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.'"

38 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good to know that the voice of the people is being heard.

    1. Re:Good. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good to know that the voice of the people is being heard.

      On one side of the pond at any rate.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:Good. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least until the European Commission finally ends this travesty called "Democracy in the EU"...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Good. by aurispector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's very interesting to see how power is being apportioned in the EU. Government is only as good as the ability of citizens to effect change.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    4. Re:Good. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is it sad that I want to give you mod points just because you managed to use the correct spelling for "effect" here?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:Good. by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now all we need is a twisted and deformed creature to covet and ultimately destroy copyright. Shouldn't be difficult...

      You mean like Lord Mandelson of Sith?

      Oh, shit.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  2. The 13 votes by metlin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The 13 votes by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.votewatch.eu/

      Data isn't up yet though.

    2. Re:The 13 votes by abigsmurf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally I think there's a lot to be said about keeping these votes anonymous. You end up with 'flags for orphans' situations where a piece of draconian legislation gets snuck in a popular bill and people are too scared to vote against it for fear of seeing their name in negative headlines.

    3. Re:The 13 votes by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Those who were elected into power should never have anonymous voting. Only those not in power (that would be the regular people) should have anonymous voting. Those in power should be doing the will of the people that put them there. The regular people need to be able to vote without fear of being arrested, fined, etc. for voting against something that those in power want.

    4. Re:The 13 votes by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We also need to be able to hold those who we put in power accountable if they are found to be voting against our will. It's fundamental in weeding out corruption.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:The 13 votes by abigsmurf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "one rule for us and one rule for them" then?

      The problem with public voting is in today's politics is that they're not accountable to 'their voting public'. They're accountable to the press.

      What's the headline likely to be "Senator John Smith is the lone person against giving orphans flags" or "Senator John Smith refuses to vote for the flags for orphans bill as he feels some unrelated legislation has been added by stealth and he thinks it's against his voter's wishes"?

      A well run government often requires passing bills that voters would dislike for the good of the country (tax increases, spending cuts etc.). Fear of voting in line with your views and policies at both top and bottom levels results in a failure of democracy.

    6. Re:The 13 votes by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Voting your views rather than those of the people you purport to represent is not democracy. Do what your constituents want or resign.

      Really? I didn't see anything about that in my political science courses about the theory of democracy. Do you have a link to support that, or are you just making it up?

      From my perspective, if my representative does nothing more than parrot my views (or the average of the views of his constituents), he is completely superfluous and can be replaced by a small perl script. I want him to do the job that I can't: study the matters that come before him in a thorough manner, and decide based on what will benefit overall society the best.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:The 13 votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be honest, I wasn't surprised by the strong support of ACTA from the UK.

      You should. All UK votes for the ACTA treaty (all 10 of them) were from UKIP (UK Independence Party - they are anti-EU). Even Labour (who are the "brains" behind the Digital Economy Bill - ie the "All rights go to Big Media" Bill) voted unanimously to reject the treaty. "Strong UK Support" for ACTA is bollocks, as 55 UK MEPs voted to reject the treaty. On the other hand, this is slashdot, so UK bashing is an easy way to get mod points.

  3. Wow, there's some intelligent life left on Earth by m509272 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nice to see not everyone in "government" is controlled by Hollywood

  4. Wow - by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You mean there's still a legislative body that isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of their corporations?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Wow - by DaveGod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well this looks promising but no reason to take the pressure of them yet. Something I find odd with voting is that something can be effectively reintroduced continually until it is accepted, whereas it is much harder to reject something once accepted.

      If we were to be highly sceptical we could point out that these guys weren't involved in the talks so could just be actioning their annoyance, or negotiating for their cut. Or, remember there were corporations - local corporations - who were set to suffer from this legislation. Maybe the ISPs were wiser with their 'donations' than the American-led movie and music lobby.

    2. Re:Wow - by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh its owned by a corporation alright, but you'd never guess who. This goes as far back as the East India [trading] Company. The EIC was running England way back in the day, but they had to keep up appearances. So, under the illusion of disappearance, EIC supposedly fell off the map, but in secret, key members were still having the executive decision in England. It got quite upset when the United States of America broke off. Ever since that day they have held a hateful grudge. England was wary to join the EU at first because they weren't sure if they could keep up the act. It's difficult to cover your tracks and hide all the evidence you know. Anyways, when the United states became big with Hollywood and Rock n Roll, this was their chance to strike back. What was the East India Company's biggest threat when they ruled the seas? That's right - PIRATES. Taking this idea is the entire foundation of music and movie piracy, bootlegging etc. Then when the internet came along, they kept up with the times and started digital pirating. Condemning such scapegoats as "The Pirate Bay" only serves to help keep the guise up. As such, we've been locked in battle ever since - Corporate America and its music labels versus the European Union (EIC) and its highly sophisticated piracy. You need look no further for evidence of my claims than European music. See: Basshunter.

      In all honesty guys, this one was obvious.

    3. Re:Wow - by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative

      If we were to be highly sceptical we could point out that these guys weren't involved in the talks so could just be actioning their annoyance, or negotiating for their cut.

      You don't need to be cynical -- they specifically state that that's the issue. From the RA:

      In a statement released today, MEPs Lambrinidis (S&D, Greece), Castex (S&D, France), Alvaro (ALDE, Germany) and Roithova (EPP, Czech Republic) "deeply regret the fact that the Council is continuing its secretive stance, despite the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which stipulates that the European Parliament should have full and immediate access to information at all stages of international negotiations".

      It's the secrecy that they're objecting to, not the content (which they don't -- officially -- know).

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  5. Ovation by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Ovation by natehoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't see it because this is the internet but I'm giving Europe a standing ovation right now.

      Yes, we can. Turn off your webcam. Or at least put on some pants. We don't need to know the details behind your "standing" ovation. :)

      All kidding aside:

      It's nice to see some people in power actually understand just how disgusting ACTA is.

      Agreed. Now let's hope that this starts a new actual legislative movement in the EU, and eventually in the States and other places, to respect IP rights to a reasonable degree but also make copyright reasonable again.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Ovation by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, we can. Turn off your webcam.

      Sorry. Got this computer from school. Didn't know the webcam was on...

  6. Re:Wow, there's some intelligent life left on Eart by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. And that is why.. by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

  8. Ouch. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    That has got to sting.

    Most genocides had higher approval ratings than that.

  9. Better than rejected! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. they do have power. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:they do have power. by Spad · · Score: 4, Informative

      And even before that they could overturn a CoM decision with a 2/3 majority vote, which this is well in excess of.

  11. Get your shit straight. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Not really... by teslar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. It's sad to see by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  14. Re:663:13 !? by lordholm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!"
  15. i'm sick of this meme by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  16. Obama's Administration officially looks stupid! by paulsnx2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Reality by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    Yeah:

    GDP (Nominal):
    EU - US $14.51 trillion (2009 est.)
    US - US $14.266 trillion (2009)

    Population:
    EU - 491,582,852 (July 2009 est.)
    US - 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.)

    Sorry buddy, the days are over when the US could unilaterally dictate it's whims to a fractured Europe. The EU has already surpassed the US in size and economic power, and the odds are very good that trend will continue.

  18. Re:Let me be the first by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't get your hopes up, in the Metric system 98% isn't a majority.

  19. What does that say about ACTA? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.