Slashdot Mirror


EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Ignore Any Rejection of ACTA

Dupple tips a story at Techdirt about comments from EU commissioner Karel De Gucht, who made some discouraging remarks to the EU International Trade committee about the opposition to ACTA: "If you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me tell you that the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the current procedure before the Court, as we are entitled to do. A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice. ... If the Court questions the conformity of the agreement with the Treaties we will assess at that stage how this can be addressed." De Gucht also spoke about proposing clarifications to ACTA if Parliament declined to ratify it, which, as Techdirt points out, doesn't make much sense: "Remember that ACTA is now signed, and cannot be altered; so De Gucht is instead trying to fob off European politicians with this vague idea of 'clarifications' — as if more vagueness could somehow rectify the underlying problems of an already dangerously-vague treaty."

182 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. As an American... by Das+Auge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an American: at least he's honest about it. My politicians just issue bald-faced lies.

    1. Re:As an American... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thats because if they did that here, people have GUNS.

    2. Re:As an American... by BMOC · · Score: 1

      It's not a lie if they don't read the legislation in the first place. Incompetence is the simpler explanation.

      --
      I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
    3. Re:As an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They do in Europe, too. Some countries more so than others, but there are "law abiding citizens" that legally possess guns (or can get black market ones too, probably easier there than in the US).

    4. Re:As an American... by lennier · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thats because if they did that here, people have GUNS.

      And your politicians have nukes. Your move.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    5. Re:As an American... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      When the merd' hits the fan, the soldiers will refuse to nuke Americans. The gun owners will ultimately win.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:As an American... by BMOC · · Score: 1

      Uh, did you just suggest that a politicians response to assassination would be to nuke a town in his own country? What is this, the 1970s? Governments have much cleaner things to use against troublesome populations in this modern age, like identity theft and eminent domain.

      --
      I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
    7. Re:As an American... by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It's because people have the vote. Being honest won't get them (re-)elected (and breaking their promises won't get them shot, and have little impact on their electability). The EU commissioners have no such democratic problem.

    8. Re:As an American... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As practiced by the Legislative Branch of the U.S., incompetence is so intentional and willful that it rises past the level of mere picayune lying and to the heights of wholesale reality-denial. A malignant and cynical form of wishful thinking, if you will.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:As an American... by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No worries, these people will be labeled something among the lines of "terrorists, pedophiles, liberals, wing nuts" or whatever other term will be deemed valid and hostile enough by spin doctors writing speeches for modern leaders.

      Then most of the sheep will happily nuke the "enemies of the state" into the oblivion.

    10. Re:As an American... by Velex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's that got to do with it? Why would gun owners invoke the 2nd Amendment to defend a bunch of long-haired hippies who want to steal American Property?

      Especially after acquiescing to the Patriot Act and airport scanners that administer a dangerous dosage of radiation as a routine measure?

      No, my friend, I'm afraid that I've yet to see the 2nd Amendment get invoked for any other reason than to kill brown people and fags except maybe the Civil War. And after the New Deal, the reasons for the secession of the Confederate States look like gripes that could be solved over an afternoon tea.

      Your internet tough guy argument fails. Even after all the shortwave saber rattling I used to believe in and follow when I was growing up, the American people remain hopelessly cowed.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    11. Re:As an American... by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      But she was shot simply because Loughner was nuts. It likely had nothing to do with her specific voting record.

      Similarly, Reagan was shot because Hinckley was trying to impress Jody Foster.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:As an American... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an American: at least he's honest about it. My politicians just issue bald-faced lies.

      He's not being honest because it's virtuous; He's being honest because there's no consequences for him doing it. Our politicians lie their asses off when it suits them just like yours. He just knows there's no fight left in the general population. Don't go getting funny ideas about how our politicians are somehow special... they were bought and paid for same as yours, and probably by the same people.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    13. Re:As an American... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Will the soldiers be told who they are nuking? Can the launch operators see what their missile is targeted at, or can this information be faked?

      Imagine a soldier gets the news that N Korea just nuked S Korea and Japan, and is ordered to launch his nuke, which then just happens to 'miss' and hit California.

    14. Re:As an American... by publiclurker · · Score: 3, Informative

      then they'll just use something a little less powerful than a nuke, but a lot more powerful than your strap-on manhood.

    15. Re:As an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love gun nut response like this. It's so cute that they think their little guns discourage the government in any way.

      Never heard of Athens, TN?

    16. Re:As an American... by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Switzerland they force you to own an assault rifle. By law.

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:As an American... by MrHanky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most politicians lie and break many of the promises they make. Few of them get killed. An armed populace isn't a significant deterrent, although chest-thumping morons will claim otherwise.

    18. Re:As an American... by Elldallan · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the other hand the European Commission has no legislative power, it only has legislative initiative and as such can only suggest laws.
      Only the European Parliament which is democratically elected can actually enact laws.
      ACTA is currently making it's way through the various committees which act in an advisory manner to the Parliament, said committees have no power and the Commission is merely saying that it will not withdraw ACTA before it has made it's way through the various committees and the European Court of Justice and will eventually be voted upon by the Parliament but if the result in Parliament is a negative vote that effectively kills ACTA within the EU unless the Commission renegotiates ACTA and sends it on another round through the system.

    19. Re:As an American... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Red Dawn.. nuff said

    20. Re:As an American... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Will the soldiers be told who they are nuking? Can the launch operators see what their missile is targeted at, or can this information be faked?

      Pretty much, no. The information can't be faked. The launch officer is the last guy in the chain that knows his bird's target.

      Note that this is also pretty much irrelevant for ICBMs, since retargeting them is NOT quick. And you really can't do it without the cooperation of the chain of command.

      Who won't. Cooperate, I mean.

      Imagine a soldier gets the news that N Korea just nuked S Korea and Japan, and is ordered to launch his nuke, which then just happens to 'miss' and hit California.

      Two man rule applies, as I recall. More realistically, Three (or five+) Man rule, in that the two men have to give an order to a general, who will then pass the order along to a colonel, who will pass it to a major.

      The list of guys who can be the Two Men is pretty short, I understand. I expect Panetta can be the Second Man, but I doubt Hillary could, for instance.

      Note also that something like this won't happen out of the blue. California would have to be in open rebellion for a while first, and by then the military would be pretty well split already - and not inclined to fire nukes at anyone.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:As an American... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pretty much, no. The information can't be faked. The launch officer is the last guy in the chain that knows his bird's target.

      I would have thought the target would be the last guy in the chain to know the target.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    22. Re:As an American... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Maybe, if you paid attention to the war 'twix the states, you would understand that, yes, they would nuke Americans. The drones should be a small hint of what the soldiers will do to Americans

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:As an American... by qeveren · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Soldiers are trained to obey orders. I wouldn't bet your life on "US soldiers won't fire upon US civilians", since they've happily done so before.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    24. Re:As an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am a Belgian, De Gucht is Belgian, I am certainly ashamed.

      I can also assure you that this man whilst not a dumb man at all, knows squat about the internet and what is important in the case of acta. He is in a party that is mostly for business, low taxes, austerity... you get the picture.

      He is just clueless, and probably listening to some corporate lobbyist/thinktank/colleague that is telling him what to do with a problem he does not understand. He probably thinks he is helping the economy by protecting intellectual property.

      Our politicians are simply too old it seems to understand the internet. I equate his comments t a series of tubes.

    25. Re:As an American... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is happening is a government agency is wasting taxpayer dollars attempting to force through something everyone already democratically opposes to suit one small corrupting segment of the market. What should happen is the idiot should be fired, as they do not have the right to waste taxpayer dollars on things only on small part of the market is interested in when major parts of the market have already expressed their opposition and that opposition has extended out to democracies within EU. You basically have one paid off asshat who has publicly stated that they will exploit a loophole to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in attempting to force through the interests of minor corrupt part of the market. So how much money will be wasted in all of this, somewhere between one million and ten million dollars, just burned away by one paid off dick head on a power trip, this person desperately needs to be fired.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    26. Re:As an American... by ldobehardcore · · Score: 1

      You might survive the blast. I think it's a given you'll be exposed to lethal or nearly lethal radiation from the Davey Crockett. The fallout too. The Davey Crockett is a suicide bomb in my book.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    27. Re:As an American... by no-body · · Score: 2

      Thats because if they did that here, people have GUNS.

      Total BS - it's hypnotized by money, brainwashed by TV, the guns are just some toy to make boys look a bit more macho. The upper guys do what they want and no gun has any effect whatsoever at this point in time.

      Things would look very different otherwise.

      Holy GUN - yeah, BS!

    28. Re:As an American... by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      Only the European Parliament which is democratically elected can actually enact laws.

      That is wrong. The council (that is, ministries from member countries) also play a role. There are subjects where council and parliament have to agree in order to enact a directive, but there are also subjects where the council trumps the parliament, and others where the parliament is not involved at all.

      The council is the executive branches of member countries, and it acts as a legislative entity at the UE level. This is a huge issue for power separation.

    29. Re:As an American... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Then you missed the entire point of 9/11. I buy the false flag theory much more than the Arab terrorist with the indestructible passport fairytale. By making sure the general population is scared witless by the notion that a "terrorist" can strike anytime, anywhere, it's not too difficult then to get them to surrender their God-given liberties and rights for the mere *illusion* of security.

      They deserve neither and will lose both. By the time they realise that their every movement and thought is controlled by the Few (forget the 1% shit, that's all it is, shit), it's already too late and they're even more indentured than when they started.

      It's time we all came to the realisation that we are not free. Any of us. You think a prisoner in a jail is a prisoner? He's more free than *anyone* on the outside. He gets all his meals - paid for - all his medical needs - paid for - all his entertainment - paid for - the roof over his head - paid for - all the sex he could handle (beggars can't be choosy). The first step in freeing yourself from the shackles of total control is realising that you are all totally controlled.

      Here's a clue to the kind of totality of control you're all under: George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Queen Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha. J.G. Artigas. John Redman Bovell. What can you do in modern Western culture without money? Answer: not a great deal these days.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    30. Re:As an American... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      The Davey Crockett is a suicide bomb in my book.

      Indeed, It's named after a name who died to slightly delay a superior enemy force. Seems quite appropriate to me.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    31. Re:As an American... by Kokuyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Only if you're male and deemed fit to serve in the militia. And they're trying to change that now. Of course there's a lot of opposition. People pro army rifle often state that Switzerland enjoys the liberties it has exactly because the population is armed to the teeth.

      The people for taking the rifles away say that every misuse or accident is one too many. Personally, I think both sides have it wrong, as usual ;).

    32. Re:As an American... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I concur. I think it was at the beginning of the last century that people in Switzerland were protesting against the government. This is a direct democracy, please remember this when I tell you that the MILITIA was ordered to open fire... and they did.

      So a government directly appointed by the people used a militia formed of the people to kill the people. Never underestimate how much of a mindless weapon a soldier can be become, even with relatively little training.

    33. Re:As an American... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      As an American: at least he's honest about it. My politicians just issue bald-faced lies.

      He's not being honest because it's virtuous; He's being honest because there's no consequences for him doing it. Our politicians lie their asses off when it suits them just like yours. He just knows there's no fight left in the general population. Don't go getting funny ideas about how our politicians are somehow special... they were bought and paid for same as yours, and probably by the same people.

      Speak for your own population. If the French don't like something they're out on the streets in their, quite literally, millions.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    34. Re:As an American... by Xest · · Score: 2

      People have guns in most parts of Europe, the difference is the people there don't have wild fantasies of some revolution that they're never actually going to fulfil, but like to pretend somehow gives them extra freedom when it doesn't precisely because they wont fulfil it.

      When American citizens actually take up arms and use them to claw back some of the freedoms they've lost since 9/11, then they can come back and tell us all how awesome their guns are as tools in defence of liberty. Until then it's just wild fantasy.

    35. Re:As an American... by Znork · · Score: 1

      Why do you think politicians are drooling over drones?

      A drone pilot with a gun to his head may not have the option to refuse to fire on his own civilians. That is, unless they opt to go completely autonomous to get rid of any arguing at all.

    36. Re:As an American... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stanley Milgram disagrees with you.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    37. Re:As an American... by tao · · Score: 1

      The list of guys who can be the Two Men is pretty short, I understand. I expect Panetta can be the Second Man, but I doubt Hillary could, for instance.

      At the very least Hillary would require some surgery before she could...

    38. Re:As an American... by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      And your politicians have nukes.

      And large commercial aircraft to crash into things... Just saying.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    39. Re:As an American... by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Soldiers are trained to obey orders. I wouldn't bet your life on "US soldiers won't fire upon US civilians", since they've happily done so before.

      They get paid. It's a job. 'Nuff said.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    40. Re:As an American... by hazah · · Score: 1

      So this is business as usual then?

    41. Re:As an American... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      When the merd' hits the fan, the soldiers will refuse to nuke Americans

      The soldier with his hand on the launch button will only know that the missile under his control has received it's targeting instructions (encrypted), decoded them, checked them with their other tokens, and everything is OK ; and now it's ready to launch.

      Why would you tell the soldier in the missile silo where his missile is going? If he doesn't know where it's going, then he's not going to object particularly ; if he does know where it's going, the possibility exists that he's going to find that personalisation of the target more worrying than it just being "the enemy".

      Which rather begs the question of "Who does decide where the missiles go?" Probably a small number of faceless my-country-right-or-wrong patriotic fanatics. And even then, they'd probably be using pre-compiled lists of in-America targets from "We've been invaded by aliens" type war games.

      At least, if I were designing such a system, I'd throw that idea onto the table and let others say why "we couldn't make it work like that". Over to you.

      I wonder if they prefer women to men for the mass murder jobs. As the anti-terrorist police say, "shoot the women first."

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    42. Re:As an American... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1
      I have to disagree somewhat. It's not that easy to suppress a rebellion and what's more no one wants to be pushed to that. Ask Assad how it's going for him. People don't use their guns because they don't want to. I didn't like Bush v Gore one bit or Citizen's United either but it's not gun time. The system gives the results it gives because the electorate is genuinely divided on these issues and everyone can see that. If a politician really wanted to pass a genuinely unpopular law- like the reinstatement of indentured servitude the way Ron Paul would , then you'd see what elections can do when we're all agreed on a topic.

      Revolutions only happen when there is pathological unfairness, not disagreement. That's why it's important to work for policies that favor egalitarian RESULTS, not fake hypothetical "opportunities" or adherence to partisan interpretations of "first principles" That's what holds nations together.

      Some issues have the long term outlook of increasing inequality so strongly that they have to be fought tooth and nail, the worst type of inequality of course being -I live and you die.

    43. Re:As an American... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      at least he is, he's been under scrutiny for possible fraud at least twice in the past few years, honest, that he is indeed, the face of the lobby, the euro and dollar bills tattoed on his head

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    44. Re:As an American... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      sorry for the dp ... it's quite consistent with the belgian kind of democracy we've all come to love here where public opinion is something that gets modelled after a decision has been made ... enlightened despotism or whatchu call it? he did after all set his first babysteps in this stable and honest political climate. I've never known anyone to be so openly and obviously paid off by 'the lobby'. Democratically elected huh ? We elect parties here, not persons, the parties divide the seats themselves ... it's some kind of -cracy, that's true at least

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. And there's the out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    EU nations to citizens: "We voted against it, what more coupld we do?"
    EU nations to RIAA: "Ok, it's passed, pay up."

    1. Re:And there's the out... by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easier to buy a judge than an entire branch of government.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:And there's the out... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      EU nations to citizens: "We voted against it, what more coupld we do?"

      Your Freudian slip answered the question.

  3. It will pass in some form by kwark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ACTA will be ratified in some form because it will be resubmitted again and again till the lobbyiest succeed. This happened before with the EU constitution, it will happen with ACTA and it will happen in the future for many more treaties/laws.

    1. Re:It will pass in some form by UltimaBuddy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If its passing is inevitable, I want it as hobbled and useless as possible.

    2. Re:It will pass in some form by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If its passing is inevitable, I want it as hobbled and useless as possible.

      The other option is to have it so overreaching that it becomes impossible to do anything without infringing.

      Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.

      --
      No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
    3. Re:It will pass in some form by mhajicek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.

      No, it will just be enforced selectively ("with discretion") as most current laws are.

    4. Re:It will pass in some form by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The other option is to have it so overreaching that it becomes impossible to do anything without infringing.

      Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.

      The problem with laws like this isn't that they get ignored, but that they get selectively used.

      There are other similar laws and the result is that anyone (police, lawyer, judge, politician, busybody neighbour) gets to decide whether or not you are guilty.

      I mean, since you are always guilty, it's just a matter of turning you in for prosecution. It's great for police who want to harass you, or a landlord or tenant who wants to screw you for asserting your rights, or a business competitor who would like you out of the way.

      It basically brings a country slowly into a police state. I do not favour it in the way you seem to...

    5. Re:It will pass in some form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bad idea. Laws which basically declare everyone criminal are applied selectively by those in power.

    6. Re:It will pass in some form by lexsird · · Score: 1

      It will not pass if we start putting all their heads on spikes.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    7. Re:It will pass in some form by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's worth pointing out that the United States incarcerates NEARLY as many people as the entirety of rest of the world *combined*.

      Demonstrating an incarceration rate that is 6 times higher than any other country commonly held up as an "authoritarian state" does not help when trying to defeat discussions about authoritarianism in the US.

    8. Re:It will pass in some form by Tomsk70 · · Score: 1

      >It's worth pointing out that the United States incarcerates NEARLY as many people as the entirety of rest of the world *combined*.

      The vast majority of which aren't done illegally, so I'm not sure what your point is. You're not locking up political dissidents, for example, and your logic isn't accepted when people suggest that removing guns might help lower your murder rate.

      More tellingly, look at the score I get (zero) for pointing out that the US is far from a police state and how this is provable via a lack of evidence in the wiki entry. Apparently, pointing out stuff that people appear to *not* want to be true isn't 'informative'.

      And there I was thinking the only hivemind was on reddit.

    9. Re:It will pass in some form by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      More tellingly, look at the score I get (zero) for pointing out that the US is far from a police state

      That's because the US isn't far from being a police state.

      The vast majority of which aren't done illegally, so I'm not sure what your point is.

      The point is that the law has become so over-reaching and "left to discretion" that it is indeed legal to detain a US citizen indefinitely without evidence or charge. Is that not a police state?

      Consider this book:

      http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556

      The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance

      Considering that everyone is always guilty of something, anyone can be legally arrested and convicted at discretion. Is that not a police state?

    10. Re:It will pass in some form by Tomsk70 · · Score: 1

      >That's because the US isn't far from being a police state.

      Wiki doesn't agree, and so to state as much illustrates the gulf between the put-upon and those who *think* they're put-upon. Very insulting for the former, who would quite rightly state that you're either unwilling or unable to look at *real* police states when complaining about your own.

      >The point is that the law has become so over-reaching and "left to discretion" that it is indeed legal to detain a US citizen indefinitely without evidence or charge. Is that not a police state?

      No, because having the option and it being commonplace are two different things.

      I would suggest that the book (just based on that quote) is going to extraordinary lengths to present even the *suggestion* of interference by government lawmakers as indicative of a police state, which isn't the same thing. Does it mention any *real* police states, for example?

      >Considering that everyone is always guilty of something, anyone can be legally arrested and convicted at discretion. Is that not a police state?

      I'm sure residents of the more oppresive countries would have 100% sympathy for your hypothetical situation. Do you have examples of this happening en-masse? That this is the norm? I can find a grandfather that smoked until he was 90, but that doesn't mean smoking is safe - and ultimately you *don't* get to redefine what a police state is where there are so many other more serious examples in the world where they don't need Ron Paul to use it as a scare-mongering tactic.

    11. Re:It will pass in some form by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Wiki doesn't agree

      The classification of a country or regime as a police state is usually contested and debated. Because of the pejorative connotation of the term, it is rare that a country will identify itself as a police state.

      - Wiki

      Do you have examples of this happening en-masse?

      It's worth pointing out that the United States incarcerates NEARLY as many people as the entirety of rest of the world *combined*.

      Is that en-masse enough for you? Consider that the US incarcerates 730 people per 100,000, while China incarcerates only 122. Which countries would you classify as police states?

  4. ruling class gonna rule by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is anyone surprised?

    the amount of power held by those that ACTA favors outweighs the amount of power held by those against.

    rulers gonna rule. who'd have thunk it?

    (I'm not in favor of ACTA, not even close; but I don't really hold up much hope when this much greed is involved, mixed with this much 'can-do' power to pull it off.)

    this is a people problem. a scalability one. do our governments 'work' for us anymore? in the modern times, with mass communication now possible, are any of our systems really working? it does not seem so!

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:ruling class gonna rule by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this is a people problem. a scalability one. do our governments 'work' for us anymore? in the modern times, with mass communication now possible, are any of our systems really working? it does not seem so!

      Has it ever worked for us?

      Do we just notice it more now since we find about these things before they happen?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:ruling class gonna rule by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      > the amount of power held by those that ACTA favors outweighs the amount of power held by those against.

      Look what happened with SOPA.

      There are other very powerful interests who want to keep the Internet open and operational.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:ruling class gonna rule by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No not really. When the ink was barely-dry on the Bill of Rights, our Congress and 2nd president signed a law that made free speech and press illegal (guess they thought the first amendment & their oath meant nothing). In response our 3rd president, who repealed the law, said liberty requires constant vigilance by the electorate else it will be lost.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:ruling class gonna rule by lennier · · Score: 4, Funny

      There are other very powerful interests who want to keep the Internet open and operational.

      Thank goodness the spambots have achieved both sentience and political consciousness!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    5. Re:ruling class gonna rule by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>There are other very powerful interests who want to keep the Internet open and operational.

      Then how come Apple, Google, Microsoft, Comcast, et cetera who originally killed SOPA are not turning-round to back the CISPA? It wasn't so much about protecting us or the internet, but about winning immunity for themselves from being sued by disgruntled customers (which SOPA did not do but CISPA does).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:ruling class gonna rule by preaction · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just read this excellent article on that: http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html

      The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

    7. Re:ruling class gonna rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PROTIP: The ACTA supporters are TINY industries.

      You only completely blindly believe that they are huge and your gods, because of the amount of cocaine those fuckers sniff on a daily basis, making them act like they are actual gods.

      Look up the numbers: It's ridiculous. E.g. the whole global music industry's revenue is about as big as some broke-ass German construction company (Holzwinkel) 's *profit*.
      The whole German music industry is as big, as the municipal transport services of Cologne (a 1 million people city).
      It's crazy! In terms of business, they are meaningless!

      Yet everybody acts like they are so fuckin' huge and powerful! THEY'RE NOT!

  5. A country that is not a country. by metrix007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the type of thing when you have something resembling a country, but that is not in essence a country, which has non of the protections or checks and balances that a state should actually have.

    Democracy at the EU level, kind of a joke.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    1. Re:A country that is not a country. by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 4, Informative

      The vice president of the European commission Margot Wallström: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvcdsj3ZWkg&feature=player_embedded

      --
      She made the willows dance
    2. Re:A country that is not a country. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      It's not harder to buy the EU vote, since all the member parliaments are already bought and paid for.

      In the end, it probably cost about the same per PM on both sides Atlantic.

      As for MS, they got into the trouble they did because they had not yet discovered the benefit of buying politicians at that point. They learned their lesson very quickly.

    3. Re:A country that is not a country. by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Of course there are protections, the most important being the democratically elected EP which will say the final word on ACTA.

    4. Re:A country that is not a country. by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      Only the European Parliament can enact laws and ratify treaties and the Parliament is democratically elected.
      The European court of Justice has the same oversight powers as the US Supreme Court.
      So the real difference is that the EU is a huge seething pile of bureaucracy and getting anything done takes forever.

    5. Re:A country that is not a country. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft got slapped with a fine only because the EU wanted to prove themselves. The browser/media player nonsense was ridiculous and undeserved. Silly EU.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    6. Re:A country that is not a country. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is the type of thing when you have something resembling a country, but that is not in essence a country, which has non of the protections or checks and balances that a state should actually have.

      Democracy at the EU level, kind of a joke.

      You say this, and yet democracy seems to be working better in Europe than in what is supposed to be a democratic America. In both cases you have a collection of States that make up a super-state. In the US, the States retain many powers that the Federal government is not allowed to fuck with. The same is true for the EU.

      The EU has a multiplicity of political parties in each country, all of which are democratically elected, with the European Parliament being directly elected and with a rotating presidency of the EU itself that shifts to a different country every six months power is never focused too long in one place.

      The countries in the EU provide checks and balances to each other, quite without meaning to. Because of the different interests that each country has, it's difficult for any given policy to be pushed through even by the strongest country or even set of countries in the Union.

      So how, exactly, is democracy at the EU level a joke?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    7. Re:A country that is not a country. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      In the US, the States retain many powers that the Federal government is not allowed to fuck with. The same is true for the EU.

      No, in the EU, the EU forces member states to enact laws that they may disagree with, such as the 3 strikes law, or face penalties.

      The countries in the EU provide checks and balances to each other, quite without meaning to.

      In practice, you have the strongest countries outlinng the policy and the smaller countries can't really say much. What the UK, German and France want, they tend to get.

      So how, exactly, is democracy at the EU level a joke?

      Because it isn't as democratic as you have said? Because the people don't have say in a lot of matters? Because the Lisbon treaty passed despite people not wanting it? Because here you have an official saying ACTA will go ahead and nothing can stop it?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    8. Re:A country that is not a country. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      In the US, the States retain many powers that the Federal government is not allowed to fuck with. The same is true for the EU.

      No, in the EU, the EU forces member states to enact laws that they may disagree with, such as the 3 strikes law, or face penalties.

      Not ones they really care about, like Ireland's corporate income tax levels for example.

      The countries in the EU provide checks and balances to each other, quite without meaning to.

      In practice, you have the strongest countries outlinng the policy and the smaller countries can't really say much. What the UK, German and France want, they tend to get.

      Again I will reference the Irish corporate tax levels, which the UK, Germany and France most certainly want raised but have been unable to force.

      So how, exactly, is democracy at the EU level a joke?

      Because it isn't as democratic as you have said? Because the people don't have say in a lot of matters? Because the Lisbon treaty passed despite people not wanting it? Because here you have an official saying ACTA will go ahead and nothing can stop it?

      The European Parliament (abbreviated as Europarl or the EP) is the directly elected parliamentary institution of the European Union (EU). Together with the Council of the European Union (the Council) and the European Commission, it exercises the legislative function of the EU and it has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the world.[2] The Parliament is currently composed of 754 Members of the European Parliament, who represent the second largest democratic electorate in the world..."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

      The people have a say in everything. Whether they choose to make themselves heard is a different matter. People may be passive cows but that is much different from them not being able to do anything about something they don't like. Each country had to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, and each of them did. If the people in any given country didn't want it strongly enough, then they had to make themselves heard loudly enough at the country level. They did not, or in the case of the Irish they changed their minds. This does not make the EU non-democratic at the EU level, but rather points out problems at the individual country level.

      With regard to the official saying ACTA will go ahead...he can say what he likes but he himself does not make the final decision and his direct and obvious support of ACTA may very well end up being his downfall before all is said and done.

      Are there problems with the way the EU is set up? Absolutely - nothing is perfect and the EU is still quite new as these things go. It remains, in my opinion, more democratic as an entity than many individual countries that are supposed to be democratic.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    9. Re:A country that is not a country. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you bring up Irish tax laws, it is not analogous to the situation I describe at all. Ireland is an independant country and can set whatever taxes they like. This isn't at all the same thing as the EU passing legislation and requiring all states to implement some form of it or face penalties. Which the 3 strikes law is a perfect example of.

      Your main argument for the EU being satisfactorily democratic is the EP. The EP cannot proposes legislation, only amendments. Think about that for a second. The commission holds a lot of power, yet you cannot vote for it's members.

      To claim the people have a say in everything is bullshit. There are basically no countries where the people have a say in everything....it isn't workable with a representative democracy. Having a say on significant issues is a minimum, and something the EU misses out on. Could the people in the EU vote for or against ACTA?

      The democratic deficit in the EU has been acknowledged and discussed since the 70's. That the EP is democratically elected does not make the problem go away.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    10. Re:A country that is not a country. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you bring up Irish tax laws, it is not analogous to the situation I describe at all. Ireland is an independant country and can set whatever taxes they like.

      That's just the point. They are not an independent country as they're part of the EU. France, Germany, et. al. have been screaming for many years that Ireland's low tax rates are unfair and must be raised and yet they are able to keep their tax rates as they want them, regardless of this pressure.

      http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0119/breaking7.html
      http://www.thejournal.ie/frances-bottom-line-increase-corporate-tax-or-we-wont-cut-your-bailout-rate-150942-Jun2011/
      https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/business/global/26tax.html?pagewanted=all

      This isn't at all the same thing as the EU passing legislation and requiring all states to implement some form of it or face penalties. Which the 3 strikes law is a perfect example of.

      It's not the same thing but it is applicable to the argument. Ireland is able to do what it wants even though it is part of the EU.

      Your main argument for the EU being satisfactorily democratic is the EP.

      Not only the EP (which is democratically elected) but also the council (whose members are democratically elected by each state in question) and the president of the council (who is democratically elected by those who have been democratically elected).

      The EP cannot proposes legislation, only amendments. Think about that for a second. The commission holds a lot of power, yet you cannot vote for it's members.

      Not directly, agreed. The commission is not directly elected but is selected by those who have been democratically elected. You can vote for those who then select the members of the commission.

      To claim the people have a say in everything is bullshit. There are basically no countries where the people have a say in everything....it isn't workable with a representative democracy. Having a say on significant issues is a minimum, and something the EU misses out on. Could the people in the EU vote for or against ACTA?

      I have to disagree on the basis that there is nothing stopping people from making themselves heard. When the French minority youths rioted because they had poor employment possibilities, they demonstrated (rioted really but nonetheless made themselves heard) which resulted in the French government putting in place legislation to enable short term contract firing possibilities to try and reduce unemployment in that segment of the population. To further the point, a larger (ie non-minority) segment of the French populace decided that they didn't like the new legislation and went out in the streets to demonstrate (minus the riots) in their millions. Something like ten percent of the population this time, resulting in a very quick killing of the new legislation.

      Did they have a direct say? No, not at all.

      Did they make themselves heard? Yes, absolutely.

      The democratic deficit in the EU has been acknowledged and discussed since the 70's. That the EP is democratically elected does not make the problem go away.

      As I said, it's not perfect. No system is perfect. I maintain that it is far from a joke, though, and is arguably one of the most democratic systems in place in the world today.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    11. Re:A country that is not a country. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      That's just the point. They are not an independent country as they're part of the EU. France, Germany, et. al. have been screaming for many years that Ireland's low tax rates are unfair and must be raised and yet they are able to keep their tax rates as they want them, regardless of this pressure.

      You're missing the point. It doesn't matter that other EU countries don't like it, in this regard Ireland are free to set their own taxes. It is not at all, in any way, analogous to the EU passing legislation and forcing countries to implement it. That is the point being discussed. Irish taxes are irrelevant.

      It's not the same thing but it is applicable to the argument. Ireland is able to do what it wants even though it is part of the EU.

      It isn't applicable to the argument. It is irrelevant. The EU does not control the taxes each country sets, just as the federal government in the US does not set state taxes. Every country in the EU has a certain level of independence, especially with things like taxes.

      The EU forcing every country to implement a law when the people of that country don't agree with it is an entirely different issue and not democratic in the least.

      The commission is not directly elected but is selected by those who have been democratically elected. You can vote for those who then select the members of the commission.

      In practice, this means little. The people need far, far more say for democracy at the EU level not to be a joke.

      I have to disagree on the basis that there is nothing stopping people from making themselves heard.

      You seem to be making the case that just because people can make themselves heard means they have a say. We both know this is far from true.

      As I said, it's not perfect. No system is perfect. I maintain that it is far from a joke, though, and is arguably one of the most democratic systems in place in the world today.

      I agree no system is perfect. I think it is a joke because it is one of the least democratic systems in place today. You've yet to show how it is one of the most, especially since you acknowledge the limitations of the EP and the the EC is not directly elected.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    12. Re:A country that is not a country. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as I don't agree with what you're saying but I won't repeat myself -

      Thanks for the interesting and well stated discussion -

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    13. Re:A country that is not a country. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Likewise :)

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  6. You mean he actually bought the European Court?! by Skinkie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this guy actually saying that the lobby has bought into the European Court system? And democracy doesn't count anymore?

    --
    Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
  7. Do we miss stories where they fight for people?! by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I realize this is Slashdot and eye-catching headlines tailored towards inciting the rabbleâ"rousers are the norm (yes, my UID is low) but are we somehow missing the headlines where political leadership (from any country) actually stand up for the rights of their citizenry instead of the business?

    I rarely see politicians, on any side of the coin, standing up for the rights of the electorate and instead only see that they support business interests. These people must get elected somehow, and yes I realize there are possibilities that the electorate has no true influence here but it's improbable at least for now, so why the hell do we continue to put up with them doing this?

    I've been disgusted for years by their actions but do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?

  8. Keep trying til you get the vote desired by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That appears to be how the European Union operates. The Constitution was rejected, so they turned it into the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish rejected the treaty so they held a second vote 6 months later, so they could get the "yes" vote desired. In Denmark they canceled the election and just acceded to the treaty automagically.

    NOW it appears they'll use the same approach with ACTA: It matters not how the EU Parliament votes, we'll just rewrite it and submit it a second time or third time until we get a "yes". Of course the U.S. ain't much better: TARP failed the first time so they rewrote it and tried a second time. When the Supreme Court rejects a law as unconstitutional, the Congress simply passes the law a second time (minus the objectionable bits).

    --
    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:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by mhajicek · · Score: 2

      That's why I think there needs to be a punishment (like jail time or at least impeachment) for any lawmaker who proposes or votes for any law that is later found to be unconstitutional. As it is there is no liability on the part of the lawmaker.

    2. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by PGC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should be considered treason : therefore punishable by death.

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    3. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by Translation+Error · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the Supreme Court rejects a law as unconstitutional, the Congress simply passes the law a second time (minus the objectionable bits).

      And the problem with this is what, exactly?

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    4. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      When the Supreme Court rejects a law as unconstitutional, the Congress simply passes the law a second time (minus the objectionable bits).

      They don't actually bother to pass the law a second time. There is no need to. When the Supreme Court uses judicial review, it merely sets a judicial precedent on how to interpret that section of law. It has no power to nullify the law itself.

    5. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      The Irish rejected the treaty so they held a second vote 6 months later, so they could get the "yes" vote desired.

      You object to this, why? Because it was the same treaty (if you ignore the concessions that Ireland sought after the initial rejection)? Because it was only 16 months (not 6)? Both? Does it matter that turnout was six percent greater the second time around, and that the vote swung from slight (53%) to robust (67%) majority from the one to the other?

      I mean, you're either implying some serious skullduggery was involved in causing 265000 no votes to disappear (and 465000 yes votes to appear) or that some overriding principle must be exercised to prevent an electorate from having the opportunity to change its mind.

      NOW it appears they'll use the same approach with ACTA: It matters not how the EU Parliament votes, we'll just rewrite it and submit it a second time or third time until we get a "yes". Of course the U.S. ain't much better: TARP failed the first time so they rewrote it and tried a second time. When the Supreme Court rejects a law as unconstitutional, the Congress simply passes the law a second time (minus the objectionable bits).

      Your implied alternative is that the part of the legislation that is not rewritten should be prohibited from becoming law? The part that is struck down as being unconstitutional should not be rewritten to become constitutional? For how long? And why?

      Governance has never been a "once and for all" proposition. You're going to have to justify an expectation that is so divorced from history and reality, rather than simply hinting at the evils of dark forces operating behind the scenes. Pick your issue, and it's been defeated at least one before, and probably will be again.

    6. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      When the Supreme Court rejects a law as unconstitutional, the Congress simply passes the law a second time (minus the objectionable bits).

      And the problem with this is what, exactly?

      Most likely it's the NEW objectionable bits they snuck in without mentioning it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by Raenex · · Score: 1

      No, it shouldn't.

    8. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Freakin Denmark. Not saying it's bad, but like if something strange happens and you look it up and it's Denmark, well the strangeness of what happened is cancelled out by the fact it's Denmark.

      As far as redoing a failed bill so it will pass, well DUH that's how legislatures work.

    9. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't it? Seriously, why not?

    10. Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Because killing somebody is an extreme punishment, and broadening the definition of treason to include non-war acts is a step in the wrong direction. If you want don't want to be killed yourself for political "crimes" against the state, then extend the same respect for life to the politicians themselves.

      Furthermore, just what laws are considered unconstitutional are often political matters in flux. Let's just take one example, Roe v. Wade. Do you think the lawmaker responsible for abortion restrictions deserves to die because the court later ruled against it?

  9. Typical europe by pointyhat · · Score: 2

    Typical Europe. Bar Nigel Farage, who is the Chuck Norris of politics, it's like watching monkeys at typewriters. A model parliament should be like in Star Trek dammit!

    1. Re:Typical europe by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Typical Europe.

      Bar Nigel Farage, who is the Chuck Norris of politics, it's like watching monkeys at typewriters.

      A model parliament should be like in Star Trek dammit!

      Which episode? The one with Tribbles?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Typical europe by lennier · · Score: 2

      A model parliament should be like in Star Trek dammit!

      An invisible, powerless propaganda organ entirely dominated by a hugely powerful military?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  10. Ignoring the vote by DickBreath · · Score: 2

    So if it doesn't matter what the outcome of the vote will be, then why bother to have one?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Ignoring the vote by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      So if it doesn't matter what the outcome of the vote will be, then why bother to have one?

      PR. You can't just tell people what to do, you have to pretend that they're telling you to tell them what to do.

    2. Re:Ignoring the vote by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 1

      He didn't even do that, though, he said it's going through regardless of what they want.

    3. Re:Ignoring the vote by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Has anybody ever seen this EU Commissioner and Obama in the same room at the same time?

      They seem to have far too much in common in their views on honoring the results of votes.

      Just sayin'...

      Wow guys, "-1 Troll"?

      Really!?

      C'mon, that was *funny* right there, I don't care who you are!

      Man, seems we're graced with some humorless mods today!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  11. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Democracy has never counted in the EU because the majority of the people of Europe have never wanted a bloated, centralised state where bureaucrats in Brussels tell them what to do.

    When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.

  12. the fundamental fault with the EU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...is that only the Commission may propose law to the Council.

    The Council must vote - usually by qualified majority - for almost(*) all laws to pass. And the ordinary legislative process means that, since Lisbon, Parliament gets to veto most proposals.

    But once the law has been adopted, there is no way for Parliament to even propose, let alone pass, further legislation to amend or repeal the law. By contrast, the UK has one overriding law - the Westminster Parliament cannot bind itself. But the European Parliament /always/ binds itself.

    The only potential salvation is that the Court of Justice may declare a law to be invalid - for example, because the EU exceeds its jurisdiction under the Treaties. But not simply because the people don't like the law. Even then, getting rid of CJEU judges is nigh on impossible, so a corrupt gaggle stay around until one by one it's time for them to be replaced (by agreement of the governments of member states).

    (*) Creation of competition law is delegated to the Commission.

    1. Re:the fundamental fault with the EU... by Teun · · Score: 1

      As far as I know and history proves it's only the French and the Brits that are consistently vetoing full power for the EU parliament.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  13. They can't arrest us all by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's become crystal clear over the years that it is everyone's moral imperative to ignore copyright law.

    That is the only way we, as a society, are going to conquer the science-and-arts-crippling concept known as "intellectual property" and move forward as a civilization.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    1. Re:They can't arrest us all by Jeng · · Score: 2

      Just because a nut job "can't kill all of us" doesn't mean I won't seek shelter when he opens fire.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:They can't arrest us all by Stickerboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's become crystal clear over the years that it is everyone's moral imperative to ignore copyright law.

      That is the only way we, as a society, are going to conquer the science-and-arts-crippling concept known as "intellectual property" and move forward as a civilization.

      Thank you, I agree wholeheartedly!

      - GPL violator

      More seriously, the concept of intellectual property is neither crippling nor backwards. I think everyone but the entertainment media/attorney complex would agree that copyright can be useful if scaled back to 15 years or so and ending extensions. Same with vigorously limiting the scope of patents. And I hope you can see how trademark law can prevent public confusion.

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:They can't arrest us all by steelfood · · Score: 1

      For starters, let's stop calling it "intellectual property." Because thought is the property of no individual.

      Let's call it copyrights (the right to make copies), patents (limited monopolies), and trademarks (brand identifiers).

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:They can't arrest us all by Raenex · · Score: 1

      And can these special rights you mentioned be owned, transferred, and sold like regular property?

    5. Re:They can't arrest us all by thogard · · Score: 1

      They can't be traded like property. Lets say you have a patent you sell to someone else. If I have prior art on that but I have other agreements with you, what you transfered to the other party isn't what you had in the first place.

    6. Re:They can't arrest us all by Raenex · · Score: 1

      They can't be traded like property.

      But they are. It happens all the time.

      If I have prior art on that but I have other agreements with you, what you transfered to the other party isn't what you had in the first place.

      This is no different than any other complicated ownership arrangement.

    7. Re:They can't arrest us all by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I think everyone but the entertainment media/attorney complex would agree that copyright can be useful if scaled back to 15 years or so and ending extensions.

      No registration, no deal. It's nearly impossible to create a working copyright system without mandatory registration.

      Same with vigorously limiting the scope of patents.

      At a minimum, patents need a smaller duration (a product nowadays may apply hundreds of patents, that's ridiculous) and need requirements for clarity and specificity. At the specificity requirements there must be a clear clause for voiding any patent broad enough to not permit interoperability. Still, I'm not certain if the best policy isn't to completely extinguish them.

      And I hope you can see how trademark law can prevent public confusion.

      Trademark laws (and design patents) should be restricted to only avoid public confusion. All their other effects should be void.

      Or, to be short, all intelectual property laws are a mess, and only work for the benefit of lawyers and the people with pockets deep enough to pay for those lawyers. All the thing is a farce, and need at least a profound reform.

  14. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by lennier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?

    Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.

    That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  15. Karel De Gucht received bribe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    i'm from belgium (was now living in colombia)
    but Karel has a long dirty history of accepting bribes, dirty cash and laundering money
    Belgium is this moment even more corrupt then sweden, those ministers have sold every possible governement building to 3th parties
    they dont own the kings palace for example anymore but they rent it instead !!!!
    there is an anti piracy organization called "sabam" there are big rumors and the chance is very big that they paid or going to pay Karel De Gucht for getting ACTA up
    this means they will be able to suck more blood and money out of their victims legaly but in a more dark sinister way
    sabam already pushed it that far you cant tell for example storytales from books to your children without paying the copyright fee to them and ofcourse they pay nothing to the original authors

    1. Re:Karel De Gucht received bribe by Kentari · · Score: 2

      I'm from Belgium and still there (quite happy about it and not planning to leave). The royal palaces are property of the state and managed by an entity called the 'Koninklijke Stichting', they have not been sold. There has been a spate of sale and lease back crap by the previous government, though. De Gucht is not unbespoken (tried for insider trading and tax evasion) but corruption is not on the list. How much I dislike Sabam and wouldn't be suprised if they actually would try that, this is nothing more than a rumour and this is the first time I heard it. It certainly did not pop up in the belgian media and it sure would if they got air of it, they don't like De Gucht either.

      Btw According to the 'Corruption Perceptions Index' Sweden is the 4th least corrupt country in the world, Belgium 19th. Columbia 80th, but being a 'rich' Belgian there helps I guess? The USA comes in at the 24th place.

  16. Fear by DaFallus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its been said that governments should fear their people, and not the other way around. What do our governments have to fear from us nowadays? Some people might put up a fight, but the overwhelming majority just sit back and go along for the ride.

    I hate to say it since we're supposedly living in more civilized times, but maybe if more politicians who obviously have no interest in actually representing the people (not corporations) they "represent" were brutally assassinated, the rest would get the message. I may be wrong, but it seemed to work for some in the past...

    --
    No one cares what your captcha was

    Houston TX, USA
    1. Re:Fear by Creepy · · Score: 1

      The US government will have plenty to fear if they don't boost taxes, paying off debt, and funding total obligation. National debt of 15 trillion? It will take time, but we can dig out of that. Total Obligation with Obamacare is estimated at around $82 trillion and growing? Terrifying - that is well over the GDP of the WORLD. Economists say debt-to-GDP is 1:1, I say debt to tax income is 7:1, and that is if we applied all of it just to paying debt, which we can't because 84% of the budget is immovable (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, and other programs - those three alone are 54%). This obligation is quickly spiraling out of control. If it isn't fixed soon, it will be too late to fix it at all.

        I've read 34% of people (56% between 18 and 34) of Americans have ZERO dollars saved for retirement according to polls, and are completely relying on Social Security and Medicare, which are so far underwater that it may be too late to say them (I say it almost certainly is, but we can try). Now think of millions of armed Americans without a paycheck or medical care (Obamacare is doomed as well because it is also total obligation). So what does the government have to fear? The middle and lower classes revolting. Don't count on the military helping, as most of them were poor to begin with.

    2. Re:Fear by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      You forgot the time frame. The total obligation is calculated over a 70 year time span.

    3. Re:Fear by Teresita · · Score: 1

      The US government will have plenty to fear if they don't boost taxes, paying off debt, and funding total obligation.

      All my exes live on taxes. But if the government does nothing and falls off the so-called "fiscal cliff" on December 31, 2012 then in ten years, the deficit will be zero and the debt to GDP ratio will be below 50%. So a "do nothing Congress" would actually come in handy here.

    4. Re:Fear by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If the people can't be bothered to vote for their collected self-interest, then they deserve the government they get. Your way means every political group out there would feel justified in murdering a politician every time the vote doesn't go there way, even for issues that you would endorse.

      Alternatively, if you want the politicians to not murder you for speaking out, you should show the same restraint. If you want rule by might makes right, go live in Somalia or any place with tribal rule.

  17. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do they keep getting elected? What other choice do we have? When all sides of the issue are bought and paid for by the same people, what, seriously, what choices do we have? It's not that they don't represent us, it's that they represent where the money is coming from.

    Think about it - to a politician, $1 = 1 voice. So, I have around 10,000 in savings. If I give all of that, my voice becomes stronger than my neighbor's, regardless of where I stand. I can influence media, I can influence protests, I can send letters. My neighbor can't do any of that, because he's just trying to make it to supper tonight.

    From their point of view, the politicians are representing The People. It's just that the money involved is so freaking skewed that The People are no longer represented fairly in these initial steps. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if (in the US at least) our representatives are truly at a loss as to why their approval rating is so low. I hope I did a good job of explaining my views on that. It's hard to get into words sometimes.

    I know that none of that may transfer into this instance in the EU, but I believe that the same rules apply there. Money = power, power = money. The commissioner probably sees the interests groups with the most money, and probably believes that they represent the general public's views.

    Or he's just a dick. One or the other.

  18. Chuck Norris by eddy · · Score: 1

    Bar Nigel Farage, who is the Chuck Norris of politics, it's like watching monkeys at typewriters.

    You're saying Nigel Farage is a slightly paranoid, homophobic bigot, like Chuck?

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:Chuck Norris by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      I think pointyhat meant the fabled Internet Chuck Norris. The one who has never existed.

    2. Re:Chuck Norris by pointyhat · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the legend, not the man.

    3. Re:Chuck Norris by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      That describes Nigel Farage nicely actually.

      Apt metaphor is apt!

  19. Re:civil disobedience by Phrogman · · Score: 2

    Stop buying all entertainment. Don't use it at all and don't download it illegally either. Just do without entirely. Support local musicians playing live if you must get a fix. Get everyone and anyone you know to also boycott big entertainment entirely. After a few years they will either institute a police state to ensure they can suck money from the peasants no matter what (already in progress in most democracies it seems) or they will fail completely.
    The resulting media scene will hopefully be a bit smarter and realize they need a willing audience.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  20. Re:civil disobedience by Jeng · · Score: 1
    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  21. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

    There have been several /. stories about the EU acting against a corporation and in favor of the customer. Like the browser choice screen in Opera v. Microsoft.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  22. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by c0lo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?

    Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.

    That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.

    Hmmm.. this would explain why UK's PM backpedaled on bankers' bonuses.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  23. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by PGC · · Score: 1

    Please mod parent up. For this is so true...



    "vote wrong" - that such an expression exists....

    --
    The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
  24. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by timeOday · · Score: 1
    No, I gather that's just the flamebait summary of it. Apparently the issue is that it falls to the European Court of Justice to rule on whether the treaty is consistent with European Law. If not, he concedes they'll have to modify ACTA to make it conform. Meanwhile the EU International Trade committe has taken it upon themselves to have their own vote, but that is apparently not binding at this stage according to the bylaws of EU governance.

    Spinning this as a repudiation of democratic principles is just a ploy to feed a popular narrative.

  25. Re:Fuck the law? by Hatta · · Score: 2

    I think what he's actually saying here is more like, "L'Ãtat, c'est moi".

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  26. Makes Sense by organgtool · · Score: 1

    There is no room for the will of the people in the Court of Justice.

    1. Re:Makes Sense by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      True, the Court of Justice is a legislative instance that in this case is supposed to investigate whether ACTA is compatible with the founding treaties of the European Union. The court is supposed to be impartial and in no way are they supposed to act in the best interest/the will of the people, they are to interpret the law as written, nothing more nothing less.
      If passed ACTA will move on to the democratically elected European Parliament which will vote(July 4th) on whether to accept ACTA in its current form or not. Should either the Court or the Parliament turn ACTA down then ACTA in it's current form is dead as far as EU is concerned.

  27. Here's the guy's contact info by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please, let him know that what he is doing is wrong and that the european people do not want this. Here is his contact information: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/degucht/contact/

    Karel De Gucht
    Member of the European Commission
    BE-1049 Brussels
    Belgium

    By mail: Karel.DE-GUCHT@ec.europa.eu
    By fax: (+32-02) 29 80899

  28. Shady politician by Simon321 · · Score: 1

    This politician is suspected of fraud and is being investigated by the belgian tax inspection.

    http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/fiscus-karel-de-gucht-fraudeerde-met-1-2-miljoen-euro/article-4000115128765.htm (Article in Dutch)

    He has some property in Italy that he shouldn't be able to afford.

    http://www.humo.be/humo-archief/71654/karel-de-gucht-het-gevecht-met-de-fiscus (Article in Dutch)

    There are rumors that he's corrupt, but it's never been proven though.

  29. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by PRMan · · Score: 1

    You did very well, IMO.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  30. Screw Them All by ilikenwf · · Score: 1

    Use a VPN that doesn't keep logs.

  31. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer

    If we're even allowed to vote.

  32. You are naive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Voting on a national scale is, and *always has been* a farce. Voting is not meaningful when the numbers are this big, the opinions this varied, the voters this ill-informed, and the consequences this impactful.

    The real world contains many real people with real wealth and power and real selfish agendas. They don't give a rat's ass about the greater good or any noble ideas of self-governing people. Some of them are enlightened enough to see that people are too stupid to govern themselves anyway, while others just don't care, but the end result is the same. A small group of powerful men impose their self-serving agendas upon the populace, and keep doing so until there is a sufficiently overwhelming reaction to stop them.

    You will never get that overwhelming reaction through encouraging your neighbors to become politically active. Humans just don't work that way. You get that reaction when the lives of enough people suck badly enough that it is worth getting up and shouting. Until that moment, anything goes, and any lip-service paid to concepts of justice is so much hot air intended only to placate the public into silent acceptance.

    Humans basically suck.

    1. Re:You are naive. by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why up-close and personal political powers belong in the hands of governments no further away than a few hundred miles. National federated governments are not accountable to their populations and so should not have powers which directly touch on those citizens, except in very broad, general ways.

  33. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

    There is no democracy in the EU. It's what a group of select "leaders" tell you what you can have, it's just a soft dictatorship controlling regional territories.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  34. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

    He is saying a legal way has to be found to leave the treaty. Currently he doesn't see one.

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  35. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by LavouraArcaica · · Score: 1

    When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.

    Greece knows well.

  36. time for new politicians. #votepirate by kasper_souren · · Score: 1

    Around 2005 there was a struggle against software patents in the EU. The only democratically elected EU institution, the European Parliament, said "no, we don't want it" and the Commission (a group of 27 or so people) says "yes, you have to want it". And unfortunately this is a very common pattern.

    The ACTA case is particularly striking now with one person who is quite incapable of grasping the nature of copying intangible goods has this much power.

    Gucht: "But for me there is no moral difference between taking something that is not yours in the physical world and doing so in the virtual world."

    For me there is a huge difference! And if the most powerful person in the EU dealing with this matter doesn't see that it's time for him to move on. We live in a world where theoretically anyone could have access to all music, movies and books ever created. I feel we're morally obliged to make this happen. If that breaks a couple of business models, so be it, time for new business models. And time for new politicians. #votepirate.

    1. Re:time for new politicians. #votepirate by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      Gucht: "But for me there is no moral difference between taking something that is not yours in the physical world and doing so in the virtual world."

      If that is his opinion, then De Gucht must be a proponent of an Intellectual Property Tax. A single European property tax if the proprietor accepts a Europe-wide license, national property taxes in each country the property is marketed and/or the copyright enforced. The funds collected to be used do stimulate culture and struggling/starving artists.

      Wouldn't it be fair that huge IP warehouses start contributing themselves? An IP Tax will help do that. Come on, De Gucht, if it's property it can be taxed!

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  37. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative

    The European Commission is distinct from the European Parliament. European Commissioners have established a pretty good reputation for themselves as being for sale and not accountable to their constituencies. European Parliament nominally holds the real power, but democracy in Europe often turns into an uphill battle against corrupt commissioners.

    The European Commision is also the main promoter of legalizing software patents in Europe, against the express wishes of the European Parliament.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  38. Nice try, sycophant, but... you already lost. by pla · · Score: 2

    Dear Karl:

    We the people (whether in the US or not) quite simply don't give a flying fuck about what you EU assholes decide to do or not do.

    We may not have a corporate death penalty, but we will continue to "steal" your content until you and your entire generation die the death of a thousand cuts, one... pirated... disc... at... a... time.

    In any case, five years from now the EU will have collapsed and all your expenditure of political capital on behalf of your corporate masters will have gone for nothing - "Nothing", like the worth of your sad, hollow life.

    Cheers!

    1. Re:Nice try, sycophant, but... you already lost. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

      thank you friend.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  39. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by nachtkap · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I follow the decisions of the highest German Courts, and to a lesser extend the European Courts, with passing interest. I have to say that I cannot recall a single instance that I found one of their decisions even a little bit unacceptable. Literally every time that I thought politicians totally went off the rails, along comes the highest Courts with a "oh no you don't".

  40. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    How do they keep getting elected?

    European commissioners are appointed, not elected.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  41. the title is misleading by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

    If you read his speech what he really say is: Acta good!!, If you do not ask the court of justice, I'll do it and they will say it's good too!!

    Then I'll still have to ask you again, drats.....

    there are a lot of irritating things in his speech, but in a nutshell he still acknowledge that he has to ask the parliament.

    And of course if the ECJ tells him no, he will just be able to say ... ohhh bad judges, judges shouldn't make law, sulk, sulk,... (notice the US kind of pattern, about "low making judges are bad..... (when they do not judge as we want them too...)

  42. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Kjella · · Score: 2

    When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.

    Or they just ignore it. In 1994 we in Norway had a referendum and the people rejected EU membership despite an overwhelming majority in favor in parliament. What did the politicians do? Sign an EEC agreement which means 5000+ EU directives have been passed into Norwegian law. And then the politicians complain about the lack of influence and access because we're not real members, acting like it's our fault. Yeah because since we had the audacity to say no the politicians had to buttrape us. Totally our fault.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  43. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Elldallan · · Score: 2

    It is not so much that the EU International Trade committe has taken it upon themselves to have a vote, they act as an advisory to the EU Parliament and are supposed to recommend either passing or rejecting the proposition, every committee(they are made up of members from EU parliament) of the EU that oversees an area affected by ACTA is supposed to leave a recommendation based on how ACTA will affect their area of responsibility, it is a normal part of the process.

  44. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by Elldallan · · Score: 2

    And the fact that he backstabbed his way into power and that once he got there he turned out to be nothing nothing more than a bumbling incompetent buffoon with absolutely no media awareness had nothing to do with him getting ousted?
    His predecessor got elected pretty much because there were no competition, when she failed they were desperate to find a new, hopefully strong leader that could stop the free fall the party currently was in and so they elected the current chair of the party executive council.

    In fact this is the first time I've heard anything about Juholt even having a stance on ACTA much less being against it so some sources would be nice.

    The Social Democratic Party has been VERY friendly with industry representatives for the past 30 years at the very least, for example in 2006 they changed the law to make copyright infringement for personal use illegal, despite massive complaints and a clear public opinion in favor of keeping the (then) current regulation.

    The only political parties that I've heard speak out against ACTA so far is from the Green Party, the Pirate Party and the Leftist fringe/former communist party.

  45. Dear EU commissioner Karel De Gucht by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2

    Fuck You, Asshole.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  46. need to have standards in reforenda by Chirs · · Score: 1

    The way things are currently set up, people with power and influence can keep bringing up legislation that they want to get passed until eventually people get tired of fighting it or they manage to slip it in attached to some other critical legislation.

    As an individual voter, this seems inherently unfair. Why should I need to keep fighting the same battles over and over and over? Once the people have spoken the legislators shouldn't be able to propose similar legislation for some amount of time.

  47. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    I don't think you are paying attention closely enough. After all, SOPA didn't pass.

  48. Re:Sadly, the elements of the EU are more complex by Elldallan · · Score: 2

    You're basically right, I'll add a few clarifications although I'm no expert ether.

    The Council consists of the Heads of State/Government(for the consitutional monarchies since their head of state wields no political power) of every member nation as well as the President of the Council(non voting member), the President of the Cmomission(non voting member), High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs(also non voting member I think). The council decides on foreign policy and defines directions and priorities for the EU which the Commission is then empowered to enact.
    If you compare EU to the US the council most closely resembles the Presidency. The reason people think the the power lies with the Council is because decides on matters of foreign policy which is one of the most visible parts of the EU and because it gathers the executive power of the member states which dictate policy in their respective nations and typically represent the majority of the parliament members from their nation.

    The Council can however be overruled by the Parliament, not the other way around but for obvious reasons this rarely happens.

    Yes the EU is typically used as a smoke screen by the politicians of the member states but this is more due to the fact that in most member states. The elections for the EU parliament etc is seen as less significant than the national parliament/executive despite the fact that the EU parliament can force member states to enact law and policies.
    So the local politicians takes unpopular matters to the EU parliament and then makes them law and force them on the member states and meanwhile the local politicians can maintain the facade that they are fighting tooth and nail in the best interest of the people but in the end they have to "yield".

  49. Maybe they put it to a Pan-Euro referendum? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    if the answer comes back, "non merci" and they go and do it anyway... well, that's grounds for impeachment. Can you say "TREASON"?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  50. This summer I hear the drumming by Stormbringer · · Score: 1

    Four dead in Ohio

  51. Re:civil disobedience by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I'll buy whatever I want, hippy.

  52. ACTA = IPR Enforcement by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    Read both releases carefully. Then go back in time how ACTA is about counterfeiting, fake medications, etc. Bzzzzt. Here's the truth. And De Gucht knew that truth back then.

    ACTA needs to die, not because it may not be compatible with the 'EU constitution', but because the European public doesn't want it. And the longer it takes, the more of the typewriter-generation dies off to be replaced by first-time voting Internet generation youngsters. And we know what they think about what they should be able to do with content they like.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  53. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Do you actually believe that? I mean, really?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  54. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.

    Supporting references or examples please? I've been living in the EU for the past 15 years and I haven't seen any evidence at all of what you're saying.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  55. They do worse in the US all the time by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Your gun fetishism is pathetic.

  56. The EU admin is not bloated by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Contrary to the Murdoch toilet paper you're swallowing, the EU administration is not that bloated. Its budget is tiny considering the area it covers.

    England should be thrown out of the EU. Yes I said England.

  57. Some clarifications by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    I'm quite confused. As I understand every nation of EU should ratify it, otherwise it won't fly. And there is already annoucements from nations that they WON'T ratify, and therefore treaty won't go.

    What's happening in Europarlament is Euro Commision is another thing, but it still doesn't matter - ACTA is dead as we speak today.

    About Europarlament - it works as democracy, simply there is power struggle because old EU countries know that by sheer numbers they will be overpowered by new members in Europarlament - therefore they have created several miniclubs which have bigger legislation power than EP - which is very wrong. Therefore for last 20 years they have tried to minimise posibility for parlament for not letting their way. It was such way with software patents, and clashes countinue to this day.

    It's not black and white. It needs improvement, huge people lobby and people should start to get more interested in EU politics, because they *matter*. Ignoring and hoping that EU will go away is stupid and shortsighted.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  58. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by lordholm · · Score: 1

    Presumably you are only talking about local parties in Sweden, these are parts of larger European parties. In the EP, the greens (incl. the mijöpartiet and piratpartiet), the lefts (EUL/NGL incl. Vänsterpartiet), the social democrats (S&D, including Socialdemokraterna) and the liberals (ALDE/ELDR incl. Centern and Folkpartiet) have whole heartily rejected ACTA. And so have a ton of different EP committees. The conservatives (EPP incl. Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna) seem to be more or less divided about the issue though, in the EPP part, especially Cristoffer Fjellner have been a strong supporter of ACTA.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  59. Copyleft by higuita · · Score: 1

    GPL is copyright.

    You can copy and use it, as long you allow other to do the same ... its a special case of copyright, that instead of removing right give then back. This special case is usually named copyleft

    --
    Higuita
  60. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Daisys_Uncle · · Score: 1

    Ireland: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/europe/03ireland.html Holland: http://euobserver.com/18/26278 Oddly enough, they never gave the British a vote. I wonder why.

  61. Re:Sadly, the elements of the EU are more complex by Teun · · Score: 1
    A reasonable description of how the media let themselves be abused by national politicians:

    The fault must lie with Europe, Europe bad!

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  62. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Teun · · Score: 1
    In a representative democracy referenda don't have a place.

    Every four yours or so you elect your representatives into a parliament where they can control the government till the next elections come about.

    I see no reason to suddenly have a referendum on a single issue, at the level of national and international politics nothing stands on it's own and you need to trust your representatives to make the choice considering all facts, not just the issues of the day.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  63. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by hazah · · Score: 1

    Interesting if true.

  64. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Norway's options were: 1. Don't sign it and stay outside of the single market, effectively killing most trade that is not oil or fish (as all the other stuff is easier to get elsewhere).

    Any idea how big a bargaining chip that is? We could have had a free trade agreement like for example Switzerland does, without all the EU hooks. But sure, you pick from the options they offered us so we'd vote the way they wanted.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  65. Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? by Elldallan · · Score: 1

    Yes I meant the local parties here in Sweden because the AC was talking about Sweden ratifying ACTA.

  66. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Ireland voted no first, and it was no. Then they voted yes...and what? That's the democratic process and the 'bureaucrats in Brussels' didn't and couldn't actually force them to vote yes.

    Holland's MPs voted against the people they represent and should have been soundly thrashed by their population. This again is not the bureaucrats in Brussels but rather a problem locally in Holland that should be dealt with by the Dutch people by them voting out the MPs that didn't well represent them.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  67. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Daisys_Uncle · · Score: 1

    That wasn't the question. Next.

  68. Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? by Daisys_Uncle · · Score: 1

    Apologies, understand that you were answering the rhetorical part of my previous answer. And yes, I agree. Referenda are expensive and unnecessary for most issues. Transfer of sovereignty/power questions may be the best use for them though.

  69. Mr Gucht by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 1

    Just to provide some context, I present to you the waste of cowpat that is mr Gucht:

    He is under investigation for insider trading in connection with the breaking up of ING bank. He has not been officially accused (nor acquitted) so far, so it looks like he will walk because of statute of limitations. It says a lot about the EU that such a person can remain Commissioner of Trade.

    He is suspected of tax evasion. Transparency laws for Belgian banks have become stricter since 2011, but he and his wife are fighting the new laws in court. He refuses to give the IRS financial information, because "the new laws are sloppy" and "they should respect my privacy".

    He has been slammed for anti-semitic comments such as "Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill. That is the best organised lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics – no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats." and "Don't underestimate the opinion of the average Jew outside Israel. There is indeed a belief – it's difficult to describe it otherwise – among most Jews that they are right. And a belief is something that's difficult to counter with rational arguments.".

  70. Are these the same soldiers by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Are these the same soldiers who refused to torture civilians? Hold suspects without trial in de-humanizing conditions? Shoot at unarmed civilians from a gunship? Protect nazi war criminals from facing justice for killing their fellow soldiers? From mass rape and child murder in countless wars? From shooting at American citizens protesting segregation? From using forbidden chemical weapons on civilians? From refusing point blank to accept any plan to invite an allied nation should they be brought before a tribunal on war crimes?

    These soldiers?

    Good luck.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.