×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

477 comments

Good. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426462)

Good to know that the voice of the people is being heard.

Re:Good. (1, Insightful)

Silverhammer (13644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426550)

Except that the EU parliament has no real power (much like the British House of Lords). All real power in the EU is held by the bureaucracy.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426714)

Except that the EU parliament has no real power (much like the British House of Lords). All real power in the EU is held by the bureaucracy.

By the council of ministers, actually. They make agreements behind closed doors without input from either their national parliaments or the euoparliament.

they do have power. (5, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426728)

since lisbon treaty last year, Eu parliament has the power. they canceled the swift agreement with usa that allowed cia, nsa to gather info about swift users.

Re:they do have power. (4, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427038)

And even before that they could overturn a CoM decision with a 2/3 majority vote, which this is well in excess of.

Re:Good. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426784)

Except that the EU parliament has no real power (much like the British House of Lords).

Well, the parliament is needed to pass laws. That is some power...

Re:Good. (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426556)

At least until the European Commission finally ends this travesty called "Democracy in the EU"...

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427000)

It's very interesting to see how power is being apportioned in the EU. Government is only as good as the ability of citizens to effect change.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427066)

They'll just slice it and pass it piece by piece through all the possible loopholes, avoiding any vote by elected officials.

When in the EU something happens, all become aware of it only as a post factum, when it is too late to influence anything.
When in the EU nothing happens ... well, you see such news. IOW, any news from Brussels can be safely ignored, "real business" there happens behind closed doors.

Let me be the first (1)

calibre-not-output (1736770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426464)

to celebrate by getting shitfaced drunk and downloading some Creative Commons-licensed music from P2P networks.

Re:Let me be the first (0, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426604)

It isn't creative commons-licensed (yet), but you can get all of my music for free on last.fm:

http://www.last.fm/music/pojut [www.last.fm]

You can also grab a couple tracks from my website for free: http://www.livingwithanerd.com/Music [livingwithanerd.com]

Re:Let me be the first (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427256)

You call that shit music? Really? I'm blown away by the stupidity of every "song" you make available for free to the world, as though it is some sort of gift. Good thing it's free, because God only knows that and the catchy names are the only way you'll be able to trick people into listening to them.

Re:Let me be the first (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427306)

Screw Creative Commons. If you're really serious, you'll make it kopimi.

Re:Let me be the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427418)

to celebrate by getting shitfaced drunk and downloading some Creative Commons-licensed music from P2P networks.

So... just a normal Wednesday for you?

The 13 votes (5, Interesting)

metlin (258108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426466)

I'd be curious to see the political/national/corporate affiliations of the 13 that voted for it. Maybe publish the details, to let people know how these folks were *cough* looking out for their "interests".

I'm always surprised when a minority votes for something that most unequivocally consider at the very least bad, if not downright evil.

Re:The 13 votes (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426614)

Probably half-and-half people who were paid off/influenced to vote no matter what, and people who simply thought ACTA was a good idea. In other words, less than 1%.

Re:The 13 votes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426858)

You can see how they voted here: http://votewatch.eu/ (the voting of today won't be online before tomorrow, thursday). It shouldn't be hard to reference this to their earlier votes and draw conclusions.

Re:The 13 votes (5, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426888)

Personally I think there's a lot to be said about keeping these votes anonymous. You end up with 'flags for orphans' situations where a piece of draconian legislation gets snuck in a popular bill and people are too scared to vote against it for fear of seeing their name in negative headlines.

Re:The 13 votes (5, Insightful)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427028)

No. Those who were elected into power should never have anonymous voting. Only those not in power (that would be the regular people) should have anonymous voting. Those in power should be doing the will of the people that put them there. The regular people need to be able to vote without fear of being arrested, fined, etc. for voting against something that those in power want.

Re:The 13 votes (5, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427186)

We also need to be able to hold those who we put in power accountable if they are found to be voting against our will. It's fundamental in weeding out corruption.

Re:The 13 votes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427512)

The problem is, that a single parliamentarian is still hardly "in power". Often, they are not there due to the fact, that they have been personally elected, but more due to the fact of party allegiance.
y making their votes public, they can be pressured to vote according to the party line.

Re:The 13 votes (5, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427514)

"one rule for us and one rule for them" then?

The problem with public voting is in today's politics is that they're not accountable to 'their voting public'. They're accountable to the press.

What's the headline likely to be "Senator John Smith is the lone person against giving orphans flags" or "Senator John Smith refuses to vote for the flags for orphans bill as he feels some unrelated legislation has been added by stealth and he thinks it's against his voter's wishes"?

A well run government often requires passing bills that voters would dislike for the good of the country (tax increases, spending cuts etc.). Fear of voting in line with your views and policies at both top and bottom levels results in a failure of democracy.

Re:The 13 votes (3, Insightful)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427064)

The alternative is politicians who can't be held responsible for their actions.

Which is worse: politicians that can be cowed by the media, or politicians who aren't answerable to the media at all?

Re:The 13 votes (2, Interesting)

hanabal (717731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427262)

another option is to prevent sneaking unrelated crap on top of new bills

Re:The 13 votes (1)

Silentknyght (1042778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427598)

another option is to prevent sneaking unrelated crap on top of new bills

Mod parent up. Pork is definitely a significant contributor to the political headache of the US.

Re:The 13 votes (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427344)

There's nothing wrong with voting against a piece of legislation if you can point out, "Yeah sure this bill says everyone should give flowers to baby orphan whales, but I'm voting against the part that says we kill the parents."

Unfortunately, the issue is normally, at least in Canada, one government party will come up with a bill that is really beneficial to the public then hid something mildly devious in it. If the other parties in the government vote against it the first will come back with, "you see how evil the other parties are!!!". Sometimes forcing other parties to vote against a piece of legislation is a tactic to take to the polls for an election.

That being said if you can justify to the public why you voted against something all you have to do is say if they amend XYZ then I'll vote for it. Of course this brings up another issue where the parties not in power don't what the party in power to do something good, because then they get credit for it and it counts against the opposition parties during the next election...

Why does politics have to be so complicated? Why can't all politicians just do what they're elected to do and serve the people?

Re:The 13 votes (2, Insightful)

sa666_666 (924613) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427530)

Why can't all politicians just do what they're elected to do and serve the people?

Because the number one mandate of politicians is to get re-elected, not to serve the people. And a great portion of their time is spent getting around any 'roadblocks' that would benefit the people but negatively impact them. It's an unsolvable problem; the goals of a politician and those of the people are often diametrically opposed.

Dumbest post I've read in a long, long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427618)

Do you have any comprehension of how a democracy works? Don't you understand the role of elected officials is?

Members of the EU Parliament represent the people that have voted for them and the people should be able to scrutinize every action of theirs. Especially how they vote since they do so on behalf of the people that voted them in.

If any one of them is orphaned, headlines will give them what they want: Attention. Negative headlines even more so. Journalists will want to ask them about it and consequently they will get an opportunity to explain why they voted the way they did. Then people that agree with them, will know better whom to vote for in the next elections. And if it was a bad thing, well, then the consequence will be precisely what it should be.

Re:The 13 votes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427002)

I'd be curious to see the political/national/corporate affiliations of the 13 that voted for it.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+PV+20100310+RES-RCV+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
(page 30)

EFD: Agnew, Andreasen, Batten, Bufton, Colman, (The Earl of) Dartmouth, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
NI: Bontes, Sinclaire, Stassen, van der Stoep

EFD: "Europe of Freedom and Democracy is a right-wing Eurosceptic political group in the European Parliament."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Freedom_and_Democracy

NI are Members of the European Parliament (MEP) who do not sit in one of the political groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Inscrits

And there was much rejoicing (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426482)

I seem to be incapable of writing a cynical, sarcastic comment on this, so good job EU! Let's hope Congress takes the hint as well.

Re:And there was much rejoicing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426534)

Everyone write to their senators and congressmen, letting them know that ACTA is NOT in the public's interest, and that a vote for ACTA will be a vote against them come next election.

Cyncism about the EU? (1, Interesting)

l2718 (514756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426790)

It seems that the reason for the EU's existence is as an anti-democratic force in Europe. Given the scant regard the EU has for democracy and accountability my guess is that the EU's executive will simply ignore this vote, just like they ignored the no votes on the European Constitution, and just like they started implementing the Lisbon Treaty before it was ratified.

Re:Cyncism about the EU? (2, Interesting)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427042)

They will almost certainly try, but with the Lisbon Treaty in place it will be a lot harder for them to get away with it. It looks as if this is going to be the test case to find out how much muscle the Lisbon Treaty actually has. Expect a very fierce power struggle.

Wow, there's some intelligent life left on Earth (4, Interesting)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426492)

Nice to see not everyone in "government" is controlled by Hollywood

Re:Wow, there's some intelligent life left on Eart (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426628)

Do not get your hopes up. I just see 663 politicians who are about to get visits from copyright lobbyists, it remains to be seen how easily these people can be bought.

Re:Wow, there's some intelligent life left on Eart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427044)

Didn't work when US spooks'n'bullies tried to pressure EU politicians to vote for US access to SWIFT data.

Let's see if they're as resilient when corporations throwing around money are involved.

Your being silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427498)

There will be 326 visits, no need to pay for a landslide victory.

Re:Wow, there's some intelligent life left on Eart (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427436)

Hollywood still has the cash but it is rapidly losing influence to the internet and the internet seems to be working on that cash problem, as the various old world passive media is losing out to the more modern interactive media types are taking over. For ACTA to have worked they would have needed to launch it at the same time as the DMCA (which itself has been demonstrated to be biased and corrupt in it's application) or perhaps even the mickey mouse copyright extension act.

It is become pretty clear that 'club narcissist' (old world mass media, in it's leaders, performers, and ideals or lack there of) is losing it's political power and will start taking a back seat to other far more important parts of socio economic environment. It is pretty clear that it had an excessive and fairly dishonest and destructive influence for the last thirty which is now finally coming to an end (a narcissistic rage kicking and screaming end, involving many blatant and inevitably public attempts at political corruption).

Wow - (4, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426494)

You mean there's still a legislative body that isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of their corporations?

Re:Wow - (1, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426644)

"You mean there's still a legislative body that isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of their corporations?"
No.
1. They have no real power to legislate.
2. They are just not owned by US corporations. EU corporations wouldn't like that.

Actually I am happy to see this. I am sick of the power Entertainment companies have over the US government.
What really burns me if when they want to not be regulated they wrap themselves in the Freedom of Speech and We are artists flag. Which the Slashdot crowd jumps right into bed with.
When they want a law past they are all about "Protecting IP rights" even at the expense of free speech and Fair use.

Get your shit straight. (5, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426746)

since lisbon treaty last year, ANYthing that is done by Eu commission has to be approved by parliament to be valid. Parliament can also cancel anything Eu commission did before they had to take their approval. Like the SWIFT bank transfer treaty that required eu to give out private about people doing bank transactions with u.s.

Re:Get your shit straight. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426886)

since lisbon treaty last year, ANYthing that is done by Eu commission has to be approved by parliament to be valid.

Unfortunately the process is basically that the EC offers something slightly less unreasonable each round, until the worst possible bargain is struck just to get some of the good things done. Like in the US most the crap are in semi-related add-ons to the main directive. And while the balance of power is slightly shifted, it's not like the EP are the ones running the show.

Re:Get your shit straight. (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427252)

Unfortunately the process is basically that the EC offers something slightly less unreasonable each round

Yeah, welcome to governing by consensus. There is no government in the world that doesn't work that way.

Re:Get your shit straight. (1, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427412)

this is Eu parliament, not u.s. senate. when Euparl states a stance on some stuff, they are not compromised nomatter what. 3strikes, isp liability for piracy and so on, the stuff they have expressed stance against, cant be in any document that is put in front of them now, regardless of reason.

Re:Get your shit straight. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427620)

So they act as an executive and not as a legislative branch. They can veto but not legislate.

Re:Wow - (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426668)

Or one that bends over and panders to ex-communist 68'ers?

Re:Wow - (4, Interesting)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426768)

Well this looks promising but no reason to take the pressure of them yet. Something I find odd with voting is that something can be effectively reintroduced continually until it is accepted, whereas it is much harder to reject something once accepted.

If we were to be highly sceptical we could point out that these guys weren't involved in the talks so could just be actioning their annoyance, or negotiating for their cut. Or, remember there were corporations - local corporations - who were set to suffer from this legislation. Maybe the ISPs were wiser with their 'donations' than the American-led movie and music lobby.

Re:Wow - (4, Informative)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427070)

If we were to be highly sceptical we could point out that these guys weren't involved in the talks so could just be actioning their annoyance, or negotiating for their cut.

You don't need to be cynical -- they specifically state that that's the issue. From the RA:

In a statement released today, MEPs Lambrinidis (S&D, Greece), Castex (S&D, France), Alvaro (ALDE, Germany) and Roithova (EPP, Czech Republic) "deeply regret the fact that the Council is continuing its secretive stance, despite the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which stipulates that the European Parliament should have full and immediate access to information at all stages of international negotiations".

It's the secrecy that they're objecting to, not the content (which they don't -- officially -- know).

Re:Wow - (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426850)

no, it's a stunt to get themselves reelected. The only question is if they did it to make you feel good or to increase their corporate funding.

Re:Wow - (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426968)

Oh its owned by a corporation alright, but you'd never guess who. This goes as far back as the East India [trading] Company. The EIC was running England way back in the day, but they had to keep up appearances. So, under the illusion of disappearance, EIC supposedly fell off the map, but in secret, key members were still having the executive decision in England. It got quite upset when the United States of America broke off. Ever since that day they have held a hateful grudge. England was wary to join the EU at first because they weren't sure if they could keep up the act. It's difficult to cover your tracks and hide all the evidence you know. Anyways, when the United states became big with Hollywood and Rock n Roll, this was their chance to strike back. What was the East India Company's biggest threat when they ruled the seas? That's right - PIRATES. Taking this idea is the entire foundation of music and movie piracy, bootlegging etc. Then when the internet came along, they kept up with the times and started digital pirating. Condemning such scapegoats as "The Pirate Bay" only serves to help keep the guise up. As such, we've been locked in battle ever since - Corporate America and its music labels versus the European Union (EIC) and its highly sophisticated piracy. You need look no further for evidence of my claims than European music. See: Basshunter.

In all honesty guys, this one was obvious.

Ovation (4, Funny)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426496)

You can't see it because this is the internet but I'm giving Europe a standing ovation right now.

It's nice to see some people in power actually understand just how disgusting ACTA is.

Re:Ovation (4, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426700)

You can't see it because this is the internet but I'm giving Europe a standing ovation right now.

Yes, we can. Turn off your webcam. Or at least put on some pants. We don't need to know the details behind your "standing" ovation. :)

All kidding aside:

It's nice to see some people in power actually understand just how disgusting ACTA is.

Agreed. Now let's hope that this starts a new actual legislative movement in the EU, and eventually in the States and other places, to respect IP rights to a reasonable degree but also make copyright reasonable again.

Re:Ovation (5, Funny)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426754)

Yes, we can. Turn off your webcam.

Sorry. Got this computer from school. Didn't know the webcam was on...

Re:Ovation (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427226)

It's just a bug. Pay not attention to it.

Sincerely,

Tech Support

PS No, we're not reading what you post on the internet from this computer.

And that is why.. (4, Insightful)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426636)

I am moving to Germany next month! seriously.

The sheep here just dont care what the government takes from them so long as it's "for the children".

Re:And that is why.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426758)

I am moving to Germany next month!

You'll be sorry.

Re:And that is why.. (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426782)

Good luck with that. It’s far from over. Our government (which is NOT the EU) still is very much for a totalitarian surveillance state. And the “terrorists” still are the excuse deus ex machina of law.

Re:And that is why.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426796)

have fun playing your non-violent games then!

Germany? (3, Interesting)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426954)

I like Germany very much, but it's not a destination I'd recommend *specifically* for avoiding stupid (IT) regulation.

Before you pack up your wagon, google around a bit for the recent (~2 years) data laws passed in Germany. As a brief taste, it's apparently ok for the government to install spyware on their citizens' computers, but not okay for citizens to use network snooping (aka diagnostics) software.

Not than anywhere else is really a lot better. (Except maybe Iceland, soon?)

Re:And that is why.. (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427078)

I hear Andorra [wikipedia.org] and Sweden [wikipedia.org] are a bit better depending on what, specifically, you are looking for. Most of the German folk I've met have pretty major gripes about their government. However, I've never visited Andorra or Sweden...yet anyways.

i'm sick of this meme (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427136)

"i'm going to run to canada if bush is elected! boo hoo!"

look you spineless assholes: if your society is going south, stay there and fight for it. fleeing means that you don't hold much stock in the strength of your own convictions, and instead parasitically depend on someone else to fight for your convictions

all of your freedoms you hold dear must constantly be protected and fought for. what, you think you fight for something once and it stays that way forever? no, every day is a fight against constant assaults against your freedoms, and this is the way it is, FOREVER, IN EVERY SOCIETY. this is the reality you live in, so grow a fucking backbone, stand your fucking ground, and fight the fucking assholes who infect your society

to anyone who threatens to flee the usa because of changes in society they don't like: you're a loser, you're a freeloader, and you ARE PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM

we need fighters who will fight for their home, not freeloading whiners

Re:i'm sick of this meme (2, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427626)

It's a rhetorical point rather than a statement of fact. When Bush was elected, I noticed a distinct dearth or "liberal" refugees swarming over the border. Nor did the situation change upon his reelection. While one or two rare individuals may actually follow up on such statements, the vast majority will not. It's the equivalent of a young child threatening to run away from home; a cry for attention rather than a serious plan.

Re:And that is why.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427364)

As a German living in Germany I advise you to choose a different country. We're on a steep down-hill path when it comes to freedom. (Again, some might say)

663:13 !? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426688)

Can we please, please, please have name and party affiliation of the 13? Thank you very much.

Re:663:13 !? (5, Interesting)

lordholm (649770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427022)

Firstly, the vote was not against ACTA, it was a resolution to force the Commission to open up the documents (See one of the Pirate Party MEPs blog: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/epic-win-for-transparency-on-acta/ [wordpress.com] or the official EP website http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/026-70281-067-03-11-903-20100309IPR70280-08-03-2010-2010-false/default_en.htm [europa.eu]). The article is very very wrong. The 13 against are listed in the EUPs roll calls.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+PV+20100310+RES-RCV+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN [europa.eu]

The following are against (by their EU party grouping)
EFD: Agnew, Andreasen, Batten, Bufton, Colman, (The Earl of) Dartmouth, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
NI: Bontes, Sinclaire, Stassen, van der Stoep

These are from the UK and the Netherlands. All of them UKIP (British anti-eu party) or PVV (Dutch anti-islam party).

The British MEPs are the following
UKIP: Andreasen, Agnew, Batten, Bufton, Colman, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
Previous UKIP (expelled): Sinclare

The Dutch ones the following
PVV: Bontes, Stassen, van der Stoep

I have not bothered to include the ones who abstained their vote.

Re:663:13 !? (1)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427586)

ahahaha, I knew it would be ukip. Since they entered Europe they have been a complete an utter farce.
They often vote against their own best interests without realising, a couple have been sent to jail etc.
For a full education I direct you to this [ukipwatch.org] pdf.

"Compromise" coming next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426698)

From TFA and experience, this proposal will be back in a "compromise" version, but since the EU Parliament won't be involved in drafting it, it will likely just sound like a compromise. Happened plenty of times before.

Don't rejoice just yet - keep up the pressure, so any pretend compromise will fail again.

Better than rejected! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426708)

Heh, this is a case where the inappropriately-effusive slashdot story is actually less exciting than the glum reality. This vote was a parliamentary resolution urging the European Commission to (among other things) fight the veil of secrecy that's kept ACTA out of the mainstream press for the most part. That's way cooler than "rejecting" some secret draft that we didn't know about anyway, and that would have been swiftly replaced with another secret draft.

Not really... (5, Informative)

teslar (706653) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426752)

I don't want to bring the mood down, but this is just a good summary of a bad article. The parliament did not vote against ACTA per se, they voted in favour of resolution RC-B7-0154/2010 [europa.eu]. Much better summary is the press release [europa.eu] from the parliament itself.

In brief, they are mostly pissed off about the secrecy of the negotiations and lack of transparency. The resolution calls on the negotiations being made accessible to the public and the MEPs in a timely manner. So it's not against ACTA, it's against how negotiations are conducted. However, the resolution does also call out against the 3-strike rule and personal searches at EU borders. Regarding warrantless searches, they merely want a "clarification" of clauses that would allow such things.

read well (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426844)

there are other stuff. Eu rules took effect last year exonerates ISPs from liability over pirated content in their network as long as they take measures to remove them when informed. the shit us corporations are trying to push in acta wanted to force isps into corporations' polices, policing their network for those people's content. also there are important declarations regarding freedoms there, not limited to 3 strikes.

It's more of a clash between EC and EP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426786)

You may see it as a move against ACTA, but the unity behind the EP's recent motion comes from a procedural disagreement between EP (parliament) and EC (comission). In other words its not EP rejecting ACTA but EP denying EC right to negotiate such an act without EP's knowledge, participation and alike.
I'm sketching it roughly, it's much more layered, but it's definitely not a simple rejection of ACTA.

RATM (2, Funny)

bazorg (911295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426800)

I can imagine all the members of parliament singing that famous Chritsmas hit single by Rage against the Machine... but probably they didn't.

Re:RATM (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427264)


I can imagine all the members of parliament singing that famous Chritsmas hit single by Rage against the Machine... but probably they didn't.

They had considered it, but then realised the European equivalent of the RIAA would want to charge license fees ;)

It's sad to see (5, Insightful)

Dr.Syshalt (702491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426834)

...how the world has changed in recent 150 years. U.S. corporations push draconian laws and European countries are praised for standing up to protect freedoms and privacy.

Reality (3, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31426934)

Today, the US economy "manufactures" IP. The vast factories that employ thousands of people have all moved to Mexico or China and they aren't coming back no matter what happens. The WTO is going to see to that.

Do you really believe that anything the EU does is going to prevent the US from rather forcibly letting the world know that the IP manuactured in the US isn't going to be passed around for free? Dream on. You are talking about a huge economy that is responsible for the well-being of nearly a half a billion people.

The goal of the pirate community is simple - nobody pays, ever. A admirable goal and one that most people don't really see any problem with. Which leads to sillyness like a software developer whose salary depends on the company's revenue from software sales freely downloading and redistributing movies. Sure, it is easy and convenient, but best of all it is really cheap. But when the software is passed around for free as well will the company survive? I guess they could come up with a "new business model" that supports giving it all away for free. But they probably aren't going to need as many developers...

Probably the biggest thing that people are missing is the US is poised to take on a huge new madate to pretty much supply health care to everyone. This is going to cost a lot more money, money the government gets from taxes. Pirates don't pay taxes on what they "try before buying". So regardless of how the media companies figure out a new business model that can just give everything away, the government's share of the sales taxes and income taxes goes away. The US government is no longer in a position to ignore this loss of tax revenue.

So what is going to happen? Well, I would start figuring out how the US government is going to continue to get the same tax revenue in the face of a massive piracy movement. They could tax Internet connections. They could crack down on piracy in all sorts of ways. They could do both. But no matter what, they aren't going to take the revenue loss lying down and are going to do something. Probably something big because the appetite for tax revenue is just going to get a lot bigger over the next few years.

fool (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427302)

going and patenting stuff like 'single click' and leaving that aside, patenting BASIC logical thought processes that has been the very fundamentals of logic equations since last 5000 years and then trying to force your 'ownership' over these onto entire world is medieval feudalism at it best. it has nothing to do with creativity, it has nothing to do with productivity, it has NOTHING to do with rights. its basically laying claim to intelligence. the ONLY place on the face of the world where patents and copyrights granted for BASE thought processes, is united states. united states is the problem here, not the pirates. no amount of piracy can outshadow the villainy of trying to lay claim to logic itself.

Re:Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31427304)

The second they start taxing an internet connection for the purposes of the piracy, the media companies put themselves at risk of making the same mistake they made in Canada. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html

Re:Reality (5, Informative)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427356)

Do you really believe that anything the EU does is going to prevent the US from rather forcibly letting the world know that the IP manuactured in the US isn't going to be passed around for free? Dream on. You are talking about a huge economy that is responsible for the well-being of nearly a half a billion people.

Yeah:

GDP (Nominal):
EU - US $14.51 trillion (2009 est.)
US - US $14.266 trillion (2009)

Population:
EU - 491,582,852 (July 2009 est.)
US - 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.)

Sorry buddy, the days are over when the US could unilaterally dictate it's whims to a fractured Europe. The EU has already surpassed the US in size and economic power, and the odds are very good that trend will continue.

Re:Reality (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427462)

Yup... When it comes to creating bigger government and collecting the taxes to pay for it, NOTHING will escape notice, especially piracy. By pirating software you are also dodging the IRS. That makes it a government problem instead of a simple loss of revenue for a company.

You are dodging sales tax and reducing the income tax paid by the company who you are stealing the software from, since their incoming money is shorted. You are also causing one of the merchants that sells the product to lose revenue, reducing their income taxes paid.

That's three separate taxes you are dodging on your own and others' behalf.

The argument "Well I wouldn't have bought it anyway" won't work because you have the software, and didn't pay your taxes on it. If the government decided to prosecute you they could probably argue for tax evasion and copyright violation charges.

Disclaimer: I am not pro big government or pro taxes, I'm just telling it like it is with regard to how the IRS and the government views piracy. There is this factor working against pirates, as well as the software lobby. The software lobby will get what it wants because of the illegality of copyright violation and loss of tax revenue, the more important factor being the loss of taxes. Stopping tax abuse is at the top of the administrations agenda right now.

ACTA "Rejected" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426964)

Maybe its spoon was too big.

Not a rejection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31426992)

They are not rejecting the ACTA treaty - there is no final document to vote on yet. They have voted through a resolution demanding transparancy.

your move, media corporations (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427018)

it seems that even with all your paid for government whores, you can't legislate against technological progress

maybe you should consider your only option: death. fucking parasites

creators: you have a choice too. you can sign a ridiculous stifling agreement with some lawyer assholes where they get the lions share of your creative effort, or you can self-distribute

the downside is it's totally free, the upside is it's totally free. this is not communist thinking, this is in fact a solid capitalist model: think of your digitized creative output as advertising, the same solid capitalist business model as good old FM radio or broadcast television... give it away for free, reap the side benefits. you get fabulous exposure, free advertising, and permanent presence and community building with fans. then you can tour, or show only in movie houses, or a number of other ancillary revenue streams available to you, capitalizing on your exposure

you are your own entrepreneur, with your own creative output. no more is your fate decided by some asshole in a suit in an office: you rise and fall on the sheer affinity of fans to your output. this is, in fact, capitalism at its finest. for those who say the internet is destroying the capitalism as represented by traditional media corporations: no, that's an oligopoly. monopolies and oligopolies, in fact, are a greater threat to healthy capitalism than communist thinking. free over the internet is capitalism at its finest, not communism

creators: make money the honest way, rather than making a deal with the devil that the internet has pretty much destroyed now as a viable avenue for you. help us destroy the financial parasites on our culture, who are attempting to warp our freedoms to grandfather their unnecessary existence into our societies

die bertelsmann, die time warner, just fucking die, die, die you useless rotten pile of lawyers and suits. WE DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE. DIE

Re:your move, media corporations (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427358)

I agree with this sentiment. The only reason I might buy music is if I like the band well enough to actually want a copy of their music. Most of what's being produced lately hasn't sounded like music to me -- most if it is just noise made by no-talent hacks with no concept of art, of how to produce something that will make someone go, "WOW!"

So impress me, record labels: Make something pretty that I might like to listen to. Make something interesting enough for me to want to buy your product.

It's the same as soap: If it doesn't do the job I expect, such as clean my clothing, my floors, my bathroom sink, I'm not going to buy that product. If I don't enjoy the product you're selling, you want me to buy?

Artists: What the parent to my post has to say is something to listen to. It costs pennies on the dollar to get your stuff out on the Internet and a fan base set up using even just Facebook or MySpace or even Craig's List. If people like your stuff, they will come find you. Put it out there, then set up shows with local bars. Continue on until you can start setting up your own dates with larger venues. Avoid the big record companies. They're vampire leeches who will suck the soul out of your product.

Obama's Administration officially looks stupid! (5, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427224)

We were told that ACTA had to remain secret for "National Security Reasons". We were told it had to remain secret or other countries would walk away from the table.

But the truth is that most of Europe will walk away if there is no disclosure. And none of the countries that have supported secrecy have threatened to leave the talks. And the US hasn't even claimed to take a position (though we all know that is a lie).

And to top it all off, despite all the leaks so far, we do not have a single terrorist organization that has been able to leverage the revealed all-so-dangerous-information commit any terrorist act.

At least, as long as you don't consider Michael Geist a terrorist.

Standing ovation... (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427284)

Another standing ovation here. Glad to see the MEP's using some of the power they gained in the Lisbon treaty. ACTA is far from over yet, but at least the MEP's are not letting the media companies steamroll them like the politicians in the US.

Citizens of the EU, let your MEP's know you support them in this and get your voices heard.

Thank You EU! (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31427570)

Once again I'd like to thank the EU for saving the citizens of the U.S. from our corporate led government. If you're ever in the area, beers are on me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...