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!

ACTA Referred To Europe's Top Court For Analysis

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the maybe-the-sky-isn't-falling dept.

EU 61

superglaze writes "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is to get an extra level of scrutiny in the EU after the European Commission said it would refer ACTA to the European Court of Justice, to check that it really does comply with fundamental freedoms in the union. This obviously follows mass protests over ACTA, and it seems justice commissioner Viviane Reding was the one who pushed for ECJ scrutiny. It's not currently clear if this will delay the European Parliament ratification process, but it is hard to imagine the parliament voting on ACTA (scheduled for June at the moment) before the ECJ has had its say — and no-one can say right now how long that will take to happen."

cancel ×

61 comments

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

Kill it (5, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124427)

with fire. This thing needs to be buried and forgotten so we can be just as outraged at "ACTA 2.0; Now with a name to make you look like a pedo if you vote against it!"

Re:Kill it (5, Insightful)

Spottywot (1910658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124477)

Fair point, but if it is stopped on a legal basis then surely whatever you call ACTA 2.0 it would have to differ in its content. If you simply rename it it could be stopped again under the same legal basis.

Re:Kill it (4, Informative)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124627)

All you need to do is to smuggle it under the radar. ACTA has been in the works for years now. Only the recent SOPA protests have drawn eyes of crowds to it, and only that encouraged politicians to scrutinize the act for conflicts with existing bills of rights.

Polish division of EFF got the government's declaration a YEAR ago that no step will be done towards accepting ACTA without getting it through a precise scrutinity. Then they outright broke the promise.

Re:Kill it (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125399)

Out of genuine interest, [citation needed]. I only know about VaGla's and Panopticon Foundation's scrutiny of ACTA. And yeah, our red-haired prime liar^Wminister is certainly bought by lobbyists.

Re:Kill it (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129483)

"Citation" is the polish TV debate between representatives of the government and of Internet culture organizations, the earlier of two I know of (I don't think there were any more), not the famous, later one where one of the guys came in sandal shoes, and a girl was knitting a sweater... (a circus of disrespect in reply for disrespect the government has shown the participants by announcing the monday debate late friday afternoon, and sending out invitation emails with horrible grammar errors in it).

I'm not completely sure if it was EFF, or GNU or who exactly - one of the likes. Anyway, they presented the premise and demanded explaination, especially in light that the new promises (at that time) were exactly the same as the old ones.

Re:Kill it (3, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127323)

I find it interesting that even though the article (yes, I READ them!) says that ACTA is being sent to the courts for analysis and judgement, the writer of the article is already stating their position as if it were court-determined fact:

ACTA will not censor websites or shut them down; ACTA will not hinder freedom of the internet or freedom of speech.

Such concerns are precisely why ACTA is being submitted to the courts for review. With this comment posted in the article as if it were fact, it would seem to me that the author is hoping this is nothing more than a checklist review item for getting it passed. And I don't think it's fair to the public OR the courts to be making that recommendation or decision before the courts have done their due diligence.

It would be as bad as Harper claiming that the Senate review of our (illegal!) Canadian ACTA legislation is "fine, but we need to dot our I's and cross our T's. The Canadian version includes DMCA-like clauses that violate a 50+ year history of Canadians being allowed to make back-ups of the media they own, and to format-shift it as well. Preventing people from using the tools needed to make those backups would be illegal, and our government has been notoriously silent about that issue here in Canada.

They flat out don't want to talk about it. They wish a concerned public would just shut up and let the jackboots come down on their neck without question like good little sheeple.

Thank God Canadians seem more interested in flagging the issues with all levels of government and media than our government is in hearing what the public has to say!

Re:Kill it (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129651)

Maybe it was in tone of "The burgoise will not oppress the working class. The elites will not stop the march towards freedom of the working man."?

Re:Kill it (3, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124695)

I'm fairly certain that a team of lawyers could come up with some new terms for those which breached EU law which were ambiguous enough to not cause the same problems getting it through the ECJ, but have the same effect for the general public. "Lesser of Two Evils" is a political system for the US; I'm confident they can shoehorn enough weasel-words in.

Then they'll rename it the Protecting Efforts to Distribute Offerings to Stabilised Current eUroprean Markets Act.

Re:Kill it (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126117)

Then they'll rename it the Protecting Efforts to Distribute Offerings to Stabilised Current eUroprean Markets Act.

The pedos' cum act? That's not a great name.

Re:Kill it (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39135729)

Maybe you'd enjoy the following websites:

http://www.powergenitalia.com
http://www.therapistfinder.com
http://www.penisland.com

Re:Kill it (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124707)

The European Parliament had quite a few misgivings [europa.eu] about ACTA last year.

I don't see how this addresses any of those concerns.

Re:Kill it (1)

trevelyon (892253) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126441)

The only way to stop this sort of thing is to punish the politicians that continue to foist this upon us. A clear statement "Vote for or support this kind of legislation and you will not be re-elected" is what is needed. Only then will the continual stream of rights erosion stop. The vested players have considerable resources so they will keep trying. It's only when the cost of taking their money is too great that they will stop or so I hope. I hope the Europeans are taking note of the people that brought and voted for this just as the Americans should be noting anyone that was supporting SOPA/PIPA. Next time you can interact with them you should remember their efforts. I think GoDaddy might have learned but who knows.

Re:Kill it (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124749)

so we can be just as outraged at "ACTA 2.0; Now with a name to make you look like a pedo if you vote against it!"

I doubt Europe has much to worry about there, but here in the U.S., I damn sure know we do. The next SOPA/ACTA/PIPA bill here in the states is going to be called the "Stop Child Pornography and Terrorism Act" or something, just wait and see.

Re:Kill it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124797)

First the Europeans will be outraged at IPRED 2.0 and INDECT

We are/will be too busy getting mad at other crazy laws like C11, C30 (PCIPA), PrECISE, PCIP (HR 1981), Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), RWA, etc. etc.

It's like "they" are using a Gatling gun, shooting crazy laws, hoping one round will pierce the armor of common sense.

Re:Kill it (2, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125349)

You're being sarcastic, but you're actually right on the mark.

This one gets beat, another one will surface.

The politicians and the people who buy them never tire - it's their job and the foundation of their wealth and power to keep pushing.

For the rest of us, for the population at large, we've got daily jobs, we've got kids and all of that. So, yeah, it can be difficult to keep pushing back.

And it's made worse by the fact that we've allowed ourselves to all too often automatically reject activists as some sort of fringe; those who would lead the fight on our behalf are all too often not supported. We listen to the media tear them down; we fight against our own self interests.

Re:Kill it (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126207)

And it's made worse by the fact that we've allowed ourselves to all too often automatically reject activists as some sort of fringe; those who would lead the fight on our behalf are all too often not supported. We listen to the media tear them down; we fight against our own self interests.

This.

You know all the "stupid commie anarchist trustafarians with iPhones" stereotyping of the Occupiers that we saw here on Slashdot? Those stereotypes were present in the MSM, too, of course, but you kind of expect it from CNN and the NYT. But for a bunch of people who are, as a group, generally strongly opposed to corporate power grabs to turn against another large group of people who were on their side was disheartening, to say the least. And that's why Occupy made a bunch of noise and then faded away without accomplishing anything -- not because the Occupiers were morons (they weren't; I know a lot of them well, and they're smart, committed people who had very clear goals) but because people who should have known better let themselves be told, "don't pay any attention to those dumb hippies over there." The people who were sending this message were, of course, the exact same people behind ACTA, SOPA/PIPA, etc. Good going, guys.

It's the problem of Voltair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127307)

Americans are so in love with their Freedom of Speech that they quote Voltair ALL THE PIGGING TIME.

The problem is, this makes them feel like they have done all the support for freedom of speech necessary and that a protest (one form of freedom of speech) that they notice (hence are in some way inconvenienced by, even if only having it push their favourite story back a few pages in the newspaper) is therefore a refusal of that supporting statement.

It seems like the USian quote from Voltair has a hidden coda: I may not support what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it (as long as you don't actually try to make me do anything to support you)

Re:It's the problem of Voltair (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128195)

It seems like the USian quote from Voltair has a hidden coda: I may not support what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it (as long as you don't actually try to make me do anything to support you)

But then some of them use that quote and then immediately say, "...except if you're accused of being a pedophile/terrorist. Then your speech is no longer free!"

Re:Kill it (4, Insightful)

Wattos (2268108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128121)

This is a very unfair fight for us. The big coorps only need to get lucky once, while we have to keep our guard up all the time.

To me it seems that it is only a matter of time until such a law passes, unless we change the way how copyright is handled.

Re:Kill it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39134745)

It may appear that way, but don't forget that there have been evil agreements and laws before, and they've been changed with the times... eventually.

Things sometimes seem grim, but everything dies eventually, even the bad stuff

Re:Kill it (2)

voidphoenix (710468) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126515)

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

Re:Kill it (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127303)

[censored] is for the [censored] of all [censored]. [Censored] for the [censored] [censored] of the [censored].
So [censored] should act now, with [censored] [censored] and [censored] [censored].
Unless, [censored] wish to [censored] the [censored].

Dear *IAAs (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124471)

The people of the world have spoken. Your business model is flawed and obsolete. If you *truly* believe in capitalism half as much as you claim, you will accept that it is you who must adapt or die.

Re:Dear *IAAs (4, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125173)

When Napster was all the rage, just about everyone in IT including the younger generation started sharing MP3s all over the world. On one hand, free music. Yeh! On the other, it was piracy and I really did feel bad for the industry. It wasn't hard to see how unsustainable wonton piracy would be. *IAAs have no choice but to adapt. The problem is that rather than take a rational approach with improved marketing and distribution, they decided to turn into one the largest litigation firms ever to sweep across America. That group was hellbent on screwing teenagers and their families financially while screwing the artists at the same time. A form of paper terrorism by making a nasty example out of a select few.

As for me? I'm pretty rational about the whole thing. I'll purchase music online, collect used late 90s or earlier CDs, or hit up Pandora. But I don't pirate music. It's a scummy thing IMHO.

Dear *IAAs (1)

biodata (1981610) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125933)

I will never buy music again. You have shown yourselves unworthy of my money. There is already enough music, and enough people willing to make new music for their own pleasure and that of their audience, and to sell it through their own online channels. We have our own delivery mechanism and payment mechanism thank you. We don't need a music industry any more.

Re:Dear *IAAs (1)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126551)

When Napster was all the rage, just about everyone in IT including the younger generation started sharing MP3s all over the world. On one hand, free music. Yeh! On the other, it was piracy and I really did feel bad for the industry.

Around the time Napster started becoming popular, I started dropping $200+/wk on CDs. Napster introduced me to a lot of good music, and I bought a lot of CDs as a result. I didn't shed a damn tear for the recording industry at that time.

Unsurprisingly, napster was murdered to death, and I was purchasing fewer CDs. The dotcom bust eventually killed my music budget.

Re:Dear *IAAs (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128265)

I'm pretty rational about the whole thing.

That's what just about everyone seems to say...

Re:Dear *IAAs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39130209)

But I don't pirate music. It's a scummy thing IMHO.

At this point, it's less scummy than buying it, and funding an organisation that's trying to subvert our democracy.

Re:Dear *IAAs (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39131759)

If you're that serious about fighting the *IAAs, the only winning move is to not play. Choosing some other form of entertainment would be my best advice to you.

Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39137151)

The movies include music. Oops. Games? License music. Bugger.

The only winning move is to fight. That's the only way to win.

But that won't happen, so the next best thing is to pirate entertainment as long as they refuse to abide by the quid-pro-quo originally arrived at.

Re:Dear *IAAs (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126211)

What's the point in only starring the first letter of the acronym? MPAA has two different letters.

Could this be it for ACTA? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124505)

Could this be it for ACTA? Or is this just intended to defuse protests? Any EU slashdotters have any insight on this ? I could see it going either way.

My personal feeling is that the Internet needs to be treated much like the NRA treats gun control - mess with it, and you are in political trouble.

Re:Could this be it for ACTA? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124559)

Basically, it's mostly the European Commission getting rid of a hot potato. The debate is guaranteed to be VERY tense, so if ACTA can be disqualified on a purely legal basis, it will avoid some ugliness.

Re:Could this be it for ACTA? (1)

robinsonne (952701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124585)

I feel that this could be it for ACTA in Europe for the time being, because this kind of thing is actually taken seriously in Europe.

However I have a feeling that those of us in the US will have to worry about ACTA 2.0, 3.0, etc for quite a while.

Re:Could this be it for ACTA? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124603)

As a european, my personal take on this is that the EU commission is simply looking for a way to stall without looking bad in the process. In the last week, it became clear that ACTA would not simply pass through the parliaments (both national in some member states and the EU parliament), and by referring the whole thing to the court they are gaining time to work behind the curtains to see if they can get it passed, or maybe simply to stall until the public outrage is over an no one is interested in it anymore. And if in the end the court says that this treaty is not compatible with existing legislation, they can still quietly bury the whole thing.

Re:Could this be it for ACTA? (1, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124625)

Any EU slashdotters have any insight on this ?

The prime insight on this that you need to know is that the European Commission is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. That's the basic cultural knowledge you need to have to correctly assess the relationships between government bodies and the people within the EU.

The Invariable Nature of Gov't Institutions (2)

andersh (229403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124785)

I don't think they're that bad really, the commissioners are fighting for their own country's benefit within the Union as well as doing their actual jobs. It's fair enough, it's how things work most places.

The European Parliament is at least clearly on the citizen's side, even if they don't have the power to act on it yet.

The Court of Justice is a very good check and balance, at least the system works.

Re:Could this be it for ACTA? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124815)

The prime insight on this that you need to know is that the European Commission is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

It's not who is first against the wall. It's not even who is last against the wall. It's the bits in between I worry about.

Re:Could this be it for ACTA? (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126091)

The prime insight on this that you need to know is that the European Commission is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

It's not who is first against the wall. It's not even who is last against the wall. It's the bits in between I worry about.

Another bit in the wall.... Wasn't that a number 1 hit in many countries?

Re:Could this be it for ACTA? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125381)

Any EU slashdotters have any insight on this ?

The prime insight on this that you need to know is that the European Commission is a bunch of mindless jerks who appear to have done the right thing in this case. That's the basic cultural knowledge you need to have to correctly assess the relationships between government bodies and the people within the EU.

FTFY.

Re:Could this be it for ACTA? (2)

mindstormpt (728974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124881)

If it doesn't comply with existing IEEE basic freedom protections, the ECJ will shoot it down. They have never been afraid to go against the comission, the parliament or a member state before.

Now, why is the comission referring it to the ECJ? They may be stalling in order get people to calm down, as other commenters suggested, although that would be a very risky maneuver. If you ask me, they're folding and trying to save face, by being the ones stopping it instead of having the EP kill it in a very public manner.

what is the EU? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124611)

The overriding purpose of the EU is to promote corporatism by pushing for "competition" with just enough regulation that only the big boys get a real say.

While today people think of the EU as some left wing socialist pinko monster, it was founded very much as a businessman's government neutering and takeover effort - the EEC - and the majority of philosophy and law are about promoting business, not promoting individual freedoms. As a result, EU law tends to be that which has been lobbied for by friendly businesses, including competition law which charges sufficiently large firms relatively small amounts and sufficiently small firms relatively large amounts - IOW protection money to the former, crippling fines for the latter.

Your government's being half-owned by private business, dear EU citizen, is based on competition principles pushed by the EU. The neutering of regulatory bodies which protect public property from the airwaves to energy supply is promoted by EU Directives. The US federal government has nothing on the EU when it comes to requiring individual states to favour business.

The best way of stopping international law is to neuter international legislators who gradually consolidate power and work toward a common aim: lining their own pockets.

Re:what is the EU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124735)

Parent sums up the EU from a legal PoV but will get modded to oblivion by layman Europhiles who are told daily what a great institution it is for protecting unity of the people and don't have the slightest clue of the naure of most laws it enforces on member states.

Re:what is the EU? (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125009)

Seconded. Mod parent up.

Just Smoke & Mirrors (3, Insightful)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124687)

This is just a move to get ACTA out of the public eye. The time should be used for further actions...

Re:Just Smoke & Mirrors (1)

ahotiK (2426590) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124731)

That is what I'm afraid of too. That they just want that people will forget about ACTA or other laws like it and give us the illusion that we won, but instead again, secretly working on applying it. I really hope this is only a conspiracy theory, but you never know.

Re:Just Smoke & Mirrors (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125407)

I think that you are correct. The Ownership Society type folks never stop pushing. Sometimes they wind up playing a three card monte, but they never stop.

In a true democratic west, there's be an opposition that introduced true net neutrality and freedom type legislation in response to this. But it seems that the west sold democracy to the highest corporate bidder some years ago. We're only really noticing now.

Re:Just Smoke & Mirrors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39131661)

I see it more as a move to provide cover for Euro-parliamentarians.

When the ECJ gives it a clean bill, or requests some minor revisions, those MEPs who've been making noise about it can say "Look, it's okay, it doesn't interfere with anything fundamental, we can let it go now." That's a lot better, from their point of view, than saying "We've been bought and/or bullied out of making a stand on this."

ACTA is bad for so many reasons... (5, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124691)

...not least because of the implications of it.

Forget actual copyright infringement claims for a moment, please, this isn't what it's about (ACTA or this rant).

It's about Government intervention in content. Suffocation of the relation of ideas from brain A to brain B-Z and beyond, because someone doesn't like the idea that their vision of a society they have total control over is still somehow so far off, that they have to strangle freedom of expression any way they think they can get away with.

Well, fuck you, I'll say what I like, because MY freedom to express myself in forums available to me trumps your claim of entitlement to my hard-earned whether or not I choose to buy the shite you peddle and try to pass off as art, and it certainly trumps your deluded perceptions of entitlement to freedom from being offended or your plans for total control of every minor aspect of my life being undermined. I will resist you because I am a Human Being with a Soul, with a sense of self responsibility and self governance; I do not need or want your unnecessary intrusion into my life, and ACTA represents something I DO NOT WANT NOR WILL I CONSENT TO.

Sincerely,

A CONTENT CREATOR.

Re:ACTA is bad for so many reasons... (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125855)

I tried to read ACTA to have a clue what I was actually talking about. About half-way through, I decided it was a dull letter of intend to actually agree on taking minor, reasonable steps towards enforcing already-existing legislation. ACTA is littered with notes about how none of this should be allowed to affect law-abiding citizens.

Could one of you ACTA-opposers quote just a few of the paragraphs you find so horribly offensive? Trying to read it with an open mind gave me the clear impression that the opposition is composed of part ignorants, part people who want to keep on pirating.

Re:ACTA is bad for so many reasons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39126307)

ACTA is littered with notes about how none of this should be allowed to affect law-abiding citizens..

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is usually such phrases mean the original text is ambiguous, and those extra phrases aren't usually legally binding, just whatever the legal equivalent of "suggestions" is. We all know how the slippy slope works with regards to freedom curtailing laws.

I'll trust the ACLU over random internet post on slashdot.

Re:ACTA is bad for so many reasons... (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126489)

from various sources (including EFF and the UK Government website):

ACTA has several features that raise significant potential concerns for consumers’ privacy and civil liberties for innovation and the free flow of information on the Internet legitimate commerce and for developing countries’ ability to choose policy options that best suit their domestic priorities and level of economic development.

ACTA is being negotiated by a select group of industrialized countries outside of existing international multilateral venues for creating new IP norms such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and (since TRIPs) the World Trade Organization. Both civil society and developing countries are intentionally being excluded from these negotiations. While the existing international fora provide (at least to some extent) room for a range of views to be heard and addressed no such checks and balances will influence the outcome of the ACTA negotiations.

The Fact Sheet published by the USTR together with the USTR's 2008 "Special 301" report make it clear that the goal is to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement above the current internationally-agreed standards in the TRIPs Agreement and increased international cooperation including sharing of information between signatory countries’ law enforcement agencies. The last 10 bilateral free trade agreements entered into by the United States have required trading partners to adopt intellectual property enforcement obligations that are above those in TRIPs. Even though developing countries are not party to the ACTA negotiations it is likely that accession to and implementation of ACTA by developing countries will be a condition imposed in future free trade agreements and the subject of evaluation in content industry submissions to the annual Section 301 process and USTR report.

-

Considering the actual text of the document under discussion is STILL CLASSIFIED COMPARTMENTALISED, the only public leakage being a 2008 white paper, we the Joe Sixpacks must assume that those discussing it behind closed doors are up to something which is NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. And until we see the exact document under discussion, in its current format, and are invited to those meetings, then we must assume that until we are shown to absolute 100% proof to the contrary, those involved in those discussions are those to whom enactment of such legislation are the sole beneficiaries to the total detriment of everybody else. I think we are PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO COMPLAIN. THOSE WHO TALK ABOUT SOPA BEING A GOOD THING DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY. THE MAJORITY ARE SPEAKING AND WE WILL BE HEARD: WE DO NOT WANT!

now from IPO:

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a plurilateral treaty that seeks to improve the global enforcement of intellectual property rights through the creation of common enforcement standards and practices and more effective international cooperation.

Counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property rights is recognised as a global issue. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that the international trade in goods infringing intellectual property rights accounts for more than $250 billion a year. In Europe alone, we are losing more than €8 billion annually through counterfeit goods entering the market. This impacts the competitiveness of our businesses depriving workers of jobs and can harm consumers through the distribution of dangerous products.

ACTA is about tackling these large-scale infringement activities, often pursued by criminal organisations and which frequently pose a threat to public health and safety. ACTA aims to establish shared international standards on how countries should act in these cases. Importantly, ACTA will not create new intellectual property rights, laws, or criminal offences in the UK or EU. It simply establishes efficient and broadly common rules for how intellectual property right-holders can enforce their rights in practice.

ACTA is not about how people use the internet in their everyday lives. It is not the intention of ACTA to restrict freedom of the internet and it will not censor websites. Internet users can continue to share non-pirated material and information on the web. As the agreement does not require any UK or EU law changes, anything you can do legally today is still legal after the ratification of ACTA. For example, people will be able to continue using their social networks such as Twitter and Facebook just as they have in the past - PCs, tablets and smartphones will not be checked or monitored.

-

I think they're lying. If ACTA is to have any teeth as far as digital content, it MUST by definition empower proactive censorship. THAT INFRINGES UPON MY RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED NATURAL RIGHT; it is an artificial trump card for content providers as a minor party and Public Authorities as a major party as LEGAL protection from LAWFUL public dissent.

Let it all pass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39125229)

Let this wreck the whole economy and escalate things until the day when a Conservative dies poor.

Who gives a fuck if the Chinese have a different limitation on their free speech as we do.

They are in it for long-term profits and they are allowed to steal and innovate the fuck out of us while we protect old movies from being watched too much.

You have agreements signed by a Chinese official who came to your country? lol... They own 1100 Billions of your debts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Foreign_holders_of_U.S._Treasury_securities [wikipedia.org] you stupid asshole. You would show them the backdoor in all agreements for money. But they don't care.

misdirection (5, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39125383)

This move by the commission is not to get a critical review. The commission is the undemocratic EU-level force pushing ACTA forward. The (elected) parliament is the one that would rather not have ACTA and one of the few entities that put massive pressure on the secret negotiations and has repeatedly voiced its disgust with the secrecy of it all.

This move by the commission is an attempt to put pressure on the EU parliament. If the court says that ACTA does not conflict with EU laws, then the parliament will have a harder time to justify voting against ACTA.

By getting the court's opinion now, the commission is disarming the EU parliament, taking away one of their reasons to refuse.

Re:misdirection (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127231)

I hope the whole things come to a critical situations where we have to rethink about the copyright issue. I'd love to see the whole ACTA thing explode in their faces.

Re:misdirection (1)

somenickname (1270442) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128329)

I guess I don't know much about the EU parliament but isn't, "the people who elected me are against this" a sufficent reason to vote against it? What's the point in having elected officials if they can't represent the people that elected them?

Re:misdirection (1)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130481)

It's not that easy. While there has been widespread protest, it's not like there were millions upon millions of people on the streets.

Germany has 99 members in the EU parliament. Germany has ~80 mio. people. That means every one of them represents almost a million people. At that size, stuff like "the opinion of the people who I represent" doesn't have much meaning.

Nevertheless, as far as politicians go, those in the EU parliament are largely the good guys. I still wouldn't buy a used car from them, but compared to the entirely undemocratic pseudo-aristocracy of the Commission, they're quite a lot better.

Re:misdirection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39131657)

They have all the reason they need to refute it, the will of the people. Even if the court says it is legal, the parliament can just say the people have spoken and they have resoundingly said "NO".

Re:misdirection (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | more than 2 years ago | (#39133417)

The problem is that UE is so undemocratic that the European Court of Justice can easily trump the European parliament. This happened with the directive of service trade. The commission proposed that a worker could be employed in a country A with the labor rights of country B. That kind of rule tend to lower all labor rights to the lower of UE, therefore the European Parliament removed that part of the directive.

Then companies tried to employ workers in country A with labor rights of country B. There were lawsuits, and they reached the European Court of Justice, which ruled that it since no rule was in the directive about that, then it would be okay.

Members of European Parliament were outraged. They removed that point, and the court decided that since nothing was said it was okay. European Parliament voted a resolution asking to the commission for a new directive so that the point could be clarified. The commission said it had no interest into working further on the issue. And since only the unelected bureaucrats of the commission can start a directive proposal, things ended there.

ACTA must be rejected on principal alone (1)

WhyNotAskMe (2571885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39126921)

ACTA is the product of a corrupted legislative process in the USA. It is appalling that a country that professes to uphold democratic ideals so dearly would force this accord on the world via undemocratic, secret negotiations. As tainted evidence that reveals even a ruthless criminal must be discarded to serve the greater good - Democracy itself, ACTA must be discarded for the same reason. No good can ever come from it. See our manifesto at http://whynotaskme.org/ [whynotaskme.org]

How do you say (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127755)

'Kabuki Dance' in EU-ese?

Until the hide-bound, freedom hating troglodytes that run the MAFIAA are sprawled out atop their massive desks with wooden stakes driven through their tiny black hearts, they will never give up, but merely regroup out of sight, like the filthy cockroaches they mimic.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>