Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ACTA Rejected By European Parliament

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the dodged-another-one dept.

The Internet 142

Grumbleduke writes "Today the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Despite attempts by the EPP Group to delay the vote until after the Courts have ruled on its legality, the Parliament voted against the Treaty by 478 to 39; apparently the biggest ever defeat the Commission has suffered. However, despite this apparent victory for the Internet, transparency and democracy, the Commission indicated that it will press ahead with the court reference, and if the Court doesn't reject ACTA as well, will consider bringing it back before the Parliament."

cancel ×

142 comments

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

Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541035)

Congratulations to the FFII, EDRI and quadrature. You guys did awsome work.

Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature (2, Insightful)

Seeteufel (1736784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541261)

And the mass popular movement, they cannot stand how the EU Commission treats citizens and members of parliament anymore. Europe is once again reborn as a democracy, of the people, for the people.

Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature (5, Funny)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542371)

Europe is once again reborn as a democracy, of the people, for the people.

That's our line, you damned socialist hippies.

Signed,
'Merika, Fuck Yeah!

Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature (1, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541307)

It may well be that the vote has passed but may not make any difference

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/06/26/2116226/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-ignore-any-rejection-of-acta [slashdot.org]

Especially as there appears to be a plan B

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16070495,00.html [www.dw.de]

It's a good win at the moment, but the war isn't won.

Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature (2)

Seeteufel (1736784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541379)

I don't think so. The ACTA process is terminated now. IPRED+ will be delayed because of the outcome of the vote, and it is EU legislative, not an international monster. It is much easier for civil society to deal with IPRED+ than ACTA because here Parliament sits in the driving seat.

Commission is powerless without parliament (3, Informative)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40543327)

It's rare to see the EU parliament - composing of over half a dozen groups, each of which is umbrella organization for dozens of parties from many countries - to be as united as they were now. They voted not only against the internet restricting laws but also against the kind of shady activity that occurred during ACTA preparations. Whatever the commission says now, I doubt they've got the balls to bring ACTA - or nearly identical equivalents with different name - back anytime soon... it would be such an act of disrespect towards the parliament that things could escalate far more than anyone is willing to risk "just for copyright".

I think we're safe at least until June of 2014 (next parliamentary elections in EU)... that is, of course, unless same provisions are brought back in a bill that also mention child pornography. EU legislators are pretty weak against the "think of the children" argument.

Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature (2)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541315)

and I'm kind of proud to be an European. This was the first time were I recognized some "we, the people" feeling - the EU is mostly a bureaucratic umbrella and we have many democratic deficits.

But take a look at this [google.de] , protests all over the continent, finally some pan-European atmosphere.

Neither top-to-bottom nor some organized spectacle (e.g. Euro2012 [football championship]) - great!

nice (2)

polar red (215081) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541041)

unexpectedly, democracy works ! EP win against EC !

Re:nice (1, Interesting)

Jahta (1141213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541165)

Well we're not quite out of the woods. The EC (unelected and largely unaccountable) haven't given this one up yet. But the scale of the No vote, and the likelihood that the European Court will find at least some parts of ACTA unconstitutional, is going to make it tough for even the EC to push it through.

Re:nice (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541219)

The European Parliament has to give its consent. The vote was that it denied its consent.

The EC also invoked the European Court of Justice. The ECJ will simply say, we cannot rule on ACTA anymore because the process is terminated.

FFII for analysis [ffii.org] .

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541797)

The Irish denied Lisbon, how'd that go?

Re:nice (2)

Svippy (876087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541867)

We rewrote parts of it to satisfy their demands, and it went into effect in 2009.

Re:nice (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542939)

Same could happen with ACTA. They re-write a few lines that make little difference, leave the DRM provisions intact and call it ACTA II, or give it a new name altogether like they did with Lisbon (formerly called the European constitution).

It's the age-old problem with representative 'democracy' that the commission, or the power that be get an unlimited number of tries to pass a certain unpopular piece of legislation. They can re-package, re-brand it, attach it to another law, or if necessary water it down a bit and then create a new law at a later date that strengthens it to what they originally intended.

Re:nice (5, Interesting)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40543099)

The difference in this case is that ACTA isn't a piece of legislation written up by the EU that can be changed willy-nilly in order to secure the votes for passage.

ACTA is an international treaty that has been signed (but not ratified) by (most?) of the signatories' legislative bodies.

To change ACTA (to re-package, whatever) requires all the signatory nations to get back together & start re-negotiating the points of it. SImply put, the EU cannot alter ACTA for ratification independently.

Re:nice (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40543183)

Moreover, Ireland needs the EU, for financial reasons and whatnot. The EP does not need ACTA.

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541221)

Even if the European Court of Justice didn't find anything unconstitutional, in europe ACTA is over anyways. A treaty can be perfectly constitutional, but if it's not backed by the parliament it simply doesn't become law.

I would rather say that after today's vote, the ruling of the ECJ simply becomes irrelevant.

Re:nice (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542841)

Unless they try and slip in onto page 735 of a bill about fisheries.

Nah, they'd never try anything as sneaky as that. Well, not again [theregister.co.uk] .

Re:nice (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541411)

Indeed. The EC's man in charge of this treaty has stated he will continue to press-forward through the EU's "supreme court" to get ACTA enforced. So basically the Parliament vote don't mean shit..... you have a law-making body that can bypassed by the executive branch. (Sounds familiar.)

Re:nice (5, Insightful)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541505)

No, it cannot be bypassed. What he can do is have it subject to judicial review and try to resubmit the ratification proposal. However, I would assume that parliament will not take kindly to this. Maybe they should move for a no confidence vote on Karel.

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541523)

No.
The commissioner stated that if the European Court of Justice doesn't find anything "unconstitutional" in ACTA, he will bring back the treaty to the parliament. They cannot ratify it without the consent of the parliament. Anyways, I don't think it will happen, since today that commissioner was simply humiliated by the parliament itself.

Re:nice (0)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541459)

The EC (unelected and largely unaccountable)/quote> Come on, quit that old bullshit.

The European Commission is appointed and controlled by the governments of the member states, all of them democratically elected.

Re:nice (4, Informative)

Svippy (876087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541893)

The EC (unelected and largely unaccountable)

Come on, quit that old bullshit.

The European Commission is appointed and controlled by the governments of the member states, all of them democratically elected.

Ah, indirectly. Most - if not all - EU countries use a parliamentary system, which means our governments are not directly elected, but elected by the parliaments which are directly elected. So you have voters > local parliament > local government > EC. So yeah, that's quite far from the voters. Compare to the EP: voters > EP. One step.

A lot of special interests are bound to be happening through those steps. However, the EC has far less power with the passing of Lisbon, so I wouldn't worry too much.

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40542867)

One step? Not exactly.
By far the most votes go to the #1 seat of a list/party, so all others are elected indirectly as well.

Re:nice (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40543153)

I recommend you to read up on party-list proportional representation voting systems. Because you can vote for individual candidates, but the party will also recieve a vote at the same time. Whenever a vote for a party list has elected on its candidate list, the votes from thereon pass onto the next one, and so on.

They are not indirectly elected, because their listing has to be made official prior to the election, and moreover, the list has to appear on every ballot, in order.

So even if it was indirect, it is very transparent.

Re:nice (2)

Jahta (1141213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542071)

Come on, quit that old bullshit. The European Commission is appointed and controlled by the governments of the member states, all of them democratically elected.

Your point being? The EC is a group of political appointees, with a history of pushing agendas at odds with the wishes of the electorate and their democratically elected representatives.

Remember the software patents [ffii.org] battle?

Re:nice (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40543275)

The EC members, since 2009, consist of the head of states of every EU countries. Hardly "political appointees". In some countries in Europe the head of state is elected directly by the people.

Re:nice (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541691)

They'll just extradite everyone who violates it to the U.S. for prosecution.

Re:nice (2)

Kat M. (2602097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541847)

The European Commission is not unelected nor unaccountable. Its president is first proposed by the European Council and then elected by the European Parliament. The European Council, in agreement with the president of the commission, then appoints the commissioners, which are then also subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. The European Parliament can also dismiss the European Commission (basically, a motion of no confidence), though not individual commissioners. In fact, an angry European Parliament did famously force the resignation of the Santer Commission, which it considered corrupt and arrogant.

It's the same basic process that is used to appoint/elect cabinets in most parliamentary democracies; heck, the British Prime Ministers do not even have to be confirmed by the House of Commons; they are appointed by the reigning Monarch (Queen or King) once they can be assumed to command a majority in the Commons.

The European Commission's problem is generally a lack of transparency, not a lack of democratic legitimacy.

Re:nice (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40543245)

Of course the EC is elected. It is an executive council made of all the head of states or government (whoever wield the actual top executive power in their respective state) and a few European representative like the president of the European Commission. All these people are elected according to the system of their own country of origin.

Of course it is accountable. Decisions taken in the EC are discussed in newspapers in Europe like any other political body of import. Boneheaded decision making result in non-reelection a few months/year down the track.

Of course it is independent from the Parliament, and so is it the other way around. Separation of powers is the hallmark of democracy.

Re:nice (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541249)

I have the feeling that democracy doesn't work here. What does the legality of a rejected law matter? So why does the Court still have a say in this? And why, if ACTA is deemed legal, does the Parliament have to vote again? Is that normal procedure?

Re:nice (3, Interesting)

Elldallan (901501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541333)

The Court does have a limited say because it is supposed to investigate if ACTA is compatible with the framework treaties of the European Union, if they are Parliament can vote on it and either pass or reject ACTA which has already happened. However if the court finds that ACTA is incompatible with said framework treaties then it cannot be passed regardless of Parliament vote unless said framework treaties are changed as well. If the court finds that ACTA is ok then the Commission can remove whatever parts they think led to the rejection in Parliament and ask the Parliament to vote on the amended ACTA

Re:nice (5, Informative)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541551)

This is true, except that the Commission cannot easily change ACTA as is as the treaty is signed. They could ask to have a protocol added which would require the approvals of all the original signing parties which include the US, Canada, the EU, the individual EU member states et.c. This in turn would mean that most governments need to acquire new negotiating mandates from their respective parliaments and so on. This is not a trivial operation.

Re:nice (4, Insightful)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542481)

In most countries, this "mandate" requirements was never issued. The pact was signed secretly, behind the curtain, and without the knowledge of the public, and in some cases (i know of a few countries) even without the consent of the parliament.
Nevertheless, the real issue is the unconvinient publicity of the ACTA, which could make all these "hidden" deals very hard to strike. Which is actually a real democracy at work.

Well done (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541049)

But we're only safe until the next bit of daft legislation.

well good for them (3, Funny)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541057)

Its nice to see some political critters with a shred of common sense still. Of course the MPAA/RIAA's of the world over there are thinking what the hell happened and if they didn't donate enough.

Re:well good for them (3, Insightful)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541477)

This time it's not political critters developing a shred of common sense, it's political critters channeling civil society's common sense and massive protests. For once, they have worked.

Re:well good for them (2)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541863)

This is Europe. You can wine and dine the MEPs, to an extent, but you need to corrupt them in so many languages that you might find the task daunting... Also unlike the US, outright buying of politicians is frowned upon.

Because make no mistakes, unlimited campaign donations via "superpacs" is just that, buying politicos.

Re:well good for them (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542145)

Because make no mistakes, unlimited campaign donations via "superpacs" is just that, buying politicos.

No doubt.

It should be noted, however, that politicians were bought and sold long before "superpacs" were even thought of.

Re:well good for them (1)

ppanon (16583) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542983)

It should be noted, however, that politicians were bought and sold long before "superpacs" were even thought of.

True. SuperPACs are just the big box stores of corruption. But don't underestimate the impact of big box stores.

Re:well good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40542971)

common sense ? I think you mean well developed self-preservation instinct. ? This thing is high profile and they just do not want to get burned by it.
They will simply approve the next dozen or so minor treaties, that will fly in under the radar of the general populace because they are, well, minor, but which together will add up to be even worse than ACTA on its own.

The commission is blatantly against democracy (2)

Reality Master 301 (1462839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541077)

"...will consider bringing it back before the Parliament." Who do they think they're dealing with, Ireland?

Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541105)

They'll keep sending it until it's passed. It's what they get paid for.

Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541135)

Won't work. If there's one thing that the EU Parliament have shown is that when people try and bypass their authority they're willing to turn up in huge numbers to vote it down on principle.

Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541213)

Ohhhh! You're screwing my ass! Ohhhhh! This is too good!

Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy (1)

mcnazar (1231382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541183)

It would have been very funny seeing this proposal being rejected continuously unless you consider that each iteration of the process costs task payers money.

Why are we continuously footing that bill if it has been shown that the treaty has been overwhelmingly rejected?

"SOUP! The goat fetched SOUP!!"
"SOUP?!?11one This makes no sense!"

Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy (1)

mcnazar (1231382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541191)

task payers = tax payers.... sigh... I should stop reading /. and get back to JIRA.

Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542495)

I wonder why the nazzi grammar is nazzi, lol, now i know why.

Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541349)

You are correct. All actions now should be direct at EC member responsible for Trade Karel De Gucht asking him why after so many rejections of ACTA he is still wasting tax payer money by not retracting his ACTA submission from the EU court.

Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541323)

They say so, but the reality is that there is no chance whatsoever for it to return. The reason is simple, the process has terminated. They would have to seek a new mandate for a new treaty and this time member states would be more cautious and the Lisbon treaty of the European Union requires more transparency in regulatory dialogue.

Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (5, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541093)

ACTA is like a sleezy guy trying to pick you up in a bar.

You can tell him no six hundred times and he'll keep coming back, because all it takes is one yes and he's fucked you.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541145)

You forgot: "and you're the only chick in the bar."

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541235)

But the European Parliament denied its "consent". So the whole process is gone. They cannot ask a second time.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (4, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541271)

And he will keep rephrasing the question until you say Yes by accident.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541509)

You have a very low opinion of the members of parliament.

And by consequence the voters that elected them.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541591)

Yes... Yes I do...

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542505)

At least he has opinion, unlike 99% of the population for example...

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541313)

Europe needs to go back to killing the messenger. If they send the guy carrying the next version of ACTA back in a coffin, it might get the point across.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541365)

That might inspire a Gengis Khan -style response. As long as we don't have definitive proof that they've not raised an army, just smile and say sorry, maybe another time.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541381)

rich guys are running the world.

and rich guys LOVE their lives. and to live.

hmmm, this may just work.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541789)

Just send the head back in a flat rate postal box. Save on postage. coffin &ct.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542669)

Well, they said if it fits it ships! I don't see the problem here.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (2)

Synesthes (1351729) | more than 2 years ago | (#40543371)

Just don't send it to a Canadian political party or school by accident...

Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541953)

Messenger: This is ACTA!

Leonadias: ACTA? ACTA you say?

THIS. IS. SPACTAAAAAAAA

*kicks messenger down hole that conveniently is just behind him*

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541465)

I didn't know this story involved Julian Assange.

Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541623)

LOL!

Don't celebrate just yet (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541131)

The governments themselves are doing all they can do get in on its users, throttling and censoring to their liking. They probably saw this as a challenge.

Consider bringing it back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541141)

You know, because a 92% defeat isn't a mandate to go to fuck away or anything...

Re:Consider bringing it back? (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541513)

You seem to misunderstand how 'democracy' works in Europe. In the EU, you get a vote, and if you vote the wrong way they keep forcing you to vote again until you get it right.

Re:Consider bringing it back? (1, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541849)

Er, well, 78% against, 6% for, 24% abstentions. The EC will see that as a 78% v. 32% defeat, ie, only a 46% defeat. Because politicians seem to really believe you can do that sort of thing with statistics.

This is the European July 4th... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541153)

Higgs' Boson discovered by LHC before Tevatron, and ACTA (already implemented in the USA) finally rejected by the European Parliament. Europe wins both in science and democracy. Very sad july 4th for the USA.

Dear hollywood cocaineaholics/drunk singers/corrupt american politicians/etc..., f*uck you!

Re:This is the European July 4th... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541285)

Hey - don't take it too hard..

You still have those beautiful software patents.
Now that's something we don't have here in Europe.
It must be a lot of fun to see all those cases increase (well ... if you are a lawyer that is).

Re:This is the European July 4th... (3, Funny)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541383)

Don't forget the Apple design patents!

Re:This is the European July 4th... (2)

Seeteufel (1736784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541289)

You see, this time US "imperialism" exports independence day. Higgs and ACTA rejection [ffii.org] . A great day to celebrate!

Re:This is the European July 4th... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541335)

Why is the European Parliament doing business today? Don't they know it's the Fourth?

Re:This is the European July 4th... (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541559)

The could have voted yesterday but today was more fun.

Re:This is the European July 4th... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542523)

So, it appears that only USA has GOD's particle (lol, whatever that means...) and ACTA. Now, now, tell me that they are not god-chosen.

Re:This is the European July 4th... (1)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541361)

Higgs' Boson discovered by LHC before Tevatron

To be slightly pedantic, machines don't make discoveries. That, or the Higgs was discovered months ago.

Re:This is the European July 4th... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541821)

Please don't mod things like this insightful. For every "freedom" the EU claims to protect against evil corporations they take two for the governments.
 

Act of war.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541297)

Just wait for Romney to get elected, Europe will find out what it's like to not do what they are told.

Retroactively adopt ACTA or face War! we have several ships ready with nuclear armed cruise missles ready to strike every capitol and 3 largest cities in all of europe if you dont to what you are told to do.

dissent must be stopped with a swift and severe blow to reinforce the fear to the others.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.
The emperor commands us to fight against the heretics.
Pick any insane war loving quote and insert here.

The united states is built upon war and thrives on war, we have been at war for most of our existence.

Re:Act of war.... (2)

Seeteufel (1736784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541393)

Come on! The US is not the power it used to be. And in the old times it would not impose its interests in such a blunt way. In fact, ACTA's European demise is also a blow for it as a worldwide treaty.

Re:Act of war.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40542447)

"Just wait for Romney to get elected"

That's gonna be one really long wait! Not gonna happen this time around! He's pissed off way too many people, and the rest have the attitude "better the evil you know".

guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541391)

i guess the european politics doesn't need to raise money for their campaigns for office, so they don't have to go after the money from special interests.

Re:guess (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541621)

i guess the european politics doesn't need to raise money for their campaigns for office, so they don't have to go after the money from special interests.

That's why having a public finance law for political parties is so important not only at the european level but also at the local level. And also why many countries have a tax on tv that serves to finance public broadcasters. These simple concepts, are very important for a democratic society that is not yet subverted totally by private interests is anathema it seems to american citizens.

Not only did they reject it... (5, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541527)

... but they began to hate it too : image [imgur.com]

Re:Not only did they reject it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541937)

Faith in humanity: Restored.

CAPTCHA: "alliance"

Re:Not only did they reject it... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541939)

That made my day :)

Vote influenced by Pirate Party? (2)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541533)

Could the relatively recent electoral successes of the various Pirate Parties convinced the MEPs to vote against the treaty, perhaps as an attempt to head off a backlash at the ballot box? The near triumph of the various anarchist and radical left factions in Greece might have also served as a sobering reminder of what could happen when government decides to act against public opinion. This is not necessarily a good thing but should be considered as a political fact of life that comes with the rise of the socially networked voter.

Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? (2, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541653)

The vote was near anonymous. More than 90% against. That's not just populism, the pirate parties don't make any serious inroads.

Greece is a bad example: that country is in shatters, and people will vote for whoever is not part of the old leadership. The austerity there hurts too, of course, many people don't like it of course, but it seems the overall opinion of the Greek people is that their country should stay in the Eurozone. That's at least what they're currently heading for.

Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541993)

The vote was near anonymous. More than 90% against.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

- Unanimous Coward

Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40543313)

That said, I think Anonymous would have approved.

Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541803)

We simply cannot know. Who or why influenced the decision is entirely speculative at this point.

Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? (2)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542703)

The Pirate Party is very influential. Take a look for instance at this "Creation and Copyright in the Digital Era" [greens-efa.eu] position paper, in particular paragraph 26. The Greens/EFA is the fourth-largest political group in the European Parliament and officially supports reducing copyright to 20 years after publication. There's even more in that paper.

Guess what your MAME collection could look like with a copyright limited to 20 years? Or software for your 8-bit home computer emulator you used way back when? As well, Windows 3.1 would be entering the Public Domain. The first 10 years of Compact Disc - Digital Audio releases (1982-1991).

Without the Pirate Party, there wouldn't be so much interest in copyright reform.

Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40541589)

More solid evidence to reform the commission.

Not law in the USA either (5, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541713)

The US Constitution requires any treaty to be ratified by the US Senate. As of now no Senate vote on ACTA has occurred so it's not law even in the USA. But the Justice Department is also insisting they will enforce it.

The US constitution guarantees a fair+speedy trial (2)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542327)

Now look at Guantanamo.

What will ACTA proponents say? (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541905)

People didn't understand? They were the victims of a misinformation campaign? LOL.

Wonder how many humiliations it'll take to demoralize and scare copyright extremists enough that they'll never try the likes of ACTA again? Drum Karel De Gucht out. Force Theresa May to reconsider and not extradite O'Dwyer. Kick out the officials who are helping with the harassment of the Pirate Bay.

Then the extremists can spend the rest of their lives sulking in their mansions like deposed royalty, since they seem unable to face reality.

Re:What will ACTA proponents say? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40542735)

No amount will be enough. We're going to have to roast one or more of them on a spit to get the point across.

Legal or not, who cares? (1)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 2 years ago | (#40541969)

Just because a thing is legally permitted does not make it sensible. I'm pretty sure that it's legal for me to stockpile Froot Loops by filling my car with them. Consider the EC as being advocates of that sort of thinking.

Hooray!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40543189)

I say again:
Hooray!!!!!

Odd turns with the UKIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40543467)

I found it interesting that the UKIP voted against the treaty; as in the earlier call for open access to the negotiation material, they voted against opening up the text. With the explanation that they did not "recognize" that the treaty existed, and therefore voted against the call for access (normal people would simply abstain the vote if you are that boneheaded).

So, did the UKIP suddenly decide to recognize that the treaty actually existed, or is it simply so that they vote against anything tabled before them?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?