Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACTA Referred To Europe's Top Court For Analysis

Posted by Unknown on from the maybe-the-sky-isn't-falling dept.

superglaze writes "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is to get an extra level of scrutiny in the EU after the European Commission said it would refer ACTA to the European Court of Justice, to check that it really does comply with fundamental freedoms in the union. This obviously follows mass protests over ACTA, and it seems justice commissioner Viviane Reding was the one who pushed for ECJ scrutiny. It's not currently clear if this will delay the European Parliament ratification process, but it is hard to imagine the parliament voting on ACTA (scheduled for June at the moment) before the ECJ has had its say — and no-one can say right now how long that will take to happen."

12 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. Kill it by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    with fire. This thing needs to be buried and forgotten so we can be just as outraged at "ACTA 2.0; Now with a name to make you look like a pedo if you vote against it!"

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Kill it by Spottywot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fair point, but if it is stopped on a legal basis then surely whatever you call ACTA 2.0 it would have to differ in its content. If you simply rename it it could be stopped again under the same legal basis.

      --
      In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
    2. Re:Kill it by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Informative

      All you need to do is to smuggle it under the radar. ACTA has been in the works for years now. Only the recent SOPA protests have drawn eyes of crowds to it, and only that encouraged politicians to scrutinize the act for conflicts with existing bills of rights.

      Polish division of EFF got the government's declaration a YEAR ago that no step will be done towards accepting ACTA without getting it through a precise scrutinity. Then they outright broke the promise.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:Kill it by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm fairly certain that a team of lawyers could come up with some new terms for those which breached EU law which were ambiguous enough to not cause the same problems getting it through the ECJ, but have the same effect for the general public. "Lesser of Two Evils" is a political system for the US; I'm confident they can shoehorn enough weasel-words in.

      Then they'll rename it the Protecting Efforts to Distribute Offerings to Stabilised Current eUroprean Markets Act.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Kill it by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I find it interesting that even though the article (yes, I READ them!) says that ACTA is being sent to the courts for analysis and judgement, the writer of the article is already stating their position as if it were court-determined fact:

      ACTA will not censor websites or shut them down; ACTA will not hinder freedom of the internet or freedom of speech.

      Such concerns are precisely why ACTA is being submitted to the courts for review. With this comment posted in the article as if it were fact, it would seem to me that the author is hoping this is nothing more than a checklist review item for getting it passed. And I don't think it's fair to the public OR the courts to be making that recommendation or decision before the courts have done their due diligence.

      It would be as bad as Harper claiming that the Senate review of our (illegal!) Canadian ACTA legislation is "fine, but we need to dot our I's and cross our T's. The Canadian version includes DMCA-like clauses that violate a 50+ year history of Canadians being allowed to make back-ups of the media they own, and to format-shift it as well. Preventing people from using the tools needed to make those backups would be illegal, and our government has been notoriously silent about that issue here in Canada.

      They flat out don't want to talk about it. They wish a concerned public would just shut up and let the jackboots come down on their neck without question like good little sheeple.

      Thank God Canadians seem more interested in flagging the issues with all levels of government and media than our government is in hearing what the public has to say!

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    5. Re:Kill it by Wattos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a very unfair fight for us. The big coorps only need to get lucky once, while we have to keep our guard up all the time.

      To me it seems that it is only a matter of time until such a law passes, unless we change the way how copyright is handled.

  2. Dear *IAAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The people of the world have spoken. Your business model is flawed and obsolete. If you *truly* believe in capitalism half as much as you claim, you will accept that it is you who must adapt or die.

    1. Re:Dear *IAAs by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When Napster was all the rage, just about everyone in IT including the younger generation started sharing MP3s all over the world. On one hand, free music. Yeh! On the other, it was piracy and I really did feel bad for the industry. It wasn't hard to see how unsustainable wonton piracy would be. *IAAs have no choice but to adapt. The problem is that rather than take a rational approach with improved marketing and distribution, they decided to turn into one the largest litigation firms ever to sweep across America. That group was hellbent on screwing teenagers and their families financially while screwing the artists at the same time. A form of paper terrorism by making a nasty example out of a select few.

      As for me? I'm pretty rational about the whole thing. I'll purchase music online, collect used late 90s or earlier CDs, or hit up Pandora. But I don't pirate music. It's a scummy thing IMHO.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  3. Re:Could this be it for ACTA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a european, my personal take on this is that the EU commission is simply looking for a way to stall without looking bad in the process. In the last week, it became clear that ACTA would not simply pass through the parliaments (both national in some member states and the EU parliament), and by referring the whole thing to the court they are gaining time to work behind the curtains to see if they can get it passed, or maybe simply to stall until the public outrage is over an no one is interested in it anymore. And if in the end the court says that this treaty is not compatible with existing legislation, they can still quietly bury the whole thing.

  4. Just Smoke & Mirrors by mseeger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is just a move to get ACTA out of the public eye. The time should be used for further actions...

  5. ACTA is bad for so many reasons... by Tastecicles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...not least because of the implications of it.

    Forget actual copyright infringement claims for a moment, please, this isn't what it's about (ACTA or this rant).

    It's about Government intervention in content. Suffocation of the relation of ideas from brain A to brain B-Z and beyond, because someone doesn't like the idea that their vision of a society they have total control over is still somehow so far off, that they have to strangle freedom of expression any way they think they can get away with.

    Well, fuck you, I'll say what I like, because MY freedom to express myself in forums available to me trumps your claim of entitlement to my hard-earned whether or not I choose to buy the shite you peddle and try to pass off as art, and it certainly trumps your deluded perceptions of entitlement to freedom from being offended or your plans for total control of every minor aspect of my life being undermined. I will resist you because I am a Human Being with a Soul, with a sense of self responsibility and self governance; I do not need or want your unnecessary intrusion into my life, and ACTA represents something I DO NOT WANT NOR WILL I CONSENT TO.

    Sincerely,

    A CONTENT CREATOR.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  6. misdirection by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This move by the commission is not to get a critical review. The commission is the undemocratic EU-level force pushing ACTA forward. The (elected) parliament is the one that would rather not have ACTA and one of the few entities that put massive pressure on the secret negotiations and has repeatedly voiced its disgust with the secrecy of it all.

    This move by the commission is an attempt to put pressure on the EU parliament. If the court says that ACTA does not conflict with EU laws, then the parliament will have a harder time to justify voting against ACTA.

    By getting the court's opinion now, the commission is disarming the EU parliament, taking away one of their reasons to refuse.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org