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.
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.
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
to celebrate by getting shitfaced drunk and downloading some Creative Commons-licensed music from P2P networks.
Here you are, happy brewing!
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
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!"
They will almost certainly try, but with the Lisbon Treaty in place it will be a lot harder for them to get away with it. It looks as if this is going to be the test case to find out how much muscle the Lisbon Treaty actually has. Expect a very fierce power struggle.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"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.
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
Don't get your hopes up, in the Metric system 98% isn't a majority.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
You would have made a great Klingon.
I have no respect for either of the categories which you list. I do not respect "warriors" who butcher innocent people in order to bring to power a regime based on their immoral theistic beliefs. Why you fight and how you fight are a lot more important than the fact that you do fight. There is no honour in mindless slaughter.
Wait wait wait... You can download beer? Can I order the equipment from NewEgg?
Wait wait wait... You can download beer? Can I order the equipment from NewEgg?
Of course you can't download beer, silly!
The intrawebs are a series of *tubes*, not taps, and those trucks don't say "Budweiser" on the side.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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