Beta
×

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!

EU Parliment To Vote On ACTA Soon; Take Action Now

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the only-criminals-need-free-speech dept.

The Internet 115

sTeF writes "Laquadrature du Net releases 3 videos on ACTA: Every citizen can help defeat ACTA by spreading this video across the Internet, urging their fellow citizens to mobilize, and contacting their elected representatives. ACTA is a threat to Internet users' fundamental freedoms and to EU Internet companies' competitiveness and free competition. The European Parliament will soon decide whether to give its consent to ACTA, or to reject it once and for all."

cancel ×

115 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The villain always returns (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904756)

"Reject it once and for all"?

I find your naivety charming but have no need for your newsletter.

Re:The villain always returns (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905088)

You're damn right. They haven't even tried to tack this on to the tail end of a Child Protection bill yet. Everyone knows that scheme works just fine.

Re:The villain always returns (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905726)

Dude, this isn't Washington. IF anything, they'd need to tack it onto the next bailout legislation.

Re:The villain always returns (1)

genjix (959457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905340)

That's it. Keep fanning the flames of the internet hate machine. Test our boundaries before we inevitably snap. Don't let yourselves be boxed and pushed around like the cattle they want you to be! This is our time, our future when for the first time we have found a way to define ourselves as artisans, industrialists, scientists and visionaries. For when the time has come and greed has taken over, dictators will die and people live. A sick machine that you have to throw yourself under the wheels and get ground up in the gears because unless you are free you are just raw material for a rube goldberg machine, an apparatus of silly superstition and institutions that function without knowing why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_bERAf5KAg&feature=related [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ [youtube.com]

Why do they keep trying to pull this shit. Fuck off the internet. You didn't build it, stop trying to legislate it. People that don't know how it works are trying to make the rules for the world's most incredible tool. A liberating, intense network of peoples worldwide with their own world, monetary system, machines and customs.

Pirate! Don't buy or pay a single cent. Pirate everything and give everyone stacks of free copies as presents for big occasions. Rip movies, burn CDs, spread the wealth about. Fact is the big content industries are totally corrupt. Anything to punish or hurt them is good. Shout about computer freedom. Smoke weed. Be disruptive. Boycott retarded laws. Let them know they aren't welcome. Consign them to irrelevancy by civil disobedience and online sit-ins.

What... (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904766)

That video generates more questions in my brain than it answers. "ACTA is bad, nnkay?" it says, which is not enough. The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me. It doesn't even tell me who "The Negotiators" are. I can't say "No" to ACTA based on this video alone.

Re:What... (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904786)

I can't say "No" to ACTA

Oh, well, 's what you could expect from TSA...

Re:What... (0)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904840)

Hey, I had that name long before the evil organization existed. I should sue them for copyright infringement :).

Re:What... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904848)

Oh, so YOU are their inspiration!

Re:What... (0)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905746)

They just got their idea for their X-Ray specs, (read body scanners), from him.

Re:What... (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904976)

I think you should. If you win, you are striking a blow against an evil organisation. If you lose, you set precedence that proves how silly many copyright infringement/patent lawsuits are. It's win-win.

Re:What... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905226)

Sadly no it doesn't

The system is rigged to favor the elite, and often you will have different people in the same position come out differently.

One very big and obvious difference right off the bat is endurance in surviving long enough to get to trial.

The elite often win because the underprivileged don't survive long enough to get to court.

Maybe that's another welcome side effect of keeping the legal system clogged. The elite get to hog the legal system all for themselves.

Re:What... (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905446)

That is exactly why I haven't sued them. The fact the I'm Dutch makes the case even more complicated and expensive, so I would never win.

Re:What... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904856)

i like white people. i don't care for negroes. everyone knows that negroes are inferior. they are like apes.

Re:What... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904944)

Does it matter who they are?

What matters are:
1. ISPs will be responsible for what their customers are doing online. The consequence of this is very problematic.
2. The fact that information is so lacking and negotiations are held secret should be a warning in itself.

This video is more than enough information for me to oppose ACTA, at least until more information is given.

This is also my basic stance towards any new laws. Laws are in themselves regulations of freedom. So any law should by default be opposed, until it is thoroughly justified.

Re:What... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905790)

Information is not lacking. You can download ACTA from the EU and read it for yourself. The fact that neither you, nor the FSF, have bothered to do this, does not strengthen your position. I posted the link twice last time this came up, and others posted saying "what's wrong with ACTA", and no-one replied.

Having read it, it is pretty clear that ACTA does not in fact make ISPs responsible for much. The clauses in ACTA relating to this are MAY clauses, not MUST or even SHOULD clauses. ACTA simply allows individual governments to make such laws insofar as it does not forbid them from doing so, which of course they would not be forbidden from doing so even if ACTA was torched.

ACTA is mostly about trademark infringement and counterfeit goods such as fake Prada handbags and fake Rolexes.

I challenge the FSF - or yourself - to come up with a single coherent argument against ACTA, which takes into account the actual facts.

Re:What... (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904968)

The Video was disappointing and online opposition isn't clear or current. (please prove me wrong) There seems to be nowhere that clearly explains the problem with acta. I would hope that somewhere there might be presentation of the facts about acta that will draw interest and understanding in ordinary people and generate a better reaction than wtf and so what why should I care.

I think it will pass with barely a murmur.

Re:What... (2)

secondhand_Buddah (906643) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905048)

Really? Hows your internet experience been to date? I've been online for 17 years now, and I can honestly find any reason why I would want my current rights or access to change. Whats there to negotiate? The internet is the way it is because of how it has evolved in the current environment. Changing the environment will change the internet - and here is no way imposed legislation can improve it.

Re:What... (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905928)

There's a seedy side to the internet that came along with it and it's growing, that's what. Of course it doesn't help that telco's and music execs always run with their own egoistical points to underscore the desire for certain changes, but that doesn't mean there aren't also legit and decent reasons for them. Nobody wants childporn or spam. Everybody realizes that endless copying of movies and music can't go on to its extremes. We all know that bandwidth is growing, but that it won't keep up with the growing need for bandwidth.

So people are experimenting and sorry to say, not just the egalitarians. We need a more thorough mechanism for availability, we need to be tough on certain types of content, not because they're undesirable, but because they are illegal - and it was a democracy that decided it was illegal. Conservatism, also of the kind that you seem to be promoting, never got anyone anywhere.

Re:What... (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37906294)

... [W]e need to be tough on certain types of content, not because they're undesirable, but because they are illegal - and it was a democracy that decided it was illegal.

We already have laws covering the vast majority of crime committed over the internet; Fraud, libel, counterfeiting, unlicensed duplication, patent infringement, anti-social behaviour... They all exist without the internet, and we don't need new laws covering them. We need society to adapt its thinking to the new way of doing things, not shoehorn legislation through to restrict it.

ACTA is very long and complicated document designed to do two things;
- Protect aged and archaic copyright parasites like record companies
- Protect the disgusting profits of western pharmaceutical companies from being diminished by unbranded generic types from India et al.

Versace really don't care if you can get a £15 imitation of their latest £1400 handbag on eBay; They don't make products for the general population. Posh Beckham doesn't shop on eBay, and she'll buy the original whether there's a fake or not. Susan Stayathomemom is not a lost sale to them, and ACTA is poison.

Re:What... (5, Informative)

theocrite (1348043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905112)

That video generates more questions in my brain than it answers.

What questions?

"ACTA is bad, nnkay?" it says, which is not enough.

It's enought for the video. Nobody would watch a 30 minutes boring video quoting obfuscated texts refering to more obfuscated texts already signed by countries dozens of years before that.

The point of this video is to try to get the interest of a lot of people. The one who didn't heard of ACTA before. Once these people are interested, they can seek informations by themselves. The link provided in the video [laquadrature.net] , that's a good start. Or see the wikipedia page, seek on the search engine, or seek on their favorite online newspaper.

The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me.

Well, what do you suggest? A more positive approach? Like "Think of the future, nobody will be able to share knowledge, wouldn't that be great?".
What if everything is bad in ACTA?

It doesn't even tell me who "The Negotiators" are.

That's the point. "The Negotiators" are not known. ACTA has been negotiated in secret during the past few years. Withoout the control of the democratically elected parliaments or other institutions. Now the treaty is finalized and signed by some Countries. The other Countries now have a gun pressed against their head "sign it or you're out".

I can't say "No" to ACTA based on this video alone.

Of course you can't.
But maybe you can say no to ACTA based on this video + my comment + few other comments on this news, + on https://www.eff.org/issues/acta [eff.org] + https://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta [laquadrature.net] + http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_tags&task=view&tag=acta&Itemid=408 [michaelgeist.ca] + http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/why-acta-declaration [fsf.org] + http://www.ffii.org/ [ffii.org] + your own sources of information.

And if someday you want to say no, here is how: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA [laquadrature.net] :)

Re:What... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905646)

Better: http://acta.ffii.org

Re:What... (2)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905258)

The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me.

What sickens me is that this view is accurate.

Re:What... (1)

olau (314197) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905462)

Then it did its job, I think. It is probably intended to spur your interest, not really inform you.

Note that you are allowed to use your mouse to click through to the other information on that site. For instance, try clicking the link below in the blue box leading to their wiki [laquadrature.net] . Plenty of information there [laquadrature.net] .

Re:What... (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905762)

You can't do that! It's got to be immediate, and present and accessible. Don't you know that the average attention span is about 12 seconds on the intertubes?

Geez... Amateurs. Next you'll ask us to THINK!

Re:What... (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907032)

tl;dr

lol

Re:What... (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905986)

While I agree that it could be more specific, you have to understand its scope. It's a short video made for the general public. You know, those ignorant dumb people who have 95% of the votes. They wouldn't watch through an hour long analysis of the pros a cons of the treaty. They don't understand the European bureaucracy (I don't think there is a living person who fully does), so explaining who the negotiators are would be complicated. The video needs to be short, simple, attention-grabbing, emotional and manage to get the main message through. I think it did that well. Extremely one-sided? Did you expect them to hold a debate or what? It's not Wikipedia but a political campaign of course it's not neutral. The video is only for grabbing attention, they link to a lot of pages explaining it in detail. So if you only watched "the video alone", it's not their fault.

For those of you that want the full story... (1)

Enfixed (2423494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904778)

Without the video link. https://www.eff.org/issues/acta [eff.org]

Re:For those of you that want the full story... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904926)

I had to give up before the end of the introduction paragraphs. It doesn't contain a single comma, even though it's in dire need of a few dozen, and the start of the article at least doesn't say more than "ACTA supports the industry and will soon be signed" (I imagine that most readers would consider that a good thing). And the video in TFA is very economical with the truth, badly structured, and low on info. No wonder people don't get worked up about ACTA, if all the opposition can come up with, is this trash.

Re:For those of you that want the full story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904962)

That's really embarrassing for the EFF. Having to re-group words until they make sense is not something one should bother one's readers with too frequently. The whole effort should be more directed on the problem that this kind of legislation is taking place (and has taken place already) outside of democracy and its institutions. That the contents of ACTA are bad (harmful to freedom, innovation, developing countries etc.) is important, but secondary to the lack of democratic control involved.

My representative should know about this (2)

Therad (2493316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904792)

Why should I bother my representative (Christian Engström) with this?

Re:My representative should know about this (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904830)

maybe s/he doesnt know. s/he should. dont risk it.

Re:My representative should know about this (1)

Therad (2493316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904886)

He is a member of the Pirate Party. If he doesn't know, he is the wrong guy for the job.

Re:My representative should know about this (3, Interesting)

theocrite (1348043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904912)

You missed the irony cause you probably don't know who Christian Engström is.


That said, if your MEP is Christian Engström, maybe you could bother another one?

That's what I did for the telecoms package. I called a dozen of MEP. Of course, they are less receptive when you tell them you don't vote for them. But
1/you don't have to tell them (they tend to forget that they are paid to serve general interest and not just to make sure they will be reelected)
2/when they speak with lobbies, they are less peaky about where they're from and
3/freedom deserves me trying that (it's just a bunch of phone calls, no harm done, and it's really efficient).

For more informations: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta [laquadrature.net]
To act, see http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA [laquadrature.net]

Re:My representative should know about this (1)

durin (72931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904916)

Why should I bother my representative (Christian Engström) with this?

I don't think he's bothered by it. But the chance is very small that he is not aware of the problem already.

Re:My representative should know about this (2)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905514)

So that he can stand up and say "It's not just my view I'm representing: I've received lots of letters from constituents about this specific issue".

Re:My representative should know about this (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905608)

Is he your only MEP? If not, bug one of the others. One of mine is a member of the FFII, so she's pretty much guaranteed to vote against it. One is a member of UKIP, so he votes against everything without engaging his brain (to quote Gilbert and Sullivan, that is assuming that he's got any). The other two may not have made up their minds yet.

For anyone else in the UK, don't forget that there is a government-funded portal for sending letters to elected representatives [writetothem.com]

ACTA IS GOOD! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904828)

Think of the children for Christ's sake!

The EU (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904948)

Is the real threat to my freedom! British independence! Now!

Re:The EU (4, Informative)

theocrite (1348043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905030)

Is the real threat to my freedom! British independence! Now!

I hope you're joking. :)

Cause ACTA is not EU specific. In fact, EU might be one of the last chances to stop ACTA.


USA, Japan, Australia, Canada, North Korea, New Zealand and Singapore already signed ACTA.

Mexico and Switzerland didn't want to sign the text. EU couldn't sign the text because this case never happend (who will sign the text in the name of the 27 member States?)

On the other hand, UK has been one of the worst State in the EU on this topic (filesharing, making isp become private police, etc.). Blair was a crazy puppy found of Bush. We though I might change with Cameron. Well, it didn't.

Re:The EU (1)

ocularsinister (774024) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905096)

We though I might change with Cameron. Well, it didn't.

Speak for yourself, but while I hoped it would change with Blair, but I have no delusions about Cameron.

Re:The EU (1)

theocrite (1348043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905166)

We though I might change with Cameron. Well, it didn't.

Speak for yourself, but while I hoped it would change with Blair, but I have no delusions about Cameron.

Just to be clear, I'm not a UK citizen. So by "we" I didn't mean "we, fully informed UK citizen", but more "we, foreigners that don't know anything", were glad Blair was out, and hopped it will be better with the next one. But I had no clue how bad (or even who) Cameron was.

Re:The EU (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905240)

Has ACTA been ratified yet?

Re:The EU (1)

theocrite (1348043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905260)

USA, Japan, Australia, Canada, North Korea, New Zealand and Singapore already signed ACTA.

Mexico and Switzerland didn't want to sign the text. EU couldn't sign the text because this case never happend (who will sign the text in the name of the 27 member States?).

That's why we need to ACT as soon as possible.

Re:The EU (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905332)

I said ratified, not signed.

You know, that thing in the constitution about treaties requiring a 2/3rs majority?

Re:The EU (1, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905524)

You do realise that other people can't read your mind? If your question was specifically about the US Congress (and here I'm making an intelligent guess, because you still haven't made it explicit), you should have said so in the first place.

Re:The EU (0)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905634)

This is slashdot.

I'm entitled to presume a basic level of understanding about the constitution.

Re:The EU (0)

jker (1967318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905694)

I'm entitled to presume a basic level of understanding about the constitution.

You mean the US constitution.

What about the people that are not from USA?

I guess you don't care about them. But that would prevent 5 useless comments (including mine) if you were clear in the first post.

Re:The EU (0)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905818)

I'm very surprised that you didn't pick up that he meant the USA. Obviously, since a treaty has to be ratified with 2/3 majority, it is under the US system. Or are you saying that an American must be internationally sensitive to the rest of us, and go out of their way to acknowledge that they do understand that something exists outside the USA and is important etc etc?

On the same token, you either know nothing about international laws, or you just refuse to acknowledge that someone is asking with a presumption of the USA. Or is it that the country you are from really just isn't important enough to have an automatic assumption happen by a large proportion of the worlds population?

We are allegedly a group of smart people. There is a default presumption of intelligence and knowledge here. So before you become flippant, and start American bashing, remember that a lot of people here are just laughing at your ignorance.

Incidently, I'm not an American, and have lived in most places in the world. I just find it amazing how it's so common for people to be bashing the USA, and yet in the same token, be assuming that their country somehow is more significant. If you don't like it, move to a country that's a Superpower. China's another option if you don't like the USA. We'll be able to make significant presumptions of their laws as the topics of conversation as well shortly.

Re:The EU (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905698)

Maybe, but you're a fool to assume that in a conversation primarily about the EU, and in a reply to a post which names 9 countries, everyone knows that you're talking about the US.

Re:The EU (4, Insightful)

TheReaperD (937405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905584)

The purpose of treaties like this is to bypass such requirements as amending constitutions and getting a democratic majority. This way, a very few individuals of merit (bribed) can create and institute regulations that supersede national constitutions without bothering you or your elected representative with details until the enforcement phase. It also allows elected representatives to claim plausible deniability when the political fallout hits and since you do not know who the original negotiators were, no one is held accountable.

Re:The EU (1)

jker (1967318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905768)

Has ACTA been ratified yet?

I don't think so. But the point is that everything is done so that ACTA can't be undone.

Once ACTA has been signed, there's no way back. All countries agreed to transpose it in their local legislation.

So if it fails to do so, they'll try again. And again, and again. And if it fails, they may be weakened when talking to other countries.

That's also a mean of pressure: "See X didn't vote for ACTA, but we signed it. So (s)he's making us look stupid, (s)he's threatening our cooperation with other countries".

That's (also) why we have to stop ACTA now. The sooner, the better.

Re:The EU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905896)

That is what the EU president is for, an unelected (by the people of EU) figurehead that can be used to bypass the democratic states.

Hate to sound cynical but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904950)

In these times of economic turmoil it is the perfect moment to pass controversial but silenced legislation like ACTA. Main stream press, who could maybe represent this information in a non-ridiculous, non-propagandist manner unlike this website are just not going care. Still, after years of tech-news fuss I do not know what is ACTA, why do some people so vehemently oppose it, and why should I care.

Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should we even oppose it.

Re:Hate to sound cynical but.. (5, Insightful)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904982)

Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should we even oppose it.

Um... no. You should oppose it for this exact reason. What exactly it will do is so multi-faceted and so deeply buried in legal speak it requires a book to explain. This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read. — Winston Churchill

Re:Hate to sound cynical but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905162)

Exactly.

Being for or against a law is not two equal positions. A law always regulates the most basic human value, the one that is protected by the very first of the articles in the UN declaration of human rights, our individual freedom.

Default should be to always oppose any new law that isn't well documented, well explained and well justified.

Any new law should also always protect the individual people, directly or indirectly. ACTA is protecting business. And yes, we need business to make a good living for people, so that is good. Indirectly a law protecting business is good.

But what are the limitations ACTA is imposing on our freedom? Can those be justified?

If these are not clearly justified, we should be skeptic towards ACTA. We should oppose until we know enough about how ACTA affects us as individuals.

One of the corner stones of democracy is openness. If we want a "rule of the people", the people needs to have insight into what is going on. So whenever this insight is missing, whenever laws are negotiated in secrecy, we should be very skeptical and oppose until we have the required knowledge.

So I repeat, being for or against new laws are not equal positions. Being against new laws is the default, until we know enough, and can justify, supporting them.

Re:Hate to sound cynical but.. (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905254)

ACTA's secrecy is the biggest reason to vote against it.

Why? Because it's something that the powers that be are afraid we would oppose if we knew what was going on.

Oh wait, we're just citizen peons. We don't get to vote on it.

Only the government does.

And with no way to recall someone from congress after we've elected them, what incentive do they have to vote how we wanted them to when we elected them?

If it's lucrative enough someone can easily sacrifice their political career for a handsome payoff in the private sector.

Or assume rightly in most cases that if they pull a fast one early enough the electorate will have long forgotten by the time campaign time comes around again.

Re:Hate to sound cynical but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905322)

Besides which, we have more serious problems [youtube.com] to deal with... If you've not read the Naomi Klein book, here's a primer [tinyurl.com]

Re:Hate to sound cynical but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905378)

Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should we even oppose it.

Read it [europa.eu] and judge yourself. See for example article 9 regarding damages, where it happily affirms that:

In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party’s judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

Which basically translates into "every download is a lost sell" (and you must pay for it), which is obviously false. If you think a law containing such flagrantly false affirmations doesn't deserve opposition, or you don't care or you are one of the parties writing it :-P

Re:Hate to sound cynical but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905710)

> Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should we even oppose it.

Well, that is the problem. It allows them to make up shit as they go, and places them above the usual regulations.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904956)

Goverments are service businesses.

If I don't like the service of one business I put my money somewhere else.

My education and knowledge of languages allows me to do so (yeah... that sounded like I am an ass... but that is just my way to adapt to parliamential dictatures.. if you don't like it go protest somehwhere in Europe... lol).

Re:No (1)

theocrite (1348043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905184)

Goverments are service businesses.

If I don't like the service of one business I put my money somewhere else.

Do you mean go in another country?

So, in this case, in a country that didn't signed ACTA?

And where would that be?

that is just my way to adapt to parliamential dictatures.. if you don't like it go protest somehwhere in Europe

Ok, so you don't like "parliamential dictatures", I supposed you also don't like plain dictatures. So let's take all the countries, and remove all the dictatures and countries that signed ACTA.

What's left?

Re:No (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907574)

Maybe we need a law to prevent countries from forming cartels?

Keeps on coming (2)

jevring (618916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37904994)

The problem with legislation is that, even if you defeat one, it can simply be reintroduced again and again until it is passed. There is no provision for forbidding anything to ever become a law (for a reason, otherwise we'd never be able to undo bad decisions). I hate ACTA as much as the next guy, and I really don't want to see it in use, but if the politicians have decided that some form of law like this will be in place, there's no stemming the tide simply by expressing our displeasure for it. Do you honestly think that politicians listen to the people who elect them? That's not how it works. We listen to the politicians, and elect the one we believe best represents our interests. It's (almost) always a one-way street.

Re:Keeps on coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905120)

>There is no provision for forbidding anything to ever become a law

It's called the constitution.

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905208)

Look how well that turned out in the US.

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905276)

The problem is there is no incentive to pass constitutional laws.

You pass a law, and then you enforce it.

You have to wait for a lawsuit to stop it before it can get overturned. And suing to stop a law before it goes into effect is a high hurdle with how the elite have monopolized the legal system and hogged it for themselves.

Which means many will take it up the ass just to avoid the hassle of a legal fight.

I think we'll see real change once the following start happening
1. loser pays to protect confident litigants from being bled to death with legal bills
2. when a law is struck down as unconstitutional, fine all the reps and senators that voted for it

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905954)

when a law is struck down as unconstitutional, fine all the reps and senators that voted for it

Harsher penalties are called for than financial; this is akin to treason.

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

jevring (618916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907390)

when a law is struck down as unconstitutional, fine all the reps and senators that voted for it

This would only cause a parliamentary standstill, as nobody would vote for anything for fear of later reprisals. I do, however, think that immediately after a law is passed, it should instantly go to judicial review where it is open to challenges from anyone. If a single case can show that the law is unconstitutional, it must be struck down. The problem is one of meta-modelling though, according to which other laws is this law made unconstitutional? What happens if this is an amendment to the constitution?

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

jevring (618916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905244)

>There is no provision for forbidding anything to ever become a law

It's called the constitution.

Even the constitution can be amended. For a prime example of fixing your previous fuck-ups in the constitution, see amendments 18 (making booze illegal) and 21 (making it legal again).

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37906928)

I don't know how it works at the US. Here at Brazil the Constitution brings limitations to the amendments, so it is not everything that can change.

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907048)

You could however make a law stating guaranteeing the freedoms ACTA takes away.

"... the right to circumvent any physical or digital provision designed to restrict access to media or data owned by the individual."

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

jevring (618916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907314)

You could however make a law stating guaranteeing the freedoms ACTA takes away.

"... the right to circumvent any physical or digital provision designed to restrict access to media or data owned by the individual."

Indeed, but what's to prevent yet another law being passed that takes those freedoms away again? Laws are never final (nor should they be). The system is both flawed and wonderful for the same reason. Thus, the only solution is to ensure that you are ruled by/vote for people with similar ethics and morals as yourself (or that you want to have governing you).

Re:Keeps on coming (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907714)

The problem with legislation is that, even if you defeat one, it can simply be reintroduced again and again until it is passed...

You're absolutely right.

This time it's "from a hidden source and quietly promoted where it may be passed behing a lot of peoples' backs", next time it will be "for the kids", time after that will be "for the safety of your land". History repeats itself. History repeats itself. History repeats itself. History repeats itself........

How to defeat it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905004)

Stop watching, listening to and talking about their "content". Then there is no chance of you "infringing".

Take some photos on a walk and start blogging instead. Learn a new hobby. Adopt a dog.

Re:How to defeat it (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905314)

Take some photos

ZOMG! Terropedosatanist taking pictures of TEH CHILDREN and PUBLIC BUILDING to COMMIT ACTS OF TERR-OW-R! Arrest! Kill! EXTERMINATE!

on a walk

Why are you out here, citizen? Are you planning something? Papers please.

and start blogging instead.

Why are you blogging? What are you blogging about? Is it even legal? Are you a commie/indignado sympathizer? ARREST! ARREST! CONFISCATE!

Learn a new hobby.

Chemistry? ZOMG TERRORISM. Model rocketry? ZOMG TERRORISM. Model airplanes? ZOMG TERRORISM. Painting? KOMUNYZIM. Writing? ZOMG TERRORIMS. KOMUNYZIM. ANTISOCIAL.

Adopt a dog.

Now you've done it! IT MAY BITE TEH CHILDREN! ARREST! EXTERMINATE!

Re:How to defeat it (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907610)

What about patents? It's very easy to accidentally infringe on dozens of patents of obvious ideas without even trying.

Patents? (0)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905012)

Does UK English really, honestly pronounce "patents" as "pay-tense," as heard in TFV?

Just wondering, because over here where I can't do a damned thing about ACTA, we say "pah-tents."

Re:Patents? (0)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905068)

Both are accepted. I say "pay-tants", and I'm English. You'll probably find that "pa-tents" is the American English pronunciation. If you said "pa-tents", I'd assume you were American or heard the term from an American first, unless there were other signs that told me otherwise.

More importantly, you do realise that you're finding it shocking that the *original* language is pronounced differently to how you've been told to pronounce it yourself? Please go and look at how you pronounce aluminium, vehicle, and a host of other English words that had a perfectly accepted pronunciation until people started to "say them wrong".

Re:Patents? (0)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905274)

You forgot "herb"...

Re:Patents? (1, Funny)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905402)

Argh! Unpronounced "aitches" (and yes, that's the correct pronunciation of the letter H - don't put a "ha" on the beginning of it).

So annoying: "Would you like some erbal tea?"

1) I'm English. Get that crap out of my face.
2) Pronounce the damn word properly and not like you've had a mini-drop-out on your mobile phone while talking.

Re:Patents? (0)

RoccamOccam (953524) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905752)

I'm curious - how do you pronounce "honor"?

Re:Patents? (0)

andrewbaldwin (442273) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905792)

I'm curious - how do you pronounce "honor"?

Don't know - but we pronounce honour as "on-err" :-)

Re:Patents? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37906094)

Complaining about the pronunciation of "herbal" after saying people should use the "original pronunciation" is somewhat ironic, as the original pronunciation is, in fact, "erbal."

Because herb is a French word, and adding the "h" back in dates back only about two centuries for British English. Go ahead, look it up. This is an instance of US English not changing when British English did.

Patent is likely similar, since it comes from Latin "patere" via (again) French, but I can't find anything saying clearly which pronunciation predates what.

Re:Patents? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905678)

You say 'erbs', and we say 'herbs', because there's a fucking 'H' in it!

- Eddie Izzard

Re:Patents? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905660)

I did an internship at a patent law firm in the UK, and I was told during the interview never to pronounce it pay-tent, as that's a sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. The accepted pronunciation within the legal profession in the UK is pah-tent. Pay-tent is largely common among people who saw the word written before they heard it spoken.

Re:Patents? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905740)

And other comments on here from people working with other patent lawyers in the UK indicate the exact opposite in identical situations. Nothing to do with absolute pretension by any chance, borne on the back of one pronunciation being more "UK English", one being more "US English"?

Re:Patents? (1)

danzvash (447536) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907992)

You're way off base there, dude. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patent#Pronunciation [wiktionary.org] makes it fairly clear. One is a US pronunciation, the other is UK. Anybody using either pronunciation is potentially equally well-informed. You're reading way too much into a situation based on your own (or others') idle supposition (or did you really question everybody that you heard saying "pay-tent" and establish clearly that they had taken the pronunciation from a misreading of the word....?)

Re:Patents? (0)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905092)

Does UK English really, honestly pronounce "patents" as "pay-tense," as heard in TFV?

Just wondering, because over here where I can't do a damned thing about ACTA, we say "pah-tents."

Pay-tents.

Re:Patents? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905600)

Does that mean that parents are actually "pay-rents"? Or is that only for people living in their parent's basement?

Re:Patents? (0)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905704)

You've made the classic mistake of thinking that anything in English is pronounced the same as anything that looks similar. Classic beginner's mistake.

(It may be a "minute" difference but it only takes a "minute" to spot that. *cough*)

Re:Patents? (0)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905174)

Yes, although I'm seeing the americanised version become more and more popular here in the UK nowadays.

When we had some patent legal eagles in at my old job last year to advise on the patent filing and enforcement process for some patents we wanted to file they were pronouncing it pay-tent rather than pah-tent still though and I guess they use and hear the word as much as anyone in the UK.

Re:Patents? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905242)

Does UK English (sic) really, honestly pronounce "patents" as "pay-tense,"

Yes, that is the English pronounciation of the word (from the Latin "literae patentes") as in usage before Columbus sailed for the Americas.

You say tomayto, I say tomarto...

Re:Patents? (0)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905538)

That's the default pronunciation in British English, but when a patent lawyer gave a lecture as part of my CS degree course he said that "pay-tent" is the correct pronounciation for the synonym of "obvious", but the limited-time monopoly is pronounced "pah-tent" by people in the know.

Re:Patents? (1)

jker (1967318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905956)

Does UK English really, honestly pronounce "patents" as "pay-tense," as heard in TFV?

For what it worth, the speaker is both French and Australian.

I suck at English, so I can't say if it's Australian way of speaking or if he pronounced it how British would pronounced it.

So, what does one do if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905298)

...one live in a country that is soon to become a member of the EU but still isn't and therefore has no "elected representative"? Besides feeling screwed, I mean.

GO ACTA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905324)

Keep the internet alive!

Go away ACTA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905436)

Shoo.

There, I did my duty as a EU citizen.

Should I ask my MEP representative? (1)

Kristian T. (3958) | more than 2 years ago | (#37905856)

Does anyone know if ther's a chance that thing will pass?
The E.P. seems to have a pretty good track record with regard to striking down this kind of special interest, anti consumer legislation. This, and previous statements from it's committee's leads me to think the ACTA has no chance of passing a vote.

If I thought there was a chance of this somehow passing under the radar, I'd write my "local" MEP http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry/view.do?group=2965&country=DK&partNumber=1&language=EN&id=96703. I highly doubt that it'll be nescessary though - as she's in:
1) Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and
2) Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
- I'm sure she's very aware of the ACTA.

New ways to defeat it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37906170)

The time to "defeat" it was before it was signed by anybody, while it was still under secret discussions. If it could'nt be defeated then, it's not going to be defeated now.

I think the ACTA infringes on my copyrights. Time for everybody to issue a DMCA takedown notice to any site promoting it. That is a civilized way of dealing with it. I am sure many people out there are past that point. Something tells me it's going to be an interesting 2012.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?