Forum Post: Digital Trends on ACTA
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 3, 2012, 9:57 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll
(13032)
from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Digital Trends » Occupy this: 5 Internet regulations we need to destroy
Main points of the article:
ACTA -
negotiated in secret - Andrew Couts of Digital Trends cites Electronic Frontier
- “bypassed checks and balances of existing international IP norm-setting bodies [i.e. the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the United Nations], without any meaningful input from national parliaments, policymakers, or their citizens,”
Copyright holders can bypass the legal system and request on their own that border agents seize property - even property destined to some third country. Under this bill generic drugs are treated the same as counterfit drugs; and Couts cites an interview in The Guardian with the lead ACTA EU negotiator, Kader Arif:
- “The problem with ACTA is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug, . . . This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure.”
the bill creates incentive for stricter laws for copyright holders, without consideration of issues like public domain or fair use, and thus the fear that this will be used to curb freedom of expression.
Signed by the President as an executive agreement, which does not require Senate ratification - while the White House claims that if ACTA becomes international law, the US can ignore it. Some question the Constitutionality of this maneuver, and others say this sets a precedent that will allow other measures to avoid public scrutiny.
More here
and here
and here
You will find more information on ACTA, and on TPPA [and other similar issues] at Digital Trends including action you can take.
.
.
Censorship has, in many respects, already begun
What the "media companies" are essentially saying is that they own this song, this TV series episode, this e-book or this movie. They paid some money in order to acquire this particular "square" on the real-life "monopoly board", and now they want to collect rent everytime someone steps in their square. This is how the system works, isn't it? I mean, what's the point of buying a square on the Monopoly board, if the other players aren't going to pay you if they step on it? What's the point of financing the creation of a movie or a TV series, if the viewrs ("clients") refuse to pay any money for watching it?
This is very bad for you, the owner of this particular square. And this is why you must stop this sort of behaviour, which goes against the very core of the system (private property). I mean, the people do respect private property when it comes to paying their electricity bills, or paying the barber who cuts their hair. But when it comes to paying for watching movies, or reading a book, they don't. This is not just an financial matter of "lost revenue", it is also a political and ideological battle:
The people "must" be taught to respect private property laws on the internet, otherwise they might get some "strange ideas" about abolishing private property all together, thus ending all the monopolies that now control their lives and replacing them with a system the producers of wealth cooperate and share everything, from mp3's and movies to...food and electricity, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Capitalism treats everything as "products" that can be sold or bought (for a profit), or at least that's its "natural instinct". NOTHING is free. You have to fight for every little thing in this life ("there is no such thing as a free lunch" in capitalism as the neoliberals famously -and rightly- declared). Movies, books, music songs, all these things are products -the fact that they are not physical doesn't really matter much. In fact, this is a big problem for the capitalists, as the "digital age" is still new, and the people haven't yet been taught that they must respect private property laws on the "digital products" (whereas they have been taught that they must respect private property laws on the "physical products", as they have been around for many years).
The internet is but one of many fronts, although its "digital" nature makes it a more compelling case, as the people haven't yet been taught to "respect private property" and they try to "make up excuses for their disobedience" ("it's not stealing; it's copying", etc.). But true victory can only come for the people only if and when they abolish private property all together - otherwise, they will over and over again be destined to repeat this vicious cycle:
http://whataboutmarx.blogspot.com/2012/02/sopa-pipa-acta-private-property-and.html
There are a number of problems with what you are saying - mostly in the realm of not saying, or omitting -
movie companies are over charging for their product - and they are not alone. Did you see the price of a ticket to the Superbowl? Not that I wanted to go - I don't - and that is not the point. the point is that the public is over charged for products that are classified as entertainment - and you can blame the public for that if you like, it is not without merit - that does not change the fundamental fact that corporations are for profit entities, and virtually no other consideration enters into their decision making process.
Capitalism does indeed treat everything as a product - and that includes YOU - you are nothing but a resource. I resent that.
Fracking companies do not respect the rights of property owners, in the least - and they are just one example of the hypocrisy of your statement that "The people "must" be taught to respect private property laws" in that this advocacy of yours is not in the least bit universal, but rather is applied at the expense of the people in favor of corporations.
One of the ways this particular legislation is designed to fuck the people is the way it treats generic drugs, and according to the links posted above, this could have a devastating affect on AIDS patients in third world countries, and others.
Finally, this bill was crafted in secret - never a good sign when it comes to legislation that affects everyone and corporate interests are involved.