Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Internet EU Technology

EU Parliment To Vote On ACTA Soon; Take Action Now 115

sTeF writes "Laquadrature du Net releases 3 videos on ACTA: Every citizen can help defeat ACTA by spreading this video across the Internet, urging their fellow citizens to mobilize, and contacting their elected representatives. ACTA is a threat to Internet users' fundamental freedoms and to EU Internet companies' competitiveness and free competition. The European Parliament will soon decide whether to give its consent to ACTA, or to reject it once and for all."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Parliment To Vote On ACTA Soon; Take Action Now

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @03:44AM (#37904756)

    "Reject it once and for all"?

    I find your naivety charming but have no need for your newsletter.

    • You're damn right. They haven't even tried to tack this on to the tail end of a Child Protection bill yet. Everyone knows that scheme works just fine.
      • by Cryacin ( 657549 )
        Dude, this isn't Washington. IF anything, they'd need to tack it onto the next bailout legislation.
      • You're damn right. They haven't even tried to tack this on to the tail end of a Child Protection bill yet.

        Why the hell would a government that isn't democratic feel the need to do such a thing ? This will pass, because the commisionaires (not a reference, actual title) of the EU have high-paying side-"jobs" in big companies. And for no other reason.

        The EU doesn't even pretend that the passing of this law has any democratic component (the passing "or non-passing" will be done by the aptly-named commission, irrespective of parliament's decision, which is merely advisory). It is not requested by any specific Europ

    • by genjix ( 959457 )

      That's it. Keep fanning the flames of the internet hate machine. Test our boundaries before we inevitably snap. Don't let yourselves be boxed and pushed around like the cattle they want you to be! This is our time, our future when for the first time we have found a way to define ourselves as artisans, industrialists, scientists and visionaries. For when the time has come and greed has taken over, dictators will die and people live. A sick machine that you have to throw yourself under the wheels and get grou

  • What... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @03:48AM (#37904766) Homepage

    That video generates more questions in my brain than it answers. "ACTA is bad, nnkay?" it says, which is not enough. The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me. It doesn't even tell me who "The Negotiators" are. I can't say "No" to ACTA based on this video alone.

    • I can't say "No" to ACTA

      Oh, well, 's what you could expect from TSA...

      • by tsa ( 15680 )

        Hey, I had that name long before the evil organization existed. I should sue them for copyright infringement :).

        • I think you should. If you win, you are striking a blow against an evil organisation. If you lose, you set precedence that proves how silly many copyright infringement/patent lawsuits are. It's win-win.
          • Sadly no it doesn't

            The system is rigged to favor the elite, and often you will have different people in the same position come out differently.

            One very big and obvious difference right off the bat is endurance in surviving long enough to get to trial.

            The elite often win because the underprivileged don't survive long enough to get to court.

            Maybe that's another welcome side effect of keeping the legal system clogged. The elite get to hog the legal system all for themselves.

            • by tsa ( 15680 )

              That is exactly why I haven't sued them. The fact the I'm Dutch makes the case even more complicated and expensive, so I would never win.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Does it matter who they are?

      What matters are:
      1. ISPs will be responsible for what their customers are doing online. The consequence of this is very problematic.
      2. The fact that information is so lacking and negotiations are held secret should be a warning in itself.

      This video is more than enough information for me to oppose ACTA, at least until more information is given.

      This is also my basic stance towards any new laws. Laws are in themselves regulations of freedom. So any law should by default be opposed,

    • The Video was disappointing and online opposition isn't clear or current. (please prove me wrong) There seems to be nowhere that clearly explains the problem with acta. I would hope that somewhere there might be presentation of the facts about acta that will draw interest and understanding in ordinary people and generate a better reaction than wtf and so what why should I care.

      I think it will pass with barely a murmur.

      • GW Bush was involved in the early stages of ACTA, it was done in secret, therefore my tinfoil hat says it must be evil!

        The above is case you couldn't tell...

    • Really? Hows your internet experience been to date? I've been online for 17 years now, and I can honestly find any reason why I would want my current rights or access to change. Whats there to negotiate? The internet is the way it is because of how it has evolved in the current environment. Changing the environment will change the internet - and here is no way imposed legislation can improve it.
      • by bytesex ( 112972 )

        There's a seedy side to the internet that came along with it and it's growing, that's what. Of course it doesn't help that telco's and music execs always run with their own egoistical points to underscore the desire for certain changes, but that doesn't mean there aren't also legit and decent reasons for them. Nobody wants childporn or spam. Everybody realizes that endless copying of movies and music can't go on to its extremes. We all know that bandwidth is growing, but that it won't keep up with the growi

        • ... [W]e need to be tough on certain types of content, not because they're undesirable, but because they are illegal - and it was a democracy that decided it was illegal.

          We already have laws covering the vast majority of crime committed over the internet; Fraud, libel, counterfeiting, unlicensed duplication, patent infringement, anti-social behaviour... They all exist without the internet, and we don't need new laws covering them. We need society to adapt its thinking to the new way of doing things, not shoehorn legislation through to restrict it.

          ACTA is very long and complicated document designed to do two things;
          - Protect aged and archaic copyright parasites like record

    • Re:What... (Score:5, Informative)

      by theocrite ( 1348043 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @05:22AM (#37905112)

      That video generates more questions in my brain than it answers.

      What questions?

      "ACTA is bad, nnkay?" it says, which is not enough.

      It's enought for the video. Nobody would watch a 30 minutes boring video quoting obfuscated texts refering to more obfuscated texts already signed by countries dozens of years before that.

      The point of this video is to try to get the interest of a lot of people. The one who didn't heard of ACTA before. Once these people are interested, they can seek informations by themselves. The link provided in the video [], that's a good start. Or see the wikipedia page, seek on the search engine, or seek on their favorite online newspaper.

      The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me.

      Well, what do you suggest? A more positive approach? Like "Think of the future, nobody will be able to share knowledge, wouldn't that be great?".
      What if everything is bad in ACTA?

      It doesn't even tell me who "The Negotiators" are.

      That's the point. "The Negotiators" are not known. ACTA has been negotiated in secret during the past few years. Withoout the control of the democratically elected parliaments or other institutions. Now the treaty is finalized and signed by some Countries. The other Countries now have a gun pressed against their head "sign it or you're out".

      I can't say "No" to ACTA based on this video alone.

      Of course you can't.
      But maybe you can say no to ACTA based on this video + my comment + few other comments on this news, + on [] + [] + [] + [] + [] + your own sources of information.

      And if someday you want to say no, here is how: [] :)

      • Personally, I hope ACTA being signed by Obama is held as against the constitution. Congress ratifies treaties, not the President, and they were never given the option to see ACTA before it was signed. I am not holding my breath on it though.

    • The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me.

      What sickens me is that this view is accurate.

    • by olau ( 314197 )

      Then it did its job, I think. It is probably intended to spur your interest, not really inform you.

      Note that you are allowed to use your mouse to click through to the other information on that site. For instance, try clicking the link below in the blue box leading to their wiki []. Plenty of information there [].

      • by Cryacin ( 657549 )
        You can't do that! It's got to be immediate, and present and accessible. Don't you know that the average attention span is about 12 seconds on the intertubes?

        Geez... Amateurs. Next you'll ask us to THINK!
    • by Hentes ( 2461350 )

      While I agree that it could be more specific, you have to understand its scope. It's a short video made for the general public. You know, those ignorant dumb people who have 95% of the votes. They wouldn't watch through an hour long analysis of the pros a cons of the treaty. They don't understand the European bureaucracy (I don't think there is a living person who fully does), so explaining who the negotiators are would be complicated. The video needs to be short, simple, attention-grabbing, emotional and m

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I had to give up before the end of the introduction paragraphs. It doesn't contain a single comma, even though it's in dire need of a few dozen, and the start of the article at least doesn't say more than "ACTA supports the industry and will soon be signed" (I imagine that most readers would consider that a good thing). And the video in TFA is very economical with the truth, badly structured, and low on info. No wonder people don't get worked up about ACTA, if all the opposition can come up with, is this tr

  • Why should I bother my representative (Christian Engström) with this?
    • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @04:02AM (#37904830) Homepage Journal
      maybe s/he doesnt know. s/he should. dont risk it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by theocrite ( 1348043 )
        You missed the irony cause you probably don't know who Christian Engström is.

        That said, if your MEP is Christian Engström, maybe you could bother another one?

        That's what I did for the telecoms package. I called a dozen of MEP. Of course, they are less receptive when you tell them you don't vote for them. But
        1/you don't have to tell them (they tend to forget that they are paid to serve general interest and not just to make sure they will be reelected)
        2/when they speak with lobbies, they ar
    • by durin ( 72931 )

      Why should I bother my representative (Christian Engström) with this?

      I don't think he's bothered by it. But the chance is very small that he is not aware of the problem already.

    • by pjt33 ( 739471 )
      So that he can stand up and say "It's not just my view I'm representing: I've received lots of letters from constituents about this specific issue".
    • Is he your only MEP? If not, bug one of the others. One of mine is a member of the FFII, so she's pretty much guaranteed to vote against it. One is a member of UKIP, so he votes against everything without engaging his brain (to quote Gilbert and Sullivan, that is assuming that he's got any). The other two may not have made up their minds yet.

      For anyone else in the UK, don't forget that there is a government-funded portal for sending letters to elected representatives []

  • by Anonymous Coward

    In these times of economic turmoil it is the perfect moment to pass controversial but silenced legislation like ACTA. Main stream press, who could maybe represent this information in a non-ridiculous, non-propagandist manner unlike this website are just not going care. Still, after years of tech-news fuss I do not know what is ACTA, why do some people so vehemently oppose it, and why should I care.

    Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should w

    • by Forty Two Tenfold ( 1134125 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @04:50AM (#37904982)

      Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should we even oppose it.

      Um... no. You should oppose it for this exact reason. What exactly it will do is so multi-faceted and so deeply buried in legal speak it requires a book to explain. This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read. — Winston Churchill

      • by Anonymous Coward


        Being for or against a law is not two equal positions. A law always regulates the most basic human value, the one that is protected by the very first of the articles in the UN declaration of human rights, our individual freedom.

        Default should be to always oppose any new law that isn't well documented, well explained and well justified.

        Any new law should also always protect the individual people, directly or indirectly. ACTA is protecting business. And yes, we need business to make a good living for

        • by shentino ( 1139071 ) <> on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @05:53AM (#37905254)

          ACTA's secrecy is the biggest reason to vote against it.

          Why? Because it's something that the powers that be are afraid we would oppose if we knew what was going on.

          Oh wait, we're just citizen peons. We don't get to vote on it.

          Only the government does.

          And with no way to recall someone from congress after we've elected them, what incentive do they have to vote how we wanted them to when we elected them?

          If it's lucrative enough someone can easily sacrifice their political career for a handsome payoff in the private sector.

          Or assume rightly in most cases that if they pull a fast one early enough the electorate will have long forgotten by the time campaign time comes around again.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Besides which, we have more serious problems [] to deal with... If you've not read the Naomi Klein book, here's a primer []

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should we even oppose it.

      Read it [] and judge yourself. See for example article 9 regarding damages, where it happily affirms that:

      In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party’s judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

      Which basically translates into "every download is a lost sell" (and you must pay for it), which is obviously false. If you think a law containing such flagrantly false affirmations doesn't deserve opposition, or you don't care or you are one of the parties writing it :-P

  • by jevring ( 618916 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2011 @04:54AM (#37904994) Homepage
    The problem with legislation is that, even if you defeat one, it can simply be reintroduced again and again until it is passed. There is no provision for forbidding anything to ever become a law (for a reason, otherwise we'd never be able to undo bad decisions). I hate ACTA as much as the next guy, and I really don't want to see it in use, but if the politicians have decided that some form of law like this will be in place, there's no stemming the tide simply by expressing our displeasure for it. Do you honestly think that politicians listen to the people who elect them? That's not how it works. We listen to the politicians, and elect the one we believe best represents our interests. It's (almost) always a one-way street.
    • You could however make a law stating guaranteeing the freedoms ACTA takes away.

      "... the right to circumvent any physical or digital provision designed to restrict access to media or data owned by the individual."

      • by jevring ( 618916 )

        You could however make a law stating guaranteeing the freedoms ACTA takes away.

        "... the right to circumvent any physical or digital provision designed to restrict access to media or data owned by the individual."

        Indeed, but what's to prevent yet another law being passed that takes those freedoms away again? Laws are never final (nor should they be). The system is both flawed and wonderful for the same reason. Thus, the only solution is to ensure that you are ruled by/vote for people with similar ethics and morals as yourself (or that you want to have governing you).

    • The problem with legislation is that, even if you defeat one, it can simply be reintroduced again and again until it is passed...

      You're absolutely right.

      This time it's "from a hidden source and quietly promoted where it may be passed behing a lot of peoples' backs", next time it will be "for the kids", time after that will be "for the safety of your land". History repeats itself. History repeats itself. History repeats itself. History repeats itself........

  • Does UK English really, honestly pronounce "patents" as "pay-tense," as heard in TFV?

    Just wondering, because over here where I can't do a damned thing about ACTA, we say "pah-tents."

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Both are accepted. I say "pay-tants", and I'm English. You'll probably find that "pa-tents" is the American English pronunciation. If you said "pa-tents", I'd assume you were American or heard the term from an American first, unless there were other signs that told me otherwise.

      More importantly, you do realise that you're finding it shocking that the *original* language is pronounced differently to how you've been told to pronounce it yourself? Please go and look at how you pronounce aluminium, vehicle,

      • by jez9999 ( 618189 )

        You forgot "herb"...

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by ledow ( 319597 )

          Argh! Unpronounced "aitches" (and yes, that's the correct pronunciation of the letter H - don't put a "ha" on the beginning of it).

          So annoying: "Would you like some erbal tea?"

          1) I'm English. Get that crap out of my face.
          2) Pronounce the damn word properly and not like you've had a mini-drop-out on your mobile phone while talking.

      • I did an internship at a patent law firm in the UK, and I was told during the interview never to pronounce it pay-tent, as that's a sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. The accepted pronunciation within the legal profession in the UK is pah-tent. Pay-tent is largely common among people who saw the word written before they heard it spoken.
        • by ledow ( 319597 )

          And other comments on here from people working with other patent lawyers in the UK indicate the exact opposite in identical situations. Nothing to do with absolute pretension by any chance, borne on the back of one pronunciation being more "UK English", one being more "US English"?

        • You're way off base there, dude. [] makes it fairly clear. One is a US pronunciation, the other is UK. Anybody using either pronunciation is potentially equally well-informed. You're reading way too much into a situation based on your own (or others') idle supposition (or did you really question everybody that you heard saying "pay-tent" and establish clearly that they had taken the pronunciation from a misreading of the word....?)
      • by adolf ( 21054 )

        No. I don't find it shocking at all, but thanks for failing to guess my opinion.

        I'm quite familiar with a host of variations in spelling and pronunciation of identical words that exist within the language(s) we call English. "Patents" is simply one such word which I had not encountered before.

        Here in Ohio, we have a particular egregiousness when it comes to intentional mispronunciation. From the top of my head, here are some towns near me which are never uttered "correctly":

        Lima (pronounced lyme-ah)

    • Does UK English really, honestly pronounce "patents" as "pay-tense," as heard in TFV?

      Just wondering, because over here where I can't do a damned thing about ACTA, we say "pah-tents."


    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      Yes, although I'm seeing the americanised version become more and more popular here in the UK nowadays.

      When we had some patent legal eagles in at my old job last year to advise on the patent filing and enforcement process for some patents we wanted to file they were pronouncing it pay-tent rather than pah-tent still though and I guess they use and hear the word as much as anyone in the UK.

    • by pjt33 ( 739471 )
      That's the default pronunciation in British English, but when a patent lawyer gave a lecture as part of my CS degree course he said that "pay-tent" is the correct pronounciation for the synonym of "obvious", but the limited-time monopoly is pronounced "pah-tent" by people in the know.
    • by jker ( 1967318 )

      Does UK English really, honestly pronounce "patents" as "pay-tense," as heard in TFV?

      For what it worth, the speaker is both French and Australian.

      I suck at English, so I can't say if it's Australian way of speaking or if he pronounced it how British would pronounced it.

  • Does anyone know if ther's a chance that thing will pass?
    The E.P. seems to have a pretty good track record with regard to striking down this kind of special interest, anti consumer legislation. This, and previous statements from it's committee's leads me to think the ACTA has no chance of passing a vote.

    If I thought there was a chance of this somehow passing under the radar, I'd write my "local" MEP

  • Even if we do succeed to convince them not to vote for this shit, it's high time for a public network accessible by anyone for free. A true peer network. The technology is there. What's missing is a public (non-government, fully democratic) body that agrees on open standards, tech ( network structure, access, protocols, etc.) to create a network that mostly (of course the optimal would be completely) bypasses anything that can be controlled by government (ISPs, DNS servers, etc.) . These should be optimally

  • Does any of this actually matter? Last I heard the European Parliament was just a toothless talking shop, cynically set up by the unelected EU bosses for the express purpose of convincing gullible Europeans that they live in a directly elected democracy, which they clearly do not. No, I have not read or understood the latest EU rulings as, like the British politicians who looked at the original treaties, I simply do not have endless years with nothing else to do than try to make sense of the hugely comple

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.