The Trouble with laws / treaties made by Big Media is exactly the same trouble as laws made by Big Corporations: perspective.

Both groups fail to see beyond their legislative goals and this results in laws that impact far more than the areas they intend.

Laws ought to be studied and debated by the public and all of the consequences understood and taken into consideration in the law or treaty.
Otherwise the collateral damage will outweigh the gains sought by the special interests involved.

Ultimately special interests and Corporations care only about their agendas and profits and not about the impact to society they have.
Only Congress should be allowed to make laws and treaties like this and only when circumstance or the people require it.

Sounds like Stephen Harper has been taking a few of those American style Corporate Millions. Sure can change you legislate eh Stephen?

Not to contradict your post, but the Government we have in this country only vaguely resembles Democracy.

The only time the people are involved in the process in a significant way is at elections, when they vote in candidates based on their image. After that almost all of the politicians take their orders from large Corporations who pay them for their services.

We saw recently that even the US Supreme Court can be bought and owned. It that is true where is our Democracy now?

I keep expecting the other shoe to drop - pay as you go internet.

It's simple, the ISP keeps track of your website access and what you do there (bandwidth, downloads, etc).
Then they bill you based on each and every site you use.

Think of all the profits!

How is it even conceivable that the government which exists at the whims of our large Corporations could choose to do otherwise than their bidding?

No mystery at all that Big Telecom got what they wanted. And it might be informative to check the officials bank accounts and other assets for signs of huge payments. After all that's how business is done in the Corporate States of America.

If this is true of almost every congressman, why wouldn't it be true of government officials?

Gentlemen, we have been sold down the river!

"Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is 'imminent,' even if it hasn't happened yet"

This is exactly what you would expect when only one party (Big Media) has any true input into a law. It seems the rightsholders get an injunction if they make a argument that infringement might happen.

Could this injunction end up as one of the 3 strikes the poor consumers have? If so a consumer who had downloaded something before could get another "strike" without even downloading a thing. Especially since everything is handled without the Justice System being involved (railroaded).

About right for the new world of American Big Media internet. New Zealand anyone?

I've been following US politics for ~ the last 2 years and have repeatedly observed that political change now occurs when Corporate groups buy off large numbers of politicians who then do their bidding.

Any Democratic or popular reactions / movements have to counter that especially if ANY of their goals are opposed by the Corporate lobby. I suspect this could be done either of 2 ways: the movement would have to represent an overwhelming majority, threatening opponents re-elections or the movement would have to be able to out spend the Corporations in buying politicians.

Any support a movement gets otherwise would only come from the goodness of the politicians hearts!

I'm sure this will be said far better by others, but an unbiased, non-Corporatist appointment by Obama is a pipe dream!

Obama is a ardent Corporatist which you can see by his "Health Care" Bill, the bailouts and his undying advocacy for all RIAA, MPAA and Big Media causes (ACTA for one).

This Court is already a Corporatist court (Corporate Money = Free Speech ruling) and the next appointment will merely cement that.

It isn't that the entertainment industry is trying to stop piracy - they just want to totally control the access to content.

After that it will just be a pricing game between the various entertainment giants and their paysites.

And since they have already priced themselves out of my market, I will just have to be content with the alternatives
(until the new laws make them illegal too).

It seems almost impossible to overestimate the raw, feral greed of US Entertainment Corporations.

These Corporations aren't pushing for a way to charge internet users for viewing or hearing their content.
Rather, they seem intent on prosecuting any internet user for any access to their content.

If these Pinnacles of Greed have their way and you or I stumble onto some youtube video that contains
a Brittany Spears song, we won't get charged a few bucks - we will get sued and probably will get hit
with one of our 3 strikes before our lifetime internet ban! All so they get the outrageous fine.

Any alternatives to ISP driven internet here in the US? Let me know because when these sharks are
done carving the internet into ribbons it won't be worth accessing, let alone paying $70 / month for.

So we bought it. Now all politicians beg for our Millions and are eager to please our every whim.

You know you are dealing with a US solution to a problem when it takes a huge bite out of your wallet as it helps you!

We are a country based on free enterprise after all.

And the assumption is that all Americans can all afford to pay more.

---

Standing tall in the land of the rich and the poor.

We're going to aggressively protect BIG MEDIA,' Obama said in his speech, 'Our single greatest asset is THEIR MONEY! [...] It is essential to our prosperity AS POLITICIANS AND BENEFACTORS and it will only become more so in this century.

First comes government cheese. Then comes government health care.

Then comes the giant Bill for government health care.

Don't worry, if you don't like it you can always go live free in government prison.

You will not like that though!

--

Standing tall in the land of the poor and the rich

Interesting. I had to look that one up and I don't remember the term from college economics.

From what I read a social market economy is merely regulated capitalism in which regulation works to achieve various desirable goals. And we do have a lot a regulation in places. Some of this is designed to achieve goals too. However, it does not seem we are making the coordinated effort we required by the definition and we are arguably failing to regulate entire segments of the economy properly. I think that definition is a partial fit at best.

As for capitalism, this too requires regulation due to the tendency for various industries to produce harmful results. But in that case the regulation shows up when there is a clear need - not before. I believe this characterizes a lot of what occurs in the US.