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!

European Parliament Committees Reject ACTA As IP Backlash Grows

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the laws-you-don't-know-invite-ignorance-as-excuse dept.

EU 98

An anonymous reader writes "Earlier today [Thursday, May 31st], three European Parliament committees studying the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement — the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), the Committee for Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and the Committee for Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) — all voted against implementing ACTA. Michael Geist reports on how the strength of the anti-ACTA movement within the European Parliament is part of a broader backlash against secretive intellectual property agreements that are either incorporated into broad trade agreements or raise critical questions about prioritizing IP enforcement over fundamental rights including votes and reports opposing these deals in the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Mexico."

cancel ×

98 comments

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

Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166183)

another example why i'm proud to leave in EU :)

Re:Proud (1)

Theophany (2519296) | about 2 years ago | (#40166211)

Yeah, it's great. The entire house of cards is on the verge of collapse, but at least our bureaucrats found the time to vote this shit down.

Meanwhile, in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Italy...

Re:Proud (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40166261)

I said it before, and I'll say it again. The EU's problems are the result of a political structure and cannot succeed due to lack of sufficient federalization.

America figured this out 225 years ago. How long will it take for Europe?

Re:Proud (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166399)

Looking at the USA, one can only hope it will take forever.

Re:Proud (0)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40167155)

It's not the system's fault people keep voting in corrupt individuals to positions of power.

Re:Proud (4, Insightful)

aekafan (1690920) | about 2 years ago | (#40167651)

Actually, I would completely disagree with that. The system breeds corruption, and only the most corrupt make it to the highest power. It is inherent in any human system of government. Wait, are you one of those that believe we can have better system if we just try harder?

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168237)

Wait, are you one of those that believe we can have better system if we just try harder?

Sure. A better system. But not a perfect system.

A representative democracy is better than a dictatorship, for instance. I'm sure there are many improvements that could be made. The problem is, changing a country in fundamental ways is no easy task.

Re:Proud (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40169301)

Oh, no. I've no illusion on that. Any system that can be "fair" is going to be gamed by the corrupt. The only way to ensure corrupt individuals can't do that is a dictatorship, and yea... I don't think I need to expand on why that won't help any.

Re:Proud (1)

Elldallan (901501) | about 2 years ago | (#40172595)

Starting with a system that doesn't hugely favor a 1-2 party system would be an enormous step in the right direction though. The easier we make it for people to start new parties and win spots in parliament etc the more robust the system becomes against corruption.

The problem with the US and to a lesser extent UK systems is that it is practically impossible for political parties to get any meaningful say in politics at a national level. Even if such a system also makes it easier to vote communists and/or fascists into power as we have recently seen happen in Greece it is definitely worth it because the reason the communists and fascists have risen in power in Greece is because they have for all intents and purposes had a duopoly that landed them in the situation they are in now and the people reacted against the policies those w parties represent.

Re:Proud (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40166631)

The same federalization the tea party is screaming about out of their red faces.

Re:Proud (4, Insightful)

jalopezp (2622345) | about 2 years ago | (#40167853)

The tea party wants more federalism and less centralised bureaucracy. In Europe, the problem is the opposite, states remain sovreign and citizens have very little say ove what goes on at the European level. The EU is an agreement amongst states, not a democratic institution, and it would take a major restructuring of the political landscape of its 27 members to make it into one. The EU has its origins in a four country agreement for the free trade of steel and coal, through the EEC into what it is today. It is remarkable that so much has been agreed on, but perhaps they were too quick to try to absorb so much of the economic autonomy of its members into a single supranational institution.

Re:Proud (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168595)

The EU has its origins in a four country agreement for the free trade of steel and coal, through the EEC into what it is today.

As far as I remember my history classes, it was a six-country agreement [wikipedia.org] . Although arguably preceded by the Benelux (three countries) itself shortly preceded by some sort of economic agreement between Luxembourg and Belgium.

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40230935)

The EU is an agreement amongst states, not a democratic institution, and it would take a major restructuring of the political landscape of its 27 members to make it into one.

Not really that major, you can just put the people in charge of most supranational affairs. Just stick the swiss means of direct democracy on top of it all: Give people the means to dispose of unliked laws and introduce their own desired laws by direct vote, triggered whenever a certain amount of signatures is collected. Parliament itself could also let the people decide, if it feels doing so is appropriate.

The European Citizens' Initiative is an advance in the right direction. It is not yet quite there in that it doesn't trigger a legally binding, direct democratic vote, but at least it's an initial, small form of participation that at least raises visibility.

Re:Proud (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#40166907)

Sure because they made an economic structure (the euro) without the political structure (a common economic policy) so if they want a United States of Europe all they have to do is add a federal government. But Europe doesn't want that, being English or French or German isn't the same as being a Californian or Texan or New Yorker. They're not just different states, they're different countries. "I'm European" doesn't mean the same as "I'm American" and most likely never will. If you try forcing them together with a top-heavy government you'll only end up with a mish-mash country like the USSR or Yugoslavia that'll fall apart violently. Maybe if you took it one area by another then in a hundred years and I'm sure that's what they thought when they introduced the euro, but we're not there today. And particularly not now under these circumstances, it'd be like sewing up a poisoned wound. If things do come to a collapse now they need to back off and try again in a better way, not rush it and hope a central government will fix everything.

Re:Proud (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40167089)

You don't need a big government to enforce a common fiscal policy across Europe. You do need unanimous agreement and we're lacking there.

While fiscal policy is a big thing, it's not the only thing that a federal government does. We already have European legislation (most of which is actually recommendations), European currency (a sub-set of the EU countrues actually), and we're still struggling to get the fiscal bit sorted out. UK, being very protective and nationalistic, doesn't really help. The PIGS, being really bad at finance and good at grabbing money from other states, don't really help either - they like the status quo, they're big spenders and cannot realistically be kicked out of the eurozone, so they'll keep spending as much as possible, what are the others gonna do? Send them more threatening letters?

We've heard talks of the United States of Europe, but if you read what it's actually being proposed, it's nothing more than a fiscal union. Strict oversight from the body that regulates the currency. Just what happens in any country, extended to the eurozone.

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40167875)

Indeed. The Germans don't want to start the printing presses up (euro bonds) without first getting some promises that nations won't spend like drunken sailors. Many nations aren't so keen on signing up to rules that if broken result in an invasion of German taxmen. The clock is ticking. It's just a huge game of chicken really.

Re:Proud (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#40168977)

The PIGS, being really bad at finance and good at grabbing money from other states, don't really help either - they like the status quo, they're big spenders and cannot realistically be kicked out of the eurozone, so they'll keep spending as much as possible, what are the others gonna do?

The way in which the Euro crisis is always spun into a simple morality story is very amusing. Greece and Spain, for example, got into their current situations while following very different courses.

Why can't everyone just export tons of shit like the Germans? Here's a hint: You can't export anything without someone else importing.

The actual nature of the global economic system doesn't allow for convenient and simple fairy tales to be told, so it is ignored in favor of a story little minds think they can parse.

Re:Proud (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40169807)

> You don't need a big government to enforce a common fiscal policy across Europe. You do need unanimous agreement and we're lacking there.

The requirement for unanimous agreement is what killed the Confederation. It won't work for the EU either.

Re:Proud (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40169027)

When the Articles of Confederation were passed nobody in America wanted a federal government either. However history sort of imposed itself. States were running their own armies, there were treaties and tariffs between states and foreign powers and even border disputes and skirmishes between states.

It was pretty clear to the Founders this was going nowhere. Federalism has problems, sure. But without a federal government the colonies were falling apart.

Eventually Europe will realize that their current structure is a small measure towards getting rid of the petty nationalism that caused it to dissolve into extraordinarily chauvinistic behavior over the centuries. This is the 21st century now, not the 18th.

The fact is that throughout human history political progress has meant increasing the size of the political units.

Re:Proud (1)

Xiaran (836924) | about 2 years ago | (#40169463)

You think people don't realise this? It is not that simple... you cannot just snap your fingers and reconstruct political and social structures that have histories in the order of thousands of years.

Re:Proud (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40169833)

I didn't say it was going to be easy. However the alternatives are going to be worse.

Re:Proud (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#40167011)

I said it before, and I'll say it again. The EU's problems are the result of a political structure and cannot succeed due to lack of sufficient federalization.

The EU was created in the hope that a 'beneficial crisis' would allow them to force centralised control onto people who didn't want it.

It's currently breaking apart because that was a fscking stupid idea. No-one wants to be told what to do by French and German politicians in Brussels.

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40167819)

There are no French or German politicians in Brussels, there are plenty of European politicians though...

Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169779)

I'll believe that once they stop pushing the agenda of their individual countries and start thinking of the bigger picture. See eurobonds, see 'move-the-whole-circus-every-month-because-we-don-t-want-THEM-to-be-the-seat-of-government', etcetera, etcetera....

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40178561)

The moving around part is opposed by the parliament, however the council that is not in Brussels, but rather spread out in the member states want to keep it.

Re:Proud (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#40167167)

I hate to say this, because it will certainly be flamed, derided as only half true, or worse, but...

The federalization of the US was a slipperly slope. The problem with any federalizing body is that said body tries to mandate things out of the component parts, above and beyond what the terms of said federalization were at the time of signature.

Take for instance, the US, as per you example.

In the US, a hotbutton topic is that of "state rights". Our constitution states that any power not explicitly granted by said constitution or its amendments is retained by the component states, or the people. This means that unless it deals with foriegn powers, or some similarly and explicitly worded function of the federal government, the fed should piss off. However, our fed likes to dictate federal education, federal healthcare, federal taxlaw, federal laws of other forms, and federal oversights onto its member states with a decidedly "suck it bitch!" Attitude, flagrantly violating the constitution's terms, abusing the fuck out of the commerce clause, and just overall thinking they have the legal authority to do these things when legally they don't.

If that's your example of how federalization is supposed to work, I hope the eu movement dies in its crib, and the eu member states all run home and build walls around themselves. Seriously.

Re:Proud (1)

cockroach2 (117475) | about 2 years ago | (#40167411)

I wouldn't necessarily blame this on the federalization, other countries (eg. Switzerland) seem to be doing reasonably well with a similar system. It would be interesting to see whether such a system could work throughout the EU and is IMHO a sine qua non for me to even consider joining that union.

Re:Proud (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40168805)

"Our constitution states that any power not explicitly granted by said constitution or its amendments is retained by the component states, or the people."

Nah. Here's what the 10th Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I wish people would actually read the 10th amendment. The word "explicitly" appears nowhere. While it was debated at the time of adoption it was not included. This means powers implicitly granted are also allowed.

There is also the 13th amendment which you might want to take a gander at. It broadens federal powers quite a bit.

Re:Proud (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40169145)

Excuse me, that's the 14th amendment.

Re:Proud (-1, Troll)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40167623)

The problem is that Germany, the richest and most powerful country in the EU is not about caring for the rest of the territory, but using it to export shitload after shitload of the goods they manufacture. Since it's impossible to devaluate our currency to keep competitive, Germany squashes us like flies, because they are so productive and they have the political clout to swing every EU decision in their own interest. They simply corrupt and blackmail any local government trying to protect its country from depredation.

To keep us buying their products big time, they lend us money. Big time. Now we can't pay anymore, and we don't have agriculture or industry left. To make things worse we had to incur in huge public debts to rescue banks that spent years unsupervised in an orgy of speculative investments. Germany blames us for everything and refuses to do anything to rescue Europe from disaster and demands the other countries to sell cheap what's left of their economies, I mean the public services and utilities.

Of course, this is unsustainable. The countries in the raw end of the deal will eventually default on their debts (most of it is fictitious, anyway). German industrials will lose the markets they export to and the German bankers will lose all the borrowers that pay them excruciating interest (that they gladly spend in whores and race cars). Germans will face massive unemployment and austerity (but only after the rest of the Europeans).

But no problem. The German government will tell the people it's the other countries who are to blame. They will say that the "inferior" people didn't know how to manage their finances and ruined the great Germany which so generously gave them so much. Then they will turn to Fascism again and invade the rest of Europe. History repeats again and again and again.

Re:Proud (0)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#40168047)

Since it's impossible to devaluate our currency to keep competitive

Leave the Eurozone. Don't recall that anyone actually forced you to give up your native currency.

To keep us buying their products big time, they lend us money.

Don't borrow. Don't recall that anyone actually forced your governments (or your fellow citizens) to borrow more than they could afford.

To make things worse we had to incur in huge public debts to rescue banks that spent years unsupervised in an orgy of speculative investments.

You had huge pubic debts before your banks had to be bailed out. Don't recall anyone actually forcing your governments to live beyond their means.

Ultimately, you can choose to blame everyone but yourselves for the decisions you made. But that won't fix things, so why bother wasting time with it?

Re:Proud (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40168991)

Since it's impossible to devaluate our currency to keep competitive

Leave the Eurozone. Don't recall that anyone actually forced you to give up your native currency.

By "anyone" you mean "no one", right? I'll leave the Eurozone. Where do I sign?

To keep us buying their products big time, they lend us money.

Don't borrow. Don't recall that anyone actually forced your governments (or your fellow citizens) to borrow more than they could afford.

If you read my original post, you'll find that I say our governments were actually forced/corrupted into it. The people borrowed money that was wilfully offered to them by the banks. People thought it was OK. Actually, it was the responsibility of the banks/governments to make a decent financial management and prevent unbalances. The common guy is not a financial expert, that's why we pay all those overpaid "experts" in banks and governments for. Funny you don't mention how we were basically paid to ruin our industry and agriculture and become mass importers. Things are so much more pleasant when you ignore what you don't like, aren't they?

To make things worse we had to incur in huge public debts to rescue banks that spent years unsupervised in an orgy of speculative investments.

You had huge pubic debts before your banks had to be bailed out. Don't recall anyone actually forcing your governments to live beyond their means.

No, we didn't. The deficit in Portugal was inside the draconian rules imposed by the EU before the subprime bubble bust. It climbed immediately because of rescuing the banks. I hope you're not an American. It would be quite ironic to receive moral lessons from you.

Ultimately, you can choose to blame everyone but yourselves for the decisions you made. But that won't fix things, so why bother wasting time with it?

So, instead of wasting time being a naysayer, do you have anything valuable to propose?

Re:Proud (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 years ago | (#40169491)

If you read my original post, you'll find that I say our governments were actually forced/corrupted into it. The people borrowed money that was wilfully offered to them by the banks.

So, the banks held guns to your head and made you borrow money?

Somehow, I don't think so.

Do remember that the people being bribed with OPM would've screamed to high heaven if your governments had said twenty years ago "sorry, lads, but this is unsustainable - we can't afford it, you can't afford" and then stopped borrowing money.

Funny you don't mention how we were basically paid to ruin our industry and agriculture and become mass importers.

Paid how? By people being willing to lend you money? Noone made your country borrow money it couldn't afford (any more than MY country was forced to borrow money it couldn't afford).

Face it, borrowing money to bribe voters is the favorite hobby of politicians everywhere.

And, in the end, they can point to some evil "other" that made them do it, and get you all riled up at that evil "other".

Which seems to be working really well with you.

So, instead of wasting time being a naysayer, do you have anything valuable to propose?

Depends on what you mean by "valuable". If you mean "suggest ways you can have your cake and eat it too", then no, not a thing.

Alas, in the short run, you're screwed. Your government bribed you into voting for it by giving you something for "nothing", and now the "nothing" turns out to be "something". And you don't like the size of the "something"...

So, the choice you have reduces to emigrate to somewhere outside the First World (the PIIGS are leading the pack, but they're not the only countries headed into ruin - they're just going to get there first).

Which implies a lower standard of living for you for the foreseeable future, since the reason that countries aren't part of the First World is that they generally suck.

OR, you stay at home and suffer your way through the problem. Same lower standard of living, but in the long run, you have at least a chance of getting over it.

Oh, and finally, stop voting in people who offer to bribe you with OPM - it never works in the long run.

Re:Proud (2)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40170015)

As you should imagine, PIIGS is an insult for those who live in those countries. Please abstain from using that term, in the name of a sane discussion.

So, your solution is basically individualistic. Suffer and emigrate. I beg to disagree. I'd rather suffer jumping out of the Euro, at least we would be free and could devalue our debt into oblivion. But that will set fire to the whole Eurozone, so I strongly suspect Germany won't like it very much. If the idea spreads, they may be convinced to allow the Eurobonds and let the inflation go up, but I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, we're fucked otherwise. And I wouldn't need to emigrate to a third world country, I'd be living in one.

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40172351)

You can't devalue your _external_ debt into oblivion, if the new currency devalue against the euro, the euro denominated external debt will GROW in size, this in term will make the situation worse and you have to enact more austerity in order to be able to pay of the external debt. Any internal debt could however be taken care of like that, but that is hardly the issue here...

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40172435)

"was inside the draconian rules imposed by the EU"

So a 3% deficit rule is draconioan? Please be realistic. That 3% must come from somewhere, and that is either your children (who repays it after you are long gone and they somehow managed to have a surplus to repay the loans) or someone else when you default on the loans, or some ridiculously high inflation that will eat up every persons savings in a jiffy.

Re:Proud (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 2 years ago | (#40169141)

Since it's impossible to devaluate our currency to keep competitive

Leave the Eurozone. Don't recall that anyone actually forced you to give up your native currency.

Actually yes, if you want to be part of the EU (And get all the benefits of free trade etc...) then you have to join the Eurozone eventually.I believe only Denmark and the UK have the option not to, the others have to eventually. Not joining the EU when you're a tiny country in the region will put you at a massive disadvantage.

To keep us buying their products big time, they lend us money.

Don't borrow. Don't recall that anyone actually forced your governments (or your fellow citizens) to borrow more than they could afford.

Well no, but fundamentally by joining the eurozone you have the same strength of currency as say, Germany. This makes your goods as expensive as German goods, despite the German good being seen as superior. This means:
a) Given the choice, foreign countries will buy the German goods rather than yours, as they are the same price.
b) Locals, given the choice, will buy German goods rather than your own, as they are the same price
Also, the free movement of people will allow your best and brightest to leave, especially as living costs are now the same as Germany anyway.

Eventually your economy will be uncompetitive, your educated citizens will have left, and nobody would want your produce. The only upside to this is that you get Germany's credit rating, and so can take out loans at silly cheap rates.

When all you have available to you is debt, then that is what you use. It is not a direct "Forcing", but leaving no other option to a country is not so much different really.

To me it is not surprising what happened. The EU is essentially built solely to benefit Germany (and to a lesser extent France). This is because the concept of the EU originated with these two countries, so decided to form a Union in order to prevent another big European war, so logically they wrote the original structure to benefit them.

To make things worse we had to incur in huge public debts to rescue banks that spent years unsupervised in an orgy of speculative investments.

You had huge pubic debts before your banks had to be bailed out. Don't recall anyone actually forcing your governments to live beyond their means.

See response above, although I'd have argued that you shouldn't have bailed out the banks at all. They were private entities, they gambled big to make money and lost, and should suffer the losses as well.

Ultimately, you can choose to blame everyone but yourselves for the decisions you made. But that won't fix things, so why bother wasting time with it?

And I hope this post illustrates to you that the situation is far from simple, or clear, or how you see it really."blaming everyone but themselves" may actually not be the wrong answer, although I'd blame them for a) Initially joining the Eurozone, and b) being stupid enough to take the bait and get trapped, but politicians are neither the brightest nor the most honest of people...

Re:Proud (1)

Elldallan (901501) | about 2 years ago | (#40173123)

Since it's impossible to devaluate our currency to keep competitive

Leave the Eurozone. Don't recall that anyone actually forced you to give up your native currency.

Actually yes, if you want to be part of the EU (And get all the benefits of free trade etc...) then you have to join the Eurozone eventually.I believe only Denmark and the UK have the option not to, the others have to eventually. Not joining the EU when you're a tiny country in the region will put you at a massive disadvantage.

Sweden found another way to stay out of the euro(and haven't seen any truly negative sideffects of doing so). We signed the Maastricht Treaty but said treaty has certain requirements before allowing a nation to join the euro and puts no obligations on the signatories to attempt to fulfill the requirements. So Sweden did not adopt the euro because the populace turned it down in a general referendum and Sweden has ever since simply chosen not to fulfill the requirements for joining the euro.

Another problem many Southern European countries face is a relatively high corruption and a very large black economy(the figures I've seen so far estimates that the black economy in Greece is about 40-45% of GDP). That is a huge problem because even if there is enough taxable economy to successfully run the country it is simply not getting to the government.And typically the people that will manage evade taxes is not the grassroots population.
An example I saw from Greece is that to get a doctors appointment you are expected to bring a small bribe or you will be waitlisted forever and that doctor will often declare an income just below taxable levels and thus pay little to no income tax. Contrast this with Scandinavia and Germany where bribes and corruption is thankfully very rare and the black economy is also similarly small in comparison so most of the taxable income makes it to the Government who can then properly run the country.

Re:Proud (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40175249)

Another problem many Southern European countries face is a relatively high corruption and a very large black economy(the figures I've seen so far estimates that the black economy in Greece is about 40-45% of GDP). That is a huge problem because even if there is enough taxable economy to successfully run the country it is simply not getting to the government.And typically the people that will manage evade taxes is not the grassroots population. An example I saw from Greece is that to get a doctors appointment you are expected to bring a small bribe or you will be waitlisted forever and that doctor will often declare an income just below taxable levels and thus pay little to no income tax. Contrast this with Scandinavia and Germany where bribes and corruption is thankfully very rare and the black economy is also similarly small in comparison so most of the taxable income makes it to the Government who can then properly run the country.

You're right. Funny how the troika that "rescued" Ireland, Portugal and Greece are a lot more concerned about privatising the public services at low cost and ending all social benefits than they are about fighting corruption and cutting, for example, useless defence expenses (Greece buys a shitload of weapons from Germany).

Also funny how Goldman Sachs was involved with the right-wing Greek government cooking the books to be able to join the Euro, but, somehow, an ex-top executive from Goldman Sachs was appointed head of the Greek government and another one as president of the European Central Bank.

Last but not least, the governor of the Bank of Portugal that failed miserably at finding the huge frauds being performed by some Portuguese banks (that had to be rescued by the state, leading to our public debt crisis) was "punished" with the vice-presidency of the European Central Bank! How's that for fighting corruption?

By the way, I'm Portuguese. That thing about having to bribe the public doctors makes my stomach revolve. Although we have lots of corruption here, it never got to that point, that I know of. A doctor who tried to pull that one out would land in a court pretty quickly.

Re:Proud (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178333)

Sweden found another way to stay out of the euro(and haven't seen any truly negative sideffects of doing so). We signed the Maastricht Treaty but said treaty has certain requirements before allowing a nation to join the euro and puts no obligations on the signatories to attempt to fulfill the requirements. So Sweden did not adopt the euro because the populace turned it down in a general referendum and Sweden has ever since simply chosen not to fulfill the requirements for joining the euro.

It is interesting about Sweden, but I know most new entrants to the EU are obliged to join the eurozone if they want to join the EU. See here on the right for a map [wikipedia.org] .

It might be that the EU decided to change the rules for new entrants, being that when Sweden joined, the EU was something totally different to the political behemoth it is today. Now being part of the EU requires the Euro, which benefits Germany quite nicely really.

Either way, thanks for the insight, always appreciated :)

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40177887)

the problem isn't germany, the problem is that governements consistently and structurally spend more then their income, which means their debt keeps rising.

figures can be found here [europa.eu] , info dating back to 1995, which gives us the following info:

- out of the 27 countries listed there 2 big exceptions: Norway and Bulgaria. Both have been paying of their debt
- 2 more honorable mentions: Denmark and Sweden, who have atleast had a number of consecutavie years of debt going down (but still have an overall rise)
- every other country, including Germany, has the same structural problem: they consistently spend more then theire income.

In other words it's a lack of basic common sense in politicians (or more like an attitude of 'why should I care I'll be long gone by the time it becomes a problem')

Re:Proud (1)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | about 2 years ago | (#40167967)

did America vote to reject ACTA?

Re:Proud (1)

Theophany (2519296) | about 2 years ago | (#40168053)

You can say it a thousand times, it doesn't make you any less wrong.

Re:Proud (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#40166541)

The euro may or may not collapse but the EU will survive in some form or the other, there's been far too many positive gains by being a 500 million people market rather than 27 countries with their own odd rules. Even very worst case I suspect the southern countries get kicked out/leave and the northern/eastern countries stay. There are after all despite the PIIGGS over 20 countries who haven't fucked their economy. Besides, it's not like they could turn this around if they just paid attention to it. Right now if they increase taxes and impose cutbacks their economy tanks more and they get less taxes and more people on unemployment. If they decrease taxes to kick start the economy their public deficit goes to hell and the markets shut them down. Right now they're at the bottom of a deep, deep pit and only has to sit still and hope the world economy recovers so they're able to climb out. Meanwhile they might as well reject bullshit like ACTA.

Yes proud to be European (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169925)

The patenteers were held back too.

On September 24, 2003..."A groundswell of public opinion involving hundreds of thousands of software professionals and scientists, largely coordinated by the FFII, helped to strengthen the Parliament's resolve to vote for real limits on patentability."
http://eupat.ffii.org/int/intro/

When the patenteers were pushing their story "Patents protect little firms - look at Dragon Software", I was at a PyCon in Oxford and videoed some small computer firms. All were against software patents. I sent it to one of my MEPs, Richard Corbett, who was the first Labour Party MEP to break rank from the origial party line that supported the patenteers.

I know he had lots of other representations but how powerful are video petitions?

P.S. Europe's best answer to the economic crisis is a carbon tax. See Vivid Economics "The potential of carbon pricing to reduce Europe’s fiscal deficits". See http://bkuk.com - It's also got a link to my AVAAZ petition "Tax carbon to create jobs".

Re:Proud (0)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40177497)

there's been far too many positive gains

Like the fact that we slaughter our entire fauna when a cow has to sneeze? Like the fact that genetically modified crops are literally forced down our throats? Like that fact that no member state has any control over their own money anymore? Like the fact that some local fish have already gone extinct? Like the fact that co-housing is almost forbidden? If you are not a company, what positive gain is there?

Re:Proud (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166635)

Yeah, it's great. The entire house of cards is on the verge of collapse, but at least our bureaucrats found the time to vote this shit down.
  Meanwhile, in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Italy...

That's the typical tactic of the Copyright Industry. Try to avoid attracting attention. Point to other issues while in the backrooms advancing their own agenda.

In case nobody noticed: ACTA did more for raising interest in European Parliament, its workings, its effects on national legislation than any of the EC-sponsored campaigns put together. How many teens, tweens knew about INTA, LIBE and JURI?

It also helped to create a large sense unity among those opposed to ACTA and all it stood for.

Note that in countries where there is no real one man, one vote democracy (usually 'first past the post' jigsaw elections) this is not really threatening yet, but as evidenced by these outcomes, in real democracies the politicians are starting to listen.

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166733)

The debt/GDP ratio of the Eurozone is lower than that of the US. The only reason why the US came out of the financial crisis is because the Fed keeps printing dollars, while the ECB takes care of inflation (read: consumers).

They haven't solved their structural problems, they're just producing more toilet paper which consumers are paying a lot for.

Re:Proud (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#40166963)

The entire house of cards is on the verge of collapse, but at least our bureaucrats found the time to vote this shit down.

Actually, it's the elected representatives (in the European Parliament) who are voting it down, and who have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the secretiveness of the negotiation process and to what has resulted from those negotiations. The unelected bureaucrats (European Commission and its ilk) were largely in favor, and actively participated in those secret negotiations.

Many things would have worked out differently (drastically different in a few cases) if the EU were run more democratically. And reducing the democratic deficit is probably an essential step (not the only one, of course) towards exiting the present fiasco.

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168045)

The problem is that the only people who have real solutions to the democratic deficit are the federalists, though the ones complaining about it the most are the nationalists who do not want to even consider a federal solution to the problem (their solutions of granting more power to the states would just increase the democratic deficit).

It is also a big taboo of many governments to say mention the "F-word", so they don't dare to...

Federal Europe (1)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40178397)

Approved. Sorry not to have mod points to + you...
H.
P. S. is european federalism taboo to the extent you are obliged to post AC? ;-)

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166239)

I live in the EU (Spain) and I don't expect it to exist much longer. At least not in its current form.

Re:Proud (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#40167661)

I thought you would be proud to live in the EU, not to leave the EU.

That said, I am ready to welcome Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Mexico in the EU, but I'm a bit surprised it didn't pop up in the news. Information is not what it used to be ;-)

Re:Proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168463)

The last time this Canadian heard anything about one country joining another, it was Iceland maybe becoming a Canadian province. Haven't heard much on that one in a few weeks, though; perhaps the country has more value as a sovereign nation undermining the Euro.
Personally, I'd like to see a trade zone involving countries at or near the Arctic circle. It seems to me we have many common needs, likely manufacture goods which meant to be used in our similar seasonal climates.

Re:Proud (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40175173)

Personally, I'd like to see a trade zone involving countries at or near the Arctic circle.

Great Idea! Let's call it the Arctic Circle Trade Agreement. Since Alaska qualifies, let's get USTR Ron Kirk to fax us all a copy of the IPR Chapter we can just sign off on. Oh. Hmmm... maybe we shouldn't discuss this so openly... what if the public finds out?

Re:Proud (1)

alexo (9335) | about 2 years ago | (#40173003)

another example why i'm proud to leave in EU :)

Should I be ashamed of being a Canadian?

The end is nigh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166191)

What?! A legislative body actually voted AGAINST corporate interests? I guess the end of the world IS coming this year...

Re:The end is nigh (1, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#40166279)

It's a last act of defiance before the corporations liquidate the EU and sell it to China.

Sold! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168277)

You spelled the US wrong.

Re:Sold! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40177897)

No, he just used the French name of the U.S.

Re:The end is nigh (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40166665)

See if it sticks and you'll have a good gauge of how much the corporate state is in control in the E.U.

You notice in the U.S. something like ACTA doesn't even hit the papers anymore. It's accepted without question.

Re:The end is nigh (2, Informative)

mycroft16 (848585) | about 2 years ago | (#40166763)

Our legislative body did as well this year with SOPA. Elected leaders will do what the public wants if the public makes its voice heard. In the end, elected officials want to keep their jobs and that means not pissing off the people. There have been huge demonstrations across Europe against ACTA. It's actually not hard to get legislative bodies to do things... it is hard, however, to get people interested enough to care to make some noise.

Re:The end is nigh (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40166857)

Going back to my last post, the depressing thing about the SOPA story is just how big the protest had to get before anyone in the media would pay any attention. Then the protest was demonized (often in a "pro-piracy" light). Then the protest had to even get BIGGER before it was treated fairly at all. The protest even had to get BIGGER THAN THAT before our idiot congresspeople paid any attention.

This is what I am talking about... it shows how much the corporate state gets listened to (and automatically treated as having the "correct" opinion) as opposed to your every day person that is supposed to have a voice. In that way the SOPA fight was very disturbing... you have to have a petition with millions of signatures before your own representative will even take your call.

Re:The end is nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40172487)

No, you don't. A petition with millions of signatures is worth precisely dick. Your own representative will ignore it just as quickly as a petition with 5 signatures. They don't matter.

What turned the tide on SOPA was PHONE CALLS. The Congressional switchboard was jammed into immobility for many hours fielding phone calls from constituents. Congresscritters pay attention to phone calls and people who show up in person. A few congresscritters pay attention to hand-written letters still, but mostly only those that were obviously written by a child (for the human interest story on the 11:00 news). All other forms of communication are irrelevant and ignored.

Re:The end is nigh (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40176953)

Then they started working on SOPA II, only with a different name [to include both child molestation and terrorism], and supposedly with 'fixes' to the problems brought to their attention with SOPA.

Meanwhile, the US gov't is working, in secret, on another IP treaty with South American countries.

Re:The end is nigh (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40177883)

It's the same here in the UK, you only have to look at the minutes from Jeremy Hunt as the Leveson enquiry into Murdoch's regime of corruption yesterday.

Jeremy Hunt said in an e-mail or two something along the lines of "The public mood seems to be against Murdoch's empire right now, so we have to look at how we can approve this deal without that being a problem".

It's like he outright believes, in his mind, that he has to do what his corporate masters said, and despite being completely and utterly 100% aware of what the people he represented wanted, his focus was entirely about how he could avoid doing what they wanted (i.e. blocking the deal in question) and instead see how he could do what they wanted (letting the deal go through).

The politicians are fully aware of what the populace want, the problem is they neither care, nor feel obliged to fulfil that. They sincerely believe their job is about doing what they or their corporate masters want with the only reference to the people they're meant to represent being about how they "manage" their breaking of the news they don't want to hear to them.

Re:The end is nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40167337)

In the US you have many leaders of one kind or another ( Sen. Al Frankin, Representative Nancy Pelosi, actor Jack Black, to name a few) who are otherwise wonderful people, who vigorously defend things like SOPA and ACTA with the idea that property rights are important. I don't think they're being disingenuous. It's more like sincerity blended into an ocean of naivete. The problem is not the importance of property rights, but that the copyright and patent laws in the US are completely corrupted. The greedy shits who own all those things, and who are working to own more of them - or effectively, all of them, find stooges (like Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Black) to stand in the spot light and defend "property rights."

Reason to hope (1)

Sam Andreas (894779) | about 2 years ago | (#40166223)

Thanks, /. After a morning of depressing news stories, this one made me smile. It even gives me hope that my government (Canada) might make the same realization before their next attempt to ram some US-written legislation through!

Re:Reason to hope (1)

jo42 (227475) | about 2 years ago | (#40166245)

"Yankee Go Home !!!"

Re:Reason to hope (3, Insightful)

Samalie (1016193) | about 2 years ago | (#40166259)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm sorry....but I LOL'd for real on that one.

Harper will never stand up to US interests. NEVER. Between working hard to put the corporation over the citizen and bending over & taking the long dong of whatever legislation the USA proposes up his ass with a grin, we're slowly watching the erosion of the "Canada" that we all know and love.

We the people don't mean shit anymore to the powers that be.

Vive la revolution!

Re:Reason to hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166467)

Oh please! With 7 billion people on the planet, you actually think our powerful friends won't think twice about killing off 80% of you and your little 'revolution'? GOD! The naivete!

Re:Reason to hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166703)

won't -> will

Re:Reason to hope (2)

Samalie (1016193) | about 2 years ago | (#40167101)

You know, you're 100% correct. If the revolution came, those doing the uprising are likely to die. And I'd still be standing with them in the fight....quite bluntly, I'd rather die in the fight to be free (again, IF it ever got to that point) than live oppressed by a corrupt regime.

But that's me. You can be a slave to your corporate and US-Government overlords.

Sometimes standing up for what is right is more important than anything else.

Re:Reason to hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40167657)

If the revolution came, those doing the uprising are likely to die. And I'd still be standing with them in the fight....quite bluntly, I'd rather die in the fight to be free than live oppressed by a corrupt regime.

Dying won't give you freedom. It's killing that solves problems.

Are you ready to kill for freedom?

Are you ready to stop protesting, pick up a kitchen knife and simply stab the next politician or corporate director you meet?

When a bad law, a corrupt action or any other attack on the population, starts getting as only answer, six inches on steel in the kidney, the system will change.

Re:Reason to hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168291)

Yes, well, the sad part is that when you win, you will end up resorting to the same old ways of the previous regime. That is a guarantee since exactly 100% of all the other 'revolutions' have resulted in the same thing. So, what's the point if you're not going to really change anything? You're only going to put the people you like in charge, and start the whole thing all over again.

Re:Reason to hope (1)

Samalie (1016193) | about 2 years ago | (#40169275)

I get it. The system is corrupt, but the system will be corrupt after you fix the system anyway, so why bother?

Fucking shitheads like you are as much of the problem as those putting the corporation over your freedom.

Grow some stones, or get the fuck out. Your choice.

Re:Reason to hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40170689)

No, you don't get it. Power and the desire for it is corrupt. Unless you can assure that nobody has authority over others, your little revolution is bullshit. You're just replacing Kang with Kodos. Fucking shitheads like you are just a bunch of little napoleons, so basically you all can go fuck off. And, as a matter of fact, YOU should get the fuck out, since you are the one complaining and making all this noise about 'revolution'. You're a punk

Re:Reason to hope (1)

Samalie (1016193) | about 2 years ago | (#40170957)

So says the anonymous coward.

And look....obviously I'm not suggesting that we take to the streets today and kill em all.

But the bottom line is...freedoms are being eroded today. Canada, USA, wherever...its all the same. We are actively losing our current freedom in the name of security, corporate interests, etc.

You know, a little over a couple hundred years ago, there was a group of people being royally fucked by England. And instead of taking it in the ass, they rose up and changed the fucking system, paying in blood. And over the last two hundred years, things have been relatively decent. Sure, there have always been individual issues where things went to shit for a period of time, but generally speaking....government in the USA was by the people, of the people, and for the people. Canada followed a different path, but again, for the first 100 or so years of Canada's existance, things were relatively good, and the people reigned supreme.

Today...in both countries....politicans are succumbing to building law to support their corporate overloads, or to exert more athority and powers within the government itself...and you're right...power absolutley fucking corrupts, and it is highly unlikely that the power the government has stolen from the people will ever be returned.

But to suggest that we should just bend over and take it...quite honestly, you stand against the very freedom that our country was founded upon.

Now today...the damage isn't irreversable, although it is going to take some serious effort by people to retake the government from within. And barring that...if all else fails....we will be left with no choice but to retake our freedom with blood.

And deep down, I'm sure in the end the wheel will keep turning. Things would hopefully be better for a while, and slowly erode again...where it will once again be the responsibility of the people to make things right again.

Freedom isn't free. It is the fucking duty of us to protect our freedom. Fuck you for not giving a shit.

Re:Reason to hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40172675)

You recite your spoon fed 'history' lessons like a good little child. Keep the faith

Re:Reason to hope (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#40166337)

"It even gives me hope that my government (Canada) might make the same realization before their next attempt to ram some US-written legislation through!"

That wont happen until you kick out George Harper. Wait, no, that's not right, Stephen Bush? nope, er, yeah, Stephen Harper, that's the one. Sorry, the two are indistinguishable in all but smugness, whereas Mr Harper looks extremely smug about how he managed to get away with electoral fiddling, Bush always looked a bit gormless instead.

Your last government would indeed almost certainly have done this, but Canada gave up it's independence from America when they voted the current overly smug looking god bothering chimp in.

Re:Reason to hope (2)

thomst (1640045) | about 2 years ago | (#40166377)

Here's hoping that these EU parliamentary committees can make their objections stick.

Re:Reason to hope (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166923)

According to the BBC article [bbc.co.uk] on the matter:

Their views will now be considered by the larger International Trade Committee (Inta) which will in turn make a formal recommendation to the European Parliament.

Inta's appointed rapporteur on Acta, David Martin, has strongly condemned the treaty.

In April, he said: "The intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties."

Inta will vote on the matter on 21 June.

So it seems reasonably likely that the official recommendation to the European Parliament will be a "no".

The big question is if the MEPs will listen to Inta...

Re:Reason to hope (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | about 2 years ago | (#40170521)

Knowing the European Parliament, some minor symbolic thing will be changed, it will be hailed by bought off parliamentarians as a major victory, and it will be passed. No attention will be paid to parliamentarians who stand by their principles, usually from parties dismissed as "radical" and "extreme" by mainstream media.

Re:Reason to hope (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 2 years ago | (#40177475)

Knowing the European Parliament, some minor symbolic thing will be changed, it will be hailed by bought off parliamentarians as a major victory, and it will be passed.

The European Parliament cannot change anything about ACTA. Either it passes it ("gives ascent"), or it rejects it.

Birthday Party talk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40166373)

At birthday parties it's always big fun to point out you'd have to pay royalties to Warner Music Group if you performed "Happy Birthday To You" in public (park, restaurant still catering to other patrons, bar, etc.) due to the song being copyrighted in the year 1935 CE. I have not talked to anyone who thought that wasn't over the top.

Nowadays, everyone is a printer, is a recording studio, is a publisher, is a CD replicator plant, etc. etc. More and more people that are active on the Internet will run with their noses right into the Great Wall of Copyright (the one that's around 90% of our cultural heritage from the last 100-150 years or so). If the vast majority of those people honestly believe they are doing nothing wrong, one thing will happen: Mister Gorbachev, Tear Down That Wall!

IP is the new "gold" (5, Interesting)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 2 years ago | (#40166383)

From some time now some guys decided that intellectual property is the new wealth. You do not accumulate anymore material goods such as gold, wood, grains: You now accumulate patents and extorts anyone who try to do something material using - even partially - some of these patents.

And patents is something perfect from the standpoint of the investor: The cost to generate one can almost get to zero but the profits can reach low Earth orbit (using the calculations of the RIAA)


(P.S: Damn you, Google translator. Brazilian->English translation sucks)

Re:IP is the new "gold" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40167743)

Well.. In Google Translator's defense, I'd say the "Brazilian->English" translation sucks because it doesn't exist. There is no such language as "Brazilian" (more or less for the same reason there are no such languages as "American", "Canadian" or "Mexican").

You'll probably get better results if you use the "Portuguese->English" translation mode ;) /nitpick

E ae cara, vamo tomá uma caipirinha? ;D

Re:IP is the new "gold" (2)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 2 years ago | (#40168319)

Brazilian = Brazilian portuguese. Very similar but not exactly the same thing (Diretório (pt-br) = ficheiro (pt)? wtf! (Diretório (pt-br) = Directory (us)). Anyway, the biggests problems with it is that it insists on ignoring important words for the phrase and brutally misses grammar, leaving virtually impossible to pass correctly what you think.


Quanto à caipirinha obrigado mas eu não tenho o costume de beber. E por favor, você escrevendo como um "malandro carioca" aí é que ninguem vai entender mesmo hehe, o Google vai acabar traduzindo para algo que vai parecer mais Klingon do que Inglês

Re:IP is the new "gold" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168111)

Maybe that's because there is no such thing as "Brazilian"... Last time I checked the language used in Brazil was still Portuguese!

As for the rest of your post, you're right on the money!

Re:IP is the new "gold" (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40169661)

Well, the RIAA's primary business has to do with copyrights, not patents.

Patent enforcement is a costly business - an infringement suit runs about $2 million to bring these days. So no it is not a zero risk investment.

Re:IP is the new "gold" (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 2 years ago | (#40170383)

Well, the RIAA's primary business has to do with copyrights, not patents.

The important thing is you have understood :-) And yes, generally is not a zero-cost thing the enforcement, but can be. As example, see the RIAA wanting Youtube to check every video that is uploaded ... at the expense of Google, of course.

Re:IP is the new "gold" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40171787)

Brazilian Portuguese is like American English, it might be very smiler but it is not the same

Good for them (5, Insightful)

jakimfett (2629943) | about 2 years ago | (#40166465)

prioritizing IP enforcement over fundamental rights

This is the part that gets me. I'm all for punishing thieves. I'm not for slaughtering someone in the courts, cutting off their internet, and vilifying them in the media because they downloaded a couple songs and the episode of Game of Thrones that they missed.

To me, Big Media isn't sending the message of "we're being hurt by copyright infringement", the're saying "hey, we have enough money to buy off significant portions of governments, it'd be a shame to put it to use in a productive manner (like by streamlining and expanding digital distribution to give people what they want...)"

Re:Good for them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168119)

>I'm all for punishing thieves
Let's start by referring to these acts as 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. The two are *not* one and the same, despite what the RIAA/MPAA and their many international clones would like you to believe. Downloading a TV show is not the same as going into HMV and stealing a DVD off the shelf.

Having said all that, I agree entirely with you - "gaming" the system (effectively buying legislation through closed door, private negotiations) with things like the ACTA, SOPA at so forth is a mechanism for avoiding meeting the consumer's needs rather than their own.

You may also notice that there are already extensive penalties for prosecuting those would would seek to *profit* by selling infringing copies of IP, the ACTA and so on seek (or sought to) apply unfair and unjust penalties to those who *do not* seek to make a commercial profit from infringement - some of the early legislation (draft ACTA) imposed harsher penalties for copyright infringement than some countries have for violent crime - what a joke!

Exactly six years since the Pirate Bay raid... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40168183)

Today is the sixth anniversary of the Swedish police's raid on The Pirate Bay, as evidenced by the "This Day on Slashdot" on the front page. That was not the reasons for the founding of the Swedish Pirate Party, which had happened 5 months earlier, but it was the first time they got any media attention and their membership grew by hundreds of percents on a single day. Three years later, in spring 2009, the case was being negotiated in the district court and the attention from that is probably what let the party enter the European parliament.

Now, another three years have passed and two Pirate Party MEPs have spent years inside the parliament. Today one of them had her draft opinion, which was extremely critical of ACTA and recommended the parliament to reject the treaty, accepted as the opinion of the ITRE committe. The other Pirate Party MEP was one of the votes against a pro-ACTA draft opinion in a very close vote in the JURI committee. The draft opinion was rejected, with the result that ITRE also recommends the parliament to reject ACTA.

Is this what they call "the long tail"?

Re:Exactly six years since the Pirate Bay raid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40169389)

That last ITRE is supposed to be JURI, of course.

Re:Exactly six years since the Pirate Bay raid... (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 2 years ago | (#40171837)

Is this what they call "the long tail"?

No.

The author is trying to save his "period" key. (1)

gmanterry (1141623) | about 2 years ago | (#40171257)

Anyone else find this difficult to read because it is one huge sentence? I like the message but the structure sux.

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>