Slashdot Mirror
ACTA Signed By 22 EU Countries
First time accepted submitter azrael29a writes "22 EU members signed the controversial ACTA treaty today in Tokyo. However, the signatures of the EU member states and the EU itself will count for nothing unless the European Parliament gives its approval to ACTA in June."
Just say no to ACTA.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
Sure, its my signature, but I take no responsibility for any decisions.
Gotta love politics.
A French MEP has quit the process of scrutinising ACTA for the European Parliament, calling the treaty's passage through the EU legislative system a masquerade.
In a statement on Thursday, Kader Arif denounced the signing of ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) by the EU and 21 member states earlier in the day. He said the European Parliament was being undermined and the process was a "charade" in which he would no longer participate.
(..)
"I want to denounce as the greatest of all the process that led to the signing of this agreement: no association of civil society, lack of transparency from the beginning of negotiations, successive postponements of the signing of the text without any explanation being given, setting aside the claims of the European Parliament [despite those views being] expressed in several resolutions of our Assembly," Arif said, according to an automated translation of his statement.
Arif said he had as rapporteur "faced unprecedented manoeuvres of the right of Parliament to impose an accelerated schedule to pass the agreement as soon as possible before the public is alerted, thereby depriving Parliament of its right of expression and the tools at its disposal to carry the legitimate demands of citizens".
(...)
"This agreement may [have a] major impact on the lives of our citizens, and yet everything is done [so that] the European Parliament has no say," Arif said. "I will not participate in this charade."
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/mep-quits-acta-charade-in-protest-at-eu-signing-10025297/
Dilbert RSS feed
https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA
Dilbert RSS feed
I am from Estonia and our internet community has managed to put the ACTA issues into the public debate here. The politicians still seem unwilling to tackle the issues raised; furthermore, it seems they were about to sign it without reading it - even to the point where our local RIAA lackey was the one explaining the "governments position" on the TV yesterday. I do not know where this will end and while our government seems to be afraid to say no, we will not go down without a fight.
FCKGW 09F9 42
According to this article (in french), the Member of the European Parliament in charge of the ratification process of ACTA, Mr Kader Arif, just resigned his position, saying that the whole process is just an anti-democratic farce.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
I'll have to admit, I'm having trouble understanding why so many nations want to sign this monstrosity. Why the US wants it globally accepted is obvious, we don't really manufacturer what we used to. A significant portion of our economy has moved to a creating ideas, instead of things, then selling those ideas at massively inflated prices. But why other nations would fight so hard to get this kind of thing implemented in their own countries, which won't benefit them, but in fact will likely be a determent to them, such treaties/legislation. Is there massive amounts of money paying off foreign politicians behind the scenes that I'm not seeing.
You're responding to a repaste of a classic troll post from ten years ago.
The last few months I have been doing some research into the trolling phenomenon on slashdot.org. In order to do this as thoroughly as possible, I have written both normal and troll posts, 1st posts, etc., both logged in and anonymously, and I have found these rather shocking results:
* More moderator points are being used to mod posts down than up. Furthermore, when modding a post up, every moderator seems to follow previous moderators in their choices, even when it's not a particularly interesting or clever post slashdot.org. There are a LOT more +5 posts than +3 or +4.
* Logged in people are modded down faster than anonymous cowards. Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)
* Once you have a karma of -4 or -5, your posts have a score of -1 by default. When this is the case, no-one bothers to mod you down anymore. This means a logged in user can keep on trolling as much as he (or she) likes, without risking a ban to post on slashdot. When trolling as an anonymous user, every post starts at score 0, and you will be modded down to -1 ON EVERY POST. When you are modded down a certain number of times in 24 hour, you cannot post anymore from your current IP for a day or so. So, for successful trolling, ALWAYS log in.
* A lot of the modded down posts are actually quite clever, funny, etc., and they are only modded down because they are offtopic. Now, on a news site like slashdot, where the number of different topics of discussion can be counted on 1 hand, I must say I quite like the distraction these posts offer. But no, when the topic is yet another minor version change of the Linux kernel, they only expect ooohs and aaahs about this great feat of engineering. Look at the moderation done in this thread to see what I mean.
Digging deep into the history of slashdot, I found this poll, which clearly indicates the vast majority does NOT want the moderation we have here today. 'nuff said.
Feel free to use this information to your advantage. I thank you for your time.
Anonymous cowards are... well, cowards.
I think that your results aren't shocking at all, nor are they interesting.
1) More of your posts are modded down than up because, as you say, you write troll posts. I have 10 posts modded up per post modded down, and yes, when I get modded down it's normally because I'm in a bad mood and decide to be a jerk.
2) Many moderators seem to read at +1, so they don't even see things that come from unmoderated ACs. Furthermore, when I moderate I tend not to bother modding down an AC for being off topic, for instance, because at 0 the AC probably won't be noticed enough to derail meaningful discussion. If a registered user with good karma posts something quite off topic, there's more of a reason to down moderate because at 2 it's more of a speed bump than the same post made by an AC at 0.
3) So? Why should anyone care?
4) This last point depends on your personal ability to evaluate whether things are clever, funny, etc. Based your post, I don't think you're likely to be a valuable resource in this regard.
It's almost like you're trying to insinuate that moderators act in some sort of diabolical cooperation. This obviously isn't the case. Slashdot uses crowd sourced moderation, which is what makes it Slashdot. More valued members of the community try to maintain the standards of that community. I actually think Slashdot moderation is one of the most functional things in the history of the internet.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of corporate rule.
Ha ha, just kidding. I'm sure the EP will fight for the rights of its people. :-D
Borrowing Animal Farm:
"And then they looked from the government to the corporation, from the corporations back to the government, and they were unable to tell the difference."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I was looking for a particularly good piece on the ACTA entitled "How the ACTA kills your job" (in quotes search). The page(s) does not exist according to google or the site(s) is down. Also the media seems to think that this is a copyright/Internet related issues only (with Anonymous playing a big role???). Is there a good piece that describes how it would affect other aspects of our life in the media such as generic drugs, seeds, patents and even surveillance by ISPs and file sharing?
Society use your Sciences
Since it's a treaty, like NAFTA, it's far easier to implement, far harder to challenge in court, and more powerful than an act of Congress. And it's global.
ACTA vs. SOPA: Five Reasons ACTA is Scarier Threat to Internet Freedom from the International Business Times:
The SOPA bill was derailed because it required both houses of the U.S. Congress to pass it, and for President Barack Obama to sign it. Once approved, it would have been subject to challenge and could have been changed by future congresses.
ACTA, on the other hand, was already signed by the United States on Oct. 11, 2011, and Obama was not required to get the approval of any outside authority to do so: not the Congress, not the Supreme Court, and not the American public.
Now that it has been signed, the legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government also have little ability to challenge or amend the treaty, and Americans would be subject to a whole new scheme of laws, restrictions and regulations that could have them facing fines or jail through a process that would likely exist entirely outside the scope of the American justice system.
I can see the fnords!
You seem to have missed the part where the Senate has to vote to accept any treaty. Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate unanimously rejected it anyway.
Fuck Austria. Fuck Australia. Fuck Belgium. Fuck Bulgaria. Fuck Canada. Fuck the Czech Republic. Fuck Denmark. Fuck Finland. Fuck France. Fuck Greece. Fuck Hungary. Fuck Ireland. Fuck Italy. Fuck Japan. Fuck Latvia. Fuck Lithuania. Fuck Luxemburg. Fuck Malta. Fuck Morocco. Fuck New Zealand. Fuck Poland. Fuck Portugal. Fuck Romania. Fuck Singapore. Fuck Slovenia. Fuck South Korea. Fuck Spain. Fuck Sweden. Fuck the UK. Fuck the USA.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
if you are situated on an eu member country, or, live/work in an eu member country, or, is employed by a company that is registered inside eu, you have the right to petition european parliament. you also have the right if you are citizen of a country that is an official candidate for eu.
Petition euparl from below link. tell them to fuck this shit :
https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/petition.html
this is no joke petition - its official petition form of euparl itself. just drop your real name, address while petitioning.
Read radical news here
What I find odd is that Germany didn't sign it. That's the biggest economic power in the EU. I'd like to see the reason for that.
I think you've answered your own question. They are solidly standing on their own feet, and thus are less willing to bend over in response to bullying.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
That legal analysis is incomplete and misleading. In the United States, laws and treaties get their power based on the Constitution and the number of branches of government that sign off on it. So here they are:
1. The Constitution is always the top and anything inconsistent with it is void. Only the People have the power to change the Constitution.
2. Two signatory branches. These are things that have been approved (or in the case of bills overridden of veto power) by two branches usually Laws and Treaties. If two of these conflict, the earlier in time is void; although the usual practice is to say they don't conflict. So, if you don't like a treaty, a law has to be passed to get rid of it or another treaty put in place to override it (in many cases, the government just stops enforcing it, but it is still on the books until one of the former happen). Also, anything below that conflicts with this level is also void.
3. One signatory branch. These are things that have been approved by one branch. These are things like resolutions or executive agreements. If two things at this level conflict, then the earlier one is void. However, you also need to take in account as to whether the branch in question had power to enact it. Additionally, if the action conflicts with any of the above, then it is also void.
4. No signatory branch. These are things that have not been approved by any branch. They lose to any of the above.
With the ACTA, having been signed by the president is at level (3). This means that all the legislature has to do is try to pass a law to get rid of ACTA or refuse to enact those laws. The President cannot force them to enact laws through a level 3 action; however, the various government agencies will be required to carry it out until something of a higher priority or same priority at a later time happens.
Additionally, some of the doom and gloom proposed under this treaty are not legal scenarios because the Constitution always wins, and many laws on the books prevent them, which beat ACTA (unless it is ratified).
The wealthy members of every nation are, naturally, united in their desire to remain wealthy. The introduction of globally-enforced artificial scarcity appears to be a great way of doing that. It isn't like the wealthy members of EU would rather see ACTA vanish, but are bowing their heads in submission to America. They are happily jumping at the chance to enter into such an agreement, because it directly benefits them. Or so they think.
Such oppression will only fan the flames of rebellion, and law enforcement will always have limits.
It can be used as a form of population control.
Like someone else already pointed out here, in Russia, if you are anti-Putin, you are claimed to be against copyright and your computers will be seized.
The same things will take place elsewhere, too.
All these, ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, whatever, they aim for only one purpose: cement the current ruling class and elite into place. This is done by getting tools with which to fight any incumbents.
Currently the tools must be hidden with "helps copyright", "thinks of children", and such lies. Later, when any opposition can just be thrown to jail, these lies will not be needed. Reading the news and history books on your iPad will not show a trace of these people or their ideology.
And for US citizens, you can sign a petition to challenge ACTA after being signed into law as an executive agreement -- which doesn't require approval -- when it covers intellectual property, which requires ratification in Congress.
I think you're making an unsupported leap there in that "doesn't require approval". TechDirt suggests that that could be true, but doesn't say it's more than "a pretty strong argument".
It's also an incorrect argument. Contrary to what TechDirt thinks about ACTA, it's non-implementing. In that sense, it's exactly the same as TRIPs, which was also an "executive agreement... cover[ing] intellectual property," but was never ratified by Congress. Instead, Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which implemented the agreement in TRIPs.
Same thing here... there's no requirement that ACTA be ratified by Congress, because ACTA doesn't actually set or modify any statutes. Instead, it places obligations on the country to write statutes granting certain minimum levels of protection. Congress will have to pass bills doing so, so it's not as if anything is implemented by ACTA without Congress' approval.
And that's going to be the White House's answer to any petition demanding ACTA be ratified by the Congress. There's no requirement, and Congress can weigh in when they write an implementing act.
You must be new here.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Not quite.
The Senate has the power to approve treaties that the President makes:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Under long-established judicial precedent, the Supremacy clause is interpreted to mean that the later-in-time treaty or law is the one which is in effect under domestic (United States) law when the two conflict:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Thus a treaty approved by the senate can override other laws. They often do not, because most treaties are not "self-executing." If they are not self-executing, they create an obligation under international law but do not become law under the domestic laws of the United States. In this case, failure to pass a law enacting the treaty means (in the absence of an exception in the treaty) that the United States is in violation of international law.
Disclaimer: obviously, if any of this matters to you, hire a lawyer skilled in public international law and United States Constitutional Law.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
You seem to have missed the part where the Senate has to vote to accept any treaty. Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate unanimously rejected it anyway.
Except he may have signed it as an executive agreement and not as a treaty.
http://www.webpronews.com/president-obama-doesnt-support-sopa-but-signs-acta-2012-01
There are many issues involved with President Obama’s signing of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement — which occurred in September 2011 — and whether or not it should be treated as an executive agreement or an actual treaty between the agreeing countries. With an executive agreement, the President does not require the approval of the Senate, whereas, with a treaty, Senate approval is required. That, however, is not the issue, especially when you consider the initial zeal with which the both houses of the U.S. Government supported SOPA and PIPA.