Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Music Entertainment

Adding Up the Explanations For ACTA's "Shameful Secret" 165

Several sources are reporting on a Google event this week that attempted to bring some transparency to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that has so far been treated like a "shameful secret." Unfortunately, not many concrete details were uncovered, so Ars tried to lay out why there has been so much secrecy, especially from an administration that has been preaching transparency. "The reason for that was obvious: there's little of substance that's known about the treaty, and those lawyers in the room and on the panel who had seen one small part of it were under a nondisclosure agreement. In most contexts, the lack of any hard information might lead to a discussion of mind-numbing generality and irrelevance, but this transparency talk was quite fascinating—in large part because one of the most influential copyright lobbyists in Washington was on the panel attempting to make his case. [...] [MPAA/RIAA Champion Steven] Metalitz took on three other panelists and a moderator, all of whom were less than sympathetic to his positions, and he made the lengthiest case for both ACTA and its secrecy that we have ever heard. It was also surprisingly unconvincing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adding Up the Explanations For ACTA's "Shameful Secret"

Comments Filter:
  • by jwinster ( 1620555 ) on Friday January 15, 2010 @06:39PM (#30785088)
    The most disturbing point in this article, for me, is that the US may be the sticking point on allowing the discussions to be more transparent (link contained in TFA) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4693/125/ [michaelgeist.ca] I find this to be disgusting as we have yet another example that transparency TRULY being brought to Washington to be a farce.
  • draft on wikileaks (Score:5, Informative)

    by H4x0r Jim Duggan ( 757476 ) on Friday January 15, 2010 @06:47PM (#30785184) Homepage Journal
    For handy access:

    Of course, this draft is from last year.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:3, Informative)

    by Btarlinian ( 922732 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `nainilrat'> on Friday January 15, 2010 @06:53PM (#30785244)

    Man, you know that Shakespeare fellow really didn't do ANYTHING because he didn't have copyright over his work. Nor did Van Gogh, or Chopin, or Beethoven, or...

    Yeah, and because of that Shakespeare, while alive, refused to actually publish his plays. There's a reason that some of his plays are lost for good. A lack of copyright has a lot to do with that. As for classical composers, they were basically paid by the government to do their work, which amounts to the same thing, copyright just makes your subsidy of a public good more direct and lets you (instead of some government official, for those who like to continually complain about anything the government does) decide who's worthy of getting money.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:3, Informative)

    by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Friday January 15, 2010 @07:19PM (#30785522)

    www.questionablecontent.net

    www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    ---

    People don't mind paying a reasonable price for content.
    People do have a limited amount of money they CAN spend.

    With absolutely perfect DRM, it will become abundantly clear that people grossing $46k per year are not going to be filling IPODS at $10,000 out of their net salary. They'll just move on to other cheaper forms of entertainment.

    If I *want* to charge $100,000 a song, I don't lose a dime (much less $900,000) if 9 people pirate the song.
    I only really lose money if my audience would still purchase my product given absolutely perfect DRM.

    People are getting tired of paying yet another $1 for the same song they've bought 3 times already.

    There is a huge glut of entertainment. I do not even sample dozens of television shows and hundreds of songs every year. I don't read hundreds of books a year. I don't read dozens of magazines a year. I don't watch many movies (even for FREE and even tho I'd probably like them at least a little). There is so much entertainment I can't keep up.

    If nothing else, by waiting 6-9 months, the movies and television shows are often 50% cheaper. Once you have a 12 month backlog built up, you just take the next item on the stack at pennies on the dollar.

  • by Nadaka ( 224565 ) on Friday January 15, 2010 @07:21PM (#30785548)

    Looks like they bought both parties, but the republicans sold out for less.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:4, Informative)

    by solferino ( 100959 ) <hazchemNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 15, 2010 @07:26PM (#30785600) Homepage

    Yeah, and because of that Shakespeare, while alive, refused to actually publish his plays.

    Direct refutation [wikipedia.org] of this assertion. 18 plays were published (and republished) before the death of William Shakespeare in 1616. Mostly the more popular plays including Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello and A Midsummer Night's Dream.

  • Re:Like healthcare (Score:2, Informative)

    by Hairy1 ( 180056 ) on Friday January 15, 2010 @07:28PM (#30785626) Homepage

    It is accepted scientific fact that this is too important to negotiate the details in public.

  • Re:I disagree (Score:4, Informative)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Friday January 15, 2010 @08:11PM (#30786014)
    I resent the implication that American Beer tastes like warm piss! Everybody knows that we Americans prefer our beer chilled, so in fact it always tastes like _cold_ piss!
  • Re:Like healthcare (Score:3, Informative)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @05:45AM (#30788858)

    Well, when it comes to nationalized healthcare, at least there are countries where you can point to and say "look, that's what it's gonna be like".

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Working...