Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ACTA and democracy?
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 1 of 23 (649780)
01-24-2012 4:34 PM


I don't know if you guys have heard of it but there has been some news about this "trade agreement" whose stated purpose is similiar to SOPA/PIPA with keys differences. That's why I made a new topic about it since it's quite a different beast compared to SOPA/PIPA:
1)it's a trade agreement that bypasses democratic process while still establishing criminal sentences(from the wired site linked below)
quote:
Acta has been largely negotiated behind closed doors, with many participating parties being forced to sign NDAs before being allowed to see Acta documents. It is very difficult to find out who wrote it and what happened during the negotiations. It is highly unusual for criminal sanctions of this scale to be negotiated without democratic process. Organisations that have tried to find out more information about the processes used have failed to uncover all of the details. "Even if you are in favour of more copyright, you should be against ACTA because it has not been done democratically," says Andrew Robinson, the Pirate Party's Culture, Media & Sport spokesperson
  —wired
2)complete secrecy due it being a trade agreement (instead of a bill)
ACTA Worse than SOPA and Classified as National Security by Obama and Bush - Inquisitr
http://www.unitedliberty.org/...-you-need-to-know-about-acta
3)it would also affect material goods and would make generic drugs harder to make/sell (given the results on the price of healthcare in the US, it should be particuliarly worrying), it's even backed by Monsanto and the like. Imagine this combined with Monsanto patenting a certain race of pig that are already being bred in 160 countries :
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
For more information:
What is Acta and why should you be worried about it? - A guide to ACTA | Page 2 | WIRED UK
quote:
According to the controversial Article 23, criminal penalties should be applied "in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale", although the phrase "commercial scale" is not clearly defined and specifically removes the intentionality, i.e. it doesn't matter whether a company intends to make a profit from the pirated content, it only matters whether it has the scale of a commercial operation. Criminal sanctions should also be made available for those "aiding and abetting" infringement on a commercial scale. Critics argue that this means that ISPs and data centres would potentially be liable for aiding and abetting any commercial website that features a copyright infringing piece of content. "This is the nuclear weapon against any actor on the internet," says Jrmie Zimmermann.
  —wired
From this following link illustrating the alarming secrecy surrounding this "trade agreement":
Death and Taxes Archives - SPIN
quote:
Before proceeding, however, it should be noted that WikiLeaks cables relating to the ACTA negotiations have made possible the mounting anti-ACTA campaign. As Quadrature du Net noted nearly a year ago, if not for WikiLeaks, people would still be ignorant of the fact that many countries party to the agreement were incensed over the lack of a democratic process (imposed by the U.S. and Japan), as well as the fact that non-participating, poorer countries would eventually join by coercion. (Read the Quadrature du Net compilation of relevant WikiLeaks cables for background.)
  —death
I'm not that knowledgeable about this kind of stuff but it looks pretty alarming to me. Moreover, I can't grasp it all for now so I would like some more input from you guys.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by frako, posted 01-27-2012 6:41 AM Son has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 2 of 23 (649781)
01-25-2012 1:50 PM


At first, I saw that SOPA/PIPA went first through the proposed new topics before being promoted to the coffe house but that it's not the case for other subjects in the same forum so I'm a bit confused as to how I was supposed to propose the topic now. Could anyone clarify this?
AS for this topic, I'd like it to be promoted to the coffee house.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 01-25-2012 2:01 PM Son has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 3 of 23 (649783)
01-25-2012 1:57 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the ACTA and democracy? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 4 of 23 (649784)
01-25-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Son
01-25-2012 1:50 PM


Sorry, meant to get to this one earlier. You can create new threads directly into Coffee House, there's no need for PNT. Not to say that making it a PNT is poor form or anything, it's a perfectly acceptable route too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Son, posted 01-25-2012 1:50 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 9:49 AM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 5 of 23 (649885)
01-26-2012 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminModulous
01-25-2012 2:01 PM


Thank you for the clarification.
To get the thread started, my position is that I strongly disagree with the way ACTA was signed as well as the content of it.
As far as I'm aware, anything that institutes crimes and penalties belong to the leglislative body and should always be subjected to the democratic process. What I find the most alarming is the way they seem to want to bypass the democratic process through "treaties". What do you guys think about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminModulous, posted 01-25-2012 2:01 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Perdition, posted 01-26-2012 11:52 AM Son has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 6 of 23 (649901)
01-26-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Son
01-26-2012 9:49 AM


I'm not exactly an expert on things like this, but it seems to me that most treaties are agreed to and signed without democratic input.
I may disagree with the intent of the treaty (and in this case, from what I can understand, I do disagree) but that's no different than when NAFTA and CAFTA were sighned...which I also disagree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 9:49 AM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 12:55 PM Perdition has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 7 of 23 (649906)
01-26-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Perdition
01-26-2012 11:52 AM


The main difference that I've pointed out though, is that here, they're instituting felonies as well as penalties, something that should be done by the leglislative body. It's possible other treaties do the same, but then the problem would also extend to those treaties. As far as I'm aware aware, the treaty can be signed without the leglislative body's consultation in most democratic countries, meaning that the very assembly that is supposed to make the laws has no say in ACTA that is in effect a law, violating the separation of power. That's why it seems pretty undemocratic to me.
Actually, ACTA was signed by a diplomat:
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) | United States Trade Representative
I wasn't aware that laws could be signed by diplomat and it looks like a pretty egregious violation of a fundamental democratic principle.
From the actual treaty:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/...omy/i_property/pdfs/acta1105_en.pdf
ACTA;article24 writes:
For offences specified in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of Article 23 (Criminal
Offences), each Party shall provide penalties that include IMPRISONMENT as well as
monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement,
consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity.
ACTA;article23 writes:
With respect to the offences specified in this Article for which a Party provides
criminal procedures and penalties, that Party shall ensure that criminal liability for
AIDING and ABETTING is available under its law.
(The emphasis was mine)
Those things clearly belong to the leglislative body, don't they?
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Perdition, posted 01-26-2012 11:52 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 01-26-2012 1:27 PM Son has replied
 Message 9 by Perdition, posted 01-26-2012 1:28 PM Son has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 23 (649908)
01-26-2012 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Son
01-26-2012 12:55 PM


As far as I'm aware aware, the treaty can be signed without the leglislative body's consultation in most democratic countries, meaning that the very assembly that is supposed to make the laws has no say in ACTA that is in effect a law, violating the separation of power. That's why it seems pretty undemocratic to me.
The treaty might get signed without the legislature, but typically typically copyright treaties and conventions are not self-enacting. If so, Congress would have to legislate after the treaty gets signed.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 12:55 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 2:33 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 9 of 23 (649909)
01-26-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Son
01-26-2012 12:55 PM


From Wiki:
Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.
The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.
This would seem to imply that ACTA is not self-executing, meaning for it to have any effect in this country, the laws would need to be changed to match it.
Signing this treaty may indicate a desire by the administration to change the laws, but seeing as how that is, as you say, a legislative power, the administration has little say in it.
In fact, knowing as little as I do about stuff like this, it's possible that SOPA and PIPA were attempts to bring US law into accordance with this treaty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 12:55 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 2:46 PM Perdition has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 10 of 23 (649918)
01-26-2012 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NoNukes
01-26-2012 1:27 PM


The parts that I have quoted though would force congress to enact laws that would jail offenders, the language is pretty clear and if I understood well, violating a treaty would be punished by international sanctions. Given that the treaty was signed by the executive, isn't that a clear violation of the separation of powers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 01-26-2012 1:27 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 01-28-2012 1:48 PM Son has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 11 of 23 (649922)
01-26-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Perdition
01-26-2012 1:28 PM


Do you know where I could get info on what happens if the leglislative body of a country fails to enact laws in accordance with the treaty?
wiki writes:
Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.
I couldn't get more information than that. I may have time to research it later but it would be helpful if anyone knows already.
If there's a penalty, what is happening in effect is that the executive is in fact forcing the legislative body's hand (I use the term "legislative body" because it has different names depending on the country).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Perdition, posted 01-26-2012 1:28 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Perdition, posted 01-26-2012 3:21 PM Son has not replied
 Message 14 by caffeine, posted 01-27-2012 9:47 AM Son has replied
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 01-28-2012 11:12 AM Son has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 12 of 23 (649928)
01-26-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Son
01-26-2012 2:46 PM


Do you know where I could get info on what happens if the leglislative body of a country fails to enact laws in accordance with the treaty?
Usually, that's in the fine print of the treaty itself.
The Koyoto Protocol was a treaty of sorts, and the US backed out of that without repercussions. The League of Nations was a treaty and the US congress failed to ratify it, thus making us back out, again without consequence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 2:46 PM Son has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 13 of 23 (650029)
01-27-2012 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Son
01-24-2012 4:34 PM


I'm not that knowledgeable about this kind of stuff but it looks pretty alarming to me. Moreover, I can't grasp it all for now so I would like some more input from you guys.
Yea our politicians are trying to slip this trough the back door, basicly no news coverage of them sighing the idiotic thing. Its still possible this might go on a referendum. My main problem with it is that its so poorly written you can read it any way you like kind of like the bible
I tried to do my part emailed our representatives in the EU parliament to vote NO on ACTA, notified the news channels that this dint get any news coverage and if it comes to it il start gathering signatures to put this on a referendum.
I like my free stuff don take it away from me

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Son, posted 01-24-2012 4:34 PM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 01-28-2012 4:21 AM frako has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 14 of 23 (650052)
01-27-2012 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Son
01-26-2012 2:46 PM


I couldn't get more information than that. I may have time to research it later but it would be helpful if anyone knows already.
If there's a penalty, what is happening in effect is that the executive is in fact forcing the legislative body's hand (I use the term "legislative body" because it has different names depending on the country).
I may be wrong here, but as I understand how international treaties work, signing it is usually only a part of the process. Once your diplomats and politicians have negotiated the text and agreed upon it, the treaty must still be approved by whichever body has ultimate say over such things - this would be Congress in the US. That's the ratification procedure, which could be seen as formally accepting and incorporating the treaty into domestic law. That's why the EU Consitution never passed. It was signed by all the diplomats, but then failed the ratification process in some countries and so never came into force.
It'd be different, I suppose, if you had an executive with the power to legislate by fiat, but in a democratic country treaties generally need the approval of the legislature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Son, posted 01-26-2012 2:46 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Son, posted 01-27-2012 11:13 AM caffeine has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 15 of 23 (650065)
01-27-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by caffeine
01-27-2012 9:47 AM


Actually, if I remember well, the EU constitution was a particuliar case since it explicitely transferred some competences, I wasn't aware that you needed the leglislative body's approval for all treaties. The wiki article doesn't really tell and it seems to imply that a treaty's application depends on a case by case basis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by caffeine, posted 01-27-2012 9:47 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Perdition, posted 01-27-2012 11:18 AM Son has replied
 Message 23 by caffeine, posted 01-30-2012 4:45 AM Son has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024