November 4, 2009

End Of Youtube

And an internet censor's wet dream;

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad.

Posted by Kate at November 4, 2009 11:44 AM

Clearly o/t Kate, but is good news in the offing?

with many liberal mps at risk if they vote against it, I suspect the chances are now very good. And this bipartisan support is going to make it very difficult for the lp to attack.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at November 4, 2009 12:13 PM

Yes - I've been busy though with work. Will post shortly.

Posted by: Kate at November 4, 2009 12:25 PM

As expected, the power clinging to the past and Luddites are coming out.
My question is if that would boost the open source?

Posted by: xiat at November 4, 2009 12:42 PM

I think I read somewhere that Youtube lost a 100 million last year. they might be happy to toast it.

Posted by: cal2 at November 4, 2009 1:32 PM

It should be noted that Canada has similarly refused to divulge the contents of this treaty. Geroge Bush refused for years as well. It's basically the content industries dream come true, with smatterings of government control and censorship written all over it.

The best part is that business leaders have been invited to give their input on the subject but must sign strict non disclosure agreements forbidding them from revealing the contents of the treaty. The only stakeholder being kept out of the loop and in the dark? The ones it applies to...the taxpayer.

Posted by: bar_jebus at November 4, 2009 2:10 PM

If dhimmitube goes down, I'll rejoice.

Posted by: Aaron at November 4, 2009 2:15 PM

Posted by: Aaron at November 4, 2009 2:19 PM

This is extremely disturbing. If true and if passed, this treaty could very well end most blogs. If that is the intent, this must be stopped NOW.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at November 4, 2009 2:26 PM

I always wanted to know, why when customers steal from business, it's a crime and police is involved, but when business steals from customers it takes a lawsuit to recover.

Posted by: Aaron at November 4, 2009 2:31 PM

The Anchoress weighs in:

Political vandalism: the Obama Whitehouse and the US Congress is teeming with political vandals.

Posted by: nick at November 4, 2009 2:45 PM

Sorry: ...are teeming .... Both of them. "Teeming" I say.

Posted by: nick at November 4, 2009 2:57 PM


I think you're being a bit dishonest, as is The Anchoress. The Anchoress leads off by trying to paint the ACTA treaty as an Obama initiative, but then follows by saying its not about parties its about dishonest lying politicians.

You seem to be laying the blame at Obama's feet as well. The fact of the matter is that this is a _government/corporate_ intiative. It crosses party lines, its an assault on the rights of citizens. To say that "Obama's Whitehouse invokes national security concerns" to protect the text of the ACTA treaty is redundant when every government before his also refused to release the text of the document.

If we let this becomes a partisan issue, we will most assuredly lose the fight against this ridiculous treaty.

Posted by: bar_jebus at November 4, 2009 3:13 PM

Gee, DemocRats trying to censor the web? Say it ain't SO, Barry!

bar_jebus, aren't you -ever- going to stop trying to buy these clowns a pass? We either support those who are least bad until be can do better, or we get to be slaves right away.

Right now the CPC and Republicans are least bad. They aren't awesome, I'm not turning handsprings of joy, but considering the alternative its a no brainer.

You pick your party, and then you KICK THEM EVERY DAY to keep them honest.

You wanna be a slave? Keep being a Lefty. It'll happen.

Posted by: The Phantom at November 4, 2009 3:47 PM

bar-jebus, I'd say neither nick or anchoress is being dishonest. This may not be an obama initiative, but he's the one who will sign on to it and he's the one hiding it.

Posted by: Willa at November 4, 2009 4:19 PM

It looks to me like the Jug-Eared Douche used the interwebs to his advantage, and wants to prevent them from being used against him; after all, most of the public shouldn't know the extent of the 'pig in a poke' they bought...

Posted by: apb at November 4, 2009 4:24 PM


It just seems ridiculous to mention Obama at all. Why not Harper? Why not Gordon Brown? Why not Sarkozy? The list goes on and on of nations involved in ACTA negotiations, and all of them have refused to disclose the contents of the treaty. This has been in progress for years...using it as an opportunity to take pot shots at Obama just seems completely random. You're right that the U.S. is a major stakeholder here, and that without U.S. support, it would likely require revision, but we should be holding Harper to the standard as well then.

Posted by: bar_jebus at November 4, 2009 4:48 PM

more amerkun bullying on the world sandbox.

here's a hint: now's the time to invest in ISPs in eastern Europe. unless the amerkun bully TROTW into blocking those sites the way Iran and China and Saudi Arabia are famous for.

does anyone have a program? it's getting real real hard to tell the good guys from the bad.

they ALL do it.

Posted by: curious_george at November 4, 2009 5:42 PM

It just seems ridiculous to mention Obama at all. Why not Harper? Why not Gordon Brown? Why not Sarkozy?

Um, because in case you missed this bit of social studies class...NONE OF THEM ARE OUR PRESIDENT!

Obama is.

His administration is not releasing the text of this bill - which is wholly unconstitutional. Not only does it violate the First Amendment, but the Eight (cruel and unusual punishment), as well as infringing on our rights to a fair trial and due process of law.

Posted by: Amy P. at November 4, 2009 6:46 PM

It must be stopped on Principle, or we are just so many slaves. What right have these people elected by us to form secret treaties in private that effect all our lives with censorship?
Let us vote on it, or drop it. Its come to a point where free people everywhere has to say ! No farther, your powers are limited not omniscient!
Kick these clowns into orbit politically.
Meanwhile I do believe its in all our interests no matter what our individual politics. To actively renounce this power grab with censorship, Than go after the totalitarians financially ,politically ,legally, that even thought this fascist swill up.
as Ive said many times , we should have our servers out Country from both our governments.
Including satellites.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at November 4, 2009 7:54 PM

"This may not be an obama initiative, but he's the one who will sign on to it and he's the one hiding it."

Not to mention that given Obama ran on the pledge of creating "the most transparent administration in history", this is a particularly acute piece of political two-facedness.

It may be true that a Republican administration kept this thing secret for eight years; it would also be true, in that case, that they refused to actually enact it.

(And it may be true that the Obama administration will come to their senses at the last second and pull back as well. They must be aware of how much the Internet facilitated their campaign and communications initiatives, and it won't be just their radical base elements who object to this.)

Posted by: Stephen J. at November 4, 2009 8:24 PM

The internet belongs to the world. Not only the US or Canada or any country. It will never be controlled completely unless banned by nations like North Korea. We may have a fight but we will min the war.

Posted by: Brian M. at November 4, 2009 8:56 PM

I would like to see how this would effect educators who often post various things on their blogs or web sites for their students. It's not just (possibly) for blanket censorship; it could hamper all manner of information dissemination.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at November 4, 2009 10:56 PM

Let em try, people will fight, its easy stop watching and listening to thier crap and send em down the river.

Posted by: bob at November 5, 2009 10:56 AM

We either support those who are least bad until be can do better, or we get to be slaves right away.

I've never seen it put better. It's a black and white choice.

Some people try to confuse that choice by arguing Hegelian Dialectics but the choice is being a slave, or not. And doing whatever is within one's power to stave off being a slave.

Posted by: ol hoss at November 5, 2009 1:00 PM