6 ms·

Justice Elena Kagan recused, said Congress’ move to re-copyright the works to comport with an international treaty was more important I am really tired of the

by kls 15y ago

Justice Elena Kagan recused, said Congress’ move to re-copyright the works to comport with an international treaty was more important I am really tired of the arguments that sacrifice sovereignty for globalist endeavors. Our laws are supposed to provide a framework of government for American people and businesses, not ensure the rights of foreign works. The rights of US citizens should be the foremost concern of a US legislator and when it comes to satisfying a treaty compromising those rights the treaty or international precedence should be thrown out the window. I feel like I am now living in bizarro world where no right is safe. I mean the fact that public domain, the resting place for IP is no longer the end of the line is about as strange an interpretation of public domain as one could come up with. They are laying the same groundwork for this international treaty argument on gun rights as well.

Volpe 15y ago
> ... sacrifice sovereignty for globalist endeavors. Can anyone from the US really make this point with a straight face. A little hypocritical to say the least.
- ColinDabritz 15y ago
  If this was the position of the government it may be hypocritical. As individuals we have our own views. As a US citizen I dislike our interference around the world, especially when it is without the support of the global community. I also dislike the use of international treaties as a 'work around' to our sovereign law. While I do believe in respecting the treaties we make, I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes. Where is the hypocrisy?
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    > "I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes." Isn't this the whole point of treaties though? What good is a treaty if member states don't have to change incompatible laws to conform with it? What's the point of, say, signing a human rights treaty, without changing currently compatible laws to fall in line?
    - rgraham 15y ago
      Sounds like these guys wouldn't sign most such treaties. I'm happy to be a good neighbor, but policy should happen as close to the local level as possible. I don't think that is a shocking insight.
    - dwiel 15y ago
      The point of the treaty is to come to an agreement between two governments. If the provisions of the treaty are not legally possible than the treaty is meaningless. For a more extreme example: If the US congress signs a treaty with England which agrees that the US Presidents will no longer have any power in exchange for the English Prime Ministers too also no longer have any power, it doesn't matter because congress didn't have the power to write such laws in the first place.
    - ColinDabritz 15y ago
      Treaties are fine, and they certainly can affect local laws and should if they were made in good faith and are reasonably beneficial to both countries. The problem is that some treaties are not about solving problems but are rather an intentional collusion between the governmental representatives to push unwanted law on one or both countries. That's what I object to. Say two countries have a particular copyright law, say 50 years in one and 60 years in another. So the two representatives, probably both receiving substantial funds from pro-copyright media conglomerates, get together and arrange a treaty that says they will extend copyright to 100 years. Well gee guys, we'll have to change our laws! Both countries missed out on reasonable legislative processes.
  - Volpe 15y ago
    I didn't see SOPA like protests (wihtin the US) for the plethora of "Free-Trade" agreements that the US has put forward in other countries, that clearly put the US at an advantage and undermine (or attempt to) local markets. In fact I'd bet that there were 0 protests for some (all?) of those agreements. There has to be some personal accountability. The "I just live here, but have my own views" doesn't really cut it. Living in a democracy and saying "That's the position of the government... not mine". While, not completely invalid, is annoying to hear.
    - kls 15y ago
      I personally vote every chance I get. I emailed Mark Rubio a co-sponsor on SOPA as well as mutual contacts of his and mine to voice my displeasure and to try to leverage my influence to get a meeting (before he changed his mind), I had an effect he changed his position (I along with a lot of other people, I don't want it to appear that I am taking sole credit for his change of position). I don't know what else one can expect, but for many of us, we just live here now. We are outnumbered and outgunned. Short of leaving our entire life and more importantly family to move away from it, there is not much we can do other than rage against the machine. Part of that rage is to say I don't support it and it is the governments position and not mine. I am not going to hold a position just because a group of people think it is valid nor should we be held accountable for the action of the collective. I believe in sovereignty all the way down.
- kls 15y ago
  A little hypocritical to say the least. Absolutely, I agree that other nations should be free to protect their interest. I am a huge fan of the republic that America used to be before the Civil War, the seed of federalism was planted then it has blossomed since then. I am all for a coalition of small governments that have unique and independent laws that best governs their citizenry. Just because I am from the US does not mean that I support what we have become. I absolutely hate the fact that we enforce our will on other nations and our chickens are coming home to roost for sure on this one.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    > I am a huge fan of the republic that America used to be before the Civil War Where men were held as slaves and women didn't have the right to vote? For all our problems now, I think we are a much freer country today than we were in 1860.
    - kls 15y ago
      My intent was not to re-fight the Civil War. But just like the Iraqi war it was not all roses and liberating the Iraqi people. A lot of good came from some of the issues surrounding the Civil War. A strong federal government was not one of them. We are well served to remember the things lost when tallying the things gained. The cultural issues of the day where not the product of a republic nor where they a product of a federal government. I can be a fan of the system of government without advocating for a return to the cultural norms of the time.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        A system of government that put states rights above human rights is exactly what allowed slavery to persist.
        kls 15y ago
        I differ on that, the cultural norm of believing that humans can be owned, that existed over centuries dating back to the Mesopotamia is what allowed slavery to persist.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
EGreg 15y ago
Well, first of all, the justices are not legislators, they belong to the judicial branch whose job it is to interpret and apply the law that exists. Including treaties that have been signed.
- kls 15y ago
  Right the judge said that congresses move was to align the two. She made the decision that their lead was more important. Both acted in direct contrast to the interests of citizens. My point being that neither are acting in the interest of the American citizens.
  - EGreg 15y ago
    Personally if the USA signs a treaty in good faith that they themselves heavily influenced, I would expect them to follow it. Sometimes that may come into conflict with other expectations, such as public domain works becoming copyrighted again. So then the expectations have to be compared and that's what the justices did. To be honest, I think it's the attitude towards copyright vs freedom that is skewing the perception here. It's true that copyright provides government monopoly and special interests are able to extend it, and I don't like that. But when we sign a treaty we should be expected to uphold it.
    - kls 15y ago
      I disagree, if we sign a treaty and find that it is in direct contrast to rights afforded by US law, we should either nullify the treaty or correct the US law not back door legislation via signing a treaty and have the judicial branch overrule the US law. They are compiling a strategy to utilize this very tactic with the UN gun bill. To me it reeks of a way for the legislative branch to dodge accountability for unsavory laws.
    - lusr 15y ago
      Out of curiosity, how do you come to the conclusion that the treaty was heavily influenced by the USA? "The Berne Convention was revised in Paris in 1896 and in Berlin in 1908, completed in Berne in 1914, revised in Rome in 1928, in Brussels in 1948, in Stockholm in 1967 and in Paris in 1971, and was amended in 1979" "The United States initially refused to become a party to the Convention, since that would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of the general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989, the U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 was enacted, and the United States Senate ratified the treaty, making the U.S. a party to the Berne Convention,[4] and making the Universal Copyright Convention nearly obsolete.[5]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protec...] Doesn't sound like the USA had anything to do with it. All seems a bit like circular reasoning to me. Another country creates a treaty, you ratify it, and suddenly your "hands are tied". (I'm not saying I have any opinion on the treaty itself, but the process seems a bit concerning.)
michael_dorfman 15y ago
The rights of US citizens should be the foremost concern of a US legislator and when it comes to satisfying a treaty compromising those rights the treaty or international precedence should be thrown out the window. Article VI of the Constitution explicitly disagrees with you: "[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." In other words, the sovereignty was explicitly sacrificed when the treaty was entered into-- and that's the way the Framers intended it.
- kls 15y ago
  Yes I understand the law, my protest is in the fact that it is now being used as a technicality to back door legislation that is against the people. My personal feelings on government is that they should act as a framework of government for the citizens interests first. Which is not what we have, we now have a government that finds every loophole available to act in direct contrast to the interest of the people. I don't think I implied that what they where doing was not available to them by the letter of the law. Rather I believe that I stated that I am sick of the letter of the law being a tunnel for anti-rights legislation. Again I go back to the UN small arms gun treaty. Given that they cannot deal with guns in the current domestic framework available, they are position the UN small arms treaty to help them deal with it, through this same backdoor. While it is technically legal, it is totally corrupt.

by kls 15y ago

Volpe 15y ago

> ... sacrifice sovereignty for globalist endeavors. Can anyone from the US really make this point with a straight face. A little hypocritical to say the least.

ColinDabritz 15y ago
If this was the position of the government it may be hypocritical. As individuals we have our own views. As a US citizen I dislike our interference around the world, especially when it is without the support of the global community. I also dislike the use of international treaties as a 'work around' to our sovereign law. While I do believe in respecting the treaties we make, I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes. Where is the hypocrisy?
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > "I dislike the practice of intentionally making treaties that force us to change our laws as a 'hack' of our government processes." Isn't this the whole point of treaties though? What good is a treaty if member states don't have to change incompatible laws to conform with it? What's the point of, say, signing a human rights treaty, without changing currently compatible laws to fall in line?
  - rgraham 15y ago
    Sounds like these guys wouldn't sign most such treaties. I'm happy to be a good neighbor, but policy should happen as close to the local level as possible. I don't think that is a shocking insight.
  - dwiel 15y ago
    The point of the treaty is to come to an agreement between two governments. If the provisions of the treaty are not legally possible than the treaty is meaningless. For a more extreme example: If the US congress signs a treaty with England which agrees that the US Presidents will no longer have any power in exchange for the English Prime Ministers too also no longer have any power, it doesn't matter because congress didn't have the power to write such laws in the first place.
  - ColinDabritz 15y ago
    Treaties are fine, and they certainly can affect local laws and should if they were made in good faith and are reasonably beneficial to both countries. The problem is that some treaties are not about solving problems but are rather an intentional collusion between the governmental representatives to push unwanted law on one or both countries. That's what I object to. Say two countries have a particular copyright law, say 50 years in one and 60 years in another. So the two representatives, probably both receiving substantial funds from pro-copyright media conglomerates, get together and arrange a treaty that says they will extend copyright to 100 years. Well gee guys, we'll have to change our laws! Both countries missed out on reasonable legislative processes.
- Volpe 15y ago
  I didn't see SOPA like protests (wihtin the US) for the plethora of "Free-Trade" agreements that the US has put forward in other countries, that clearly put the US at an advantage and undermine (or attempt to) local markets. In fact I'd bet that there were 0 protests for some (all?) of those agreements. There has to be some personal accountability. The "I just live here, but have my own views" doesn't really cut it. Living in a democracy and saying "That's the position of the government... not mine". While, not completely invalid, is annoying to hear.
  - kls 15y ago
    I personally vote every chance I get. I emailed Mark Rubio a co-sponsor on SOPA as well as mutual contacts of his and mine to voice my displeasure and to try to leverage my influence to get a meeting (before he changed his mind), I had an effect he changed his position (I along with a lot of other people, I don't want it to appear that I am taking sole credit for his change of position). I don't know what else one can expect, but for many of us, we just live here now. We are outnumbered and outgunned. Short of leaving our entire life and more importantly family to move away from it, there is not much we can do other than rage against the machine. Part of that rage is to say I don't support it and it is the governments position and not mine. I am not going to hold a position just because a group of people think it is valid nor should we be held accountable for the action of the collective. I believe in sovereignty all the way down.
kls 15y ago
A little hypocritical to say the least. Absolutely, I agree that other nations should be free to protect their interest. I am a huge fan of the republic that America used to be before the Civil War, the seed of federalism was planted then it has blossomed since then. I am all for a coalition of small governments that have unique and independent laws that best governs their citizenry. Just because I am from the US does not mean that I support what we have become. I absolutely hate the fact that we enforce our will on other nations and our chickens are coming home to roost for sure on this one.
- philwelch 15y ago
  > I am a huge fan of the republic that America used to be before the Civil War Where men were held as slaves and women didn't have the right to vote? For all our problems now, I think we are a much freer country today than we were in 1860.
  - kls 15y ago
    My intent was not to re-fight the Civil War. But just like the Iraqi war it was not all roses and liberating the Iraqi people. A lot of good came from some of the issues surrounding the Civil War. A strong federal government was not one of them. We are well served to remember the things lost when tallying the things gained. The cultural issues of the day where not the product of a republic nor where they a product of a federal government. I can be a fan of the system of government without advocating for a return to the cultural norms of the time.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      A system of government that put states rights above human rights is exactly what allowed slavery to persist.
      - kls 15y ago
        I differ on that, the cultural norm of believing that humans can be owned, that existed over centuries dating back to the Mesopotamia is what allowed slavery to persist.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

EGreg 15y ago

Well, first of all, the justices are not legislators, they belong to the judicial branch whose job it is to interpret and apply the law that exists. Including treaties that have been signed.

kls 15y ago
Right the judge said that congresses move was to align the two. She made the decision that their lead was more important. Both acted in direct contrast to the interests of citizens. My point being that neither are acting in the interest of the American citizens.
- EGreg 15y ago
  Personally if the USA signs a treaty in good faith that they themselves heavily influenced, I would expect them to follow it. Sometimes that may come into conflict with other expectations, such as public domain works becoming copyrighted again. So then the expectations have to be compared and that's what the justices did. To be honest, I think it's the attitude towards copyright vs freedom that is skewing the perception here. It's true that copyright provides government monopoly and special interests are able to extend it, and I don't like that. But when we sign a treaty we should be expected to uphold it.
  - kls 15y ago
    I disagree, if we sign a treaty and find that it is in direct contrast to rights afforded by US law, we should either nullify the treaty or correct the US law not back door legislation via signing a treaty and have the judicial branch overrule the US law. They are compiling a strategy to utilize this very tactic with the UN gun bill. To me it reeks of a way for the legislative branch to dodge accountability for unsavory laws.
  - lusr 15y ago
    Out of curiosity, how do you come to the conclusion that the treaty was heavily influenced by the USA? "The Berne Convention was revised in Paris in 1896 and in Berlin in 1908, completed in Berne in 1914, revised in Rome in 1928, in Brussels in 1948, in Stockholm in 1967 and in Paris in 1971, and was amended in 1979" "The United States initially refused to become a party to the Convention, since that would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of the general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989, the U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 was enacted, and the United States Senate ratified the treaty, making the U.S. a party to the Berne Convention,[4] and making the Universal Copyright Convention nearly obsolete.[5]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protec...] Doesn't sound like the USA had anything to do with it. All seems a bit like circular reasoning to me. Another country creates a treaty, you ratify it, and suddenly your "hands are tied". (I'm not saying I have any opinion on the treaty itself, but the process seems a bit concerning.)

michael_dorfman 15y ago

The rights of US citizens should be the foremost concern of a US legislator and when it comes to satisfying a treaty compromising those rights the treaty or international precedence should be thrown out the window. Article VI of the Constitution explicitly disagrees with you: "[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." In other words, the sovereignty was explicitly sacrificed when the treaty was entered into-- and that's the way the Framers intended it.

kls 15y ago
Yes I understand the law, my protest is in the fact that it is now being used as a technicality to back door legislation that is against the people. My personal feelings on government is that they should act as a framework of government for the citizens interests first. Which is not what we have, we now have a government that finds every loophole available to act in direct contrast to the interest of the people. I don't think I implied that what they where doing was not available to them by the letter of the law. Rather I believe that I stated that I am sick of the letter of the law being a tunnel for anti-rights legislation. Again I go back to the UN small arms gun treaty. Given that they cannot deal with guns in the current domestic framework available, they are position the UN small arms treaty to help them deal with it, through this same backdoor. While it is technically legal, it is totally corrupt.