Bye ACTA, Hello CETA

New submitter xSander writes "Is anyone really surprised by this? ACTA may have been rejected by the European Parliment, but it is far from dead yet. Apparently, the EU is trying to revive ACTA through the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)." The article contains a handy side-by-side comparison of the CETA clauses that are nearly identical to ones found in ACTA.

Comments

Great

[Cyphase]

Trade is good.

Right?

Re:Great

[siddesu]

Trade is good. Using "trade" as an excuse to subvert the democratic process and force via "international agreements" legislation that favors big business is neither good, nor acceptable.

BTW, the summary is wrong, it isn't the EU that is "trying to revive ACTA", it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans -- that is trying to do so. They are, for some reason, particularly sensitive to the needs of big business.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, the summary is wrong, it isn't the EU that is "trying to revive ACTA", it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans -- that is trying to do so. They are, for some reason, particularly sensitive to the needs of big business.

The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. So yes, it's the EU. And if it's fair to bash on Americans for actions taken by the US Federal government, it's fair to blame the "little guys" in Europe for the actions taken by the EC.

Re:Great

[siddesu]

You can blame anyone you choose, but your reasoning is faulty.

In general, the leverage that the European citizens have over the EC is significantly smaller than the leverage the Americans have over their federal government. This is so because of the way EC commissars .... ops, commissioners are appointed to serve, and because of the complex patron-client relationships that exist between the various national political elites that make the appointments, the European Council, the key commissars and the major European "parties".

In this specific instance, the only body of the EU that represents the "little guys" directly, the European Parliament, rejected ACTA very clearly (and under massive grassroots pressure), so you cannot really blame the EU electorate.

What you are witnessing here is a small clique of euro bureaucrats gaming the rules of the EU, trying to subvert the will of this elected body. They are the ones who should bear all the blame.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, Obama was able to make ACTA sail right through into US law, because he is owned by the entertainment business and has too much power. Sure, he can be voted out, but he still has too much power while he's there.

Re:Great

[Teun]

it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans

Crap, yes it's the commission that brings up these dofus ideas but they are no more 'unelected' than many EU governments.
These guys don't fall from the sky but are appointed by national governments that are controlled by elected parliaments and their plans have to pass the elected EU parliament, it's up to you to take part in your national and EU elections to control them.

I agree it's rather scandalous they once more try to force such unwanted legislation but have good hopes the various national governments will instruct their commissioner to either take out the sting or stop the whole process, otherwise the EU parliament will bury it as happened with ACTA.

Re:Great

[siddesu]

I don't disagree, but to me it looks like in the US this is happening because more people find it acceptable, while in the EU it is mostly due to failure of the institutions. Well, or success, depending on where you stand. Incidentally, ACTA passed quite smoothly in Japan because the electorate is absolutely passive and can't be bothered to have an opinion, but now that it has been rejected in the EU, negative attitude has started to appear.

Re:Great

[siddesu]

Aw, come on. The national governments do indeed appoint the candidates, and there are hearing sessions in the EP before the commissars are put forward and the commission is approved, but the process behind these appointments is in no way transparent, compared to, say, electing a national government.

The big countries and the important bureaucrats play complicated games with their clientelle in the smaller countries, there are all kinds of backstage games and agreements, etc. so in the end you get a "government" that is much more responsive to the cabal that runs these negotiations than to anyone else.

Then, there is the sad fact that the Commission is viewed as something remote and inaccessible by the voters in Europe (or at least by the people I know), and there is a lot less public scrutiny directed at them as well.

So, compared to a national government, the EC suffers less oversight, gets less feedback, and consequently feels more powerful.

Re:Great

[AngryDeuce]

but to me it looks like in the US this is happening because more people find it acceptable

This. For whatever reason, it seems like more and more people are voting against their interests, all because of the promise of some benefit to someone else. Look at the debate over taxes here in the U.S., I've had people that live in a trailer, working at Walmart for $7.15 an hour, flame the shit out of me over my opinion because "the government is taxing them to death". Really? What could the tax burden on someone living at the fucking poverty line even be? Who the fuck are they fighting for?

It's not just taxes, either; the healthcare debate is another perfect example. I had an old friend of mine, whose wife is on social security for a disability (she's "got bad wrists", which reeks of BS anyway), medicaid, and they now collect food stamps since she's pregnant and they both have minimum wage jobs, not to mention the cost of her care related to the pregnancy is completely absorbed by the state...this person ranted all over me about the nanny state and people "expecting handouts". I pointed out what a huge fucking hypocrite he was, and he told me that it was different in his situation because he works and when he makes money later he'll be forced to pay whereas all the people on it now are just lazy and don't want to work. Everyone else, just not him or his wife. Funny how that works...

I don't know when it happened, but a sizable number of people in this country have been convinced that the government they themselves elected is an evil machine hell bent on wiping them out because "that's what government does", but the multi-national corporations that answer to no one, buy off our officials, skirt the taxes the people bitch about having to pay, and all sorts of other antisocial, repugnant bullshit...they're just benevolent overlords doing God's good work.

Re:Great

[Gr8Apes]

You can blame anyone you choose, but your reasoning is faulty.

In general, the leverage that the European citizens have over the EC is significantly smaller than the leverage the Americans have over their federal government.

.... a whole lot of statements about corruption and cronyism that applies equally well to the US political system

No worries there, when it comes to coporatocracy and cronyism, I think we're in a neck to neck race.

Re:Great

[Teun]

Then, there is the sad fact that the Commission is viewed as something remote and inaccessible by the voters in Europe (or at least by the people I know), and there is a lot less public scrutiny directed at them as well.

I agree that large swaths of the press are not furthering the EU ideal but rather some masters interest, the prime example are the British rags continuing to regurgitate nonsense like about bent cucumbers supposedly being illegal to market.

Re:Great

[Gr8Apes]

but to me it looks like in the US this is happening because more people find it acceptable

This. For whatever reason, it seems like more and more people are voting against their interests, all because of the promise of some benefit to someone else. ...

I don't know when it happened, but a sizable number of people in this country have been convinced that the government they themselves elected is an evil machine hell bent on wiping them out ....

First, people appear to be voting against their interests because they are voting for a very specific interest that amounts to crap in the big picture of politics (abortion anyone?).

Second, those latter 2 statements are not necessarily opposing facts. The government they elected is not the one they received, and there's plenty of evidence they're an out of control evil bent on subjugating the populace, or strongly going that way. Heinlein, Huxley or Orwell may have been prescient instead of merely writing dystopian fiction. Heinlein is included because of the social commentary in Starship Troopers.

Re:Great

[siddesu]

I only expose myself to the Guardian and the Economist and they have not followed the cucumber debate closely, but I have the same feeling -- in general, the national press in the EU tends to cover the EU issues badly.

Re:Great

[gorzek]

You can thank Ronald Reagan for much of that sentiment: the idea that the government is incompetent at best, evil at worst. The federal income tax burden on someone making around minimum wage is not just non-existent, it's negative: the Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable credit available to the poor, meaning they can get back more than they paid (and they often pay next to nothing.)

If they want to whine about something, maybe they should look at the regressive taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor: gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and the like.

Americans benefit in a lot of ways from the various social programs we have. Food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid, Medicare, TANF, Social Security, etc. etc. The individual who never draws on any of these is a rare creature, indeed, perhaps even mythical. They are there in case you need them. Claims of fraud are generally exaggerated, except in Medicare, which has massive levels of fraud that somehow don't get talked about.

I've noticed that a lot of the "low tax, small government" conservatives are "pre-rich." They think they will be wealthy one day, and the thought of Uncle Sam taking a good chunk of it is horrifying to them. Never mind that if you are pulling down over a quarter million a year, you aren't going to miss a few tens of thousands. Well, maybe you'll have to settle for one Lexus instead of two?

Oddly enough, I make more money than the vast majority of people who spout such rubbish, and I never complain about paying my taxes, even though they are in the five figures per year. I value the services that the government provides to people less fortunate than me, because I value having a functional society and a government that respects and upholds the social contract. What disgusts me is our runaway defense spending--as if killing foreigners is more important than looking after our own people. It's curious how the same people who are against spending money on the poor and sick are nevertheless fine with dropping billions on boondoggle weapons systems and wars in the Middle East. Talk about fucked up priorities.

Re:Great

[Bob9113]

In general, the leverage that the European citizens have over the EC is significantly smaller than the leverage the Americans have over their federal government.

Hey, now, them's fightin' words. Our democracy is way less responsive to the people than your democracy!

I'd put a smiley so you know I'm joking, but I don't feel like smiling just now.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

It is our government employees and elected officials that have the duty to protect our rights, and regulate those corporate entities, but instead, get personal benefits and handouts and self profit at our expense.

The healthcare bill passed through the Senate ONLY. The final version of it did NOT go through the House of Representatives; so I was not even represented on that issue. And it went through the Senate as a budget attachment so it did not have the same majority requirements. The Constitution also did not grant congress the power to tax anything they liked (or in this case, tax us for NOT having something). The very fact that the Boston Tea party took place is proof of that history. Congress has the power to collect taxes, but not require you or I to purchase something. This was a irect violation of the 10th amendment. and if they pulled a sneak to get it passed, and get it applied, then it is construde and so it's a direct violation of the 9th amendment. Finally, this country is about freedom, and this act violates that so it is in violation if not the letter of the law, definately in the spirit of the law.

I have insurance and always have, but I decided many months ago that I will not comply with this law. I will not check a box or provide evidence that I have insurance, and I will not pay any penalty (tax). If they find ways to force it, I will find ways to force it back. Laws be damned.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

> Trade is good. Right?

Surely. Also capitalism is a nice system, when properly conducted (seeking profits by providing valuable services).

But that is not trade, nor capitalism. Actually, it's despicable. They should be ashamed even of just proposing this aberration -- and even more of insisting on the vicious behaviour.

Go create new things and captivate clients with exceptional performance, not with the law. I repeat: this 100% despicable.

This is only my personal opinion, btw.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed that a lot of the "low tax, small government" conservatives are "pre-rich." They think they will be wealthy one day, and the thought of Uncle Sam taking a good chunk of it is horrifying to them.

This. 100% entirely this. These conservatives still believe the lie that you can "work hard and get rich" - aka The American Dream. And sorry, but with the rampant inflation, wages/employment decreasing (or holding stagnant), and a government that is bought & paid for by the almighty corporation, the American Dream is a fucking lie.

But they continue to support the concept, because they mistakingly believe that someday they'll be one of those guys that that can buy themselves a politician.

Its no wonder that higher education leads to more liberal ideals in people. When you have a braincell that actually operates, you realize that modern conervatism is the equivilant of bending over a desk & letting the corporate cock rape your ass over and over.

These people make me fucking sick.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you're fucking retarded, aren't you?

And that's actually the REAL problem with Obamacare...Obama has failed miserably in selling the concept to the American people, who seem to be fucking retarded.

If he was smarter, Obama would have gone on TV with all the Bush era swagger he could muster, and stated to the American people:

"Uninsured people are a fucking blight on America. They sit there, all bloody smug, until they actually get sick. Then they go to an Emergency Room, get treatment, and bail out on the bill. This in turn is causing massive increases in healthcare costs for you, the mature responsible American person with health insurance.

This bill will no longer allow these freeloaders to game the system, and cause your costs to be artifically high. Because, bottom line, SOMEONE is paying for these assholes, and its YOU.

All Americans will now be mandated to have health care coverage appropriate for their needs. To also help facilitate this, we're making the insurance carriers actually cover everyone...you will not be able to be denied coverage for any reason. And if you're going to be one of those smug assholes who refuses to get health insurance....well, we're going to make you fucking pay for this shit too. There will be a tax penalty for all Americans without valid health insurance. This penalty will be applied directly into the heath care system in order to cover the costs of those assholes who don't pay for medical care, which in turn will reduce the cost of your health insurance for all of you responsible Americans."

And I can almost guarantee you, every fucking republican in America would be shouting "FUCK THE FREELOADERS" and championing Obamacare. But instead Obama tries to paly the great fucking bend-over negotiator and as a result we get assholes like you crying over something they don't even fucking understand.

Douche.

Re:Great

[gorzek]

The idea that hard work == material success is very Calvinist in origin--not a surprise that so many Americans buy into it unthinkingly. Calvinist doctrine and the Protestant work ethic are deeply-ingrained traits of our culture. It's a circular bit of logic born out of a belief in double predestination: God has elected who will go to heaven and who will go to hell; he blesses those who will go to heaven with material success; those people are successful because they worked hard and God rewarded them; therefore, they will go to heaven. This allows its adherents an airtight logic loop: people who are poor are being punished for not working hard enough, and God knew they wouldn't work hard enough to be successful, that's why they aren't among the Elect. The wealthy are so because God ordained them to be, because he knew they would work hard for it.

In this way, both the rich and poor divinely deserve their fates, which are simultaneously determined in advance and the result of free will (in your hard work/lack thereof.)

Most Americans never stop to think about it beyond the level of "hard work == success," but the theological beliefs underpinning it are pervasive.

Naturally, societies not poisoned by this Calvinist bullshit recognize that success and failure are a product of the circumstances of one's birth, upbringing, work habits, education (and access to it), healthcare (and access to it), and just plain dumb luck. How hard you work certainly plays into it, but it is not the sole factor, and often not even the most important factor. That's not an excuse to be a lazy ass, of course, but it's an acknowledgment that reality is not a black-and-white place where the good people are Christians who worked hard and got rich and the bad people are heathens who never did anything with their lives and remained poor.

Re:Great

[CodeBuster]

"the government is taxing them to death". Really?

They still have to pay medicare and social security payroll taxes on that $7.15 which seems like a lot when you're just barely scraping by. The sales taxes in some states are also quite high, notably here in California and also in New York. There are also relatively high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in many US states. Now some of these are state and local taxes, not federal, but collectively they all contribute to a feeling that the government is "taxing them to death". Finally, many of the poor lack the computer skills or credit necessary to shop online where most of the best non-food bargains are found these days. So yes, they may not pay federal or state income taxes, but that doesn't mean that they aren't, relatively speaking, heavily taxed.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Define liberal. Classical, Neo, Modern, Postmodern?

I'm a Classical Liberal that believes in small federal government and less federal spending. Many of us simply do not believe that someone other than ourselves are qualified to make choices that impact our lives. If a person cannot manage their own life, how are they expected to successfully manage mine. I know many modern liberals who believe the same thing.

If the government is bought and paid for by a corporation; why on earth would you want the government more involved in your life. The American Dream is not a lie, what you were never told is that it requires sacrifice. I support neither red nor blue... I'm not drinking the kool-aid the Republicans drink or the cool-aid the Democrats drink.

Higher education leads to modern liberal thought process because most of the college and university instructors are modern liberals themselves. Your political dogma exemplifies what is wrong with American politics. You are worse than a
  religious zealot.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

So yes, they may not pay federal or state income taxes, but that doesn't mean that they aren't, relatively speaking, heavily taxed.

And then they turn around and file their taxes and get a couple grand back, even more if they have kids. One friend of mine, with both him and his spouse working full-time, and one child, routinely got a $4,500 - $5,000 return every year, which is almost 50% of the yearly take home of a minimum wage, full-time job. They get far more back then they pay in.

Besides, they're not bitching about being "taxed to death" over retail sales taxes and you know it, it's their income taxes and Social Security and Medicare they're bitching about. Services many of them actually fucking use, services which many of their family members are using. They want access to these services, but they don't want to pay for it, and they damn sure don't want anyone else to benefit from it.

We've gone from The Greatest Generation and sacrifice for the good of the community to "Fuck everyone else, it's all about MEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!" in just 70 years, and what's worse, the selfish pricks and their representatives are the ones winning the elections.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

(Parent AC here)

I think overall you and I (somewhat) agree. I'm not Repub or Dem...I too neither drink from the red or blue koolaid. I make my own goddamn decisions.

I don't want a government beholden to the almighty corporation. I want a government that is willing to tell the almighty corporation to go fuck itself (when appropriate of course....not just a blind fuck-the-corporation attitude either). I want a government that represents the interests of the fucking PEOPLE first and foremost.

And as long as the system is as it is right now...it doesn't matter if its a repub or dem running the show, the real power is in the corporation, not the government. If you're a typical wage slave like most of us...you're completely and entirely fucked. Sacrifice all you want...and we all do...unless you get fucking lucky, there is no class mobility anymore. If you're poor, you'll remain poor. If you're rich, you'll get richer. And if you're middle class...you'll probably end up poor.

Why? Because corporations are writing the rules to ultimately fuck over the middle class.

I'm sorry, but if you don't see that the American Dream is a fucking lie, then you're either already "rich" or so brainwashed to think that you can become rich that you're willing to fuck yourself over to get there. I do agree with you that sacrifice is a mandatory component to "getting rich" - but picture yourself a normal American family of 4 attempting to make ends meet with the same level of wages you got 10 years ago but a cost of living 10-15% higher. I have nothing left to fucking sacrifice...I live a VERY simple life. I "own" a home with mortgage payments less than what I could rent an apartment for. I don't have cable. I don't buy expensive toys. I drive the same beaten down pile of shit I drove 10 years ago (or I take the bus). I go through my budget, and I trim every ounce of fat I can. And I still don't get ahead. Sure, I have a bit of savings that I could survive a few months if I lost my job. I'm continuing to take educational opprotunities I can. But if I take my current annual "excess income" (read: savings), calculate that any raises I get are less than fucking inflation, I figure I have about another 7-8 years before I have to start eating into those savings to make ends meet.

THAT isn't the American Dream....but it is the fucking American Reality.

The path we're on? The Fortune 500 runs the show, and continues to erode jobs, wages, and options for the middle class to line their own fucking pockets. While I want small government...large corporations owning the government is much much worse for all of us.

So while I admite the fact you're not just a party-line schill...you're still stupid for thinking that the Average Person has a fucking hope in hell of getting ahead. Maybe you have...or will. I can't envision a future where I ever get out of living effectively paycheck to paycheck.

tl;dr Corporations suck worse than the government, which sucks giant donkey balls themselves. We're all fucked.

Re:Great

[AngryDeuce]

I can't envision a future where I ever get out of living effectively paycheck to paycheck.

I shudder to think how much worse things are gonna be for our kids. We think it's bad now; at this rate they're going to be serfs to some neofeudalistic megacorporation that owns every facet of their existence.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Your last paragraph is the MOST "right on" statement I've EVER read in the wonderful wacky world of libertarianism that /. is.

Re:Great

[ZombieBraintrust]

I would argue that Calvinism is not that pervasive in America. The largest denomination that is Calvinist here is Presbyterian. It makes up about 4% of protestants. If you consider the large amount of Catholics, Mormans, and Athiest then you cant say it is very popular.

Re:Great

[antientropic]

I agree it's rather scandalous they once more try to force such unwanted legislation but have good hopes the various national governments will instruct their commissioner to either take out the sting or stop the whole process, otherwise the EU parliament will bury it as happened with ACTA.

National governments are not supposed to "instruct" their commissioner since the commissioners (in theory) do not represent member states but the interests of the EU as a whole. They even take an oath of office to that effect ("neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity").

Re:Great

[bzipitidoo]

people who are against spending money on the poor and sick are nevertheless fine with dropping billions on boondoggle weapons systems and wars

Ask them if they would like to eliminate that branch of the local government known as the police department. Outsource that work to private contractors, or arm everyone, or just don't have police. Run Main Street just like Wall Street. Self regulation. Think how much money we could save if only we didn't need police! If they feel uncomfortable with this idea, then point out that evidently they think some government is good.

Security sells. Basic science doesn't. Most of our research has to be done from a military angle. The Internet and GPS, to name just 2 big projects, were defense projects.

Re:Great

[gorzek]

I think you missed that it's not adherence to Calvinism specifically that's the issue, but that Calvinist doctrine subconsciously pervades so much of our culture and political discourse. Hardly anyone would describe themselves as "Calvinist" in this country, even if they unthinkingly (even unknowingly) buy into its core principles.

Re:Great

[Teun]

True, the Commission is supposed to be independent and yet represent the various parts of the Union.

A commissioner that goes radically against the wishes of his home government or substantial parts of the population is taking a political risk.
For the electorate the way to influence these super civil servants is still by having their national governments express their displeasure, the other way is known as the Nuclear Option where the EU parliament sends the whole Commission home...

Re:Great

[dkleinsc]

You can thank Ronald Reagan for much of that sentiment: the idea that the government is incompetent at best, evil at worst.

My usual view on the GOP: Modern post-Reagan Republicans believe that government can't function well, and while in office do everything they can to ensure that they're right!

Re:Great

[Solandri]

You can thank Ronald Reagan for much of that sentiment: the idea that the government is incompetent at best, evil at worst.

Somehow, some way, it always has to be blamed on a conservative, doesn't it? Half the Americans around today can't even remember Ronald Reagan, much less be taken in by something he said.

You can blame the DMV, the Post Office, jury duty, navigating the IRS tax forms, trying to fight a parking ticket in court, trying to get a permit for, well, just about anything. The long lines and waits, and byzantine and seemingly pointless rules and regulations people encounter in person are what convinces them that the government is incompetent or evil. Compare to their experience at Walmart or McDonalds or the local supermarket, where they walk in, select what they want, pay, and walk out within a few minutes, and is it any wonder they think private enterprise is better at serving their needs?

Re:Great

[Solandri]

Naturally, societies not poisoned by this Calvinist bullshit recognize that success and failure are a product of the circumstances of one's birth, upbringing, work habits, education (and access to it), healthcare (and access to it), and just plain dumb luck. How hard you work certainly plays into it, but it is not the sole factor, and often not even the most important factor.

It's not bullshit. What's going on is that as an economy develops and improves, it becomes more efficient. The more efficient an economy, the less effect hard work, education, and good decisions have on your success. The easy improvements with big economic gains have already been done. What's left are harder, more obscure improvements with smaller gains.

The effect of plain dumb luck meanwhile remains the same. When the economy was inefficient and there were lots of easy ways to improve it, luck played a proportionately small role. But now that the economy is very efficient and the remaining ways to improve it are small, luck plays a proportionally larger role. Thus creating the illusion that hard work matters little and it's mostly just luck.

This is a common mistake I see from people trying to draw conclusions about politics or economics. They look at the way things are for themselves right now and incorrectly conclude that it must be the same for all cases. The importance of hard work is like the importance of clean air regulations in an industrialized country. When your country's economy is well-developed / the skies are clear, it seems like their importance is overemphasized. But you have to understand that the reason the economy is in the well-developed state / the air is clean is because of hard work / clean air regulations.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bullshit. What's going on is that as an economy develops and improves, it becomes more efficient. The more efficient an economy, the less effect hard work, education, and good decisions have on your success. The easy improvements with big economic gains have already been done. What's left are harder, more obscure improvements with smaller gains.

This too.

The problem though too...the more efficient we've become, we've permamently eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs from the economy...in the interest of efficiency. Whether electronics, assembly lines, computing improvements, etc...we need way less labor for the same economic gain. Absolutely fucking agreed.

But we've also allowed the corporation to dictate things too much too. How many assholes do you know that work 60 hour workweeks? 80 hours? Are you one of those feckless cunts that works 60 hour weeks because "you're goddamn lucky to have a job"?

Sorry, but these asswipes - and the lack of corporate regulations preventing a company from demanding 60 hours work for 40 hours pay - are the reason the economy is in the fucking tank again, and part of the reason that there is no fucking way in hell the average wage-slave ever gets ahead.

Corporations have all the fucking power...and its only getting worse. Look at the GOP & all the union-busting laws hitting the books. We're fucked. Why in the fuck would a corporation hire 2 people at 40 hours each when there's a douchebag willing to do all the work (until he burns out & blows his fucking brains out anyway)? They won't - because they don't give a flying fuck about you. They care about the amount of money in their pockets...period.

Now...obviously...its fucking important to work hard. I get it. I agree completely. I do work hard...I'm not a guy that wants to freeload off of anyone else. I pay my taxes, and I don't bitch about my taxes going to help out those that are worse off than me. I'm willing to contribute to society as a whole.

But this is the fundamental divide between left and right wing politics (in overgeneralized and oversimplified terms). Conservatives care about themselves. Liberals care about everyone. As efficiency continues to drive down the number of jobs in the labor pool...the question is...do we want a government which will take from those few that make the money, and the corporations that profit, in order to ensure that basic human needs are met in the population...or do we want people in power that want more money for themselves?

Re:Great

[frank_adrian314159]

Somehow, some way, it always has to be blamed on a conservative, doesn't it? Half the Americans around today can't even remember Ronald Reagan, much less be taken in by something he said.

The inheritors of the meme started by Ronnie have continued to spread it. These, of course, are members of the Republican Party and their conservative fellow travelers. Do you really think that the majority of anti-government rhetoric is not spouted by these people? So shut up with the false equivalency crap that "everyone hates government and thinks that private enterprise runs better".

Better yet, educate yourself about why you may have to stand in line at the DMV (or anyplace else governmental). It probably has to do with the facts (a) that they have to serve *everybody* and have procedures in place to make sure that all are treated consistently and fairly and (b) that they've been severely underfunded for the number of people they've had to serve (usually by conservative pressures on tax revenues and smaller state budgets).

Finally, not all of us hate government or think that private enterprise works more efficiently. I for one, having worked in the private sector for over thirty years and knowing several governmental workers (and, no, before you ask, the firms I've worked for have never received a large percentage of their incomes via contracts from governmental agencies), know that the private sector can be even more wasteful than government and that many governmental workers are quite diligent and do more with their limited budgets than most of us could. Your protestations are ludicrous and I'm sorry you've drunk the right-wing Kool-aid.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

EC is appointed by people(*) appointed by people(**) appointed by people(***).
EP is appointed by people(***).

Levels of indirection matter.

*) national council
**) national parliament
***) ordinary people

Re:Great

[Teun]

Sure but that's the way a lot of European governments are formed.

Parliamentary democracy comes about because such a government is controlled by the parliament.
That's why for example in my country we are not exactly impressed by the British system where the members of the cabinet are also elected parliamentarians, we like to avoid any impression of collusion between the powers.

Lets not talk about the 90+ dinosaurs in the British parliament that oppose getting rid of the very unelected Upper House...

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that the more indirection, the more "signal" of representativeness gets diluted with the "noise" of power-hungry elitism. And even the douchest of local governments have one less indirection step compared to EC, pretty much by definition.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

in general, the national press in the EU tends to cover the EU issues badly.

no need for the qualifiers: "in general press tends to cover issues badly" is plenty right already

Re:Great

[Mephistophocles]

I appreciate your non-abrasive style, but I can't let this one statement go...

Never mind that if you are pulling down over a quarter million a year, you aren't going to miss a few tens of thousands.

Actually, if you "pull down" $250,000/yr, you will pay approximately $53,000 in income taxes alone (assuming married filing jointly, no itemized deductions). That's 1/5 of your income. Social security is another 15% ($37,500), sales taxes are usually between 7 and 10% of what you purchase, etc. Your statement is vastly mis-leading; someone making $250,000/yr will most certainly miss the $100,000+ they pay in taxes every year. The tax rate in the US on the upper middle class is NOT trivial.

Re:Great

[sjames]

Somehow, some way, it always has to be blamed on a conservative, doesn't it?

If the shoe fits...

Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

How long will this continue to go on?

The article contains a handy side-by-side comparison of the CETA clauses that are nearly identical to ones found in ACTA.

Also, the comments that will be made in this thread are likely to be nearly identical to ones made for ACTA.

Re:Sigh

[solidraven]

Yes, and that might obscure the more worrying issue here. They infringed on the writer of ACTA's rights by copying said clauses!

Re:Sigh

[ocularsinister]

The beatings, as they say, will continue until moral improves.

Re:Sigh

[ameen.ross]

You mean the writer of CETA infringed his own copyright? IP has reached a new low.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

How long will this continue to go on?

Until people start getting gunned down for shit like this.

Re:Sigh

[jellomizer]

Your right, How much longer will Slashdot keep posting stories with Acronyms without defining them on their first use. (Ok they got CETA, but not ACTA)

I mean how much work is it to put names CETA (Cheese Eaters Temperance Act) vs. ACTA (American Cheddar Termination Act)
I am opposed to both, I am a big fan of Cheese myself, I wouldn't want to be limited by the CETA, I want my rights to eat cheese anywhere in the world and Although Cheddar is a british cheese, America has came up with a cheese that tastes just a good and without all all the international shipping of food problems.

Re:Sigh

[betterunixthanunix]

https://torrentfreak.com/record-label-infringes-own-copyright-site-pulled-081019/

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

How long will this continue to go on?

Until we get off our asses, grap the pitchforks and torches, find the bastard that keeps pushing this, and hang him on the nearest lightpole... that should do

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

What a ban on cheese in Europe?! Sacrebleu, madre mia, mein gott! How can those bloodless bureaucrats in Brussels ban cheese?! Strikes across Europe until this is ended!

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Only after we tar and feather him!

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and that might obscure the more worrying issue here. They infringed on the writer of ACTA's rights by copying said clauses!

They would have used attribution but they're not sure anymore if that part came from the RIAA team or the MPAA team.

Whoops

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone just broke copyright writing CETA.

So...

[cheesybagel]

Can we blame Canada now?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

For American legislation?

Yes. Our politicians had the chance to reject, but since they have no hint of a spine whatsoever, we might as well officially adopt the moniker of "America Jr."

Synonyms

[TemperedAlchemist]

You say, "I don't want to be raped by your dildo," and they respond with, "Well, how about this one? It's a different color!"

Re:Synonyms

[Chrisq]

You say, "I don't want to be raped by your dildo," and they respond with, "Well, how about this one? It's a different color!"

Well they say "the Mounty always gets his man".

Re:Synonyms

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this pineapple?

Re:Synonyms

[Anonymous Coward]

Followed by, "Well, if you don't like the pineapple, I have something much less painful. How about this dildo?"

Then, six years later, you're being abused with the pineapple because it is less painful than the Chihuahua.

Re:Synonyms

[queBurro]

rule 34

Re:Synonyms

[mrchaotica]

Here you go.

Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[captainpanic]

How long will this continue to go on?

Hopefully forever. European counties founded the EU because it's better to keep the politicians talking about money than to have them threaten each other and start a war. First it was a union for coal and steel, now it's apparently music and entertainment. Same thing though: it keeps them occupied, and the results are generally a bit less awful than a world war.

The more they talk, the less harm is done.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[Kjella]

Hopefully forever. European counties founded the EU because it's better to keep the politicians talking about money than to have them threaten each other and start a war.

As long as it was a trade union as trade is mostly good for everyone and create positive dependencies, but what's been happening recently? Hell no. Greeks and the other countries that have been forced to beg for aid feeling they've lost all sovereignty and is being dictated by France and Germany, while the Germans feel they're being blackmailed into covering other people debt and all the old nation lines are flaring red hot again, insults about who's lazy and spoiled and cruel and whatnot. Lately they've ripped open many old wounds and created a lot of new ones and it's far from over.

The politicians want stronger central control but the people doesn't, I fear that the current path they're on is going to take them more in the direction of a Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or Roman Empire where there's a lot of states on the outskirts that feel they are getting overrun by a big central government in Brussels. Granted there's a lot less guns involved but there sure is a lot of economic blackmail, which I hardly think is the best foundation for a union. Rushing too fast into a United States of Europe to save the economy may turn out to be rather counterproductive to actually creating a united Europe.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[Gripp]

What I don't get is why they haven't tried not naming the thing to get it passed. Seems to me that any bill named something like "GBR-98691.02" gets through with little public attention, and they know it.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[captainpanic]

I totally agree that a more centralized control and a more powerful government in Brussels is actually a threat to the EU, and more power to Brussels will ultimately make the EU weaker until it fails altogether...

But right now, it still works. It's going the wrong way, but it has not yet failed.

And regarding the blackmail and the costs of the EU and the crisis: A couple thousand euro is nothing in comparison to being bombed or shot. The economic crisis is nothing compared to a war.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple thousand euro is nothing in comparison to being bombed or shot. The economic crisis is nothing compared to a war.

Perhaps you should visit India or many countries in Africa. There you can see what crushing poverty does to people.
Dying from dehydration due to chronic diarrhea, because you can't find clean water after a flood, is much less kinder a death than being shot.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[Anonymous Coward]

The Roman Empire, a failed state? You really have no understanding of the Roman Empire then. The Roman Empire started in 27 BC and ended in 476 AD for the Western (Latin) Empire and continued until 1453 AD for the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire. That's one THOUSAND, four HUNDRED, and eighty years, which is hardly the life span of a failed state.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that what helped the Nazis into power was the Great Depression. An economic crisis can ultimately result in a world war!

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany will exit after the 2013 election. The retirement age in Greece is 58. In Germany it is 67. There is no way that the people of Germany are going to keep bailing out Greece so that Greece can keep its retirement age nine years lower than Germany.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[nedlohs]

Does it exist now? No. Then it's a failed state.

It doesn't matter how long it was a state for, or how powerful/successful/whatever it was in that time.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[CodeBuster]

Greeks and the other countries that have been forced to beg for aid feeling they've lost all sovereignty and is being dictated by France and Germany

In a way they already have lost their sovereignty to their creditors. In previous centuries, a profligate Greece would have been invaded by a foreign army bent on enforcing the debt. That doesn't happen anymore in Europe because it's no longer necessary. The European Central Bank and the IMF can very effectively bring Greece to heel as evidenced by the votes in the Greek parliament for continued austerity in order to continue receiving bail out monies from those who have effectively become their political masters. Invasion and occupation are thus no longer necessary to place a country like Greece under foreign control.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[aaaaaaargh!]

what's been happening recently? Hell no. Greeks and the other countries that have been forced to beg for aid feeling they've lost all sovereignty and is being dictated by France and Germany

What a nonsense. These countries have full sovereignity, if they wanted they could leave the Euro zone any time -- and watch their country go down the drain. Luckily not even the Greek voters wanted that. Likeweise, it is completely ridiculous and irresponsible to ask for billions and billions of money without accepting any conditions on it; politicians like Tsipras are a joke and a danger to the public. It is truly sad that there seems to be a widespread trend against the EU now. People in rich countries don't want to pay even though they have benefited tremendously from the union and people in poor ones erroneously believe they didn't fuck up their economies on their own.

The sad fact is that most people have no clue how much they actually get from the EU every day, such as lack of wars or the possibility to freely move to and work in any European country they like. People also don't always realize how well. Give up the EU and give it another 50 years, and there will be another atrocial war in the middle of Europe.

Disclaimer: I'm a European, currently working as a foreigner in Portugal.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[Anonymous Coward]

By your reasoning, you'll be a failed human because you are mortal.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[tqk]

That's one THOUSAND, four HUNDRED, and eighty years, which is hardly the life span of a failed state.

Does it exist now? No. Then it's a failed state.

Don't be thick headed. This's reality we're talking about. Assuming (generously) fifty year life spans, that works out to four thousand, nine hundred and sixty life spans. That's a pretty damned good run as states or civilizations go and I wouldn't call that failure, especially considering the legacy it left when it did finally collapse and splinter.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[dkleinsc]

GP's point is that the problems in the EU really seriously suck, but are way better than what happened the last time there was a serious economic crisis, namely about 60 million people killed in the biggest shooting war in the history of the planet. Or the time before that, where you had 16 million people killed. Arguments about monetary policy and banking bailouts are far preferable to sending out armies.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[nedlohs]

I'll be a non-existing, non-person. We don't use the term "failed human" for that though, just "dead" which I agree I will be.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[nedlohs]

I didn't call it a failure. I said it is a failed state - it no longer acts as a state, in this case because it simply doesn't exist anymore.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[mjtaylor24601]

Are you by an chance a member of the Judean People's Front?

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[shutdown -p now]

In that case, what relevance does your designation of the Roman Empire as a "failed state" has to do with it being a role model? I'm pretty sure that a lot of states out there today would like to last for a thousand years as well.

Re:Let them talk forever, it's what the EU is for

[shutdown -p now]

And yet when election time came, the majority of Greek nation has voted for those same parties which supported continued austerity (and pledged to keep doing so).

Resale rights ???

[DMorritt]

Resale rights. The EU is demanding that Canada implement a new resale right that would provide artists with a royalty based on any resales of their works (subsequent to the first sale).

Because when you buy a car (or any other second hand goods) through a private classified ad, Ford (etc) get a slice of that too... This is insane!

Re:Resale rights ???

[Chrisq]

Resale rights. The EU is demanding that Canada implement a new resale right that would provide artists with a royalty based on any resales of their works (subsequent to the first sale). Because when you buy a car (or any other second hand goods) through a private classified ad, Ford (etc) get a slice of that too... This is insane!

I thought it was Canada trying to impose this on the EU. Which way round is it?

Re:Resale rights ???

[Phrogman]

Its Big Media (tm) trying to impose this on the world, in this case through their hired lapdog Canada's PM Steven Harper. Harper will do whatever it takes to pass legislation he wants passed. Usually he does this by inserting it in legislation that has no bearing on the new insertions - recently this meant changes to our criminal code and prison system, revamping the entire fisheries act, attempting to close down environmental groups etc, all inserted in some budget legislation that was because of its nature, not open to general debate. Harper is very close to acting like a dictator in many ways, and he is ramming through his provisions to create the most authoritarian version of Canada in its history, while letting Canadians retain what appears to be freedom.
A large part of this seems to be enacting whatever legislation will best suit the folks who run the US - i.e. Big Media corporations and the Patent trolling folks down south of the border. I would say the insertion of the text of ACTA in another bill is perfectly in keeping with the way Harper acts.

Re:Resale rights ???

[king neckbeard]

Most likely EU forcing this on Canada. It would seem to be a version of Droit de suite, which is french for "right to follow", which Europe has and Canada doesn't. I think in practice, it pretty much only applies to art auctions. It's really stupid anyway, though.

Re:Resale rights ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian here. We are leading the world in draconian copyright laws, not being led.

Re:Resale rights ???

[DMorritt]

Maybe someone should invade Canada, and bring Democracy to the place? We can use your opression of the native Inuit people as some form of reasoning I guess, do you guys still have any gold left?

You have to wonder though, I mean these guys are pretty good at worming their ways into getting what they want, will they ever actually give up? You have to admire their persistence even if you dislike what they are trying to do. ACTA is basically dead, if there is enough resistance to this new CETA, I guess it would be mothballed, but then what? It'll just end up going into the next trade agreement, maybe as a revision to existing ones. Eventually will people stop paying attention enough?

Are these media companies really trying the old method of asking for something ridiculous, then settling for something "reasonable" (by their standards, and exactly what they wanted in the first place, but we're all expected to accept it as it's been "watered down"), even though it doesn't suit everybody, or are they going to keep on asking/demanding what they want till they get it?

Re:Resale rights ???

[Chrisq]

Maybe someone should invade Canada, and bring Democracy to the place? We can use your opression of the native Inuit people as some form of reasoning I guess, do you guys still have any gold left?

I think their mineral rights in the Arctic might well "have nothing to do with our liberation of the impressed Inuits"

Re:Resale rights ???

[Talderas]

Bah forget that reason. Invade Canada to allow Quebec to secede from it.

Re:Resale rights ???

[c]

> Its Big Media (tm) trying to impose this on the world, in this case through
> their hired lapdog Canada's PM Steven Harper. Harper will do whatever
> it takes to pass legislation he wants passed.

A Liberal majority would have done about the same thing, although I can't imagine them being as hamfisted about it.

I suspect an NDP majority (unlikely as it is) would reject it initially, but give them some time to get comfortable with power and I expect they'll break, too.

Lobbiests don't care whether the people in power are wearing blue, red, or orange ties. The formula for converting them to their cause is about the same, and human nature being what it is the odds are pretty good for them in the long run. Combined with some arm twisting from the US, and the situation isn't pretty.

Don't get caught up thinking about this in a partisan fashion. You have to assume that any politician of any stripe will fuck you over if that's what it takes to hold on to power and push their personal agenda. Or that of their party.

Re:Resale rights ???

[dkleinsc]

Usually he does this by inserting it in legislation that has no bearing on the new insertions - recently this meant changes to our criminal code and prison system, revamping the entire fisheries act, attempting to close down environmental groups etc, all inserted in some budget legislation that was because of its nature, not open to general debate.

Wait, that's a new horrible thing in Canada? In the States, that's an extremely common technique called a rider, where the unpopular provision is passed by riding along with something completely unrelated.

A related technique is called the "poison pill", where you add a provision totally unrelated to the main bill to either wreck a good bill or sweeten a bad bill. The idea is to put incumbents in a bad spot by creating a bill that says something like "Motherhood and apple pie are both fantastic, and we should kill 10 kittens a day for fun." If our hapless legislator votes Nay, the ads will say "Senator Buford opposes motherhood and apple pie!" while if he votes Yea, the ads will say "Senator Buford supports killing kittens!" And no, Senator Buford can't defend himself by explaining what really happened, because the voter's attention span is too short.

Re:Resale rights ???

[canadiannomad]

Yeah, I want to move from Vancouver to Quebec and help lead the charge for separation..... Abandon the sinking ship.

Re:Resale rights ???

[Blue Stone]

Capitalism: subverting and undermining Democracy, one dollar at a time.

Re:Resale rights ???

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Most likely EU forcing this on Canada. It would seem to be a version of Droit de suite, which is french for "right to follow", which Europe has and Canada doesn't.

Except that in the other big copyright news from Europe last week, the ECJ basically killed the whole idea that you can control resales of software, even when supplied as a download, by asserting some sort of copyright argument. The reasoning given in the judgement is remarkably clear and much of it would probably translate to other forms of content as well if the case was brought.

So, if this is the "EU", then it's probably only the European Commission, as neither the Parliament nor the Court seem to have much time for this sort of nonsense.

Also, the French have a rather different take on an artist's rights from most places, with more of an emphasis on morality rather than economic incentives. That isn't true across all of Europe, though.

Re:Resale rights ???

[Shagg]

Lobbiests don't care whether the people in power are wearing blue, red, or orange ties.

Yep, it doesn't matter what color the tie is painted, they're all green underneath.

Re:Resale rights ???

[hazah]

You are trying to apply logic to insanity. The psychopath never accepts that they are a psychopath. They truly believe they are normal. Other people simply do not exist, and everything is some sort of extension of themselves, therefore must bend to his/her will. I consider it to be one of the most primal insanities, dangerous because it is somewhat a regressed version of a human being: Retaining the ability to think, but loosing all the social constructs of the mind.

Re:Resale rights ???

[hazah]

Its not capitalism, it's imperialism.

This is war

[Pecisk]

If someone didn't understand, this is war. We have billions industry fighting this who has lot of money to waste on politicians and lobbying, and they won't give up their rights to get easy money without any economical logic. This ain't first, and won't be our last battle, and we should accept this as that. What's good that this also creates generation of new politicians who are very informed about moral/economical/legal issues of IPR regimes. More they pushing this, more people see what's their real aims are.

Re:This is war

[Xest]

It's nothing new, the US and it's supporters have been trying to shovel stricter IP policy globally since the creation of the WTO. In fact, that's the whole reason they created the WTO, the difference back then is it was more about the pharmaceutical industry, now it's about the content industries too, but pharmaceutical firms are still very much part of the contingent of lobbyists on this sort of issue.

Re:This is war

[bbbaldie]

I'm fighting them, I've donated money to the EFF and advertised on all of my sites promoting them.

But I'm assuming that sooner of later the asshats will win. Ergo, I'm stocking up hard on Russian-bought music and movies. If it all came to a halt tomorrow, I have two very nice collections. I'll never go see another film in a theater, though, or rent a DVD. And the last music nickel the RIAA made off of me was circa 2005.

Re:This is war

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so sick and tired of people using war as a metaphor for every conflict imaginable. It devalues the meaning of the word "war" and makes it harder to discuss the issue at hand in a civilized manner. This is not a war, it's a political/legislative question where there is significant disagreement between the affected parties.

This does not mean that this is not a very important issue worthy of political action. But it is not a war.

Re:This is war

[the eric conspiracy]

Counterfeit drugs are a legitimate problem. However the solution to that problem is not just IP enforcement, it's also programs to reduce prices by limiting monopolies, which reduces incentive.

Re:This is war

[bill_mcgonigle]

this also creates generation of new politicians who are very informed about moral/economical/legal issues of IPR regimes

Yes, with this much potential power, the campaign faucets should be full-on this election season.

To describe the problem non-euphemistically, the media corporations want to use threats of government force* to take more money from the people. The rest is just the byzantine edifice they hang it on. Realize this, and you'll see that the 'MAFIAA' is just the client du jour. By all means, play Whack-a-Mole, but expect to keep playing forever.

* there I go, using a euphemism myself. It's ultimately organized men with guns threatening to kill people if they don't obey.

Re:This is war

[Xest]

It depends what you mean by legitimate problem, if by this you mean poorer nations creating cheaper alternatives of drugs to keep their population from dying because they can't afford to fund major multi-national pharmaceutical industries multi-billion dollar profits then I'm not sure it is terribly legitimate.

As with piracy, there are varying levels of legitimacy. Motorola having slide to unlock is hardly a big deal, selling pirated movies to fund terrorism on street corners is a bit more of a problem. There's really no difference in this respect, each problem has opposing ends of the spectrum where some concerns are more legitimate than others.

Re:This is war

[tqk]

This is not a war, it's a political/legislative question where there is significant disagreement between the affected parties.

I don't agree. When a significant number of people are demonstrating in the streets and their elected representatives are voting overwhelmingly to shelve legislation of which they disapprove and the EC rep insists he's going to push it regardless of what either of them want, I'd say a de facto state of war has been declared. It's civil war and we're just waiting for the first shots to be fired. We've been told for centuries now that democracy is the best way for us all to deal with each other, but now special interests are determined to break that deal, and no matter who we vote in to represent us they end up doing just what the other guys were going to do. It's long passed time that all those people should have been smacked back into their place.

I'd prefer we just put the bums out of business (via boycotts), but that appears to be a non-starter. So be it. Vive la revolution! Line the streets with their heads on pikes!

Not a surprise

[hey_popey]

It's not like if we weren't warned; some Euro-MPs had announced this: https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Translation_Interview_Marielle_Gallo_ACTA_pcinpact

Re:Not a surprise

[ifiwereasculptor]

I can't really decide if that's extremely funny or incredibly scary. Did she actually say that people should have nothing to do with laws? That she'd keep pushing it covertly until it passed, making no compromises? Whoever votes for that woman is a very special kind of idiot.

Re:Not a surprise

[JaredOfEuropa]

We don't really vote for MEPs. We vote for European political parties, almost all of which are made up of groups of national political parties. So people end up voting for the same party they vote for in their own country, and it's often not the best and brightest who advance to European politics, quite the contrary in fact. It seems that the only "good" politicians who get into europarliament are the onces who need a bit of a break from the busy life of national politics.

Re:Not a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

In India, they made it a law that forbids non-scientists, non-appointed people and generally all those people whom they cannot tackle to protest against GM crops.
Effectively snubbing people's protests. All the lawmakers have banded together, the loud and protesting middle class have been shut out, villagers are clueless. let's see if the lawmakers try a similar stunt based on the precedence here. (I hope not, but you never know)

thanks Monsanto! I hate them with vengeance along with a large set of American lawmakers and their supporters.

Re:Not a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

In India, they made it a law that forbids non-scientists, non-appointed people and generally all those people whom they cannot tackle to protest against GM crops.
Effectively snubbing people's protests. All the lawmakers have banded together, the loud and protesting middle class have been shut out, villagers are clueless. let's see if the lawmakers try a similar stunt based on the precedence here. (I hope not, but you never know)

thanks Monsanto! I hate them with vengeance along with a large set of American lawmakers and their supporters.

Well, then don't protest - just calmly spread the word of the mouth, explain to villagers how are they screwed over and think up ways of resistance. M.K.Gandhi showed the way a long time ago, so that we should all know how to fight for our freedom.

Re:Not a surprise

[perryizgr8]

and its a good thing. stupid illiterate people ranting about stuff they don't understand is never good. seriously, people here have made entire careers out of protesting random new laws, without valuating the pros and cons. they don't do anything, just leech of the ignorance of the public.

Re:Not a surprise

[AliasMarlowe]

We don't really vote for MEPs. We vote for European political parties, almost all of which are made up of groups of national political parties.

If you're in a country which uses the party-list system, that's true enough, and some of those elected due to a favorable placing on the party list would most likely be unelectable as individuals (most of the EU uses this, with some variations). However, if you're in a country which uses the single transferrable vote system, you actually get to vote for your MEP, and only candidates who were individually voted for can be elected (only Ireland, Malta, and Northern Ireland for European elections).

And, it will be defeated just like before ...

[acidfast7]

because when people don't like something over here, they actively protest. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is being protested for/against, but the apathy I see coming (perhaps, not coming is more accurate) out of North America just flat-out baffles me.

Re:And, it will be defeated just like before ...

[dkleinsc]

but the apathy I see coming (perhaps, not coming is more accurate) out of North America just flat-out baffles me

Lots of Americans tried protesting last fall, and ended up on the receiving end of pepper spray, billy clubs, unlawful arrests, destruction of personal property by police, tear gas, getting run over by police motorcycles, and at least 1 protester killed, all with the approval of some of the top government officials. I mean, it's not the same as protesting in, say, Cairo, but it's not a safe thing to be doing. In addition, they got nothing but derision from most public officials and much of the press.

Re:And, it will be defeated just like before ...

[acidfast7]

isn't that de facto evidence that the protesting is working? if you're not willing to sacrifice and endure some discomfort, how would anything get done.

Re:And, it will be defeated just like before ...

[dkleinsc]

It's working in the sense of angering those in power. It's not working in the sense of actually accomplishing a policy change, or fundamentally changing the political dynamics of the country. In other words, they successfully pushed to step 3 of Gandhi's formula (1. first they ignore you, 2. then they laugh at you, 3. then they fight you, 4. then you win) but didn't get close to step 4.

Part of the problem is that the ideas that were generally pushed by the protesters had no representation whatsoever in the halls of power. For comparison's sake, I'll use the UK, although I suspect this would be true in other countries as well.

In the UK, if there's some street protests about, say, government involvement in the LIBOR scandal, there are going to be at least a few MPs, even if only backbenchers, who take up the issue and demand answers from the companies and government officials involved. In the US, on the other hand, the legislators called in the CEO of a bank that's admitted publicly to at least $2 billion worth of fraud, and spent their time asking him what he wanted the elected officials to do for him.

In the UK, a politician telling the police to go and crack some skulls for standing around with signs disagreeing with him would be a scandal. In the US, a politician telling the police to go crack some skulls for protesting gets a large amount of public support, Constitutional protections notwithstanding.

Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists

[Rogerborg]

This is the lobbyists 9-5 (well, 11-3 including a 2 hour expenses lunch) job. It's just going to go on and on and on, and they will never stop, ever, regardless of either setback or success. There won't be enough profit or laws or mandatory nagware or State enforcement to satisfy them, because this is what they do. This is all that they do.

While we won the battle on the barricades, they continued the war by creeping in through the sewers. They're in this for the duration, and so we have to be too.

Re:Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists

[Anonymous Coward]

Well liberty, equality and fraternity have to be defended and won all the time, because the world has the tendency to produce rich and poor, powerful and hopeless people. Democracy has to be won by every generation. It does not stay just by itself and especially not when there are no democrats left. BTW: egoism and short-sightedness are two concepts which help to deteriorate democratic and enlightened behavior and are therefor helpful to those who want to first take our money and then take our freedom.

Re:Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists

[Andtalath]

As long as they are on the offense, we are on the defence.

Meaning, even if they don't win, we don't either.

That's why the actual goal is to attack them.

Re:Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't push a bill if you're dead.

Re:Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists

[Anonymous Coward]

Adequate attack would be to bring some higher legal document, some bill of rights or a constitution which would explicitly make any further attempt illegal.

Re:Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists

[Barefoot Monkey]

You can't push a bill if you're dead.

If you can push a daisy, you can push a bill!

Re:Amateur protestors vs professional lobbyists

[rastoboy29]

Agreed.  I think the only solution is to push for the dramatic expansion of fair use rights.

A permanent solution needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't they make it illegal to waste court's time by bringing up similar proposals under newer names every month or so.

Instead of rejecting the proposal, they need to reject specific provisions of the proposal so they can't be rehashed under a new name again.

Re:A permanent solution needed

[the_xaqster]

Nuke the site from Orbit, It's the only way to be sure....

Falkvinge addresses this

[G-forze]

Rick Falkvinge comments. It seems CETA was written sometime in february when ACTA looked like a done deal, so it is natural that it contains the same language. But it is true that we can expect the European commission to try to bring ACTA in through the back door, so we should keep our eyes open.

Keep your eyes open please, Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - 478 to 39.

According to TFA, CETA was drafted in February 2012, months before ACTA's resounding defeat. So presumably CETA will not be allowed to go through as-is, providing that the European Parliament are paying attention. A letter or even just an e-mail to your local MEP could make a big difference, for those who live in Europe.

Still, after US online poker was banned by a rider on the SAFE Port Act, nothing would surprise me in the world of political skullduggery.

Re:Keep your eyes open please, Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice downmod. Good to know that the RIAA and MPAA have accounts on slashdot too.

Relevant online lecture

[ocularsinister]

I can't help but think that the current series of Reith Lectures presented by the Professor Neil Ferguson is pertinent here.

The lectures are quite long at about an hour each, and there are only three of the final four available so far, but it is worth the taking the time to listen to what he has to say. If you are short of time, skip to the third episode where he explains that the rule of law has become the rule of lawyers and why this is bad for the economy.

Great for linux !

[Anonymous Coward]

once this passes.. and it (or some similar form) will definitely pass since big money is involved.. the major pirate websites will be blocked at dns&ip level reducing piracy of windows and office. this is a boon for linux and libreoffice !

contact your meps

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote an email to all my meps in eu (all voted against acta on july 4th, yay).

I thanked them for the previous vote and pointed out CETA. Do the same.

Show you still care and that they might be screwed over here. Make it their fight too.

Re:contact your meps

[Opportunist]

I get tired of the fight. Seriously. I mean, what do we keep paying those sponges? It's their effin' JOB to do what we're now supposed to do, i.e. inform them of the implications of the laws they design. Ok, correction, the laws they get handed by their "sponsors" to rubber stamp. Why again do they get that shitload of money from us? The average bum could do that job, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

Re:contact your meps

[ZeroSumHappiness]

I gave up the fight when I spent an hour researching and drafting a well-worded letter against ACTA only to receive a 5-minute form letter saying, "Thank you for your support. I agree that ACTA is very important to US survival in our troubled world and I will do everything in my power to get it passed."

Re:contact your meps

[Teun]

So I assume next time you will not vote for this zombie?

Re:contact your meps

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Didn't vote for him last time. Then again, I think his biggest opponent would probably give the same answer.

I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[Fixer40000]

You will vote on this referendum again and again until we get the result we want.

At which point you will be stuck with it forever.

Democracy in action.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[lorinc]

France was way more efficient at this. The French voted against the referendum, but former president Sarkozy decided to sign the treaty anyway...

Again, democracy in action.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[Anonymous Coward]

Same in the Netherlands. We voted no, but our dear PM Balkenende signed anyway. Offcourse the treaty was renamed from 'Europian Constitution' to 'Lisbon Treaty'. Same shit, different name.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[Anonymous Coward]

The same happened in the Netherlands, EU referendum was voted against, but signed anyway.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[Inda]

Same as the UK with our last referendum about voting.

The question was not worded correctly. It was a case of "do you want X?", when a No vote mean we'd get "Y", when most actually wanted "Z", which wasn't offered.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[L4t3r4lu5]

Z is always on offer. You just have to get enough people off the sofa, away from Britain's Got Next Top X Big Factor Idol Model Talent Brother, and get them in Parliament Square with a megaphone.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[Anonymous Coward]

'Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.' - A major terrorist organisation.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[Teun]

Don't be a Wilders stooge, yes there was a narrow majority of Dutch who voted NO in the referendum about the treaty but it is generally accepted it was more about a undefined bad feeling about the way Europe was moving than against the actual agreement as tabled.
The Lisbon treaty achieved more or less the same sort of EU integration but by different means so the Dutch government had every right to sign and the elected parliament supported the signing.
The best coming out of the Lisbon treaty is that the EU parliament has finally received the required powers generally associated with a functional parliament, it's those powers that will protect us against CETA.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[dkleinsc]

Same thing in the US. For instance, my state of Ohio had a group of companies that wanted the state constitution amended so they could build casinos in major cities, which required a referendum. The voters rejected the idea in 1990, 1996, 2006, and 2008, but the group got what they wanted in 2009, in part because most of groups that had opposed them the last 4 times were out of funds to really compete with.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[Mithent]

Ah, yes... despite being in favour of voting reform, I was forced to vote No on that referendum due to the fact that I didn't want AV specifically. Of course, my No vote could then be interpreted as a vote against voting reform in general. They were certainly clever there.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears you are saying the Dutch voted No in a referendum, but the government signed the same thing, differently worded, and yet you call the OP a stooge.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[shutdown -p now]

there was a narrow majority of Dutch who voted NO in the referendum about the treaty but

There is no "but". You're engaging in sophistry trying to hand-wave away the plain fact that the nation said "no", and politicians ignored that and proceeded with the plan anyway. And then you go ahead and try to explain that it was all for the greater good anyway, so it's obviously a good thing.

Good or not, that's not how democracies are supposed to work. If you prefer a benevolent dictatorship, just say so.

Re:I'm reminded of the EU referendum in Ireland

[gmhowell]

It appears you are saying the Dutch voted No in a referendum, but the government signed the same thing, differently worded, and yet you call the OP a stooge.

Typical monarchist.

Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it.

[Opportunist]

Just implement the law already. No, seriously. The only thing that will change is that it's cheaper in the end because this will come. Why? Because it has nothing to do with any kind of democratic process anymore. The crap will be reintroduced again and again and again until the people who keep an eye out for it will be distracted by something even worse and then it's in.

Why the fuck do we keep up the democracy show? Hand over the powers to the corporations already, if nothing else it should save us a lot of money for cutting out the middle man that now clutter the various parliaments.

Re:Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it.

[Teun]

You are unnecessarily negative, like the new rules about network neutrality we can tacle the issue from the other side and introduce a law requiring/guaranteeing certain freedoms on the subjects threatened by ACTA/CETA.
When we keep pestering our national and EU lawmakers it can happen, the example has been set.

Re:Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it.

[perryizgr8]

and lets face it, how bad can acta/ceta be? i mean, piratebay will still work, right? they'll figure out a way. and as far as generic drugs are concerned, my government has been very open about not following any patents and allowing all sorts of cheaper versions, regardless of what others try to force.

Re:Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are on a battlefield fighting against an opponent who will not show mercy, who will kill you even should you surrender, would you surrender? They might be like endless swarms of insects or like armies of indestructible undead. Do you surrender? Surrendering means that you are guaranteed to lose. Fighting on means that you will have to fight, but you can postpone the inevitable death even if you have to spend that time fighting. Fighting and living is better than dying. Especially when the forces you are fighting are this evil.

Re:Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How bad can it be? You know all the shady shit in your search history? All the evidence left behind when you downloaded games or movies or anything that, with ACTA/CETA, can be construed as an act of piracy and/or terrorism.

You have to look at their endgame. Their endgame is to set up the parameters so that if ANY SINGLE CITIZEN becomes a problem or potential problem, they have more than enough "ammunition" to go after that individual legally. No matter if they had actually committed a crime or not. The more of these kinds of trade agreements skirt rights and democratic checks/balances, the more ammo any government has to LEGALLY imprison/fine/ruin the lives of any of its citizens who might pose a "threat" to that gov or the status quo.

Re:Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it.

[msobkow]

Those of us who oppose the law feel the same way.

Just stop tabling this bullshit already and let's get on with life. We'll never let you get away with ACTA under any guise without protest.

But that's the way of all "just give up" platforms, isn't it? You always want the other guy to give up.

Re:Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it.

[Opportunist]

How bad can it be?

Are you goading me into a Godwin here?

Re:Ok, can the charade and let's get over with it.

[Opportunist]

Not really giving up, but you ignore my protests, I ignore your laws.

Laws are a delicate thing, and it's interesting so few people actually notice it. Laws have no power by themselves and even backed up with an army of police men you cannot enforce them. For reference, see East Bloc during the late 80s. Laws need support by the people subject to them. You can actually rule against your subjects for a while, but not really for a very long time. The laws against murder and stealing are not so efficient because there's a policeman standing behind every person making sure that he doesn't whack the next guy's head in to take his stereo. It is simply efficient and upheld by the majority because the majority supports it. Go out there and ask 100 people whether they think they profit or suffer from a law against murder and I'd guess you get 80 "you nuts or what to even ask that?" looks, 18 people who actually ask you whether you're nuts and two that muse "Depends, does it include my mother in law?"

You will get very different answers when it comes to speeding laws or adultery laws. You can easily see that in the amount of transgressions too. And you'll find a similar sentiment towards laws concerning copyright.

This, though, opens a completely different can of worms. People who break one law are more likely to break another one. Especially if it becomes "common" to break it. I remember an experiment with littering laws. At a place, a huge sign said "NO LITTERING". And of course, nobody threw his trash there. Then they set up a trash pile just below the sign and, lo and behold, people started littering. Someone else already did it, everyone does it, so I can too. And there's another dangerous effect right behind it: I broke one law, so why not another? I am already a criminal, so why not make it count and actually benefit from it? People are generally law abiding, as long as they don't have a reason not to be. There is a reason why crime soared during prohibition. I'm already breaking the law drinking, and I like it... so what's a petty theft along with it? And while I'm there, the step to joining some bigger mob (and thus feeling comfortable in the company of others who do it) isn't that big.

Laws that are not supported by the population are dangerous to the safety and security of a society. If you create criminals, don't be surprised if these people then commit crimes.

Let's have another Canada-EU agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

We need an agreement between our citizens to work hard to stop this crap.

I've got bad news from the Canadian side, though. We currently have a majority government that likes ramming through any legislation it pleases, en masse, regardless of public outcry or long-established conventions regarding parliamentary procedure.

Re:Let's have another Canada-EU agreement

[BlueStrat]

I've got bad news from the Canadian side, though. We currently have a majority government that likes ramming through any legislation it pleases, en masse [economist.com], regardless of public outcry or long-established conventions regarding parliamentary procedure.

Gee, we're having the same problem just to your south. Maybe they're caused by people who share a common ideology; one that demands ever-more centralized government control over ever-more aspects of everyone's lives, fewer individual rights and liberties, ever-more monitoring and censorship of all voice/data communications, and ever-more loss of freedoms, jobs, and massive redistribution of wealth under Utopian "social justice" and "economic justice" banners that are the new-speak for Marxist-style ideologies involving class warfare and wealth-redistribution to divide, inflame, incite, and distract the population and destabilize the society.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%" or "evil big government" that's the problem, the solution to either/both starts with reining in government power.

If you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%", the corporations and ultra-rich use the power of corrupt government to exercise their power. If you believe it's "evil big-government", then of course government power is their tool.

Can't we at least agree that handing the government more power is a bad idea? Because no matter which side you're on, that just gives more power to your (our) enemies.

Or, just continue the blind partisanship and ignore it, and things will continue on getting worse and worse for everyone.

Strat

Re:Let's have another Canada-EU agreement

[dryeo]

Gee, we're having the same problem just to your south. Maybe they're caused by people who share a common ideology; one that demands ever-more centralized government control over ever-more aspects of everyone's lives, fewer individual rights and liberties, ever-more monitoring and censorship of all voice/data communications, and ever-more loss of freedoms, jobs, and massive redistribution of wealth under Utopian "social justice" and "economic justice" banners that are the new-speak for Marxist-style ideologies involving class warfare and wealth-redistribution to divide, inflame, incite, and distract the population and destabilize the society.

While you're right about this government demanding ever-more centralized government, removing individual rights and liberties, censorship and massive redistribution of wealth, I don't don't know how Utopian "social justice and "economic justice" and Marxist-style ideologies come into it. We're talking about the most non-progressive, anti-liberal government Canada has ever had, so of course they're removing freedoms, introducing censorship and massively transferring wealth from the middle class to the 0.1% and various foreigners
Much of what they're doing is in the name of reducing government power, but the powers they are removing are the checks and balances. They believe in big government for one reason, to trample on peoples rights, while trumpeting that because they are conservative they're for small government. You just have to look at how they squandered the budget surplus that Canada had when they came into power and the fact that these assholes who claim to be fiscally conservative have put us back into the hole while cutting out the parts of Canada that made us Canada.
Modern Conservatism, an idea so good that if you don't agree, you'll go to jail or worse.

The real problem isn't conservatism vs progressiveness, it's assholes who want power for themselves and they come in all political colours.

Re:Let's have another Canada-EU agreement

[BlueStrat]

Modern Conservatism, an idea so good that if you don't agree, you'll go to jail or worse.

Things may be different in Canada. Here in the US, the small-"L" libertarian-leaning conservatives embrace the concept of minimal laws & regulations and less nanny-state control, effectively making fewer behaviors and acts illegal, and so does not equate with "if you don't agree, you''l go to jail or worse".

Strat

Re:Let's have another Canada-EU agreement

[dryeo]

It's a problem with language, especially English which has evolved in different directions in different cultures. Strictly speaking conservative just means not wanting change and progressive means embracing change. Thing is change encompasses a lot.
The libertarians perhaps should disassociate themselves so much to the Conservatives as the Conservatives actions (and I remember back to Nixon) have not been small government and they might get more support if they embraced more socialism. And by socialism I mean things like credit unions instead of banks, co-ops in many situations especially infrastructure and perhaps insurance (mutual funds) and employee owned businesses, all socialist ideas without big government.

Re:Let's have another Canada-EU agreement

[BlueStrat]

It's a problem with language, especially English which has evolved in different directions in different cultures. Strictly speaking conservative just means not wanting change and progressive means embracing change. Thing is change encompasses a lot. The libertarians perhaps should disassociate themselves so much to the Conservatives as the Conservatives actions (and I remember back to Nixon) have not been small government...

This is because Conservatives (and libertarians) are only subsets of the US Republican Party which is viewed as mainly "conservative", and another very powerful subset in the Republican Party are the Progressives which make up much of the Republican "old guard" party officials, etc.

Progressives in the US have all but totally co-opted the Democrats and have made heavy inroads into the Republicans as well.

And by socialism I mean things like credit unions instead of banks, co-ops in many situations especially infrastructure and perhaps insurance (mutual funds) and employee owned businesses, all socialist ideas without big government.

If these are free citizens voluntarily engaging in creative finance and business as you describe without government programs or interference, then that's not the classic definition of "socialism", which involves government ownership/control of business and finance.

This is getting government out of the way so private citizens can innovate and improve their own and their fellow's lives. What you describe is more of a "small-"L" libertarian"-style of conservatism, an ideological position which I find has much merit, as it contains many of the ideas which I generally believe to be right and true.

Strat

Re:Let's have another Canada-EU agreement

[dryeo]

'tis bedtime here so for now all I can say is we're using different dictionaries and need to give thought about our words as we obviously have different meanings for common words. Anyways good-night and if I'm not too burnt out tomorrow I'll continue the conversation as it is interesting as long as not taking things as flame-bait.

Re:Let's have another Canada-EU agreement

[BlueStrat]

'tis bedtime here so for now all I can say is we're using different dictionaries and need to give thought about our words as we obviously have different meanings for common words. Anyways good-night and if I'm not too burnt out tomorrow I'll continue the conversation as it is interesting as long as not taking things as flame-bait.

Way past bedtime here as well, an all-too-often occurrence, I'm afraid. :)

No, no flaming or anything here. As a matter of fact, I get the distinct feeling that when it comes down to basic principles, we're probably closer than either of us expects. We share many of the same basic concepts and ideas, we just use different phrasings and word-meanings to describe and express them with that are unique parts of each of our society's differing cultures and history.

English is simultaneously one of the best, most flexible and descriptive languages, *and* one of the most horrible, contradictory, mish-mash and conditional hodgepodges of something billing itself as "language" that it has, through misunderstandings, probably started almost as many wars as it has ever settled. :)

Strat

It never will

[oztiks]

Name your reason, kiddy porn, hacking, illegal downloads, so on and so fourth.

Polticans will think they are doing the world/country justice trying to eliminate one of the above problems, they put forward a policy until its very many faults are examined and it's abandoned.

Another policitican comes along, thinks they are doing the world/country a justice trying to eliminate one of the above problems, except for the last one cause that's still in the news, they put forward a policy until its very many faults are examined and it's abandoned.

Another politician comes along ........

Why am I utterly unsurprised?

[VAElynx]

This is standard EU modus operandi - push bullshit repeatedly until "correct" result is obtained.
I wonder how many of you remember the attempt at an european constitution. It was rejected in several countries. Next step, cut off the fluff, leave the crunch exactly the same ,and have it pass as "Lisbon Treaty". Failed again, despite what was essentially bullying - i have heard politicians making asinine arguments (then, and later with the euro wall moneysink) that we're part of a collective and we have to abide by it's rules, completely ignoring that there's an election going on because we just like everyone else have a fucking right to decide.
Anyways, Ireland didn't pass it, so a few exceptions were thrown to appease them specifically, and there was a rehash , with the quiet voice behind the wall mumbling that if they won't pass the bill, it'll result in future unofficial sanctions
And voila, Lisbon treaty, which reinforces centralization of the EU and chops off a significant portion of constituent countries' rights, and voice, was passed.
Expect nothing less than the same grade bullshit with ACTA.

Re:Why am I utterly unsurprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad stuff. They don't know what they are toying with. Steel hoops never stopped a keg of powder from blowing into smithereens. If will of people is repeatedly violated, end result is either anomie or extreme apathy. Western societies are already deep into the latter and its rulers are using wrong medicine: scandals, shocks, reality shows, industrialized, insincere "fun" surrogates, which only make apathy deeper and wider.

Don't they realize it sucks to be a king of the dung worms? Money ... it is just more dung... yaay!

Our purse is still ours

[ThatsNotPudding]

We still have one weapon: stop buying (or copying) their tawdry wares. Although it wouldn't suprise me much is they began legislation to, we are not yet forced to buy corporate books, music, or movies. We should be making our own, or learning some other worthy skills instead of growing fatter on the couch or deafer in the ears.

And if we can't live without these mostly mindless blathering distractions, that's on us.

Re:Our purse is still ours

[Pecisk]

Problem is that ACTA and all new legislation actually enforces ideas of *not* having your own movies or music. It simply can't be that you made your own. All base belong to us. Give us your money, now.

Re:Our purse is still ours

[Anonymous Coward]

Goliath Corporation, anyone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyre_Affair

It's all in the name

[Abstergo]

If history has anything to say about suspicious bills, it's that they usually come labeled with a horrid acronym (ACTA, CETA, UaSAbPATRtIaOT a.k.a. Patriot Act). If they instead chose to call it something with a little more heart (e.g. "The Europeans For Acquiescing to Government Supplicants Act"), or attach a famous name to it (e.g. "The George Washington CETA Act"), it would have far greater likelihood of appealing to the voting public.

it makes sense

[circletimessquare]

when the world pays attention, they glom onto name: ACTA

so just change the name, presto-bango: 90% of the popular opposition disappears because the general public just isn't that plugged in to translate their opposition to the new flavor-of-the-month rent seeking parasite legislation

hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[gsgriffin]

I understand the whole debate here, I think. But where does everyone want this to go to? Do we want no laws even close to this so IP its not protected as the internet continues to grow? What biotech company is going to invest hundreds of millions of dollarsresearching a new drug if it can be copied by the next company cheaply. What musical artist its going to spend there own money to have it freely distributed around the world.
I understand the desire for no laws related to this, but what does everyone want and do they think in the end we will have more and better because of it?

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[Anonymous Coward]

What musical artist its going to spend there own money to have it freely distributed around the world.

Artists yes, companies churning out any old shit and making money by virtue of controlling the distribution channels -- no!

I understand the desire for no laws related to this, but what does everyone want and do they think in the end we will have more and better because of it?

What we want is a world where payola and marketing doesn't distort the market in favor of big business. There's a natural churn where businesses that outgrow their comptence are replaced by smaller organizations. The job of government in capitalist societies is to ensure the market functions, to prevent monopolies and cartels. These trade agreements were written by the incumbent cartels.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[perryizgr8]

What biotech company is going to invest hundreds of millions of dollarsresearching a new drug if it can be copied by the next company cheaply.

the problem is that people here (india), and many other countries simply can't pay the same prices for life-saving drugs as you guys, without going bankrupt. so, we will copy the drug and sell it close to zero profit, regardless of whatever international treaty is passed. regardless of it being illegal or legal. so it makes no sense to criminalize it.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[gsgriffin]

I do understand this. I was just in India for 5 weeks and helping the poor. What I don't get is why everyone is so angry with companies trying to make money. Yes, we as Americans pay a lot more for our medicine and medical care. We have a lot more. I get it, but take this to the extreme where no laws internationally are enforced and even in America, drug will stop being invented. If giant biotech companies cannot make a profit, they will not invest and take the risk. I worked at a biotech for 4 years. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching and trying to develop a drug that eventually they had to abandon. They continued to work on others and spending hundreds of millions on them. If a company is to take that risk, they must have the potential for great gain. The fact is that many of these companies charge us Americans a lot for the medicine and nearly nothing for other countries in need. It is a part of the generosity of the US that I know is happening even in India...that I'm a part of. Just don't be completely anti company profit and trying to earn money or invention will go out the window.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[gsgriffin]

The confusing part of your argument that you feel these big companies are "churning out any old shit". If this is the case, why do you want what they are producing. if you don't want it, what are we complaining about. If they are producing something you want for free, what happens if each album they create only one is sold and then freely distributed around the world. How many albums do you think they will produce at that profit margin.

The fact is that any artist can create what they want and distribute it worldwide. The internet makes that possible and usually also means that they won't make much money at it, if their creation is not protected and they are paid for their work and talent. Even if you got rid of all the big companies making money, would you have a problem with thousands of smaller companies earning just as much money in the end or are we really fighting for free stuff from other people's work?

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[Anonymous Coward]

The confusing part of your argument that you feel these big companies are "churning out any old shit". If this is the case, why do you want what they are producing.

Yeah, I can't wait to watch some more PG13 superhero movies and terrible remakes of genre classics from 30 years ago. Truely the manure cart overflows - have hard drive prices come down yet?

are we really fighting for free stuff from other people's work?

The fight is over, the market won leaving no excuse for the legislation large corporates are attempting to introduce in order to protect their markets.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[Hatta]

But where does everyone want this to go to?

Complete abolition of anything that implements artificial scarcity.

What biotech company is going to invest hundreds of millions of dollarsresearching a new drug if it can be copied by the next company cheaply

Public research institutions already do the bulk of the basic research in the creation of any drug. It wouldn't be too hard for them to take over the clinical testing either.

What musical artist its going to spend there own money to have it freely distributed around the world.

Any decent artist who plays because he loves it, and gets paid nightly by his live audience.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[gsgriffin]

You're speaking out of assumptions about biotech. Public research is NOT the bulk in creation of any drug. The basic research they provide is only a spark of an idea in some drugs. The cost of getting it tested and approved and manufactured is so far out of their budgets, they never would be able to finish it. If they did, we would either pay much higher taxes to fund that public research or they would have to charge for their product.

On the music side, if you like the decent artist who plays nightly because he loves it and get paid by a live audience, what's your beef about those that are in it for the money. Don't buy their music. Don't download for free their music. This law has no impact on you.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[Hatta]

Public research is NOT the bulk in creation of any drug. The basic research they provide is only a spark of an idea in some drugs.

I think you underestimate just how much work goes into creating that "spark". A lot more work went into discovering how synaptic transmission works than went into discovering prozac. Most research pharma does is little more than moving some functional groups around, and throwing them at a panel of cell cultures and then rats. You don't think academia could handle that?

The cost of getting it tested and approved and manufactured is so far out of their budgets, they never would be able to finish it. If they did, we would either pay much higher taxes to fund that public research or they would have to charge for their product.

What, do you think pharmaceutical companies produce money from thin air? They pay for the research they do with money that comes from patients and insurance companies. Make that research public and you reduce health care costs for everyone which you can offset with a tax to pay for the research.

Cut private pharmaceuticals out entirely, and you can put their marketing budgets(which are greater than their research budgets) and their profit margins towards research as well. Everyone wins except the scumbags running pharmaceuticals.

This law has no impact on you.

Copyright law affects me because copyright is incompatible with freedom of speech. Any method the MAFIAA proposes to enforce copyright can be (and will be) used to suppress speech.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[perryizgr8]

i'm not anti-company or anti-profit. i'm just stating the reality, generic drugs will be made. regardless of legality. so it does not make sense to criminalize it. as for a solution that is fair to everyone, i don't know any such solution. either we have to start serious r&d or you guys will take a stand and decide to block all medicines from export.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[Anonymous Coward]

This law has no impact on you.

I'm the AC from above and not Hatta but I'm going pick up on this. That guy Hatta mentioned may not raise enough funds for a small break-even tour of asia because a bunch of people bought tickets to see an overexposed star like Lada Gaga instead. Using the same logic (sic) as the record labels we may surely call that "theft"?

The world has changed with middlemen like press agents, radio pluggers and film distributors being replaced by online services. The major corporate interests pushing for legislation are trying to protect an outmoded (and corrupt) system whereby they've been able to exert a limited amount of control over popular culture. This is the same battle being waged by governments who find they can no longer control public opinion on the internet. It's not a war on "piracy" but the age old war on information and the repercussions of the latest battle will impact us all.

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's the excuse for stealing Ke$ha albums and selling pirated DVDs?

Re:hypothetically, what does everyone want?

[Anonymous Coward]

Im sure as hell not going to work for free.

You want my work, pay for it.

solution

[Gravis Zero]

pass (new) legislation that expressly protects from this bullshit that they keep reframing. at least that way you can point out that new BS bill X contradicts a bill that _they_ passed.

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The text contain for example the following: "Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors, performers or producers of phonograms in connection with... "

Firstly, a technological measure in this aspect that is broken is not "effective", also as DRM is by definition broken as crypto keys must be distributed to the person you are protecting your stuff from, it is also not "effective", even before it has been broken.

Secondly, phonograms are by definition music and audio only (so, it must be free to crack video); and no music is sold with DRM these days (except for subscription services like Spotify), so what is the point of this?

Then it will be revived again

[betterunixthanunix]

Eventually, protesters run out of steam. High-paid lobbyists don't stop. This sort of thing will be revived over and over until the industry gets what it wants. That's how democracy works, right? Keep demanding things until people lose the energy to vote against you.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[acidfast7]

No, democracy works because we (I'm still a US citizen and can't vote in all elections) remember who supported a bill/proposal we didn't like and we don't elect them again. After the first few people don't get elected again, the politicians take the hint. However, that hint can be made quite strongly when there are thousands demonstrating in the central square of a major city against ACTA, which happened all across Germany and most of Europe. In the US, there is a severe lack of choice at the national level (Republicans and Democrats are relatively similar ... both pro-corp), which is a serious issue that should lead to more, not less, protesting. Also, protesters never run out of steam when the issues is very important ... Athens is still on fire, for example.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[acidfast7]

Another example is that Occupy Frankfurt is still camped out right next to the European Central Bank and they're not going anywhere, any time soon. You just assume that protesters will "run out steam." Grow a backbone.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[Anonymous Coward]

And at some point, its easier to just start blowing the competition. Not saying I advocate it, but if history has taught us anything, it's that the disenfranchised will only take so much abuse before violence is used to defend their way of life.

Would be a truly sad day when the public violently fights back because the media cartels have gone too far.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[VortexCortex]

No, democracy works because we (I'm still a US citizen and can't vote in all elections) remember who supported a bill/proposal we didn't like and we don't elect them again. After the first few people don't get elected again, the politicians take the hint.

Protip: Your understanding of "democracy" is completely fucked, and so is "The Republic For Which It Stands"...

Re:Then it will be revived again

[acidfast7]

Protip: Your statement makes no sense.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[betterunixthanunix]

You're missing the point. The lobbyists are never "defeated" -- they keep trying to get what they want, and we need a more permanent solution to that problem. Yes, people eventually run out of energy -- the fact that one protest has remained active in Frankfurt does not mean that people can keep coming out and protesting whenever lobbyists try to attack the Internet.

Look at it this way: we are fighting the wrong battle. Instead of protesting ACTA-like treaties, we should be pushing for laws that protect the Internet from such things. We need to slap down the lobbyists and the industries they represent once and for all -- so that we don't have to go out and protest the same laws and treaties every few months. We should be moving our focus on to new issues, not rehashing the same old problems over and over again. Voting no on an individual treaty is putting a band-aid on a broken leg; we need to vote yes on a resolution that rules out all such treaties.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[0123456]

Wow. A protest so successful that almost no-one has even heard of it.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[acidfast7]

No, you should protest, and you should replace the politicians that supported the bill. That's one of the reasons that the Pirate Party gains traction over here ... at ACTA protests the Pirate Party handed out info, generated interest and did much better in the local and regional elections. You don't get the "rules out all such treaties" without such politicians that replace the incumbents.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[the eric conspiracy]

Do you know what eventually happens if a country is in anarchy long enough that the people will do anything for order?

It's called military coup.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you actually point out where the process is working? So far we have a government who is sided ENTIRELY against public opinion. We have CIVILIANS targeted for assassination (LEGALLY) and politicians who don't even bother to try and achieve any of their campaign promises.

The borders for ridings are constantly reworked so that the jerks (who you decide not to vote for) STILL GET IN TO OFFICE.

Are you really that incredibly naive? or have your eyes just been closed the last 30 years? DEMOCRACY HAS FAILED

Re:Then it will be revived again

[acidfast7]

No, those are a few of reasons that I elected to leave the US and live somewhere else.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[tqk]

Protip: Your understanding of "democracy" is completely fucked, and so is "The Republic For Which It Stands"...

What a supremely valueless post that is. You've no right to be quoting "protips" to anyone.

Re:Then it will be revived again

[Anonymous Coward]

anarchy and chaos are not synonyms, anarcy simply means there's no top-down order, it does not preclude a bottum-up, emergent one

Not in this case

[betterunixthanunix]

Nobody thinks they are doing the world a favor by fighting copyright or trademark infringement. They know they are doing a specific industry a favor. No person with any power actually thinks copyrights, patents, trademarks, or trade secrets carry any moral weight; the purpose of such legal constructs is to give a boost to particular industries.

Re:Not in this case

[oztiks]

I'd challenge that only because a person being a public servant or being in a position of power doesn't necessarily make them a smart person.

I mean let's look at it this way, if I cry poor and I'm big business that suffers because of X and if X has political relevance to a particular political party, I.E Republican is right wing and X helps big business then yes, they believe what they are doing is correct by their views.

As if I'm a farmer and the guy across the road is selling unvaccinated chickens or using illegal aliens as employees and if it was the Democrats in power, I don't know, shutting down that farm would hold political relevance and if there wasn't a policy out there then me getting local congress to deal with the issue would be favorable for their political motivation and easier to leverage.

I'm not all up with the US political structure so if I have it wrong then sorry but you get what I mean.

It's really what's wrong with politics IMHO because I like to see the law / political system very similar to a computer program "if this then that else the other" and because it upholds this static behavior it's why laws that may be ethical and good in one end of town, kills and destroys the other.

If piracy was about real damages and not made up damages because the law allows flashy lawyers to substantiate a lot of bogus costs and damages against piracy or pirates, then we wouldn't have this ethical haze of which your refer too.

If I pirated a video and the RRP of that video was $10 and I was caught doing so and some media company wanted to take me to court over the cost of the stolen goods, then the damage is $10 and I would be liable to pay the media company $10. This doesn't seem work in the favor of the media company because it seems like an awful lot of work for just $10 so then they go after all the substantiated costs and thereabouts, why? because the law let's them, why because of legal precedence established within the civil court system.

We wont touch on criminal implications because that's prolly even more complex but this concept or precedence did hold ethical purpose at one point and therefore was written into law, the backlash being that it can be leveraged unethically at any point.

Same thing which I believe caused the GFC. In 1932 saw a depression, then the world recovered, as a result we wrote laws to prevent it from happening again. Then this legal precedence process repeated itself, undid the knots we imposed on ourselves and presto 2009 and we are back at stage 1 again. Now we are just in bandaid mode, patching the holes thinking that we're smart enough to out patch the problem (back to the software analogy) but the truth is it won't work out that way, sometime at some point the real value of the dollar has to find itself, when it does it's gonna hurt.

Wow a lot of demands frmo EU.

[boylinux]

As a Canadian it looks like the EU is trying to butthurt me through this agreement. I hope Mr Geist gets on this.

Who is responsible

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can blame the electorate.
If the electorate isn't happy with the way the executive branch is appointed, they should change to a new model.

little fingers and sledgehammers

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanted: a legal sledgehammer to put a stop to the re-typing of this frequent iteration of the same motherfucking fascist bs

are you sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fact we don't really know for sure if he is lying after the fact as well...

long winded explanation "...and that is why we need to support motherhood and apple pie, thank-you"... few minutes later, "what dumb fucks, I did my part, now pay up PETA-HATERS-ANNONYMOUS".
 

As a Canadian,

[Anonymous Coward]

we didn't agree for this shit. We hate ACTA as much as everyone else. They're doing the same thing in-country, trying to force these issues on the populace, who have time and time again protested anything of the sort.

There are bad honbres in town...

[Jafafa Hots]

...trying to bend us all to their will, paying off the sheriff to string us up.
We respond by passing limits on the length of rope.

Lame - Go Wedgie Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother shoving this crap down the EU's face when Australian politics is so screwed that the ALP will allow anything through right now?

L4D2

[Anonymous Coward]

Coach - "I thought CETA was supposed to be saving our asses"

Nick - "Looks like there's been a change of plans..."

John Dewey quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Government is the shadow cast by business on the public.

PM Harper

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who lives in PM Harper's Riding, I am proud to announce I DID NOT vote for this sack of shit, and I'd also like to apologize to the rest of the world that my country's system is so f'ed up that 33% means a majority, and my vote meant nothing.

Not negative at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Payroll (social security) and medicaid taxes are federal, and extremely onerous for those at the poverty level and even many above.

Yes - the (eventual) benefits are worth it, but please do not perpetuate the myth that poor people pay no (federal) taxes.

I can get you a return equal to half your salary.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can get you a return equal to half your salary.

Just pay ALL your income as estimated tax.

People's return has NOTHING to do with the tax rate, so your examples and assumptions are completely useless.

Go away?

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are immortal sociopaths required, by law, to be ruthlessly greedy. Why do you think they would go away? You may win the fight against one acronym, but it's not the acronyms that are the problem. You may win the fight against one piece of legislation, but it's not the pieces of legislation that are the problem.

Of course its back

[nurb432]

This stuff never goes away. it sits and waits until the citizens blink, then its too late.

Convenient

[Anonymous Coward]

How convenient that the antidote is delivered side by side with the poison. Victory is near.

To be fair, he licks US boots, not media...

[DarthVain]

I rather doubt Harper is a hired lapdog of big media. In fact I would assume he probably has pretty mild (as in could probably care less one way or another) opinion on the whole affair. If anything Harper is just a sellout shill for the USA (which of course is the hired lapdog of big media). So I guess by extension he is in a way. He really just wants to do whatever the US tells him to do, follow Obama (or whoever really, but particularly for Obama, trying to rub some charisma off him), or whatever the US government of the day wants. Harper is probably the biggest threat to Canadian sovereignty there has been in a very long time. About the only thing that probably keeps us independent, is that he likes to be a bit more than a governor. More access to all the fancy dinners and rubbing elbows high end muckity mucks.

The US could propose any plainly ridiculous law, and I am sure he would agree to it (likely without even reading it). Anyway I see him only as a sell out to big media by extension of the US being so bought and paid for, and he just follows their lead.