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.

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 “EU Parliament Won't Wait For EU Court Of Justice To Vote On ACTA”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

ACTA Is Dead In EU

The members of the European Parliament are not stupid. They have figured out which way the political wind is blowing. The widespread anti-ACTA demonstrations should have made things clear to anybody not suffering from a political death wish. The Pirate Party winning seats in Germany has been another indication. Even the dimmest political strategist would have worked out by now, that caving in to the US entertainment industry will get you voted out by an enraged public.

The vote will come up as scheduled and ACTA is going down. It is all over bar the shouting.

WysiWyg (profile) says:

Re: ACTA Is Dead In EU

Your argument is based on the flawed idea that democracy is actually working, when in fact it is not.

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.

Cowardly Anonymous says:

Re: Re: ACTA Is Dead In EU

Ah, but those leaders are limited in their power by how many of their subordinates they can field, which means there is still substantial pressure on those leaders. People in the EU should be writing letters to those party leaders for ACTA telling them that they will switch support to Party X who doesn’t support ACTA if ACTA passes (yes, hold them accountable for the whole darn thing, so they have to actively fight).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: ACTA Is Dead In EU

Its so bloody simple, it just might work.

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

Cowardly Anonymous says:

Re: Re: Re:

Those in the government are there as representatives of their people. They do not, in fact, have the right to support the causes of their choosing if the people decide to give them direction on an issue. Rather, they have the duty to represent the people.

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.

Zakida Paul says:

Western Democracy is rotten to the core. Take the example of the UK, we have politicians in Government (including the PM) who have received massive ‘donations’ in the name of their party and personally and that gives the companies access to and influence over the politicians when in government.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

not a case of convincing politicians. i believe they have already been convinced but, frankly, dont care if they lose their position because one is waiting for them in particular corporations anyway. the problem the people have is not being able to ‘financially encourage’ those MEPs to vote in the way they should, ie, in favour of those that actually got them their jobs in the first place, THE PEOPLE! the next problem, assuming that ACTA is thrown out, is what the hell will be next? TPP is under locked-down negotiation at this moment and you can bet your bottom dollar here is something else already waiting in the wings!

Call me Al says:

Re: Re:

I went to ORGCon on Saturday, which is a kind of conference organised by the Open Rights Group in the UK. There was a talk there about ACTA and they pointed out that even with ACTA dying there is already a European treaty being drafted which may have similar consequences.

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!

Anonymous Coward says:

From my MEP

Here’s the text of my MEP’s last paragraph on ACTA in his occasional newsletter, emphasis mine:

ACTA treaty
MEPs have also received large numbers of emails against the proposed ACTA treaty. The treaty proposes tougher measures against Countering of intellectual property and goods. The emails express fears that individual liberties may be affected, particularly concerning downloading from the internet of music and films and other copyright works. I have replied to every email but it was curious that some bounced straight back, suggesting that some emails had been sent en masse from an old database and had not been sent to me by individual constituents. The European Commission has proposed referring the text of the treaty to Europe’s supreme court (the ECJ in Luxembourg) for the judges to rule whether the liberties of individual European citizens would be infringed. The process may take up to two years. So any ratification by the parliament goes onto the back-burner.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I hope this AC does continue to post here. It’s always good to have opposing viewpoints represented, and I would love to have a better understanding of the rationale leading to legislation like ACTA. I just wish this AC would post rational arguements instead hurling seemingly random insults.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Let’s be fair here: Mike often puts ideas out there that are so out in left field as to be hard to argue with directly. He plays with words, he stacks the deck, and when called out on it, he comes up with excuses and personal attacks.

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!

Ed C. says:

Re: Re: Re:3 At least try to get it straight

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.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

there should be no need for people to be constantly vigilant because there should be nothing going on that is beneficial to industry whilst being detrimental to the public, ever! there should be no new laws/bills brought in for voting on the back of some other, non-related bill eg, fishing quotas! all that MPs, MEPs, Congress, Governments etc introduce and ultimately vote on should be transparent. there should be NO LOBBYING AND DEFINITELY NO CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO PARTIES OR INDIVIDUAL POLITICIANS IN RETURN FOR NEW LEGISLATION!

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 »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

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