The Netherlands Rejects ACTA, and Does One Better 112
New submitter Peetke writes "The Dutch House of Representatives unanimously accepted a motion to urge the Cabinet to reject ACTA [Dutch original] (if they ever get the change to do so; it may already end in the European Parliament). Additionally, an even stronger motion was accepted to reject any future treaty that may harm a free and open Internet. This is a good day for the Internet."
Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to be a cynic, but I have a funny feeling that the EU (or some treaty agreement or trade deal) will just force you to implement it later. And the government will cave, of course, with politicians giving the excuse "Well, it was out of our hands." The RIAA/MPAA and their ilk are quite relentless. If you defeat them in one piece of legislation, they just quietly sneak the same provisions into some new law, treaty, or requirement. Eventually they find a way to get either de jure or de facto enforcement one way or another, usually the with public completely unaware of what's even happening until it's too late. And if your country supports extradition to the U.S., they don't even need your law--they can just use U.S. law.
Do you think the U.S. public would have ever approved of the DMCA if they had actually known about it--if it hadn't been quietly slipped in as part of a treaty [wikipedia.org] that was negotiated behind closed doors, that no one outside of Washington even knew about until it was signed? Sleazing around behind the curtains is what these guys do best.
Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:5, Insightful)
I figure...fight it today, fight it tomorrow, and hope that someone will fight it when I'm gone.
That being said, I'm not going to stop my work on a self repairing mesh darknet. Fight now, plan for contingencies in the future.
One of many reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
I've invested a lot in the Netherlands over the years; those investments have paid off really well. So did money I put into Canadian stock fund.
Funny how those darn socialist countries continue kicking the crap out the USA, where we're always number one in our own minds.
Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, I'm not going to stop my work on a self repairing mesh darknet. Fight now, plan for contingencies in the future.
You, sir, are a hero.
This is a good day for the Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if you are Dutch.
Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:3, Insightful)
You, sir, are a hero.
Nah, I'm no hero, I just dislike the thought of the internet being restricted. Because as soon as they can restrict it, they will use restriction as a way of enforcing things.
"Oh, you don't agree with [insert elected leader's name]'s policies? Well, say goodbye to your internet access..."
Plus, it may not even work. (it does use a Raspberry Pi [raspberrypi.org] as the processing unit though, so chances of success are higher than they might have been.)
Re:This is a good day for the Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if you are Dutch.
... if you live in the Netherlands.
Cue US Special Watch list ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this will mean the Americans will put the Netherlands on the "Priority Watch List".
Which is fine, since it's mostly a government talking piece put together by industry lobbying groups.
According to Michael Geist [michaelgeist.ca], we ignore it too because it's drivel:
Me, I think it's time more countries stood up and said they don't want to be controlled by the US content industry and lobby groups.
Saying you don't want to risk a free and open internet is a good thing. Saying you're not willing to be bound by what American corporations want (which is the whole purpose of this stupid Name and Shame watch list) is also a good thing.
This whole stupid treaty is hypocrisy -- censorship is bad, unless you're doing it because we said so, mostly to protect corporate profits.
Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:4, Insightful)
The continuing problem with the DMCA is the unwillingness to enforce penalties on people or companies who fraudulently submit takedown notices over things that aren't infringing (see today's related Techdirt story [techdirt.com]).
If you submit a takedown notice, and you sign or check a box saying "I swear under penalty of perjury", and you're wrong, then where are all the perjury charges?
Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:4, Insightful)
DMCA really isn't that bad
FUCK YOU
It provides a way for artists to protect their copyright over their work
Im sorry, I didnt realize Corporations were artists now.
Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA only protects their copyrights by trespassing the very grounds of our justice system. It is not guilty until proven innocent, sir; it's innocent until proven guilty. Do not sacrifice this most valuable of ethics because you perceive it as reasonable. There is no reason to be found in the DMCA, and contorting our system of law for the whims of profit only undermines the liberty and security for us all.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Re:Today, yeah. But they'll just get you tommorow (Score:5, Insightful)
It might not be that bad IF it had actually enforced provisions to penalize people sending DMCA notices when none of their copyrights are being infringed. Even better if the site was not to be taken down at all until an adequate amount of time passes for a response.
That and remove the anti-circumvention provisions. A tool is not a crime even if it can be used to commit one.
We are winning (Score:5, Insightful)
They won't get us tomorrow. Time is on our side. Nature is on our side. They've been fighting losing battles against technology since the 19th century. They fought against the player piano, AM radio, and cassette tapes and the VCR. They lost. They'd like to kill the public library and the used bookstore, but they aren't strong enough to pull that off. That they "sleaze around behind the curtains" is a sign of how truly weak they and their positions are.
We shouldn't take this lying down of course. No laws can stop this digital revolution, but they can do a lot of collateral damage. Shooting down ACTA unanimously is exactly what needs to happen. They and others who'd like to pull similar stunts must be made to understand that we will not submit to such extreme control, and we aren't fooled by language designed to make it sound like a noble attempt at protecting property rights or children. Unworkable and unenforceable plans meant to attain impossible goals is a terrible reason to turn entire nations into police states constantly snooping on all private communication in order to detect copyright infringement, and worse, stopping and forbidding private communication as punishment for mere unproven allegations. I'd like to see things go further, and have these cartels sued for racketeering and corruption for even trying this ACTA nonsense and all the other things they've done. They should stand trial for DVD region encoding, for instance. For DMCA, ACTA and 3 strikes laws, they should face charges for attempting to suppress free speech, and something similar to interfering with the delivery of mail, as well as the racketeering charges.
Big Media doesn't show proper respect for the people. They and their lawyers also ought to face barratry or SLAPP charges for suing, well, everyone. Hit them hard with fines, and jail time. When they fear to lobby for such extreme measures, fear it so much that they won't dare try it, then we'll have made good progress. Ultimately, freedom to communicate should be as firmly enshrined in law as freedom of speech and religion. The whole point of the US Postal Service being under direct government control was to head off the possibility of commercial interests being in a position to abuse the need to communicate for rent seeking and monopoly schemes. No greedy, control freak cartel leaders should have any reason whatsoever to hope they can dictate what, how, and whether we shall communicate.