Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Privacy Your Rights Online

EU Parliament Rejects ACTA In a 663 To 13 Vote 477

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the good-news-everybody dept.
An anonymous reader writes "'The European Parliament defied the EU executive today (10 March), casting a vote against an agreement between the EU, the US and other major powers on combating online piracy and threatening to take legal action at the European Court of Justice.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Parliament Rejects ACTA In a 663 To 13 Vote

Comments Filter:
  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:21AM (#31426462)

    Good to know that the voice of the people is being heard.

    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by VGPowerlord (621254) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:21AM (#31426474)

      Good to know that the voice of the people is being heard.

      On one side of the pond at any rate.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Nathrael (1251426)
        Nah, it's just a sudden, unexpected outbreak of common sense (probably not even that - it's probably just our politicians playing anti-American again). It's not as shiny in Europe as many seem to think.

        You know, in one of our countries, we've got our presidential elections upcoming and the only major opposition party's not even nominating a candidate, because they know that even if they'd win the vote, they'd still have no real power and would be forced to have the other party agree on every decision they
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Fred_A (10934)

          Nah, it's just a sudden, unexpected outbreak of common sense (probably not even that - it's probably just our politicians playing anti-American again).

          Yeah, our politicians hate it when the US politicians act like sissies. We want laws where we can tear limbs off copyright infringers and we like it that way !

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hduff (570443)
          It will be interesting to see how this is undone. Have no doubt, it will be undone and forced on the EU. There's too much money riding on the implementation a of ACTA to let it fail.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Silverhammer (13644)
      Except that the EU parliament has no real power (much like the British House of Lords). All real power in the EU is held by the bureaucracy.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mcvos (645701)

        Except that the EU parliament has no real power (much like the British House of Lords). All real power in the EU is held by the bureaucracy.

        By the council of ministers, actually. They make agreements behind closed doors without input from either their national parliaments or the euoparliament.

      • they do have power. (Score:5, Informative)

        by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:40AM (#31426728) Homepage Journal

        since lisbon treaty last year, Eu parliament has the power. they canceled the swift agreement with usa that allowed cia, nsa to gather info about swift users.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Except that the EU parliament has no real power (much like the British House of Lords).

        Well, the parliament is needed to pass laws. That is some power...

    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)

      by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:26AM (#31426556)
      At least until the European Commission finally ends this travesty called "Democracy in the EU"...
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ThePhilips (752041)

      They'll just slice it and pass it piece by piece through all the possible loopholes, avoiding any vote by elected officials.

      When in the EU something happens, all become aware of it only as a post factum, when it is too late to influence anything.
      When in the EU nothing happens ... well, you see such news. IOW, any news from Brussels can be safely ignored, "real business" there happens behind closed doors.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ihmhi (1206036)

        The problem is that the *AAs are facing a battle against time.

        As time goes by, internet connections are going to improve and the citizenry is going to become more aware. In 4 years all of those 14 year olds today using Limewire will be 18 and eligible to vote in many countries.

        It's a battle they are (eventually) going to lose to sanity. ACTA was probably going to be a stopgap. They tried to do it too big and have it too far-reaching, though, so they basically shot themselves in the foot.

        I await the day 50 y

  • The 13 votes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by metlin (258108) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:21AM (#31426466) Journal

    I'd be curious to see the political/national/corporate affiliations of the 13 that voted for it. Maybe publish the details, to let people know how these folks were *cough* looking out for their "interests".

    I'm always surprised when a minority votes for something that most unequivocally consider at the very least bad, if not downright evil.

    • by Ltap (1572175)
      Probably half-and-half people who were paid off/influenced to vote no matter what, and people who simply thought ACTA was a good idea. In other words, less than 1%.
    • Re:The 13 votes (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dr_Barnowl (709838) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:47AM (#31426820)

      http://www.votewatch.eu/ [votewatch.eu]

      Data isn't up yet though.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by steelfood (895457)

        It is now. All of the "no" votes were from the UK and the Netherlands.

        Several abstains from the UK, but mostly from Italy, with two from Greece and France each.

        Various members from various countries (including those listed above) didn't vote.

        Now we know where the copyright money is going. To be honest, I wasn't surprised by the strong support of ACTA from the UK. But I am a little surprised by the "no" votes from the Netherlands.

        • Re:The 13 votes (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @12:34PM (#31428226)

          To be honest, I wasn't surprised by the strong support of ACTA from the UK.

          You should. All UK votes for the ACTA treaty (all 10 of them) were from UKIP (UK Independence Party - they are anti-EU). Even Labour (who are the "brains" behind the Digital Economy Bill - ie the "All rights go to Big Media" Bill) voted unanimously to reject the treaty. "Strong UK Support" for ACTA is bollocks, as 55 UK MEPs voted to reject the treaty. On the other hand, this is slashdot, so UK bashing is an easy way to get mod points.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by mooingyak (720677)

            Fun with statistics... 77% of the votes for ACTA came from the UK.

            On the other hand, this is slashdot, so UK bashing is an easy way to get mod points.

            I thought that was US bashing. I guess with UK not being mainland Europe and being heavily outnumbered by the US, UK bashing is safer.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by SleazyRidr (1563649)

            On the other hand, this is slashdot, so UK bashing is an easy way to get mod points.

            I can't help but notice that you're at +5, whereas the post to which you are replying is below my threshold...

            Maybe complaining that other people are going for easy mod points is the easy way to get mod points?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AlXtreme (223728)

          But I am a little surprised by the "no" votes from the Netherlands.

          Especially because all 3 dutch "no" votes were from the "Party for Freedom" (PVV). This same party was against ACTA last monday [webwereld.nl] (dutch article), MEPs emailed on what they were smoking.

        • Re:The 13 votes (Score:4, Informative)

          by Petrushka (815171) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @03:52PM (#31430776)

          The full list of "no" voters, with voting history, contact details, etc.

          Netherlands
          Louis Bontes [votewatch.eu], Partij voor de Vrijheid
          Laurence J.A.J. Stassen [votewatch.eu], Partij voor de Vrijheid
          Daniel van der Stoep [votewatch.eu], Partij voor de Vrijheid

          UK
          John Stewart Agnew [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          Marta Andreasen [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          Gerard Batten [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          John Bufton [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          Trevor Coleman [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          William, Earl of Dartmouth [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          Nigel Farage [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          Mike Nattrass [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          Paul Nuttall [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party
          Nicole Sinclaire [votewatch.eu], UK Independence Party

          All of the "no" voters are either independent of any EU parliament groups, or belong to the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" group. Although the EFD group is officially pro-ACTA, of the 31 EFD members

          • 6 were not present
          • 8 abstained
          • 9 voted against ACTA
          • 8 voted in favour.
    • Re:The 13 votes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by abigsmurf (919188) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:52AM (#31426888)
      Personally I think there's a lot to be said about keeping these votes anonymous. You end up with 'flags for orphans' situations where a piece of draconian legislation gets snuck in a popular bill and people are too scared to vote against it for fear of seeing their name in negative headlines.
      • Re:The 13 votes (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BlackSnake112 (912158) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:00AM (#31427028)

        No. Those who were elected into power should never have anonymous voting. Only those not in power (that would be the regular people) should have anonymous voting. Those in power should be doing the will of the people that put them there. The regular people need to be able to vote without fear of being arrested, fined, etc. for voting against something that those in power want.

        • Re:The 13 votes (Score:5, Insightful)

          by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:12AM (#31427186)
          We also need to be able to hold those who we put in power accountable if they are found to be voting against our will. It's fundamental in weeding out corruption.
        • Re:The 13 votes (Score:5, Insightful)

          by abigsmurf (919188) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:37AM (#31427514)
          "one rule for us and one rule for them" then?

          The problem with public voting is in today's politics is that they're not accountable to 'their voting public'. They're accountable to the press.

          What's the headline likely to be "Senator John Smith is the lone person against giving orphans flags" or "Senator John Smith refuses to vote for the flags for orphans bill as he feels some unrelated legislation has been added by stealth and he thinks it's against his voter's wishes"?

          A well run government often requires passing bills that voters would dislike for the good of the country (tax increases, spending cuts etc.). Fear of voting in line with your views and policies at both top and bottom levels results in a failure of democracy.
      • Re:The 13 votes (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Spatial (1235392) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:03AM (#31427064)
        The alternative is politicians who can't be held responsible for their actions.

        Which is worse: politicians that can be cowed by the media, or politicians who aren't answerable to the media at all?
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by hanabal (717731)

        another option is to prevent sneaking unrelated crap on top of new bills

        • another option is to prevent sneaking unrelated crap on top of new bills

          Mod parent up. Pork is definitely a significant contributor to the political headache of the US.

  • by m509272 (1286764) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:22AM (#31426492)

    Nice to see not everyone in "government" is controlled by Hollywood

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:31AM (#31426628)
      Do not get your hopes up. I just see 663 politicians who are about to get visits from copyright lobbyists, it remains to be seen how easily these people can be bought.
    • by rtb61 (674572)

      Hollywood still has the cash but it is rapidly losing influence to the internet and the internet seems to be working on that cash problem, as the various old world passive media is losing out to the more modern interactive media types are taking over. For ACTA to have worked they would have needed to launch it at the same time as the DMCA (which itself has been demonstrated to be biased and corrupt in it's application) or perhaps even the mickey mouse copyright extension act.

      It is become pretty clear tha

  • Wow - (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:23AM (#31426494)

    You mean there's still a legislative body that isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of their corporations?

    • Re:Wow - (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DaveGod (703167) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:43AM (#31426768)

      Well this looks promising but no reason to take the pressure of them yet. Something I find odd with voting is that something can be effectively reintroduced continually until it is accepted, whereas it is much harder to reject something once accepted.

      If we were to be highly sceptical we could point out that these guys weren't involved in the talks so could just be actioning their annoyance, or negotiating for their cut. Or, remember there were corporations - local corporations - who were set to suffer from this legislation. Maybe the ISPs were wiser with their 'donations' than the American-led movie and music lobby.

      • Re:Wow - (Score:5, Informative)

        by digitig (1056110) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:04AM (#31427070)

        If we were to be highly sceptical we could point out that these guys weren't involved in the talks so could just be actioning their annoyance, or negotiating for their cut.

        You don't need to be cynical -- they specifically state that that's the issue. From the RA:

        In a statement released today, MEPs Lambrinidis (S&D, Greece), Castex (S&D, France), Alvaro (ALDE, Germany) and Roithova (EPP, Czech Republic) "deeply regret the fact that the Council is continuing its secretive stance, despite the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which stipulates that the European Parliament should have full and immediate access to information at all stages of international negotiations".

        It's the secrecy that they're objecting to, not the content (which they don't -- officially -- know).

    • Re:Wow - (Score:5, Funny)

      by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:56AM (#31426968) Journal

      Oh its owned by a corporation alright, but you'd never guess who. This goes as far back as the East India [trading] Company. The EIC was running England way back in the day, but they had to keep up appearances. So, under the illusion of disappearance, EIC supposedly fell off the map, but in secret, key members were still having the executive decision in England. It got quite upset when the United States of America broke off. Ever since that day they have held a hateful grudge. England was wary to join the EU at first because they weren't sure if they could keep up the act. It's difficult to cover your tracks and hide all the evidence you know. Anyways, when the United states became big with Hollywood and Rock n Roll, this was their chance to strike back. What was the East India Company's biggest threat when they ruled the seas? That's right - PIRATES. Taking this idea is the entire foundation of music and movie piracy, bootlegging etc. Then when the internet came along, they kept up with the times and started digital pirating. Condemning such scapegoats as "The Pirate Bay" only serves to help keep the guise up. As such, we've been locked in battle ever since - Corporate America and its music labels versus the European Union (EIC) and its highly sophisticated piracy. You need look no further for evidence of my claims than European music. See: Basshunter.

      In all honesty guys, this one was obvious.

  • Ovation (Score:5, Funny)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:23AM (#31426496)
    You can't see it because this is the internet but I'm giving Europe a standing ovation right now.

    It's nice to see some people in power actually understand just how disgusting ACTA is.
    • Re:Ovation (Score:5, Funny)

      by natehoy (1608657) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:37AM (#31426700) Journal

      You can't see it because this is the internet but I'm giving Europe a standing ovation right now.

      Yes, we can. Turn off your webcam. Or at least put on some pants. We don't need to know the details behind your "standing" ovation. :)

      All kidding aside:

      It's nice to see some people in power actually understand just how disgusting ACTA is.

      Agreed. Now let's hope that this starts a new actual legislative movement in the EU, and eventually in the States and other places, to respect IP rights to a reasonable degree but also make copyright reasonable again.

  • by H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:27AM (#31426564) Homepage Journal

    Read draft leaked on March 1st [swpat.org] to know why.

  • And that is why.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pablo_max (626328) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:32AM (#31426636)

    I am moving to Germany next month! seriously.

    The sheep here just dont care what the government takes from them so long as it's "for the children".

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      Good luck with that. It’s far from over. Our government (which is NOT the EU) still is very much for a totalitarian surveillance state. And the “terrorists” still are the excuse deus ex machina of law.

    • Germany? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by KlaymenDK (713149) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:55AM (#31426954) Journal

      I like Germany very much, but it's not a destination I'd recommend *specifically* for avoiding stupid (IT) regulation.

      Before you pack up your wagon, google around a bit for the recent (~2 years) data laws passed in Germany. As a brief taste, it's apparently ok for the government to install spyware on their citizens' computers, but not okay for citizens to use network snooping (aka diagnostics) software.

      Not than anywhere else is really a lot better. (Except maybe Iceland, soon?)

    • "i'm going to run to canada if bush is elected! boo hoo!"

      look you spineless assholes: if your society is going south, stay there and fight for it. fleeing means that you don't hold much stock in the strength of your own convictions, and instead parasitically depend on someone else to fight for your convictions

      all of your freedoms you hold dear must constantly be protected and fought for. what, you think you fight for something once and it stays that way forever? no, every day is a fight against constant assaults against your freedoms, and this is the way it is, FOREVER, IN EVERY SOCIETY. this is the reality you live in, so grow a fucking backbone, stand your fucking ground, and fight the fucking assholes who infect your society

      to anyone who threatens to flee the usa because of changes in society they don't like: you're a loser, you're a freeloader, and you ARE PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM

      we need fighters who will fight for their home, not freeloading whiners

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by c6gunner (950153)

        It's a rhetorical point rather than a statement of fact. When Bush was elected, I noticed a distinct dearth or "liberal" refugees swarming over the border. Nor did the situation change upon his reelection. While one or two rare individuals may actually follow up on such statements, the vast majority will not. It's the equivalent of a young child threatening to run away from home; a cry for attention rather than a serious plan.

      • by SteveFoerster (136027) <steve@noSPaM.stevefoerster.com> on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:59AM (#31427826) Homepage

        With the obvious exceptions of Native Americans and those whose ancestors were brought here against their will, the U.S. was built largely by those who came here seeking a better life. If it was okay for them to come here for that reason, it's okay for me to go somewhere else for the same reason.

        I'm one of three hundred million people in the U.S. My odds that my fighting for freedom here will make a positive difference in my life are worse than my odds of winning the lottery. Meanwhile, the odds that emigrating will make a positive difference in my life improve all the time. So no thanks, you can keep your macho bullshit. In this case it's better to be happy than right.

        • thank you (Score:4, Insightful)

          by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquar ... m minus language> on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @12:13PM (#31427980) Homepage Journal

          for emphatically declaring your deepest conviction: to not matter

          but one would think that someone so hellbent on passionately insisting on standing for nothing would learn that the most direct way to do that is to shut up

          we get it dude: meaninglessness is awesome. your hopelessness and and your lacking of ability to change anything in your life is unmuteable. so shut up, and thereby fulfill your destiny of truly meaning nothing

          i don't understand the point of someone looking at a fight and declaring "I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT, I'M GOING TO STAND ON THE SIDELINES". we understand. so go away. why are you still talking when your only message is "i don't care"? prove you don't care: go the fuck away and stop commenting on that which you enthusiastically choose not to fight for

          those who actually believe in something and actually fight for it create their own meaning, create the future of the society they care about: its self-fulfilling destiny. meanwhile, those who have only learned helplessness have a self-fulfilling destiny as well: "i don't matter and i can't change anything" becomes their reality. that you believe that, defines your reality. thank fucking god your empty cynicism and helplessness to change your world doesn't define my reality, or reality at all

          you forfeit the right to talk about a subject matter when the only thing you have to say on the subject matter is that you don't care about the subject matter

          so adios, loser. you've defined the parameters of your own loserhood by stating your inability to change anything. that defines your useless life, it doesn't define my life, or my society. i would say OUR society, but your only conviction is to leave it, apparently

      • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @12:46PM (#31428362) Journal

        look you spineless assholes: if your society is going south, stay there and fight for it. fleeing means that you don't hold much stock in the strength of your own convictions, and instead parasitically depend on someone else to fight for your convictions

        Can you tell that to Christians living in Afghanistan with a straight face?

        Staying and fighting is only meaningful if there is any possibility that you may actually win. In longer term, if one is willing to sacrifice oneself for the good of the others (which is not something that should be demanded or expected from everyone!), it still only makes sense if the sacrifice has any chance of buying victory.

        And this is only possible if there are sufficiently many people fighting alongside you, or if there is a good chance to recruit more to your cause. If, instead, the supermajority is fiercely opposed (or even just decidedly neutral) with respect to the cause you're fighting for, the war is already lost. Trying to fight it would be purely masochistic, with pain and struggle for both oneself and others for no purpose at all.

        Even if the fight is possible to win in the end - just very hard - as noted above, it is neither feasible nor moral to require every single person to ruin their life for the sake of such a fight, even for the cause that is just.

        Which is the case in the American society today, I cannot tell; this is something for Americans themselves to figure out. But you alone are not a judge, either.

  • Ouch. (Score:5, Funny)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:38AM (#31426706) Journal
    That has got to sting.

    Most genocides had higher approval ratings than that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:38AM (#31426708)

    Heh, this is a case where the inappropriately-effusive slashdot story is actually less exciting than the glum reality. This vote was a parliamentary resolution urging the European Commission to (among other things) fight the veil of secrecy that's kept ACTA out of the mainstream press for the most part. That's way cooler than "rejecting" some secret draft that we didn't know about anyway, and that would have been swiftly replaced with another secret draft.

  • Not really... (Score:5, Informative)

    by teslar (706653) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:43AM (#31426752)

    I don't want to bring the mood down, but this is just a good summary of a bad article. The parliament did not vote against ACTA per se, they voted in favour of resolution RC-B7-0154/2010 [europa.eu]. Much better summary is the press release [europa.eu] from the parliament itself.

    In brief, they are mostly pissed off about the secrecy of the negotiations and lack of transparency. The resolution calls on the negotiations being made accessible to the public and the MEPs in a timely manner. So it's not against ACTA, it's against how negotiations are conducted. However, the resolution does also call out against the 3-strike rule and personal searches at EU borders. Regarding warrantless searches, they merely want a "clarification" of clauses that would allow such things.

    • read well (Score:3, Interesting)

      by unity100 (970058)

      there are other stuff. Eu rules took effect last year exonerates ISPs from liability over pirated content in their network as long as they take measures to remove them when informed. the shit us corporations are trying to push in acta wanted to force isps into corporations' polices, policing their network for those people's content. also there are important declarations regarding freedoms there, not limited to 3 strikes.

  • RATM (Score:3, Funny)

    by bazorg (911295) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:46AM (#31426800) Homepage
    I can imagine all the members of parliament singing that famous Chritsmas hit single by Rage against the Machine... but probably they didn't.

    • I can imagine all the members of parliament singing that famous Chritsmas hit single by Rage against the Machine... but probably they didn't.

      They had considered it, but then realised the European equivalent of the RIAA would want to charge license fees ;)

  • It's sad to see (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr.Syshalt (702491) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:48AM (#31426834)
    ...how the world has changed in recent 150 years. U.S. corporations push draconian laws and European countries are praised for standing up to protect freedoms and privacy.
  • Reality (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cdrguru (88047) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @10:54AM (#31426934) Homepage

    Today, the US economy "manufactures" IP. The vast factories that employ thousands of people have all moved to Mexico or China and they aren't coming back no matter what happens. The WTO is going to see to that.

    Do you really believe that anything the EU does is going to prevent the US from rather forcibly letting the world know that the IP manuactured in the US isn't going to be passed around for free? Dream on. You are talking about a huge economy that is responsible for the well-being of nearly a half a billion people.

    The goal of the pirate community is simple - nobody pays, ever. A admirable goal and one that most people don't really see any problem with. Which leads to sillyness like a software developer whose salary depends on the company's revenue from software sales freely downloading and redistributing movies. Sure, it is easy and convenient, but best of all it is really cheap. But when the software is passed around for free as well will the company survive? I guess they could come up with a "new business model" that supports giving it all away for free. But they probably aren't going to need as many developers...

    Probably the biggest thing that people are missing is the US is poised to take on a huge new madate to pretty much supply health care to everyone. This is going to cost a lot more money, money the government gets from taxes. Pirates don't pay taxes on what they "try before buying". So regardless of how the media companies figure out a new business model that can just give everything away, the government's share of the sales taxes and income taxes goes away. The US government is no longer in a position to ignore this loss of tax revenue.

    So what is going to happen? Well, I would start figuring out how the US government is going to continue to get the same tax revenue in the face of a massive piracy movement. They could tax Internet connections. They could crack down on piracy in all sorts of ways. They could do both. But no matter what, they aren't going to take the revenue loss lying down and are going to do something. Probably something big because the appetite for tax revenue is just going to get a lot bigger over the next few years.

    • fool (Score:4, Interesting)

      by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:19AM (#31427302) Homepage Journal

      going and patenting stuff like 'single click' and leaving that aside, patenting BASIC logical thought processes that has been the very fundamentals of logic equations since last 5000 years and then trying to force your 'ownership' over these onto entire world is medieval feudalism at it best. it has nothing to do with creativity, it has nothing to do with productivity, it has NOTHING to do with rights. its basically laying claim to intelligence. the ONLY place on the face of the world where patents and copyrights granted for BASE thought processes, is united states. united states is the problem here, not the pirates. no amount of piracy can outshadow the villainy of trying to lay claim to logic itself.

    • Re:Reality (Score:5, Informative)

      by Abcd1234 (188840) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:24AM (#31427356) Homepage

      Do you really believe that anything the EU does is going to prevent the US from rather forcibly letting the world know that the IP manuactured in the US isn't going to be passed around for free? Dream on. You are talking about a huge economy that is responsible for the well-being of nearly a half a billion people.

      Yeah:

      GDP (Nominal):
      EU - US $14.51 trillion (2009 est.)
      US - US $14.266 trillion (2009)

      Population:
      EU - 491,582,852 (July 2009 est.)
      US - 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.)

      Sorry buddy, the days are over when the US could unilaterally dictate it's whims to a fractured Europe. The EU has already surpassed the US in size and economic power, and the odds are very good that trend will continue.

    • by rgviza (1303161)

      Yup... When it comes to creating bigger government and collecting the taxes to pay for it, NOTHING will escape notice, especially piracy. By pirating software you are also dodging the IRS. That makes it a government problem instead of a simple loss of revenue for a company.

      You are dodging sales tax and reducing the income tax paid by the company who you are stealing the software from, since their incoming money is shorted. You are also causing one of the merchants that sells the product to lose revenue, red

  • it seems that even with all your paid for government whores, you can't legislate against technological progress

    maybe you should consider your only option: death. fucking parasites

    creators: you have a choice too. you can sign a ridiculous stifling agreement with some lawyer assholes where they get the lions share of your creative effort, or you can self-distribute

    the downside is it's totally free, the upside is it's totally free. this is not communist thinking, this is in fact a solid capitalist model: think of your digitized creative output as advertising, the same solid capitalist business model as good old FM radio or broadcast television... give it away for free, reap the side benefits. you get fabulous exposure, free advertising, and permanent presence and community building with fans. then you can tour, or show only in movie houses, or a number of other ancillary revenue streams available to you, capitalizing on your exposure

    you are your own entrepreneur, with your own creative output. no more is your fate decided by some asshole in a suit in an office: you rise and fall on the sheer affinity of fans to your output. this is, in fact, capitalism at its finest. for those who say the internet is destroying the capitalism as represented by traditional media corporations: no, that's an oligopoly. monopolies and oligopolies, in fact, are a greater threat to healthy capitalism than communist thinking. free over the internet is capitalism at its finest, not communism

    creators: make money the honest way, rather than making a deal with the devil that the internet has pretty much destroyed now as a viable avenue for you. help us destroy the financial parasites on our culture, who are attempting to warp our freedoms to grandfather their unnecessary existence into our societies

    die bertelsmann, die time warner, just fucking die, die, die you useless rotten pile of lawyers and suits. WE DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE. DIE

    • I agree with this sentiment. The only reason I might buy music is if I like the band well enough to actually want a copy of their music. Most of what's being produced lately hasn't sounded like music to me -- most if it is just noise made by no-talent hacks with no concept of art, of how to produce something that will make someone go, "WOW!"

      So impress me, record labels: Make something pretty that I might like to listen to. Make something interesting enough for me to want to buy your product.

      It's the same as

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Overzeetop (214511)

      I'm going to Karma hell for this, but let me fix a few things for you:

      creators: you have a choice too...ridiculous stifling agreement...or you can self-distribute

      Creators, you can take that pile of advance cash sitting there on the table. Yes, those are stacks of $100 bills, and of course we can get you a duffel bag to put them in. Then again, you could always walk out with your "principles" and forego the chance to share your art with untold millions of future adoring fans. You don't have the capitol to market or get airplay, so you'll simply wallow in obscurity for entire career, requiring you t

  • by paulsnx2 (453081) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @11:15AM (#31427224)

    We were told that ACTA had to remain secret for "National Security Reasons". We were told it had to remain secret or other countries would walk away from the table.

    But the truth is that most of Europe will walk away if there is no disclosure. And none of the countries that have supported secrecy have threatened to leave the talks. And the US hasn't even claimed to take a position (though we all know that is a lie).

    And to top it all off, despite all the leaks so far, we do not have a single terrorist organization that has been able to leverage the revealed all-so-dangerous-information commit any terrorist act.

    At least, as long as you don't consider Michael Geist a terrorist.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wvmarle (1070040)

      If an international agreement has to remain secret, then it is bad for the general people. No doubt about that. If it is good for the public, why keep it secret in the first place? When the agreement comes in force, it has to be published to be of any use in the first place. ACTA is about forcing other countries to make laws around it - that can only be done if it is public. Laws, by nature, have to be public,

      There can be no other reason for such an agreement to be drafted in secret than that it is against

  • ... in the rest of the world rejoiced. Thank you, EU.

  • rather than always writing to complain / object. How about some letters of support.

    I'm guessing MEPs don't get many - and they may notice and remember them.

    http://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com]

  • Hallelujah.

    Of course this is in Europe. Can it happen in the US?

  • Once again I'd like to thank the EU for saving the citizens of the U.S. from our corporate led government. If you're ever in the area, beers are on me.
  • The corporations have bought the American government. They just need to spend a little more to buy Europe.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @12:18PM (#31428054)

    663 vs 13.

    Remember, the EU parlament is not the US congress. It's not "two parties and a handful of independents". You literally have ALL possible flavors of political opinions represented in there. No matter how you look at it, with the various parties in the parlament, this means that parties from all over the political spectrum voted AGAINST it. From Conservative to Liberal, from Socialist to Libertarian, from left to right, up to down and in to out. That's a result you would expect for votes held on topics that no sane person could shoot down, like, say, "Do we want to give ourselves more money?" And even there I'm not so convinced it would be this clean cut, given that there are actually a few in there that take the whole deal serious.

    Sure, a few of those 663 votes will be votes against the council and their "we decide, you shut up" stance towards the parlament, and given the chance to give them the finger, a few MoPs certainly took the opportunity. But my guess is for such a reaction, ACTA is too important. This ain't the decision on the mandatory size of eggs or the shade of green a cucumber has to have to be a grade A. We're talking about a treaty that would affect every single EU citizen, and of course every single EU corporation that even remotely deals with copyright. I doubt many would use just this vote to show their digital 4 to the council.

    So what this vote shows us is that pretty much ALL parlament is against the treaty. No matter what party. No matter what political position. No matter their opinion on other issues. They ALL consider it bad enough to object that this is dealt with behind closed curtains.

    So my question would be, why was the council and the negotiators for it? No matter what political party you belong to, you pretty much had to be against it... at least if your political point of view was the deciding factor, not the one of the person slipping greens in your pockets...

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...