×

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!

European Parliament All But Rejects ACTA

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the actaing-out-loud dept.

Censorship 248

An anonymous reader writes "European Parliament today adopted Written Declaration 12/2010 which basically tells the Commission to all but drop the negotiations. From the article: 'Citizens from all around Europe helped to raise awareness about ACTA among Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) by collecting, one by one, more than 369 [of the MEPs'] signatures. With Written Declaration 12/20103, the European Parliament as a whole takes a firm position to oppose the un-democratic process of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and its content harmful to fundamental freedoms and the Internet ecosystem.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

248 comments

About Fucking Time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509168)

EU has been impressing me lately. They seem to actually care about good governance sometimes. That's one hell of a lot more than I can say about the USA and the "land of the free".

Re:About Fucking Time (-1, Troll)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509182)

Goddamn commies.

About to burn some karma, but... (-1, Offtopic)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509870)

GOOGLE, YOU BUNCH OF FUDGEPACKERS.

So, you started a few months by adding this retarded "custom google" front page and added an automatic background and changed the logo color scheme. I'm still dealing with that as I have not been able to figure out how to get the original google logo back. It's a gray embossed logo which is annoying, but at least I had a white background and the normal "standard" look that I have been accustomed to since ca. 2002...

...until today. So, again, fudgepackers have automatically changed something without prompting the user first. Google Instant??? So as soon as I type in the first letter into the search query box, it redirects me to another page with an autocompletion/guess mechanism turned on. I'm in the middle of typing something, and magically, everything changes. Really great use of my slow computer's resources to be re-rendering a page every 300ms, and I love having even more HTTP requests than before. Don't completely rewrite the UI if the original already does exactly what your user base does and your change offers marginal if any positive improvements. Simplicity? Google is the new Micro$haft. Bunch of morons.

Re:About to burn some karma, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Scorch_Mechanic (1879132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509928)

So if a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many flapjacks does it take to shingle a doghouse?

Re:About to burn some karma, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509938)

Dude, why aren't you using NoScript? Those who use it don't have these problems.

Re:About Fucking Time (4, Insightful)

jvillain (546827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509330)

The EU blows hot and cold but there are times that I am very grateful that they have the back bone to stand up to the US. Our prime minister has taken over from Blair as the one who gets on his knees and blows who ever is in the White House.

Re:About Fucking Time (5, Insightful)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509472)

EU has been impressing me lately. They seem to actually care about good governance sometimes. That's one hell of a lot more than I can say about the USA and the "land of the corporate free reign".

Here, let me fix that for you...

- Dan.

Re:About Fucking Time (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509924)

I'm not convinced the EU did this for good reasons, or for their OWN corporate overlords (like they did when they sued Microsoft in order to protect the EU-based Opera). Recall that the EU corporations would actually be damaged by ACTA, which primarily exists to protect the US TV/music industry. So naturally the EU corporations would oppose its passage, and press the MEPs to oppose it too.

This is EU corporations fighting back against US corporate protectionism.

Then again, perhaps I'm just too cynical.

Re:About Fucking Time (3, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510036)

That's some mighty fine cynicism there. But I can't find much to pick at. Opera seems a bit small-fry for that sort of a concerted effort though. Hmmm.

Re:About Fucking Time (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510166)

I thought Opera was Europe's #2 web browser? (And the CIS countries #1.) Not as large as the giant the Microsoft but still not small. It's worth the EU's time to protect Opera and other corporations from US megacorps, and ensure Europeans will have jobs, et cetera.

Re:About Fucking Time (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510226)

Could be, I haven't been keeping up with the figures. I know that in Germany Firefox recently overtook IE, but it's possible that Germany is an outlier and that it's IE first then Opera in the EU as a whole.

It certainly would be worth the EU's time to protect EU corps from US ones. The optimist in me doesn't want to think like that. The pessimist in me moved to australia about six months back.

Re:About Fucking Time (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510248)

That doesn't fit at all how the EU "goes after" primarilly local companies abusing the market. You just hear about cases of overseas / from you place ones more.

Re:About Fucking Time (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509544)

The USA is the land of the free. The free are very happy there, and they have a ready supply of serfs to keep them that way.

Re:About Fucking Time (1)

J.J. Dane (1562629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509556)

If you read the small print I think you'll find they were referring to "Free" as in "beer",not as in "speech"..

And of course, they screwed you on the beer as well..

Re:About Fucking Time (2, Insightful)

skine (1524819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509578)

Some people are freer than others.

Sadly, corporations now have the rights of people.

Re:About Fucking Time (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509628)

Yes without most of the responsibilities that go with it.

Re:About Fucking Time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509678)

without any of the obligations...

Taxes? pass them on to customers.
Service? Who do they draft?
License fees? pass them on to customers.
Liability? We bought laws to protect us from our own greed and sins.

All the *priveleges* without any of the responsibility.

Re:About Fucking Time (2, Insightful)

doesnothingwell (945891) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509606)

I am usually proud to be american, but when we get our head up our ass its really up there.

Re:About Fucking Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510064)

yes it is.

Re:About Fucking Time (2, Funny)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510082)

Hey, if there's one thing about the USA it's that when you go for something you really go for it. Other countries have surpassed you in the number of fat citizens but nobody, and I mean nobody, just up and goes for it like your fat folk. Same for head-up-assness.

I'm sure there are non-negative examples too... like the space program, hell, back when it was a race the USA decided to damn the consequences and make a concerted push. It's a good quality, albeit with unintended consequences.

Re:About Fucking Time (4, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509718)

The EU parliament does. But make no mistake, it is the brain of dinosaur. The bureaucracy below is an example of wasted resources and corruption.

Re:About Fucking Time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510110)

And the dinosaur seems to be getting fatter year by year.
If one creates a governing body, it's going to govern. And when all the stuff it was created to handle are taken care of, it's going to look around for new things to govern.
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that the EU as it was described to us voters, ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, was a good idea. But it really should have gone into a kind of maintenance mode by now.

Now just watch (5, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510048)

Now let's all just watch the commission ignore the requests of the parliament. Unless it's really not important at all, of course.

Power in the EU is not with the parliament, but with the commission. Even after the treaty both executive and legislative power remains with the commission, and they threw in a part of the judiciary to match.

Re:About Fucking Time (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510094)

Err, Obama?

All super-human expectations aside, he's doing a terriffic job. Just too bad it all boils down to politics after a while..

Re:About Fucking Time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510104)

Never attribute to intelligence or honesty that which can be adequately explained by any other reason :-)

Re:About Fucking Time (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510230)

I tend to think that younger government bodies tend to be more idealistic in nature. The U.S. seems to have started that way before greed settled in then for reasons I cannot comprehend, it became open season on the native american and the american bison among others and people of the time seemed perfectly comfortable with it.

Give the EU some time and it will also degenerate into something we can hate. There is lots of big industry looking for ways to grow and the way they do that is by getting or preventing legislation from being passed. They do that by influencing government in the only way they know how -- money.

369? (1)

Svenne (117693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509200)

Really? They couldn't be bothered to count more than 369 signatures?

Re:369? (2, Insightful)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509270)

I noticed that too, but I'm guessing that it refers to the amount of MEPs who got somehow involved. That would be 369 out of 736 MEPs, a significant number. Since this is EU stuff, there's always the possibility that anything you read has been hastily translated from another language, adding additional noise.

I hope someone who isn't ignorant like me can clarify the signature thing though.

Re:369? (5, Informative)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509280)

Really? They couldn't be bothered to count more than 369 signatures?

There are 736 Members of the European Parliament [wikipedia.org]. 369 is a majority.

Re:369? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509428)

Thank you for clarifying. The way the summary is written, it sounds like a petition with 369 citizens' signatures.

Re:369? (0)

buro9 (633210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509288)

Whenever you read something like "more than 369 signatures" it really just means "370 signatures"

Re:369? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509876)

The target was 369, a majority. The current total is 377.

Wow, really impressed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509212)

369 signatures all over Europe, that's really an achievement. Seriusly, I never believe that it will possible to make that numbers of europeans agree.

Re:Wow, really impressed (1)

draconx (1643235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509266)

RTF summary. 369 signatures from the Members of the European Parliament. In other words, a majority.

Re:Wow, really impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509394)

Calling a +1 deciding vote a majority is technically true, but still dishonest. A candidate who wins election by 50.1% percent isn't popular even though he won.

Re:Wow, really impressed (2, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509484)

He is popular, but his adversary is almost as popular as he is. But that's why the first guy won, and the second didn't.

Re:Wow, really impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509734)

Oh come on now... it worked for GW Bush. Hell, he didnt even have a majority, just the electoral votes. I would say that if they have more than half, its honest to call that a majority.

Re:Wow, really impressed (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509784)

What's dishonest about it?
It's more than half of the people, so it's the majority. Not an overwhelming majority, yet still.

And in places where voters can/have to choose between more than 2 candidates (that is: almost everywhere except the US), candidates who get an actual majority of 50+% instead of only a relative majority are considered popular.

Re:Wow, really impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510124)

I think the GP meant dishonest as in throwing the other voter opinion under the bus so to speak (and I hate that phrase). I kind of agree with him on supermajority (or 3/5ths) needed to qualify for "popular" status. In your example, I think the best decision would be to do a re-vote with the two highest candidates, but I won't argue voting methods. I would probably determine popularity by the voter margin between the winner and the next nearest candidate, i.e., if they are close apart then he isn't a popular choice.

Re:Wow, really impressed (1)

ZorroXXX (610877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510224)

A candidate who wins election by 50.1% percent isn't popular even though he won.

You are limiting your own imagination if you only assume two candidates when talking about an election. I hope that is not the case, that you just worded yourself so that it possible to interpret it that way.

Wait, what? (1)

mike260 (224212) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509242)

A democratic institution representing the desires and best interests of it's electorate?
What gives?

Re:Wait, what? (2, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509514)

In the end, representation generally does happen, in a way - it's just that what individual members of a given society claim they want and value, and what the society actually promotes in the system of governance, are not necessarily the same thing.

Personal anecdote time: during uni I had one roommate from a place which will remain unnamed, but is generally one of impoverished & corrupt ones - at the time we were also watching on the BBC a major unrest there, revolving around electoral fraud. Of course he was openly disgusted at such state of affairs, rampant corruption, etc.
But what was he doing? Studying & living blissfully in a relatively expensive place, financed by his family at home in the position of public authority, on a curse leading to a diploma which will be useless (just for a paper; while cheating) - but with a position in a public institution at home virtually assured after his return.

The close relation between those things and what he supposedly despises never quite seemed to click with him... at most, some other groups / etc. were the guilty ones.

Re:Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509536)

A democratic institution representing the desires and best interests of it's electorate?
What gives?

Too many people to effectively bribe.

Re:Wait, what? (3, Informative)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510066)

The European Parliament is usually a reliable entity with good sense. That's why there are so many rulings that allow the hateful non-elected European Commission to go over their heads in many issues. I wouldn't be surprised if the EC just ignores the Parliament and signs an agreement with the US to apply ACTA here.

After all, it's presided by a jerk called Barroso, that went from Maoist troublemaker in the 70s to free-market right-wing super-bureaucrat. He avidly supported the invasion of Iraq when he was the Portuguese Prime Minister and licked Bush's ass until his mouth turned brown. Strangely he was rewarded a job as head of the Commision in spite of being a spineless ass-licker that embarrassed and ashamed us Europeans, and specially us Portuguese.

Another ass-licker, Tony Blair, nearly won the job of President of European Council, but this time the outrage was too much for the Euro Dickhead Bureaucrats to sweep under the rug.

Re:Wait, what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510184)

A democratic institution representing the desires and best interests of it's electorate?
What gives?

Electoral funding laws that try to ensure that elected representatives are not corporate sponsored...

Of course, this doesn't stop (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509260)

unilateral declarations that work out to "agree with our stance on copyrig^H^H^Hcounterfeiting or else."

Re:Of course, this doesn't stop (2, Insightful)

quintesse (654840) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509382)

"copycounterfeiting"? They even go after people who make copies of copies? That's just... wow... ;)

Re:Of course, this doesn't stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509384)

It doesn't stop until they drive out all corporations' lobbyists.

Big corporations are not living beings, they are self sustaining social constructs of greed.

So, can I sigh in relief now? (4, Interesting)

Scorch_Mechanic (1879132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509264)

Now that the EU has "all but rejected ACTA", how likely is this to impact the enactment of this blatantly evil trade agreement in the US of A? Speaking as a concerned citizen of the US, can I breathe a little easier now, or is there more that still needs to be done to grind this horrible blight on the internet out of existence?

Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509444)

This was the just European Parliament. The Commission has ignored the parliament before when there was something they wanted to push through.

Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? (2, Insightful)

LordAndrewSama (1216602) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509508)

As I understand it, the EU parliament now has a bit more authority and can stand up to the commission. not sure though, so don't quote me.

Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509898)

In my understanding yes the parliament now have more power to reject the commission, but it can't really stop what the commission is doing until there's a proposal on the table. This is as I understand it mostly a statement of intent that they will, because the way it's been handled.

What is likely to happen is that the commission will propose something, have it rejected, revise it again, get rejected again ad infinitum. They've been known to fight wars of attrition - or failing that - slowly giving in to demands until it finally passes with a small margin.

Long story short, I believe eventually they will pass some form of ACTA, but hopefully most of the bad bits will be gone by then.

Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? (1)

lordholm (649770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510020)

There are only two readings of the proposals by the EP. If they say no during both, and the consolidation attempts with the council fails, the proposal is dead and the commission will not bring it up again, unless the EP wants it.

Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? (5, Interesting)

lordholm (649770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509968)

Yes, the EP must approve (almost) all international treaties that the commission negotiates, the ACTA treaty is among these.

Now, the EP have several options if they really want to force their will through. These include:

1. A vote of no confidence, which would get the commission sacked.
2. Try the old methods of Tiberius Gracchus and veto everything that comes out as a proposal from the commission or the council.

Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509840)

It does not impact you at all. The only thing you can do is to vote vore someone who is more concerned about your wellbeing that to stai in power. (That is: Do not vote for any of the two major blocks since anyone who is a member of them probably is so because of their search for power.)

good (1)

Midnight's Shadow (1517137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509278)

Now all we can hope is that the US government decides its a bad idea as well. And while I'm wishing for the impossible - I'd like a solar powered corvette and world peace.

Re:good (3, Informative)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509780)

I was about to say "don't forget office sex with your pantsuited, bespectacled busty redhead secretary", but you already used your three wishes. :(

Re:good (3, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510114)

Is it Christina Hendricks? 'cos I would totally take back the other wishes. All of them.

Further details... (5, Informative)

petaflop (682818) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509314)

The 369 signatories (377 now) are all MEPs (members of the European Parliament). 369 is significant because it is a majority of the eligible votes.

The linked page is just one of the relevant pages - you have to follow the links on the left to get at the rest. Here's a couple of interesting pages:
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Written_Declaration_12/2010_signatories_list [laquadrature.net]
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA [laquadrature.net]

Source? (2, Interesting)

cf18 (943501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509344)

Can we get a better source than a wiki page that anyone can edit and was last updated on March 8th?

Re:Source? (3, Informative)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509584)

Try this [europa.eu] and search for ACTA in the title. The document in question is here [europa.eu] (pdf). Note that the status is ONGOING but that tomorow is the lapse date.

Next week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509388)

... European Parliament has begun international negotiations on a new counter-terrorism and anti-child molestation treaty.

Negotiations are not on public record, but trust us, the treaty is for your own safety.

Are Canada and Mexico next? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509390)

Now that Europe has more or less said FU to ACTA, can/will Canada and Mexico drop it too?

Re:Are Canada and Mexico next? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509518)

no.
Canadian politicians are lemmings: OMG, don't want to rock the boat. until they've been in 6+year in parliament, they have no balls or leave with the pension.

Mexico is no better. If they would have any balls they would have legalized drugs just to get rid of the anarchy they have now.

Re:Are Canada and Mexico next? (4, Interesting)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509708)

That analysis isn't quite right as Stephen Harper(current PM) has done a fair bit of boat rocking with his far right agenda etc. That asshole has undone some 30+ years of relative progress in just a few short years.

He is very willing to bend over for any US agreements however. Mostly because he's busy pointing at the US(the southern US in particular) as an example for Canada to follow, as though thats a good idea. He slacked up on that part however after their economy collapsed and ours mostly just dipped and leveled out rather than collapsing.

Re:Are Canada and Mexico next? (1)

Dragooner (1808336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509650)

No, the Canadian government has been following the US policies regarding this kind of thing pretty closely. They're even trying to put forward the same kind of copyright legislation as the US has through Bill C-32, which used to be similar to a bill previously proposed as Bill C-18 which ran its course because of the proroguing of parliament last year. Bill C-32 is another attempt at the same copyright http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89303/a-detailed-look-at-bill-c-32-canadas-copyright-reform-bill-part-1/ [zeropaid.com] .

In my limited understanding of legal mumble jumble I believe it says in short:

        * The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
        * The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
        * Allowing consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage.
        * A YouTube clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it's not for commercial gain.
        * A "notice-and-notice" system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law. The violator's personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
        * ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users.
        * A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
        * New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/copyright-bill-clement-montreal.html#ixzz0yxLUq6jO [www.cbc.ca]

Whoda thunk it? (0, Troll)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509414)

Who would have ever thought that European nations would ever be more concerned about liberty and due process than The united States of America? We were once called the "land of the free" and "the land of opportunity" but we're running headlong toward becoming the fascist, socalized nanny state that everyone hates to live under.

Re:Whoda thunk it? (2, Insightful)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510120)

There's no shortage of socialist or nanny actions in Europe, nor bad policing although I lean towards incompetence there and not plain fascism. We steer clear of some of the problems that exist in the US, but there are still countless similarities to our parts of the world.

You've got Mexifornia, we've got Eurabia. You complain about taxation? Try Europe, it's no fun here either. You complain about No Child Left Behind, we struggle with declining education as well. Compared to your ghetto's our problematic neighbourhoods might seem decent, but we too face severe disparities in living standards and safety levels in certain environments as well. We might be a bit more relaxed about softdrugs, televised breasts or people claiming to be atheist, but we have no shortage of conservative and/or religious people up to the highest levels of government trying to ban whatever they can and they succeed often when it coincides with the goals of nanny state socialists. And plenty of celebrities and non-celebrities doing the complete opposite. Extremist nutcrackers, from just plain weird to dangerous to society? Check, we both have plenty.

Or the short version: we've never diverged that much with regards to freedom and opportunity. And as continent with relatively many and quite fluent speakers of English, I don't think we soon will. We can speak the same language and therefore our interchange of ideas is excellent. The only reason we seem to think we're so different is because we're so close that we take the similarities for granted.

All but ? (0, Offtopic)

Pigeon451 (958201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509438)

WTF does "all but drop" mean? If you look at it grammatically, it means "to do everything but drop", which is the opposite of what the submitter implied.

/pedantic

Re:All but ? (3, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509488)

Officially, negotiations are ongoing. In reality, the majority of those that would vote on it have pledged to vote no, if true, ACTA will never go though and become law. So the issue is 'all but dropped' in that the negotiations are still open, but no one on either side expects them to go anywhere.

Re:All but ? (1)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510074)

Officially, negotiations are ongoing. In reality, the majority of those that would vote on it have pledged to vote no, if true, ACTA will never go though and become law. So the issue is 'all but dropped' in that the negotiations are still open, but no one on either side expects them to go anywhere.

Well, they haven't pledged to vote 'no' just made a vague list of demands and expressed quite a lot of reservations.

Sadly, I don't think it means that much. The EU Parliaments has expressed skepticism of ACTA earlier, without any reaction. It would not be the first time the Commission tried to goad the Parliament into accepting draconian IP laws, if you remember their attempt at legalizing software patents. They withdrew the proposed directive after the Parliament amended it to something most of the anti-SW-patent crowd could live with (In other words: A reasonable deal). Total disrespect for the directly-elected representatives.

(Correction) (2, Interesting)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510170)

I wrote that the Commission withdrew the proposed directive. Seems I misremembered. What happened was that they changed the directive to a 'compromise' version that basically threw out all the amendment, and it ended up getting rejected.
Point still stands anyway, the Council dumped all over parliament on the SW patent thing, and I've no reason to believe they'll do differently now.

All but a formal final rejection (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509520)

WTF does "all but drop" mean? If you look at it grammatically, it means "to do everything but drop", which is the opposite of what the submitter implied.

"All But Rejects" in the headline indicated to me that the European Parliament had expressed its disapproval in every way short of a formal final rejection.

Re:All but a formal final rejection (3, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509950)

They did do everything short of a formal final rejection. They can't do the final rejection, since they require a finalized proposal first.

Re:All but ? (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509546)

My understanding of it is that they object strongly to ACTA but have not formally moved to reject it. They probably have to go through months of bureaucratic nonsense to get to the point of agreeing to it only if big changes are made, at which point one hopes the global opposition is so strong that ACTA simply fails in its objective. On the other hand, at the end of a few month wrangling they may agree to a differently worded version of ACTA. Can't say I'm the least bit convinced that ACTA is anywhere near on its last legs though I wish it were so.

Re:All but ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509564)

Yeah. This should read "European Parliament All But All But Rejects ACTA".

Re:All but ? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509862)

In general, "all but foo" means that everything foo-like has happened, short of foo itself. In this case, it means that ACTA hasn't been officially dropped, but it might as well have been because everything up to (but not including) its formal abandonment has taken place.

Re:All but ? (1)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510180)

No. It's a style form and it means they have upgraded the dropping XP path to the max, all they haven't done is actually drop it. If someone all but kills you, you're still alive. But you're also in a puddle of mud on intensive care at best. The EU has slammed ACTA.

This isn't over? (3, Insightful)

Spliffster (755587) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509528)

As a European I am glad to read this. However, I am no sure if this is over yet. The cynic in me says: there wasn't enough money flowing to some representatives or some representatives want to advance their own agenda a little bit more. I guess it is time to negotiate behind closed doors a little bit more until we reach an agreement.

Re:This isn't over? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510076)

yes, unfortunately the EU keep bringing things back, often hidden in another bill, in order to bypass the will of MEPs. Sometimes the unelected commissioners do things completely contrary to the decisions of the MEPs.

Re:This isn't over? (4, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510162)

Repeating the standard pub arguments about politics is not the same as "insightful", mods.

The whole ACTA thing is already being negotiated behind closed doors. It's unlikely that anyone is trying to bribe MEPs at this point since the European Parliament is not directly involved in the negotiations itself, and the European Commission is trying its best to keep them as far as possible from the negotiations. Not to mention that it's pretty hard to bribe that many individual MEPs with so many different political backgrounds and nationalities so as to block a written declaration from passing. It would be one of the most expensive and idiotic strategies ever.

And of course MEPs do this because it advances their agenda: they don't want to be kept out by the European Commission from negotiations like this only to be presented with a fait accompli later on. Well, that combined with the fact that several of them also don't like the inclusion of patents in it, and all the stuff about cutting people's Internet access for copyright infringements is also not very popular there [edri.org].

Note that I'm not saying that it *is* over now. However, that is unrelated to any alleged bribery or selfishness.

2 words: THANK YOU (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509552)

A big THANK YOU to all the MEP's who signed this. Way to grow a spine. Let's all hope ACTA dies the brutal death it was always destined for.

Just empty talk (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509576)

Unfortunately, the EU Parliament is a pitiful powerless entity and "Written Declarations" are just words without substance. The EU Parliament site describes what a Written Declaration is: (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/plenary/writtenDecl.do)

"A written declaration is a text of a maximum of 200 words on a matter falling within the European Union's sphere of activities.
Written declarations are printed in all the official languages, distributed and entered in a register.
MEPs can use written declarations to launch or relaunch a debate on a subject that comes within the EU's remit."

Nothing to see here my friends, the real power stays with the EU Commission.

Re:Just empty talk (1)

PipianJ (574459) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509954)

That's pretty much my interpretation of the issue. I've never seen anything that said that the Commission could be ordered around by the Parliament, and since the Commission is the only EU governing body with legislative initiative [wikipedia.org], all they have to do is keep proposing the ratification of ACTA until the Parliament caves. And even then, the individual member states could ratify ACTA without the EU doing so anyway...

Time to segregate the Internet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509580)

Those EU wankers only voted against this because they enjoy pirating US originated movies and music. Well, times up, I say. Block all Internet connections to Europe! That will slow down the piracy! It's not like our citizens steal *their* crap -- ha! they have nothing worth stealing! -- so we won't even notice it. Solid plan, amiright?

Is it really a victory? (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509894)

Reading the text, I'm worried that the European Commission will be able to argue that the current process is already complying with those demands.

There's a lot of "You can't do X unless it complies with existing EU law!" or "This better not have side effect X!" - to which the European Commission could say "Ok, we're already obliged to comply with EU law, so that changes nothing, and of course we've no intention to cause side effects, so let's continue and sign this thing.".

I'd love to see a document showing what sentences of the latest leaked draft are unavoidably shot down by this declaration.

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...