All right, that may be what the EPP wants; however, I do not see how they could have attained their goal, since a parliamentary majority would have been required to postpone the vote. Note that the EPP didn't even attempt postponement after all, and the final ACTA vote will be held tomorrow.
What I don't understand is this: how can the EPP possibly secure postponement under this rule? It will still only be postponed if Parliament goes along with the EPP's potential motion, which it seems they will not, since they have already rejected postponing the vote before, when the EC asked for it earlier.
One comment on your Spotify comparison: if a hundred Itunes users contribute $ 60 each, that makes $ 6,000 total. If a hundred Spotify Premium users contribute $ 120 each, that makes $ 12,000. That means that artists + middle men (labels + stores?) as a collective get twice the amount of money, whichever way you look at it.
While the amount of money a single users contributes to a single artist may decrease—from $ 0,10 per Itunes song to $ 0,006 per Spotify play—many more of his peers will also contribute to this artist, because each user listens to many more artists than on Itunes, and plays each song far more often than the single time he buys a song on Itunes. Because the total volume of user-to-artist contributions goes up tremendously (could very well be x20 or much more), the lower amount per contribution can be compensated.
In fact, if you look at the $ 120 v. $ 60, it seems likely that the higher volume can more than compensate for the lower amount per contribution. If we assume that the percentage taken by middle men is equal, the money paid to artists should double. However, since artists get only 10 % of a $-0.99 Itunes song ("for major label artists, Apple collects 34 cents and the label keeps 55 cents"), perhaps artists get a bigger cut out of Spotify plays, although there, too, both the label and Spotify take significant shares. If that should be so, artists would get even more than double the Itunes income if they go through Spotify.
But it is a good start! Especially with all the world watching. And the Australian parliament, how are its members distributed between pro and contra? This committee could both be an indicator of parliamentary inclinations and influence them...
Oh, yes, according to poster "Open ACTA Mexico", the Mexican senate have the final say, so it seems likely that you will drop out.
The only caveat seems to be that they only ask/tell the president to "suspend participating in the negotiations" ("suspenda el proceso de las negociaciones de nuestro país"): so there is a theoretical chance that they will in the end, perhaps after new elections, resume negotiations.
However, the fact that they want all sorts of academics and other groups to analyse the treaty, and that they express strong concern about violations of civil rights, means that they will probably drop out. So yay, only two more drop-outs required...
What do you think? It is like saying, "Six fruits are needed. If three more fruits drop out besides this fruit basket and the apple (both of which have already dropped out), there won't be enough fruits left." In this case, the "basket" is conveniently subsumed under "Europe", because both Switzerland and the EU are already likely to drop out.
According to Wikipedia, ACTA needs six countries to ratify it before coming into force. If three more countries drop out besides Europe and Australia, such as Mexico, New Zealand, and South Korea, then America will have to find new countries for it to come into force at all.
I think this amputation would be a good idea. After all, once the copyright lobby has destroyed the internet, it's best to return to mediaeval laws altogether. An additional benefit would be better enforcement of anti-nosepicking rules.
Cool technology. As a primary means of input, it is less efficient than fingers; but, as a secondary, specialized tool, it can be great, as for drawing and such. By the way, the plural of stylus is styli, not *stylii.
I think the issue is mainly that making a threat appear larger than it really is usually makes you more popular, the "common enemy" against which people all rally behind a "champion", as with Bush and Blair against Saddam. The issue is less that politicians are actually worried that they might be blamed if things go wrong.
Very well said. As a European, I find Sonja's twitterings a bit silly, but acceptable, and certainly not "offensive". I hope your comment gets the most "Insightful" votes. You know what offends me? Political correctness. Sorry.
Perhaps...at first it should be severely weakened. Then we can evaluated the weakened system, see whether more weakening is necessary. But, if I had the choice between the current system and abolition, the abolition it is!
Good point. In this light, trying to patent as many stupid and over-broad things so that they may not fall into the hands of future trolls (and contesting any tech patents that are brought before the world's patent bureaux) might also be a good idea.
I know this sounds twisted, but how about if a few big tech companies formed a league with the following condition: each member vows to start litigating at full force (using any stupid patents they have) against other tech companies that litigate in a trollish way, the way Oracle or Apple or Samsung are trolling competitors now (albeit Samsung may be doing so defensively). That way, any tech company that contemplates suing another must take into account the costs of being sued over random other stupid patents from the League. As a scare tactic, this might make the costs and risks of trolling too high.
Of course this does little against the real patent trolls that do not actually produce anything, and have nothing to fear from patents being used against them. Against those guys, perhaps the League could create some sort of defensive organization with some money and the best lawyers, who would take the case in case any of the members are attacked by a real troll.