Why governments are making bad decisions...And "Law and Order"...

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Sandy Harris wrote:

> IEEE first delayed the article to May, and then pulled it. I
> have put it up on my web site instead:
> 
>          http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/spectrum.html


  More critical than the IEEE discussion itself is for people to read the 
above article.

  While it has the title of "Free Speech Online and Offline", that is only
a small part of what it discusses. The latter part of the article gives 
some ideas as to why governments are enacting such inappropriate laws, and 
the fact that most governments have no real concept of the nature of that 
which they are trying to govern.

   "First, the Internet is no different from any other new frontier in 
    that businessmen compete to make money out of it, while bureaucrats
    compete to build empires regulating it. The `dot-com' bubble is being
    followed by a `dot-gov' version. However, while poorly-thought-out
    business plans run out of cash and disappear, poorly-thought-out laws
    remain, together with irrelevant services and bureaucratic overheads."




  He also speaks about how dangerous it is to try to control information
flow.  There is a reason why I say that "ownership" can become
increasingly problematic as we move from the ownership of Land, Animals,
People and Ideas.  I suspect over time people will recognize why I put
ownership of ideas as being potentially worse than slavery (ownership of 
people).



  Link a few ideas:

  a)  From the above article:

      "A shocking example is an export control bill currently before 
      Britain's parliament. This will enable Tony Blair's government to
      impose licensing restrictions on collaborations between scientists
      in the UK and elsewhere;  to take powers to review and suppress
      scientific papers prior to publication; and even to license foreign
      students taught by British university teachers."


  b)  Hague "Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil 
      and Commercial Matters"

      Essentially, outcomes in the courts of one country on civil and 
      commercial cases will be able to be enforced in other member 
      countries:
        http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html
        http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/hague.html


      This convention is a huge contrast with more legitimate and critical
      international law, such as the International Court of Justice which 
      the USA (a strong promoter of the Hague commercial convention) 
      hasn't even ratified.

      http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicdeclarations.htm

      I suspect the judgment of the ICJ in "Military and Paramilitary 
      activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of 
      America)" has something to do with this - the USA doesn't control 
      this court:
        http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/Icases/iNus/inusframe.htm

      The USA has also not signed onto the International Criminal Court (ICC) 
      http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/

      I happen to believe that any nation-state that has not party to ICJ
      and ICC should simply not be allowed to be a member of the Hague 
      Conference on the (by definition) lesser important civil and 
      commercial judgments.  The hypocrisy of a legal system where
      commercial interests are protected, but where citizens and/or
      other states are not granted any access to justice should be 
      obvious.

      http://www.zmag.org/healywar.htm

      Who to Contact in Canada:
      http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/haguecontact.html#canada

    * Ms Kathyrn Sabo
      Head of Canadian Delegation
      Email: kathryn.sabo at justice.gc.ca
      Phone: 613-957-4967
      Fax: 613-941-4088

    * Ms Elizabeth Sanderson
      Senior General Counsel
      Public Law Policy Section
      Department of Justice, Ottawa
      Email: elizabeth.sanderson at justice.gc.ca
      Phone: +1 (613) 957-3555
      Fax: +1 (613) 941-4088

    * Mr. Jeff Richstone
      General Counsel, Legal Services
      Heritage

    * Mr. Bruce Couchman
      Senior Legal Analyst
      Intellectual Property Policy
      Industry Canada, Ottawa

    * Ms Christina Sampogna
      Senior Project Leader
      Special Projects Directorate
      Industry Canada, Ottawa

    * M. Alain Pruijner
      Faculte de droit, Universite Laval
      Quebec




  c) The "beyond DMCA" type provisions being discussed in the context of 
     the FTAA, which have already been discussed in this forum.

     http://www.sice.oas.org/int_prop.asp
     http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/ftaa-rep-letter.html





P.S.  Ignoring this message for the moment, I am trying to concentrate on
positive thinking and positive developments.  It is hard for me to read
some of these things without getting quite emotional.

  The insistence from some sectors that this conversation needs to be
"about the authors"  grates on my nerves. I would rather a thousand
authors, musicians, etc not be able to make a living at their craft than
to have a single student, scientist or software developer require to be
licensed or in any way have their mobility restricted because of any
so-called attempt to "control the `intangible export' of technology".

  We sometimes have to keep these things in mind, and remind people that
"authors rights" simply cannot, in a free society, be considered either
primary or absolute.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 See http://weblog.flora.org/ for announcements, activities, and opinions
 Get Legal - become Free! http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=126
 Anti-Copyright Crusader  http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=133

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/