Join The Conversation On Keeping International Agreements From Restricting Internet Freedom
from the this-is-important dept
For quite some time, we've talked about how the entertainment industry has used international agreements as a way to force their agenda through various governments. There's a great book, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?, which details some of the history of how the entertainment industry has often driven international agreements, and then used those international agreements -- which they had a hand in writing -- to then demand changes to various laws to "meet our international obligations." Just law week, I saw Bruce Lehman (at Santa Clara University's DMCA summit), the architect of the DMCA, flat out admit that he intentionally went to WIPO to get the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty passed as an "end run around Congress," since Congress wasn't interested in passing the DMCA.Just last week, we also highlighted how existing international free trade agreements make it difficult for Congress to fix something as simple as making it legal to unlock your mobile phones, even if the White House has come out in favor of it. I'll have more on this little horror story shortly, but these kinds of examples should have us tremendously worried about various international agreements, from ACTA to TPP to the upcoming TAFTA covering Europe and the US.
Given those concerns, the folks at Open Media have set up a day of discussion about how the public can stop international agreements from restricting internet freedom.
So we want your input: What do you think is the best way to stop these threats to Internet freedom? How can we best reach and engage more people in the battle to stop Big Media lobbyists and bureaucrats from censoring expression online?They're hosting a Reddit AMA to discuss this (I'm participating for part of the day), along with asking people to discuss anywhere else they would like as well: Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, or right here in the comments. The entertainment industry has had more or less free rein in helping to craft international agreements that pressure governments into passing laws in their favor for decades. It's time we took that out of the secret back rooms, and let the internet-using public have its say in the matter.
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, ceta, conversation, copyright, intellectual property, international agreements, internet freedom, patents, tafta, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ahem. Cue the typical "WHY U NO DISCUSS ME!" post in 3, 2, 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments aren't unwilling to censor, Mike.
Your premise and then slant omits the actual and present danger of gov't merging with "internet" corporations -- Google for instance -- which is FAR greater menace than mere thieves wanting to control entertainment and get paid too much for it.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
If Mike supports copyright, why are the pirates here? They take him same as I do: PRO-PIRACY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments aren't unwilling to censor, Mike.
Cute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments aren't unwilling to censor, Mike.
Huh?
I'm thinking citation is needed to show the government has any desire let alone done anything to collaborate with Google (or any other said internet corporation) on anything other than NSLs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Governments aren't unwilling to censor, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments aren't unwilling to censor, Mike.
RIAA merging with Government: Bah. Mere thieves. Pay no mind.
Does that about sum it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments aren't unwilling to censor, Mike.
Do corporations not form a part of industries in your world or are you simply that much of a jackass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While you dopes are kicking yourselves for not thinking of this first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, we would like some transparency for instance.
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only the most cynical political opportunist would believe that everyone wants to screw over the public by circumventing transparency through hidden international agreements.
No, we believe that policy should be made in public -- whether we agree with it or not -- and not behind closed doors where you and your friends get to write the laws for everyone else.
Sorry to shine some light on your gig.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And I know you and your fellow apologists will chime in to inform me that the righteousness of your cause somehow justifies this. The problem is that there are just as many righteous on my side of the debate that hold their beliefs as passionately as you do yours.
So if you you want to play the game, then play. Put on your big boy pants and join the fray. But spare me the bullshit moralizing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since I'm not a criminal who is trying to twist the rule of law to allow me to expand my criminal activities, no, I am not kicking myself for not thinking of this first.
The people who did think of this first should be kicking themselves. But since they lack a conscience, they won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say there was no content. I said it mostly sucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No wonder nobody takes you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]