Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Your Rights Online

ACTA's EU Future In Doubt As Poland Suspends Ratification 139

Posted by Soulskill
from the hitting-the-brakes dept.
superglaze writes "Poland has suspended its ratification process for ACTA, throwing the copyright crackdown into doubt for the whole European Union. ACTA is being handled as a 'mixed agreement' in the EU due to its criminalization clauses, so if a single EU member state (such as Poland) fails to ratify it, it is null and void across the entire union. If that were to happen, at least six of the remaining international signatories would have to ratify ACTA for it to apply anywhere in the world. Outside the EU, only eight countries — including the U.S. — have signed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACTA's EU Future In Doubt As Poland Suspends Ratification

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    They forgot about Poland!

    • by tqk (413719)

      They forgot about Poland!

      It wouldn't be the first time. Remember Yalta? Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin all conspired to forget the Poles helped the Allies a lot, and died a lot for their trouble. Katyn Woods massacre was a propaganda coup used by both the Nazis and Soviets in turn.

  • BRAVO POLSKA! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by n1ywb (555767) on Friday February 03, 2012 @04:55PM (#38920421) Homepage Journal
    Let me be the first to say "BARDZO DOBRZA! ACTA JEST GUWNO!" ("Very well done! ACTA is shit!")
    • by Anonymous Coward

      I think you wanted to say: "Bardzo dobrze! ACTA to gówno!"

      • Let me be the first to say "BARDZO DOBRZA! ACTA JEST GUWNO!" ("Very well done! ACTA is shit!")

        I think you wanted to say: "Bardzo dobrze! ACTA to gówno!"

        AC is right. It should be "Bardzo dobrze! ACTA to [jest] gówno!"

        - verb "jest"(PL)=="is" (EN) is not necessary.
        - ó and u are different letters.

  • Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qmaqdk (522323) on Friday February 03, 2012 @04:56PM (#38920427)

    Thank you (again) Poland.

    • I'd like to thank my representatives. The problem is, I don't live in Poland or know any Polish... Can someone from there tell me who/where/how to send my thanks and perhaps who to donate a bit of money for next elections? (I feel somewhat betrayed by the far-left candidate I voted for [wikipedia.org], who actually became a minister of culture and one of the first things he did was to act like a good puppet of our RIAA-equivalent. He was the one guy I had hoped to protect my interests against those of multinational capital

    • Re:Thank you (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheBlackMan (1458563) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:25PM (#38920769)
      I am Polish and actually, it is only our Prime Minister which is trying to manipulate the public into thinking that acta will not be ratified.

      Most of us is pretty sure that it is only a suspension, not complete stop. Polish government has a long history of lying and manipulating us, so they are waiting for the protests to chill out and will push ACTA at other time.

      We are now in the process of collecting signatures for a referendum, so we can kill ACTA once and for all. If that will not be enough, it may even be neccessary to remove the government.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Maybe you can put them all in a plane going to Russia.

      • Just so you know, whether or not this goes ahead in Poland, there is no such thing as killing it once and for all. They are already working on ACTA II. Hell, if you happen to stop ACTA, they'll try to just rename it to something else and pass it that way.

        This is a problem endemic to the current copyright laws and the relationship between businesses, governments and individual citizens.

        On one side are businesses, generally well funded, that have a vested interest in expanding copyright law in all direction

        • by Joce640k (829181)

          Yeah, but the cat's out of the bag. Politicians have seen they can get positive vibes/votes by opposing it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They should bribe every country in the EU, not just the US.

  • Heck yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by robinsonne (952701) on Friday February 03, 2012 @04:56PM (#38920435)
    My thanks go out to the Polish people that are making enough of a stink about this that their government had to (maybe) reconsider.
    • Re:Heck yeah! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:06PM (#38920527)
      Personally, I'd like to give a big 'fuck you' to President Obama for trying to bypass congressional approval on ACTA by classifying it not as a treaty, but as an "executive agreement".

      Although congress would probably pass it anyway, now that the Republicans realize that helping out Hollywood is acting against their best interest, there is at least a shot it would get shot down...

      So much for 'change', just glad I voted third party. I'd rather throw away my vote than support a clown from the Republicrats.
      • Re:Heck yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:56PM (#38921137) Journal

        Voting for either D or R is throwing your vote away. The only vote that counts is one for a third party.

      • by t4ng* (1092951)

        You might want to read this [wikipedia.org]. A "sole-executive agreement" is a treaty and US Presidents are legally able to ratify them without approval of the Senate.

        I do not support Obama signing ACTA, just that it is perfectly legal for him to do so, and it is a binding treaty.

        • Did you even read your link?

          In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law.

          The fact that France would call it a treaty doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether it ought to be ratified by the Senate under the US Constitution.

    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:23PM (#38920737)

      My thanks go out to the Polish people that are making enough of a stink about this

      today, in their honor, I will refrain from making polish sausage jokes.

  • by countertrolling (1585477) on Friday February 03, 2012 @04:56PM (#38920437) Journal

    Kick Poland out of the EU

  • by HBI (604924) <kparadine AT gmail DOT com> on Friday February 03, 2012 @04:57PM (#38920451) Homepage Journal

    There's an immense store of goodwill towards Poland in the US, despite the ludicrous actions of our corporations and government. When it counts, it will be repaid.

  • There are not many opportunities to by proud of my countrymen, but now, for once, we have shown true citizenship and democratic backbone.
    • by tqk (413719)

      There are not many opportunities to by proud of my countrymen ...

      If you think that, you need to read more history. I hope my Canuck compatriots can display even half the backbone Poles have, over and over again, when ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/TPP arrive here.

  • by sehlat (180760) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:01PM (#38920485)

    This day will hopefully be remembered just as September 17, 1939 [wikipedia.org] is.

    • Because the RIAA and MPAA will get into tanks and perform a Blietzkreig on Poland?
      • by jd2112 (1535857)

        Because the RIAA and MPAA will get into tanks and perform a Blietzkreig on Poland?

        MPAA's panzers are hollywood props. And this time the Polish Army won't be fighting on horseback like they did against the Nazis.
        Better watch out for the zombie lawyer attack though.

    • "I am a Pole" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by chrb (1083577) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:52PM (#38921089)
      Reminds me of the WWII story of Piorun versus the Bismarck: [lapsedhistorian.com]

      Plawski knew what he had to do – without the other destroyers Piorun couldn’t hope to face the Bismarck alone. Now that suprise was lost the Battleship was fast enough to keep Piorun out of torpedo range, the Piorun couldn’t stay in contact with her now. She should radio in Bismarck’s latest position and then, for want of another phrase, get the fuck out of Dodge.

      They’d all just have to hope that another ship was close enough to make contact with her again before she managed to slip away again – although given the weather and the darkness Plawski realised that was increasingly unlikely.

      It was frustrating and may ultimately mean the British missed their opportunity to intercept, but sadly, that was the only sensible option. Anything else was suicide.

      Plawski though for a split second then sighed, smiled and gave his orders to his crew:

      “Full speed ahead. All hands to battlestations. We attack.”

  • Poland is better representing its citizens rights on this issue than is my own country (USA). After seeing PIPA/SOPA fallout, I can't believe anyone in the US region of politics would want to attach their name to this. How do how do treaties work anyway? I don't remember having a vote on this.
  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:07PM (#38920545)
    ACTA, as it currently stands, in not binding on the U.S., because Congress has not ratified it.

    The Executive branch has no Constitutional authority to enforce it as any kind of treaty without ratification by Congress. I know some are "debating" this, but the debate is nothing but BS. The Constitution spells it out pretty clearly.
    • by NoKaOi (1415755) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:10PM (#38920579)

      The Executive branch has no Constitutional authority to enforce it as any kind of treaty without ratification by Congress. I know some are "debating" this, but the debate is nothing but BS. The Constitution spells it out pretty clearly.

      Since when does it matter what's spelled out in the constitution? Seems it's been awhile, at least when it's inconvenient to the executive branch.

      • "Since when does it matter what's spelled out in the constitution?"

        I agree that many in D.C. have ignored the Constitution. But it does matter. It matters a lot.

        • I agree that many in D.C. have ignored the Constitution. But it does matter. It matters a lot.

          only matters on the days your teacher has a written exam for you.

          all other days, knowing your rights or the laws means, essentially, nothing.

        • As SOPA/PIPA revealed, not all the power groups in the US are of one mind about this issue. And the system of "checks and balances" allows for an out in this sort of scenario, when some power groups are willing to fight it out.

          • Um... no. SOPA and PIPA were bills before Congress. ACTA was (supposed to be) a treaty.

            They are very different things.

            Granted, there may have been some of the same "power groups" behind them, but legally and politically they are completely different species.
      • Since when does it matter what's spelled out in the constitution? Seems it's been awhile, at least when it's inconvenient to the executive branch.

        Since the American people became so complacent as to allow the federal government to over step it's bounds.

    • ok, do a thought experiment.

      you do what you think is permitted by the constitution. then we have cops with guns and spray on the other side, 'interpreting' things their way.

      lets have you wave (waive?) the constitution in front of them as they are kicking down your door and assaulting you.

      yeah, paper really stops rocks. and bullets. and pepperspray.

      as always: might makes right. and you and I have no real might. not really.

      • "as always: might makes right. and you and I have no real might. not really."

        How fatalistic can you get? Sheesh.

        Actually, as a citizen you have A LOT of "might". A lot more than the police, OR the Federal government, if you but stick together on an issue.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe if enough Americans got out in the streets to protest ACTA like the Poles did, Obama would unilaterally rescind the agreement.

    • by stanlyb (1839382)
      You mean just like NDAA was not signed on too???
    • The Executive branch has no Constitutional authority to enforce it as any kind of treaty without ratification by Congress.

      Ratification of treaties is by the Senate alone, not "by the Congress." If an international agreement is implemented by Congress through the normal legislative process, it is a normal statute law (these are also referred to as "Congressional-executive agreements"); the power to enter into these agreements is limited by Congress' existing enumerated powers, since this is simply an exerci

      • "Ratification of treaties is by the Senate alone, not "by the Congress.""

        Yes, by the Senate. But the Senate is part of Congress. Therefore, since you feel like nitpicking, "not 'by the Congress'" is incorrect.

        "If an international agreement is implemented by Congress through the normal legislative process..."

        Correct, but completely irrelevant in this case.

        "If an international agreement is implemented by the President alone... it is constrained by the same bounds as the President's independent executive authority..."

        Exactly. And as a corollary: it is therefore not domestic law. That was my point.

        "Only by treaty ratified by a 2/3 vote in the Senate can an international agreement extend beyond the other enumerated powers of Congress and/or the Executive, since only by treaty is a separate, independent Constitutional power of government exercised."

        This is very much debatable, since the Constitution does not stipulate which shall have priority, nor has the question ever been unequivocally settled by the Supreme Court. It would be just as valid to claim that the Constitution constrains treati

        • Only by treaty ratified by [...] the Senate can an international agreement extend beyond the other enumerated powers of Congress and/or the Executive, since only by treaty is a separate, independent Constitutional power of government exercised.

          This is very much debatable, since the Constitution does not stipulate which shall have priority, nor has the question ever been unequivocally settled by the Supreme Court. It would be just as valid to claim that the Constitution constrains treaties. Either one is an

          • "Priority is irrelevant (priority would only become an issue of a purported treaty violated a negative restriction in the Constitution, not if it merely extends beyond the other enumerated powers of the federal government in the Constitution.)"

            You must be an attorney. You sure as Hell aren't a Constitutional scholar. Which stands to reason, since today they seem to be almost mutually exclusive categories.

            First, priority is very much relevant (not to ACTA, but to the comments you made earlier), because your comments presupposed that treaties had priority over the Constitution. (NOT as in Missouri v. Holland, which dealt specifically with a 10th Amendment issue.)

            On the other hand, a Constitutional scholar will point you to any number of histo

            • You must be an attorney. You sure as Hell aren't a Constitutional scholar.

              Closer to the second then the first.

              First, priority is very much relevant (not to ACTA, but to the comments you made earlier), because your comments presupposed that treaties had priority over the Constitution. (NOT as in Missouri v. Holland, which dealt specifically with a 10th Amendment issue.)

              No, they didn't. You need to learn to read. The comment I made was that the treaty power, as an enumerated power, isn't restricted to action

    • by msobkow (48369)

      Nor has Canada. Harper wired it in to his omnibus "tough on crime" legislation to try to ram it through with a bunch of other unsavoury clauses. He may have done so with his majority Parliament, but he doesn't Rule the Senate (yet!)

      The senate review on the acceptability and legality of the whole package of laws is now in doubt because the Senate is where Canada has it's "due process" to at least try to ratify and pre-evaluate new legislation in light of existing/case law and the Charter of Rights.

      Wit

  • big cudoes to you, peoples, your acting in this case put you all alot closer to my heart.
  • Has anyone else considered that the politicos in the U.S. aren't as stupid as we're making them out to be?

    Perhaps they've pulled this ACTA thing together because they KNOW they it will never get fully ratified, and a bunch of this crazy copyright stuff is merely to get the RIAA/MPAA off their back? "Sorry! We did our best, looks like you'll have to compete in the open market..." Then they've fulfilled their duties to the companies they know are dying, and actually positioned themselves to buddy up to the o

    • by jesseck (942036)
      No, I don't think it's a big sham by politicians. For many of them, their campaigns (and wealth) relies on RIAA/MPAA and other SOPA/PIPA/ACTA supporters contributions. If it was a ploy to take Hollywood money, I think Hollywood would have figured it out before now. We're at a tipping point in World / US history- change is coming (and not the false Change of Obama). What we are observing is people, and politicians as the people's proxy, saying enough is enough.
    • by stanlyb (1839382)
      It has almost worked. But they did not predict the outcry in EU. They thought they have bought them, and if this ACTA was signed some 3 months ago for example, they could actually have succeed. Not anymore. We, the people, we had it enough. Our patient is over. Remember, remember......
  • by Pecisk (688001) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:22PM (#38920721)

    ...and reason was also that agreement is too complex to be signed away so easily, so they have to discuss it first too. I highly doubt that they will hear nothing what happen in Poland and other countries with public opinion. This is country where government actually listens to people, using Internet extensively to collect comments about proposed laws.This is also a land where they elect their government using Internet and Skype was also started there.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    According to reports, Tusk said on Friday that his government had made insufficient consultations before signing the agreement in late January, and it was necessary to ensure it was entirely safe for Polish citizens.

    All they have to do is do some consultations (like on C-32 in Canada, now known as C-11) and totally ignore them (like C-11 in Canada) and then pass it anyway (with some bogus excuse).

    Make sure when you get to get out on February 11. Let this strengthen your resolve. Massive outcries DO work. In order to make suspension into cancellation, this issue needs to stay 'alive'.

  • by poszi (698272) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:24PM (#38920757)
    Currently there is an enormous backlash against ACTA in Poland. If the ratification voting were held today, it would likely be rejected. But suspending means trying to push it later (or via EU channels) when it becomes forgotten. Now is the time for other EU citizens to stand up when it is still hot. Sadly, corporate lobbying is so strong nowadays that fighting it requires almost constant effort.
  • by bazmail (764941) on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:26PM (#38920781)
    From Soviet puppet state to sole voice of freedom and reason in Europe in the space of 20 years. Wow.
  • Hey, lawyers: You Forgot Poland!

  • Why is it said here that ACTA needs to be signed by 6 countries to apply worldwide? Sovereign nations are usualy not bound by international treaties they have not signed. There are a few exceptions but it would be surprising that they include ACTA.
  • Hey, I'm Polish, but I'm bad with languages. (Plus the Golden Child was one of Murphy's best movies)

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

Working...