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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2012 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re: 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!

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.