Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)

Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)

There’s a lot of fear going around about ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a plurilateral agreement under the WTO between the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Morocco. Some of the fears look real, some don’t. For example, even though it was negotiated in secret, the text is easily available.

Another false complaint is that it’s another SOPA, when in fact such a claim misses the point. SOPA was a bad bill, as it turned out to be a censorship bill that defied due process, but the intent was to fight the problem of free riding on copyright and trademark. Crossing international boundaries has been a cheap and easy way to cash in on another country’s copyright and trademark laws without having to abide by them. SOPA tried to fix that in a crude, rude, and ineffective way. ACTA has more options, and doesn’t have to resort to censorship, necessarily.

I’ve just read the treaty. I don’t really see a problem. Even if infringement isn’t ruining the movies and music, trademark and copyright are Constitutional concepts worthy of protection. That’s why some of the anti-SOPA leaders are promoting their own bill.

The pro-liberty position is not one of anarchy. It’s time to get reasonable protections in place. Maybe I missed something, and ACTA is a problem. But the best argument I see against ACTA is that it only includes a few countries, and not those best known for infringement (such as China, either China in fact). ACTA may yet be harmless but ineffective, as opposed to SOPA being harmful and ineffective.

Read More →

There’s a lot of fear going around about ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a plurilateral agreement under the WTO between the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Morocco. Some of the fears look real, some don’t. For example, even though it was negotiated in secret, the text is easily available.

Another false complaint is that it’s another SOPA, when in fact such a claim misses the point. SOPA was a bad bill, as it turned out to be a censorship bill that defied due process, but the intent was to fight the problem of free riding on copyright and trademark. Crossing international boundaries has been a cheap and easy way to cash in on another country’s copyright and trademark laws without having to abide by them. SOPA tried to fix that in a crude, rude, and ineffective way. ACTA has more options, and doesn’t have to resort to censorship, necessarily.

I’ve just read the treaty. I don’t really see a problem. Even if infringement isn’t ruining the movies and music, trademark and copyright are Constitutional concepts worthy of protection. That’s why some of the anti-SOPA leaders are promoting their own bill.

The pro-liberty position is not one of anarchy. It’s time to get reasonable protections in place. Maybe I missed something, and ACTA is a problem. But the best argument I see against ACTA is that it only includes a few countries, and not those best known for infringement (such as China, either China in fact). ACTA may yet be harmless but ineffective, as opposed to SOPA being harmful and ineffective.

Read More →

There’s a lot of fear going around about ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a plurilateral agreement under the WTO between the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Morocco. Some of the fears look real, some don’t. For example, even though it was negotiated in secret, the text is easily available.

Another false complaint is that it’s another SOPA, when in fact such a claim misses the point. SOPA was a bad bill, as it turned out to be a censorship bill that defied due process, but the intent was to fight the problem of free riding on copyright and trademark. Crossing international boundaries has been a cheap and easy way to cash in on another country’s copyright and trademark laws without having to abide by them. SOPA tried to fix that in a crude, rude, and ineffective way. ACTA has more options, and doesn’t have to resort to censorship, necessarily.

I’ve just read the treaty. I don’t really see a problem. Even if infringement isn’t ruining the movies and music, trademark and copyright are Constitutional concepts worthy of protection. That’s why some of the anti-SOPA leaders are promoting their own bill.

The pro-liberty position is not one of anarchy. It’s time to get reasonable protections in place. Maybe I missed something, and ACTA is a problem. But the best argument I see against ACTA is that it only includes a few countries, and not those best known for infringement (such as China, either China in fact). ACTA may yet be harmless but ineffective, as opposed to SOPA being harmful and ineffective.

Read More →

On Monday, Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent announced that his country would exercise its legal option to end its participation in the Kyoto Protocols. The Protocols were a United Nations initiative, adopted in 1997 with a goal of rolling carbon dioxide emissions back to 1990 levels in an effort to stop Global Warming. Failure to meet those goals would incur stiff monetary penalties.

Canada will not meet its 2012 goal, so as a treaty member it would incur penalties of $14 billion in 2012, or $1,600 for every Canadian family. Kent characterized Kyoto as an “impediment”, citing the absence of the world’s two largest carbon-emitting countries, China and the U.S., from its membership.

(The United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocols. China was exempt from the penalties. China’s carbon emissions are now highest in the world, eclipsing U.S. emissions by nearly 50% in 2008.)

Canada Withdraws From Kyoto Protocol
(NYT link may require subscription/registration.)

“To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada,” Kent said. [Emphasis added.]

To quote Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber, “So you’re saying there’s a chance!”

Read More →

On Monday, Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent announced that his country would exercise its legal option to end its participation in the Kyoto Protocols. The Protocols were a United Nations initiative, adopted in 1997 with a goal of rolling carbon dioxide emissions back to 1990 levels in an effort to stop Global Warming. Failure to meet those goals would incur stiff monetary penalties.

Canada will not meet its 2012 goal, so as a treaty member it would incur penalties of $14 billion in 2012, or $1,600 for every Canadian family. Kent characterized Kyoto as an “impediment”, citing the absence of the world’s two largest carbon-emitting countries, China and the U.S., from its membership.

(The United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocols. China was exempt from the penalties. China’s carbon emissions are now highest in the world, eclipsing U.S. emissions by nearly 50% in 2008.)

Canada Withdraws From Kyoto Protocol
(NYT link may require subscription/registration.)

“To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada,” Kent said. [Emphasis added.]

To quote Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber, “So you’re saying there’s a chance!”

Read More →