BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creativity will suffer if ACTA is brought in

Many within the creative industries have developed business models that work with the Internet. A few giants – frequently not producing the most artistically acclaimed work – are simply trying to defend their monopolistic profits. The idea that any of the companies involved in these negotiations are serious about protecting creativity is undermined both by the products and their response to anything new or threatening to their corporate interests. Instead this is holding up the process of creative destruction, whereby new better ideas sweep away the old that will be outcompeted,[i] by standing in the way of this in the digital world ACTA is stifling both creativity and the economy. The opposition to this legislation has come from actual creatives – programmers, artists, performers and others as well as researchers academics and more. It is being promoted by the very commercial interests that also seek to suck the life-blood out of genuine art, research and ingenuity[ii]. This is all about protecting the commercial interest of those corporations that have ceased to have much to do with any of these processes and simply want to make the most out of what they already control through copyright. It is and remains profoundly anti-competitive and a retrograde step in terms of developing any artistic, scientific or intellectual field. By securing, through copyright, established technologies, paradigms, and industries, the agreement undermines the very competition that so many of its proponents claim to endorse. Indeed the only thing it can be demonstrated to do is to allow organisations to steal widely held information by slapping a copyright or brand on it. [i] Cox, W. Michael and Alm, Richard, ‘Creative Destruction’, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2008. [ii] Creative Freedom Federation, New Zealand.
ACTA attacks free software and privatises data

ACTA represents a fundamental attack on the right to produce or host free software. It is written in such a way as would protect the rights of corporations such as Microsoft to build systems that require updating while, at the same time undermining freeware software such as Linux. Its provisions that can both punish (art 12:1) and pass enforcement over to ISPs (art 8:1) who therefore have an incentive to restrict free software. Article 27:6 specifically attacks computer programs that are providing a free alternative and those that may affect digital rights management programs.[i][ii] In doing this it creates a culture of surveillance and represents a fundamental attack on freedom of expression and basic principles of democracy as it would commercialise the right to access and distribute information. The rights to free expression are recognised in virtually every codification of basic human rights – on which this agreement is mostly silent. It will make impossible the free distribution of programmes and other computer tools and re-asserts, as did GATS, the primacy of corporations through a right to protect things that they didn’t think of but wished they had. Already they have the advantages of massive budgets and huge legal departments, this agreement simply distorts the playing field still further in their interest. [i] ‘Speak out against ACTA’, Free Software Foundation, 19 June 2008. [ii] ‘ACTA: threats to Free Software’, hugo’s blog, 21 April 2010.
Piracy in an Internet age.

We should be wary of any figures set on losses to the economy as a result of piracy, mostly because the coinsumer who is downloading pirated materials will simply use his dollars elsewhere.[i] There have also been studies that show that these same people who illegally download also spend more on legal downloads.[ii] Moreover this should really be seen just as a spur to innovate. Those who benefitted from film were happy enough with the impact that cinema had on theatre, music producers happy enough with the impact that musical electrification, global distribution methods and broadcasting had on the music industry. Objecting that new technologies require some new thinking is ridiculous and smacks of protectionism from industries that, increasingly, seem to have lost the battle of ideas. ACTA is anti-competitive and aims to protect the interests of outdated approaches against new and imaginative thinking. [i] Raustiala, Kal, and Sprigman, Chris, ‘How Much Do Music and Movie Piracy Really Hurt the U.S. Economy’, Freakonomics, 12 January 2012. [ii] Michaels, Sean, ‘Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music’, guardian.co.uk, 21 April 2009.
ACTA promotes medical research

The reality is that antibiotics and similar medicines are mostly sold to Monopsonistic  governments and don’t represent the profit base of big Pharma. Instead they have focussed on products such as Prozac that are high-profit by their nature, while thirty-year old antibiotics are left to become ever less effective against evolving viruses.[i]. [i] Gouge, Deborah, ‘Big Pharma Abandons Antibiotics: An Opening For Small Biotech’, Seeking Alpha, 13 May 2012.
ACTA is needed to protect brands

Were proposition’s case true then it would raise the question of why no consumers groups have been involved in the negotiations or representative of cloth and other manufacturers in the developing world – or for that matter the originators of design techniques more generally. The only people consulted were the stakeholders of extremely wealthy brands; mostly price-gougers with appalling records in terms of how they spend that money as it relates to the payment of workers or suppliers. This agreement serves purely for the protection of a wealthy few and against the interests of the overwhelming majority in the industries they represent.
ACTA is anti-democratic

Government is about taking tough decisions rather than pandering to majoritarian whims. Legislation such as this protect industries in the creative, IT, manufacturing and medical sectors. The support it has garnered among trades union demonstrates that they, at least, recognise that it is about protecting jobs. It is no surprise that many people prefer to buy products that are cheap – or better, free – but government has a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of its citizens with rather more enthusiasm that the right to download free movies. It would be interesting to see where the democratic deficit goes when entire industries start collapsing because of counterfeiting.
Creativity will suffer if ACTA is brought in

The major corporations, which seem to exercise the opposition so greatly, are also major employers and major investors. In addition to which counterfeiting is a much greater threat to small corporations that are dependent on one good idea and lack the financial muscle to protect that idea, for example Ifttt, an internet startup was cloned by a Chinese company, Linggan, while it was still in beta.[i] The people that have something to fear from this agreement are those with no ideas seeking to skim a profit off the energy and effort of others[ii]. Importantly protecting intellectual property rights can also encourage innovation, by ensuring that start-ups keep creating new ideas and are sure they can profit from them. We need to ensure that there are sufficient incentives for entrepreneurs, of which intellectual property is one important component. [i] Sam, ‘Speedy Chinese Clone Copies Startup Still in Beta’, TechinAsia, 23 August 2011. [ii] A list of supporters
ACTA attacks free software and privatises data

The EU[i] has described this agreement as a balance of the interests of all stakeholders – including customers or other users. Nobody is banned from freely sharing their own ideas, inventions or research; merely from ripping off that of other people. The oppositions need not worry about the articles it mentions as they are targeted not at individuals but at other commercial outfits. What is described as privatizing data is in fact increasing functionality and ensuring interoperability. Ask anyone who uses an Apple device or have become accustomed to using Microsoft Outlook and they will testify that their products work best when used together with other similar products. By allowing other organisations to copy these services you are only harming consumers. [i] European Commission, ‘ACTA – Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, 4 July 2012.
Piracy in an Internet age.

In an age of such easy global communications, the threat of piracy is far greater for creative industries than it has ever been before. There is a huge difference between a few cheap video copies and global downloads available free of charge. With sites making movies that cost millions available for free, it poses a real threat to major studios. For example The Institute for Policy Innovation believes the global music industry loses $12.5 billion a year due to piracy resulting in 71,060 lost jobs.[i] The fact that these sites are so popular demonstrates that music and movies are popular but that people are unwilling to pay real cost of producing that quality of product. The reality is that creative material is produced not just by a handful of millionaire actors and producers but by thousands of screen-writers, technicians and backroom staff; all of whom have to be paid. To do that studios, music producers and publishers need some guarantee of a return on their initial investment. [i] Siwek, Stephen E., ‘The True Cost of Sound Recording Piracy to the U.S. Economy’, The Institute for Policy Innovation, 21 August 2007.
ACTA promotes medical research

Companies that accept huge research costs – such as the pharmaceutical industries – need the surety of knowing that they will have some payback for that research. Without that there is little point in them undertaking the research in the first place and medical science will suffer. It’s easy to say that manufacturing a pill only costs two cents – the reality is that a trial alone can cost upwards of $100m with the whole research and development per approved drug costing billions.[i] The framework  for doing that is one that requires a profit for investors and security for researchers. Allowing for generic medicines to undermine that end point profit discourages the necessary blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research as they’re risky and may not see a financial return. As a result, those medicines that are proven ‘sellers’ need to make the profit for the long-term investment that will be required for cures for cancer, AIDS and other global killers. Stopping pharmaceutical companies from making a healthy profit on established antibiotics and similar medicines means that they then don’t have the financial muscle to be able to fund the long development and large amount of research necessary to create the drugs of the future. If they then believe those drugs will quickly be recreated and turned into generics they will give up researching entirely. [i] Herper, Matthew, ‘The Truly Staggering Cost of Inventing New Drugs’, Forbes, 10 February 2012.
Mayors would raise the profile of the city they represent

Electing a maverick candidate could do the image of a town or city a great deal of harm rather than good. Cities such as Birmingham have already been highly successful at attracting inward investment under the present system of local government. In any case, the major bureaucratic constraints on investment relate to issues of subsidy and tax-breaks, which are outlawed by the EU, and to national taxation and planning policies, set in Whitehall, none of which will be affected by an elected mayor.
Mayors would result in too much centralisation of power.

Electing a mayor would not concentrate power too much in the hands of one individual. Although models of local government vary, mayors usually have to pick a cabinet from among the elected councillors and to seek approval for their policies and budget from the whole elected council. A mayor would thus have to persuade and build a consensus in order to govern effectively. This is a more transparent approach to local decision making than the present one, and should therefore be free from the accusations of corruption and nepotism that have been levied at the old system.
Mayors will come at a cost

While there may be some extra costs to having a mayor this is likely to be marginal and overall costs may well fall, as Prime Minister Cameron argues “if you end up with a mayor, you’ll actually save money, because mayors can bang heads together, get rid of bureaucracy, and right now, any mayor worth their salt will be trying to get bills down.”[1] There are many layers of funding which create needless overlaps and administration; in Leicester it is estimated for economic development it costs £135 million in overheads to spend £176 million on projects,[2] an inefficiency the new mayor would be in a good position to get to grips with. [1] ITV News, ‘Bristol mayor will save money, says Prime Minister’, A Mayor for Bristol, 24, April 2012. [2] Carter, Andrew, ‘Mayors and Economic Growth’, in Tom Gash and Sam Sims eds., What can elected mayors do for our cities? Institute for Government, 2012, pp.37-42, p.42
Electing a Mayor will revitalise local democracy

An elected mayor would revitalise local democracy. At present many people have no idea who their local councillors are, or who leads their council, perhaps because collective decision-making is generally unexciting. It is not surprising then that turnout is only around 30% and in some urban areas in Britain fewer than 1 in 4 adults bother to vote in local elections – the worst turnout in the EU.[1] An elected mayor would act as a focus for local people, both symbolically and as someone with real power to improve their lives. Local elections would gain more coverage and more people’s attention as they are voting for one recognisable figure rather than a number of councillors. This in turn would turn attention to local democracy and increase turnout in elections. [1] Shakespeare, Tom, ‘For Good Measure Devolving Accountability for Performance and Assessment to Local Areas’, Localis, 2010, p.17
Mayors would be more accountable than a council

Electing mayors would improve accountability in local government. A Mayor would have a bigger mandate, which could be up to 500,000 votes compared to 5,000 for individual councillors making them more directly accountable to the city’s electorate. [1] They are also more visible; 57% of people could name their mayor when they had one compared to only 8% being able to name their council leader and so they are more likely to be held to account for their individual policies.[2] By comparison where there are not mayors an elaborate and confusing series of committees make decisions in most areas, making it easy for individual councillors or parties to dodge responsibility for unpopular decisions or failed policies. Bristol is a good example of this with wobbly coalitions resulting from backroom deals and constantly shifting politics; the council changed hands seven times in the ten years to 2012.[3] Placing this power in the hands of an elected mayor would streamline decision-making and increase accountability. A mayor who failed to improve local services or in other ways implement their campaign promises would have little chance of re-election. [1] Sims, Sam, ‘Electing mayors for more English cities would increase local democratic accountability and widen political participation. But the government must grant them real power and freedom’, blogs.lse.ac.uk, 7 October 2011. [2] Gash, Tom, ‘A turning point for England’s big cities’, Institute for Government, 29 March 2012. [3] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012.
Elected Mayors would attract the best candidates to run for office.

Elected mayors would allow talented individuals to make a difference, regardless of their party affiliation. The present system rewards long-serving and loyal party hacks rather than innovative managers, thinkers and leaders; polls show that the public think councillors put party politics above the needs of their community. Those who are most talented who are elected are simply using the council as a stepping stone for running for national office. If mayors were directly elected, local parties would have to find dynamic candidates with a proven ability to solve problems and manage big organisations, or risk such candidates running and winning as independents. This has already been shown to be the case in London where Ken Livingstone (who initially became Mayor as an independent) and Boris Johnson, both established and well known politicians, ran for Mayor, and in Birmingham where Lam Byrne, formally no.2 at the treasury, has expressed an interest in running.[1] [1] BBC News, ‘Labour’s Liam Byrne wants to run for Birmingham mayor’, 30 March 2012.
Mayors would raise the profile of the city they represent

Elected mayors would speak on behalf of their communities, raising the profile of their town or city nationally and internationally. This could be particularly valuable when negotiating with businesses, helping to draw valuable investment into their area and overcoming bureaucratic hurdles that typically hinder development. Chambers of commerce in cities that are holding referendums believe a figurehead will provide a focal point for business relations and a single point of contact that champions the city’s interests.[1] In addition, mayors would give local government in general a higher profile after years of increasing centralisation by national government. Acting collectively, and through the change in attitudes their higher media profile would generate, mayors would be able to draw power away from the centre once again and bring it closer to the people. [1] Carter, Andrew, ‘Mayors and Economic Growth’, in Tom Gash and Sam Sims eds., What can elected mayors do for our cities? Institute for Government, 2012, pp.37-42, p.41
Mayors would result in too much centralisation of power.

An elected mayor would have too much power, making the prospect of its misuse alarming. If the mayor has the power to choose their own cabinet of councillors, this could be as small as three members, all of whom could be sacked at will for opposing the wishes of the mayor. If the mayor has the right to delegate powers to his cabinet members, they equally have the authority to reserve all the real powers to themselves. And those councillors outside the cabinet would have little to do other than to monitor broken streetlights and the standard of refuse collection in their ward. Why would talented and ambitious people stand for council in these circumstances, and what would the absence of such people do for the council’s oversight of the mayor?
Directly elected mayors provide opportunities for populists.

The position of elected mayor is likely to attract populist and maverick candidates, who will seek to capitalise on the unpopularity of party politics with “single issue sloganising, glib promises and headline grabbing” (Ken Walker, Labour leader of Middlesbrough council).[1] A good example is Paul Massey, who has had 25 convictions in the past and yet is running to be Mayor of Salford and could even have a chance of winning.[2] In office such candidates are likely to alienate elected councillors and other crucial local partners, to disappoint voters as their promises run up against the actual limitations of their power, and to neglect many aspects of local government in favour of their own pet issue. This danger is even greater if a far-right candidate were to exploit local concerns about immigration and asylum-seekers to inflame racial tensions. Again Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets is a good example of how this could happen, he has links to a Muslim extremist group, and only needed a mere 23,000 votes, 13% of the electorate because there was such low turnout.[3] [1] Hetherington, Peter, ‘Vote for US-style mayors exposes deep Labour rifts’, The Guardian, 20 October 2001. [2] Gilligan, Andrew, ;The town hall dictator taking over near you’, The Telegraph, 22 April 2012. [3] ibid
Mayors will come at a cost

Having Mayors is costly. First of all there is the referendum and the election of the Mayor himself which Bristol council has said could cost up to £400,000.[1] This is then followed by the extra administrative cost created by having a Mayor who will of course have to have deputies, staff, offices, cars and a publicity budget, which could mean up to £3 million a year.[2] This is money that at a time where councils are facing budget cuts could be better spent on shoring up the services councils provide. [1] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012. [2] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.
Mayors could split economic regions

The value of a mayor is dependent upon that mayor having a distinct area of control. However often this area is set too small. Cities are the hubs for neighbouring towns and countryside as well as the inner city. This could then end up splitting up economic regions. Birmingham and Coventry are very close to each other but at some point in the future could potentially have different city mayors. There would then be confusion; who runs regional transport policy or the West Midlands police that affects both cities?[1] [1] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.
Electing a Mayor will revitalise local democracy

Directly elected mayors would do little to renew local democracy. In the past, councils in the UK used to have a great deal of power, controlling schools, housing and local utilities, and setting budgets and raising revenues more or less as they wished. Since 1979 these powers have been greatly reduced with power increasingly centralised in Whitehall, which also greatly limits councils’ financial freedom so that local taxes bear little relation to local expenditure.[1] Not surprisingly, as the real decision-making power of local councils has diminished, so has the proportion of citizens who think it is worth voting for them. There is no reason to think that people will flock in greater numbers to vote for a mayor who may well end up with similar restrictions placed upon them. [1] Parry, Keith, ‘Local government: timeline from 1979’, House of Commons Library, 10 January 2008.
Mayors would be more accountable than a council

An elected mayor would give the appearance of accountability, but at the risk of stifling democratic debate. At present policies are debated by council committees, and then by the full council, which represents a wide spectrum of views and interests; the public and media can usually attend these meetings, so overall proposals have to survive detailed examination. Focusing power in the hands of one person risks policy mistakes, ignores the interests of minorities, and allows for the possibility of corruption, especially if they are in office for four years and cannot be removed by vote of the council. Ken Livingstone, who was Mayor of London for eight years, argues “It’s easy to avoid serious scrutiny – Boris has had six press conferences in four years. When you come to see how the assembly gets to question him once a month that’s not the same as a detailed scrutiny by a council committee.”[1]  Greater accountability could instead be achieved by use of citizens’ juries to consider particular local issues, and local referenda on issues such as the level of council tax. [1] Waterson, James, ‘Ken: Mayor has too much power for one person’, City A.M., 18 April 2012.
Elected Mayors would attract the best candidates to run for office.

Talented individuals with a proven track record are unlikely to seek mayoral office unless local government is given much greater autonomy by central government. With the powers for each city not yet clear many may not be willing to take the risk. The reason for the lack of talent in councils is therefore not because they work as a body rather than one prominent individual but that councils themselves have too little power. Regardless of the system of election, if real power is offered, real leaders will be attracted by the prospect of wielding it and will rise to prominence.