ACTA Rejected By European Parliament

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACTA Rejected By European Parliament

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday July 4, 2012 @01:39AM from the dodged-another-one dept.

Grumbleduke writes "Today the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Despite attempts by the EPP Group to delay the vote until after the Courts have ruled on its legality, the Parliament voted against the Treaty by 478 to 39; apparently the biggest ever defeat the Commission has suffered. However, despite this apparent victory for the Internet, transparency and democracy, the Commission indicated that it will press ahead with the court reference, and if the Court doesn't reject ACTA as well, will consider bringing it back before the Parliament."

142 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 01:41 · Score: 2

Congratulations to the FFII, EDRI and quadrature. You guys did awsome work.
1. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Seeteufel · 2012-07-04 02:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And the mass popular movement, they cannot stand how the EU Commission treats citizens and members of parliament anymore. Europe is once again reborn as a democracy, of the people, for the people.
2. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Dupple · 2012-07-04 02:09 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  It may well be that the vote has passed but may not make any difference
  http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/06/26/2116226/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-ignore-any-rejection-of-acta
  Especially as there appears to be a plan B
  http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16070495,00.html
  It's a good win at the moment, but the war isn't won.
  
  --
  Watch those corners
3. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by rbrausse · 2012-07-04 02:10 · Score: 2
  
  and I'm kind of proud to be an European. This was the first time were I recognized some "we, the people" feeling - the EU is mostly a bureaucratic umbrella and we have many democratic deficits.
  But take a look at this, protests all over the continent, finally some pan-European atmosphere.
  Neither top-to-bottom nor some organized spectacle (e.g. Euro2012 [football championship]) - great!
4. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Seeteufel · 2012-07-04 02:17 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think so. The ACTA process is terminated now. IPRED+ will be delayed because of the outcome of the vote, and it is EU legislative, not an international monster. It is much easier for civil society to deal with IPRED+ than ACTA because here Parliament sits in the driving seat.
5. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Dragonslicer · 2012-07-04 04:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Europe is once again reborn as a democracy, of the people, for the people.
  That's our line, you damned socialist hippies.
  
  Signed,
  'Merika, Fuck Yeah!
6. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by tqk · 2012-07-04 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Europe is once again reborn as a democracy, of the people, for the people.
  That's our line, you damned socialist hippies.
  Not anymore. You're in the process of repudiating it, you damned fascist toadie sheep.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
7. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  I see that we have difficulty with sarcasm?
8. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  If the Commissioner wants to try he can go right ahead. All he'll end up doing is pissing off the Parliament, who will then most likely make such laws illegal (they did that with the three strikes mess). Any plan B will have to be very carefully plotted to make sure the Parliament don't think someone's trying to play them.
  The war is most definitely not over, not until the big media and distribution companies change how they do business but at least we have some respite from the lobby groups for now.
9. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by CrackedButter · 2012-07-04 10:35 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah well done Britain. God my country sucks.
  You know I went to Germany last year (I wasn't in the capital either, I was in Bremen, a small city in the North), I saw people wearing those Guy Fawkes masks meeting up in public peacefully protesting. They actually care. I've never seen it here, we simply worship consumerism.
  Even Bulgaria got in on the action, we are at the bottom of the scale for engaging in political issues as important as this.
  
  --
  Jonathanjk.com
10. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  If the 39 who voted for it are booked under terrorism charges and sent to jail, there won't be any plan B or attempts at such treaties and laws.
11. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Internetuser1248 · 2012-07-04 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Europe is once again reborn as a democracy, of the people, for the people.
  Now all we have to deal with is the ESM and we are home free....
  
  Sigh
12. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  I think the ESM will end up getting ratified in all participating countries. I just hope that it won't take too long...
13. Re:Thanks to the FFII, EDRI, la Quadrature by KingBenny · 2012-07-05 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  as well as Jim Killock from openrights and avaaz, hail to the kings, but i'm afraid the act will come back in disguise a few more times, good thing there's people like zimmer and killock watching 24/7
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
nice by polar+red · 2012-07-04 01:41 · Score: 2

unexpectedly, democracy works ! EP win against EC !

--
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
1. Re:nice by Jahta · 2012-07-04 01:54 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Well we're not quite out of the woods. The EC (unelected and largely unaccountable) haven't given this one up yet. But the scale of the No vote, and the likelihood that the European Court will find at least some parts of ACTA unconstitutional, is going to make it tough for even the EC to push it through.
2. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The European Parliament has to give its consent. The vote was that it denied its consent.
  The EC also invoked the European Court of Justice. The ECJ will simply say, we cannot rule on ACTA anymore because the process is terminated.
  FFII for analysis.
3. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Even if the European Court of Justice didn't find anything unconstitutional, in europe ACTA is over anyways. A treaty can be perfectly constitutional, but if it's not backed by the parliament it simply doesn't become law.
  I would rather say that after today's vote, the ruling of the ECJ simply becomes irrelevant.
4. Re:nice by tsa · 2012-07-04 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I have the feeling that democracy doesn't work here. What does the legality of a rejected law matter? So why does the Court still have a say in this? And why, if ACTA is deemed legal, does the Parliament have to vote again? Is that normal procedure?
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
5. Re:nice by Elldallan · 2012-07-04 02:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The Court does have a limited say because it is supposed to investigate if ACTA is compatible with the framework treaties of the European Union, if they are Parliament can vote on it and either pass or reject ACTA which has already happened. However if the court finds that ACTA is incompatible with said framework treaties then it cannot be passed regardless of Parliament vote unless said framework treaties are changed as well. If the court finds that ACTA is ok then the Commission can remove whatever parts they think led to the rejection in Parliament and ask the Parliament to vote on the amended ACTA
6. Re:nice by cpu6502 · 2012-07-04 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. The EC's man in charge of this treaty has stated he will continue to press-forward through the EU's "supreme court" to get ACTA enforced. So basically the Parliament vote don't mean shit..... you have a law-making body that can bypassed by the executive branch. (Sounds familiar.)
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
7. Re:nice by Teun · 2012-07-04 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  The EC (unelected and largely unaccountable)/quote> Come on, quit that old bullshit.
  The European Commission is appointed and controlled by the governments of the member states, all of them democratically elected.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
8. Re:nice by lordholm · 2012-07-04 02:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, it cannot be bypassed. What he can do is have it subject to judicial review and try to resubmit the ratification proposal. However, I would assume that parliament will not take kindly to this. Maybe they should move for a no confidence vote on Karel.
  
  --
  "Civis Europaeus sum!"
9. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  No.
  The commissioner stated that if the European Court of Justice doesn't find anything "unconstitutional" in ACTA, he will bring back the treaty to the parliament. They cannot ratify it without the consent of the parliament. Anyways, I don't think it will happen, since today that commissioner was simply humiliated by the parliament itself.
10. Re:nice by lordholm · 2012-07-04 02:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This is true, except that the Commission cannot easily change ACTA as is as the treaty is signed. They could ask to have a protocol added which would require the approvals of all the original signing parties which include the US, Canada, the EU, the individual EU member states et.c. This in turn would mean that most governments need to acquire new negotiating mandates from their respective parliaments and so on. This is not a trivial operation.
  
  --
  "Civis Europaeus sum!"
11. Re:nice by elrous0 · 2012-07-04 02:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They'll just extradite everyone who violates it to the U.S. for prosecution.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
12. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  The Irish denied Lisbon, how'd that go?
13. Re:nice by Kat+M. · 2012-07-04 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  The European Commission is not unelected nor unaccountable. Its president is first proposed by the European Council and then elected by the European Parliament. The European Council, in agreement with the president of the commission, then appoints the commissioners, which are then also subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. The European Parliament can also dismiss the European Commission (basically, a motion of no confidence), though not individual commissioners. In fact, an angry European Parliament did famously force the resignation of the Santer Commission, which it considered corrupt and arrogant.
  It's the same basic process that is used to appoint/elect cabinets in most parliamentary democracies; heck, the British Prime Ministers do not even have to be confirmed by the House of Commons; they are appointed by the reigning Monarch (Queen or King) once they can be assumed to command a majority in the Commons.
  The European Commission's problem is generally a lack of transparency, not a lack of democratic legitimacy.
14. Re:nice by Svippy · 2012-07-04 03:21 · Score: 2
  
  We rewrote parts of it to satisfy their demands, and it went into effect in 2009.
  
  --
  Clicked pie.
15. Re:nice by Svippy · 2012-07-04 03:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The EC (unelected and largely unaccountable)
  Come on, quit that old bullshit.
  The European Commission is appointed and controlled by the governments of the member states, all of them democratically elected.
  Ah, indirectly. Most - if not all - EU countries use a parliamentary system, which means our governments are not directly elected, but elected by the parliaments which are directly elected. So you have voters > local parliament > local government > EC. So yeah, that's quite far from the voters. Compare to the EP: voters > EP. One step.
  A lot of special interests are bound to be happening through those steps. However, the EC has far less power with the passing of Lisbon, so I wouldn't worry too much.
  
  --
  Clicked pie.
16. Re:nice by Jahta · 2012-07-04 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  Come on, quit that old bullshit. The European Commission is appointed and controlled by the governments of the member states, all of them democratically elected.
  Your point being? The EC is a group of political appointees, with a history of pushing agendas at odds with the wishes of the electorate and their democratically elected representatives.
  Remember the software patents battle?
17. Re:nice by stanlyb · 2012-07-04 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In most countries, this "mandate" requirements was never issued. The pact was signed secretly, behind the curtain, and without the knowledge of the public, and in some cases (i know of a few countries) even without the consent of the parliament.
  Nevertheless, the real issue is the unconvinient publicity of the ACTA, which could make all these "hidden" deals very hard to strike. Which is actually a real democracy at work.
18. Re:nice by Hognoxious · 2012-07-04 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  Unless they try and slip in onto page 735 of a bill about fisheries.
  Nah, they'd never try anything as sneaky as that. Well, not again.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
19. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  One step? Not exactly.
  By far the most votes go to the #1 seat of a list/party, so all others are elected indirectly as well.
20. Re:nice by ickleberry · 2012-07-04 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Same could happen with ACTA. They re-write a few lines that make little difference, leave the DRM provisions intact and call it ACTA II, or give it a new name altogether like they did with Lisbon (formerly called the European constitution).
  
  It's the age-old problem with representative 'democracy' that the commission, or the power that be get an unlimited number of tries to pass a certain unpopular piece of legislation. They can re-package, re-brand it, attach it to another law, or if necessary water it down a bit and then create a new law at a later date that strengthens it to what they originally intended.
21. Re:nice by Samalie · 2012-07-04 05:47 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The difference in this case is that ACTA isn't a piece of legislation written up by the EU that can be changed willy-nilly in order to secure the votes for passage.
  ACTA is an international treaty that has been signed (but not ratified) by (most?) of the signatories' legislative bodies.
  To change ACTA (to re-package, whatever) requires all the signatory nations to get back together & start re-negotiating the points of it. SImply put, the EU cannot alter ACTA for ratification independently.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
22. Re:nice by Svippy · 2012-07-04 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  I recommend you to read up on party-list proportional representation voting systems. Because you can vote for individual candidates, but the party will also recieve a vote at the same time. Whenever a vote for a party list has elected on its candidate list, the votes from thereon pass onto the next one, and so on.
  They are not indirectly elected, because their listing has to be made official prior to the election, and moreover, the list has to appear on every ballot, in order.
  So even if it was indirect, it is very transparent.
  
  --
  Clicked pie.
23. Re:nice by Svippy · 2012-07-04 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Moreover, Ireland needs the EU, for financial reasons and whatnot. The EP does not need ACTA.
  
  --
  Clicked pie.
24. Re:nice by HuguesT · 2012-07-04 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the EC is elected. It is an executive council made of all the head of states or government (whoever wield the actual top executive power in their respective state) and a few European representative like the president of the European Commission. All these people are elected according to the system of their own country of origin.
  Of course it is accountable. Decisions taken in the EC are discussed in newspapers in Europe like any other political body of import. Boneheaded decision making result in non-reelection a few months/year down the track.
  Of course it is independent from the Parliament, and so is it the other way around. Separation of powers is the hallmark of democracy.
25. Re:nice by HuguesT · 2012-07-04 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  The EC members, since 2009, consist of the head of states of every EU countries. Hardly "political appointees". In some countries in Europe the head of state is elected directly by the people.
26. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  I have no idea where you got this information, but it's completely wrong. Or maybe you can tell me in which countries Karel de Gucht or José Manuel Barroso are currently heads of state?
27. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's sad. Many of us Americans think that our imperialism is bullshit, but feel powerless. Elections are for show, like choosing how you want to die. :/
  And we have been brainwashed from a very young age to embrace it. "Land of the free," "by the people, for the people" and all that bullshit.
28. Re:nice by Elldallan · 2012-07-04 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, it might not be trivial but it can be done, hopefully they are a bit daunted by the underwhelming 6% support in Parliament since even if they have another go at it there is no guarantee that Parliament will accept the new revised version, hopefully the court strike it dead as well because that should really put a wrench in their machinery.
  
  Personally I fear that this was just a smokescreen and they put it up there just to fail and take up media space while they're busy passing the real treaty through the backdoor, maybe I am just paranoid or a cynic but I feel like this victory came too easy.
29. Re:nice by Carewolf · 2012-07-04 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately I think the EP is a little hindered in their power over individual commissioners, they can only fire the entire commission, not single individuals. Doing that requires requires grand standing and a game of chicken between the EC and the EP.
30. Re:nice by Carewolf · 2012-07-04 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the EC is elected. It is an executive council made of all the head of states or government
  No, maybe you are thinking of the council of ministers, which is a separate organ, but even then you would be wrong. The European Commission is made up of people _appointed_ by the executive branch of each member state. As such they do represent the traditional head of government. but not the head of state! Who gives a shit what the queen thinks?
  No European organ is made up of the heads of state, the kings and queens of Europe, because frankly: What would be the point?
31. Re:nice by _Shad0w_ · 2012-07-04 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  An incoming PM immediately faces a vote of confidence though, in the form of the budget vote. If they lose that then it all starts again with someone else being asked to try and form a government. The budget vote, in practice, demonstrates that the appointed prime minster has the backing of the majority of MPs.
  
  --
  Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
32. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  They have the last two elections rejected individual commissioners, despite they cannot do this officially. Declaring individual commissioners to have no confidence is a bridge that the parliament crossed 8 years ago.
33. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  I think the fact that Socialist parties are doing well in Europe - In power in France and other countries - might be part of the reason for this. Remember, Socialism is not Communism - polar opposites really! Compare a country like Norway to China and tell me they're not polar opposites (regardless of scale)
34. Re:nice by Jahta · 2012-07-04 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  The EC members, since 2009, consist of the head of states of every EU countries. Hardly "political appointees". In some countries in Europe the head of state is elected directly by the people.
  Actually no. Have a look at the members of the current Commission. Not a head of state among them. Or anybody who was actually voted for by their national electorate.
35. Re:nice by Teun · 2012-07-05 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well put.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Well done by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 01:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

But we're only safe until the next bit of daft legislation.
1. Re:Well done by interkin3tic · 2012-07-04 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  But that's always true of any government on any issue. You need to maintain constant vigilance that they're not going to pass some terrible law.
  
  Is there a government? If yes, then they can pass something you don't like and you need to be sure they don't if at all possible. If no, then you don't have to worry about it, but you have bigger issues that you do need to worry about then.
well good for them by halfEvilTech · 2012-07-04 01:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Its nice to see some political critters with a shred of common sense still. Of course the MPAA/RIAA's of the world over there are thinking what the hell happened and if they didn't donate enough.
1. Re:well good for them by GroeFaZ · 2012-07-04 02:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This time it's not political critters developing a shred of common sense, it's political critters channeling civil society's common sense and massive protests. For once, they have worked.
  
  --
  The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
2. Re:well good for them by SomeKDEUser · 2012-07-04 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  This is Europe. You can wine and dine the MEPs, to an extent, but you need to corrupt them in so many languages that you might find the task daunting... Also unlike the US, outright buying of politicians is frowned upon.
  Because make no mistakes, unlimited campaign donations via "superpacs" is just that, buying politicos.
3. Re:well good for them by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-07-04 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  Because make no mistakes, unlimited campaign donations via "superpacs" is just that, buying politicos.
  No doubt.
  It should be noted, however, that politicians were bought and sold long before "superpacs" were even thought of.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
4. Re:well good for them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  common sense ? I think you mean well developed self-preservation instinct. ? This thing is high profile and they just do not want to get burned by it.
  They will simply approve the next dozen or so minor treaties, that will fly in under the radar of the general populace because they are, well, minor, but which together will add up to be even worse than ACTA on its own.
5. Re:well good for them by ppanon · 2012-07-04 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  It should be noted, however, that politicians were bought and sold long before "superpacs" were even thought of.
  True. SuperPACs are just the big box stores of corruption. But don't underestimate the impact of big box stores.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The commission is blatantly against democracy by Reality+Master+301 · 2012-07-04 01:44 · Score: 1

"...will consider bringing it back before the Parliament." Who do they think they're dealing with, Ireland?
1. Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy by amiga3D · 2012-07-04 01:47 · Score: 2
  
  They'll keep sending it until it's passed. It's what they get paid for.
2. Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy by Spad · 2012-07-04 01:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Won't work. If there's one thing that the EU Parliament have shown is that when people try and bypass their authority they're willing to turn up in huge numbers to vote it down on principle.
3. Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy by mcnazar · 2012-07-04 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  It would have been very funny seeing this proposal being rejected continuously unless you consider that each iteration of the process costs task payers money.
  Why are we continuously footing that bill if it has been shown that the treaty has been overwhelmingly rejected?
  "SOUP! The goat fetched SOUP!!"
  "SOUP?!?11one This makes no sense!"
4. Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy by mcnazar · 2012-07-04 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  task payers = tax payers.... sigh... I should stop reading /. and get back to JIRA.
5. Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy by Seeteufel · 2012-07-04 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  They say so, but the reality is that there is no chance whatsoever for it to return. The reason is simple, the process has terminated. They would have to seek a new mandate for a new treaty and this time member states would be more cautious and the Lisbon treaty of the European Union requires more transparency in regulatory dialogue.
6. Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct. All actions now should be direct at EC member responsible for Trade Karel De Gucht asking him why after so many rejections of ACTA he is still wasting tax payer money by not retracting his ACTA submission from the EU court.
7. Re:The commission is blatantly against democracy by stanlyb · 2012-07-04 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why the nazzi grammar is nazzi, lol, now i know why.
Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Sasayaki · 2012-07-04 01:46 · Score: 5, Funny

ACTA is like a sleezy guy trying to pick you up in a bar.
You can tell him no six hundred times and he'll keep coming back, because all it takes is one yes and he's fucked you.

--
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
1. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot: "and you're the only chick in the bar."
2. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  But the European Parliament denied its "consent". So the whole process is gone. They cannot ask a second time.
3. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by tsa · 2012-07-04 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And he will keep rephrasing the question until you say Yes by accident.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
4. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Lumpy · 2012-07-04 02:10 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Europe needs to go back to killing the messenger. If they send the guy carrying the next version of ACTA back in a coffin, it might get the point across.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
5. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  That might inspire a Gengis Khan -style response. As long as we don't have definitive proof that they've not raised an army, just smile and say sorry, maybe another time.
6. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-04 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  rich guys are running the world.
  and rich guys LOVE their lives. and to live.
  hmmm, this may just work.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
7. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't know this story involved Julian Assange.
8. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Teun · 2012-07-04 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  You have a very low opinion of the members of parliament.
  And by consequence the voters that elected them.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
9. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes... Yes I do...
10. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  LOL!
11. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-07-04 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just send the head back in a flat rate postal box. Save on postage. coffin &ct.
12. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by stanlyb · 2012-07-04 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  At least he has opinion, unlike 99% of the population for example...
13. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by sjames · 2012-07-04 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they said if it fits it ships! I don't see the problem here.
14. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by Synesthes · 2012-07-04 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  Just don't send it to a Canadian political party or school by accident...
15. Re:Six hundred no's and a yes, is a yes by redneckmother · 2012-07-04 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Just send the head back in a flat rate postal box. Save on postage. coffin &ct.
  Remember that we're talking about a rather *fat* head. It probably WON'T fit.
  The correct method is to administer an enema on the corpse, and send the remains in a small envelope.
Don't celebrate just yet by Quakeulf · 2012-07-04 01:50 · Score: 1

The governments themselves are doing all they can do get in on its users, throttling and censoring to their liking. They probably saw this as a challenge.
Consider bringing it back? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 01:51 · Score: 0

You know, because a 92% defeat isn't a mandate to go to fuck away or anything...
1. Re:Consider bringing it back? by 0123456 · 2012-07-04 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  You seem to misunderstand how 'democracy' works in Europe. In the EU, you get a vote, and if you vote the wrong way they keep forcing you to vote again until you get it right.
2. Re:Consider bringing it back? by digitig · 2012-07-04 03:19 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Er, well, 78% against, 6% for, 24% abstentions. The EC will see that as a 78% v. 32% defeat, ie, only a 46% defeat. Because politicians seem to really believe you can do that sort of thing with statistics.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
3. Re:Consider bringing it back? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  "78% against, 6% for, 24% abstentions" - That's 108%
  "78% v. 32% defeat" - That's 110%
  WTF - Do the math!
4. Re:Consider bringing it back? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-05 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  He must be Russian. ~
5. Re:Consider bringing it back? by digitig · 2012-07-05 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  I did the math. I think you mean "get the math right." 70%, 6%, 24%.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
This is the European July 4th... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 01:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Higgs' Boson discovered by LHC before Tevatron, and ACTA (already implemented in the USA) finally rejected by the European Parliament. Europe wins both in science and democracy. Very sad july 4th for the USA.
Dear hollywood cocaineaholics/drunk singers/corrupt american politicians/etc..., f*uck you!
1. Re:This is the European July 4th... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:07 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Hey - don't take it too hard..
  You still have those beautiful software patents.
  Now that's something we don't have here in Europe.
  It must be a lot of fun to see all those cases increase (well ... if you are a lawyer that is).
2. Re:This is the European July 4th... by Seeteufel · 2012-07-04 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  You see, this time US "imperialism" exports independence day. Higgs and ACTA rejection. A great day to celebrate!
3. Re:This is the European July 4th... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why is the European Parliament doing business today? Don't they know it's the Fourth?
4. Re:This is the European July 4th... by k(wi)r(kipedia) · 2012-07-04 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Higgs' Boson discovered by LHC before Tevatron
  To be slightly pedantic, machines don't make discoveries. That, or the Higgs was discovered months ago.
5. Re:This is the European July 4th... by RivenAleem · 2012-07-04 02:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Don't forget the Apple design patents!
6. Re:This is the European July 4th... by Teun · 2012-07-04 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  The could have voted yesterday but today was more fun.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
7. Re:This is the European July 4th... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't mod things like this insightful. For every "freedom" the EU claims to protect against evil corporations they take two for the governments.
8. Re:This is the European July 4th... by stanlyb · 2012-07-04 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  So, it appears that only USA has GOD's particle (lol, whatever that means...) and ACTA. Now, now, tell me that they are not god-chosen.
9. Re:This is the European July 4th... by Seeteufel · 2012-07-04 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Hihi. The god particle.
10. Re:This is the European July 4th... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't mod things like this insightful. For every "freedom" the EU claims to protect against evil corporations they take two for the governments.
  Have you experienced a mandatory TSA pat-down molestation yet?
11. Re:This is the European July 4th... by alexo · 2012-07-04 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Very sad july 4th for the USA
  Not really, it might just encourage the Americans to do better.
  They out-Sovieted the Soviets, perhaps it's time they try to out-Europe the Europeans instead.
Act of war.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:08 · Score: 1

Just wait for Romney to get elected, Europe will find out what it's like to not do what they are told.
Retroactively adopt ACTA or face War! we have several ships ready with nuclear armed cruise missles ready to strike every capitol and 3 largest cities in all of europe if you dont to what you are told to do.
dissent must be stopped with a swift and severe blow to reinforce the fear to the others.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
The emperor commands us to fight against the heretics.
Pick any insane war loving quote and insert here.
The united states is built upon war and thrives on war, we have been at war for most of our existence.
1. Re:Act of war.... by Seeteufel · 2012-07-04 02:19 · Score: 2
  
  Come on! The US is not the power it used to be. And in the old times it would not impose its interests in such a blunt way. In fact, ACTA's European demise is also a blow for it as a worldwide treaty.
2. Re:Act of war.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  "Just wait for Romney to get elected"
  That's gonna be one really long wait! Not gonna happen this time around! He's pissed off way too many people, and the rest have the attitude "better the evil you know".
3. Re:Act of war.... by hlavac · 2012-07-04 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  The united states is built upon war and thrives on war, we have been at war for most of our existence.
  US still thinks war will help their economy? All the manufacturing is in china now, what will they manufacture to help economy - lawsuits?
4. Re:Act of war.... by cheesybagel · 2012-07-04 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  US still thinks war will help their economy? All the manufacturing is in china now, what will they manufacture to help economy - lawsuits?
  Why, by demolishing underused houses and building new ones of course!
guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:18 · Score: 0

i guess the european politics doesn't need to raise money for their campaigns for office, so they don't have to go after the money from special interests.
1. Re:guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  i guess the european politics doesn't need to raise money for their campaigns for office, so they don't have to go after the money from special interests.
  That's why having a public finance law for political parties is so important not only at the european level but also at the local level. And also why many countries have a tax on tv that serves to finance public broadcasters. These simple concepts, are very important for a democratic society that is not yet subverted totally by private interests is anathema it seems to american citizens.
Not only did they reject it... by Yvanhoe · 2012-07-04 02:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

... but they began to hate it too : image

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
1. Re:Not only did they reject it... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Faith in humanity: Restored.
  CAPTCHA: "alliance"
2. Re:Not only did they reject it... by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-04 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  That made my day :)
3. Re:Not only did they reject it... by Schmorgluck · 2012-07-04 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  Specifically, these are the MEPs from The Greens-European Free Alliance group (you can see its logo on the lower right of the signs).
  It's worth noting that the two MEPs of the Swedish Pirate Party belong to this group, which is unsurprizing given the Greens have been sharing their concerns for a long time.
  
  --
  There's nothing like $HOME
Vote influenced by Pirate Party? by k(wi)r(kipedia) · 2012-07-04 02:37 · Score: 2

Could the relatively recent electoral successes of the various Pirate Parties convinced the MEPs to vote against the treaty, perhaps as an attempt to head off a backlash at the ballot box? The near triumph of the various anarchist and radical left factions in Greece might have also served as a sobering reminder of what could happen when government decides to act against public opinion. This is not necessarily a good thing but should be considered as a political fact of life that comes with the rise of the socially networked voter.
1. Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? by wvmarle · 2012-07-04 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The vote was near anonymous. More than 90% against. That's not just populism, the pirate parties don't make any serious inroads.
  Greece is a bad example: that country is in shatters, and people will vote for whoever is not part of the old leadership. The austerity there hurts too, of course, many people don't like it of course, but it seems the overall opinion of the Greek people is that their country should stay in the Eurozone. That's at least what they're currently heading for.
2. Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  We simply cannot know. Who or why influenced the decision is entirely speculative at this point.
3. Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 03:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The vote was near anonymous. More than 90% against.
  I don't think that word means what you think it means.
  - Unanimous Coward
4. Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? by CanEHdian · 2012-07-04 05:07 · Score: 2
  
  The Pirate Party is very influential. Take a look for instance at this "Creation and Copyright in the Digital Era" position paper, in particular paragraph 26. The Greens/EFA is the fourth-largest political group in the European Parliament and officially supports reducing copyright to 20 years after publication. There's even more in that paper.
  Guess what your MAME collection could look like with a copyright limited to 20 years? Or software for your 8-bit home computer emulator you used way back when? As well, Windows 3.1 would be entering the Public Domain. The first 10 years of Compact Disc - Digital Audio releases (1982-1991).
  Without the Pirate Party, there wouldn't be so much interest in copyright reform.
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
5. Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  That said, I think Anonymous would have approved.
6. Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? by Znork · 2012-07-04 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  Well, if you look at the picture here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9346957/MEPs-reject-ACTA-piracy-treaty.html he might have meant what he said...
  But no, I don't think the recent electoral successes have done that much to influence. However, the Swedish Pirate MEP's, Christian Engström and Amelia Andersdotter, have most certainly done a lot of work in the European Parliament. And I would wager that a lot of pirate party activists have been encouraged enough to actually mail various MEP's simply by having gotten somewhat organized.
  But the proponents of ACTA have certainly made it easier as well; by acting as such utter douchebags throughout the process they've certainly made sure that nobody with the least knowledge of it could support it without looking like an utter tool. Having the first official parliament rapporteur on the treaty quit in disgust over the process and his replacement turning from positive to negative sent strong signals prior to committee votes.
7. Re:Vote influenced by Pirate Party? by wvmarle · 2012-07-04 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected :-)
Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 02:44 · Score: 0

More solid evidence to reform the commission.
Not law in the USA either by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-07-04 02:59 · Score: 5, Informative

The US Constitution requires any treaty to be ratified by the US Senate. As of now no Senate vote on ACTA has occurred so it's not law even in the USA. But the Justice Department is also insisting they will enforce it.
1. Re:Not law in the USA either by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  The Constitution is but a piece of worthless paper.
  That should have been evident since what 10-15 years ago ?
2. Re:Not law in the USA either by Znork · 2012-07-04 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  The sleazebags in the white house seem to claim that it's a 'trade agreement' that doesn't change law so it needs no ratification. And they try to claim the same in Europe, altho they have not gotten around the need for ratification.
  Of course, that's ignoring the point that signing even an agreement that doesn't change current law will still prevent a scaling back of IP law and thus bind congress and senate.
  This corruption seems prevalent throughout various government arms in many countries. 'Special' IP enforcement police (with frequent trips to Hollywood), 'special' courts, 'special' judges, etc. This is outright bribery and corruption and these 'special' people need to be put in a very 'special' jail and forced to watch alternating bad cams of dubbed films with foreign subtitles and originals with the wrong region code that won't play in their player.
3. Re:Not law in the USA either by RazorSharp · 2012-07-04 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  The Constitution is but a piece of worthless paper.
  That should have been evident since what 10-15 years ago ?
  1861.
  
  --
  "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
What will ACTA proponents say? by bzipitidoo · 2012-07-04 03:26 · Score: 2

People didn't understand? They were the victims of a misinformation campaign? LOL.
Wonder how many humiliations it'll take to demoralize and scare copyright extremists enough that they'll never try the likes of ACTA again? Drum Karel De Gucht out. Force Theresa May to reconsider and not extradite O'Dwyer. Kick out the officials who are helping with the harassment of the Pirate Bay.
Then the extremists can spend the rest of their lives sulking in their mansions like deposed royalty, since they seem unable to face reality.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
1. Re:What will ACTA proponents say? by sjames · 2012-07-04 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  No amount will be enough. We're going to have to roast one or more of them on a spit to get the point across.
Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 03:36 · Score: 0

Messenger: This is ACTA!
Leonadias: ACTA? ACTA you say?
THIS. IS. SPACTAAAAAAAA
*kicks messenger down hole that conveniently is just behind him*
Legal or not, who cares? by starfishsystems · 2012-07-04 03:39 · Score: 1

Just because a thing is legally permitted does not make it sensible. I'm pretty sure that it's legal for me to stockpile Froot Loops by filling my car with them. Consider the EC as being advocates of that sort of thinking.

--
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
The US constitution guarantees a fair+speedy trial by Nicolas+MONNET · 2012-07-04 04:25 · Score: 2

Now look at Guantanamo.
Hooray!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 05:56 · Score: 0

I say again:
Hooray!!!!!
Commission is powerless without parliament by F69631 · 2012-07-04 06:11 · Score: 3, Informative

It's rare to see the EU parliament - composing of over half a dozen groups, each of which is umbrella organization for dozens of parties from many countries - to be as united as they were now. They voted not only against the internet restricting laws but also against the kind of shady activity that occurred during ACTA preparations. Whatever the commission says now, I doubt they've got the balls to bring ACTA - or nearly identical equivalents with different name - back anytime soon... it would be such an act of disrespect towards the parliament that things could escalate far more than anyone is willing to risk "just for copyright".
I think we're safe at least until June of 2014 (next parliamentary elections in EU)... that is, of course, unless same provisions are brought back in a bill that also mention child pornography. EU legislators are pretty weak against the "think of the children" argument.
Odd turns with the UKIP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:29 · Score: 0

I found it interesting that the UKIP voted against the treaty; as in the earlier call for open access to the negotiation material, they voted against opening up the text. With the explanation that they did not "recognize" that the treaty existed, and therefore voted against the call for access (normal people would simply abstain the vote if you are that boneheaded).
So, did the UKIP suddenly decide to recognize that the treaty actually existed, or is it simply so that they vote against anything tabled before them?
Message to Old Media Model Companies: by msobkow · 2012-07-04 12:36 · Score: 1

Just frickin' die already! And stop trying to take the rest of the world with you down your death-spiral.
The world owes you NOTHING.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:The US constitution guarantees a fair+speedy tr by interkin3tic · 2012-07-04 15:26 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that it only applied to US citizens. This wiki page lists three American citizens of note that the government admits to. Hamdi was held at Guantanamo for a while, but the government claims it didn't know he was a citizen. Lindh was put on trial a few months after his capture, and never went to Cuba. Padilla was held for years before trial, but again not at Guantanamo.

It seems that most of the prisoners there are not citizens and have no reasonable expectation that we'll grant them constitutional rights. While I think the rights listed in the constitution SHOULD be applied universally and should apply to non-citizens we arrest, I'm evidently in the minority there, and it hasn't been applied to everyone.

My point is that Guantanamo is not a simple case of the government ignoring the constitution.
return by Tom · 2012-07-04 19:17 · Score: 1

Yes, one commissioner has said that he's going to bring it back again and again.
The summary misses something important, though: That EU MEPs have made it very clear what they think of that strategy. Shooting yourself in the foot is a really attractive option compared to the equivalent of telling the judge up front that you're going to appeal his ruling anyways - when he knows that he will also preside over the appeal case.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Time to thank the MEPS by japa · 2012-07-04 20:22 · Score: 1

Send your thank you in the form of flowers as suggested by mr. Falkvinge of Swedish pirate party

http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/04/send-flowers-to-the-european-parliament-for-rejecting-acta/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Falkvinge-on-Infopolicy+%2528Falkvinge+on+Infopolicy%2529
I have already made order to be delivered on 9th June.
Send flowers! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 20:28 · Score: 0

Please take a little bit of your time to show your appreciation by sending flowers.
http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/04/send-flowers-to-the-european-parliament-for-rejecting-acta/
Re:The US constitution guarantees a fair+speedy tr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 23:20 · Score: 0

So what you are saying is if I come to US for a holiday, get caught for DUI in rental car, I could be legally held forever without trial?
Re:The US constitution guarantees a fair+speedy tr by interkin3tic · 2012-07-05 02:10 · Score: 1

What I'm saying is that it's not the constitution that's going to protect you in that case. Your home government's diplomats, the press, and various treaties hopefully, but the constitution, I doubt it.
I wonder, who voted PRO-ACTA ?! by freaker_TuC · 2012-07-05 02:19 · Score: 1

So, we can vote against those ;)

--
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..