Amerikanska juridukprofessorer ifrågasätter ACTA-processen i USA

Law Professor Letter to Senate Finance Committee

Dear Members of the United States Senate Committee on Finance:

We write as legal academics with expertise in Constitutional, international, and intellectual property law to encourage you to exercise your Constitutional responsibility to ensure that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is submitted to the Senate for approval as an Article II treaty, or to the Congress as an ex post Congressional-Executive Agreement. It is our studied opinion that the administration has failed to identify ex ante authorization of ACTA by Congress, and that these are thus the only Constitutional bases for U.S. entry into ACTA. It is clear that other ACTA negotiating parties – including the EU, Australia, Mexico, and others—are treating ACTA as a binding international agreement requiring legislative ratification under constitutional standards similar to our own. We encourage you to demand the same element of public process in our own country.

De som skriver under det öppna brevet har stora problem med hur processen för ACTA har skötts i USA och hävdar att det är kongressen som måste besluta om detta och att det inte är ett vanligt handelsavtal. Den exekutiva delen av staten (presidenten) har enligt dem inte mandat att förhandla fram och skriva under ett så omfattande avtal.

Remedying this state of affairs is uniquely within Congress’s province. Congress, and specifically the Senate, as the Constitutionally recognized chamber with responsibilities for the approval of treaties, should secure from the Administration a public pledge to send ACTA to the Senate as a treaty, or to the Congress as an ex post Congressional-Executive Agreement. Absent a pledge to this effect, we encourage the Committee to hold hearings and to pass legislation that would prevent the United States from binding itself to ACTA without express Congressional consent.

Brevet är underskrivet av 53 personer kopplade till allt från Yale till University of Oregon och alla däremellan.

Googles fiberplaner gör MPAA nervösa

Google har planer på att lägga ner fiber i marken till hemanvändare och det gör Hollywood nervösa.

It seems like every Hollywood statement about new technology follows the same format. “This new thing is great, but… piracy!” The problem is that they refuse to act on the first part until someone gives them a bulletproof solution to the second part—and since such a solution does not and never will exist, they ruin every attempt at a new service with ineffective restrictions and DRM schemes.

Google’s Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy? | Techdirt

The fact that the MPAA can’t get through a single statement about something as clearly positive as faster internet without bringing up reservations about piracy doesn’t bode well for Hollywood’s future. The studios should be getting ahead of the new technology, and making sure that everyone who gets hooked up to a new fiber network is immediately greeted with a well-made, well-priced movie service that gives them a chance to test out their speedy new connection. Instead they’re probably going to watch the technology develop with caution, wait for pirates to beat them to the punch, then arrive in the market with an inferior product and complaints about how they “can’t compete”.

Statligt missbruk

Law Professor: Megaupload Prosecution A ‘Depressing Display Of Abuse Of Government Authority’ | Techdirt

The more we hear and see about the government’s case against Megaupload, it really appears that the government was relying almost entirely on the fact that Megaupload looked bad. It’s hard to deny that there were plenty of things that Kim (in particular) did that makes him appear pretty obnoxious. But being a crass showoff doesn’t automatically make you a criminal. Even worse, the government’s action in the case to date seem to be doing everything possible to undermine their own case as they try to railroad Megaupload.

Politiskt motiverade visiteringar vid gränsen kan vara olagliga

An outspoken supporter of WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning can continue his lawsuit against the federal government over a border search-and-seizure conducted in 2010 after his return to the U.S. from a Mexico vacation, as a federal court ruled Wednesday that his constitutional rights may have been violated.

A federal judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case brought by David Maurice House, an MIT researcher, finding that the government’s search-and-seizure of his electronics may have violated his right to free speech – even if agents have the right to search travelers at the border for no reason.

“Although the agents may not need to have any particularized suspicion for the initial search and seizure at the border for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment analysis, it does
not necessarily follow that the agents, as is alleged in the complaint, may seize personal electronic devices containing expressive materials, target someone for their political association and seize his electronic devices and review the information pertinent to that association and its members and supporters simply because the initial search occurred at the border,” U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper wrote.

(via: Wired Politically Motivated Border Searches Could Be Unconstitutional, Judge Rules | Threat Level | Wired.com)

Ranking States by Their Dependence on Manufacturing

En grafisk genomgång på vilka stater som är mycket beroende av tillverkningsjobb och som på grund av detta säkert kommer att få en högre arebetslöshet över tiden.

Data Spotlight: Ranking States by Their Dependence on Manufacturing | Newgeography.com

Copyright Treaty Requires Congressional Support, Senator Says

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) says the Obama administration must secure congressional approval for the United States to participate in an international anti-piracy treaty, a position at odds with the president.

The accord, known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, exports on participating nations an intellectual-property enforcement regime resembling the one in the United States. Neither the United States nor any other country has ratified the deal, which was brokered by both the President George W. Bush and the President Barack Obama administrations and finalized in October.

“I believe Congress should approve binding international agreements before the U.S. is obligated to comply with those agreements. This a point where the administration and I disagree and is particularly true on matters that impact our nation’s ability to implement policies that encourage innovation,” Wyden said in a statement.

Copyright Treaty Requires Congressional Support, Senator Says | Threat Level | Wired.com