Bye ACTA, Hello CETA 225
New submitter xSander writes "Is anyone really surprised by this? ACTA may have been rejected by the European Parliment, but it is far from dead yet. Apparently, the EU is trying to revive ACTA through the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)."
The article contains a handy side-by-side comparison of the CETA clauses that are nearly identical to ones found in ACTA.
Resale rights ??? (Score:5, Informative)
Because when you buy a car (or any other second hand goods) through a private classified ad, Ford (etc) get a slice of that too... This is insane!
Not a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Falkvinge addresses this (Score:5, Informative)
Keep your eyes open please, Europe (Score:5, Informative)
The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - 478 to 39.
According to TFA, CETA was drafted in February 2012, months before ACTA's resounding defeat. So presumably CETA will not be allowed to go through as-is, providing that the European Parliament are paying attention. A letter or even just an e-mail to your local MEP could make a big difference, for those who live in Europe.
Still, after US online poker was banned by a rider on the SAFE Port Act, nothing would surprise me in the world of political skullduggery.
Relevant online lecture (Score:5, Informative)
I can't help but think that the current series of Reith Lectures [bbc.co.uk] presented by the Professor Neil Ferguson is pertinent here.
The lectures are quite long at about an hour each, and there are only three of the final four available so far, but it is worth the taking the time to listen to what he has to say. If you are short of time, skip to the third episode where he explains that the rule of law has become the rule of lawyers and why this is bad for the economy.
Re:Resale rights ??? (Score:5, Informative)
Its Big Media (tm) trying to impose this on the world, in this case through their hired lapdog Canada's PM Steven Harper. Harper will do whatever it takes to pass legislation he wants passed. Usually he does this by inserting it in legislation that has no bearing on the new insertions - recently this meant changes to our criminal code and prison system, revamping the entire fisheries act, attempting to close down environmental groups etc, all inserted in some budget legislation that was because of its nature, not open to general debate. Harper is very close to acting like a dictator in many ways, and he is ramming through his provisions to create the most authoritarian version of Canada in its history, while letting Canadians retain what appears to be freedom.
A large part of this seems to be enacting whatever legislation will best suit the folks who run the US - i.e. Big Media corporations and the Patent trolling folks down south of the border. I would say the insertion of the text of ACTA in another bill is perfectly in keeping with the way Harper acts.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Trade is good. Using "trade" as an excuse to subvert the democratic process and force via "international agreements" legislation that favors big business is neither good, nor acceptable.
BTW, the summary is wrong, it isn't the EU that is "trying to revive ACTA", it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans -- that is trying to do so. They are, for some reason, particularly sensitive to the needs of big business.
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
BTW, the summary is wrong, it isn't the EU that is "trying to revive ACTA", it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans -- that is trying to do so. They are, for some reason, particularly sensitive to the needs of big business.
The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. So yes, it's the EU. And if it's fair to bash on Americans for actions taken by the US Federal government, it's fair to blame the "little guys" in Europe for the actions taken by the EC.
Re:Resale rights ??? (Score:5, Informative)
Usually he does this by inserting it in legislation that has no bearing on the new insertions - recently this meant changes to our criminal code and prison system, revamping the entire fisheries act, attempting to close down environmental groups etc, all inserted in some budget legislation that was because of its nature, not open to general debate.
Wait, that's a new horrible thing in Canada? In the States, that's an extremely common technique called a rider [wikipedia.org], where the unpopular provision is passed by riding along with something completely unrelated.
A related technique is called the "poison pill", where you add a provision totally unrelated to the main bill to either wreck a good bill or sweeten a bad bill. The idea is to put incumbents in a bad spot by creating a bill that says something like "Motherhood and apple pie are both fantastic, and we should kill 10 kittens a day for fun." If our hapless legislator votes Nay, the ads will say "Senator Buford opposes motherhood and apple pie!" while if he votes Yea, the ads will say "Senator Buford supports killing kittens!" And no, Senator Buford can't defend himself by explaining what really happened, because the voter's attention span is too short.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:4, Informative)
We don't really vote for MEPs. We vote for European political parties, almost all of which are made up of groups of national political parties.
If you're in a country which uses the party-list [wikipedia.org] system, that's true enough, and some of those elected due to a favorable placing on the party list would most likely be unelectable as individuals (most of the EU uses this, with some variations). However, if you're in a country which uses the single transferrable vote [wikipedia.org] system, you actually get to vote for your MEP, and only candidates who were individually voted for can be elected (only Ireland, Malta, and Northern Ireland for European elections).
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
I agree it's rather scandalous they once more try to force such unwanted legislation but have good hopes the various national governments will instruct their commissioner to either take out the sting or stop the whole process, otherwise the EU parliament will bury it as happened with ACTA.
National governments are not supposed to "instruct" their commissioner since the commissioners (in theory) do not represent member states but the interests of the EU as a whole. They even take an oath of office [wikipedia.org] to that effect ("neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity").