EU Parliament Won't Wait For EU Court Of Justice To Vote On ACTA
from the and-why-that-could-be-good dept
With the clear momentum in the EU moving against ACTA, the supporters of the treaty in the EU Commission (who negotiated the deal) began to worry that the EU Parliament might move to reject ACTA completely at the vote planned for June. So they cooked up this delay tactic of taking ACTA to the EU Court of Justice to get a ruling on the legality of the document. However, some realized that a big part of the strategy behind this move was to try to push off the EU's vote, and hope that it could be brought at another time when the issue wasn't seen as such a political hot potato. It looks like that's not happening, and the EU Parliament has agreed (strongly) to move forward with the planned vote around June, and will not wait for the EU Court of Justice's opinion on the matter. So, for folks looking to stop ACTA in its tracks, the focus has to be on convincing MEPs to vote against it in June.
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, eu, eu commission, eu court of justice, eu parliament, vote
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACTA Is Dead In EU
The vote will come up as scheduled and ACTA is going down. It is all over bar the shouting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACTA Is Dead In EU
Trust me, they will pass ACTA, because that's what their bosses are telling them. And no, I don't actually mean the copyright-lobby, I mean the people "above them" in their political parties. You see, in Europe we don't vote for specific individuals to get to parliament (at least not in most countries I think), but parties. The effect is that the people that decide if a politician gets to stay in office is the people above them in the party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ACTA Is Dead In EU
There are not enough curse words in any language to communicate how much we're screwed. =(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ACTA Is Dead In EU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ACTA Is Dead In EU
Give us a direct to the point letter template that anyone could print out, going along the lines of............if you wont listen to your public, then we'll flat out threaten you......do as your public has forced to DEMAND, forced, because of the ignoring and slandering of our opinions, or well flat out vote for the other lesser evil, with a promise of non future votes on principle, until you've proven you're worth to serve the people, and not the "few" or the corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACTA Is Dead In EU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
shame and humiliate them??
post from your own name then, live what you are spewing
stand up for your belief then, dont hide behind anonymous tags
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Besides, these MEPs have chosen their role, and to live in the public glare of their own decisions. Sure, they can vote how they choose - and sure, we can highlight those who fail to live up to our standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When (and only when) no large portion of the populace is giving direction, then their expertise in law and own opinions can guide them, as they were selected by the people for that expertise and those opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These same politicians also have cushy board positions lined up with large corporations and banks for when their political careers are over.
Bearing that in mind, I ask you who has the real power in the Western world? ACTA is just another example of corporations looking out for number one and using their influence over the politicians they have bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Western Democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We're entering a period when they will keep trying to pass through things like this in the face of popular opinion. Essentially it means that activists and the general population need to be constantly vigilent so they can shout and scream when these things come up.
Problem is that the people trying to pass it can just bide their time and then do it once vigilence lapses, something I occasionally think is inevitable because constant vigilence is tiring.
And now I've made myself depressed typing all this. It just seems like we are in a state of war with our elected representatives which surely isn't how this should work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From my MEP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't like what's showing, change the f*cking channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed it is, but we get precious little of that from many (most?) of the ACs. What we get instead is just name-calling and ad hominem attacks, which is worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is the master of weasel words. If you like the opinion, he is happy, if you don't or you disagree with it, he will point out that it's not originally his idea, he is just "presenting it". Yet if you like it, it's a great piece of the Techdirt fabric.
You notice he hasn't bothered with the old 1st Amendment argument about copyright, since his idol Lessig got his dick slammed into the dirt by the courts? Mike was all hot and bothered about that for a long time, and now, well, crickets. No acceptance of the judgement, no changing of opinions based on it, just nothing.
I mean, look today - he highlights an op-ed piece talking about how piracy isn't theft, but NEVER wants to address the end results (someone has something they don't have the rights to). He (and the law professor) are looking very narrowly at one part of the transaction, and not the results. Why? Because looking at the results would require him to admit that the material was obtained without permission, either through fraudulent means or, well... theft.
He hates it when reality gets in the way of his views!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least try to get it straight
No, the point of the article was that infringement is not theft. Only a simpleton can't tell the difference. Just as a simpleton would confuse piracy with infringement. For instance, making copies of my entire movie and music collection is infringement. Not piracy, not theft, infringement. Downloading a copy of a song or a movie I already own is also infringement. Not piracy, not theft, infringement.
Now, if I downloaded a song I didn't own, it's still infringement. Yet, you call it theft. I could have just as well copied it off the radio, which would actually have been legal, but I'm sure you'll just call it theft all the same. Well, if I "stole" it, what did anyone else lose? Sure, someone's copyright was infringed upon, but nothing was lost. If something of real value was stolen, then that person would have noticed. I would notice if a movie or song was taken from my collection, as I would no longer have it. A store would notice if a disk was taken when they do inventory. It's something of value that would cost money to replace. Yet, that person wouldn't notice if I merely copied a song. Everything that he or she possessed before is just the same as after. You might argue that person didn't get any money either, but the person wouldn't have gotten money if I didn't copy the song. Again, the situation for that person is completely the same one way or the other.
Well, if I "stole" it, what did I gain? You could argue that I'm somehow enriched by the copy. Sure, I could listen to the song when or where ever I chose. Yet, what is the value of it? It's not something I could pawn or sell if I grow tried of it or needed the cash. It has no real value at all.
Again, supposing I copied a song I didn't buy and told my friends and coworkers about it. Even played it for them. Later, five of them, by my urging, bought something from the artist. That's five sales that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Yet, I'm still a pirate and thief because I got something out of it? Fine, next time I promote someone's work, I'm demanding a cut of the sales. Do you think I should just give away my talent and time for nothing? You know, no free lunch and all of that...
And in case if you're wondering, I do create art too. And no, I don't throw an infantile fit when someone copies it. It's not as though I'd even notice. It's not as if someone broke into my house in the dark of night and stole one of my kittens. Besides, I put my name on my work. When someone likes it, they can probably find me.
Now, if someone took my computer and all of my backups, that would be theft because I would lose my time, effort, ability to use my own work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
too bad human nature precludes such a perfect world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]