[LINK] Proposal for International Law Enforcement

[Janet Hawtin]

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jan Whitaker <jwhit at melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> At 11:28 AM 6/12/2008, Craig Sanders wrote:
>>we've already got more than enough MAI treaties masquerading as "Free
>>Trade" treaties to undermine national sovereignty, we don't need
>>american...oops..."international" cops as well.
>
> I understand your point, Craig. However, there are already
> international conventions that allow for common legal positions in a
> majority of countries, if not 100% of them. Copyright happens to be
> one of those, through the Berne Convention. However it isn't 100%, so
> the breachers set up shop in countries that don't conform. I believe
> one of those to be China.
>
> I have less trouble with a US perspective. If the measure by which
> the decision was made as to whose law won out was based on
> population, China's would. So that's probably not a good measure. The
> bigger concern is that this approach -- that is an international cop,
> to put it in common terms -- for this particular issue is that the
> concept would be extended to other areas of the law without a
> governance structure to control it. There is no world 'government'.
>
> so the only thing I can see that would be functional is a series of
> common laws in the majority of countries that say we will prosecute X
> for such and such. And the people within those countries through
> their representative bodies, i.e. parliaments and congresses, would
> have a say in the matter of which areas should or should not be
> handled in that way. It's sort of like the way the state level laws
> are agreed to be common within Australia.
>
> Jan
> on a beautiful Saturday morning

Except that both state and federal laws are decided by some kind of
democratic process and overview,
whereas WIPO is strongly lobbied by business interests with civic
interests represented by people who care, or by states which care to
differ from the large lobby groups...eg. Brazil. Over the past year or
so broadcasters have been lobbying for copyright on materials which
transit through their tubes. These entities are news collecting
agencies which gives them the right to collect and transmit anything
they choose to. This makes the connection between the creator and the
copyright even more tenuous and the connection between systems of
distribution and control of information much closer.

I think that access to information and permission to change and
comment on information is a core part of a democracy and should not be
considered a frippery which can be traded for FTA. But thats just me.

Cheers yep it is a ripper Saturday

Janet