New ACTA copyright treaty dodges the UN, poor countries and activists


11 Responses to “New ACTA copyright treaty dodges the UN, poor countries and activists”

  1. Pantograph says:

    It’s a bad sign when WIPO is considered too evenhanded by the copyright cartels.

    Anyone care to explain the difference between multilateral and plurilateral?

  2. ehrydberg says:

    Why is it that we only seem to believe that we can help ‘them’ against ‘their’ repressive governments, but when it comes to dealing with our repressive government, we only complain on forums.

    Why don’t we, the people, create our own treaty with which to make a deal with the government? We believe the internet gives us power, and we have successfully used it to a small degree on occasion. I suggest that now is the time to start thinking big and really wielding our voice to change the direction of our own governments, before that voice is taken away.

    As technology moves at an ever increasing pace, the corporations and governments will be left further and further behind, bogged down in their committees discussing last years ‘worrying’ tech. Therefore, it will become more and more important for us, the people, to intervene on our own behalf. At the very least we need to devise a mechanism to quickly arrive at consensus on certain issue so we can stand toe to toe with the faceless wormtongues, the corporations that whisper sweet nothings in our politicians ears.

    There are several organizations doing an admirable job at keeping us informed. What I’m advocating is that we find a reasonable way to take this to the next level. We need to react quickly and with a strong voice to new technologies and new government policies. But more importantly, we should be proactive. Collectively, we are the ones that can best see the possible directions (good/bad/indifferent) that new tech will take us. We need to beat the corporations to the government’s ear.

    If we don’t, I truly fear for the future of our society.

    • Anonymous says:

      I absolutely agree. we need to figure out a way to band people together, and not in several tiny anti-acta squads. we need a unified front of the american people for the rights of the internet.

  3. Pam Rosengren says:

    So WIPO are the good guys now? Sheesh.

    And can anyone explain to me what a ‘non-paper’ is? I can identify lots of things that are not made of paper, and I read academic papers and white papers often – but ‘non-paper’? Is that text we are not permitted to evaluate or discuss, just accept?

  4. Blue says:

    Can we just trash the illusion that we live in democracies once and for all. It’s oligarchy all the way down.

  5. Anonymous says:

    it is the duty of Congress to deal with copyright laws. If Obama signs a treaty, it still has to be ratified by 2/3 of the Congress

  6. Anonymous says:

    I am honestly afraid for our future..

    All this because a few people want to make a lot of money.

  7. stupidnickname says:

    Anyone care to explain the difference between multilateral and plurilateral?

    multilateral = Persian Gulf War international coalition

    plurilateral = Iraq War “coalition of the willing”

  8. Anonymous says:

    You know, I think this shows that we may be able to kill this piece of garbage. They’re avoiding *WIPO* and they’re operating in *secret*. I think aiming directly at legislatures (responsible for deciding whether to approve treaties) is the way to go — they can be inoculated against this and then it will be stillborn even if they do somehow produce a “treaty”.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Welcome to world government, by the aristocracy, for the aristocracy.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Multilateral = when multitudes or all member countries of the pertinent organization (e.g. WIPO) participated in drafting of the treaty along side (i.e lateral) others. “Lateral” would also denote same plane, horizontally aligned, same level of rights, or equal-footing.

    Plurilateral = roots: “Plural” and “Lateral”

    Lateral = explained above

    Plural = denotes “many”. More appropriately, more than three (3) participants because if there are just two(2), then it’s “bilateral.” It there are three(3), they are usually called “tripartite”

    What distinguished it from “Multilateral?”

    The two prefixes per se is not at all different from each other as both denote “many.”

    The nomenclature largely serve to distinguish the “manner of selection” by which these sovereign states (through their representatives) have group themselves together motivated by “common interests” relative to those who are members of the particular agreement; but the same may not be the “common interest” as perceived by the whole “multitudes” of member countries.

    Kinda like choosing your own clique when you were in high school and “bullying” other groups or individuals into submission to the standards that you and your clique have pre-set for the rest of the “uncool” students. And we know that this is really BS!

    It is the simplest analogy i could muster.

Leave a Reply