Slashdot Mirror


European Parliament All But Rejects ACTA

An anonymous reader writes "European Parliament today adopted Written Declaration 12/2010 which basically tells the Commission to all but drop the negotiations. From the article: 'Citizens from all around Europe helped to raise awareness about ACTA among Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) by collecting, one by one, more than 369 [of the MEPs'] signatures. With Written Declaration 12/20103, the European Parliament as a whole takes a firm position to oppose the un-democratic process of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and its content harmful to fundamental freedoms and the Internet ecosystem.'"

248 comments

  1. About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    EU has been impressing me lately. They seem to actually care about good governance sometimes. That's one hell of a lot more than I can say about the USA and the "land of the free".

    1. Re:About Fucking Time by jvillain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The EU blows hot and cold but there are times that I am very grateful that they have the back bone to stand up to the US. Our prime minister has taken over from Blair as the one who gets on his knees and blows who ever is in the White House.

    2. Re:About Fucking Time by Hylandr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EU has been impressing me lately. They seem to actually care about good governance sometimes. That's one hell of a lot more than I can say about the USA and the "land of the corporate free reign".

      Here, let me fix that for you...

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    3. Re:About Fucking Time by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USA is the land of the free. The free are very happy there, and they have a ready supply of serfs to keep them that way.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:About Fucking Time by J.J.+Dane · · Score: 1

      If you read the small print I think you'll find they were referring to "Free" as in "beer",not as in "speech"..

      And of course, they screwed you on the beer as well..

    5. Re:About Fucking Time by skine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people are freer than others.

      Sadly, corporations now have the rights of people.

    6. Re:About Fucking Time by doesnothingwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am usually proud to be american, but when we get our head up our ass its really up there.

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    7. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes without most of the responsibilities that go with it.

    8. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      without any of the obligations...

      Taxes? pass them on to customers.
      Service? Who do they draft?
      License fees? pass them on to customers.
      Liability? We bought laws to protect us from our own greed and sins.

      All the *priveleges* without any of the responsibility.

    9. Re:About Fucking Time by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The EU parliament does. But make no mistake, it is the brain of dinosaur. The bureaucracy below is an example of wasted resources and corruption.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    10. Re:About Fucking Time by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not convinced the EU did this for good reasons, or for their OWN corporate overlords (like they did when they sued Microsoft in order to protect the EU-based Opera). Recall that the EU corporations would actually be damaged by ACTA, which primarily exists to protect the US TV/music industry. So naturally the EU corporations would oppose its passage, and press the MEPs to oppose it too.

      This is EU corporations fighting back against US corporate protectionism.

      Then again, perhaps I'm just too cynical.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:About Fucking Time by Nursie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's some mighty fine cynicism there. But I can't find much to pick at. Opera seems a bit small-fry for that sort of a concerted effort though. Hmmm.

    12. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it is.

    13. Re:About Fucking Time by Nursie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, if there's one thing about the USA it's that when you go for something you really go for it. Other countries have surpassed you in the number of fat citizens but nobody, and I mean nobody, just up and goes for it like your fat folk. Same for head-up-assness.

      I'm sure there are non-negative examples too... like the space program, hell, back when it was a race the USA decided to damn the consequences and make a concerted push. It's a good quality, albeit with unintended consequences.

    14. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Err, Obama?

      All super-human expectations aside, he's doing a terriffic job. Just too bad it all boils down to politics after a while..

    15. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to intelligence or honesty that which can be adequately explained by any other reason :-)

    16. Re:About Fucking Time by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      I thought Opera was Europe's #2 web browser? (And the CIS countries #1.) Not as large as the giant the Microsoft but still not small. It's worth the EU's time to protect Opera and other corporations from US megacorps, and ensure Europeans will have jobs, et cetera.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:About Fucking Time by dotwaffle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Opera is based in Norway. Norway isn't part of the EU.

    18. Re:About Fucking Time by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Could be, I haven't been keeping up with the figures. I know that in Germany Firefox recently overtook IE, but it's possible that Germany is an outlier and that it's IE first then Opera in the EU as a whole.

      It certainly would be worth the EU's time to protect EU corps from US ones. The optimist in me doesn't want to think like that. The pessimist in me moved to australia about six months back.

    19. Re:About Fucking Time by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I tend to think that younger government bodies tend to be more idealistic in nature. The U.S. seems to have started that way before greed settled in then for reasons I cannot comprehend, it became open season on the native american and the american bison among others and people of the time seemed perfectly comfortable with it.

      Give the EU some time and it will also degenerate into something we can hate. There is lots of big industry looking for ways to grow and the way they do that is by getting or preventing legislation from being passed. They do that by influencing government in the only way they know how -- money.

    20. Re:About Fucking Time by sznupi · · Score: 1

      That doesn't fit at all how the EU "goes after" primarilly local companies abusing the market. You just hear about cases of overseas / from you place ones more.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    21. Re:About Fucking Time by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Opera is quite small also in "Europe" (supposedly you mean "EU" here, because most of that CIS population is also in Europe; EU != Europe, remember?); most of their strenght certainly lies outside of the EU.

      It's worth EU's time to protect the market from abusive companies, from wherever they are (usually from the EU)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    22. Re:About Fucking Time by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Add the Australian prime ministers to that list... all in return for US led trade agreements that only end up shafting ordinary Australians whilst greasing the palms of a select few. Let's hope future elections have more independents - hung parliaments are the only thing preventing the UK/Aussie Prime Ministers from getting down on both knees at a time, it seems.

    23. Re:About Fucking Time by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Really? You felt it necessary to mod me down to "0" simply because I said "EU" instead of Europe???

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, apart from the fact that there is no "EU-based Opera", as somebody already pointed out, you should be aware that the EU is also very happy to slap European companies with fines when they are found not to play according to the rules.

      Eg, recently the EU imposed a fine of 622 million Euros against a 17 bath fittings manufacturers for price fixing. Most of the were European. For example, the company which has to pay most (more than half, 326 million Euros) is German. The company which started the investigation was an American company, which got of the hook for free for blowing the whistle.

      http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=103994

      You might get the impression that often US companies are affected by antitrust rulings etc. because that's when you read it in the news (especially when it is technology related).

    25. Re:About Fucking Time by sznupi · · Score: 2, Informative

      You really never noticed there's no posting & modding at the same time here?...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    26. Re:About Fucking Time by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Ooops. Sorry. I didn't know Norway was still an independent. Is there a reason why they've chosen to remain outside the Union? (checks wikipedia). I see Norway is part of the European Common Market, so it's still beneficial for the EU to protect Norway economically, albeit not directly through MEP representation. (Kinda similar to how the US protects Puerto Rico businesses, even though they have no voice in the Central Congress.)

      BACK TO TOPIC: It seems to me that the European Union voted down ACTA because it's a US protectionist treaty, and does nothing for European television and music corporations, other than limit their future growth. ACTA protects the US Media hegemony.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:About Fucking Time by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>you should be aware that the EU is also very happy to slap European companies with fines when they are found not to play according to the rules.

      So too does the US (fined the CD companies and Paypal and Microsoft and.....) but that doesn't disprove the fact the US Congress is a corporate puppet.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    28. Re:About Fucking Time by kanguro · · Score: 0

      I love when the dinosaur's brain tells corporate america to go fuck themselves

    29. Re:About Fucking Time by wintermute1974 · · Score: 1

      On behalf of Europeans everywhere, let me be the first to say WOO HOO!

    30. Re:About Fucking Time by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>The U.S. seems to have started that way before greed settled in then for reasons I cannot comprehend,

      The Northeast (federalists) wanted to protect their growing business interests (mills, fishing) and during the 1790s quickly setup the central bank and other instruments that were unconstitutional, but also not answerable to the people, and held a great deal of power to favor the early corporations.

      One could argue the "greed trend" dates as early as the 1780s when the Constitution gave authors and inventors a virtually unlimited monopoly on their creations. That had not existed under the original Confederation. At first that new monopoly was a reasonable 14 year span but now it's over 100 years. Ridiculous.

      We are wiser to stick with the precepts of Natural Law, with few excursions. Does nature give to human beings a monopoly over their ideas? No. Therefore neither should humans have a monopoly in Man's Law - let ideas by liberated after a reasonable time (say one decade).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    31. Re:About Fucking Time by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>It certainly would be worth the EU's time to protect EU corps from US ones.

      Precisely. Or in this case: Vote down a treaty that is a US Protectionist treaty (for the media industry), and doesn't benefit EU corporations at all.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    32. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The European Empire is showing its muscles. Do you know EU has plans to let in Turkey, Siria, Israel and only God knows what other countries?

      I agree the European Parliament is interested in good governance and often it fights the European commission to supporto transparency in politics.

      As an european citizen I can say the EU represents ( for us citizens ) the Robin Hood that fights the corrupt national State. But is this image true or is it part of an evil plan to let us accept the almighty federation of the United States of the Wor...ehm Europe?

    33. Re:About Fucking Time by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      I agree, but the thing that worries me is that I don't really understand WHY the EU has been making such seemingly rational and sound decisions.

      I worry that someone will trip up a janitor somehwhere and a chain of events will be set in motion that will result in the EU parliament insisting that black people wear flashing LED hats and women can only breathe every second minute of the day. And that dogs can only bark on Tuesdays.

      I just wish there was a sound basis for their soundness of behaviour.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    34. Re:About Fucking Time by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced the EU did this for good reasons, or for their OWN corporate overlords (like they did when they sued Microsoft in order to protect the EU-based Opera).

      Learn some geography. Opera is a Norwegian company. Norway is not in the EU.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    35. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European Union, FUCK YEAH! Coming again to save the motherfuckin' day yeah!

    36. Re:About Fucking Time by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      That's one hell of a lot more than I can say about the USA and the "land of the free".

      I don't equate the ability to counterfeit or violate copyright with freedom or even a basic human right.

      The EU "supports" freedom of expression, but it doesn't make any real requirements for any of its member nations.

      Unlike France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Ireland, Poland and Sweden, the USA does not qualify its definition of free speech. A US citizen can make a fool out of themselves without fear of prosecution, and we all know that is taken advantaged of a lot. A redneck pastor in Florida can burn the Kuran and there is nothing the US government can do about it. There is no laws against "hate speech", "denying the holocaust", "blasphemy", "promoting immoral activities", or "seditious speech".

      A US citizen can practice any religion, own firearms, enjoy freedoms of the press, and freedom of association.

      Sure there are political groups out there that try to impose their beliefs on others (definition of marriage as an example), but over all the court system sides with the constitution and nothing prevents us from voting the politicians out of office. Incumbents have a definite advantage when it comes to elections, but most of that is from an apathetic electorate.

      If you're a US citizen and you don't like the status quo, then do something about it. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from organizing for political change. The left leaning citizens complain that the "Tea Party" folks are exercising their rights and getting results yet they do nothing in return.... argh!

      Now what really concerns me is that the US was the only party in the negotiations that wanted to keep the contents of ACTA secret. This is to make it easier to rubber stamp though congress, and get the treaty signed before any of the pesky US citizens can exercise their rights to stop it.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    37. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Your metaphor is quite apt. According to some theories, dinosaurs such as the stegosaurus may have had a second brain-like organ that provided advantageous autonomous behaviour in times of crisis, without relying to the main brain in the head. "Europe", in its various incarnations, often functions similarly.

      The less charitable are free to insert an alternative characterisation of European bureaucracy involving left hands, right hands and knowledge here. :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    38. Re:About Fucking Time by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Sadly, corporations now have the rights of people.

      Hyperbole! I think you meant to say that the corporations are now entitled to one of the same rights as the people.

      Sure the supreme court recently reaffirmed a corporation's right to contribute to political campaigns or PACs, but we have the freedom to associate and nothing should limit that association's free speech which includes funding political campaigns.

      Thankfully a corporation still can not cast a vote in an election.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    39. Re:About Fucking Time by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      they aren't independent.
      They have an agreement with Sweden, on tax and work and housing and all sorts.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    40. Re:About Fucking Time by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      The union between Norway and Sweden
      or the yellow bend agreement.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    41. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is not EU-based, it's Norway-based. Norway is not an EU member state, so I don't think the theory holds for Opera in particular.

    42. Re:About Fucking Time by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Unlike France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Ireland, Poland and Sweden, the USA does not qualify its definition of free speech...There is no laws against "hate speech", "denying the holocaust", "blasphemy", "promoting immoral activities", or "seditious speech".

      Oh really?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    43. Re:About Fucking Time by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      opps, should have been this or similar.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    44. Re:About Fucking Time by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      a Limited company has limited liability (for the share holders and such)
      a PLC (public limited company) has limited liability (for the public share holders and such)

      I believe the liability is a financial one.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    45. Re:About Fucking Time by Raumkraut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not geography, it's politics.

    46. Re:About Fucking Time by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Yes really.

      Soliciting sex is illegal in most (if not all) US states. Soliciting sex not equal to free speech.

      Wikileaks is not a US entity and enjoy no constitutional protections.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    47. Re:About Fucking Time by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Don't give janitor-pushers any ideas...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    48. Re:About Fucking Time by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you read the small print I think you'll find they were referring to "Free" as in "beer",not as in "speech"..

      Actually, it's "free" as in "tax-free tee" ;(.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    49. Re:About Fucking Time by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Does nature give to human beings a monopoly over their ideas? No."

      But of course yes!!!
      Proof: What am I thinking now?
      You don't know, uh? You don't know because I hold an absolut monopoly on my ideas.

      What natura doesn't allow is for a monopoly on *public* knowledge -and that's because everyone holds a monopoly on his own mind: once it's made public and so I gain knowledge of it, you can't take it from me.

      Food for mind.

    50. Re:About Fucking Time by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Sure the supreme court recently reaffirmed a corporation's right to contribute to political campaigns or PACs, but we have the freedom to associate and nothing should limit that association's free speech which includes funding political campaigns.

      You have the right to associate. Why should the association have free speech rights? You already do, as do the persons who you are associating with. If the association is deprived a voice, who is being silenced?

      Why should you be allowed to invent fictional persons who promote your interests? The whole thing bears an uncanny similarity to sock puppets on Internet forums, with all the same problems.

      Thankfully a corporation still can not cast a vote in an election.

      It doesn't need to, since it's allowed to bribe the electees.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    51. Re:About Fucking Time by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      ... and they have a ready supply of serfs to keep them that way.

      And since they might eventually run out, they're always making more!

      --
      That is all.
    52. Re:About Fucking Time by erroneus · · Score: 1

      What is in your mind would be analogous to "trade secret" not "patent." Trade secrets are exactly what the name implies -- a secret... of the trade. So, the constitution doesn't protect trade secrets specifically. In order to get patent protection, all the details of the idea must be disclosed.

      If you tell us what you are thinking, that might be another story.

    53. Re:About Fucking Time by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Sure the supreme court recently reaffirmed a corporation's right to contribute to political campaigns or PACs, but we have the freedom to associate and nothing should limit that association's free speech which includes funding political campaigns.

      Political contributions are not "speech".

      You may wish to argue that contributions should not be restricted - to which I would disagree strongly - but do not conflate them with speech, something they resemble in no way whatsoever.

    54. Re:About Fucking Time by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We are wiser to stick with the precepts of Natural Law, with few excursions. Does nature give to human beings a monopoly over their ideas? No. Therefore neither should humans have a monopoly in Man's Law - let ideas by liberated after a reasonable time (say one decade).

      I'm used to your posting complete nonsense, but this is hilarious. Natural law means that the strong prey on the weak. Predators feast on whatever they can catch. If you really believe that this is a good way to build a civilisation, then I presume you won't object if someone stronger than you decides that the world would be better off without you in it. Or is that one of your 'few exceptions'? In which case, you are one of the 'Libertarian Communists' that another poster referred to recently - you want a strong society to protect you and a weak society to protect everyone else.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    55. Re:About Fucking Time by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't equate the ability to counterfeit or violate copyright with freedom or even a basic human right.

      And yet the rest of your post goes on to talk about freedom of speech. Well, in teh America, you can't post details about Scientologist beliefs, because those are copyrighted.

      The left leaning citizens complain that the "Tea Party" folks are exercising their rights and getting results yet they do nothing in return.... argh!

      They have, apparently, done enough to make you aware of their criticism.

      Now what really concerns me is that the US was the only party in the negotiations that wanted to keep the contents of ACTA secret. This is to make it easier to rubber stamp though congress, and get the treaty signed before any of the pesky US citizens can exercise their rights to stop it.

      To put it bluntly, you can't get it stopped. Your only choice is between right-wing evil (Republicans) and right-centrist evil (Democrats). Your de facto two-party system means that your leaders are pretty much entirely unchecked. That, in turn, means that your only hope is that multi-party EU will put on the brakes, and luckily for you, it seems to be doing just that.

      Two parties is just one more than in Soviet Russia, so why do you expect to get more than just a tiny bit more freedom either?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    56. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Norway is part of the EEA (if I remember correctly) which puts it close enough to the EU for the EU to care.

    57. Re:About Fucking Time by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Your posts of today mainly show how incredibly ill informed you are yet you voice a strong and by consequence wrong opinion.

      Norway is not part of the EU and they won't be until they in about a century from now run out of oil and gas.

      Opera is a well respected but very much niche browser, in the EU and even in Norway, supporting it in this manner would be a bad investment.

      It's only since this year that the EU parliament has some real legal teeth and they love to use them against the somewhat old fashioned/conservative European Commission.

      Because members of the EU parliament are at home often little known they tend to be more independent than their national counterparts.

      Today's action demonstrates this independence and has next to nothing to do with 'EU vs US'.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    58. Re:About Fucking Time by rubypossum · · Score: 1

      A corporation exists to make a profit. They're not generally social clubs. It is impossible to tax them, impossible to impose any fees or liabilities that are not directly passed on to ordinary citizens. Usually it's the poorest who get... stuffed when this happens. Politicians rely on people not realizing this and so they try to demonize the corporations in order to grow their own power base. Go to any state capital and look at all the damn golf courses, ultra-premium bistros and cafes, fine wine shops and cigar stores. These are where our "representatives" get their rocks off to cheap hookers, coke habits and all expense paid vacations. Paid for by corrupt corporations who are generally up to no good, I might add. Corporations do all kinds of horrible things, because people do all kinds of horrible things. The same people who are in the corporations and the golf courses are at the political circle jerks and occasional inconveniences called "campaigns." But please, don't blame the corporations for passing on costs of doing business. A business will do this, or the investors behind it will decided to pull the plug and dissolve the business. Blame the assholes who are blaming the corporations - your local, state and federal representatives. These are the pigs who we hired as advocates. The same pigs that have been eating the food and shitting in the pond.

      --
      I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
    59. Re:About Fucking Time by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't agree with Syria and Israel being allowed to join, but to be fair, part of Turkey actually is in mainland Europe. Granted, a very small part, but a part nonetheless.

    60. Re:About Fucking Time by X.25 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not convinced the EU did this for good reasons, or for their OWN corporate overlords (like they did when they sued Microsoft in order to protect the EU-based Opera).

      EU sued Microsoft in order to protect Opera?

      Whatever it is you are smoking, I'd like some. Thank you.

    61. Re:About Fucking Time by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      They have, apparently, done enough to make you aware of their criticism.

      Yet not enough to be of much use...

      ...Your only choice is between right-wing evil (Republicans) and right-centrist evil (Democrats)...

      Democrats are right-centrists? Have you seen the party? The only thing they have common are that they are not republicans. The democrats have majority of both houses and the executive branch and still can't pass a bill.

      The US has a two-party system: Republicans and Not-Republicans.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    62. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > Ooops. Sorry. I didn't know Norway was still an independent. Is there a reason why they've chosen to remain outside the Union?

      I suspect that it's something to do with Norway's oil and gas reserves. It's the world's fifth-largest exporter of oil and third-largest of gas, and they aren't even particularly aggressive about exploiting them. This makes Norway a rather expensive place to live, and also quite inefficient (any claims of "we need to make cutbacks" are met with "no, we just need to sell more oil"), which means that Norway's economy is likely to be somewhat out-of-sync with the EU as a whole for the foreseeable future. I suppose that there may also be some concern that the EU might try to use Norway as an ATM.

    63. Re:About Fucking Time by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      You may wish to argue that contributions should not be restricted - to which I would disagree strongly - but do not conflate them with speech, something they resemble in no way whatsoever.

      Really? Last time I checked PACs used money for advertising and to fund campaign stops. Not to mention the ruling of SCOTUS concerning "Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission":

      Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act. - Wikipedia.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    64. Re:About Fucking Time by turgid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't agree with Syria and Israel being allowed to join, but to be fair, part of Turkey actually is in mainland Europe. Granted, a very small part, but a part nonetheless.

      Why should membership be arbitrarily limited by geography?

    65. Re:About Fucking Time by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      You have the right to associate. Why should the association have free speech rights? You already do, as do the persons who you are associating with. If the association is deprived a voice, who is being silenced?

      So I guess those posters from PETA, Unions, Greenpeace, ActUp are paid for individually by their members instead of coming from the group's treasury.

      Why should you be allowed to invent fictional persons who promote your interests? The whole thing bears an uncanny similarity to sock puppets on Internet forums, with all the same problems.

      See above. Besides I don't think people would confuse the NRA, AFL-CIO, or Greenpeace with internet sock puppets.

      It doesn't need to, since it's allowed to bribe the electees.

      Bribing an elected official is a crime. Selling political power is also a crime.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    66. Re:About Fucking Time by uniquename72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So America can't join.

    67. Re:About Fucking Time by turgid · · Score: 1

      Ah, I didn't think of that!

    68. Re:About Fucking Time by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I was not making my comment from the perspective of what the US legal system may believe.

    69. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free speech zones are not a US invention?

      Dream on stupid.

    70. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA is the land of the free. The free are very happy there, and they have a ready supply of serfs to keep them that way.

      Let me correct that for you:
      The USA is the land of the free. The free are very happy there, and they have a ready supply of mexicans to keep them that way.

    71. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can add Canada to the list. Our PM loves getting down on his knees to the US. I think it makes him feel like he's playing with the "big boys".

    72. Re:About Fucking Time by Sean0michael · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that we have a large number of large citizens because we largely have our large heads up our large asses? Because having our heads up our asses will certainly make us larger than those who do not.

      --
      Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
    73. Re:About Fucking Time by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I didn't realize there were qualifications to your unqualified free speech.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    74. Re:About Fucking Time by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "If you tell us what you are thinking, that might be another story."

      Exactly what I already told, and the half you already hinted from it: that nature does in fact give to human beings a monopoly over their ideas, but that there's no such monopoly for whatever is made public and that's exactly because once it's made public and I gain knowledge of it, it becomes my idea and my idea is my own monopoly.

      That's why there's no need for legal protection for secrets (they protect by themselves as long as they are secrets) but you need a legal protection for patents if you mean to withold its monopoly (because once you make your idea into the public, there's no natural protection for it).

    75. Re:About Fucking Time by mjwx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      EU sued Microsoft in order to protect Opera?

      Just like the EU sued Shell (Dutch) under the same laws to protect...

      Wait, can I start again.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    76. Re:About Fucking Time by arkenian · · Score: 1

      What is in your mind would be analogous to "trade secret" not "patent." Trade secrets are exactly what the name implies -- a secret... of the trade. So, the constitution doesn't protect trade secrets specifically. In order to get patent protection, all the details of the idea must be disclosed.

      I feel obliged to note that this is part of why we have a patent office. It ENCOURAGES people to disclose trade secrets more often, which overall contributes to knowledge.

    77. Re:About Fucking Time by theaveng · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm used to your posting complete nonsense

      Okay well if you don't want to listen to C64 Guy, listen to Thomas Jefferson instead. I dare you to call his idea "nonsense". He had an estimated IQ of 160, which makes you like an idiot in comparison:

      "If nature [aka Natural Law] has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

      "Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine... That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

      - written circa 1790 during the Age of Enlightenment (aka Reason)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    78. Re:About Fucking Time by mschaffer · · Score: 1

      I am glad to see that Europe seems to get what's going on.
      Obama, however, appears to be a big supporter of ACTA.
      It's just shameful!

    79. Re:About Fucking Time by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      EU has been impressing me lately.

      Two things to correct you on that. This isn't the EU; this is the European Parliament - the only democratically-elected part of the EU bureaucracy. The declaration is actually complaining about the work the EU's own negotiators (from the "appointed by ministers of the member states" European Commission) are doing on ACTA.

      Secondly, sometimes the EP gets things right, sometimes it gets them very wrong. If you look at the list of adopted written declarations you will see that the most recent one they have is about adopting an early warning system for paedophiles and sex offenders that consists of extending the data retention directive to search engines; meaning that everything entered in any search engine in the EU would be logged and potentially handed straight over to police etc. so they can see if you searched for anything that *might* indicate you were a paedophile or sex offender.

      Sure, this is a victory against ACTA but it doesn't mean that the EU is perfect. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    80. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone with a bit of brains showed up!

    81. Re:About Fucking Time by Tom · · Score: 1

      Whatever it is you are smoking, I'd like some. Thank you.

      Hey, that's my line! Fork over the good stuff. Actually, I could license the line to you for a moderate share of the bounty...

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    82. Re:About Fucking Time by Tom · · Score: 1

      Natural law means that the strong prey on the weak. Predators feast on whatever they can catch. If you really believe that this is a good way to build a civilisation, then I presume you won't object if someone stronger than you decides that the world would be better off without you in it.

      Typical mistake: Thinking only the first step through.

      Natural law likewise means that the weak band together to defeat those who are individually stronger. That is true both in prey (who very often form herds) and in predators (packs that can bring down prey that an individual hunter could not).

      Society is simply a very complicated herd. Laws are our way of many weaks getting together, being strong enough together to dictate rules that protect themselves, and enforcing them.

      Corporate lobbying is the equivalent of the pack.

      Or maybe that's all bullshit, probably way too simplified, but some food for thought.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    83. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am European. The EU is big, slow and expensive but it only seems ugly or wasteful to the more corrupt societies with shorter views on most topics. Some countries in northern Europe will be celebrating their thousandth anniversary in two decades and mostly everyone, specially in said northern Europe, knows that every power -political or military- is devoted to building a better society. For Everyone (TM). And it works. THIS IS THE KEY, NORTH AMERICANS. The US still doesn't get this and the only reason it raised to power after the second world war was that remarkable people, along with everyone else, fled Europe and went to the US to have a better life. The US had their golden age then and it's been downhill with shortsighted politics, dog-of-war behavior since then. Regular people there have to learn to understand politics and have a longer view on things, keep memory of events and hold their politicians accountable if they want to oppose the 'leaders' they will otherwise be suffering till the end of time if they let corporate greed shape their environment. The US are the last empire, which speaks volumes about empires, if you want to listen. Actually the best education the average north-american can get about how functioning societies work is to get a cheap ticket to any place above France and go backpacking from place to place, talk to people, be humble and understand the culture, then go back and compare. If you see anything better try to implement it back in the US. Don't go to the south for this, it all is just a big vacation resort; the bleeding edge ideas about bringing Europe's society forward brew up in the north. And yes, North-American centric Slashdot, society management is high tech too, so get excited about it you can.

      When I watch the CNN my stomach is turned at the tone of the news, the idiocy that impregnates everything, the shallow treatment of major issues. Just count the number of seconds that every take lasts: it's faster than commercials, it's flash, flash, flash, nonstop and with one strip of unrelated idiocy rolling across the bottom of the screen, just in case your little brain is still not fried enough. I cannot make any sense of north american journalism.

      Just think for a moment about major news outlets that are there not to sell periodicals and advertisements but to inform people. Think of policy that is there to better educate the young in schools, with totally free university when they grow up, all over the country, amazing social security, free healthcare, transparent institutions, excellent public services... All of this happens in many north European countries, with the south also catching up all the time. This all speaks of service to society, not power or corporations or lawyers or the military.

    84. Re:About Fucking Time by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      you voice a strong and by consequence wrong opinion.

      Huh? To me that seems a rather clear non sequitur, but maybe I'm reading you wrong. It may be strong, and/or it may be wrong, but I certainly hope that one does not follow from the other!

      Although, it would be an interesting twist to a debate, balancing good, weak arguments against strong, wrong ones. :-p

    85. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, MORE rights than people.

    86. Re:About Fucking Time by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Note that this is merely the European Parliament, the least powerful and only democratically elected body at EU level. It wouldn't surprise my if the council or the commission manage to find a way to circumvent it in this matter. If it has the power to block the ACTA at all.

    87. Re:About Fucking Time by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

      Yes, it could be very dangerous to their health - pushing an Almighty Janitor may be one of the stupidest suicide ideas ever.

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    88. Re:About Fucking Time by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Why should membership be arbitrarily limited by geography?

      In my opinion it shouldn't. I think a looser and more democratic version of the EU could make a really nice proto-world government. (Unfortunately recent developments aren't exactly in that direction.)

      I'm imagining a two-tiered system: Any country that agrees with EU values on human/civil rights, free press, democracy, etc can join, receiving full access to internal goods market, economic stimulus, etc. Any country that has a similar economic level gets the full thing: no borders, citizens can move wherever they want, etc.

      In any case, Turkey is rather a pivotal case. They want to join for economic reasons, and lots of people want them to join for those reasons. But Turkey has been incredibly slow in the necessary reforms in civil rights and stuff like that. It wasn't long ago that torture and police brutality were common. They still have trouble treating the Kurds as full citizens. And with recent anti-islam tendencies in the EU, Turkey has been feeling less than welcome, and seems to be moving away from the EU.

      (But Syria and Israel? Not a chance. Not for a long while.)

    89. Re:About Fucking Time by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded troll? It's not.

      The basic idea behind the EU really is a very good idea. The actual implementation leaves a lot to be desired. A couple of examples:

      The EU is not very democratic. A country governed in the same way would not be allowed to join for that very reason. The power of the EuroParliament is very limited. Most of the real decisions are made behind closed doors without any checks and balances.

      National governments abuse EU legislature to circumvent their national democratic system. When a country can't get a law through their own parliament, they can just propose it in the Council of the EU (or the European Council? They're different and often mixed up) and later blame the unpopular law on the EU, further undermining public trust in the EU.

      The EU is based on some really very old treaties that should be obsolete by now. It's impossible to repeal those treaties, because there's always one country that profits enough from it that it vetoes any attempt to change it.

      I'm sure there's more. Still, there are some good bits too.

    90. Re:About Fucking Time by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Unlike France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Ireland, Poland and Sweden, the USA does not qualify its definition of free speech. A US citizen can make a fool out of themselves without fear of prosecution, and we all know that is taken advantaged of a lot. A redneck pastor in Florida can burn the Kuran and there is nothing the US government can do about it. There is no laws against "hate speech", "denying the holocaust", "blasphemy", "promoting immoral activities", or "seditious speech".

      But TV (as well as a surprising number of webforums) have no qualms censoring a variety of words, and can get in trouble if they don't. US free speech isn't anywhere near as unqualified as you make it out to be. The restrictions are just different.

    91. Re:About Fucking Time by Sally+Forth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because Israel has so far to go before it becomes as civilized, democratic, and upright as Turkey...

    92. Re:About Fucking Time by theaveng · · Score: 2

      ...Natural Law is nonsense...

      Okay well if you don't want to listen to C64 Guy, listen to Thomas Jefferson instead. I dare you to call his idea "nonsense". He had an estimated IQ of 160 (the typical college grad is only 109):

      "If nature [aka Natural Law] has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

      "Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine... That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - written circa 1790 during the Age of Enlightenment (aka Reason)

      Now explain to us why you think this Genius was wrong.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    93. Re:About Fucking Time by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      And Opera is #3 with approximately 10% of the share. Since it's European, it is in the interests of the EU MEPs to protect it from becoming like Netscape (pushed into non-existence by the default MS-IE in Windows). And that's why they acted to protect Opera and punish US-based Microsoft.

      Really the EU Parliament is operating no differently than how the sellouts in the US Congress act. Protecting their own corporations.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    94. Re:About Fucking Time by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      [..]In which case, you are one of the 'Libertarian Communists' that another poster referred to recently[...]

      Yeah, total nonsense.

    95. Re:About Fucking Time by TDyl · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know, this is from Wikipedia, but it says what needs to be said to this "Do you know EU has plans to let in Turkey, Siria, Israel and only God knows what other countries?"

      "There are four official candidate countries, Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia, and Turkey. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia are officially recognised as potential candidates. Kosovo is also listed as a potential candidate but the European Commission does not list it as an independent country because not all member states recognise it as an independent country separate from Serbia.

      Four Western European countries that have chosen not to join the EU have partly committed to the EU's economy and regulations: Iceland, which is a candidate country, Liechtenstein and Norway, which are a part of the single market through the European Economic Area, and Switzerland, which has similar ties through bilateral treaties. The relationships of the European microstates, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican include the use of the euro and other areas of co-operation."

      --
      Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
    96. Re:About Fucking Time by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they can't ever get there. They just seem a bit too eager to dive off the other end. Turkey has its issues, but at least they've been moving slowly in the right direction over the past two decades.

    97. Re:About Fucking Time by Teun · · Score: 1

      The sound bite you quote is to be digested including the first part of my sentence.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    98. Re:About Fucking Time by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      Ah, got it. Thanks.

    99. Re:About Fucking Time by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I didn't realize there were qualifications to your unqualified free speech.

      Sure. There is a difference between "Call me for paid sex" and "I believe prostitution should be legal". One is solicitation, the other is a political opinion protected by the first admendment.

      As for Wikileaks, it's no use arguing the difference between "free speech" vs. "treason under the guise of free speech" when Wikileaks isn't even covered by the constitution. Noticed that Wikileaks was targeted but not the many news organizations that reported the contents of the report?

      But I love the pro-EU reasoning in this argument" Sure you can freely protest anything in the US, but I can give obscure examples that may or may not apply to free speech therefore you must be wrong." While completely disregarding that the level of freedoms is still higher than those in some EU countries cited in my original post.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    100. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...no...it doesn't:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

    101. Re:About Fucking Time by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      National governments abuse EU legislature to circumvent their national democratic system. When a country can't get a law through their own parliament, they can just propose it in the Council of the EU (or the European Council? They're different and often mixed up) and later blame the unpopular law on the EU, further undermining public trust in the EU.

      The EU is based on some really very old treaties that should be obsolete by now. It's impossible to repeal those treaties, because there's always one country that profits enough from it that it vetoes any attempt to change it.

      They should have just pushed through the EU "constitution" years ago without allowing citizens to vote on it. Instead, certain member countries knew pretty damn well their constituents would reject it (out of general euroskepticism, I bet 99% of no-voters didn't bother reading it, it was a _lot_ of pages) and we're now stuck with this somewhat undemocratic construct for ages to come.

      But yeah, there are lots of good parts too.

    102. Re:About Fucking Time by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I don't think the EU "consitution" would have fixed everything. It wouldn't have replaced all those old treaties that some countries still profit disproportionally from. Because they'd veto anything that does anythin remotely like that. Although I admit it would still have been a good step in the right direction. (Note that some of the NO-voters did so because the step was too small. But you're right that the majority probably had no idea what it was all about, and certainly the Dutch government was really awful at explaining it.)

      I think the best way to make a fresh start is to do exactly that: dissolve the current union and start a new one. Leave all the old stuff out, and do it better this time.

    103. Re:About Fucking Time by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat.

      "We are always in shit, only the depth varies"

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    104. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod +1 parent!!!!! hell +5!

  2. EU FTW!!!! by robot256 · · Score: 1

    Now that we know where Paradise is, when do we leave?

    1. Re:EU FTW!!!! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Too late. They paved it and put up a parking lot.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:EU FTW!!!! by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      Just had a coffee -> nose moment. Thanks for that...

  3. 369? by Svenne · · Score: 1

    Really? They couldn't be bothered to count more than 369 signatures?

    --

    Slagborr
    1. Re:369? by Iskender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I noticed that too, but I'm guessing that it refers to the amount of MEPs who got somehow involved. That would be 369 out of 736 MEPs, a significant number. Since this is EU stuff, there's always the possibility that anything you read has been hastily translated from another language, adding additional noise.

      I hope someone who isn't ignorant like me can clarify the signature thing though.

    2. Re:369? by Kirijini · · Score: 5, Informative

      Really? They couldn't be bothered to count more than 369 signatures?

      There are 736 Members of the European Parliament. 369 is a majority.

    3. Re:369? by buro9 · · Score: 0

      Whenever you read something like "more than 369 signatures" it really just means "370 signatures"

    4. Re:369? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for clarifying. The way the summary is written, it sounds like a petition with 369 citizens' signatures.

    5. Re:369? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The target was 369, a majority. The current total is 377.

    6. Re:369? by mounthood · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are 736 Members of the European Parliament. 369 is a majority.

      It won't be when Microsoft gets done with it.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    7. Re:369? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Translation: "More than 50%" - enough to win.

      --
      No sig today...
  4. Wait, what? by mike260 · · Score: 1

    A democratic institution representing the desires and best interests of it's electorate?
    What gives?

    1. Re:Wait, what? by butterflysrage · · Score: 5, Funny

      quick! to the Liberation-mobile!

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    2. Re:Wait, what? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the end, representation generally does happen, in a way - it's just that what individual members of a given society claim they want and value, and what the society actually promotes in the system of governance, are not necessarily the same thing.

      Personal anecdote time: during uni I had one roommate from a place which will remain unnamed, but is generally one of impoverished & corrupt ones - at the time we were also watching on the BBC a major unrest there, revolving around electoral fraud. Of course he was openly disgusted at such state of affairs, rampant corruption, etc.
      But what was he doing? Studying & living blissfully in a relatively expensive place, financed by his family at home in the position of public authority, on a curse leading to a diploma which will be useless (just for a paper; while cheating) - but with a position in a public institution at home virtually assured after his return.

      The close relation between those things and what he supposedly despises never quite seemed to click with him... at most, some other groups / etc. were the guilty ones.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Wait, what? by JohnBailey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A democratic institution representing the desires and best interests of it's electorate?
      What gives?

      Too many people to effectively bribe.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    4. Re:Wait, what? by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Informative

      The European Parliament is usually a reliable entity with good sense. That's why there are so many rulings that allow the hateful non-elected European Commission to go over their heads in many issues. I wouldn't be surprised if the EC just ignores the Parliament and signs an agreement with the US to apply ACTA here.

      After all, it's presided by a jerk called Barroso, that went from Maoist troublemaker in the 70s to free-market right-wing super-bureaucrat. He avidly supported the invasion of Iraq when he was the Portuguese Prime Minister and licked Bush's ass until his mouth turned brown. Strangely he was rewarded a job as head of the Commision in spite of being a spineless ass-licker that embarrassed and ashamed us Europeans, and specially us Portuguese.

      Another ass-licker, Tony Blair, nearly won the job of President of European Council, but this time the outrage was too much for the Euro Dickhead Bureaucrats to sweep under the rug.

    5. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A democratic institution representing the desires and best interests of it's electorate?
      What gives?

      Electoral funding laws that try to ensure that elected representatives are not corporate sponsored...

    6. Re:Wait, what? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I like to think "democracy", ie. the fast growing Pirate Party and subsequent loss of votes.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Wait, what? by pdunning · · Score: 0

      A democratic institution representing the desires and best interests of it's electorate? What gives?

      Correction it is a semi democratic institution representing the desires and best interests of its electorate on one issue. The rest of the time we get laws that are never publicised and are poorly written, micromanaging or plain not in our interest. The media focus is on the national government, which has shipped lots of its power to Brussels. Turnout in the last election in the UK was 34%. I hardly call that a democratic mandate.

    8. Re:Wait, what? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>In the end, representation generally does happen, in a way - it's just that what individual members of a given society claim they want and value, and what the society actually promotes in the system of governance, are not necessarily the same thing.
      >>>

      Well that does kinda/sorta explain why the Bush Bailout Bill passed in 2008, even though 80% of Americans were against it. It got voted down once, but then passed the second time after the Democrats promised the Republicans (bastards) some special handouts for their home districts. It also kinda/sorta explains why Pelosicare (or whatever you wish to call it) was passed when over 70% of Americans opposed it too.

      What point representative democracy if the representatives ignore the clear majority of the people? As for your story, the word you're looking for is "hypocrite". He is corrupt but doesn't see the corruption.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Wait, what? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      But look how standard of a thing that "hypocrisy" is (my story is at most a very vivid example) - ask anybody about their views regarding corruption / etc.
      Now consider that the "system" is composed from those very same people. Those of them who are not "in" usually value the benefits, given the chance...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:Wait, what? by dachshund · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But what was he doing? Studying & living blissfully in a relatively expensive place, financed by his family at home in the position of public authority, on a curse leading to a diploma which will be useless (just for a paper; while cheating) - but with a position in a public institution at home virtually assured after his return.

      Minus the cheating bit, your description could really apply to any somewhat privileged middle-class Western individual. In that sense it probably covers you, me, and the vast majority of Slashdot posters as well.

      It sounds like your issue with this gentleman is the fact that he's enjoying his status on the backs of his own less-fortunate countrymen, while blaming their problems on someone else. But don't kid yourself that you're somehow morally superior to the guy. Those of us who are lucky to be born into a wealthy country are basically doing the same thing, we're just doing it on the backs of some other country's less-fortunate folks (and many of our own countrymen too).

    11. Re:Wait, what? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Instead of two parties, they would have to bribe 200 or so.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Wait, what? by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 2, Informative

      If by 34% you mean 65%.

      Also even if voter turnout was 34%, I would call 34% a democratic mandate. Nothing stopped the hypothetical 66% from not voting, and their abstinence is impartiality.

    13. Re:Wait, what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What point representative democracy if the representatives ignore the clear majority of the people?

      That's kinda the whole point of representative democracy, by design - that politicians can forgo the desire of the majority and do the "right thing" (or the "wrong thing", depending on your perspective). Whether it's a good idea or not is an interesting topic for debate - American school of thought is that, generally, it is, because U.S. was very intentionally founded along those lines, and not the "mob rule" of direct democracy. But you have to admit that direct democracy, in an civilized and educated society, is a rather attractive proposition. You might end up with things such as that Swiss minaret ban... but then when that happens, you know that there are real issues that have to be dealt with.

    14. Re:Wait, what? by pdunning · · Score: 0

      Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant "Turnout across Great Britain was 15,136,932, representing 34% of the electorate" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom)). The point is that people here do not care about who makes the laws in Brussels.

  5. Of course, this doesn't stop by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

    unilateral declarations that work out to "agree with our stance on copyrig^H^H^Hcounterfeiting or else."

    1. Re:Of course, this doesn't stop by quintesse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "copycounterfeiting"? They even go after people who make copies of copies? That's just... wow... ;)

    2. Re:Of course, this doesn't stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't stop until they drive out all corporations' lobbyists.

      Big corporations are not living beings, they are self sustaining social constructs of greed.

    3. Re:Of course, this doesn't stop by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately (for the USA) the EU is a major trade partner and not neccessarily dependent on the USA. "Or else" may well turn into "or else you'll have to soak up much of China's trade capacity, ensuring that we won't see money from either of you". The USA can't afford a trade war with a partner this big.

      The days of "if the USA take their ball and go home, no one can play" are over. There are other big kids on the block and they bring their own balls.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  6. So, can I sigh in relief now? by Scorch_Mechanic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now that the EU has "all but rejected ACTA", how likely is this to impact the enactment of this blatantly evil trade agreement in the US of A? Speaking as a concerned citizen of the US, can I breathe a little easier now, or is there more that still needs to be done to grind this horrible blight on the internet out of existence?

    --
    You should turn signatures off.
    1. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the just European Parliament. The Commission has ignored the parliament before when there was something they wanted to push through.

    2. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I understand it, the EU parliament now has a bit more authority and can stand up to the commission. not sure though, so don't quote me.

    3. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not impact you at all. The only thing you can do is to vote vore someone who is more concerned about your wellbeing that to stai in power. (That is: Do not vote for any of the two major blocks since anyone who is a member of them probably is so because of their search for power.)

    4. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      In my understanding yes the parliament now have more power to reject the commission, but it can't really stop what the commission is doing until there's a proposal on the table. This is as I understand it mostly a statement of intent that they will, because the way it's been handled.

      What is likely to happen is that the commission will propose something, have it rejected, revise it again, get rejected again ad infinitum. They've been known to fight wars of attrition - or failing that - slowly giving in to demands until it finally passes with a small margin.

      Long story short, I believe eventually they will pass some form of ACTA, but hopefully most of the bad bits will be gone by then.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      not sure though, so don't quote me.

      Do what now?

    6. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by lordholm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, the EP must approve (almost) all international treaties that the commission negotiates, the ACTA treaty is among these.

      Now, the EP have several options if they really want to force their will through. These include:

      1. A vote of no confidence, which would get the commission sacked.
      2. Try the old methods of Tiberius Gracchus and veto everything that comes out as a proposal from the commission or the council.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    7. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by lordholm · · Score: 1

      There are only two readings of the proposals by the EP. If they say no during both, and the consolidation attempts with the council fails, the proposal is dead and the commission will not bring it up again, unless the EP wants it.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    8. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That's the mile high view. At least when I followed the telecom directive, which was before the Lisbon treaty mind you, there were many variations of many of the paragraphs going back and forth and being voted on in between those readings. As coalitions approved of the various paragraphs, the votes turned from against to for between readings. I suppose you can bet on the treaty being rejected in its entirety, but it's a risky bet. If eventually enough of the MEP are convinced that we do need a trade agreement and that they've given the commission enough flak over the process, it might pass in the end and then it's all about how these paragraphs are worded and what's left. It's not entirely unlike the riders to US laws, pass the bad with the good. The parliament and commission are in a bit of a pissing match sometimes but they often tend to find a compromise rather than end a year-long process with nothing at all.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "If they say no during both, and the consolidation attempts with the council fails, the proposal is dead and the commission will not bring it up again, unless the EP wants it."

      But once the ACTA is rejected twice, the comission can bring back the ACTB, the ACTC, the ACTD and so till it's passed. Don't you remember the (still not dead) issue about software patents?

    10. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Long story short, I believe eventually they will pass some form of ACTA, but hopefully most of the bad bits will be gone by then.

      So... what would that leave?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      can I breathe a little easier now, or is there more that still needs to be done to grind this horrible blight on the internet out of existence?

      No.

      All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Corollary, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to stop doing something.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    12. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by Drishmung · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, the EP must approve (almost) all international treaties that the commission negotiates, the ACTA treaty is among these.

      Now, the EP have several options if they really want to force their will through. These include:

      1. A vote of no confidence, which would get the commission sacked. 2. Try the old methods of Tiberius Gracchus and veto everything that comes out as a proposal from the commission or the council.

      --
      "Europaeus sum!"

      ACTA Delenda Est!

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    13. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There is some relief in it for you. So far as I can tell, the reason why your government wants ACTA so bad is because if it's there as an international agreement, they can sign up to it, and it'll become part of your law. Otherwise, they'll have to push it through as any other domestic law, which is actually harder to do.

      Then again, given the hostility of both your major parties to consumer rights with respect to copyright and other forms of intellectual property, I think that it would, at best, buy you some time before you get ACTA-like legislation nation-wide.

    14. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by lordholm · · Score: 1

      Yes, I remember, but as far as the original SW pat directive, it is absolutely dead.

      The problem with that specific aspect, is that the patent system in Europe really needs to be europeanised. Thus, when the proposals for the new patentsystem are being developed, the old SW patent lobby see their opportunity.

      The main point being that the SW pat issue is very special as we all knew when the directive was being pushed initially, there would be another directive later harmonising the patent law in total and establishing the community patent properly.

      So, while you are partially right, you are also partially wrong on this.

      My guess is that ACTA is not something that is really critical from an institutional point of view as the community patent is, so if it is rejected, I would be very surprised to see a similar treaty showing up the next 10-15 years.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    15. Re:So, can I sigh in relief now? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "My guess is that ACTA is not something that is really critical from an institutional point of view as the community patent is, so if it is rejected, I would be very surprised to see a similar treaty showing up the next 10-15 years."

      I can't share your opinion.

      EU was pretty convinced and satisfied with the fact that software is not subjected to patents full stop. USA thinks otherwise, therefore EU government is pressed by less than fair methods to align patent laws to USA interests.

      In the same vein, ACTA is a USA invention mainly for USA profit and then again you have EU government being pressed by less than fair methods to align to USA desires.

      In fact, software patents and ACTA are pressed from USA because of basically the same reasons (making intellecutal property into a full blown bussiness "product") so they both are going to follow the same tracks.

  7. Re:Wow, really impressed by draconx · · Score: 1

    RTF summary. 369 signatures from the Members of the European Parliament. In other words, a majority.

  8. good by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 1

    Now all we can hope is that the US government decides its a bad idea as well. And while I'm wishing for the impossible - I'd like a solar powered corvette and world peace.

    --
    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    1. Re:good by game+kid · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was about to say "don't forget office sex with your pantsuited, bespectacled busty redhead secretary", but you already used your three wishes. :(

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:good by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it Christina Hendricks? 'cos I would totally take back the other wishes. All of them.

    3. Re:good by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Huh? Isn't the US government the one behind it? They're hardly likely to drop it...

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:good by russotto · · Score: 1

      I was about to say "don't forget office sex with your pantsuited, bespectacled busty redhead secretary", but you already used your three wishes. :(

      Not to worry, with the solar-powered Corvette he should be able to find an acceptable substitute.

    5. Re:good by robot256 · · Score: 1

      And do the same thing three times? Sounds good.

    6. Re:good by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 1

      I was about to say "don't forget office sex with your pantsuited, bespectacled busty redhead secretary", but you already used your three wishes. :(

      Not to worry, with the solar-powered Corvette he should be able to find an acceptable substitute.

      Well said. Plus I've already dated a redhead. The scars are healing nicely.

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    7. Re:good by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      I can't give you World Peace, but I *can* give you Whirled Peas.....

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    8. Re:good by mjwx · · Score: 1

      your pantsuited, bespectacled busty redhead secretary

      I'm going to ruin that fantasy for you... Because you could have just described Angela Lansbury.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  9. Further details... by petaflop · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 369 signatories (377 now) are all MEPs (members of the European Parliament). 369 is significant because it is a majority of the eligible votes.

    The linked page is just one of the relevant pages - you have to follow the links on the left to get at the rest. Here's a couple of interesting pages:
    http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Written_Declaration_12/2010_signatories_list
    http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA

    1. Re:Further details... by devent · · Score: 1

      it's only 50.1% (now 51.2%) out of 736 MEPs. It's a freaking shame that it's not 100%. It will gone down like the SWIFT treaty, first it will not pass but then it will be slightly changed and passed anyway.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  10. Yay! by Jorl17 · · Score: 0

    Yay!

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    1. Re:Yay! by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      That's what I was going to say!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    2. Re:Yay! by mike260 · · Score: 0

      Also: Woohoo!

  11. Source? by cf18 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can we get a better source than a wiki page that anyone can edit and was last updated on March 8th?

    1. Re:Source? by sammyF70 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try this and search for ACTA in the title. The document in question is here (pdf). Note that the status is ONGOING but that tomorow is the lapse date.

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    2. Re:Source? by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would be less useful if it was updated more recently

  12. Next week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... European Parliament has begun international negotiations on a new counter-terrorism and anti-child molestation treaty.

    Negotiations are not on public record, but trust us, the treaty is for your own safety.

  13. Are Canada and Mexico next? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Now that Europe has more or less said FU to ACTA, can/will Canada and Mexico drop it too?

    1. Re:Are Canada and Mexico next? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      no.
      Canadian politicians are lemmings: OMG, don't want to rock the boat. until they've been in 6+year in parliament, they have no balls or leave with the pension.

      Mexico is no better. If they would have any balls they would have legalized drugs just to get rid of the anarchy they have now.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re:Are Canada and Mexico next? by Dragooner · · Score: 1

      No, the Canadian government has been following the US policies regarding this kind of thing pretty closely. They're even trying to put forward the same kind of copyright legislation as the US has through Bill C-32, which used to be similar to a bill previously proposed as Bill C-18 which ran its course because of the proroguing of parliament last year. Bill C-32 is another attempt at the same copyright http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89303/a-detailed-look-at-bill-c-32-canadas-copyright-reform-bill-part-1/ .

      In my limited understanding of legal mumble jumble I believe it says in short:

              * The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
              * The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
              * Allowing consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage.
              * A YouTube clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it's not for commercial gain.
              * A "notice-and-notice" system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law. The violator's personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
              * ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users.
              * A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
              * New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.

      Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/copyright-bill-clement-montreal.html#ixzz0yxLUq6jO

      --
      Fugga Wugga
    3. Re:Are Canada and Mexico next? by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That analysis isn't quite right as Stephen Harper(current PM) has done a fair bit of boat rocking with his far right agenda etc. That asshole has undone some 30+ years of relative progress in just a few short years.

      He is very willing to bend over for any US agreements however. Mostly because he's busy pointing at the US(the southern US in particular) as an example for Canada to follow, as though thats a good idea. He slacked up on that part however after their economy collapsed and ours mostly just dipped and leveled out rather than collapsing.

    4. Re:Are Canada and Mexico next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Mexico is no better. If they would have any balls they would have legalized drugs just to get rid of the anarchy they have now.

      We tried, more than four years ago. Your Señor Booosh wouldn't let us. We will either remain a client state, or be "liberated".

      And please, don't blame us for your bad habits. If business wasn't so good, we wouldn't be in it.

    5. Re:Are Canada and Mexico next? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Problem is that the business is incarceration and seizure of "ill gotten" property. The police departments in the USA need to enforce drug laws to get funding via seizures and the prisons need to expand to get more $ from the Fed.
      There is a reason why the USA has 50% of ALL LAWYERS IN THE WORLD!

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_country_in_the_world_has_most_lawyers_per_capita

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  14. Re:Wow, really impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calling a +1 deciding vote a majority is technically true, but still dishonest. A candidate who wins election by 50.1% percent isn't popular even though he won.

  15. Whoda thunk it? by kimvette · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who would have ever thought that European nations would ever be more concerned about liberty and due process than The united States of America? We were once called the "land of the free" and "the land of opportunity" but we're running headlong toward becoming the fascist, socalized nanny state that everyone hates to live under.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Whoda thunk it? by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no shortage of socialist or nanny actions in Europe, nor bad policing although I lean towards incompetence there and not plain fascism. We steer clear of some of the problems that exist in the US, but there are still countless similarities to our parts of the world.

      You've got Mexifornia, we've got Eurabia. You complain about taxation? Try Europe, it's no fun here either. You complain about No Child Left Behind, we struggle with declining education as well. Compared to your ghetto's our problematic neighbourhoods might seem decent, but we too face severe disparities in living standards and safety levels in certain environments as well. We might be a bit more relaxed about softdrugs, televised breasts or people claiming to be atheist, but we have no shortage of conservative and/or religious people up to the highest levels of government trying to ban whatever they can and they succeed often when it coincides with the goals of nanny state socialists. And plenty of celebrities and non-celebrities doing the complete opposite. Extremist nutcrackers, from just plain weird to dangerous to society? Check, we both have plenty.

      Or the short version: we've never diverged that much with regards to freedom and opportunity. And as continent with relatively many and quite fluent speakers of English, I don't think we soon will. We can speak the same language and therefore our interchange of ideas is excellent. The only reason we seem to think we're so different is because we're so close that we take the similarities for granted.

    2. Re:Whoda thunk it? by Skylinux · · Score: 1

      You complain about taxation? Try Europe, it's no fun here either.

      You are not kidding, Märchensteuer (Sales Tax) is 19.0% in Germany and almost 50% of my income is gone after I pay tax and health insurance. Our problem is pretty much same as in any other western country. Corrupt politicians are lining their own pockets while telling everyone else to save and pay more taxes.

      --
      Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    3. Re:Whoda thunk it? by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      Who would have ever thought that European nations would ever be more concerned about liberty and due process than The united States of America?

      Because those concepts are both European in origin?

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
  16. All but ? by Pigeon451 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    WTF does "all but drop" mean? If you look at it grammatically, it means "to do everything but drop", which is the opposite of what the submitter implied.

    /pedantic

    1. Re:All but ? by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Officially, negotiations are ongoing. In reality, the majority of those that would vote on it have pledged to vote no, if true, ACTA will never go though and become law. So the issue is 'all but dropped' in that the negotiations are still open, but no one on either side expects them to go anywhere.

    2. Re:All but ? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      My understanding of it is that they object strongly to ACTA but have not formally moved to reject it. They probably have to go through months of bureaucratic nonsense to get to the point of agreeing to it only if big changes are made, at which point one hopes the global opposition is so strong that ACTA simply fails in its objective. On the other hand, at the end of a few month wrangling they may agree to a differently worded version of ACTA. Can't say I'm the least bit convinced that ACTA is anywhere near on its last legs though I wish it were so.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    3. Re:All but ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. This should read "European Parliament All But All But Rejects ACTA".

    4. Re:All but ? by Bootvis · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had to look it up to, it seems to be correct English:

      http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/all+but

      --
      Read, refresh, repeat.
    5. Re:All but ? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      In general, "all but foo" means that everything foo-like has happened, short of foo itself. In this case, it means that ACTA hasn't been officially dropped, but it might as well have been because everything up to (but not including) its formal abandonment has taken place.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:All but ? by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 1

      Officially, negotiations are ongoing. In reality, the majority of those that would vote on it have pledged to vote no, if true, ACTA will never go though and become law. So the issue is 'all but dropped' in that the negotiations are still open, but no one on either side expects them to go anywhere.

      Well, they haven't pledged to vote 'no' just made a vague list of demands and expressed quite a lot of reservations.

      Sadly, I don't think it means that much. The EU Parliaments has expressed skepticism of ACTA earlier, without any reaction. It would not be the first time the Commission tried to goad the Parliament into accepting draconian IP laws, if you remember their attempt at legalizing software patents. They withdrew the proposed directive after the Parliament amended it to something most of the anti-SW-patent crowd could live with (In other words: A reasonable deal). Total disrespect for the directly-elected representatives.

    7. Re:All but ? by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      No. It's a style form and it means they have upgraded the dropping XP path to the max, all they haven't done is actually drop it. If someone all but kills you, you're still alive. But you're also in a puddle of mud on intensive care at best. The EU has slammed ACTA.

    8. Re:All but ? by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      They can't formally reject until there is a final proposal...

    9. Re:All but ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think an "all but drop" is when you drop your whole but. I assume this is something like falling on your ass

    10. Re:All but ? by gringer · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see that someone else has a similar itch as me with regard to this phrase. While it is explained in a reply to you that it might be appropriate in this case, it's up there with "an historic" as one of the things news reporters seem to say without thinking about it.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
  17. Re:Wow, really impressed by zero.kalvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He is popular, but his adversary is almost as popular as he is. But that's why the first guy won, and the second didn't.

  18. All but a formal final rejection by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    WTF does "all but drop" mean? If you look at it grammatically, it means "to do everything but drop", which is the opposite of what the submitter implied.

    "All But Rejects" in the headline indicated to me that the European Parliament had expressed its disapproval in every way short of a formal final rejection.

    1. Re:All but a formal final rejection by blackraven14250 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They did do everything short of a formal final rejection. They can't do the final rejection, since they require a finalized proposal first.

  19. This isn't over? by Spliffster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a European I am glad to read this. However, I am no sure if this is over yet. The cynic in me says: there wasn't enough money flowing to some representatives or some representatives want to advance their own agenda a little bit more. I guess it is time to negotiate behind closed doors a little bit more until we reach an agreement.

    1. Re:This isn't over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, unfortunately the EU keep bringing things back, often hidden in another bill, in order to bypass the will of MEPs. Sometimes the unelected commissioners do things completely contrary to the decisions of the MEPs.

    2. Re:This isn't over? by Halo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Repeating the standard pub arguments about politics is not the same as "insightful", mods.

      The whole ACTA thing is already being negotiated behind closed doors. It's unlikely that anyone is trying to bribe MEPs at this point since the European Parliament is not directly involved in the negotiations itself, and the European Commission is trying its best to keep them as far as possible from the negotiations. Not to mention that it's pretty hard to bribe that many individual MEPs with so many different political backgrounds and nationalities so as to block a written declaration from passing. It would be one of the most expensive and idiotic strategies ever.

      And of course MEPs do this because it advances their agenda: they don't want to be kept out by the European Commission from negotiations like this only to be presented with a fait accompli later on. Well, that combined with the fact that several of them also don't like the inclusion of patents in it, and all the stuff about cutting people's Internet access for copyright infringements is also not very popular there.

      Note that I'm not saying that it *is* over now. However, that is unrelated to any alleged bribery or selfishness.

      --
      Donate free food here
    3. Re:This isn't over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that it's pretty hard to bribe that many individual MEPs with so many different political backgrounds and nationalities so as to block a written declaration from passing. It would be one of the most expensive and idiotic strategies ever.

      Happens all the time in the US. It's called campaign contributions. It is expensive, but you get it back in reduced regulation/taxes/etc.

    4. Re:This isn't over? by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      At least in Belgium, politicians are not allowed to get campaign contributions from companies (it used to be allowed, but it was forbidden after a number of corruption scandals in the seventies and eighties). I don't know about other EU Member States.

      Other than that, you still cannot compare the US House of Representatives or the US Senate with the European Parliament, because the MEPs are people from 27 different countries speaking a total of 22 different languages and from I don't know how many different parties, divided into 8 ideological/political families (with several of those families having quite different views on things that can't simply be bought away, since they would lose their identity).

      --
      Donate free food here
    5. Re:This isn't over? by Shotgun · · Score: 0, Troll

      It would be one of the most expensive and idiotic strategies ever.

      That didn't stop Obamacare in the US. I think you underestimate the willingness of politicians to jerk the populace around in return for some short-term gain. 8*)

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    6. Re:This isn't over? by Halo1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be one of the most expensive and idiotic strategies ever.

      That didn't stop Obamacare in the US. I think you underestimate the willingness of politicians to jerk the populace around in return for some short-term gain. 8*)

      As far as I'm concerned, the mass hysteria about Obama's health care reform is incredibly sad and hilarious at the same time. Then again, I'm from socialist Europe and probably a communist nazi (whatever that may be), so what do I know...

      --
      Donate free food here
    7. Re:This isn't over? by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's a tiny bit more complicated.

      Politicians aren't first and foremost interested in money - if they were, most of them would be in the business world. Their fetish is power. Money comes in because it often signifies power - both having money and being offered money.

      The EU parliament, however, is engulfed in a more interesting power struggle, and has been for years. Basically, between the various EU institutions there is a decade-old battle over who gets to rule Europe. The (unelected) commission would love to do it, and the (elected) parliament as well. After many years of getting nowhere and being essentially a pure publicity stunt, the parliaments power has been growing recently, and ever since the "it is not a constitution" EU constitution it has become an actual player.

      This is not about money, and I don't think bribery will work. This is about politicians laying claims to parts of the power spectrum. The parliaments primary desire is to show the commission who their daddy is. No amount of money can buy the same satisfaction that being successful here would mean to them.

      And, that being said, the elected representatives in the parliament are the good guys, at least as far as politicians can go on the "good" scale.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:This isn't over? by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hah, and now imagine how do we in "Evil Putin's Russia" feel ourselves reading about "communist Obama"? By the way, we too have (crappy, but) free medical insurance here. And while we do experience all sort of governmental corruption here, I'm pretty sure that our government will never accept ACTA or anything similar to it.

      Sometimes I feel that in some aspects of life tables had turned completely - USA being paranoid and totally authoritarian over it's "intellectual property", censoring Internet with DMCA's (yes, to me it's just another form of censorship) and "terrorism/pedophilia" hysteria, pushing such behavior to other countries; while "socialist" Europe and "communist" Russia enjoy much more open and free Internet (plus we're moving towards open source OS'es and applications much faster than Microsoft/Apple occupied USA). Ironic, really.

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
  20. 2 words: THANK YOU by cbope · · Score: 1

    A big THANK YOU to all the MEP's who signed this. Way to grow a spine. Let's all hope ACTA dies the brutal death it was always destined for.

  21. Just empty talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unfortunately, the EU Parliament is a pitiful powerless entity and "Written Declarations" are just words without substance. The EU Parliament site describes what a Written Declaration is: (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/plenary/writtenDecl.do)

    "A written declaration is a text of a maximum of 200 words on a matter falling within the European Union's sphere of activities.
    Written declarations are printed in all the official languages, distributed and entered in a register.
    MEPs can use written declarations to launch or relaunch a debate on a subject that comes within the EU's remit."

    Nothing to see here my friends, the real power stays with the EU Commission.

    1. Re:Just empty talk by PipianJ · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much my interpretation of the issue. I've never seen anything that said that the Commission could be ordered around by the Parliament, and since the Commission is the only EU governing body with legislative initiative, all they have to do is keep proposing the ratification of ACTA until the Parliament caves. And even then, the individual member states could ratify ACTA without the EU doing so anyway...

    2. Re:Just empty talk by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 1

      Amen. Not to mention that the EU has a history of bending over backwards for lobbyists, evil Orwellian shit and selling out its citizens' privacy to foreign nations.
      So this declaration feels less like "Oi! Stop drafting that treaty!" and more like "Oi! Stop drafting that treaty without giving us a chance to add some juicy bits!".

    3. Re:Just empty talk by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope. The EC has exactly two tries.

      1. The EC submits the draft.
      2. If the EP accepts, it's passed. Otherwise...
      3. The EP rejects the draft and gives the EC a list of things they want changed.
      4. The EC submits a new version of the draft.
      5. If the EP accepts, it's passed. Otherwise...
      6. The EC can try to reconcile with the EP and figure out a shared draft. If this fails...
      7. The draft is dead and can't be resubmitted.

      I think the EC could try to start a war of attrition with the EP but that could end with the EP just veoting anything looking remotely like IP legislation until the EC shuts up.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    4. Re:Just empty talk by The+Terminator · · Score: 1

      Thats not empty talk, because the declaration shows strong opposition of the EP against ACTA and there is a good chance that ACTA will not be ratified unless there will be severe alterations made to the substance.

    5. Re:Just empty talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are lots of ways the "war of attrition" thing could work out, including the EC bundling its proposals in with things that the EP does want, and the EC refusing to submit things that the EP does want until they let this pass. At this point, with the new EU constitution still pretty much untried, we've no way of knowing how it's likely to go.

      Or to put it another way: the vested interests concerned have not yet worked out how to bribe their way through the European power structures. The EP is signalling that it wants its cut. My bet is, they'll figure it out soon enough.

  22. Re:Wow, really impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh come on now... it worked for GW Bush. Hell, he didnt even have a majority, just the electoral votes. I would say that if they have more than half, its honest to call that a majority.

  23. Re:Wow, really impressed by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

    What's dishonest about it?
    It's more than half of the people, so it's the majority. Not an overwhelming majority, yet still.

    And in places where voters can/have to choose between more than 2 candidates (that is: almost everywhere except the US), candidates who get an actual majority of 50+% instead of only a relative majority are considered popular.

  24. Is it really a victory? by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

    Reading the text, I'm worried that the European Commission will be able to argue that the current process is already complying with those demands.

    There's a lot of "You can't do X unless it complies with existing EU law!" or "This better not have side effect X!" - to which the European Commission could say "Ok, we're already obliged to comply with EU law, so that changes nothing, and of course we've no intention to cause side effects, so let's continue and sign this thing.".

    I'd love to see a document showing what sentences of the latest leaked draft are unavoidably shot down by this declaration.

  25. Now just watch by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now let's all just watch the commission ignore the requests of the parliament. Unless it's really not important at all, of course.

    Power in the EU is not with the parliament, but with the commission. Even after the treaty both executive and legislative power remains with the commission, and they threw in a part of the judiciary to match.

    1. Re:Now just watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, this is a common problem in the US as well. Bad legislation is identified by the legislative branch and everyone is against it. In public, that is. Meanwhile, these proposals take on a zombie-like existence -- they just won't die. Just when everyone thinks the zombie is dead, a slightly modified version is rammed down our throats.

      Where are those anti-American zealots from France when you need them?

    2. Re:Now just watch by nickco3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Power in the EU is not with the parliament, but with the commission

      Actually the most powerful body in the EU is the Council of Ministers, which made up of serving European government ministers and very much in the euro-driving seat in recent years.

      However, the European Parliament does have the power to reject or amend international trade agreements, which ACTA would appear to be.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    3. Re:Now just watch by Spad · · Score: 2, Informative

      The EU Parliament can still overrule the Council of Ministers with a 2/3 majority vote and history has shown that they're willing and able to do so when the COM try and go against them on big issues.

    4. Re:Now just watch by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      Power in the EU is not with the parliament, but with the commission.

      This used to be the case, but is not true anymore, for almost a year now.

  26. Re:Wow, really impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the GP meant dishonest as in throwing the other voter opinion under the bus so to speak (and I hate that phrase). I kind of agree with him on supermajority (or 3/5ths) needed to qualify for "popular" status. In your example, I think the best decision would be to do a re-vote with the two highest candidates, but I won't argue voting methods. I would probably determine popularity by the voter margin between the winner and the next nearest candidate, i.e., if they are close apart then he isn't a popular choice.

  27. (Correction) by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wrote that the Commission withdrew the proposed directive. Seems I misremembered. What happened was that they changed the directive to a 'compromise' version that basically threw out all the amendment, and it ended up getting rejected.
    Point still stands anyway, the Council dumped all over parliament on the SW patent thing, and I've no reason to believe they'll do differently now.

  28. O Rly? by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Common sense in politics?
    Wasn't the end of the world said to be in 2012? ;)

    1. Re:O Rly? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. There's still no sign of common sense in the European Commission. The EP can afford common sense because they have so little power.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:O Rly? by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      The EP can afford common sense because they have so little power.

      That changed a year ago. Try to keep up.

  29. Re:Wow, really impressed by ZorroXXX · · Score: 1

    A candidate who wins election by 50.1% percent isn't popular even though he won.

    You are limiting your own imagination if you only assume two candidates when talking about an election. I hope that is not the case, that you just worded yourself so that it possible to interpret it that way.

    --
    When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
  30. Re:About to burn some karma, but... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Switch to Yahoo Search. The search results are just as good, it has that little more tab (the blue tab under the search box after you query) that gives you plenty of easy jump off points, and no irritating "instant search" baloney.

    As for TFA, considering from what had been leaked it was so one sided pro USA media cartels it wasn't even funny, I'm surprised it took this long. They'd have to be seriously bought and paid for to screw themselves so badly on a trade deal.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  31. Re:Time to segregate the Internet by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Many great classic rock bands seem to be composed of 4 or 5 Englishmen. :P There's that, at least. :)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  32. And where is the source for this??? by chx1975 · · Score: 1

    laquadrature is not the EU Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/focus_page/008-80686-195-07-29-901-20100714FCS78876-14-07-2010-2010/default_p001c001_en.htm mentions there will be talk on Wednesday but nothing more.

  33. Re:Time to segregate the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't being serious. A lot of ignorant people actually don't know that bands like the Beatles are from the UK. It has to be painfully obvious for them to realize non-locality, like with The Police for example.

    As for my "nothing of worth" comment, I think many foreign movies are better than ones produced here in the states. Off the top of my head, three are Mongol, The Red Baron (for fun, not accuracy), and North Face. A common mention is Let the Right One In. Foreign action movies like Ong-Bak and Chocolate probably got heavily pirated here. Plus, due to the foreign talent involved in music and films today, I think it's silly to call most productions as belonging to one particular country.

  34. Re:Wow, really impressed by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the UK, you can probably count on one hand the number of politicians who won an election with more than 50% of the vote. My MP got 34.7%, while the next-closest candidate got 33.2%. 50.1% means that you are more popular than all of the other candidates combined - it's a very healthy majority.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  35. President Obama won't get target GDP now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President Obama won't get target GDP that he promised now. ACTA was the only way he could grow the economy without actually creating jobs by ... er retaining the Bush tax cuts or lowering taxes so small biz can afford to actually hire people.

    A big THANK YOU to the EU ... again!

  36. Re:Time to segregate the Internet by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Yes, the sobriquet "lads from Liverpool" doesn't help if you don't know where Liverpool is. :)

    anyway, I sometimes tend to respond in kind to sarcasm and the like.

    I am not making the England/UK mistake BTW; none of these musicians happen to be from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. :P

    The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Judas Priest for more examples. Freddie Mercury was born outside England but lived in England, probably Queen too. :)

    I've been meaning to gather statistics on the national origin of my music collection

    Foreign films? Being extremely impressed with Kurosawa's ouevre comes to mind; I specifically saw Rashomon, 7 Samurai and Hidden Fortress, but I haven't gotten around to watching many movies since then of whatever nationality.

    You're right, there are definitional issues, my Freddie Mercury example being one.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  37. How ELSE can a corporation pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    other than pass them to customers? How else can it handle liability other than include its costs in the price of the product? How else can it pay license fees?

    It is a simple arithmetic fact that all of these raise the cost of the product. So would "drafting" the corporation to do anything other than the usual make-product-and-sell-it - the costs of doing this service on the side would raise the cost of the product. How do you expect these increases in costs NOT be reflected in the price?

    Of course, governments can fix prices, which results is worse, less or no product being made. If an activity is not profitable, why would people engage in it? They would take their energy and money elsewhere and do something else. The only way to prevent it is make the latter impossible, through economy-wide price controls and restrictions on production. Worked really well for the Eastern Bloc, too :-)

  38. free-market super-bureaucrat??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    must be a new European invention. Up next: moist fire, dry water, alcohol that makes you smarter.

    1. Re:free-market super-bureaucrat??? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In a region where the majority of citizens are not particularly friendly towards the idea of mostly unregulated markets, any significant push for free-market necessarily has to come from above and be enforced to remain, so the description makes sense.

  39. Turkey is in Europe by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Look at a map and read an history book...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  40. How exactly? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Political campaign spending is severely limited in most EU countries (in the UK political parties can't advertise in the media, which means parties are not in need of corruptive donations from corporations).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  41. just ignore him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    commodore64 love is a special kind of stupid.

  42. Std M$ trolling. by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    They must pay a bunch of people to post here, judging from the volume.

    Added to the S/N ratio a few years ago; one troll tribe among many, I'm afraid.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani