Obama administration: ACTA is infact binding to the US

[Searinox]

After stressing time and time again that ACTA provisions are not mandatory to be adopted and just mere guidelines, debates in the EU parlament began arguing about precedents in which non-binding agreements are eventually pushed as standards until they become compulsory. The discussion as to how much ACTA requires signatories to participate seemed be a controversy.

No longer is this the case.

Today the Obama administration has publicly admitted that ACTA is, infact, binding to the United States afterall. This means that once it has been ratified, the US would have to strictly abide by it, and that as international law, it trumps domestic law. Furthermore, it would restrict Congress from being able to make any changes to copyright law that are contrary to ACTA, just as had happened with the DMCA.

More details and a video here:

http://www.techdirt....about-tpp.shtml

Please watch the video. The counterarguments Kirk gives make me want to throw up. These kinds of people have NO place in office.

The thing is... if ACTA is binding, then doesn't this make it just as much of a law as SOPA and PIPA would have been? What good is it that we defeated those legislations if ACTA takes their place? If you're as spooked as I am, then act. Tell friends, contact the govermnent, and support digital freedom foundations. Change the rhetoric that copyright law should be discussed only between industries, into one where the public view is mandatory. We have to make this etiquette. We have to make discussion of copyright law without public view into a politically incorrect practice.

PS: Don't let TPP out of your sight either!

 

[TheZoc]

SOPA and PIPA worked just like scapegoats for ACTA silently appear out of nowhere and get in effect

 

[Searinox]

Exactly the impression I was left too. It only takes ONE of these legislations to pass that we're screwed. So they spawned several, knowing the public wouldn't be able to fight them all at once.

 

[FireGrey]

Damnit the internet is not meant to be a place that the government can dictate over, WHY DO THEY KEEP MAKING THESE RULES!?

 

[Searinox]

Damnit the internet is not meant to be a place that the government can dictate over, WHY DO THEY KEEP MAKING THESE RULES!?

MAFIAA keeps putting money in their pockets. The corporate environment and government are... well, they have not fused, but an unhealthy attempt to bring them to think as one is happening. We need to slap them over the hand and tell them to each keep to their own areas.

 

[ShinyLatios]

I think we're royally screwed.

 

[Qtis]

Well the problem is mainly that quite a few people and corporations want to restrict new business models that could technically beat them at their own game. Look at Spotify, Pandora and all the rest. They've been under a lot of pressure to be able to even operate in the US (Spotify)/outside of the US (Pandora). Sad, but true :I

 

[qlum]

SOPA and PIPA worked just like scapegoats for ACTA silently appear out of nowhere and get in effect

1: The ACTA didn't come out of nowhere and was quite hated for years, only it was not so wide spread.
2: The ACTA came before the SOPA and PIPA (you just didn't notice it)
3: SOPA and PIPA most likely spawned as rules to be in line witth the ACTA agreement.

 

[jefffisher]

with this especially i can't believe the majority of users on this site still support obama.

 

[Qtis]

with this especially i can't believe the majority of users on this site still support obama.

Erm, I don't know about you, but looking at the other options currently available, I'd vote for Obama regardless of this. Also ACTA didn't just pop up after Obama became president. It was well before that present. At the time when George W. Bush was still president. So yeah, lets just keep blaming the Obama Administration

 

[Nathan Drake]

with this especially i can't believe the majority of users on this site still support obama.

You realize that until a president explicitly states that they are for internet freedoms, every single president from now until you're dead will be trying to pass bills like this, until one succeeds. Obama likely agreed to this one because the world was. Instead of being what is essentially going to be a pioneer of internet freedom at this point, he simply jumped the bandwagon. I can't think of one president that we've had that wouldn't act in that way.

Regardless, I'm not surprised here. I thought the US signed the agreement ages ago. If they hadn't, they would. Obviously, once you sign an international bill, if it goes through, you have to enforce it. Is anybody surprised, or were you actually expecting a different outcome after the hell that was getting SOPA and PIPA removed?

 

[jrk190]

with this especially i can't believe the majority of users on this site still support obama.

You realize that until a president explicitly states that they are for internet freedoms, every single president from now until you're dead will be trying to pass bills like this, until one succeeds. Obama likely agreed to this one because the world was. Instead of being what is essentially going to be a pioneer of internet freedom at this point, he simply jumped the bandwagon. I can't think of one president that we've had that wouldn't act in that way.

Regardless, I'm not surprised here. I thought the US signed the agreement ages ago. If they hadn't, they would. Obviously, once you sign an international bill, if it goes through, you have to enforce it. Is anybody surprised, or were you actually expecting a different outcome after the hell that was getting SOPA and PIPA removed?

Actually, by what I've heard, Obama isn't the one proposing the bills, it is, in fact, Congress. The only way it will go into effect is if he actually accepts it, but if he does, there is no chance for his re-election. I'm independent, but I'm inclined to democratic beliefs. I see them as... Robin Hood- They take from the rich, give to the poor. But, Republicans sometimes have good intentions. Ever since Bush... I cringe at the thought of another president.

 

[Dimensional]

The sad thing is ACTA has been in the works for years now. I first heard about it back in high school, which was between '04 to '08. I'm surprised it has got attention this late in the game, after SOPA and PIPA have been shelved.

 

[impizkit]

Romney will shut this down when he becomes president.

 

[X_XSlashX_X]

I still don't think ACTA will pass. Obama didn't allow SOPA and PIPA to pass. This shouldn't pass either

 

[mysticwaterfall]

Of course, the key point is it has to be ratified by the senate first, or else it's not binding at all. That's who everybody should really be focused on.

 

[shakirmoledina]

and if protests did not happen bfore, now they will

 

[Dimensional]

I still don't think ACTA will pass. Obama didn't allow SOPA and PIPA to pass. This shouldn't pass either

Obama can't dictate international policy. He can veto bills passed by congress, but international is above him. Sure, he can protest it and try to stop it, but he alone doesn't have the power to stop it all together.

 

[jrk190]

I still don't think ACTA will pass. Obama didn't allow SOPA and PIPA to pass. This shouldn't pass either

Obama can't dictate international policy. He can veto bills passed by congress, but international is above him. Sure, he can protest it and try to stop it, but he alone doesn't have the power to stop it all together.

He does, however, have the power to stop it in America. He can at least TRY.

 

[Ultymoo]

Put a dollar on a stick in front of a politician in any country, and watch how high they jump to try to get it.

I wonder how the masses will respond to this. More blackouts? In addition, what happens when the internet becomes so restrictive that people decide it's not worth using? Think the internet companies will start bitching enough to get something done when they start losing money?