we know it, unjust because it directly violates limitations on the government set forth by our constitution: the right to be secure in my person and my papers (and, by extension, my communications - the internet), and assumes guilt instead of innocence (punishing based on accusations instead of proof). The problem, of course, is that this treaty is being negotiated by many parties with competing interests, but no party is representing the people who will actually be affected by this treaty. The people discussing the treaty are paid for and bought by controlling copyright interests, and not by the people. Therefore it is fundamentally different: it is not a negotiation at the behest of The People. It is a negotiation based on the trade and control powers of multinational corporations. It's diametrically opposed to freedom, because the free are not involved at any level in its construction, negotiation, and ratification. The fact that they are so secretive about the negotiations as to eject and ridicule third-party observes proves that they are not acting in the best interest of said third party observers. (I would have no problems with the treaties being discussed / negotiated in secret, if there were bona fide representatives of People and specific safeguards against the treaty being unilaterally used to oppress the masses)
jcnnghm 17y ago
There are public meetings on "secret" treaties? That doesn't sound very secret. Was the activist ejected for breaking the rules. When you attend an in-progress House or Senate debate in their galleries, you aren't allowed to have any electronics out, and you aren't allowed to write or draw. From the capital website: The Gallery "staging areas" are located on the upper level of the Visitor Center near the Orientation Theater exits. Visitors are not allowed to bring battery-operated electronic devices (medical devices are permitted); cameras; creams, lotions or perfumes; strollers; or video recorders or any type of recording device into the Galleries. These items may be stored securely in the Gallery staging areas while visitors are in the Galleries. What happened to those promised televised health care debates?
- roc 17y ago
  The public meeting was on the process of negotiating the treaty. They were quite specifically not discussing the content of the treaty, making the secret treaty still quite secret. The rules of the US Government building aren't relevant. The meetings about the secrecy are being held in Mexico. They nearly required the attending public to sign NDAs and surrender electronics, but last minute deliberation removed those restrictions. Which suggests the ejection of a live-blogger appear quite unfounded. The ACTA meetings themselves are being held at some other time, in an undisclosed location in Mexico.

53 points by rms 17y ago

"This is not how the world makes its copyright laws." Apparently it is.

"ACTA -- a secret treaty that contains provisions requiring nations to wiretap the Internet, force ISPs to spy on users, search laptops at the border, and disconnect whole households from the net on the basis of mere accusation of copyright infringement" Is there any historical precedent for worldwide corruption on this scale? Not to be overly dramatic, but this feels vaguely like the end of the free world.

rms 17y ago
I have to regularly practice a certain amount of emotional detachment from this kind of thing. I am surprised and grateful that human civilization mostly continues to function.
hga 17y ago
Well, remember that in the United State it would not be a "self-executing" treaty. Sure, the Senate might ratify it, but without enabling legislation from both houses that also passes muster with the Supremes it's just a piece of paper.
- roc 17y ago
  It's a trade agreement that benefits US corporations. Whose interests do you think those legislators are truly representing? Take a close look at the health care legislation process and try to find where either party's ideological goals are being represented in writing. There's lip service being paid to helping the little guy and curtailing government, but in writing the entire discussion is laid bare as an argument over whose handouts go to whom. And pardon me if I don't hold out hope for the Supreme Court to defend the public good from corporate interest. Their last few decisions in the general arena have been anything but reassuring.
  - roc 17y ago
    Once again, are we down-voting based on disagreement? Do I need to mention Kelo, Citizens, Exxon, Garcetti or a half-dozen other cases where public interests were given short-shrift in favor of corporate interests? Do I need to post the entirety of the senate health care bill?
    - hga 17y ago
      Kelo is an abomination. Hopefully it'll some day be reversed like the Supremes just did with Austin and the first case that largely upheld McCain-Feingold. I have no trouble with Citizens or Garcetti v. Ceballos (how is that a "corporate interests" case???), but which Exxon case are you referring to (Google comes up with a lot of X v. Exxon cases)? (I'd also note that I believe in the principle of the rule of law vs. the rule of man, but that would probably be pointless.)
fuzzmeister 17y ago
While this treaty has the potential to be very bad, all that we hold dear about "the free world" encompasses more than copyrighted content.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  The fact that copyright terms are getting extended is the least of what's worrying here.
- DougBTX 17y ago
  Privacy and innocent until proven guilty are probably high up that list, ideas being trodden on in the name of copyright.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  If they can do this kind of secrecy with copyright, how transparent do you think treaties that deal with weapons, censorship, spying on citizens and similar, dark, subjects are?

blintson 17y ago

stopacta.org,.com and .net are all registered. It'd be great if there could be a way to directly call politicians to complain from the website. GizmoCalls is an in-browser VOIP client, wikipedia says they've recently been acquired by Google. Google has a HUGE interest in stopping this treaty. Maybe they could donate calls from the US to US politicians to complain about the treaty? It'd certainly be great for marketing. Anybody know how one'd go about contacting google to ask about that? Anybody know of any other in-browser VOIP clients that would be willing to donate phone time to call politicians to stop this?

tumult 17y ago
Politicians do not care about what their electorates want once they are in office. They will make the decisions they feel are appropriate until it is time for them to seek re-election. Phone calls, letters, etc. are all just things for them to stew on. Ultimately, they can make whatever decision they want. Volunteer for political work and you'll see: letters will be tabulated and counted to favor one position or another, and at the end of the day it's just a number for the senator or representative to glance at for a few moments when considering what position to take, which in the end will almost definitely be the one handed down from their party.

codyrobbins 17y ago

People realize that the negotiations of the United States Constitutional Convention were secret, right? There’s a difference between a ‘secret treaty’ and a treaty merely negotiated in secret.

Andys 17y ago
Cool, does that mean the copyright laws will be as loosely applied as the constitution?
warfangle 17y ago
There's a difference between a piece of paper that establishes a government and the limitations on said government and a piece of paper which coerces unjust reactions to accusations of copyright infringement, along with massive violations of privacy.
- codyrobbins 17y ago
  Petitio principii—you’re saying there’s a difference because the treaty is unjust, but you’re simply declaring the treaty unjust. Negotiating anything among many parties with competing interests involves certain difficulties, and making the negotiations secret provides benefits that facilitate the negotiations.
  - warfangle 17y ago
    I'm declaring the treaty, as we know it, unjust because it directly violates limitations on the government set forth by our constitution: the right to be secure in my person and my papers (and, by extension, my communications - the internet), and assumes guilt instead of innocence (punishing based on accusations instead of proof). The problem, of course, is that this treaty is being negotiated by many parties with competing interests, but no party is representing the people who will actually be affected by this treaty. The people discussing the treaty are paid for and bought by controlling copyright interests, and not by the people. Therefore it is fundamentally different: it is not a negotiation at the behest of The People. It is a negotiation based on the trade and control powers of multinational corporations. It's diametrically opposed to freedom, because the free are not involved at any level in its construction, negotiation, and ratification. The fact that they are so secretive about the negotiations as to eject and ridicule third-party observes proves that they are not acting in the best interest of said third party observers. (I would have no problems with the treaties being discussed / negotiated in secret, if there were bona fide representatives of People and specific safeguards against the treaty being unilaterally used to oppress the masses)

jcnnghm 17y ago

There are public meetings on "secret" treaties? That doesn't sound very secret. Was the activist ejected for breaking the rules. When you attend an in-progress House or Senate debate in their galleries, you aren't allowed to have any electronics out, and you aren't allowed to write or draw. From the capital website: The Gallery "staging areas" are located on the upper level of the Visitor Center near the Orientation Theater exits. Visitors are not allowed to bring battery-operated electronic devices (medical devices are permitted); cameras; creams, lotions or perfumes; strollers; or video recorders or any type of recording device into the Galleries. These items may be stored securely in the Gallery staging areas while visitors are in the Galleries. What happened to those promised televised health care debates?

roc 17y ago
The public meeting was on the process of negotiating the treaty. They were quite specifically not discussing the content of the treaty, making the secret treaty still quite secret. The rules of the US Government building aren't relevant. The meetings about the secrecy are being held in Mexico. They nearly required the attending public to sign NDAs and surrender electronics, but last minute deliberation removed those restrictions. Which suggests the ejection of a live-blogger appear quite unfounded. The ACTA meetings themselves are being held at some other time, in an undisclosed location in Mexico.