Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada EU Government The Internet Politics

Bye ACTA, Hello CETA 225

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the hide-it-in-subsection-c-part-seventeen dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bye ACTA, Hello CETA

Comments Filter:
  • Great (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cyphase (907627) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @05:17AM (#40600337) Homepage

    Trade is good.

    Right?

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)

      by siddesu (698447) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @06:56AM (#40600639)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @07:36AM (#40600743)

        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:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

          by siddesu (698447) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:01AM (#40600869)

          You can blame anyone you choose, but your reasoning is faulty.

          In general, the leverage that the European citizens have over the EC is significantly smaller than the leverage the Americans have over their federal government. This is so because of the way EC commissars .... ops, commissioners are appointed to serve, and because of the complex patron-client relationships that exist between the various national political elites that make the appointments, the European Council, the key commissars and the major European "parties".

          In this specific instance, the only body of the EU that represents the "little guys" directly, the European Parliament, rejected ACTA very clearly (and under massive grassroots pressure), so you cannot really blame the EU electorate.

          What you are witnessing here is a small clique of euro bureaucrats gaming the rules of the EU, trying to subvert the will of this elected body. They are the ones who should bear all the blame.

          • by Gr8Apes (679165)

            You can blame anyone you choose, but your reasoning is faulty.

            In general, the leverage that the European citizens have over the EC is significantly smaller than the leverage the Americans have over their federal government.

            .... a whole lot of statements about corruption and cronyism that applies equally well to the US political system

            No worries there, when it comes to coporatocracy and cronyism, I think we're in a neck to neck race.

          • by Bob9113 (14996)

            In general, the leverage that the European citizens have over the EC is significantly smaller than the leverage the Americans have over their federal government.

            Hey, now, them's fightin' words. Our democracy is way less responsive to the people than your democracy!

            I'd put a smiley so you know I'm joking, but I don't feel like smiling just now.

      • Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Teun (17872) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:23AM (#40600965) Homepage

        it is the European Commission -- the unelected cabinet of Europe, way beyond any control from the little Europeans

        Crap, yes it's the commission that brings up these dofus ideas but they are no more 'unelected' than many EU governments.
        These guys don't fall from the sky but are appointed by national governments that are controlled by elected parliaments and their plans have to pass the elected EU parliament, it's up to you to take part in your national and EU elections to control them.

        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.

        • Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)

          by siddesu (698447) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:47AM (#40601071)

          Aw, come on. The national governments do indeed appoint the candidates, and there are hearing sessions in the EP before the commissars are put forward and the commission is approved, but the process behind these appointments is in no way transparent, compared to, say, electing a national government.

          The big countries and the important bureaucrats play complicated games with their clientelle in the smaller countries, there are all kinds of backstage games and agreements, etc. so in the end you get a "government" that is much more responsive to the cabal that runs these negotiations than to anyone else.

          Then, there is the sad fact that the Commission is viewed as something remote and inaccessible by the voters in Europe (or at least by the people I know), and there is a lot less public scrutiny directed at them as well.

          So, compared to a national government, the EC suffers less oversight, gets less feedback, and consequently feels more powerful.

          • by Teun (17872)

            Then, there is the sad fact that the Commission is viewed as something remote and inaccessible by the voters in Europe (or at least by the people I know), and there is a lot less public scrutiny directed at them as well.

            I agree that large swaths of the press are not furthering the EU ideal but rather some masters interest, the prime example are the British rags continuing to regurgitate nonsense like about bent cucumbers supposedly being illegal to market.

            • by siddesu (698447)
              I only expose myself to the Guardian and the Economist and they have not followed the cucumber debate closely, but I have the same feeling -- in general, the national press in the EU tends to cover the EU issues badly.
        • Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)

          by antientropic (447787) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @11:58AM (#40602867)

          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").

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cheesybagel (670288) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @05:28AM (#40600387)
    Can we blame Canada now?
  • Synonyms (Score:5, Funny)

    by TemperedAlchemist (2045966) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @05:29AM (#40600391)

    You say, "I don't want to be raped by your dildo," and they respond with, "Well, how about this one? It's a different color!"

  • Resale rights ??? (Score:5, Informative)

    by DMorritt (923396) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @05:39AM (#40600413) Homepage
    Resale rights. The EU is demanding that Canada implement a new resale right that would provide artists with a royalty based on any resales of their works (subsequent to the first sale).

    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!
    • by Chrisq (894406)

      Resale rights. The EU is demanding that Canada implement a new resale right that would provide artists with a royalty based on any resales of their works (subsequent to the first sale). 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!

      I thought it was Canada trying to impose this on the EU. Which way round is it?

      • Re:Resale rights ??? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Phrogman (80473) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @06:09AM (#40600509) Homepage

        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.

        • by c (8461)

          > 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.

          A Liberal majority would have done about the same thing, although I can't imagine them being as hamfisted about it.

          I suspect an NDP majority (unlikely as it is) would reject it initially, but give them some time to get comfortable with power and I expect they'll break, too.

          Lobbiests don't care whether the p

        • Re:Resale rights ??? (Score:5, Informative)

          by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @09:16AM (#40601257) Homepage

          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.

      • Most likely EU forcing this on Canada. It would seem to be a version of Droit de suite, which is french for "right to follow", which Europe has and Canada doesn't. I think in practice, it pretty much only applies to art auctions. It's really stupid anyway, though.
        • Most likely EU forcing this on Canada. It would seem to be a version of Droit de suite, which is french for "right to follow", which Europe has and Canada doesn't.

          Except that in the other big copyright news from Europe last week, the ECJ basically killed the whole idea that you can control resales of software, even when supplied as a download, by asserting some sort of copyright argument. The reasoning given in the judgement is remarkably clear and much of it would probably translate to other forms of content as well if the case was brought.

          So, if this is the "EU", then it's probably only the European Commission, as neither the Parliament nor the Court seem to have m

    • Capitalism: subverting and undermining Democracy, one dollar at a time.

  • This is war (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pecisk (688001) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @05:41AM (#40600417)

    If someone didn't understand, this is war. We have billions industry fighting this who has lot of money to waste on politicians and lobbying, and they won't give up their rights to get easy money without any economical logic. This ain't first, and won't be our last battle, and we should accept this as that. What's good that this also creates generation of new politicians who are very informed about moral/economical/legal issues of IPR regimes. More they pushing this, more people see what's their real aims are.

    • by Xest (935314)

      It's nothing new, the US and it's supporters have been trying to shovel stricter IP policy globally since the creation of the WTO. In fact, that's the whole reason they created the WTO, the difference back then is it was more about the pharmaceutical industry, now it's about the content industries too, but pharmaceutical firms are still very much part of the contingent of lobbyists on this sort of issue.

      • Counterfeit drugs are a legitimate problem. However the solution to that problem is not just IP enforcement, it's also programs to reduce prices by limiting monopolies, which reduces incentive.

    • We still have one weapon: stop buying (or copying) their tawdry wares. Although it wouldn't suprise me much is they began legislation to, we are not yet forced to buy corporate books, music, or movies. We should be making our own, or learning some other worthy skills instead of growing fatter on the couch or deafer in the ears.

      And if we can't live without these mostly mindless blathering distractions, that's on us.
      • by Pecisk (688001)

        Problem is that ACTA and all new legislation actually enforces ideas of *not* having your own movies or music. It simply can't be that you made your own. All base belong to us. Give us your money, now.

    • this also creates generation of new politicians who are very informed about moral/economical/legal issues of IPR regimes

      Yes, with this much potential power, the campaign faucets should be full-on this election season.

      To describe the problem non-euphemistically, the media corporations want to use threats of government force* to take more money from the people. The rest is just the byzantine edifice they hang it on. Realize this, and you'll see that the 'MAFIAA' is just the client du jour. By all means, pl

  • Not a surprise (Score:5, Informative)

    by hey_popey (1285712) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @05:44AM (#40600427)
    It's not like if we weren't warned; some Euro-MPs had announced this: https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Translation_Interview_Marielle_Gallo_ACTA_pcinpact [laquadrature.net]
    • Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ifiwereasculptor (1870574) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @06:00AM (#40600483)

      I can't really decide if that's extremely funny or incredibly scary. Did she actually say that people should have nothing to do with laws? That she'd keep pushing it covertly until it passed, making no compromises? Whoever votes for that woman is a very special kind of idiot.

      • Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @06:30AM (#40600551) Journal
        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. So people end up voting for the same party they vote for in their own country, and it's often not the best and brightest who advance to European politics, quite the contrary in fact. It seems that the only "good" politicians who get into europarliament are the onces who need a bit of a break from the busy life of national politics.
        • Re:Not a surprise (Score:4, Informative)

          by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @10:27AM (#40601773) Journal

          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).

  • by acidfast7 (551610) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @05:49AM (#40600449)
    because when people don't like something over here, they actively protest. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is being protested for/against, but the apathy I see coming (perhaps, not coming is more accurate) out of North America just flat-out baffles me.
    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @08:48AM (#40601079)
      Eventually, protesters run out of steam. High-paid lobbyists don't stop. This sort of thing will be revived over and over until the industry gets what it wants. That's how democracy works, right? Keep demanding things until people lose the energy to vote against you.
      • by acidfast7 (551610)
        No, democracy works because we (I'm still a US citizen and can't vote in all elections) remember who supported a bill/proposal we didn't like and we don't elect them again. After the first few people don't get elected again, the politicians take the hint. However, that hint can be made quite strongly when there are thousands demonstrating in the central square of a major city against ACTA, which happened all across Germany and most of Europe. In the US, there is a severe lack of choice at the national leve
        • No, democracy works because we (I'm still a US citizen and can't vote in all elections) remember who supported a bill/proposal we didn't like and we don't elect them again. After the first few people don't get elected again, the politicians take the hint.

          Protip: Your understanding of "democracy" is completely fucked, and so is "The Republic For Which It Stands"...

        • Do you know what eventually happens if a country is in anarchy long enough that the people will do anything for order?

          It's called military coup.

      • by acidfast7 (551610)
        Another example is that Occupy Frankfurt is still camped out right next to the European Central Bank and they're not going anywhere, any time soon. You just assume that protesters will "run out steam." Grow a backbone.
        • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @10:13AM (#40601653)
          You're missing the point. The lobbyists are never "defeated" -- they keep trying to get what they want, and we need a more permanent solution to that problem. Yes, people eventually run out of energy -- the fact that one protest has remained active in Frankfurt does not mean that people can keep coming out and protesting whenever lobbyists try to attack the Internet.

          Look at it this way: we are fighting the wrong battle. Instead of protesting ACTA-like treaties, we should be pushing for laws that protect the Internet from such things. We need to slap down the lobbyists and the industries they represent once and for all -- so that we don't have to go out and protest the same laws and treaties every few months. We should be moving our focus on to new issues, not rehashing the same old problems over and over again. Voting no on an individual treaty is putting a band-aid on a broken leg; we need to vote yes on a resolution that rules out all such treaties.
          • by acidfast7 (551610)
            No, you should protest, and you should replace the politicians that supported the bill. That's one of the reasons that the Pirate Party gains traction over here ... at ACTA protests the Pirate Party handed out info, generated interest and did much better in the local and regional elections. You don't get the "rules out all such treaties" without such politicians that replace the incumbents.
        • by 0123456 (636235)

          Wow. A protest so successful that almost no-one has even heard of it.

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      but the apathy I see coming (perhaps, not coming is more accurate) out of North America just flat-out baffles me

      Lots of Americans tried protesting last fall, and ended up on the receiving end of pepper spray, billy clubs, unlawful arrests, destruction of personal property by police, tear gas, getting run over by police motorcycles, and at least 1 protester killed, all with the approval of some of the top government officials. I mean, it's not the same as protesting in, say, Cairo, but it's not a safe thing to be doing. In addition, they got nothing but derision from most public officials and much of the press.

      • by acidfast7 (551610)
        isn't that de facto evidence that the protesting is working? if you're not willing to sacrifice and endure some discomfort, how would anything get done.
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @05:50AM (#40600453) Homepage

    This is the lobbyists 9-5 (well, 11-3 including a 2 hour expenses lunch) job. It's just going to go on and on and on, and they will never stop, ever, regardless of either setback or success. There won't be enough profit or laws or mandatory nagware or State enforcement to satisfy them, because this is what they do. This is all that they do.

    While we won the battle on the barricades, they continued the war by creeping in through the sewers. They're in this for the duration, and so we have to be too.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Can't they make it illegal to waste court's time by bringing up similar proposals under newer names every month or so.

    Instead of rejecting the proposal, they need to reject specific provisions of the proposal so they can't be rehashed under a new name again.

  • by G-forze (1169271) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @06:01AM (#40600489)
    Rick Falkvinge comments [falkvinge.net]. It seems CETA was written sometime in february when ACTA looked like a done deal, so it is natural that it contains the same language. But it is true that we can expect the European commission to try to bring ACTA in through the back door, so we should keep our eyes open.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @06:02AM (#40600491)

    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.

  • by ocularsinister (774024) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @06:03AM (#40600497)

    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.

  • by Fixer40000 (1921598) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @06:39AM (#40600583)

    You will vote on this referendum again and again until we get the result we want.

    At which point you will be stuck with it forever.

    Democracy in action.

    • by lorinc (2470890)

      France was way more efficient at this. The French voted against the referendum, but former president Sarkozy decided to sign the treaty anyway...

      Again, democracy in action.

      • by Inda (580031)
        Same as the UK with our last referendum about voting.

        The question was not worded correctly. It was a case of "do you want X?", when a No vote mean we'd get "Y", when most actually wanted "Z", which wasn't offered.
        • Z is always on offer. You just have to get enough people off the sofa, away from Britain's Got Next Top X Big Factor Idol Model Talent Brother, and get them in Parliament Square with a megaphone.
        • by Mithent (2515236)
          Ah, yes... despite being in favour of voting reform, I was forced to vote No on that referendum due to the fact that I didn't want AV specifically. Of course, my No vote could then be interpreted as a vote against voting reform in general. They were certainly clever there.
    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      Same thing in the US. For instance, my state of Ohio had a group of companies that wanted the state constitution amended so they could build casinos in major cities, which required a referendum. The voters rejected the idea in 1990, 1996, 2006, and 2008, but the group got what they wanted in 2009, in part because most of groups that had opposed them the last 4 times were out of funds to really compete with.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @07:18AM (#40600689)

    Just implement the law already. No, seriously. The only thing that will change is that it's cheaper in the end because this will come. Why? Because it has nothing to do with any kind of democratic process anymore. The crap will be reintroduced again and again and again until the people who keep an eye out for it will be distracted by something even worse and then it's in.

    Why the fuck do we keep up the democracy show? Hand over the powers to the corporations already, if nothing else it should save us a lot of money for cutting out the middle man that now clutter the various parliaments.

    • by Teun (17872)
      You are unnecessarily negative, like the new rules about network neutrality we can tacle the issue from the other side and introduce a law requiring/guaranteeing certain freedoms on the subjects threatened by ACTA/CETA.
      When we keep pestering our national and EU lawmakers it can happen, the example has been set.
    • and lets face it, how bad can acta/ceta be? i mean, piratebay will still work, right? they'll figure out a way. and as far as generic drugs are concerned, my government has been very open about not following any patents and allowing all sorts of cheaper versions, regardless of what others try to force.

  • This is standard EU modus operandi - push bullshit repeatedly until "correct" result is obtained.
    I wonder how many of you remember the attempt at an european constitution. It was rejected in several countries. Next step, cut off the fluff, leave the crunch exactly the same ,and have it pass as "Lisbon Treaty". Failed again, despite what was essentially bullying - i have heard politicians making asinine arguments (then, and later with the euro wall moneysink) that we're part of a collective and we have to
  • when the world pays attention, they glom onto name: ACTA

    so just change the name, presto-bango: 90% of the popular opposition disappears because the general public just isn't that plugged in to translate their opposition to the new flavor-of-the-month rent seeking parasite legislation

  • pass (new) legislation that expressly protects from this bullshit that they keep reframing. at least that way you can point out that new BS bill X contradicts a bill that _they_ passed.

  • ...trying to bend us all to their will, paying off the sheriff to string us up.
    We respond by passing limits on the length of rope.

Brain fried -- Core dumped

Working...