Slashdot Mirror


The Netherlands Rejects ACTA, and Does One Better

New submitter Peetke writes "The Dutch House of Representatives unanimously accepted a motion to urge the Cabinet to reject ACTA [Dutch original] (if they ever get the change to do so; it may already end in the European Parliament). Additionally, an even stronger motion was accepted to reject any future treaty that may harm a free and open Internet. This is a good day for the Internet."

38 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate to be a cynic, but I have a funny feeling that the EU (or some treaty agreement or trade deal) will just force you to implement it later. And the government will cave, of course, with politicians giving the excuse "Well, it was out of our hands." The RIAA/MPAA and their ilk are quite relentless. If you defeat them in one piece of legislation, they just quietly sneak the same provisions into some new law, treaty, or requirement. Eventually they find a way to get either de jure or de facto enforcement one way or another, usually the with public completely unaware of what's even happening until it's too late. And if your country supports extradition to the U.S., they don't even need your law--they can just use U.S. law.

    Do you think the U.S. public would have ever approved of the DMCA if they had actually known about it--if it hadn't been quietly slipped in as part of a treaty that was negotiated behind closed doors, that no one outside of Washington even knew about until it was signed? Sleazing around behind the curtains is what these guys do best.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by jakimfett · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But hey, if they'll just get you eventually, why fight it at all?

      I figure...fight it today, fight it tomorrow, and hope that someone will fight it when I'm gone.

      That being said, I'm not going to stop my work on a self repairing mesh darknet. Fight now, plan for contingencies in the future.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    2. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That being said, I'm not going to stop my work on a self repairing mesh darknet. Fight now, plan for contingencies in the future.

      You, sir, are a hero.

    3. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by jakimfett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You, sir, are a hero.

      Nah, I'm no hero, I just dislike the thought of the internet being restricted. Because as soon as they can restrict it, they will use restriction as a way of enforcing things.
      "Oh, you don't agree with [insert elected leader's name]'s policies? Well, say goodbye to your internet access..."

      Plus, it may not even work. (it does use a Raspberry Pi as the processing unit though, so chances of success are higher than they might have been.)

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    4. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that's all it did, you'd be correct.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    5. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The continuing problem with the DMCA is the unwillingness to enforce penalties on people or companies who fraudulently submit takedown notices over things that aren't infringing (see today's related Techdirt story).

      If you submit a takedown notice, and you sign or check a box saying "I swear under penalty of perjury", and you're wrong, then where are all the perjury charges?

    6. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by citizenr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DMCA really isn't that bad

      FUCK YOU

      It provides a way for artists to protect their copyright over their work

      Im sorry, I didnt realize Corporations were artists now.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    7. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by Hentes · · Score: 2

      Quick and easy way of dealing with these things, rather than being drug to court.

      I'm sure that it's much quicker and easier for the plaintiff not having to go to court and actually proving their claims, but personally I would prefer to have my right to due process.

    8. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The DMCA only protects their copyrights by trespassing the very grounds of our justice system. It is not guilty until proven innocent, sir; it's innocent until proven guilty. Do not sacrifice this most valuable of ethics because you perceive it as reasonable. There is no reason to be found in the DMCA, and contorting our system of law for the whims of profit only undermines the liberty and security for us all.

      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      - Benjamin Franklin

    9. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 2

      If you publish and make your work freely available, it may help others build a working system even if you fail or find you don't need it.

    10. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by Elldallan · · Score: 3, Informative

      As long as ACTA(or any furture replacements) require changing the treaties establishing the European Union(which the current implementation would almost certainly require) every single Member State must ratify it for it to be recognized and thus any single parliament or public vote can strike it down.

      Another thing is that valid decisions at EU level does not automatically translate into law in the Member States, they just require the Member States to enact laws in accordance with that decision(for example the Data Retention Directive), failure to do will result in fines but on the other hand if a major national Parliament is clear that it is completely unwilling to enact such a law the Commission/European Parliament is much less likely to enshrine such decisions.

    11. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by jakimfett · · Score: 2

      ...publish and make your work freely available...

      My philosopy with pretty much everything. Don't worry, as soon as I have a working prototype, I plan on telling everyone.

      (Incidentally, I have a tech blog and a twitter account, both of which contain my sporadic ramblings about random bits of tech, and will be where anything I discover/create will be announced. Don't hold your breath though, I have a life outside of technology...)

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    12. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might not be that bad IF it had actually enforced provisions to penalize people sending DMCA notices when none of their copyrights are being infringed. Even better if the site was not to be taken down at all until an adequate amount of time passes for a response.

      That and remove the anti-circumvention provisions. A tool is not a crime even if it can be used to commit one.

    13. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by hobarrera · · Score: 3, Informative

      So DMCA lets suposed copyright holders act without due process. Great, we never needed due process anyway, right? If someone sends a notice, it must be right, there's no way it can be mistaken.

      Also, making my own program to view DVDs I legally buyed is surely a bad thing, so it's ok if I'm banned from developing and distributing my own.

    14. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here in the Netherlands Internet has become a primary good (A good that is required to be living in the Netherlands). Maybe this is not encoded yet officially in law; but the government requires its citizens to file their taxes through the Internet.

      If you would be cut off the internet by a law like ACTA you would have a good case of not having to pay income tax anymore since you would not be able to file them. *This would only work for people who are self employed, since people who work for a boss already pay all their income taxes.

      In case you are wondering; it is not possible to use a paper form to fill in your income taxes anymore.

    15. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      The RIAA/MPAA and their ilk are quite relentless

      The opponents of freedom and democracy usually are. I don't think it's that they're "relentless," I think it's more that we're comparatively lazy in defending our rights.

      "Censorship on the internet again?! MAN! I just e-mailed my senator about SOPA a month ago!"

    16. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by jakimfett · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you just want to get stuff related to the self repairing wireless mesh darknet, go take a look at darkpi.com

      Other than that...the blog or twitter is the best way to keep up on what I do. Updates may be scarce in the next month-ish, as I'm getting married in late June, and planning a wedding is a task I would not wish on my worst enemy.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    17. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 2

      That's not how the DMCA works. You need to provide literally no proof that the content is infringing your copyright. Such is the case of Megaupload: http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-video-reinstated-universal-says-you-cant-touch-us-111216/.

      And no, the constitution doesn't nullify anything Franklin has said. You may accuse someone of copyright infringement, but they are not guilty UNTIL they are proved to be guilty by due process. The DMCA makes due process look like a joke, allowing corporations like Universal Music to run rampant.

      If due process and burden of proof gets in the way of making money then you're free to run your business somewhere that doesn't have those horrid obstacles. I hear North Korea is nice this time of year.

    18. Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Wow you got angry to the point of inducing typos...

      Calm down sailor. Did this artist not have any rights before the DMCA?

      All the DMCA did was make it painfully easy to fuck anyone up with a mere accusation rather than going through appropriate channels.

      Now do you want me to link you to the countless thousands of articles where the DMCA was destructive in order to counterpoint your SINGLE case of an artist actually defending their work?

      The funny part is that the artist used the DMCA, and is NOW GETTING SUED. If the artist was a corporation, they would crush their opponent in court with massive legal fees. Since the subject is a lowly artist, THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO ASSERT THEIR COPYRIGHT.

      If you seriously think the DMCA is helping artists in any way shape or form, you're out to lunch in a catastrophic way. I hope for your sake you come to your senses sooner than later.

  2. ACTA needs to go to the Senate by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why doesn't our president let the Senate vote on ACTA? He's holding the people hostage to a treaty that he signed, and is enforcing upon us, but has never been ratified.

    As for the EU: I agree with the other poster they'll just pass ACTA later as some other form (probably through the unelected politburo or apparatchiks). Look how the EU overruled the French Assembly's banning of GM foods within its juris diction..... the 25 nations are not even states anymore. They are EU provinces. They have less power than a US state. Sad, sad times for our European cousins.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Informative

      As for the EU: I agree with the other poster they'll just pass ACTA later as some other form (probably through the unelected politburo or apparatchiks).

      What a bunch of bullshit. If the Netherlands put criteria into their constitutions that prohibit ACTA-like legislations, it will be impossible to introduce it, unless you have a large majority to retract the amendment to the constitution. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-13886440

      Look how the EU overruled the French Assembly's banning of GM foods within its juris diction.

      That's not what happened. France asked the EU to also apply their ban EU-wide, which was declined, as most other states allow it and there is no evidence was provided that that particular food being harmful. GM is prohibited or restricted in plenty of European countries. In fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms#Europe starts with "The European Union (EU) has possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world.", a thorn in the eyes of the US.
      If there had been evidence of harm, it would have stood a chance of being prohibited EU-wide.

      The EU countries agreed that ACTA was a good idea, now they (or some) realise it isn't, so they have to find a way to retract from their agreement. But if you come together, agree and shake hands, and later change your mind, you better have a process to re-negotiate.

      That is true on the one side inside the EU, but also if the EU now finds that they want to decline ACTA, they have to retract their signature they gave to the other countries in the world (again, process needed).

      EU countries are doing better than those countries around the world that agreed to ACTA, as they managed to get a discussion going and get momentum of their citizens. It very much looks like ACTA is going to be declined, because our politicians (state and EU level) see and react to what the citizens want.

      The 25 nations are not even states anymore. They are EU provinces. They have less power than a US state. Sad, sad times for our European cousins.

      Do US states have their own army? Do they have diplomatic relations with foreign countries? Do they sign trade agreements with foreign countries? What happens if one US state doesn't implement or follow the legislation given by the federation?

      US states are more like the counties in Germany than countries. EU legislation (actually directives) rarely does more than summarize common laws between countries, and then it is voted for by those countries, not some foreign entity.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Actually, US States do have their own army. The National Guard units, when not Federalized, are under the direct command of the state Governor, who can call them out on his own authority for various tasks. I grant you, this does not mean they get to run their own foreign policy, but they are the same units that go to Iraq and Afghanistan, so they are definitely real soldiers. They even get tanks and F-22s.

      Of course, I don't agree with the idea that EU countries are states. That's silly. However, they could end up that way pretty easily, given enough time.

    3. Re:ACTA needs to go to the Senate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      (I studied Politics in The Hague, and did pass the Constitutional Law exam)

      The Dutch Constitution (Grondwet) is without doubt a constitution that Americans would recognize. In fact, whereas the US constitution Article One does define institutions, Article One of the Dutch Constitution states unambiguously that all citizens shall be treated equally before the law (which is the 14th Amendment to the US constitution).

      Furthermore, the Dutch constitution has special political protection: It can only be changed by repeated votes with an intermediate election, and requires a supermajority (2/3) on the second vote. This intermediate election gives electors sufficient chance to vote in a blocking minority.

      Constitutionality of other laws is certainly relevant in Dutch courts, but the primary decision is left to the Chambers of Parliament and not a Supreme Court. However, these ordinary laws have to be interpreted in context of the constitution. Any ambiguity has to be resolved in favor of constitutional law. (This is called lex superior, and is part of a set of ambiguity rules which also include lex specialis and lex posterior)

  3. Envy by bhagwad · · Score: 3, Informative

    I writhe with jealousy at the enlightened governments in the EU. Compare that to our clueless Indian government that wants to control the Internet despite not knowing how, and you can sympathize with me.

  4. if they ever get the change to do so by noh8rz3 · · Score: 3, Funny
    ftfs:

    if they ever get the change to do so

    I hope that the dutch parliament can find the change to pass this resolution! It sounds like the parliament is coin-operated. Have they looked between the couch cushions?

    1. Re:if they ever get the change to do so by noh8rz3 · · Score: 2

      dude, i was just riffing on a typo. the intended meaning, which you repeat, is clear.

  5. Germany will do everything necessasry... by Tanuki64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to support the USA in their fight against weapons of mass destructions in the Netherlands.

    1. Re:Germany will do everything necessasry... by azalin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You should have picked the UK, because Germany didn't believe that WMD crap the last time and has Pirate Party members sitting in state parliaments. The Germans get along quite well with the dutch as long as no football is involved.

  6. Clearly this is an act of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Send in Don Quixote!
    Only he can challenge their army of windmills.

    (hey, if nothing else, "Don Quixote vs. the Dutch" is a better plot than most of what the MPAA has been making in the last 30 years)

  7. One of many reasons by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've invested a lot in the Netherlands over the years; those investments have paid off really well. So did money I put into Canadian stock fund.

    Funny how those darn socialist countries continue kicking the crap out the USA, where we're always number one in our own minds.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:One of many reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Netherlands isn't socialist by any non-USian definition. According to Wikipedia, we're actually the oldest capitalist nation in the world. But don't let facts get in the way of a good quip.

  8. This is a good day for the Internet... by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...if you are Dutch.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:This is a good day for the Internet... by kamukwam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...if you are Dutch.

      ... if you live in the Netherlands.

    2. Re:This is a good day for the Internet... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2

      No, every country voting against this makes it easier to have public discussions about this topic in other countries. If they'd all operate in lockstep, if they'd all implement 3-strike laws and other nonsense, then it would appear normal to the population. The Netherlands are not the first country to reject ACTA, but they help all of us by doing so. Good for them and good for us. As far as internet freedom goes, we are all in this together.

      Every country promoting that freedom helps internet users in other countries as well, every country trying to abolish that freedom does harm to all of us. It affects us all, because that's one more or one less country which can legally host servers where free speech is possible. It affects us all because it's one more example that internet freedom is possible, or one more example that restrictions are normal.

  9. Cue US Special Watch list ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, this will mean the Americans will put the Netherlands on the "Priority Watch List".

    Which is fine, since it's mostly a government talking piece put together by industry lobbying groups.

    According to Michael Geist, we ignore it too because it's drivel:

    In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.

    Me, I think it's time more countries stood up and said they don't want to be controlled by the US content industry and lobby groups.

    Saying you don't want to risk a free and open internet is a good thing. Saying you're not willing to be bound by what American corporations want (which is the whole purpose of this stupid Name and Shame watch list) is also a good thing.

    This whole stupid treaty is hypocrisy -- censorship is bad, unless you're doing it because we said so, mostly to protect corporate profits.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Cue US Special Watch list ... by future+assassin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The MAIN reason Canada is on there is because Wikileaks cables revealed The Harper gov asked to be put onto this list. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/07/canada-to-u-s-please-blacklist-us/ That's right the same Harper Gov that is about to introduce an one sided Copyright Law favouring non Canadian corporate entities.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  10. Re:The same government... by azalin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They did not limit their citizens access to it, they just didn't want to be Europe's official drug shopping mall anymore.

  11. We are winning by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't get us tomorrow. Time is on our side. Nature is on our side. They've been fighting losing battles against technology since the 19th century. They fought against the player piano, AM radio, and cassette tapes and the VCR. They lost. They'd like to kill the public library and the used bookstore, but they aren't strong enough to pull that off. That they "sleaze around behind the curtains" is a sign of how truly weak they and their positions are.

    We shouldn't take this lying down of course. No laws can stop this digital revolution, but they can do a lot of collateral damage. Shooting down ACTA unanimously is exactly what needs to happen. They and others who'd like to pull similar stunts must be made to understand that we will not submit to such extreme control, and we aren't fooled by language designed to make it sound like a noble attempt at protecting property rights or children. Unworkable and unenforceable plans meant to attain impossible goals is a terrible reason to turn entire nations into police states constantly snooping on all private communication in order to detect copyright infringement, and worse, stopping and forbidding private communication as punishment for mere unproven allegations. I'd like to see things go further, and have these cartels sued for racketeering and corruption for even trying this ACTA nonsense and all the other things they've done. They should stand trial for DVD region encoding, for instance. For DMCA, ACTA and 3 strikes laws, they should face charges for attempting to suppress free speech, and something similar to interfering with the delivery of mail, as well as the racketeering charges.

    Big Media doesn't show proper respect for the people. They and their lawyers also ought to face barratry or SLAPP charges for suing, well, everyone. Hit them hard with fines, and jail time. When they fear to lobby for such extreme measures, fear it so much that they won't dare try it, then we'll have made good progress. Ultimately, freedom to communicate should be as firmly enshrined in law as freedom of speech and religion. The whole point of the US Postal Service being under direct government control was to head off the possibility of commercial interests being in a position to abuse the need to communicate for rent seeking and monopoly schemes. No greedy, control freak cartel leaders should have any reason whatsoever to hope they can dictate what, how, and whether we shall communicate.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"