As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
from the that's-not-what-the-constitution-says dept
Back in October, we noted that Senator Ron Wyden had sent the Obama administration a letter pointing out that it appeared unconstitutional for the President to sign ACTA without getting Congressional approval. The USTR had been insisting that because ACTA does not require any change to US law, it doesn't need any such approval. Of course, that ignores a few issues. First, while it may not change US laws, it seems likely that it would restrict future changes to laws if we wanted to stay in compliance. For that reason alone, it should have Congressional approval. But the larger point is that international agreements signed without Congressional approval -- so-called "executive agreements," -- can only be done for issues solely under the President's mandate. Copyright and patent laws, however, are the mandate of Congress, not the President.The statement by the USTR confuses the issue by conflating two separate stages of the process required for binding the U.S. to international agreements: entry and implementation. It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law. But, regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law, a point that is contested with respect to ACTA, the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval.Thus, Wyden asked the President to explicitly state that ACTA was not binding and does not create any international obligations for the US:
I request that as a condition of the U.S. putting forward any official instrument that accepts the terms of ACTA that you formally declare that ACTA does not create any international obligations for the U.S. -- that ACTA is not binding. If you are unwilling or unable to make such a clarification, it is imperative that your administration provide the Congress, and the public, with a legal rationale for why ACTA should not be considered by Congress, and work with us to ensure that we reach a common understanding of the proper way for the U.S. to proceed with ACTA.Instead, however, the USTR responded (embedded below) with the same exact response it's been giving out all along: nothing to see here because ACTA requires no changes to US laws. There are two very big problems with this. First, it's not clear that's even true. The Congressional Research Service's analysis of the language of ACTA (done at the request of Wyden) pointed out that ACTA may require changes to US law. The problem (and it's a big problem) is that the language is so vague, it all comes down to interpretation.
Second, even if the USTR is correct that ACTA requires no changes to US law, that's answering a different question. Wyden did not ask about what ACTA required to implement. He asked what was required to approve it. And the law does not say that the President can declare something an executive agreement if it doesn't require a legislative change -- but that he can only do it for things under his sole mandate. ACTA clearly does not qualify. Either way, this is a really disingenuous move by the USTR. It answers a different question and does so possibly inaccurately. And, nowhere in the letter did anyone respond to Wyden's specific request for a declaration that ACTA creates no international obligations for the US.
In response, Wyden has now sent a second letter (also embedded below) to the State Department, asking it to look into this and clarify if a mistake has been made. Here are the specific questions he asks the State Department to answer:
- If ACTA is entered by the President without Congressional consent, what will be the nature of the agreement and its legal implications under U.S. and international law? For example, is it the Department of State's opinion that ACTA will be equivalent to a non-binding "memorandum of understanding," like some of the intellectual property agreements cited by USTR in the attached letter? Can ACTA be a valid and binding "sole executive agreement" under the U.S. Constitution, even though the regulation of intellectual property is not a sole executive function under the Constitution? Or must ACTA, to be binding, be a form of Congressional-executive agreement by virtue of ex ante or ex post congressional approval?
- What is the nature of the international legal obligations that ACTA would create? Would the U.S. be in violation of the agreement if the Congress changed federal law in a way not consistent with the agreement, for example by ridding our law of statutory damages for online copyright infringement? What would be the implications of such a violation?
- What are the constitutional limits on the President binding the U.S. to legislative minimum standard agreements over matters delegated to Congress under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution? Is the President free to bind the U.S. to any international agreement he chooses merely because he deems them to be consistent with U.S. law? (It is worth noting that many experts believe that ACTA is not, in fact, consistent with current U.S. law.)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, constituion, executive agreement, ron wyden, state department, treaty, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mr. Masnick would do well to closely read the various means by which treaties and non-treaty international agreements may be negotiated and executed in accordance with legal precedence, guidance and standards articulated by the Department of State under 11 FAM 721.2, which can be found at:
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22997.htm
Mr. Masnick is not a lawyer, and his repeated declarative statements concerning what the law "is" does a grave disservice to his readers, making his site a source of much of the FUD that is latched upon and makes the rounds across the internet in a transparent attempt to advocate positons calculated to fan the flames of panic among those unfamiliar with basic principles of law, as well as facts associated with specific matters.
For example, Mr. Masnick would have his readers believe that matters associated with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 are the sole and exclusive province of Congress, and yet time and time again this has been shown to be demonstrably false. Of course, all such demonstrations are dismissed by pejoratively calling those who do so "copyright maximists" and completely biased in their legal analysis. By using this meme, as well as ofter calling such persons "disgusting" and "pathetic", it is clear he hopes that his readers will resoundingly reject any such analysis.
More importantly, in this particular matter Mr. Masnick fails to consider the fact that the Legislative and Executive branches of our federal government each exercise powers conferred to them by our Constitution. In arguing that the treaty power articulated in Article 2, Section 2 is controlling, he conveniently ignores altogether Article 2, Section 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On top of that how can you say it was answered to Wyden's satisfaction originally when he turns around and asks for them to actually answer the questions he asked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, Mr. Wyden is aware of this since he is, after all, a lawyer. I am curious how he would react were he to receive a somewhat equivalent letter from the President asking him to articulate the basis under which Congress is proceeding on a legislative matter. I believe we all know the answer.
BTW,based upon the specific language used in his letters, it is abundantly clear that they are being ghost-written by persons outside of our federal government. I say this because I have seen virtually the identical language used in communications prepared by at least one of the so-called "civil societies".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, but they all have their own areas they are responsible for and neither copyright nor foreign trade matters are under the jurisdiction of the executive branch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_United_States#Trade_policy
Actually I hope Wyden does not know what you claim he does because he is a lawyer, he should know how the government actually works. Furthermore if the president were to say ask why congress was trying to direct troop deployment or other military matters then I would hope they would give a serious answer. Since Congress has not been trying to impinge on the Executive branches privileges this of course has not happened.
Well since even you say that '[evil quote marks]'civil societies'[/evil quote marks]' are asking the same thing and they and the government are supposed to be representing and working for the people I fail to see an issue here (if its even true). This is FAR less of an issue than say corporations writing legislation for us and politicians passing it without even reading it.
Obviously your tinfoil hat > my tinfoil hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
just shut up Joe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your link merely goes to a site for the State Department, and no particular statute, and therefore proves nothing. Any kind of agreement that limits our fundamental rights, as ACTA does, must be opposed, and its constitutionality is indeed suspect. Otherwise, the President would not have attempted to circumvent Congress as he did. And by your opposition to us revealing the true nature of ACTA, you confirm your support of censorship and the suppression of human rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, he does frequently say he has consulted "legal experts", though who they are is unknown, so one is unable to form an opinion as to the degree of their expertise.
Perhaps if you read for comprehension the link I provided it may either answer your questions or provide you the information you need to independently read other sources of authorative information.
Your "opposition to us" is quite telling. I expressed no opinion in my post concerning ACTA. All I did was attempt to point out that declarative statements such as made in Mr. Masnick's article manifests are highly suspect and should not be taken at face value as authoritative and controlling.
For being a "logician", you seem much to inclined to accept statements by others at face value. That is certainly not in keeping with being a "logician".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your statements don't prove anything, you don't know about copyright law, which IS Congress' main area, and the ACTA does not have authority when even Biden raised a fit when Bush did it (to give an example, not turn this into a partisan arena).
Maybe, just once, you'll actually say something meaningful instead of going with the cryptic half truths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And once you can't answer the questions put forth, you hide behind your anonymity and non sequitars.
Yes, you're still full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the doctrine, it used to be the generally accepted view that Congress could not constitutionally confer law-making (legislative) power on the Executive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suggest you follow the same course here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile, a Copyright 101 course would work well in making your explanations more respected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for "Copyright 101", I am intimately familiar with Title 17, administrative rules enacted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and pursuant to Title 17 (such rules can be found within 37 CFR), and case law as articulated by both state and federal courts. Moreover, I am similarly familiar with the law's history (Copyright 101 lesson: Jefferson's letter to Issac McPherson concerns patent law), both foreign and domestic. When I submit a comment I rely on many years of study of substantive copyright law and its history.
I can only wonder if you have made the same effort. If you have, then surely it is an easy matter for you to elaborate on the "Non-Delegation Doctrine" and how it relates to the Executive Branch of our federal government in general, and copyright law in particular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I haven't studied every minutiae of copyright going back to the 1940s. But I sure know the big ones: The DMCA, PRO-IP, NET Act, Home Audio and Recording Act, and Sony v Betamax. I haven't read all of TJ's works, but I understand that he was extremely skeptical of copyright and patents for a number of reasons.
What's really wearing is how you seem to constantly want to put the impetus on others to describe their view as if you come from an argument of authority. I understand what the law is supposed to allow. I also understand that ACTA changes US copyright policy, particularly since Obama signed it into law without approval from Congress.
So rest assured, I have my own knowledge of the bills, and copyright law. I'd probably suggest you may want to look at the economic affects of copyright law and how people avoid them. You seem to be lacking in those areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Merely by way of example, you state "ACTA changes US copyright policy." This is a very broad statement indeed, and if you are inclined to make such a statement then the very least I believe you should do is back it up with concrete examples that are embodied in the ACTA text.
By the way, if you are truly interested in learning about the history of copyright law within the US, the following site should prove helpful as it tracks the law from 1783 to date:
http://jessefeder.com/copyright/copyright_laws.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After reading the ACTA, I know that it's using a lot of vague words. There's very little in regards to concrete language that gives consumers (remember, the people that benefit the most from copyright) anything close to fair use rights. I followed the time when the ACTA was leaked and noted how the negotiators did their best to resist groups such as KEI. It could have been worse. The biggest problem is how the ACTA can be interpreted in two or three different ways. That's one of the problems.
The main issue I have with copyright is how it does quite little to actually help those that insist on it getting stronger and stronger. If it's helping out US society in keeping it, then why does it seem so geared towards destroying homes, criminalizing what most consider normal behaviour and penalizing people for just wanting to live their lives out normally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22997.htm
There is no startute with that reference in the document you linked. Please point out where you actually mean to.
Mr. Masnick is not a lawyer, and his repeated declarative statements concerning what the law "is" does a grave disservice to his readers, making his site a source of much of the FUD that is latched upon and makes the rounds across the internet in a transparent attempt to advocate positons calculated to fan the flames of panic among those unfamiliar with basic principles of law, as well as facts associated with specific matters.
See also: Fox "News", MSNBC, ABC. WE cannot be objective in matters which aren't very clear. The Foundinhg Fathers tried to be as clear as possible - remember that a number of them did not like, want or request IP laws.
For example, Mr. Masnick would have his readers believe that matters associated with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 are the sole and exclusive province of Congress, and yet time and time again this has been shown to be demonstrably false.
Do you have a cite for that?
More importantly, in this particular matter Mr. Masnick fails to consider the fact that the Legislative and Executive branches of our federal government each exercise powers conferred to them by our Constitution. In arguing that the treaty power articulated in Article 2, Section 2 is controlling, he conveniently ignores altogether Article 2, Section 1.
Where in that does it explicitly say that treaties can be execute3d without 2/3rds Senate approvel, even if it's an executive agreement and not a treaty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction to AC 22
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88317.pdf
I hope Sen. Wyden gets his answer and ACTA gets kicked out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is an important distinction to be made. A treaty in one form may be self-executing and by its terms change US law. This is permissible so long as consistent with the Constitution. Some treaties are not self-executing, in which case Congress would have to change US law legislatively.
Executive agreements do not change US law. They must, however, comport with US law and the Constitution. Based upon my review of ACTA, it is my view that neither of these constraints pertain, and, thusly, the use of an executive agreement is within the power independently conferred upon the President under Article 2, Section 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm glad your review doesn't extend to what was actually said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
11 FAM 721.2 says
"There are two procedures under the Constitution through which the United States becomes a party to international agreement."
This would be "b. International Agreements Other Than Treaties ... (The term "executive agreement" is appropriately reserved for agreements made solely on the basis of the constitutional authority of the President.)" sounds like.
Seems like the part that applies here is "(2) Agreements Pursuant to Legislation The President may conclude an international agreement on the basis of existing legislation or subject to legislation to be enacted by the Congress;"
IANAL though, so I'm not sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some here have opined that Mr. Wyden is merely grandstanding. There is much merit in their opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now ACTA has hit the Internet Radar, people are asking questions and pushing buttons... and sure enough here comes a another one... attacking credentials and trying to steer the conversation away from the points... IT PROVES that they don't want the internet weighing in again and bringing this to the light of day (especially in an Election year?)
The Points:
Copyright is a Congressional Power
Treaties must be ratified by the Senate.
The President/Executive/USTR may craft Executive agreements, but they must be constrained by the following:
It can not cover something that the Executive Branch has no power over (AKA Copyright/Patents/IP)
It can not change existing the laws or Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is a law enacted by Congress pursuant to the power conferred it by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution.
Treaties (which have the full force and effect of law) require the advice and consent of the Senate pursuant to Article 2, Section 2. In no event may a treaty conflict with the Constitution.
Non-treaty international executive agreements (which do not have the full force and effect of law) may neither conflict with the Constitution nor laws duly enacted by Congress. This is not the same as saying that Congress must approve of all matters undertaken by the President that involve copyright and other laws enacted by Congress pursuant to an Article 1 power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After reading this short thread there is still a distinct lack of clarity as to how this particular power over this particular topic can be usurped by our president.
In short, it is the duty of at least one representative from our Senate to push for and attempt to validate the reasoning supporting this executive agreement and thus validate both its existence and its legality.
This is, after all, our country and our government and much trouble shall ensue should our President lead our society astray for the interests of a small portion thereof.
Undue and unjust constraints on culture, the world's culture, will no longer be tolerated. To say nothing of the potential for constraints upon the existence and the progress of free speech nor of the tolerance for assault on privacy for any individual.
I would like a clear statement indicating how the president can execute executive agreements regarding copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ye Aulde Wisdome:
WARNING! Not to be taken literally.
I don't care if it's Batman or the Queen of England who's coming up with some legitimate reason why ACTA (shyte) should be delayed/stopped/beaten-with-an-ugly-stick; as long as somebody is doing so, that's a GOOD thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This comment and the subsequent comment were posted on 7:28 AM to 7:32 AM.
Now, I visit Techdirt frequently in my day for updates, but how is it that the troll posts manage to get the first posts (that everyone will see) so often?
Someone must be spamming the F5 button quite a bit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That "show", good bad or otherwise, is the only fucking "show" you've got that is responsible for what is now and what will be as it pertains to the boundaries of your existence in this country.
Either you're quite stupid or quite ignorant so I'd suggest that you shut up and listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
Good original vector! Execution needs work.
Try harder, you'll get a better grade eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's working for who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, elected official are supposed to work for the citizens.
If you are implying that Congress works for the President then you'd be incorrect. This is basic grade school stuff, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch are separate per the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hate it when I don't notice I was automagically logged out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i see
NO NO i think you deserve too and suffer right along with the rest of us....
enjoy not owning any TPMS's ( technological protection measures - nice n vague like your house lock, car door lock , heck any lock ever made , you break it in Canada as example it a 20000$ fine. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i see
The problem is that the idiots passing these laws don't care about the people they are supposed to represent. They are just doing whatever they think will get them the most money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i see
We have the same problems here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I vote that gravatars be assigned by block rather than specific IP. Just for the tears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step 1: Raise money for Obama from East Texas IP trolls.
Step 2: Be appointed USTR ambassador by Obama.
Step 3: Pass ACTA/TPP etc. (No need for ??? here)
Step 4: Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listen here you chubby sack of crap
Senator Wyden is just grandstanding so that he can get a job with Google once he is done with being a politician. The freaking revolving door between politics and big business is retarded, and it's just going to get worse now that Big Search is in on buying politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
[citation needed] The entire crux of the issue is that Wyden, et al. doesn't believe that the President has that authority. Or did you read the article?
"Senator Wyden is just grandstanding so that he can get a job with Google once he is done with being a politician. The freaking revolving door between politics and big business is retarded, and it's just going to get worse now that Big Search is in on buying politicians."
Projection much?
Please cite every politician who has been hired by a prominent tech company following significant lobbying and quid pro quo.
After you spend hours searching and searching for results for that query, cite every politician who has been hired by a media/entertainment company following significant lobbying and quid pro quo. Oh wait...too many results to list here. Never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
Yeah, and I told you WHY Wyden was doing what he was doing. That's the crux of my argument. Or did you read my comment?
Please cite every politician who has been hired by a prominent tech company following significant lobbying and quid pro quo.
Gotta start somewhere buddy. You don't think Big Search and other tech companies realizes that they need to get in on the game? Please. That's like saying someone couldn't possibly be a murderer because they've never committed a murder before.
After you spend hours searching and searching for results for that query, cite every politician who has been hired by a media/entertainment company following significant lobbying and quid pro quo. Oh wait...too many results to list here. Never mind.
THE TECH INDUSTRY HAS NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE SO THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY BE DOING ANYTHING WRONG NOW! Shut up you ignorant little bed wetting imbecile. You just say never mind because you don't want to hear that all things that happen have to start somewhere. Wyden realizes that tech companies make more money than entertainment companies so he wants that bribe money and a position there. If you can't see that you're a willfully blind moron or a half retarded monkey just flinging poop at the computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
You're speculating as to why Wyden might be doing this without providing any evidence. You say that Google is specifically buying off politicians but you provide no evidence and scoff at the idea that you should have to.
In contrast, the revolving door for entertainment and media companies and government officials is well documented - Dodd being a very recent and highly relevant example.
So again, please cite actual statements/released emails/documents/whispers from the paranoid conspiracy theorist you talk to at the coffee shop that proves that Wyden is doing this for the reasons you're suggesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n00007724
http://www.opensecrets. org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00007724&newMem=N&cycle=2012
I'll even give you the tldr; version: Wyden's biggest campaign contributors are Nike, a bunch of law firms, healthcare organizations, and businesses local to his district.
I was able to find a $2000 personal contribution to Wyden's campaign from Eric Schmidt, but that's a paltry amount compared to his big supporters and the amount that Google could actually give if it wanted to buy off politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
With as much talk as I've seen from people around here about how their opponents are confusing the issue, I'm a little surprised that ANYONE on the side of chubby Masnick with his chubby for Google would ever dare doing that for fear of being called out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
You even let one of our counter-troll operatives do the legwork for you, you lazy hobo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
I'd say you're a pants-pissing fucktard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
You wouldn't happen to be one of those who use a term like "Big Hardware" too would you?
Are you one of those believers that neither would exist were it not for "Big Media's" "content"?
Yeah? Shielded behind the veil of anonymity you call a guy chubby and make oh so cowardly attempts at personal insults because why again? Because you're a stupid, cowardly, sniveling waste of a brain perhaps? Because you have an awkward fixation on big things?
Would you please provide evidence or reference for this statement of yours: "The president has the authority to enter this agreement. Period."?
As a member of this society I demand to know, exactly, how this could be true. Because if it is true then I need to gauge the precise amount of force that would potentially be required to set this rather large entity of a country, world, onto a corrected path. A path that leads in a wholly opposite direction than that of subservience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
Wyden is a politician. One of the ways that lobbyists and special interests "buy" politicians is to make substantial contributions to their campaigns. See also Chris Dodd's comments regarding how "Big Media" buys politicians and then expects those politicians to pass the laws that "Big Media" writes - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-w ho-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
After seeing that, and thinking for a minute, you know what? You're right. Your cake analogy makes everything clear as day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
All opinions are solely mine, though I will say they are based upon 33 years of having studied law pertinent to this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow
Hell, I study the stars whenever I can see them and fuck if I know how they got there.
I'm glad there are people with theories and bibles to help me out with that. I feel like I'm almost ready to start making my own though.
How're you doin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow
Please note. I am not saying that "ACTA is good", "ACTA is bad", or "ACTA is somewhere in between". My comments address only US law as it applies to ACTA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
Obviously, reasonable minds can differ, and I have no doubt that some will disagree with my view. Such is the nature of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
I would, however, like to delve into the nature of the present, not withstanding law. You are aware, I am hopeful, that the Internet is feeding society's pent up need to reach out and challenge the atrocities of our present day and in all forms that they may present themselves? You are aware that attempts to infiltrate, suppress or otherwise control this open line of communication will, in fact, pose great risk and will be perceived as oppression? You are aware that regimes are being challenged, regimes are falling and individuals are called to task for their positions like never before? You are aware that in representing your clients as you do (assumption) that you risk contributing to, and the escalation of, the power of the few over the many?
This is a communications platform, as surely you are aware, and to posit that media, traditional media, is a driver of and not a rider on that medium and that the assertion of power and control over that medium by and for the sole interests of a rider is a position that you should consider with great and careful deliberation.
The sets we claim are different. Mine is the set of the many and yours is the set of the few. The street that you would wish to lay claim to does not belong only to you. Those that support your position would lay waste to the rights, desires, liberties, privacy and futures of all of society. Surely you can not believe that a song or a movie can be allowed to take precedence? The risks are few yet they are mortal risks to the true American concept of freedom and they can not stand. Such is the nature of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
Where we may differ is that I believe people should be held accountable for their actions when those actions are clearly contrary to law, whether in the brick and mortar world or over the internet.
I am cognizant of concerns that have been raised in various quarters, and believe that such concerns deserve fair consideration on the merits. I am also cognizant of the wide gap between what content creators believe is fair and the beliefs held by others. These beliefs are congruent in some areas and not congruent in others. My view is that no matter what belief one may hold, each position must be respected and a concerted effort undertaken to craft approaches that are fair to all. In a democratic republic such as ours compromise is an essential element of our political process.
The reason underlying my view that compromise is essential is that the conduct of commerce depends upon an agreed set of "rules" in order to foster a measure of predictability, for without it commerce can grind to an unceremonious halt.
Section 512 is one such means of establishing predictability, as is Section 230. Various court decisions have established other means of predictability. Whether or not one agrees, I also happen to believe that agreements among nations can likewise have a beneficial effect.
In other words, I do not in the least discount your views. I merely temper mine with experience that long ago informed me parties must work together to resolve their differences, and that from doing so what eventually emerges is by no means perfect, but at least a mutually acceptable compromise that pays heed to both sides results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
There are subtleties in your words that drive the force of argument. The potential of the Internet, for example, has been realized. It would seem these content creators, those to whom you refer, are only recently coming to a realization themselves and as such would much rather deploy, through undue influence, a fundamentally upsetting groundwork so that they can distribute their product within a framework of conditions that suit their perceived needs. An historical perspective if you will.
There has not been any discussion that I know of that even begins to reveal grievances for and around both the current state of global distribution nor of any proposals for the advancement, or containment, of copyright protections today. There have been only statements seeming derived from a distinct lack of multifaceted discussion.
I do believe that there are, in fact, three sides, not two. The third side is the public and that public is no longer limited to the customary peoples of a single nation. The lack of consideration for those people and the traditional intricacies and frameworks of trade are being revealed daily as the backroom deals and private negotiations they've traditionally been. There are ever growing numbers of people that refuse to oblige this business of government being a pinnacle of business influence.
Those two side to which you seem to refer to, business and government, are inadvertently creating a global rift via their undue pressure on foreign nations and peoples, to say nothing of our own. Current allies are government allies. A government not allied with its own people is a danger and a threat to all governments of all people. If there is truly no compromise than there can be no agreement and if there can be no agreement without compromise there will be no republic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
Shouldn't you be able to read quietly by now? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
It's really slimy to claim your opponent believes people should not be held accountable for illegal actions.
My view is that no matter what belief one may hold, each position must be respected and a concerted effort undertaken to craft approaches that are fair to all. In a democratic republic such as ours compromise is an essential element of our political process.
No matter what belief? If your opponent feels we should pass a law that says all puppies must be burned to death, you would respect that position, and make an effort to find a compromise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No honest individual would support that and we will lose all credibility if we implement something like that, it assignes blame totally subjectively to those who aren't responsible. Uh, did anyone actually read this thing before signing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The truth be known, law is created by all brances of government. Congress does so by legislation. The Executive does so via, for example, federal rulemaking. The judiciary does so via constitutional interpretation and common law. It is a mistake to assume that all law is the exclusive province of Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, thats what we don't have enough of here.. Idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whitewash
"Dear Hilary. Can you please whitewash this ACTA matter for me. Signed The Prez"
If those people in the United States want to help then some protests outside the Whitehouse would much help pointing out these very same questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re-elections at any cost
Good ol’ HillBillary will back up the President to complete the pentagram of destruction to Constitutional law and our Rights (Search DOJ on TechDirt for further examples).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Free Bastion of Earth
An ocean of people, waiting for your very move; whether to strike us down or to walk away from power.
Strike us down and we bounce back up and multiply ten-fold.
Political power has no place on the internet.
Please be so kind as to GTFO or we will resort to more... adaptable response methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Last Free Bastion of Earth
"Whatchoo ready to do? You ready to die for this?" -Soul Assassins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolls
This, and all Techdirt forums, needs to be moderated. Way too many idiots and trolls and personal flames. Let's keep to the subject matter, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trolls
No, they are fine as is.
Report posts you think are flaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(I’m probably going to offend you… but maybe I won’t, after all, 33 years in the jungle we call society must have given origin to pretty thick scales. Since I don’t know you, this is mostly not a personal attack, these are just my thoughts in the matter and in the way I see the actions of some people, mainly the ones with power… influenced by some accumulated indignation)
I honestly hope you are happy with your life. But I have to say, if I was in your place, I would not be. As you said, you are not arguing if ACTA is a good or bad thing, you are not even arguing if it is in the best interests of the people… worse than not seem to be having an opinion, you don’t’ seem to want to express your thoughts and concerns… you don’t even seem to care for anything other than the interpretation of the law (or to question the rightfulness of those already stated) …. so it does not make a difference to your if SOPA passes… you are already abdicating the rights that this “treaty” jeopardize. I can kind of understand why a person that lived his/her life choosing to interpret the law the way it was needed to at the time, since is taught in law 101 that truth is overrated and subjective, but I can’t understand how you are able to ignore the way this “treaty” will undermine the freedoms and feelings of so many people (most that have not realized yet, or don’t even know how ACTA will be “applied”, or the precedent dangers it brings). I understand that you have to do your job (that I believe is mainly damage control), and the “incentives” are probably very “unrefusable”, but I find it very disturbing that some people can just sell their ideals and soul. And please, don’t insult me telling me you are not working for someone, or at least have ulterior motives… after all you are a person with 33 years of experience, that clearly are not “interpreting” the law out of beliefs or ideals, you have no strong feelings (or showed a personal opinion) whatsoever in the matter, and yet still you are, spending hours, on a week day, trying to convince laymen strangers in the internet that you are right about the law (even if the discussion are more about feelings of indignation and discontent), pertaining a subject that you are neither against or in favor…. All of that while being anonymous… You can call us ignorant in the matter of the written law, but please don’t take us for stupid and complete ignorant… I’m sure every person that posted have more knowledge, in a specific subject, than you do (even if that subject means nothing to you)… so it seems that, although many people here are ignorant, on one specific subject, to your eyes, you on the other hand are ignorant, on many subjects, to our eyes as a group… but I’m sure you know that, and I’m sure don’t really care.
From one Anonymous Coward to an even more Coward Anonymous (... this is not an opinion, it is a fact, since you have posted under this name more time than I did ^^).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do this simply because those on both sides of the issue do present much FUD, and it is this FUD that leads to discussions that are largely based upon perception, and not fact.
The fact I do not express an opinion (which I do have, by the way) is irrelevant since my objective in commenting has nothing to do with my personal views. I save my opinions for discussions with others within the professional organizations such as the ABA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, you made this comment awhile ago and it's kind of changing the subject besides. Thanks for your replies on this topic though, I have found them very informative and feel like I understand this issue a lot better now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight Them
Its going to be a long war with many battles , the enemy is cunning and utterly determined to win.
Our only defence is keep watch and fight every advance with everything legally that we have , boycott the content industry and all its products, take away its money, we take away its power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course not "no matter what belief". Clearly my comment relates to the subject matter of ACTA, SOPA and PIPA. Content producers do make valid points that comport with law, among others, just like those opposed also make valid points. This same scenario played out when the DMCA was being debated, and an accommodation between opposing sides was reached and embodied in the statute that was ultimately enacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Clearly my comment relates to the subject matter of...
So when it suits you, you were referring to a much more broad context than it seemed, and then later, to a much more specific context than it seemed. Nice rhetorical trick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who in this day an age still believes a granted monopoly is a good thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because the other rights are in the Bill of Rights, while only the power to create copyright is in the Constitution. Copyright itself is merely statutory, and probably doesn't fulfill its constitutional purpose either. That's why it's less important than, for example, the right to free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]