To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom, your last statement (question actually) in your "article" was "What's the point in reporting on something we can't change via legal means?".
Wel, you generally don't change laws via the legal process, but via the legislative process which is the domain of politicians. IP law exists because lawmakers made it so.
As far as I am aware, most countries' legislative bodies are sovereign, i.e. they can legislate whatever they want.
The fact of the matter is that the public is not clamouring for a change in IP laws, therefore what is happening is completely democratic. If the vast majority of people want IP laws to change, then they should vote in people who pledge to change them. However, we all know most people aren't bothered about IP law, therefore it is entirely democratic that the law, as it stands, is applied. By not voting for change the public is voting for the status quo.
mkone,
"The fact of the matter is that the public is not clamouring for a change in IP laws, therefore what is happening is completely democratic."
That doesn't necessarily follow, and to be sure there are plenty of counter examples too where politicians do whatever they hell they want to without regards to their supposed constituency. In reality even local politics requires millions of dollars, which is typically funded by corporations. They've recently been allowed to pledge infinite funds to influence politicians and elections, not to mention think tanks and apostrophising. This is corrupts the notion of a government democracy which exists "for the people". I find the control corporations have over government to be the downfall of a functional democracy.
"If the vast majority of people want IP laws to change, then they should vote in people who pledge to change them. However, we all know most people aren't bothered about IP law, therefore it is entirely democratic that the law, as it stands, is applied. By not voting for change the public is voting for the status quo."
I think it's a fallacy to say people aren't voting for change...they're always voting for change. But the only issues we'll ever get an opportunity to debate and vote on are "hot button issues" like jobs, affordable healthcare, war, union rights, taxes, education, housing, abortion, even religion and marriage, etc. You don't know what people think about their IP rights from the polls because the polls haven't attempted to measure that - election data is too granular to draw those kinds of conclusions.
Wel, you generally don't change laws via the legal process, but via the legislative process which is the domain of politicians. IP law exists because lawmakers made it so.
Perhaps in this instance, Thom means legal as opposed to illegal, rather than legal as in court?
Unless they voluntarily give up such sovereignty, through the signing of treaties.
As the US civil war (amongst others) demonstrated, the giving up of sovereignty can be done irrevocably.
And it appears that in this case it's only revocable through departure from the WTO, which is economic suicide.
Popular apathy in itself does not mean that the status quo is democratic. It just means the issue hasn't received enough publicity recently to test its democratic support.





Member since:
2005-06-29
You can't just say that the processes are undemocratic because you don't like the outcomes.
I don't think you read the article.