Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Your Rights Online

Central Europe Countries Continue to Oppose ACTA 111

tykev writes "The Czech government suspended the ratification process of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, ACTA, said Prime Minister Petr Necas today. The government wants to further analyze the issue. There were a number of public demonstrations against ACTA in several Czech towns, and some Czech Euro MP's oppose ACTA as being 'completely wide of the mark'. Earlier, Poland announced its intention to suspend the ratification process as well. In the meantime, the website of the ruling Czech Civic Democratic Party was attacked and defaced by Anonymous who also publicly released personal data of the party's members."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Central Europe Countries Continue to Oppose ACTA

Comments Filter:
  • by SlovakWakko ( 1025878 ) on Monday February 06, 2012 @01:32PM (#38943669)
    ...for at least keeping the original title of my submission, when you removed the part where it says that Slovakia also suspended ACTA ratification today. I think that this situation, where former soviet satellite states oppose ACTA nicely reflects the fact that we still remember how it is NOT to be free...
  • by F69631 ( 2421974 ) on Monday February 06, 2012 @01:52PM (#38943903)

    I don't know... While it's common (especially in USA) to claim that all politicians are scum, let's look at the European Parliament's stance on ACTA, as supported by something like 98% of the members in 2010. European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations []. The relevant parts:

    1. Points out that since 1 December 2009 the Commission has had a legal obligation to inform Parliament immediately and fully at all stages of international negotiations;

    2. Expresses its concern over the lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations, a state of affairs at odds with the letter and spirit of the TFEU; is deeply concerned that no legal base was established before the start of the ACTA negotiations and that parliamentary approval for the negotiating mandate was not sought;

    3. Calls on the Commission and the Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries, in accordance with the Treaty and with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

    4. Calls on the Commission and the Council to engage proactively with ACTA negotiation partners to rule out any further negotiations which are confidential as a matter of course and to inform Parliament fully and in a timely manner about its initiatives in this regard; expects the Commission to make proposals prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010, to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of that meeting and to refer the outcome of the negotiation round to Parliament immediately following its conclusion;

    5. Stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives;

    6. Deplores the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation;

    7. Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of the implementation of ACTA with regard to fundamental rights and data protection, ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, and e-commerce, prior to any EU agreement on a consolidated ACTA treaty text, and to consult with Parliament in a timely manner about the results of the assessment;

    8. Welcomes affirmations by the Commission that any ACTA agreement will be limited to the enforcement of existing IPRs, with no prejudice for the development of substantive IP law in the European Union;

    9. Calls on the Commission to continue the negotiations on ACTA and limit them to the existing European IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting; considers that further ACTA negotiations should include a larger number of developing and emerging countries, with a view to reaching a possible multilateral level of negotiation;

    10. Urges the Commission to ensure that the enforcement of ACTA provisions – especially those on copyright enforcement procedures in the digital environment – are fully in line with the acquis communautaire ; demands that no personal searches will be conducted at EU borders and requests full clarification of any clauses that would allow for warrantless searches and confiscation of information storage devices such as laptops, cell phones and MP3 players by border and customs authorities;

    11. Considers that in order to respect fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, while fully observing the principle of subsidiarity, the proposed agreement should not make it possible for any so-called ‘three-strikes’

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday February 06, 2012 @02:21PM (#38944249)

    the difference of the central european countries is that, there is still a lot of generations currently at the age of running government, corporations etc, who has grown up during the communist era with at least some ideals. you wont find those in anglo-american countries. hence, the opposition from central europe.

    Actually, the main difference is that we bribe our politicians, not some lobbyists.

    Well, actually, considering how deep our conservatives are in the bribery swamp, I guess that's not correct. Let's say it's optional, not mandatory like in the US. Here, you get your campaigning expenses reimbursed from tax money if you happen to get more than x% (with x being somewhere between 0.5 and 3 in most countries that have this system) of the votes. That's doable for most halfway serious political parties.

    The point is that we're not as used to seeing politicians get cozy with business tycoons as the US people are. For us, it's still reeking of some shady deals, of lobbying (don't say that word aloud here, it's often used synonymously with corruption), of, well, corruption. We have a party that's more or less known to be the political arm of the industry, and even THEY don't dare to be seen shaking hands (or worse) with business leaders.

    And, frankly, I prefer it that way. Politicians will be bought. One way or another. Campaigning costs money, and someone has to foot the bill, a bill that no ordinary person (hell, even a well off person) cannot foot. He will be bought.

    So it's better that OUR pockets buy him.

  • Re:Futile (Score:5, Informative)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Monday February 06, 2012 @03:26PM (#38945107) Homepage Journal

    Remember the telephone? Electricity?

    Government mandates and sponsorship are what got the province of Saskatchewan serviced with those facilities, and in the '70s, my grandparents finally got electricity and a phone while I was a kid. It's well within MOST people's lifetimes to remember that infrastructure has to be supported, not boondoggled with cries of "why should I pay" by selfish yokels in the cities.

  • by SD NFN STM ( 759426 ) on Monday February 06, 2012 @03:35PM (#38945219)
    SOPA and PIPA are dead... meet their cousin, ACTA. Please contact your MEP (Members of the European Parliament) using this link and register your protest:

    UK: []

    Rest of Europe:;jsessionid=EAF5D554A71EBE16A5E8A71092CD2DB9.node2 [] []

    A brief analysis of the issue, but obviously presenting a one-sided view... so weigh the info as you see fit: []

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972