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!

The Netherlands Rejects ACTA, and Does One Better

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-hold-your-breath-for-the-us-congress-to-join dept.

Government 112

New submitter Peetke writes "The Dutch House of Representatives unanimously accepted a motion to urge the Cabinet to reject ACTA [Dutch original] (if they ever get the change to do so; it may already end in the European Parliament). Additionally, an even stronger motion was accepted to reject any future treaty that may harm a free and open Internet. This is a good day for the Internet."

cancel ×

112 comments

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

Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143743)

I hate to be a cynic, but I have a funny feeling that the EU (or some treaty agreement or trade deal) will just force you to implement it later. And the government will cave, of course, with politicians giving the excuse "Well, it was out of our hands." The RIAA/MPAA and their ilk are quite relentless. If you defeat them in one piece of legislation, they just quietly sneak the same provisions into some new law, treaty, or requirement. Eventually they find a way to get either de jure or de facto enforcement one way or another, usually the with public completely unaware of what's even happening until it's too late. And if your country supports extradition to the U.S., they don't even need your law--they can just use U.S. law.

Do you think the U.S. public would have ever approved of the DMCA if they had actually known about it--if it hadn't been quietly slipped in as part of a treaty [wikipedia.org] that was negotiated behind closed doors, that no one outside of Washington even knew about until it was signed? Sleazing around behind the curtains is what these guys do best.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143861)

Regardless, if we had movements like this in all EU member countries it could make a difference. But no... They'll take their free vacation courtesy of the RIAA and they'll screw you with the same smile.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (5, Insightful)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143867)

But hey, if they'll just get you eventually, why fight it at all?

I figure...fight it today, fight it tomorrow, and hope that someone will fight it when I'm gone.

That being said, I'm not going to stop my work on a self repairing mesh darknet. Fight now, plan for contingencies in the future.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143999)

That being said, I'm not going to stop my work on a self repairing mesh darknet. Fight now, plan for contingencies in the future.

You, sir, are a hero.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (3, Insightful)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144109)

You, sir, are a hero.

Nah, I'm no hero, I just dislike the thought of the internet being restricted. Because as soon as they can restrict it, they will use restriction as a way of enforcing things.
"Oh, you don't agree with [insert elected leader's name]'s policies? Well, say goodbye to your internet access..."

Plus, it may not even work. (it does use a Raspberry Pi [raspberrypi.org] as the processing unit though, so chances of success are higher than they might have been.)

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (2)

an unsound mind (1419599) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144335)

If you publish and make your work freely available, it may help others build a working system even if you fail or find you don't need it.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (2)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144509)

...publish and make your work freely available...

My philosopy with pretty much everything. Don't worry, as soon as I have a working prototype, I plan on telling everyone.

(Incidentally, I have a tech blog [codemonkeyreport.com] and a twitter account [twitter.com] , both of which contain my sporadic ramblings about random bits of tech, and will be where anything I discover/create will be announced. Don't hold your breath though, I have a life outside of technology...)

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40148061)

Do you also have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (4, Informative)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40148267)

If you just want to get stuff related to the self repairing wireless mesh darknet, go take a look at darkpi.com [darkpi.com]

Other than that...the blog or twitter is the best way to keep up on what I do. Updates may be scarce in the next month-ish, as I'm getting married in late June, and planning a wedding is a task I would not wish on my worst enemy.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40148421)

is not twitter the new newsletter? Just 140 charters or less?

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146255)

That being said, I'm not going to stop my work on a self repairing mesh darknet.

Care to drop any links? I'm interested in this as well.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40147913)

Well, most of the info is contained in a bunch of chat conversations with some of my security minded friends. When you posted this, I didn't really have anything put together, so I threw a bunch of my thoughts onto a page and grabbed a likely looking URL [darkpi.com] .

Please pardon my lack of solid material, hopefully I put up enough to give you a jumping off point.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149003)

Touché

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144001)

DMCA really isn't that bad. It provides a way for artists to protect their copyright over their work, simply by sending a notice to the website, "It appears you or your user is infringing upon my work without permission."

The website or user can respond immediately to say, "Yes it's infringing. I removed it," or "No it isn't infringing. Reactivate my account per the DMCA law." Quick and easy way of dealing with these things, rather than being drug to court. See my signature for an example.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (4, Insightful)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144201)

If that's all it did, you'd be correct.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144215)

The continuing problem with the DMCA is the unwillingness to enforce penalties on people or companies who fraudulently submit takedown notices over things that aren't infringing (see today's related Techdirt story [techdirt.com] ).

If you submit a takedown notice, and you sign or check a box saying "I swear under penalty of perjury", and you're wrong, then where are all the perjury charges?

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (4, Insightful)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144245)

DMCA really isn't that bad

FUCK YOU

It provides a way for artists to protect their copyright over their work

Im sorry, I didnt realize Corporations were artists now.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146007)

No FUCK YOU and read this page of ann ARTIST (not a corp) defending his copyriught. www.petapixel.com/2012/05/25/photographer-threatened-with-lawsuit-after-protecting-his-copyright
    You stuipid troliong sdon of a bitch

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40146445)

You're both correct and wrong.

The takedown process in the DMCA isn't bad in principle. It indemnifies the host and allows the uploader to challenge the takedown. A false takedown request is technically perdury and could land the accuser in court. The problem lies with hosts being cowards and making the takedown as easy as possible, the challenge as hard as possible, and not even acknowledging the existence of fair use.

The really bad parts of the DMCA are shit like the circumvention clause, which can criminalize free codecs.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40147469)

You write like a six year old child. Clearly of low or no education, a classic no ability "arty" type with no value to the real world, but looking for a big pay day. So how about you fuck off yourself, and go back to school to learn the basics you need to live in the real world?

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149387)

Wow you got angry to the point of inducing typos...

Calm down sailor. Did this artist not have any rights before the DMCA?

All the DMCA did was make it painfully easy to fuck anyone up with a mere accusation rather than going through appropriate channels.

Now do you want me to link you to the countless thousands of articles where the DMCA was destructive in order to counterpoint your SINGLE case of an artist actually defending their work?

The funny part is that the artist used the DMCA, and is NOW GETTING SUED. If the artist was a corporation, they would crush their opponent in court with massive legal fees. Since the subject is a lowly artist, THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO ASSERT THEIR COPYRIGHT.

If you seriously think the DMCA is helping artists in any way shape or form, you're out to lunch in a catastrophic way. I hope for your sake you come to your senses sooner than later.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144309)

Quick and easy way of dealing with these things, rather than being drug to court.

I'm sure that it's much quicker and easier for the plaintiff not having to go to court and actually proving their claims, but personally I would prefer to have my right to due process.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (5, Insightful)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144323)

The DMCA only protects their copyrights by trespassing the very grounds of our justice system. It is not guilty until proven innocent, sir; it's innocent until proven guilty. Do not sacrifice this most valuable of ethics because you perceive it as reasonable. There is no reason to be found in the DMCA, and contorting our system of law for the whims of profit only undermines the liberty and security for us all.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146399)

You are not guilty just because you get a copyright notice, any more than you are guilty when a cop pulls you over. And dealing with the notice is as simple as saying, "The work does not infringe copyright," whereupon the photo or video MUST be restored by the law. So it's a few hours hassle..... that is all. (Oh and you do have legal recourse. You have the right to sue the website if they refuse to restore your photo or video. You are not without due process.)

As for the Franklin quote, it is nullified by the U.S. Constitution which says you do not have the right to use copyrighted works. They are "exclusive" to the author.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (2)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#40148493)

That's not how the DMCA works. You need to provide literally no proof that the content is infringing your copyright. Such is the case of Megaupload: http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-video-reinstated-universal-says-you-cant-touch-us-111216/ [torrentfreak.com] .

And no, the constitution doesn't nullify anything Franklin has said. You may accuse someone of copyright infringement, but they are not guilty UNTIL they are proved to be guilty by due process. The DMCA makes due process look like a joke, allowing corporations like Universal Music to run rampant.

If due process and burden of proof gets in the way of making money then you're free to run your business somewhere that doesn't have those horrid obstacles. I hear North Korea is nice this time of year.

The putback is delayed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149971)

And dealing with the notice is as simple as saying, "The work does not infringe copyright," whereupon the photo or video MUST be restored by the law. So it's a few hours hassle..... that is all.

The putback is delayed by 10 to 14 business days by law to give the complaining copyright owner time to file a case, and a lot of free hosts (such as YouTube) wait even longer. With time-sensitive material such as trailers for a newly published work or political speech, this two-week wait could keep the work unavailable for the entire time that it remains relevant.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144739)

The DMCA really is that bad. Among other things, they make a lot of noise about defending property rights. Like, who would be against that, right? While the one hand is dancing away for you about defending your property, the other hand is busy destroying the copyright and patent laws. I'm an old man at this point in my life, and that damned mouse of disney's is still copyrighted. I believe there are congressmen who are actively seeking to make copyrights permanent, with no end. And what about the slashdot story about the red bus on a black and white background that was judged to be an infringement of copyright because there was already another photo - different photo, different camera, different photographer - like it. How long before one person or corporation is allowed to own all copyrights of all bird photos, because they have a photo of a bird already. We're already in a situation where innovation is being strangled because five or six big corporations own most patents, and a guy in a garage can't do what Wosiak or Gates did years ago, because they'd be sued and lose everything. Otherwise sensible people like Sen. Al Franken defend things like SOPA, but they never mention that a few people are actively working - quite successfully too! - to own everything.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144757)

That is not anywhere near 'all' the DMCA does, you're either woefully misinformed or being disingenuous.

Takedown notices are a very small part of the monstrosity.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144795)

It might not be that bad IF it had actually enforced provisions to penalize people sending DMCA notices when none of their copyrights are being infringed. Even better if the site was not to be taken down at all until an adequate amount of time passes for a response.

That and remove the anti-circumvention provisions. A tool is not a crime even if it can be used to commit one.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (3, Informative)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145059)

So DMCA lets suposed copyright holders act without due process. Great, we never needed due process anyway, right? If someone sends a notice, it must be right, there's no way it can be mistaken.

Also, making my own program to view DVDs I legally buyed is surely a bad thing, so it's ok if I'm banned from developing and distributing my own.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144021)

They cannot force anything in the current climate, and soon they may be NO EU at ALL!

Yes. Really. :P

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144071)

And the government will cave, of course, with politicians giving the excuse "Well, it was out of our hands."
 
And the voters are dumb enough to eat it up, at least in the US. The politicians have such a large percentage of the voters thinking that if something doesn't go one way it must go another by default. The two party system keeps that way of thinking alive. They're basically laying the blame at the feet of "the other party" when they say "It was out of our hands." They use this tactic regardless of the party's voting record. But voters eat that up and use it as a talking point in their debates (and justifications) about politics. Even if you show them that their party is just as involved as they other they'll claim that their party had no choice... No one is willing to fight the good fight. Mostly because they do agree in private to what they argue about in public. Why would they bother to take serious actions in the name of the citizen when their jobs don't depend on it. Sure, one or two will get thrown out but the heard as a whole survives and they survive well with big paychecks and life long benefits.
 
So people aren't even ready to tell their elected rulers that there are practically no situations where there are two choices with no middle ground let alone actually willing to vote them out of office based on bad practices related to this level of propaganda.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144095)

Actually, I guess the "in the future" part encompasses your "tomorrow".

So, this is a great victory and shows clearly the Dutch rock (again!) while Americans suck (again!).

And what is this "I'm not responsible attitude?". Your government is yours to do what you want. I'm not going to ask a Mexican or a Canadian about US blunders; unless you think the US is not a democracy, everyone elected Bush and Obama. There's no "they"... your government is you.

If I were an US-national, I'd do something -- since I'm not politically active, it would probably amount to emigrating.

And you know what? Orange is really a beautiful color...

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144299)

And you know what? Orange is really a beautiful color...

In the U.S. Orange means Orange as in Agent Orange, not William of Orange.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144273)

That's impossible, considering the second law** that also has been passed saying similar laws will not be ratified either. The EU itself cannot sign treaties without their member states ratifying the treaty in their individual parliaments. The only possible problems are EU legislation that is independently introduced (ie. not based on treaties external to the EU), the same but with national legislation (see e.g. the UK and France) and finally on the longer term it could be that the European Parliament is given additional powers by the member states; however, the EP will then also be a stronger entity and therefore there will be more attention for European elections, allowing the same democratic process to occur as currently in the member states.

** source: the original article, which states:

Een motie van Verhoeven om ook in de toekomst niet in te stemmen met ACTA-achtige verdragen behaalde een meerderheid.

(loose translation: a resolution by Verhoeven* to also not even voting on ACTA-like treaties in the future attained a majority)
* Verhoeven is a member of parliament for the party D66.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (3, Informative)

Elldallan (901501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144409)

As long as ACTA(or any furture replacements) require changing the treaties establishing the European Union(which the current implementation would almost certainly require) every single Member State must ratify it for it to be recognized and thus any single parliament or public vote can strike it down.

Another thing is that valid decisions at EU level does not automatically translate into law in the Member States, they just require the Member States to enact laws in accordance with that decision(for example the Data Retention Directive), failure to do will result in fines but on the other hand if a major national Parliament is clear that it is completely unwilling to enact such a law the Commission/European Parliament is much less likely to enshrine such decisions.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149141)

No, not even that anymore. With the so-called yellow card/red card procedures, national governments can send back edicts to the EU "for further consideration". Given the resistance in the different countries, a successor to ACTA will be shot down by such a yellow-card procedure (red card procedures are for over-our-dead-bodies-literally rejections); there are enough countries that have sufficient objections. That means fines are stopped barring successful resolution of the objections.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144567)

Oh, wait. Dutch politicians actually accepted these motions unanimously. Unlike USA politicians, who only voted against it because that might hurt their votes. So no, things are different here.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145019)

This is a first world country we're talking about here, with a way lower level of corruption, and people who care a lot more about this sort of stuff. Generally, these sort of changes from on day to the next don't happen, there's a way greater level of stability.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145129)

Do you think the U.S. public would have ever approved of the DMCA if they had actually known about it...

Of course they would have, think of the children ...

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145511)

Here in the Netherlands Internet has become a primary good (A good that is required to be living in the Netherlands). Maybe this is not encoded yet officially in law; but the government requires its citizens to file their taxes through the Internet.

If you would be cut off the internet by a law like ACTA you would have a good case of not having to pay income tax anymore since you would not be able to file them. *This would only work for people who are self employed, since people who work for a boss already pay all their income taxes.

In case you are wondering; it is not possible to use a paper form to fill in your income taxes anymore.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145655)

The RIAA/MPAA and their ilk are quite relentless

The opponents of freedom and democracy usually are. I don't think it's that they're "relentless," I think it's more that we're comparatively lazy in defending our rights.

"Censorship on the internet again?! MAN! I just e-mailed my senator about SOPA a month ago!"

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145863)

I hate to be a cynic, but I have a funny feeling that the EU (or some treaty agreement or trade deal) will just force you to implement it later.

I think it's pretty clear that this whole-hearted rejection of ACTA was because Dutch citizens told their government to stuff the treaty (and similar legislation) back where it came from. So long as there is a political will from the population, no foreign law will be "forced" upon them, and there appears to be a strong political will, there. I'm guessing that the Dutch would be willing to go without the *AA's commercial products, before accepting their terms.

We are winning (5, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145947)

They won't get us tomorrow. Time is on our side. Nature is on our side. They've been fighting losing battles against technology since the 19th century. They fought against the player piano, AM radio, and cassette tapes and the VCR. They lost. They'd like to kill the public library and the used bookstore, but they aren't strong enough to pull that off. That they "sleaze around behind the curtains" is a sign of how truly weak they and their positions are.

We shouldn't take this lying down of course. No laws can stop this digital revolution, but they can do a lot of collateral damage. Shooting down ACTA unanimously is exactly what needs to happen. They and others who'd like to pull similar stunts must be made to understand that we will not submit to such extreme control, and we aren't fooled by language designed to make it sound like a noble attempt at protecting property rights or children. Unworkable and unenforceable plans meant to attain impossible goals is a terrible reason to turn entire nations into police states constantly snooping on all private communication in order to detect copyright infringement, and worse, stopping and forbidding private communication as punishment for mere unproven allegations. I'd like to see things go further, and have these cartels sued for racketeering and corruption for even trying this ACTA nonsense and all the other things they've done. They should stand trial for DVD region encoding, for instance. For DMCA, ACTA and 3 strikes laws, they should face charges for attempting to suppress free speech, and something similar to interfering with the delivery of mail, as well as the racketeering charges.

Big Media doesn't show proper respect for the people. They and their lawyers also ought to face barratry or SLAPP charges for suing, well, everyone. Hit them hard with fines, and jail time. When they fear to lobby for such extreme measures, fear it so much that they won't dare try it, then we'll have made good progress. Ultimately, freedom to communicate should be as firmly enshrined in law as freedom of speech and religion. The whole point of the US Postal Service being under direct government control was to head off the possibility of commercial interests being in a position to abuse the need to communicate for rent seeking and monopoly schemes. No greedy, control freak cartel leaders should have any reason whatsoever to hope they can dictate what, how, and whether we shall communicate.

Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146125)

This kind of threat does deserve permanent vigilance, probably even a permanent lobby to counter the media influence in governments. Just the other day Slashdot had an article on this subject: http://internetdefenseleague.org/ [internetde...league.org]

simply put, people need to get organised to defend their interests.

ACTA needs to go to the Senate (2, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143921)

Why doesn't our president let the Senate vote on ACTA? He's holding the people hostage to a treaty that he signed, and is enforcing upon us, but has never been ratified.

As for the EU: I agree with the other poster they'll just pass ACTA later as some other form (probably through the unelected politburo or apparatchiks). Look how the EU overruled the French Assembly's banning of GM foods within its juris diction..... the 25 nations are not even states anymore. They are EU provinces. They have less power than a US state. Sad, sad times for our European cousins.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (3, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144693)

As for the EU: I agree with the other poster they'll just pass ACTA later as some other form (probably through the unelected politburo or apparatchiks).

What a bunch of bullshit. If the Netherlands put criteria into their constitutions that prohibit ACTA-like legislations, it will be impossible to introduce it, unless you have a large majority to retract the amendment to the constitution. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-13886440 [bbc.com]

Look how the EU overruled the French Assembly's banning of GM foods within its juris diction.

That's not what happened. France asked the EU to also apply their ban EU-wide, which was declined, as most other states allow it and there is no evidence was provided that that particular food being harmful. GM is prohibited or restricted in plenty of European countries. In fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms#Europe [wikipedia.org] starts with "The European Union (EU) has possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world.", a thorn in the eyes of the US.
If there had been evidence of harm, it would have stood a chance of being prohibited EU-wide.

The EU countries agreed that ACTA was a good idea, now they (or some) realise it isn't, so they have to find a way to retract from their agreement. But if you come together, agree and shake hands, and later change your mind, you better have a process to re-negotiate.

That is true on the one side inside the EU, but also if the EU now finds that they want to decline ACTA, they have to retract their signature they gave to the other countries in the world (again, process needed).

EU countries are doing better than those countries around the world that agreed to ACTA, as they managed to get a discussion going and get momentum of their citizens. It very much looks like ACTA is going to be declined, because our politicians (state and EU level) see and react to what the citizens want.

The 25 nations are not even states anymore. They are EU provinces. They have less power than a US state. Sad, sad times for our European cousins.

Do US states have their own army? Do they have diplomatic relations with foreign countries? Do they sign trade agreements with foreign countries? What happens if one US state doesn't implement or follow the legislation given by the federation?

US states are more like the counties in Germany than countries. EU legislation (actually directives) rarely does more than summarize common laws between countries, and then it is voted for by those countries, not some foreign entity.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144933)

Actually, US States do have their own army. The National Guard units, when not Federalized, are under the direct command of the state Governor, who can call them out on his own authority for various tasks. I grant you, this does not mean they get to run their own foreign policy, but they are the same units that go to Iraq and Afghanistan, so they are definitely real soldiers. They even get tanks and F-22s.

Of course, I don't agree with the idea that EU countries are states. That's silly. However, they could end up that way pretty easily, given enough time.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145379)

Never have I wanted mod points more.

Well said.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146285)

So France is allowed to ban GM foods?
Last I heard they are not.
And yes U.S. states have armies (militias), diplomatic relations with foreign countries (or nearby states), as well as trade agreements. And they've even nullified U.S. law.

The most famous example was the U.S. Fugitive Slave Act when northern states refused to return escaped slaves, thus giving Harriet Tubman and others sanctuary. But there have been more-recent examples like legalization of medical marijuana in direct defiance of U.S. Prohibition, and refusing to build nuclear waste sites as Congress ordered them to do. Some states are even refusing to implement Obamacare (the part that mandates states must provide free insurance to the poor).

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150627)

You heard wrong. They are not allowed to ban GM without passing a law. French courts struck the directives down, as they had no legal backing. They are still free to draft and pass a law to ban them.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (1)

rve (4436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146775)

What a bunch of bullshit. If the Netherlands put criteria into their constitutions that prohibit ACTA-like legislations, it will be impossible to introduce it, unless you have a large majority to retract the amendment to the constitution.

The Netherlands, like many oldish countries, does not have a constitution the way Americans understand it. There is a document they call 'constitution', which is difficult to change, but it is merely a long legalese document outlining government institutions and such - not a founding principle of the legal system. Once a law has been passed and ratified, its constitutionality can no longer be challenged. In other words, ordinary laws are more important than this document that they call a constitution.

No matter what the legal status of a constitution, I can't imagine any country would bother to change their constitution for something as frivolous as ACTA or anti-ACTA regulation.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149351)

(I studied Politics in The Hague, and did pass the Constitutional Law exam)

The Dutch Constitution (Grondwet) is without doubt a constitution that Americans would recognize. In fact, whereas the US constitution Article One does define institutions, Article One of the Dutch Constitution states unambiguously that all citizens shall be treated equally before the law (which is the 14th Amendment to the US constitution).

Furthermore, the Dutch constitution has special political protection: It can only be changed by repeated votes with an intermediate election, and requires a supermajority (2/3) on the second vote. This intermediate election gives electors sufficient chance to vote in a blocking minority.

Constitutionality of other laws is certainly relevant in Dutch courts, but the primary decision is left to the Chambers of Parliament and not a Supreme Court. However, these ordinary laws have to be interpreted in context of the constitution. Any ambiguity has to be resolved in favor of constitutional law. (This is called lex superior, and is part of a set of ambiguity rules which also include lex specialis and lex posterior)

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144849)

Legally, it should have no effect at all unless and until it is approved in the senate.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144949)

Sad, sad times for our European cousins.

since 1945 no war has been waged in western and northern Europe. That's 67 years and counting. That's a record for the last 1000 years, I call that a +bold +fontsize+20 WIN /fontsize /bold

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40146197)

Mainly because of the Cold War between the U.S, and U.S.S.R. They forced the peace upon Europe. Let's see how long it last under the European Union's Lisbon Treaty (constitution). We've got only 6 years so far.

Now that Greek and Italian newspapers are drawing German Chancellor in Nazi uniform, with fascist parties gaining seats in the Greek government, war may not be far off. (Or the dissolution of the EU.) BTW I think the peace of the 1800s was longer..... almost a century.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40146879)

BTW I think the peace of the 1800s was longer..... almost a century.

...for certain meanings of "peace"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%931899 [wikipedia.org]

War's happening all over the place back then (arguably today as well). It just wasn't to the scale of a world war.

Technically, the US has been at war for at least the last 10 years.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145739)

Are we sure that the senate would reject ACTA? What are the chances that senators and big media spam the message "Well, this is important for american jobs, AND we've already signed it anyway, so we have no choice." They've gotten bigger lies past us.

Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145797)

Sad, sad times for our European cousins. You do need to keep up to date with the European News, Do a web search for "The Pirate Party" you might just learn something about Europeans. The Pirate party is spreading though out every European Country at a fast rate, Power to the People, voters put political parties in voters can remove them one way or another
Germany's Pirate Party riding high, All across Europe, disgruntled voters are deserting the established parties,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18017064
German Pirate Party Wins Seats In Fourth Straight State Election
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120513/23472618897/german-pirate-party-wins-seats-fourth-straight-state-election.shtml

If you want to know what's going on in America, that the American media don't report, then book mark http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

Envy (3, Informative)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143929)

I writhe with jealousy at the enlightened governments in the EU. Compare that to our clueless Indian government that wants to control the Internet despite not knowing how, and you can sympathize with me.

Re:Envy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144103)

I can assure you that this is a one-off, it is by no means indicative of responsive European governments overall. I don't know anything about the Dutch parliament but others have been bending over backwards for the entertainment industry and other mega-capitalists.

Re:Envy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144243)

The RIAA is in no way "capitalist". They employ no capital; and are merely a predatory cartel. Some members of MPAA do, however, employ capital and are evil in a subtly different way. The difference here, is that capitalists use capital to create a product (for example, the movie companies financing the production of a movie, or Toyota using a set of robots to build a car) where the movie distribution companies and the music industry employ no capital in the creation of a product. Captialists, please remember, create create a product by using capital. That does not correlate, positively or negatively, with "enforcement of IP rights".

Patents vs. copyrights (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150031)

Captialists, please remember, create create a product by using capital.

I was under the impression that firms in other industries perform research and development that results in patents. What's the big difference between these patents and the copyrights owned by record labels and movie studios?

Re:Envy (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 2 years ago | (#40148527)

I'd hardly call this enlightenment. We got a very strong nationalist vibe going on at the moment and after the recent premature fall of the government the US cock has temporarily been removed to free the mouth for pleasing the voters instead.

We'll come up with a good excuse of our own to control the Internets soon enough though, freedom is scary.

if they ever get the change to do so (3, Funny)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143931)

ftfs:

if they ever get the change to do so

I hope that the dutch parliament can find the change to pass this resolution! It sounds like the parliament is coin-operated. Have they looked between the couch cushions?

Re:if they ever get the change to do so (0)

datajack (17285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144139)

I think that the 'if they get a chance' condition was actually implying that ACTA may not get passed by the EU at all, therefore the Dutch won't get a chance to block something that isn't happening.

Re:if they ever get the change to do so (2)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144331)

dude, i was just riffing on a typo. the intended meaning, which you repeat, is clear.

Re:if they ever get the change to do so (1)

datajack (17285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144951)

Gah! I didn't even notice the typo.

I think I'll take this as my cue to leave the keyboard as I clearly need more tea.

Re:if they ever get the change to do so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149393)

This parliament won't get the change. There are elections scheduled late this summer, so we'll see some chances in the new parliament.

Germany will do everything necessasry... (5, Funny)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143933)

...to support the USA in their fight against weapons of mass destructions in the Netherlands.

Re:Germany will do everything necessasry... (5, Interesting)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144151)

You should have picked the UK, because Germany didn't believe that WMD crap the last time and has Pirate Party members sitting in state parliaments. The Germans get along quite well with the dutch as long as no football is involved.

Re:Germany will do everything necessasry... (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145009)

Germany didn't believe that WMD crap the last time

Apparently they didn't get the memo from Rummy, he had the receipts and the profit sharing to prove it. Not saying the attack on a sovereign nation would have been justified, just saying just because we say we didn't find them, doesn't mean they weren't there(or that we really didn't find them).

Re:Germany will do everything necessasry... (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145509)

The receipts from the 80s that Rummy had are the ones we got after the first war... when those weapons were being destroyed! The receipts are for what they admitted to and we knew about the last time. And if not destroyed they would have already degraded, as they have a short shelf life.

Re:Germany will do everything necessasry... (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150135)

Don't forget the Polish. They'll help find those WMDs too.

Re:Germany will do everything necessasry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144385)

Funny you should mention that: it is a public secret that we have weapons of mass destruction from the USA stored on some air base which comes up in the news as an issue every decade or so.

Re:Germany will do everything necessasry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149503)

The problem is that we do have WMD's in the Netherlands, and the USA even knows where they are :(

(Approximately two dozen B61 nuclear bombs for use by our F16's)

Clearly this is an act of war (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143949)

Send in Don Quixote!
Only he can challenge their army of windmills.

(hey, if nothing else, "Don Quixote vs. the Dutch" is a better plot than most of what the MPAA has been making in the last 30 years)

Re:Clearly this is an act of war (1)

techprophet (1281752) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143989)

Don Quixote is awesome, so of course it would be.

The same government... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40143969)

...that will outlaw foreigners from purchasing cannabis...wants to help enable your rights? Yeah.......I HIGHLY doubt this story, and the intentions of the Netherland government....

Re:The same government... (3, Interesting)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144227)

They did not limit their citizens access to it, they just didn't want to be Europe's official drug shopping mall anymore.

Re:The same government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144801)

Well, they did limit their citizens' access to it, seeing as no coffeeshops are allowed anymore within 350m of a public school building.

Re:The same government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151785)

While technically true, in practise, there is no problem as anybody can setup coffee shops anywhere else.

Re:The same government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145065)

>they just didn't want to be Europe's official drug shopping mall anymore.

Which is just poor business. They have been taking advantage of a great opportunity created by the prohibitionist lunatics, and would be foolish to cut off that revenue stream due their own authoritarian crazies.

One of many reasons (3, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40143973)

I've invested a lot in the Netherlands over the years; those investments have paid off really well. So did money I put into Canadian stock fund.

Funny how those darn socialist countries continue kicking the crap out the USA, where we're always number one in our own minds.

Re:One of many reasons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144295)

I notice you omitted a good handful of larger, more prominent socialist economies swirling the bottom of the shitter right now.

Sniping works both ways, you know.

Re:One of many reasons (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144831)

The Netherlands isn't socialist by any non-USian definition. According to Wikipedia, we're actually the oldest capitalist nation in the world. But don't let facts get in the way of a good quip.

Re:One of many reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149479)

And since he is obviously speaking in that messed up bastardization of a language people are calling "US English" so the laymen can understand, he's using the word "socialist" in jest... Because anything that is "socialist or communist" according to americans (that's a label they attach to anything they want to undermine) is EVIL and must be stopped! (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!@!@!!!)

So perhaps his joke flew over your head a bit? Maybe he should have said "socialist" ?

This is a good day for the Internet... (4, Insightful)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144009)

...if you are Dutch.

Re:This is a good day for the Internet... (5, Insightful)

kamukwam (652361) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144131)

...if you are Dutch.

... if you live in the Netherlands.

Re:This is a good day for the Internet... (2)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145063)

No, every country voting against this makes it easier to have public discussions about this topic in other countries. If they'd all operate in lockstep, if they'd all implement 3-strike laws and other nonsense, then it would appear normal to the population. The Netherlands are not the first country to reject ACTA, but they help all of us by doing so. Good for them and good for us. As far as internet freedom goes, we are all in this together.

Every country promoting that freedom helps internet users in other countries as well, every country trying to abolish that freedom does harm to all of us. It affects us all, because that's one more or one less country which can legally host servers where free speech is possible. It affects us all because it's one more example that internet freedom is possible, or one more example that restrictions are normal.

Cue US Special Watch list ... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144167)

Well, this will mean the Americans will put the Netherlands on the "Priority Watch List".

Which is fine, since it's mostly a government talking piece put together by industry lobbying groups.

According to Michael Geist [michaelgeist.ca] , we ignore it too because it's drivel:

In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.

Me, I think it's time more countries stood up and said they don't want to be controlled by the US content industry and lobby groups.

Saying you don't want to risk a free and open internet is a good thing. Saying you're not willing to be bound by what American corporations want (which is the whole purpose of this stupid Name and Shame watch list) is also a good thing.

This whole stupid treaty is hypocrisy -- censorship is bad, unless you're doing it because we said so, mostly to protect corporate profits.

Re:Cue US Special Watch list ... (4, Informative)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145097)

The MAIN reason Canada is on there is because Wikileaks cables revealed The Harper gov asked to be put onto this list. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/07/canada-to-u-s-please-blacklist-us/ [macleans.ca] That's right the same Harper Gov that is about to introduce an one sided Copyright Law favouring non Canadian corporate entities.

The Dutch? (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144399)

Did the press release contain hard-coded Dutch subtitles?

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40144415)

First we defend net neutrality: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-13886440

and now this.

makes me proud to be Dutch! :P

Re:Yeah (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 2 years ago | (#40148923)

elections are coming.

(hard coded subtext: De verkiezingen komen eraan... makkelijk scoren!)

Pity Thy Master (1)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 2 years ago | (#40144635)

The media industry is apparently suffering massive losses from piracy, yet somehow still has the funds to prop up new artists while simultaneously wielding a large enough financial hammer to influence world politics...what exactly is wrong with this picture?

Re:Pity Thy Master (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145385)

You missed the part where their budget for hookers and blow has been decreased. Now they can't just dump piles of cocaine on endtables for guests to snort, they have to ration it out in smaller soup bowls.

Re:Pity Thy Master (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40145781)

>>You missed the part where their budget for hookers and blow has been decreased.

No wonder they try so hard in the Netherlands...

IPRED SP1 (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40145967)

Don't forget, IPRED [laquadrature.net] is already in force, so the announced revision [europa.eu] is not a 'new law' nor a 'treaty'.

Neanderthals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151845)

Did anyone else read that as "Neanderthals reject ACTA" ?

Load More 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>