Would Australia Go Back And Reject ACTA?

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

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.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Would Australia Go Back And Reject ACTA?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
70 Comments
Minimum Wage Techdirt Shill says:

“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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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-asking-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.

Old Man in The Sea says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "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…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "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.

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "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.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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 !!!

Torg (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 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”?

Cowardly Anonymous says:

Re: Re: Re:5 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).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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…

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.”

Anonymous Coward says:

‘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.

Cowardly Anonymous says:

Re: 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.

TDR says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...