Re: ACTA Is Great, Says US Government
Any time vested interests tell you it's good for you, put a hand on your wallet and then look around at who's eyeballing you.
Notice the slight of hand, so to say. We go from IP protection to health protection. What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. You can't get ill from a mp3 or avi.
What is going on with that is this. IP property is about money. It's got big numbers if you listen to the industry whine about how much they are loosing. But it's not exciting enough to get attention by itself. It has no threat beyond the one the vested interests see for themselves. There is nothing to get worked up about.
Now health dangers are attention getting but there are no numbers here in money. By itself, it doesn't have real draw power of big money numbers.
But if you can mix and match them together well, everything is there, even through it's apples and oranges comparisons.
So one minute you talk about dangers and the next you talk about money losses. You will notice they move from one to the other without much of a pause. But ACTA is mainly about IP protections, not patents. You can't get any amount of diethylene glycol from an avi nor mp3.
No one has really demonstrated why we need ACTA. After all they felt they had everything they needed to close down Megaupload without it. What the industry hasn't grasp yet, is the people don't want it. They still think it is misconceptions and the tech industry that is the problem. So much so the lobbyists in Washington have been told if they work for Facebook they won't work for the IP industry.
Their idea has been to work with the tech industry to iron out the differences but what really happened was a preaching from the RIAA about piracy, not about tech industry concerns if that was their real goal.
And these countries did not sign a treaty. They signed an agreement to consider it so again you have this info misdirection. One in which it begins to look like Europe is not going to accept, Mexico is not going to accept, Brazil is not going to accept, and China (the third largest economy in the world) isn't going to accept because it was never part of the making of the treaty to begin with.
Nor do I really need to mention that the President does not have the power nor authority to sign a treaty. By the Constitution, that power is delegated to congress and only congress, making the executive signing not only illegal but unenforceable. Notice that while everyone else in the world is calling this a trade treaty, only here in the US is it being portrayed as an 'agreement' in an attempt to keep it out of congress's hands where the vested powers fear it will not pass.
__________________
You can help this site, by clicking on the link below to buy a Premium Account.
& Thank you for helping us. Click;
Last edited by photostill; 07-06-12 at 02:26.
Reason: edit to correct spelling
|