Feeds

back to article Euro Parliament kills ACTA treaty before court can look at it

As widely expected, the hapless Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) treaty has been rejected by the European Parliament. European MPs wanted to push through a vote before the European Court of Justice had ruled on whether ACTA is compatible with European Treaties - and succeeded. Altogether 478 MEPs voted against …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Brilliant news. Well done everyone who rallied against this and the other backdoor control laws.

31
3
Silver badge

"backdoor control laws"

That is the key point: the secrecy of negotiation.

The fact that some very controversial proposals were included then dropped from ACTA (but not Japan's own laws?) shows the attitude of some aspects of those pushing this forward. I hope, but don't really expect, that in future the revision of patent, copyright and trademark laws are done in the open and NOT simply to maximise large company profits.

This applies obviously to the heinous business of DRM and so on being pushed by the content industries, but equally to the land-grab of copyright by the likes of Google, etc, against small players. The law should be fair to all parties.

14
0
Silver badge
Happy

For once, probably the one and only time in my lifetime the EU courts have actually made a good considered decision.

0
4
Anonymous Coward

Second time

First was over the stink raised when Phorm and BT started intercepting subcriber's browsing just to feed 'em ads. Without telling anyone.

9
0
Joke

Yeah, it was particularly crappy when they capped phone & data roaming charges: just when I was enjoying spending €1 a minute to answer calls.

5
0
Silver badge

It's not the court...

... .it's the European Parliament. But from your statement I assume you also think that the caps on mobile phone roaming charges were also a bad idea?

3
0
Stop

Re: "backdoor control laws"

the idea of dropping parts of the ACTA treaty in order to make it more paletable has another name by military terms, it's called "forming a beachhead"

the idea is that you pass enough of the treaty to get accepted and then use itself to push through the other parts which were previously rejected.

so because we know this, we have to refuse to accept any of it, because any small piece we allow to exist, will just be used to drag the parts we disagree with through.

just look at the "european economic community": we accepted to be part of it and then it was used a vehicle to drag the parts we didnt agree to.

1
0
Meh

Re: It's not the court...

What does a sarcastic comment x another sarcastic comment = ?

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Will you PLEASE stop mixing up copyright and trademarks?

They are entirely different and require very different measures to enforce them.

Many people that rail against this lunatic enforcement of copyright have a measure of sympathy with the enforcement of trademarks.

The morality and practicalities surrounding these issues are very different.

18
0

Never let the truth get in the way of making money

And this law was all about making money. Nothing to do with trade mark or peoples jobs or dying industries. Governments must allow us to charge what ever we want for the crap we produce… while we continue to avoid tax!

15
0
DJV
Thumb Up

Yeah

What he (above) said!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Better legislation to appear

ACTA was poorly written. Better legislation shall appear. Copyrights will be protected. Pirates will be prosecuted.

0
8
Silver badge

Re: Better legislation to appear

ACTA was not poorly written. It was carefully crafted to hold as many flaws as possible that could be exploited later. They didn't need secrecy to smuggle in controversial policies, they needed it to preserve those built in exploits from detection and correction.

Presumably they thought that it wouldn't matter when they were exposed to late to correct, no-one would back out of signing. They got really unlucky with SOPA, though arguably there would still have been enough protest to stop this rights grab without a public primed by SOPA.

17
0
Big Brother

Re: Better legislation to appear

Here, it seems to me, is the crux of the whole thing. The idea that the massed ranks of expert lawyers working for rich global corporations that want to be richer, and powerful governments that want to be more powerful, would 'poorly write' such an important piece of protectionist legislation is frankly ludicrous.

And as the days are long gone when an ordinary peasant can look at a law and understand what it says, it has to come down to trust. We must ask ourselves: "Never mind what it purports to say, do we trust those who wrote it?" The clear answer in this case was: "NO."

And the MEPs listened to the peasants because they know their jobs depend on it. The Commissioners, on the other hand, whose jobs don't depend on any rapport with the people however theoretically and convolutedly they may be 'elected', simply treat the peasants like dirt. Their bid to control the internet and increase the profits of big corporations at the expense of the struggling proles will not go away, whatever the percentage of this vote.

Either the arrogant Commission will, as another said, keep ramming it down the throats of the MEPs until they give in, or the salient features will resurface carefully hidden in a complex piece of legislation about the precise colour of EU-approved lamp-posts erected within 7.654 metres of EU-approved suburban gardens. (Notwithstanding all that has gone before ...)

Sadly for the massed ranks of the people, that is how the EU works; and that is why we must constantly rail against any legislation emanating from those we do not trust, even if we haven't the foggiest idea what it actually means. It is the absolute responsibility of those in power to earn our trust; they have no right to demand it. And the European Commission, executive arm of the EU, has a long, long way to go in that respect.

11
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Better legislation to appear

Well said sleepyjohn. Particularly this: "the days are long gone when an ordinary peasant can look at a law and understand what it says"

Laws are written for lawyers by lawyers (one of the freaking unbelievably awful things in democracy as I see it is the hugely disproportionate amount of lawyers in parliaments), and are full of little phrases that to a layman seem to be inserted randomly or without any cause but to them is saying "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more". I am always suspicious when a law is written as yaddayaddayaddayaddayaddayaddayaddayadda........ and some expert comes out and says "oh actually, this law is very simple, it really means abc". So if it really means abc, why isn't it written abc? The purported reason for overly huge and complex laws is to avoid loopholes, but the way I see it, the more specific you get, the more loopholes you create.

2
0
Big Brother

Re: Better legislation to appear

Yes. As Paul Shirley shrewdly noted, the loopholes are invariably deliberately hidden somewhere so that those in power can utilise them should the need arise. The EU seems to be particularly skilled at this, churning out War and Peace screeds of such incomprehensible gibberish that no-one but they can interpret them. Which they duly do at the crucial moment to their entire satisfaction, calling on their tame Supreme Court to back them up if anyone dares to grumble. It is a worry.

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Good riddance

...and don't come back, ACTA.

Was the "Copyright is Theft" subline really needed? It doesn't make any sense however you look at it.

Copyright = Privilege (which may vary greatly in extent and moral justification) granted by state to a "right holder" (often a well-connected) to control the distribution and replication of an often intangible good. Apparently "creates new markets" and "puts the food on the plates of the creative types".

Theft = Somone takes your TV. The ECB issues money, driving inflation. You are being hit by the taxman.

Not the same thing at all.

15
0
Silver badge

Re: Good riddance

Was the "Copyright is Theft" subline really needed?

Freudian slip.

0
0

Re: Good riddance

The clue is in the word itself

Copyright = a right - not a privilege - there is a vast difference.

Having a problem with the machinations of tax-dodging global corporates is one thing. The answer is to address their behaviour - not attack the underlying principle that people have a right to enjoy the fruits of their creative labour. You can't occupy the moral high ground if your stance is basically that the end justifies the means.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Good riddance

> The clue is in the word itself

The original poster is talking about natural rights. There is nothing "natural" about copyright. It is a legal compromise that we hope will bring, on balance, benefit to society at large.

There is no fundamental reason why one person should have a monopoly of an idea, however emotionally attached they are to it. It is a privilege that society bestows on creators because as a society we wish it.

Make no mistake, we could take it away if we deemed that, in the round, society was the poorer for copyright.

2
0
Happy

I'm glad ACTA is dead

While it's possible that some of its parts might have been beneficial, the way the trade agreement was negotiated is simply not something that can be allowed to become the norm. Hopefully this will send a message.

15
0

Happy 4th of July America, how do you like the present?

11
0
Thumb Up

Thank you!

We loved it! :)

7
0
Silver badge

Judicial Review

Was initially asked for by parts of the European Parliament many months ago but refused by the Commission which was confident it could railroad through the secret legislation. Secret legislation is intrinsically undemocratic. The treaty will be unbundled to handle trademark and copyright separately an be renegotiated, hopefully in public, and might have a chance of succeeding.

10
0
Silver badge

“The European Parliament has totally ignored proper judicial procedure. It has given in to pressure from anti-copyright groups despite calls from thousands of companies and workers in manufacturing and creative sectors who have called for ACTA to be signed in order that their rights as creators be protected.”

He went on to say:

"Why couldnt they do what they normally do? Give into pressure from the copyright groups, ignoring the thousands who think that we've gone too far, particularly in light of the extreme measures we've had to take to safeguard our content".

12
0
Thumb Up

WTF?

The tough rules against DRM had been watered down...

Yeah you can circumvent DRM where the law says you can, unfortunately the treaty also banned the software tools for doing the circumventing, even where their use might be legal

1
0
WTF?

Wonderful by-line

"Intellectual property is theft, says Brussels"

What? No one said anything about intellectual property being theft. Most of those opposed to ACTA were generally in support of IP enforcement, but didn't think that ACTA was the right way of doing it (either in terms of content, the vagueness of the wording, or how it was negotiated). Strike one.

Plus, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to how the EU works; the European Parliament holds its plenary sessions in Strasbourg, not Brussels. It holds its committee meetings and so on in Brussels, and its secretariat is based in Luxembourg, but the vote was held in Strasbourg, so nothing to do with Brussels. Strike two.

"The treaty lost its copyright liability provisions some time ago..." is also complete nonsense. The copyright liability provisions are still in ACTA, see in particular articles 23 and 27, both of which impose liability (including criminal liability) in relation to copyright. Strike three. A good thing there isn't a three-strikes system for inaccurate journalism.

With regard to the title, I'm not sure what the relevance of it being rejected before the court examined it - I was under the impression that most laws were voted on by Parliaments without court approval, with challenges being made through the courts later. The court isn't in a position to determine whether or not the proposed law is a sensible law, only whether it fits within the competence of the EU.

27
0

Re: Wonderful by-line

This 'treaty' has been rejected therefore it's legality is a none issue.

I have no idea why some people are looking to this review as though it would change anything, just because a court decides that something is legal doesn't have any bearing on whether it has to be passed or whether it is sensible or acceptable.

ACTA is dead and although some may not like the fact they have to understand this is how democracy works and get over it.

4
0
Big Brother

Re: Wonderful by-line

I believe the reason for the Commission wanting to send it to the Court first to examine its legality was to delay the Parliament addressing ACTA until everyone had forgotten it or gone on holiday, so it could be pushed through while no-one was looking.

7
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Wonderful by-line

@duke - quite true and well clarified.

Just a minor point about the EU parliament, they actually are based in BOTH Brussels and Strasbourg. The damn French insisted that the EU parliament be physically located in France, while everyone else had agreed on Brussels, and in the end the fudged compromise was that the EU parliament meets in Brussels but 1 week every month they meet in Strasbourg. So twice every month an army of support staff and a little village-full of logistical stuff is ferried between Brussels and Strasbourg, costing the EU taxpayer millions of Euros a year just so French honour can be satisfied.

2
0
Holmes

Good News Everybody

Now all we need is for Belgium, the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden to repeal the shit they signed in Janurary.

10
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Good News Everybody

Individual EU nations will struggle to fully implement the treaty independently of and in opposition to the EU. One of those pesky "national sovereignty" issues the centre-right enjoy prattling on about. They'd have to implement the treaty in such a way that it only applied to non-EU citizens, as otherwise they'd be enacting barriers on intra-EU operation, which just isn't cricket.

You're also confusing signing a treaty and ratifying it. It can't be repealed until it is ratified. It doesn't come into force unless it is ratified, which almost certainly will not happen with such an emphatic no vote from the european parliament. There's just no way to make it work within the EU, so there's no point in implementing it with respect to everything outside the EU.

2
0
Coat

Next

repeal the stupid cookie laws. The UK are the only country bothering as the gov seeks £1,000 fines from small websites to pay for MPs expenses.

6
4
Silver badge

Re: Dickhead

It's not just the UK that has adopted the European law into national law. Other countries were even faster. As for enforcement the ICO has made it pretty clear that it won't be targeting small websites.

1
0
Flame

Re: Next

Yes. Let the megacorps track us as much as they see fit. After all, isn't anything else communism or something?

No. Let's not remove laws that are there for the protection of individuals against companies who feel that the world must be laid out for their benefit.

If you want to advertise, feel free but if you want to find out more about me than I am happy about, I politely ask you to go away. Anything I judge to be intrusive or creepy puts your products on my "do not use" list.

We do not need advertising anyway. I may do research about something. In that case, I want information to compare. I do not need reminded about your insurance/sweets/payday loans/baked beans/etc while I am on the internet or anywhere else.

0
0
Thumb Up

Missed the point completely...

Wow, I know some of the Reg authors are out of touch with the general feel amongst the readers, but I think this is the first time I've seen EVERY SINGLE comment disagreeing with the main thrust of the article.

Yes there may have been some good bits in there - but if they were so good, why did it have to be all done in secret? THAT is why it's been thrown out.

Let's hope that lesson has been learned, at least...

24
0

Re: Missed the point completely...

It's just Andrew on his high horse again. Intellectual property is theft my arse!

If I didn't know better I'd think he was deliberately trolling for exactly this sort of reaction. I can't remember the exact quote or it's origin, but it says something about the only thing worst than being talked about is NOT being talked about.

But regardless of Andrew's copyright fetish and the rights or wrongs of ACTA, there's no denying the whole thing was handled wrongly.

If you act like you have something to hide then that's what most people are going to believe even if the evidence proves otherwise.

Personally I think it's a very bad piece of legislation with some nasty traps but it's not quite as bad as some of it's more hysterical opponents would have us believe.

And contrary to popular opinion it's not actually dead yet. Karel de Gucht has stated publicly that he intents to keep forcing it down the EU parliament's throat until they swallow it.

12
0
Silver badge

Re: Missed the point completely...

Thanks to the newfangled "topics" section I can now jump to the comments on Andrew's articles on copyright without going through the ordeal of reading the actual article. The only good bits are in the comments anyway. Although I am a bit disappointed by the lack of flames and theunder this time. Commentards must get accustomed.

It's a shame that the treaty did not go through the judicial review; it would almost certainly have failed it, which would have been good in preventing that kind of things from happening again. As it is we'll see an almost identical replacement smuggled in more discretely. Probably within a year.

1
0

Re: Missed the point completely...

Andrew found a copy of Atlas Shrugged as a child, and has never read another book since. The sad thing is that this wild guess looks very, very accurate.

2
2
Joke

Horror of horrors

Elected representatives make decisions about laws before the judges wade in. Wasn't that the way it's supposed to work ?

9
0
Thumb Up

Re: Horror of horrors

I not only agree so that I upvoted your comment, I compliment you on the correct use of apostrophes!

1
0
Facepalm

laws should be about fairness. ACTA isn't

Apart from the secrecy around it's drafting and being presented to notional democracies as a fait acompli the biggest issues (IMHO) with most of it's flaws are that it is/was fundamentally inequitable. Most of the provisions are there to skew the power of the large commercial interests against smaller and individual creators and IP owners. It removes protection for consumers in the guise of protecting them by letting the big media interests run things.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: laws should be about fairness. ACTA isn't

No (copyright) laws should not be about fairness, they should be about protecting "art'. If you want the art then you pay for it and comply with the terms of use or you go without.

ACTA will be replaced and pirates will receive even harsher punishment, as they should.

1
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: laws should be about fairness. ACTA isn't

"they should be about protecting "art'"

so You consider your text above and everything written to be "art" then Anonymous , as that and all others text is actually automatically covered by existing copyright laws today as it should always be and clearly its not "art".

2
0
Silver badge
Big Brother

Don't celebrate just yet, folks

Karel De Gucht European Commissioner for Trade says ACTA will be law despite Parliment

Quote:"If you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me tell you that the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the current procedure before the Court, as we are entitled to do. A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

If the Court questions the conformity of the agreement with the Treaties we will assess at that stage how this can be addressed.

However, I expect that the Court will instead find ACTA to be fully in conformity with the Treaties."

So damn the democracy, FULL ACTA AHEAD!

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Don't celebrate just yet, folks

Without the Parliament agreeing it, it cannot become EU law. That's plain and simple.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Don't celebrate just yet, folks

He's right, in that the Commission has the right and perhaps even the obligation to continue to try and get such international legislation passed. He also goes on to say:

Second, once we will have identified and discussed these possible clarifications, I would intend to make a second request for consent to the European Parliament. Whether the Parliament will consider it under this legislature or the subsequent one, will be for you to decide.

ie. the treaty would need amendment before being resubmitted to the European Parliament.

Of course, the rejection is also an instruction to the Commission to start renegotiating the treaty without waiting for the Court to publish its opinion.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Don't celebrate just yet, folks

That's one of the major flaws of the EU right there - The commission (1 commissioner appointed by each member government = political appointees NOT elected) has the power to propose laws. The EU parliament (the MEPs who are actually elected) can only vote yes or no on laws put before them. (I'm not 100% sure but I believe they are allowed to propose amendments but commission has final veto on amendments).

This is basically rubbish since the vested interests that control the political appointees will be pushing for the laws that interest them. There needs to be a reversal in the structure, with the elected parliament getting more power house.

3
0
Silver badge

@: localzuc

Yes, Parliment turned it down... this time.

But if it gets the blessing of the Court, or gets tweaked just enough that will, it'll be presented for vote again and again until they give in and pass it.

At least that's what the plan looks like me. This thing's going to have more lives than Jason.

0
0
Silver badge

Intellectual property is theft

And that line is just as true as your normal copying is theft line, that is total bull shit.

What is the connection between "intercepting counterfeit trade - including fake drugs - across borders" and "the entertainment industry"?

Where is the part about financing drug dealers and terrorists?

4
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.