Would Australia Go Back And Reject ACTA?

from the wouldn't-that-be-something? dept

Mon, Mar 26th 2012 11:05pm — Mike Masnick

The ACTA backlash continues. While ACTA support is melting away in Europe, over in Australia there may be some pushback as well. Australia already signed the agreement in the original batch last October, but as we noted at the time, it still needed legislative ratification there. And, with all of the protests and attention in Europe, it appears that the Australian Parliament might not just rubberstamp it. At a hearing for Parliament, a group of Australian intellectual property experts explained why Australia should reconsider its support of ACTA, and the chair of the committee that hosted the hearing admitted that "this is a controversial treaty nationally and internationally...." If this keeps up, perhaps the US will just have an agreement with itself.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: acta, australia, controversy, copyright

70 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous but not Coward, 26 Mar 2012 @ 11:17pm

Like that's gonna stop 'em
Not having expedition treaty did not stop US from getting their hands on Saddam, did it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- quo vadis, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:33am
  
  Re: Like that's gonna stop 'em
  extradition treaty NOT expedition doh!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous but not Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:49am
    
    Re: Re: Like that's gonna stop 'em
    Damn, you're right! Small vocab screwed me up, thank god I'm Anonymous...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Like that's gonna stop 'em
      Though when you think about it, they went on an expedition that became a huge exhibition since their was no extradition.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:35am
  
  Re: Like that's gonna stop 'em
  Who needs extradition when you've got irregular rendition?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minimum Wage Techdirt Shill, 26 Mar 2012 @ 11:20pm

"If this keeps up, perhaps the US will just have an agreement with itself."

This might be an opportunity for me to work overtime in my corporate masters attempts to get this treaty passed.

I will be a big fat jerk while making stupid comments that make no sense, turning more people against the bill ensuring it fails, which will hopefully get my employer to give me even more hours trying to push through more legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:08am
  
  Re:
  After reading this it reminded me of 2 things, one the Pirate Bay is supernatural and two Zuckeberg appears to be sick since apparently Facebook will sue any employer who asks for passwords, and with the law saying in the US being murky about who can really access an account he may be able to sue employers for hacking into employee's personal accounts.
  
  http://www.zeropaid.com/news/100386/facebook-well-take-legal-action-against-employers-a sking-for-your-password/
  
  What this has to do with what you said I have no idea since I am still trying to figure out what was the intent of it, which is not clear to me at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 6:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    My post is a parody of the IP extremist Techdirt shills.
    
    They say dumb things and act like jerks because their strategy is to make sure pro IP legislation fails so that they can get more hours (and money) trying to push through bad legislation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Man in The Sea, 26 Mar 2012 @ 11:39pm

Politicians here are not necessarily know for their common sense
Our pollies are not known for their common sense. Federally, we are run by Labour and the Greens. They have brought us the Carbon Tax, which will screw the electorate right into the ground. The Victorian government is run the Liberals, so we still have MyKi (not working properly and still costing a fortune) and the desalination plant which is still not finished and still not working and the smart electricity meters - our power costs are still going up through the roof. All of these brought in by Labour but now supported by Liberal.

ACTA will still probably get through because the Greens (tail wagging the dog) and Labour (the dog being wagged by the tail) will find some reason to make it match their particular party policies. The Liberals would be no different.

Unfortunately, Australia is no longer the Lucky Country but is the country waiting next in line for the guillotine.

So say a sad aussie lad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lauriel (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 9:03pm
  
  Re: Politicians here are not necessarily know for their common sense
  Senator Ludlam has been arguing against ACTA and similar policies. It's not likely to get much support from the Greens.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:10am

wow, some nobody from America is quoting some nobody from London about some nobody from Australia, way to go right to the sauce masnick !!!

could you not even find a single Australian reporter who thought it was worthy of a comment ?

At a hearing for Parliament beware, Masnick lie alert !!!!

"Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"

Public and parliament both start with P... but they are NOT the same thing... A public hearing is FOR THE FUCKING PUBLIC, NOT for the Parliament...

Keep up the good work Masnick..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:14am
  
  Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
  Ummm ... where does it say that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:20am
    
    Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
    first paragraph... right there using real words and all !!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
      Real words?
      Unlike imaginary words I guess.
      
      I suspect the new DSM-V doesn't even have a descriptor for what ails you
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        I believe people in certain circles call that kind of behavior "acting out" LoL
        
        He is afraid the public will call his BS out and so he keeps throwing tantrums.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ed Allen, 27 Mar 2012 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        If we can have Imaginary Property then we should allow him Imaginary Words.
        
        Otherwise he could live his entire life without making a single point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 10:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        Well he hasn't made a single cohesive (let alone comprehensible) point yet in his life..
        
        So I'll stick with my real words until at such time as he actually makes any sense ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
      but... it is only one paragraph...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        there is actually 4 para's, one heading, and one sub-heading.
        
        Para 1 starts with "law academics"
        
        Para 2 with "Rimmer"
        
        3 with Committee
        
        4 "the Committee
        
        Para one: lines 2 and 3 state
        
        "spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING into ACTA organised by the Federal Parliament's Treaties Committee"
        
        Not FOR the parliament, and not BY the parliament, and not TOO the Parrliament...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        It's called a 'link'. When you click it, it will take you to another site and, in this case, an article written by Emma Barraclough that is referenced by Mike as a source. Mike writes on this site, techdirt.com.
        
        I understand the concept of linking can be confusing. Heck, half of the copyright lobby doesn't understand it either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        ah ok, I thought the previous AC was talking about the Techdirt paragraph, that clears things up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        It's called a 'link'. yes, it is genius !!!
        
        Did you follow it ? did it take you to another site ?
        
        To an article written by Emma Barraclough of LONDON ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        Yes, from London. Modern times are truly remarkable. No longer do we need to set sail to penal colonies and wait several months for news: these days we can communicate almost instantly with the help of this wonder of the modern world called the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 7:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
        "organised by the Federal Parliament's Treaties Committee"
        
        and not BY the parliament
        
        Parliamentary committees are made up of members of said parliament. So this was BY the parliament.
        
        and not TOO the Parrliament
        
        Are you saying not the Parrliament(sic), also? Too?
        
        (Normally I don't care about spelling errors but if you want to split hairs, so will I.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:23am
  
  Re:
  Darryl, have you ever made sense at any time in your existence? Scientists are curious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    That us a fact !!!! Scientists ARE curious...
    
    But dont use me as your excuse for your inability to understand or make sense of things. That is your problem. And a big one!!
    
    I am guessing you are not a scientist.. they have to have some skills in making sense of things.
    
    I cant help if you are brain dead.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So "no" is your answer then. Thank you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        'no' you are not a scientist ? (I did not think so)..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        NO
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know, you are no scientist, (no one calls themselves 'scientists' anyway, even if they are).
        
        A scientist would never answer a question with a single word response.
        
        A scientist also looks at reality, gathers FACTS, and performs scientific rigor and analysis to address their observations.
        
        You cant string two words together !!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Torg (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "A scientist also looks at reality, gathers FACTS, and performs scientific rigor and analysis to address their observations."
        
        And how does that exclude the possibility of someone saying "no"? Or do you think that we need to get our comments peer-reviewed now, and cite every source we used to reach our conclusion of "no"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or do you think that we need to get our comments peer-reviewed now, and cite every source...
        
        But we wouldn't be able keep tabs on Darryl's mental stability that way since most of his comments wouldn't pass a basic sniff test, let alone a full-blown peer review.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cowardly Anonymous, 27 Mar 2012 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Scientists in the midst of a psychology experiment have been known to do many strange things. Perhaps his comment was a stimulus with which he hopes to gather more data. We won't know until we see the published paper (I don't think they've started conducting experiments through those yet).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        mwhahahaha! >:D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You know, the scary part is you speak of "making sense" and things like that (along with telling people to spell correctly and use proper grammar, on occasion) and yet I just read your comment and little if any of it makes any ACTUAL sense.
      
      It's English. That much I grasp. Those are real words. But it's essentially gibberish. Almost as if there's a person on the other end leaving the comment who is the personification of all those common errors taught to us in school (in regards to the English language, or how to properly form a reasonable argument to something, and so on and so forth).
      
      Besides, Darryl, who are you to say who can or can't comment on Australian related topics? I see you sticking your nose into articles on a regular basis that only affect those of us in America or across the pond and whatnot. Maybe you should practice what you try and preach.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:25am
  
  Re:
  Actually you are absolutely incorrect.
  
  They spoke at a Public hearing held by a Parliamentary committee for PARLIAMENTARY PURPOSES!
  
  Troll and Thick both start with T, and it seems they mean the same thing!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:35am
  
  Re:
  The source Mike provides states a group of Academics was talking to a Parliamentary committee... soooo... your wrong :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:26am
  
  Re:
  >wow, some nobody from America is quoting some nobody from London about some nobody from Australia, way to go right to the sauce masnick !!!
  
  And who are we getting this criticism about Mike from? Oh, that's right, some nobody from Australia.
  
  Way to be the sauce, darryl.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:03am
  
  Re:
  Forgetting for the moment that Parliamentary hearings can also be public... do you have an actual point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    true, but the reverse is not true.
    
    Public hearings are by definition PUBLIC, NOT parliamentary.
    
    Just because a hearing (ANY hearing) is public does not mean, it is by definition therefore Parliamentary.
    
    you're saying "Parliamentary hearings are public, therefore all public hearings are Parliamentary".
    
    He might look like an idiot, might talk like an idiot and act like an idiot, but it's ok because he IS an idiot...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 28 Mar 2012 @ 4:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ... actually, public hearings are usually held by parliament so that they can hear from, gasp, the public.
      
      generally it's only a commity rather than the full parliament that holds the hearing, but still.
      
      the public can be heard, the public is allowed to attend to hear. it's still for the benefit of parliament.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    and yes, clearly I have made a clear point, several of them in fact, but no, it looks like I do not have a point that you are able to provide a reasoned counter for.
    
    Clearly you choose to ignore anything you cant argue against.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 9:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In the provided source the article claimed it was a group of academics speaking to a parliamentary committee. I don't know why you keep insisting the article claims it was at a "Public Hearing" but ignore the big bold letters that state that it was indeed for parliament, or at least a committee
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 6:50am
  
  Re:
  WHAT?! You're splitting hairs here, really. At the end of the paragraph the MP states they are to have another hearing so they can continue to gather perspectives and information from the public. Somehow the committee is gathering. Maybe they just gave an invite and remotely monitored the public gathering by some well placed cctv cameras and microphones...yeah, that seems more likely. You are so desperate it hurts puppies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:23am

Crook letter spells doom for MP
"In this new era of political honesty and morality, sparked by Brian Burke, yesterday Kelvin Thomson fell on his sword. If there was a seven-year statute of limitations for daft behaviour, Thomson had only to make it past August, the same month in 2000 he signed a reference for Tony Mokbel."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:47am
  
  Re: Crook letter spells doom for MP
  ohhh, lets just pretend we did not see this HAHAHAH..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re: Crook letter spells doom for MP
    I was wondering about that, didn't mean to paste that here? :D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:30am

It would be quite silly if the US ends up being the only country signed onto an "international" trade agreement... I mean executive order :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 12:51am
  
  Re: I'm a team of *ONE*
  actually that'd be something to boast about...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:49am
    
    Re: Re: I'm a team of *ONE*
    yes, that is what is all about for you 'Americans' your boasting rights, it's an international pissing competition !!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:14am
  
  Re:
  Don't worry, no matter who gets into office next year, he'll completely ignore that fact and continue to rail on Congress about how they need to uphold their "international" agreements. You know, the agreements between the international media corps and the politicians they paid for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:06am

But if the US ended up only having a treaty with itself, who would get upset when the US breaks it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:25am
  
  Re:
  Hollywood
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 1:33am
  
  Re:
  I know right! It's like executing 'ssh localhosst' and getting 'Connection Refused'!!!! :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:19am

'perhaps the US will just have an agreement with itself.'

i am quite sure that that would be the best thing to happen. why would any country that has it's own financial (and otherwise) problems be interested in sorting out those of a US industry? particularly when that industry does whatever it can to NOT help itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 2:25am
  
  Re:
  why help yourself when you can spend your time and your customers' money to destroy other industries?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    US would just declare war on any country that did not agree with them.
    
    "you are either with them (and a terrorist) or you are WITH US".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      NO
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2012 @ 4:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        thats right we're not going to youtube to watch some moron,,,, NO...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:24am

Just remember, every country has their Mike Masnicks and Larry Lessigs who would oppose this. It's not the opinion of all, just the opinion of some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 8:21am
  
  Re:
  It's not the opinion of all, just the opinion of some.
  
  Based on some of the protests in Europe, your "some" might actually be a majority.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Anonymous, 27 Mar 2012 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  Just remember, every country has their Chris Dodds and Ron Kirks who would support this. It's not the opinion of all, just the opinion of some. -FTFY
  
  2 Million signatures on the Avaaz petition. Tons of protestors using various forms of protests around the globe. A whole group of nations (BRIC) speaking out against it. Lots of entrepreneurs and engineers picking these laws and treaties apart and showing their failings. The majority is against, globally. Your campaigns to stir up support failed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    2 million out of how many?
    
    Sounds like a minority opinion to me!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The Chris Dodds in the world number less than that.
      
      Sounds like a minority-er opinion to me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:26am

ACTA Supporters: You see, this is why we need a dictatorship, to protect the rights of property owners! That way we won't have the people, err, feeble legislators backing out of good treaties!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 6:05am

If this keeps up, perhaps the US will just have an agreement with itself.
And we will still her lobbyists telling politicians that we need to change our laws to make then inline with our international agreement - you know the agreement that the US has with itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saulgoode (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 6:15am

The reason given for bypassing WIPO and keeping all ACTA negotiations closed was efficiency -- exactly how is it "efficient" for governments to spend years working on an international treaty only to eventually have it completely rejected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2012 @ 6:31am

The frustrating part of this for Americans is that Obama signed ACTA because he is in the entertainment industry's back pocket. This was their chance to sneak something through, having learned that they could never get the approval of voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 27 Mar 2012 @ 7:09am

Rimmer
Just as an aside, I think it's quite cool that one of the speakers against ACTA in this situation is Rimmer. Good to know that there are some Rimmers that aren't smegheads, hehe. Maybe we should call Matt Rimmer "Ace" from now on. That would be fun to see, him on his way out of the parliament room after he's done speaking, turning to the other politicos and saying "Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast!" Just need to get him some shades and a bomber jacket, hehe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 27 Mar 2012 @ 6:10pm
  
  Re: Rimmer
  For once, Trans-Am Wheel-Arch Nostrils is right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]