Slashdot Mirror
EU Parliament Rejects ACTA In a 663 To 13 Vote
An anonymous reader writes "'The European Parliament defied the EU executive today (10 March), casting a vote against an agreement between the EU, the US and other major powers on combating online piracy and threatening to take legal action at the European Court of Justice.'"
Good to know that the voice of the people is being heard.
to celebrate by getting shitfaced drunk and downloading some Creative Commons-licensed music from P2P networks.
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
I'd be curious to see the political/national/corporate affiliations of the 13 that voted for it. Maybe publish the details, to let people know how these folks were *cough* looking out for their "interests".
I'm always surprised when a minority votes for something that most unequivocally consider at the very least bad, if not downright evil.
I seem to be incapable of writing a cynical, sarcastic comment on this, so good job EU! Let's hope Congress takes the hint as well.
Nice to see not everyone in "government" is controlled by Hollywood
You mean there's still a legislative body that isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of their corporations?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You can't see it because this is the internet but I'm giving Europe a standing ovation right now.
It's nice to see some people in power actually understand just how disgusting ACTA is.
Read draft leaked on March 1st to know why.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Do not get your hopes up. I just see 663 politicians who are about to get visits from copyright lobbyists, it remains to be seen how easily these people can be bought.
Palm trees and 8
I am moving to Germany next month! seriously.
The sheep here just dont care what the government takes from them so long as it's "for the children".
That has got to sting.
Most genocides had higher approval ratings than that.
Heh, this is a case where the inappropriately-effusive slashdot story is actually less exciting than the glum reality. This vote was a parliamentary resolution urging the European Commission to (among other things) fight the veil of secrecy that's kept ACTA out of the mainstream press for the most part. That's way cooler than "rejecting" some secret draft that we didn't know about anyway, and that would have been swiftly replaced with another secret draft.
since lisbon treaty last year, Eu parliament has the power. they canceled the swift agreement with usa that allowed cia, nsa to gather info about swift users.
Read radical news here
since lisbon treaty last year, ANYthing that is done by Eu commission has to be approved by parliament to be valid. Parliament can also cancel anything Eu commission did before they had to take their approval. Like the SWIFT bank transfer treaty that required eu to give out private about people doing bank transactions with u.s.
Read radical news here
I don't want to bring the mood down, but this is just a good summary of a bad article. The parliament did not vote against ACTA per se, they voted in favour of resolution RC-B7-0154/2010. Much better summary is the press release from the parliament itself.
In brief, they are mostly pissed off about the secrecy of the negotiations and lack of transparency. The resolution calls on the negotiations being made accessible to the public and the MEPs in a timely manner. So it's not against ACTA, it's against how negotiations are conducted. However, the resolution does also call out against the 3-strike rule and personal searches at EU borders. Regarding warrantless searches, they merely want a "clarification" of clauses that would allow such things.
It seems that the reason for the EU's existence is as an anti-democratic force in Europe. Given the scant regard the EU has for democracy and accountability my guess is that the EU's executive will simply ignore this vote, just like they ignored the no votes on the European Constitution, and just like they started implementing the Lisbon Treaty before it was ratified.
I can imagine all the members of parliament singing that famous Chritsmas hit single by Rage against the Machine... but probably they didn't.
...how the world has changed in recent 150 years. U.S. corporations push draconian laws and European countries are praised for standing up to protect freedoms and privacy.
there are other stuff. Eu rules took effect last year exonerates ISPs from liability over pirated content in their network as long as they take measures to remove them when informed. the shit us corporations are trying to push in acta wanted to force isps into corporations' polices, policing their network for those people's content. also there are important declarations regarding freedoms there, not limited to 3 strikes.
Read radical news here
Today, the US economy "manufactures" IP. The vast factories that employ thousands of people have all moved to Mexico or China and they aren't coming back no matter what happens. The WTO is going to see to that.
Do you really believe that anything the EU does is going to prevent the US from rather forcibly letting the world know that the IP manuactured in the US isn't going to be passed around for free? Dream on. You are talking about a huge economy that is responsible for the well-being of nearly a half a billion people.
The goal of the pirate community is simple - nobody pays, ever. A admirable goal and one that most people don't really see any problem with. Which leads to sillyness like a software developer whose salary depends on the company's revenue from software sales freely downloading and redistributing movies. Sure, it is easy and convenient, but best of all it is really cheap. But when the software is passed around for free as well will the company survive? I guess they could come up with a "new business model" that supports giving it all away for free. But they probably aren't going to need as many developers...
Probably the biggest thing that people are missing is the US is poised to take on a huge new madate to pretty much supply health care to everyone. This is going to cost a lot more money, money the government gets from taxes. Pirates don't pay taxes on what they "try before buying". So regardless of how the media companies figure out a new business model that can just give everything away, the government's share of the sales taxes and income taxes goes away. The US government is no longer in a position to ignore this loss of tax revenue.
So what is going to happen? Well, I would start figuring out how the US government is going to continue to get the same tax revenue in the face of a massive piracy movement. They could tax Internet connections. They could crack down on piracy in all sorts of ways. They could do both. But no matter what, they aren't going to take the revenue loss lying down and are going to do something. Probably something big because the appetite for tax revenue is just going to get a lot bigger over the next few years.
I like Germany very much, but it's not a destination I'd recommend *specifically* for avoiding stupid (IT) regulation.
Before you pack up your wagon, google around a bit for the recent (~2 years) data laws passed in Germany. As a brief taste, it's apparently ok for the government to install spyware on their citizens' computers, but not okay for citizens to use network snooping (aka diagnostics) software.
Not than anywhere else is really a lot better. (Except maybe Iceland, soon?)
"Good news, everyone!"
it seems that even with all your paid for government whores, you can't legislate against technological progress
maybe you should consider your only option: death. fucking parasites
creators: you have a choice too. you can sign a ridiculous stifling agreement with some lawyer assholes where they get the lions share of your creative effort, or you can self-distribute
the downside is it's totally free, the upside is it's totally free. this is not communist thinking, this is in fact a solid capitalist model: think of your digitized creative output as advertising, the same solid capitalist business model as good old FM radio or broadcast television... give it away for free, reap the side benefits. you get fabulous exposure, free advertising, and permanent presence and community building with fans. then you can tour, or show only in movie houses, or a number of other ancillary revenue streams available to you, capitalizing on your exposure
you are your own entrepreneur, with your own creative output. no more is your fate decided by some asshole in a suit in an office: you rise and fall on the sheer affinity of fans to your output. this is, in fact, capitalism at its finest. for those who say the internet is destroying the capitalism as represented by traditional media corporations: no, that's an oligopoly. monopolies and oligopolies, in fact, are a greater threat to healthy capitalism than communist thinking. free over the internet is capitalism at its finest, not communism
creators: make money the honest way, rather than making a deal with the devil that the internet has pretty much destroyed now as a viable avenue for you. help us destroy the financial parasites on our culture, who are attempting to warp our freedoms to grandfather their unnecessary existence into our societies
die bertelsmann, die time warner, just fucking die, die, die you useless rotten pile of lawyers and suits. WE DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE. DIE
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Firstly, the vote was not against ACTA, it was a resolution to force the Commission to open up the documents (See one of the Pirate Party MEPs blog: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/epic-win-for-transparency-on-acta/ or the official EP website http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/026-70281-067-03-11-903-20100309IPR70280-08-03-2010-2010-false/default_en.htm). The article is very very wrong. The 13 against are listed in the EUPs roll calls.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+PV+20100310+RES-RCV+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
The following are against (by their EU party grouping)
EFD: Agnew, Andreasen, Batten, Bufton, Colman, (The Earl of) Dartmouth, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
NI: Bontes, Sinclaire, Stassen, van der Stoep
These are from the UK and the Netherlands. All of them UKIP (British anti-eu party) or PVV (Dutch anti-islam party).
The British MEPs are the following
UKIP: Andreasen, Agnew, Batten, Bufton, Colman, Farage, Nattrass, Nuttall
Previous UKIP (expelled): Sinclare
The Dutch ones the following
PVV: Bontes, Stassen, van der Stoep
I have not bothered to include the ones who abstained their vote.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
"i'm going to run to canada if bush is elected! boo hoo!"
look you spineless assholes: if your society is going south, stay there and fight for it. fleeing means that you don't hold much stock in the strength of your own convictions, and instead parasitically depend on someone else to fight for your convictions
all of your freedoms you hold dear must constantly be protected and fought for. what, you think you fight for something once and it stays that way forever? no, every day is a fight against constant assaults against your freedoms, and this is the way it is, FOREVER, IN EVERY SOCIETY. this is the reality you live in, so grow a fucking backbone, stand your fucking ground, and fight the fucking assholes who infect your society
to anyone who threatens to flee the usa because of changes in society they don't like: you're a loser, you're a freeloader, and you ARE PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM
we need fighters who will fight for their home, not freeloading whiners
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We were told that ACTA had to remain secret for "National Security Reasons". We were told it had to remain secret or other countries would walk away from the table.
But the truth is that most of Europe will walk away if there is no disclosure. And none of the countries that have supported secrecy have threatened to leave the talks. And the US hasn't even claimed to take a position (though we all know that is a lie).
And to top it all off, despite all the leaks so far, we do not have a single terrorist organization that has been able to leverage the revealed all-so-dangerous-information commit any terrorist act.
At least, as long as you don't consider Michael Geist a terrorist.
... in the rest of the world rejoiced. Thank you, EU.
Another standing ovation here. Glad to see the MEP's using some of the power they gained in the Lisbon treaty. ACTA is far from over yet, but at least the MEP's are not letting the media companies steamroll them like the politicians in the US.
Citizens of the EU, let your MEP's know you support them in this and get your voices heard.
rather than always writing to complain / object. How about some letters of support.
I'm guessing MEPs don't get many - and they may notice and remember them.
http://www.writetothem.com/
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
going and patenting stuff like 'single click' and leaving that aside, patenting BASIC logical thought processes that has been the very fundamentals of logic equations since last 5000 years and then trying to force your 'ownership' over these onto entire world is medieval feudalism at it best. it has nothing to do with creativity, it has nothing to do with productivity, it has NOTHING to do with rights. its basically laying claim to intelligence. the ONLY place on the face of the world where patents and copyrights granted for BASE thought processes, is united states. united states is the problem here, not the pirates. no amount of piracy can outshadow the villainy of trying to lay claim to logic itself.
Read radical news here
Hallelujah.
Of course this is in Europe. Can it happen in the US?
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Hollywood still has the cash but it is rapidly losing influence to the internet and the internet seems to be working on that cash problem, as the various old world passive media is losing out to the more modern interactive media types are taking over. For ACTA to have worked they would have needed to launch it at the same time as the DMCA (which itself has been demonstrated to be biased and corrupt in it's application) or perhaps even the mickey mouse copyright extension act.
It is become pretty clear that 'club narcissist' (old world mass media, in it's leaders, performers, and ideals or lack there of) is losing it's political power and will start taking a back seat to other far more important parts of socio economic environment. It is pretty clear that it had an excessive and fairly dishonest and destructive influence for the last thirty which is now finally coming to an end (a narcissistic rage kicking and screaming end, involving many blatant and inevitably public attempts at political corruption).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Once again I'd like to thank the EU for saving the citizens of the U.S. from our corporate led government. If you're ever in the area, beers are on me.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
ahahaha, I knew it would be ukip. Since they entered Europe they have been a complete an utter farce.
They often vote against their own best interests without realising, a couple have been sent to jail etc.
For a full education I direct you to this pdf.
The corporations have bought the American government. They just need to spend a little more to buy Europe.
How is that relevant to just someone sharing/giving away what they create? If you personally don't like it, so what? People have different tastes and interests, and that's about it. So why the need to put someone down like that?
"boo hoo! if palin wins in 2012 i'm going to canada! boo hoo!"
if this is your reaction to threats to your freedom, you don't deserve your freedom, because you won't fight for it
palin fails to become president in 2012... by you staying here and fighting her sleaze
palin is ensured greater election results in 2012... when those who would defy her instead decide to flee, out of spineless lack of resolve about their own convictions. then you ideologically freeload off the poor canadians, and they have to listen to your proven-to-be-useless whining about what you say you care about, but your actions speak otherwise
you fight for your convictions, or you really don't have any convictions. a "conviction" by definition is that which you will fight for. so why is something so dear and near to you, that you whine about it, pout about it, and promise to disrupt your life and run away to a far off land because of it... but you won't stand your ground and fight for it?
frankly, you're not just as much as what is wrong with this country as palin and her supporters: you're worse. palin and her ilk are immortal: they will reborn anew in every generation, all that is required is low iq and ignorance to create a palin supporter. palin and her kind must be repulsed, time and again, forever. they are a dime a dozen. they only win when those who would repulse her kind, instead run away. this is an act of betrayal far worse than average run-of-the-mill low iq palin and bush's ignorance and dumb venom to the ideals of freedom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So ironical to call that party PVV (this is a quite new party, only founded some 5, 6 years ago or so).
PVV = Partij voor Vrijheid, or Party for Freedom. And what they vote against here is freedom.
PVV is indeed an anti-islam and anti-immigration party. Playing into the people's terrorist fears and the like, as happens so often these days. And as so many of this type of parties they claim to be for freedom, but in reality they are the exact opposite. For repression, secrecy, privacy invasions, surveillance, etc.
I'm starting to think that these "National Security Reasons" have more to do with the safety of the politicians that would pass the ACTA than the safety of the country itself...
With the obvious exceptions of Native Americans and those whose ancestors were brought here against their will, the U.S. was built largely by those who came here seeking a better life. If it was okay for them to come here for that reason, it's okay for me to go somewhere else for the same reason.
I'm one of three hundred million people in the U.S. My odds that my fighting for freedom here will make a positive difference in my life are worse than my odds of winning the lottery. Meanwhile, the odds that emigrating will make a positive difference in my life improve all the time. So no thanks, you can keep your macho bullshit. In this case it's better to be happy than right.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
it shows the mentality of people who appreciate their freedoms, but not enough to actually sacrifice for them. freeloaders
in many ways, they are worse than those who challenge our freedoms, because that enemy actually believes in something. however warped and cruel their beliefs, they are to be respected, because they will fight for their (flawed) beliefs. meanwhile, there is no respecting those who flee, or even just threaten to flee. fair-weather friends who scoot away at the slightest sign of trouble, or even just threaten to, are worse than useless: they undermine the preservation of our freedoms by taking up space and demanding the fruits of the labor to preserve our freedoms... but they won't actually ever pay their dues by standing their ground and opposing the ignorant and the venomous in our society
you stand your ground, or you are far worse for this country than a palin supporter. at least the palin supporter believes in something enough to actually fight for something. you however, you just believe in running away, even when so much is at stake. so you really have no beliefs, and you have no convictions, and you do not really value your freedoms: you won't fight for them. actions speak louder than words. paying lip service to what you hold dear, but not actually fighting for what you hold dear, means you don't really hold anything dear. you take up space, that's all you do. you are worse for our ideals and freedoms than those who oppose them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Then do your part. I've just sent an e-mail to my representative in the EU parliament congratulating on proposing this bill and voting for it. Make sure that if they d things like this they get a positive response from the people that matter most to politicians: voters.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Today, the US economy "manufactures" IP.
I hate to burst your bubble, but half of the 'IP' manufactured in the US be it music, television, or software probably isn't as much intrest in the international market as you would like to believe, outside of Europe and Australia. Even in other countries where it does strike an intrest, I have seen time and time again that it is distributed by extremely organised, entrenched and even socially accepted, high street located 'pirate' outlets, in nearly every country in SE Asia, the Middle East, probably India as well although I can't personally vouch for that. Most people in these places would balk at paying prices that the US Domestic market would, so as we have seen in China with the case of MS, they have had to lower the prices down to human levels just to be even taken seriously!
Really, the only places that would see more eye to eye with the US way is Europe and Australia, and thats probably more to do with cultural linkage than any actual moral solidarity. That is a fragile relationship though, and if the US decides to get stroppy and demand too much of those markets, when it hasn't even begun to find a good way to target the rest of the world with fairer prices, then it could all go tits up! The average person I could ask already sees US copyright/patents/DRM as a convoluted mess, and would resent having it forced upon them by any government that is supposed to be working in their intrests and not those a few bean counters in hollywood who have worked out how to prolong the gravy train!
for emphatically declaring your deepest conviction: to not matter
but one would think that someone so hellbent on passionately insisting on standing for nothing would learn that the most direct way to do that is to shut up
we get it dude: meaninglessness is awesome. your hopelessness and and your lacking of ability to change anything in your life is unmuteable. so shut up, and thereby fulfill your destiny of truly meaning nothing
i don't understand the point of someone looking at a fight and declaring "I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT, I'M GOING TO STAND ON THE SIDELINES". we understand. so go away. why are you still talking when your only message is "i don't care"? prove you don't care: go the fuck away and stop commenting on that which you enthusiastically choose not to fight for
those who actually believe in something and actually fight for it create their own meaning, create the future of the society they care about: its self-fulfilling destiny. meanwhile, those who have only learned helplessness have a self-fulfilling destiny as well: "i don't matter and i can't change anything" becomes their reality. that you believe that, defines your reality. thank fucking god your empty cynicism and helplessness to change your world doesn't define my reality, or reality at all
you forfeit the right to talk about a subject matter when the only thing you have to say on the subject matter is that you don't care about the subject matter
so adios, loser. you've defined the parameters of your own loserhood by stating your inability to change anything. that defines your useless life, it doesn't define my life, or my society. i would say OUR society, but your only conviction is to leave it, apparently
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I have sent emails to my senators (I am a US citizen), expressing my anger not at the contents of the treaty, but at the fact that the treaty was negotiated in secret and labeled a national security concern by the Obama administration (and thus, I really cannot say much about the treaty itself). Whether my email will matter to my senator is another story though; my senators are both Democrats, and receive a lot of attention from the copyright lobby.
Palm trees and 8
663 vs 13.
Remember, the EU parlament is not the US congress. It's not "two parties and a handful of independents". You literally have ALL possible flavors of political opinions represented in there. No matter how you look at it, with the various parties in the parlament, this means that parties from all over the political spectrum voted AGAINST it. From Conservative to Liberal, from Socialist to Libertarian, from left to right, up to down and in to out. That's a result you would expect for votes held on topics that no sane person could shoot down, like, say, "Do we want to give ourselves more money?" And even there I'm not so convinced it would be this clean cut, given that there are actually a few in there that take the whole deal serious.
Sure, a few of those 663 votes will be votes against the council and their "we decide, you shut up" stance towards the parlament, and given the chance to give them the finger, a few MoPs certainly took the opportunity. But my guess is for such a reaction, ACTA is too important. This ain't the decision on the mandatory size of eggs or the shade of green a cucumber has to have to be a grade A. We're talking about a treaty that would affect every single EU citizen, and of course every single EU corporation that even remotely deals with copyright. I doubt many would use just this vote to show their digital 4 to the council.
So what this vote shows us is that pretty much ALL parlament is against the treaty. No matter what party. No matter what political position. No matter their opinion on other issues. They ALL consider it bad enough to object that this is dealt with behind closed curtains.
So my question would be, why was the council and the negotiators for it? No matter what political party you belong to, you pretty much had to be against it... at least if your political point of view was the deciding factor, not the one of the person slipping greens in your pockets...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
societies composed of human beings are self-realizing: what you believe is what happens. above i see a prescription for failure, empty cynicism, and certainly not intelligence. so society fails, in the way you describe, only to the degree with which other people think like you
the words you speak above tell me volumes about your own psychology, your own self-defeat, your own learned helplessness. but what you don't understand is the way you view your fellow citizens with such negativity and hopelessness only limits you, it doesn't limit them. so you are only defining your own life on those terms of failure and loserhood. but more importantly, MOST importantly, your empty lowest common denominator cynicism does not define my life, or the life of my society... i would say OUR society, but all you care about is leaving, so hurry on up, because we certainly don't need your style of thinking or want your style of thinking
but until you leave, please shut up, since you can prove you have no faith in our society and that you don't care by actually not caring (which implies quiet, not the whining written above)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Eu parliament has been voting in line with people for a long time now. this is just another case.
Read radical news here
whose finest feature is that effective change is realized by participatory voting, not bloody revolution
of course, plenty will laugh at that, and tally off the usual list of empty cynical reasons about why the usa isn't really a democracy, or why i don't matter. except that these same people usually don't vote, for the very reasons they cite. so what they believe becomes their destiny: they really don't matter. self-fulfilling destiny. i, on the other hand, know that i matter, and that change is real. and that is MY self-fulfilling destiny. go ahead and laugh at that. society is owned by beliefs such as mine, people who fight for a conviction, any conviction, no matter how absurd you think it is: net societal change is always in the direction of whatever the most people are passionate about, even in nondemocracies
misery loves company, i know. but sorry losers: how you describe your society only defines the parameters of your own personal failure, not the failure of society at large. unless there are enough of you, such that your useless inertia does in fact warp society
so hmmm... maybe i should in fact be for some of you truly hopeless types leaving. sorry canada! could you take some of your useless turds? thanks. you can listen to them whine about how much they don't matter, you don't matter, nothing matters. they're great at parties!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
we have to push forward. EFF and other organizations need to give a big push wherever they can, and also support Euparl's decision.
It is high chance that lobbyists will swarm Brussels and try to deceive the parliamentarians with innumerable excuses, ranging from terorrism to 'intellectual property rights'. Euparl members have always been steadfast in their 'for the people' stance and are much well informed than any other parliamentarian in the world, however, its always best to take no chances.
EFF, Geist, whomever can, should push forward with a strong publicity effort.
Read radical news here
I have sent emails to my senators (I am a US citizen), expressing my anger not at the contents of the treaty, but at the fact that the treaty was negotiated in secret and labeled a national security concern by the Obama administration (and thus, I really cannot say much about the treaty itself). Whether my email will matter to my senator is another story though; my senators are both Democrats, and receive a lot of attention from the copyright lobby.
Don't regard this as a partisan issue -- the Bush Jr. government was the one who initiated it and who started to keep it secret under the national security label, the Obama government continued it, and the Senate condones it. I.e. politicians represent moneyed interests on either side of the aisle...
nomatter who are we from in actuality, there is one single parliament standing against the evil being spewed through acta in lieu of democracy.
americans and europeans, japanese and indians alike, we should all gather behind support for the European Parliament. u.s. senate may be letting its citizens down. british parliament may be sold long ago. japanese parliament may not care. currently Eu parliament is the only assembly that is speaking for the rights and freedoms of the people. until this crisis is over, we are all europeans, and should fight alongside them.
Read radical news here
who came here were threatened with pogroms, burning at the stake, charges of withcraft, genocide, and outright ostracization and banishment from their societies as it is, regardless of the existence of another continent
but the losers and whiners in the usa of today are face with the horrible prospect of waking up on an early day in november and pulling a lever. what threatens them is the terrible prospect of the knowledge that some of their fellow citizens, such as palin supporters, suck. merely the existence of the low iq and ignorant sends them fleeing in panic, the weight of the influence of palin supporters too horrible for them to bear the thought of. they concocting the usual lists of empty cynical reasons why palin supporters control their country completely already, how any resistance is pointless. the weight of a feather is as lead. pathetic useless drama queens
in other words, what troubles whiners today to leaves the country (or merely threaten to, they won't really leave: remember, they have no convictions) is nothing remotely like the reasons that drove the early settlers to new england colonies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
until then we will have fixed this acta shit, legislated and guaranteed freedoms on the internet.
Read radical news here
the democrats are the same as republicans: gore would have invaded iraq. obama is the same as bush. pffffft
or: i won't vote unless someone is on the ballot that is such a clone of my exact beliefs that i have an orgasm. but if the guy on the ballot has something slightly different than what i believe, i'll go into drama queen mode and call him out as exactly the same as the obviously worse guy (and i'll thereby help ensure the obviously worse guy wins)
in a democracy, both candidates ALWAYS track to the middle and seem vaguely similar, in order to win the most votes. additionally, in a democracy, the major candidates who actually have a chance of winning will ALWAYS be a distant cousin of your ideology, never a carbon copy. and a society of many parties would still be dominated by two: slightly to the left, and slightly to the right, with a few fringe flavors tha tnever have a chance, ever. because the middle is where most people are, and this is a STRENGTH of democracy: tis government tries to resemble the beliefs of the middle of the ideological spectrum of its people. whoever does that the best, wins, and SHOULD win, in the name of legitimacy, integrity, and stability
so to you hold your vote hostage because you are too stupid to know the basics of politics 101. i guess suiciding your vote is nothing more than ensuring the stupid don't vote, after all. because if you don't vote, you truly are stupid, if you don't realize that you can only, and forever more, only vote STRATEGICALLY in a democracy, not ideologically, to EVER matter
democracy is about compromising with others. if you have no spirit of compromise, you are not noble and ideologically advanced, you are simply a pouty little whiny child holding a tantrum because other people won't play by your rules. if you don't get your way, you won't play. ok then, moron. go sit in your corner, and don't fucking matter, by your own choice. i'm supposed to respect this? i laugh at you for choosing your own failure
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it includes those who don't vote and then whine about the outcomes, and how nothing matters because the democrats are the same as republicans (as if gore would have invaded iraq), and other such empty low iq cynicism
i'm asking you to fight for what you believe in, i'm not asking you to fight for something SOMEONE ELSE believes in. see the difference?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i'm just talking about voting
i'm not swinging a batleth
the glory of democracy is effective change can be realized with no blood
jesus, what the hell is wrong with people that they can't see the obvious points of a comment?
morons: i'm talking about voting, why the fuck do you think i'm talking about swinging swords?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you are under existential threat, i support your right to run
if you are an american citizen, i do not support you running away, instead of simply VOTING. you are under no existential threat, unless you are a complete drama queen, certainly nothing like the fate of an afghan christian or a 1600s european puritan or 1800s european jew
completely uncomparable situations
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Strangely enough, UKIP is against ACTA, and presumably they're dead against the EU having any secrets whatsoever (given they want it abolished), yet the majority of their MPs voted against this motion. Are they too lazy to bother to read whatever it is they vote on? Did the party functionary who tells them what way to vote make a mistake? Or is UKIP just so instinctively contrarian in Europe that they oppose any EU consensus at all, even when it is in favour of their stated principles?
Major Tom would have been a fourteenth vote for ACTA, but ground control called and set him straight.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
That is a good question, http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/65374/pvv--europa-moet-acta-tegenhouden.html#source=news_overview
English version here:
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/65374/pvv--europa-moet-acta-tegenhouden.html%23source%3Dnews_overview&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhhFg6Snqu6B-En7s9sHYbDhEdrr0Q
suggest that PVV are also against ACTA.
Both parties are in general against the Union, so I assume they are just voting no to everything placed for a vote by the parliament.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Bundling it with a bunch of piracy crap just bring unnecessary controversy. They seem like two different things to me.
chance of becoming immensely rich as a musician in the pre-internet era: 1 million to 1
chance of becoming immensely rich as a musician in the internet era: 1 million to 1
there's no difference
additionally, you fail to mention that signing a record contract is incredibly rare. and once you do so, your chances of failure are still high. if you are moderate hit, your income will be pathetic. additionally, even if you do succeed, the record company takes the lion share of the income. only the extremely extremely rare artist, a u2 or a rolling stones, one who delivers hits over time, is able to change the rules and make a great living. but the chance of being such an artist: 1, getting the record contract, 2, succeeding continuously, is insanely difficult
additionally, plenty of good bands, even those with a good fan base, are simply dropped by record companies because of whatever fickle reason the dumb suit thinks. now all of their songs are locked up and controlled by a bunch of assholes who don't want to do anything with you. you're not only doomed, you can't even own your own songs
meanwhile, on the internet, you have whats called the long tail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail
meaning, yes: if you distribute over the internet, your chances of becoming prince or jay-z are probably zero. however, your chances of making a MODERATELY GOOD INCOME are radically increased. the chances of making a moderately good income, with a record contract (which is extremely difficult to get), is a hell of a lot less
finally, if you self-distribute, you can always sell your soul to the devil later and sign a contract if you want (flawed and dying model such as it is). in fact, you probably have a better chance of that, because of all the free exposure your getting. meanwhile, getting no exposure in the vain hope of getting a contract is a lot harder, and if you do sign that contract, its impossible to switch back later to self-distribution of songs the record company now owns (unless you start all over)
now, with those facts before you, you decide
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
can be the fault of the speaker, or the fault of the listener. and you're trying to tell me the inability to understand the idea of fighting for your rights, in any other way than violence, is failure on my part
(smacks forehead)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Now William, Earl of Dartmouth, has been asked to leave a debate for saying that for hot countries such as Greece and Cyprus to have an "Arctic policy" was "as bizarre as the appointment of Baroness Ashton as the EU's high representative".
you don't have any interest in the fight
but loudly insisting on a subject matter connotes interest in that subject matter
so your choices are:
1. you will not respond to this comment, nor any other of this subject matter, thus finally proving you don't have any interests here
2. or you will continue to comment, yet this time finally admit that the fate of the society you are currently in has some meaning to you
but your current status quo is logically contradcitory. you currently have only the selfish self-serving "logic" of someone who expects to receive benefits for doing nothing: i will be a part of this society as long as i benefit. when benefit ceases to come, i will not work to reestablish those benefits, i will go somewhere else and parasitically leach off of them instead, and let them fight for me as some have fought for me here
good luck, canada: know the nature of those who cherish your values from afar. rather than attempting to replicate your superior banking system or health care here, they'd rather just enjoy the fruits of your labor, contributing none of their own. i can say this, because they continually and loudly insist on contributing no labor to fight for good values here, they quite openly remark on this. make a note of their true character before they cross the border
one would hope you could extend what is good you see about canada south of the border. why does that task trouble you so? i'll tell you why: because you have no true convictions. you're a small shallow empty person
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
talk about ironic
the issue here is choosing to detach from your society and not fight for it
many here think they are being noble by, for example, becoming expats or not voting (rather than what they are: whiny pouty toddlers who won't play if they don't get to make the rules)
but the irony in your case is that in brazil, voting is compulsory. you are forced to vote. what do you think of that idea, "noble" freeloading americans who won't fight for their convictions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#By_countries
so here you are, talking about your right not to be forced to fight for anything... by choosing to join a society where you are forced to fight for brazil, to do exactly what i am telling people they need to do. so, in the end, by choosing to move to brazil, you simply support my assertion: that participation in your society should be mandatory. you may SAY you don't believe in compulsory voting, but you've voted for the concept with your feet by moving to brazil. your actions speak louder than words. even so, it would then be doubly ironic if it were your intention to fight and oppose compulsory voting in brazil... to stand your ground rather than run, and fight for your convictions!
LOL
as a side note, i actually used to be a big fan of brazilian compulsory enforced voting. i used to think it was a great idea, and the usa should do that
until i realized all the basement losers forced to stop watching cartoon network and actually go out and do that horrible thing you need to do to maintain your beliefs in a democratic country: vote, they would actually just joke vote and vote for "obi wan kenobi" or "emperor palpatine", or worse, "ron paul" ;-P
so you really can't compel someone to care
but you certainly can berate them for being useless freeloading slugs, if only for my own cathartic reasons. then they at least serve SOME purpose
and thus my words here
so enjoy brazil! nice country, i like it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
in which you loudly and with great feeling say "i don't care!"
so all i really hear from you now is "i am full of fail!" by not understanding your own self-defeat, even when assiduously and repeatedly detailed for you
and btw, yes: as a typical rightist, you see the concept of freedom only in being the one with more money, screw the poor. "let them eat cake" does in fact work for the rich, for a while anyway. then something strange happens. i leave it to your boundless imagination as to what happens in societies when the rich take care of only themselves. enjoy el salvador!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeppers. Not only that, "affect" can be used as a noun.
"She displayed a happy affect."
Take that, society. Your world is now upside down.
It just happened, and not the way you described. Jim Bunning is currently reviled by lots of people for trying to enforce the Paygo system. The bill did not have a way to pay for continued unemployment benefits, and he held it up until someone came up with a way to pay for it. His explanation was legit, or seemed to be, but all of the coverage is "Bunning is a dickhead."
Bunning's explanation:
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=21648539-d0e8-4c3b-6078-362af45228d7&Region_id=&Issue_id=
News coverage:
House Moves to Repay U.S. DOT Workers Furloughed by Bunning Filibuster
Crazy Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning throws a curveball at helping poor, struggling Americans
Seven states hit hard by Jim Bunning's delay on unemployment benefits
the odds are stacked against me, even if i share a belief with the majority of my fellow americans that, for example, politicians should not receive donations from corporations. the system is allayed against me, chance of success is slim to change those rules
however, if i give up and accept this ugliness as reality, chance of failure is 100%
in other words, slim chance of success, no matter how slim, is always better than certain chance of failure. you try, and lose, or you simply choose to lose. i see no superiority or pragmatic value in that. and, if it try, i may actually succeed. and in fact, it is in such thinking that every historical event of any value in this world ever took place
so it is actually cold logic, pure pragmatism, to fight against tall odds, no romantic idealism about it
to not care, to give up on my society, is to limit my own horizons as well, to recalibrate my relationship with reality such that if someone robs me, i will simply accept it. and corporate donors and their governmental whores are most definitely robbing me, in the abstract and the concrete
the psychological result of learned helplessness, of accepting injustice and cruelty and voluntarily subjecting yourself to that, is depression and unhappiness
so i'm not going to give up my happiness by choosing to accept the dim cynical parameters that others have chosen to define the poor reasoning by which they accept slavery as their natural state. i am not slave, no matter how many slaves, like you, say that i am. this is not a romantic statement, this is a statement of a pragmatic effort to maintain my happiness in the face of the injustices of my era, like corporate dollars influencing elections. i have made the pragmatic judgment that my happiness is important to me, and therefore, to always fight for freedom. to accept artificial limitations, meanwhile, is to accept unhappiness. thats not a pragmatic choice. if you don't have happiness, which you only get by vowing to fight for your freedom, your quality of life is quite poor, by any pragmatic measure
and so i will decide the fate of the world. or someone else who cares deeply. because the future of this world is owned by those who care about it, and is not decided by those who don't care about it
for example: palin supporters are a typically low iq ignorant lot. but they actually believe they can effect change, and so they will, ONLY IF those who oppose them freely choose, on their own, not to matter, and therefore to not fight them
do you want palin supporters to own the future of this country? no? then fight for your own beliefs, or you freely choose, on your own, to hand the fate of this country to them. of course you will have all sorts of self-reinforcing rationalizations for doing nothing, most of it based on empty low iq cynicism about the inevitability of undecdied things, or the truth of untruthful things, like all american's thoughts are driven by propaganda, or the democrats and the repulbicans are the same
so this is a coldly logical rational and pragmatic, utilitarian analysis of the reasons why you should care, and why you should act. nothing romantic about it all. you fight, simply because you wish to remain happy. ic ouldn't live with myself accepting the slavehood you have accepted, out of a pragamtic measure of the best way to maximize the quality of my life
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's a meme that people migrate TO the United States, to escape tyranny. Why wouldn't it make sense to migrate FROM the United States, to escape tyranny?
I'm generally of the opinion that it's best to stay and struggle "in the belly of the beast," but, there's a counterargument that worries me. In order to survive here -- to earn a living, especially -- I have to contribute to enterprises that I despise. What if, despite my best efforts and intentions, those negative contributions overwhelm any positive contributions I can make? In that case, wouldn't it be better to pick up and leave for somewhere that the balance is better?
Aren't the MEPs directly elected in elections?
I thought it was the council that was picked by the national governments.
This vote and resolution wasnt just "we want to see ACTA negotiations carried out in the open", there was also a fairly strong push against plans for mandatory 3-strikes laws and against the push by big media companies to make ISPs and network providers the "copyright cops" for the big media companies.
Except that the EU parliament has no real power (much like the British House of Lords). All real power in the EU is held by the bureaucracy.
By the council of ministers, actually. They make agreements behind closed doors without input from either their national parliaments or the euoparliament.
And who does the council of ministers count on, the bureaucracy?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
At least the politicians that have no intention to seek reelection are free to take principled stands for the good of the country, no matter how unpopular those positions may be with their constituents.
They are also free to take positions based on who will pay them more.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Most genocides had higher approval ratings than that.
Maybe the Council needs to be enabled?
Godwin was on to something. Just like Hitler and the Naz... no, wait, that was the other thing ;-)
[It's sad to see] how the world has changed in recent 150 years.
Why? Because the mass centre of freedom has moved to somewhere different from where it was before (why is that bad...)? Or because there's less freedom in the world? Or because there's less freedom where you are?
Bad summary : the EU parliament voted to make it mandatory for the negociations to be public and to provide it with some guidelines (approximately says : respect the current EU law). That's all. They can't refuse a thing they don't even know the content.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I've never understood why it shouldn't be liked that. I voted for a party, not for them individual. As long as the party line is the same as it was on the elections day, why would I want them to vote against it?
One, there isn't a party that takes the same position as I do on the issues that matter to me. Two, not everyone in a party agrees with everything on the party's platform. That's what was good about the actor Ronald Reagan, he brought people into his big tent where almost anyone could find a standing on an issue s/he liked.
Myself, before I vote I create a chart of the candidates and where they stand on the issues that matter to me. When a candidate has the same position as I do then I check off their name for that issue, and when they have the opposite position I cross it out. A check gets 1 point and if something is crossed out it gets -1. Once this was done I search on the net for the top point earners' to see what people have to say about them. When I vote I vote for the top point earner for each office unless I come across something negative. If there isn't a candidate I could vote for I don't vote for anyone for an office.
Last year I did the same, with one change. For the first tyme the state allowed ranked voting where voters could vote for more than one person for the same office. Voters could pick their first choice, second choice, and so on.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Oh its owned by a corporation alright, but you'd never guess who. This goes as far back as the East India [trading] Company.
Which East India company? There have been a number of them. Having said that, they were the first businesses to be granted corporate charters. And of those listed, including the British East India Company, none still exists.
What was the East India Company's biggest threat when they ruled the seas? That's right - PIRATES.
The weather was a big threat too. Which one was bigger I don't know but weather was a big concern.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
a few fringe flavors tha tnever have a chance, ever
Except this is not true. If most people are in the middle they don't show it. They don't vote Libertarian, which is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The best of both worlds. No, the Democrats and the Republicans are mirror images of each other. Both want big government, with Democrats it's big social welfare and with Republicans it's a big military, prison, industrial complex. They both hand out the candy. They both also want to control what people can do. Democrats want to control business and economics while Republicans want to deny anything that interferes with their religion.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
immigration (and how to block it and throw everyone not "belonging" here out),
Ron Paul isn't anti-immigration. On the issues quotes him as saying "Weak economy is source of resentment against immigrants. (Dec 2007)" Then it has him going further explaining his position. He wrote The Immigration Question in 2006. So as far as immigration is concerned Ron Paul is open minded.
minority protection (or avoidance thereof)
Again from On the Issues:
"Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)"
However the NCAAP rates him at 39%, "indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action".
elimination of religion as far as possible (at least every kind that doesn't "belong" here, in short, Islam)
On religion Ron Paul has the position that government and religion should be kept separated. He said "Bush's faith-based initiative is 'a neocon project'".
On the Issues has more on where Ron Paul stands on various issues. Now you say right wing means something different in Europe than it does in the US. Well Ron Paul doesn't meet Europe's definition of right winger either.
Religion is generally not a big deal in EU politics. I haven't heard a politician invoke $deity for whatever reason, actually.
Unless it's Islam. Not everyone is okay with the religion, there are some groups who oppose Muslims.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Your history is bad. America was colonised by puritans fleeing the lack of religious values in Europe (read: puritans were no longer in power) which is why it is not really ironic that they persecuted non-Christians and burned wiccan or suspected wicca at the steak.
No, your history is bad. I. America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century Says "Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe."
Notice the "loc.gov", that's a governmental website.
For more...
Calverts of Roman Catholic faith, who had fled religious persecution in England, founded Maryland in 1632." Or Religious Persecution in Ireland.
Quite simply early settlers of the New World fled religious persecution. On the other hand you were right about them wanting to persecute others in Europe. I have never denied that. I have actually accused European Christians of persecuting people. The NAZI Holocaust wasn't the first tyme Jews were persecuted, nor were they the only ones. Spain, which was not united until Queen Isabella united it, was quite efficient at persecuting people. Jews, Muslims, other Christians, and others were persecuted. Isabella told Jews and Muslims to convert, leave Iberia, or die. Of course because Jews and Muslims were educated Spain suffered a massive brain drain which set back their civilization back. At least they were given a choice, Agnostic Christians weren't. They were slaughters by the hundreds if not thousands. So called Catholics would burn down entire villages that were still inhabited and make sure no one could escape. Much like Muslims did in Saudi Arabia in 2002 when a girls' school got on fire.
Read up on the Magna Carta, it is the basis of constitutional law and English common law. It was the influence of many constitutional documents including the United States Constitution.
I have read about the Magna Carts, as well as actually read it myself. I have also read the writing of the USA's Founding Fathers. One of the writers of the Constitution of the USA was John Rutledge of South Carolina and he "proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
if I can't ride my horse and be there by the end of the day then it's too far
That's practically what five to ten million people is.
In some places, such as megacities, yes but most places aren't that densely populated. There are still places a couple of hundred miles from large population centers.
But I assume you were trying to be ironic.
Yes and no. When I first wrote my reply I included but deleted "or my hog." Averaging 65 mph for 16 hours is 1040 miles. And I didn't mean that long a distance. Now what I'd do is slice and dice national governments then shred them. For instance in the US I'd keep the US Supreme Court, but would reduce how long congress stay in session. The Texas Constitution limits the Texas Legislature to 1 regular session of 140 calendar days every other year. I have proposed such an amendment for the US Constitution. Serving in office should be something a citizen does part time but then goes works between sessions, the citizen legislature. I don't recall his name or what party he's in but a few days ago CNN had a story about how 1 member of congress slept in his congressional office while his family stay home to save money, he said members of congress shouldn't have to be rich. Well with my proposal they wouldn't have to be rich either. Ah, here it is, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, who sleeps on a cot in his office.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Firstly, it means they have half as long to actually consider the policies they're trying to get through, so they're more likely to look to others for advice.
The less tyme they have the less tyme they can cause problems and create new laws for their paymaster lobbyists.
And the groups who can afford to pay people to talk to politians are the ones who will be heard first and loudest.
No, At home they aren't concentrated and in easy reach of lobbyists. But the voters are close. With all of congress in Washington they are easy for lobbyists to meet, just walk down and across the hall or street. But when they are home it would be harder, and more expensive for the lobbyists and cheaper for voters.
Secondly, you're only going to get rich, well-connected people if they have to find a new job every other year (or have the power to take even unpaid leave whenever they need to sit).
My sister was, along with millions of other citizens, in the Army Reserve. Though she worked full-time, as a nurse in a hospital, and had a daughter she worked 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year in the Reserves. That was many years ago, now mothers get maternity leave from work. So your problem isn't one, the jobs are still there, and the pay can make up for the loss of pay from work.
Personally, I'd rather pay our politicians a lot of money.
Oh, we do. Congressional pay. "Some critics feel members of Congress, who legislate their own salaries, are overpaid. In 2008, rank and file members of Congress earned $169,300 annually, compared with a median American income of $45,113 for men and $35,102 for women." After, I believe it's 10 years, serving in congress they also get a good pension. Former Sen Ted Steven gets more than $10,000 a month even though he was convicted of a crime.
Enough that firstly, we can attract the best, and more importantly, that they don't need to be tempted by anyone else's money.
See above.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?