Comments on: Opening Up on ACTA http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/04/opening-up-on-acta/ Copyright Information Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:02:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Live from the Global IP Center Summit: More Positives from the Obama Administration http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/04/opening-up-on-acta/#comment-34571 The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Live from the Global IP Center Summit: More Positives from the Obama Administration Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:15:52 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=410#comment-34571 [...] risk of appearing as if I have a man-crush on Ambassador Kirk — see my previous praise here, here and here for starters — Kirk once again showed he understands why rights are important to [...] [...] risk of appearing as if I have a man-crush on Ambassador Kirk — see my previous praise here, here and here for starters — Kirk once again showed he understands why rights are important to [...]

]]> By: Neal http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/04/opening-up-on-acta/#comment-17775 Neal Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:10:27 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=410#comment-17775 Going by the old analogy that the Bush regime used: "If you're not a terrorist, you've got nothing to hide". The only people that rely on secrecy are criminals. The kinds of agreements ACTA is making *are* illegal, and will take away the rights of citizens *everywhere*. Going by the old analogy that the Bush regime used:

“If you’re not a terrorist, you’ve got nothing to hide”.

The only people that rely on secrecy are criminals.

The kinds of agreements ACTA is making *are* illegal, and will take away the rights of citizens *everywhere*.

]]> By: John Gordon http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/04/opening-up-on-acta/#comment-17755 John Gordon Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:14:56 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=410#comment-17755 Also, according to your Constitutional Convention analogy, all bills in the US Congress should be debated in secret and presented to the public only when complete and ready for the President's signature. Is that your position? If not, which kinds of rules should only be debated in secret and which in public? Also, according to your Constitutional Convention analogy, all bills in the US Congress should be debated in secret and presented to the public only when complete and ready for the President’s signature. Is that your position? If not, which kinds of rules should only be debated in secret and which in public?

]]> By: John Gordon http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/04/opening-up-on-acta/#comment-17754 John Gordon Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:08:12 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=410#comment-17754 The framers of the Constitution did not invite representatives of certain special interests to observe their convention while excluding others who didn't have favored relationships with the drafters. Unfortunately the USTR has done exactly that - many of the Copyright Alliance members or their trade associations have access to the negotiations, while the rest of us don't. Anything that seeks to change U.S. law or regulations or even to guide courts' interpretation of those laws and regulations must be debated in the sunlight. Otherwise whatever is agreed on, including provisions related to the Internet, will be hailed by Copyright Alliance members and their friends in government as a fait accompli once they are announced. As with the DMCA anti-circumvention and the 1998 copyright term extension, both supposedly mandated by treaties or international comity, Copyright Alliance members are all too happy to have rules made in secret, then pushed through representative bodies without allowing for debate. Do you support this? The framers of the Constitution did not invite representatives of certain special interests to observe their convention while excluding others who didn’t have favored relationships with the drafters. Unfortunately the USTR has done exactly that – many of the Copyright Alliance members or their trade associations have access to the negotiations, while the rest of us don’t.

Anything that seeks to change U.S. law or regulations or even to guide courts’ interpretation of those laws and regulations must be debated in the sunlight. Otherwise whatever is agreed on, including provisions related to the Internet, will be hailed by Copyright Alliance members and their friends in government as a fait accompli once they are announced. As with the DMCA anti-circumvention and the 1998 copyright term extension, both supposedly mandated by treaties or international comity, Copyright Alliance members are all too happy to have rules made in secret, then pushed through representative bodies without allowing for debate. Do you support this?

]]>