EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Ignore Any Rejection of ACTA 253
Dupple tips a story at Techdirt about comments from EU commissioner Karel De Gucht, who made some discouraging remarks to the EU International Trade committee about the opposition to ACTA: "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." De Gucht also spoke about proposing clarifications to ACTA if Parliament declined to ratify it, which, as Techdirt points out, doesn't make much sense: "Remember that ACTA is now signed, and cannot be altered; so De Gucht is instead trying to fob off European politicians with this vague idea of 'clarifications' — as if more vagueness could somehow rectify the underlying problems of an already dangerously-vague treaty."
As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As an American... (Score:4, Funny)
Thats because if they did that here, people have GUNS.
And your politicians have nukes. Your move.
Re: (Score:2)
When the merd' hits the fan, the soldiers will refuse to nuke Americans. The gun owners will ultimately win.
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
No worries, these people will be labeled something among the lines of "terrorists, pedophiles, liberals, wing nuts" or whatever other term will be deemed valid and hostile enough by spin doctors writing speeches for modern leaders.
Then most of the sheep will happily nuke the "enemies of the state" into the oblivion.
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
I concur. I think it was at the beginning of the last century that people in Switzerland were protesting against the government. This is a direct democracy, please remember this when I tell you that the MILITIA was ordered to open fire... and they did.
So a government directly appointed by the people used a militia formed of the people to kill the people. Never underestimate how much of a mindless weapon a soldier can be become, even with relatively little training.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the soldiers be told who they are nuking? Can the launch operators see what their missile is targeted at, or can this information be faked?
Imagine a soldier gets the news that N Korea just nuked S Korea and Japan, and is ordered to launch his nuke, which then just happens to 'miss' and hit California.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much, no. The information can't be faked. The launch officer is the last guy in the chain that knows his bird's target.
Note that this is also pretty much irrelevant for ICBMs, since retargeting them is NOT quick. And you really can't do it without the cooperation of the chain of command.
Who won't. Cooperate, I mean.
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty much, no. The information can't be faked. The launch officer is the last guy in the chain that knows his bird's target.
I would have thought the target would be the last guy in the chain to know the target.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
Soldiers are trained to obey orders. I wouldn't bet your life on "US soldiers won't fire upon US civilians", since they've happily done so before.
Re:As an American... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stanley Milgram disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. It's because people have the vote. Being honest won't get them (re-)elected (and breaking their promises won't get them shot, and have little impact on their electability). The EU commissioners have no such democratic problem.
Re: (Score:3)
But she was shot simply because Loughner was nuts. It likely had nothing to do with her specific voting record.
Similarly, Reagan was shot because Hinckley was trying to impress Jody Foster.
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most politicians lie and break many of the promises they make. Few of them get killed. An armed populace isn't a significant deterrent, although chest-thumping morons will claim otherwise.
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's that got to do with it? Why would gun owners invoke the 2nd Amendment to defend a bunch of long-haired hippies who want to steal American Property?
Especially after acquiescing to the Patriot Act and airport scanners that administer a dangerous dosage of radiation as a routine measure?
No, my friend, I'm afraid that I've yet to see the 2nd Amendment get invoked for any other reason than to kill brown people and fags except maybe the Civil War. And after the New Deal, the reasons for the secession of the Confederate States look like gripes that could be solved over an afternoon tea.
Your internet tough guy argument fails. Even after all the shortwave saber rattling I used to believe in and follow when I was growing up, the American people remain hopelessly cowed.
Re: (Score:3)
Thats because if they did that here, people have GUNS.
Total BS - it's hypnotized by money, brainwashed by TV, the guns are just some toy to make boys look a bit more macho. The upper guys do what they want and no gun has any effect whatsoever at this point in time.
Things would look very different otherwise.
Holy GUN - yeah, BS!
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Informative)
In Switzerland they force you to own an assault rifle. By law.
Re:As an American... (Score:4, Interesting)
Only if you're male and deemed fit to serve in the militia. And they're trying to change that now. Of course there's a lot of opposition. People pro army rifle often state that Switzerland enjoys the liberties it has exactly because the population is armed to the teeth.
The people for taking the rifles away say that every misuse or accident is one too many. Personally, I think both sides have it wrong, as usual ;).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
As an American: at least he's honest about it. My politicians just issue bald-faced lies.
He's not being honest because it's virtuous; He's being honest because there's no consequences for him doing it. Our politicians lie their asses off when it suits them just like yours. He just knows there's no fight left in the general population. Don't go getting funny ideas about how our politicians are somehow special... they were bought and paid for same as yours, and probably by the same people.
Re: (Score:3)
As an American: at least he's honest about it. My politicians just issue bald-faced lies.
He's not being honest because it's virtuous; He's being honest because there's no consequences for him doing it. Our politicians lie their asses off when it suits them just like yours. He just knows there's no fight left in the general population. Don't go getting funny ideas about how our politicians are somehow special... they were bought and paid for same as yours, and probably by the same people.
Speak for your own population. If the French don't like something they're out on the streets in their, quite literally, millions.
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Informative)
Only the European Parliament which is democratically elected can actually enact laws.
ACTA is currently making it's way through the various committees which act in an advisory manner to the Parliament, said committees have no power and the Commission is merely saying that it will not withdraw ACTA before it has made it's way through the various committees and the European Court of Justice and will eventually be voted upon by the Parliament but if the result in Parliament is a negative vote that effectively kills ACTA within the EU unless the Commission renegotiates ACTA and sends it on another round through the system.
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is happening is a government agency is wasting taxpayer dollars attempting to force through something everyone already democratically opposes to suit one small corrupting segment of the market. What should happen is the idiot should be fired, as they do not have the right to waste taxpayer dollars on things only on small part of the market is interested in when major parts of the market have already expressed their opposition and that opposition has extended out to democracies within EU. You basically have one paid off asshat who has publicly stated that they will exploit a loophole to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in attempting to force through the interests of minor corrupt part of the market. So how much money will be wasted in all of this, somewhere between one million and ten million dollars, just burned away by one paid off dick head on a power trip, this person desperately needs to be fired.
Re: (Score:3)
Only the European Parliament which is democratically elected can actually enact laws.
That is wrong. The council (that is, ministries from member countries) also play a role. There are subjects where council and parliament have to agree in order to enact a directive, but there are also subjects where the council trumps the parliament, and others where the parliament is not involved at all.
The council is the executive branches of member countries, and it acts as a legislative entity at the UE level. This is a huge issue for power separation.
Re: (Score:3)
The Council consists of the Heads of State/Government(for the consitutional monarchies since their head of state wields no political power) of every member nation as well as the President of the Council(non voting member), the President of the Cmomission(non voting member), High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs(also non voting member I think). The council decides on foreign policy and defines directions and
And there's the out... (Score:5, Insightful)
EU nations to citizens: "We voted against it, what more coupld we do?"
EU nations to RIAA: "Ok, it's passed, pay up."
Re:And there's the out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Easier to buy a judge than an entire branch of government.
Re: (Score:2)
EU nations to citizens: "We voted against it, what more coupld we do?"
Your Freudian slip answered the question.
It will pass in some form (Score:5, Insightful)
ACTA will be ratified in some form because it will be resubmitted again and again till the lobbyiest succeed. This happened before with the EU constitution, it will happen with ACTA and it will happen in the future for many more treaties/laws.
Re:It will pass in some form (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It will pass in some form (Score:4, Interesting)
If its passing is inevitable, I want it as hobbled and useless as possible.
The other option is to have it so overreaching that it becomes impossible to do anything without infringing.
Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.
Re:It will pass in some form (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.
No, it will just be enforced selectively ("with discretion") as most current laws are.
Re:It will pass in some form (Score:5, Insightful)
The other option is to have it so overreaching that it becomes impossible to do anything without infringing.
Then the courts will have no choice but to ignore it completely.
The problem with laws like this isn't that they get ignored, but that they get selectively used.
There are other similar laws and the result is that anyone (police, lawyer, judge, politician, busybody neighbour) gets to decide whether or not you are guilty.
I mean, since you are always guilty, it's just a matter of turning you in for prosecution. It's great for police who want to harass you, or a landlord or tenant who wants to screw you for asserting your rights, or a business competitor who would like you out of the way.
It basically brings a country slowly into a police state. I do not favour it in the way you seem to...
ruling class gonna rule (Score:5, Insightful)
is anyone surprised?
the amount of power held by those that ACTA favors outweighs the amount of power held by those against.
rulers gonna rule. who'd have thunk it?
(I'm not in favor of ACTA, not even close; but I don't really hold up much hope when this much greed is involved, mixed with this much 'can-do' power to pull it off.)
this is a people problem. a scalability one. do our governments 'work' for us anymore? in the modern times, with mass communication now possible, are any of our systems really working? it does not seem so!
Re:ruling class gonna rule (Score:5, Insightful)
this is a people problem. a scalability one. do our governments 'work' for us anymore? in the modern times, with mass communication now possible, are any of our systems really working? it does not seem so!
Has it ever worked for us?
Do we just notice it more now since we find about these things before they happen?
Re:ruling class gonna rule (Score:5, Informative)
No not really. When the ink was barely-dry on the Bill of Rights, our Congress and 2nd president signed a law that made free speech and press illegal (guess they thought the first amendment & their oath meant nothing). In response our 3rd president, who repealed the law, said liberty requires constant vigilance by the electorate else it will be lost.
Re:ruling class gonna rule (Score:5, Interesting)
Just read this excellent article on that: http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html [crf-usa.org]
The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
Look what happened with SOPA.
There are other very powerful interests who want to keep the Internet open and operational.
Re:ruling class gonna rule (Score:5, Funny)
There are other very powerful interests who want to keep the Internet open and operational.
Thank goodness the spambots have achieved both sentience and political consciousness!
Re: (Score:2)
>>>There are other very powerful interests who want to keep the Internet open and operational.
Then how come Apple, Google, Microsoft, Comcast, et cetera who originally killed SOPA are not turning-round to back the CISPA? It wasn't so much about protecting us or the internet, but about winning immunity for themselves from being sued by disgruntled customers (which SOPA did not do but CISPA does).
A country that is not a country. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the type of thing when you have something resembling a country, but that is not in essence a country, which has non of the protections or checks and balances that a state should actually have.
Democracy at the EU level, kind of a joke.
Re:A country that is not a country. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are protections, the most important being the democratically elected EP which will say the final word on ACTA.
Re: (Score:2)
The European court of Justice has the same oversight powers as the US Supreme Court.
So the real difference is that the EU is a huge seething pile of bureaucracy and getting anything done takes forever.
Re:A country that is not a country. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the type of thing when you have something resembling a country, but that is not in essence a country, which has non of the protections or checks and balances that a state should actually have.
Democracy at the EU level, kind of a joke.
You say this, and yet democracy seems to be working better in Europe than in what is supposed to be a democratic America. In both cases you have a collection of States that make up a super-state. In the US, the States retain many powers that the Federal government is not allowed to fuck with. The same is true for the EU.
The EU has a multiplicity of political parties in each country, all of which are democratically elected, with the European Parliament being directly elected and with a rotating presidency of the EU itself that shifts to a different country every six months power is never focused too long in one place.
The countries in the EU provide checks and balances to each other, quite without meaning to. Because of the different interests that each country has, it's difficult for any given policy to be pushed through even by the strongest country or even set of countries in the Union.
So how, exactly, is democracy at the EU level a joke?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not harder to buy the EU vote, since all the member parliaments are already bought and paid for.
In the end, it probably cost about the same per PM on both sides Atlantic.
As for MS, they got into the trouble they did because they had not yet discovered the benefit of buying politicians at that point. They learned their lesson very quickly.
You mean he actually bought the European Court?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy has never counted in the EU because the majority of the people of Europe have never wanted a bloated, centralised state where bureaucrats in Brussels tell them what to do.
When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.
Re: (Score:3)
When EU citizens vote wrong, they're forced to vote again and again until they give the right answer.
Or they just ignore it. In 1994 we in Norway had a referendum and the people rejected EU membership despite an overwhelming majority in favor in parliament. What did the politicians do? Sign an EEC agreement which means 5000+ EU directives have been passed into Norwegian law. And then the politicians complain about the lack of influence and access because we're not real members, acting like it's our fault. Yeah because since we had the audacity to say no the politicians had to buttrape us. Totally our faul
Re:You are naive. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why up-close and personal political powers belong in the hands of governments no further away than a few hundred miles. National federated governments are not accountable to their populations and so should not have powers which directly touch on those citizens, except in very broad, general ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Spinning this as a repudiation of democratic principles is jus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no democracy in the EU. It's what a group of select "leaders" tell you what you can have, it's just a soft dictatorship controlling regional territories.
Re: (Score:2)
He is saying a legal way has to be found to leave the treaty. Currently he doesn't see one.
Re:You mean he actually bought the European Court? (Score:4, Informative)
The European Commission is distinct from the European Parliament. European Commissioners have established a pretty good reputation for themselves as being for sale and not accountable to their constituencies. European Parliament nominally holds the real power, but democracy in Europe often turns into an uphill battle against corrupt commissioners.
The European Commision is also the main promoter of legalizing software patents in Europe, against the express wishes of the European Parliament.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do we miss stories where they fight for people?! (Score:5, Interesting)
I realize this is Slashdot and eye-catching headlines tailored towards inciting the rabbleâ"rousers are the norm (yes, my UID is low) but are we somehow missing the headlines where political leadership (from any country) actually stand up for the rights of their citizenry instead of the business?
I rarely see politicians, on any side of the coin, standing up for the rights of the electorate and instead only see that they support business interests. These people must get elected somehow, and yes I realize there are possibilities that the electorate has no true influence here but it's improbable at least for now, so why the hell do we continue to put up with them doing this?
I've been disgusted for years by their actions but do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? (Score:5, Insightful)
do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.
That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.
Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? (Score:4, Interesting)
do they ever really stand up for The People and say, "no matter what we're going to do X even if you say no"?
Sometimes a popularly elected government comes into power and both promises and honestly intends to act against business interests, sure.
That's called a "rogue state" and we have CIA drone strikes to deal with them.
Hmmm.. this would explain why UK's PM backpedaled on bankers' bonuses [theweek.co.uk].
Re:Do we miss stories where they fight for people? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do they keep getting elected? What other choice do we have? When all sides of the issue are bought and paid for by the same people, what, seriously, what choices do we have? It's not that they don't represent us, it's that they represent where the money is coming from.
Think about it - to a politician, $1 = 1 voice. So, I have around 10,000 in savings. If I give all of that, my voice becomes stronger than my neighbor's, regardless of where I stand. I can influence media, I can influence protests, I can send letters. My neighbor can't do any of that, because he's just trying to make it to supper tonight.
From their point of view, the politicians are representing The People. It's just that the money involved is so freaking skewed that The People are no longer represented fairly in these initial steps. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if (in the US at least) our representatives are truly at a loss as to why their approval rating is so low. I hope I did a good job of explaining my views on that. It's hard to get into words sometimes.
I know that none of that may transfer into this instance in the EU, but I believe that the same rules apply there. Money = power, power = money. The commissioner probably sees the interests groups with the most money, and probably believes that they represent the general public's views.
Or he's just a dick. One or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do they keep getting elected?
European commissioners are appointed, not elected.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been several /. stories about the EU acting against a corporation and in favor of the customer. Like the browser choice screen in Opera v. Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
His predecessor got elected pretty much because there were no competition, when she failed they were desperate to find a new, hopefully strong leader that could stop the free fall the party currently was in and so they elected the current chair of the party executive council.
Keep trying til you get the vote desired (Score:5, Informative)
That appears to be how the European Union operates. The Constitution was rejected, so they turned it into the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish rejected the treaty so they held a second vote 6 months later, so they could get the "yes" vote desired. In Denmark they canceled the election and just acceded to the treaty automagically.
NOW it appears they'll use the same approach with ACTA: It matters not how the EU Parliament votes, we'll just rewrite it and submit it a second time or third time until we get a "yes". Of course the U.S. ain't much better: TARP failed the first time so they rewrote it and tried a second time. When the Supreme Court rejects a law as unconstitutional, the Congress simply passes the law a second time (minus the objectionable bits).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Keep trying til you get the vote desired (Score:4, Insightful)
And the problem with this is what, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely it's the NEW objectionable bits they snuck in without mentioning it.
Re: (Score:3)
When the Supreme Court rejects a law as unconstitutional, the Congress simply passes the law a second time (minus the objectionable bits).
They don't actually bother to pass the law a second time. There is no need to. When the Supreme Court uses judicial review, it merely sets a judicial precedent on how to interpret that section of law. It has no power to nullify the law itself.
Re: (Score:3)
You object to this, why? Because it was the same treaty (if you ignore the concessions that Ireland sought after the initial rejection)? Because it was only 16 months (not 6)? Both? Does it matter that turnout was six percent greater [wikipedia.org] the second time around, and that the vote swung from slight (53%) to robust (67%) majority from the one to the other?
I mean, you're either implying some serious
Typical europe (Score:2)
Re:Typical europe (Score:5, Funny)
Typical Europe.
Bar Nigel Farage, who is the Chuck Norris of politics, it's like watching monkeys at typewriters.
A model parliament should be like in Star Trek dammit!
Which episode? The one with Tribbles?
Re: (Score:3)
A model parliament should be like in Star Trek dammit!
An invisible, powerless propaganda organ entirely dominated by a hugely powerful military?
Re: (Score:3)
I think pointyhat meant the fabled Internet Chuck Norris. The one who has never existed.
Ignoring the vote (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So if it doesn't matter what the outcome of the vote will be, then why bother to have one?
PR. You can't just tell people what to do, you have to pretend that they're telling you to tell them what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has anybody ever seen this EU Commissioner and Obama in the same room at the same time?
They seem to have far too much in common in their views on honoring the results of votes.
Just sayin'...
Wow guys, "-1 Troll"?
Really!?
C'mon, that was *funny* right there, I don't care who you are!
Man, seems we're graced with some humorless mods today!
Strat
the fundamental fault with the EU... (Score:4, Informative)
...is that only the Commission may propose law to the Council.
The Council must vote - usually by qualified majority - for almost(*) all laws to pass. And the ordinary legislative process means that, since Lisbon, Parliament gets to veto most proposals.
But once the law has been adopted, there is no way for Parliament to even propose, let alone pass, further legislation to amend or repeal the law. By contrast, the UK has one overriding law - the Westminster Parliament cannot bind itself. But the European Parliament /always/ binds itself.
The only potential salvation is that the Court of Justice may declare a law to be invalid - for example, because the EU exceeds its jurisdiction under the Treaties. But not simply because the people don't like the law. Even then, getting rid of CJEU judges is nigh on impossible, so a corrupt gaggle stay around until one by one it's time for them to be replaced (by agreement of the governments of member states).
(*) Creation of competition law is delegated to the Commission.
They can't arrest us all (Score:4, Insightful)
It's become crystal clear over the years that it is everyone's moral imperative to ignore copyright law.
That is the only way we, as a society, are going to conquer the science-and-arts-crippling concept known as "intellectual property" and move forward as a civilization.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because a nut job "can't kill all of us" doesn't mean I won't seek shelter when he opens fire.
Re:They can't arrest us all (Score:4, Insightful)
It's become crystal clear over the years that it is everyone's moral imperative to ignore copyright law.
That is the only way we, as a society, are going to conquer the science-and-arts-crippling concept known as "intellectual property" and move forward as a civilization.
Thank you, I agree wholeheartedly!
- GPL violator
More seriously, the concept of intellectual property is neither crippling nor backwards. I think everyone but the entertainment media/attorney complex would agree that copyright can be useful if scaled back to 15 years or so and ending extensions. Same with vigorously limiting the scope of patents. And I hope you can see how trademark law can prevent public confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, let's stop calling it "intellectual property." Because thought is the property of no individual.
Let's call it copyrights (the right to make copies), patents (limited monopolies), and trademarks (brand identifiers).
Karel De Gucht received bribe (Score:3, Informative)
i'm from belgium (was now living in colombia)
but Karel has a long dirty history of accepting bribes, dirty cash and laundering money
Belgium is this moment even more corrupt then sweden, those ministers have sold every possible governement building to 3th parties
they dont own the kings palace for example anymore but they rent it instead !!!!
there is an anti piracy organization called "sabam" there are big rumors and the chance is very big that they paid or going to pay Karel De Gucht for getting ACTA up
this means they will be able to suck more blood and money out of their victims legaly but in a more dark sinister way
sabam already pushed it that far you cant tell for example storytales from books to your children without paying the copyright fee to them and ofcourse they pay nothing to the original authors
Re: (Score:3)
I'm from Belgium and still there (quite happy about it and not planning to leave). The royal palaces are property of the state and managed by an entity called the 'Koninklijke Stichting', they have not been sold. There has been a spate of sale and lease back crap by the previous government, though. De Gucht is not unbespoken (tried for insider trading and tax evasion) but corruption is not on the list. How much I dislike Sabam and wouldn't be suprised if they actually would try that, this is nothing more th
Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to say it since we're supposedly living in more civilized times, but maybe if more politicians who obviously have no interest in actually representing the people (not corporations) they "represent" were brutally assassinated, the rest would get the message. I may be wrong, but it seemed to work for some in the past...
Re: (Score:2)
The US government will have plenty to fear if they don't boost taxes, paying off debt, and funding total obligation. National debt of 15 trillion? It will take time, but we can dig out of that. Total Obligation with Obamacare [freebeacon.com] is estimated at around $82 trillion and growing? Terrifying - that is well over the GDP of the WORLD. Economists say debt-to-GDP is 1:1, I say debt to tax income is 7:1, and that is if we applied all of it just to paying debt, which we can't because 84% of the budget is immovable (Soci
Makes Sense (Score:2)
Here's the guy's contact info (Score:5, Informative)
Please, let him know that what he is doing is wrong and that the european people do not want this. Here is his contact information: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/degucht/contact/ [europa.eu]
Karel De Gucht
Member of the European Commission
BE-1049 Brussels
Belgium
By mail: Karel.DE-GUCHT@ec.europa.eu
By fax: (+32-02) 29 80899
Nice try, sycophant, but... you already lost. (Score:3)
We the people (whether in the US or not) quite simply don't give a flying fuck about what you EU assholes decide to do or not do.
We may not have a corporate death penalty, but we will continue to "steal" your content until you and your entire generation die the death of a thousand cuts, one... pirated... disc... at... a... time.
In any case, five years from now the EU will have collapsed and all your expenditure of political capital on behalf of your corporate masters will have gone for nothing - "Nothing", like the worth of your sad, hollow life.
Cheers!
the title is misleading (Score:2)
If you read his speech what he really say is: Acta good!!, If you do not ask the court of justice, I'll do it and they will say it's good too!!
Then I'll still have to ask you again, drats.....
there are a lot of irritating things in his speech, but in a nutshell he still acknowledge that he has to ask the parliament.
And of course if the ECJ tells him no, he will just be able to say ... ohhh bad judges, judges shouldn't make law, sulk, sulk,... (notice the US kind of pattern, about "low making judges are bad.
Dear EU commissioner Karel De Gucht (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Stop buying all entertainment. Don't use it at all and don't download it illegally either. Just do without entirely. Support local musicians playing live if you must get a fix. Get everyone and anyone you know to also boycott big entertainment entirely. After a few years they will either institute a police state to ensure they can suck money from the peasants no matter what (already in progress in most democracies it seems) or they will fail completely.
The resulting media scene will hopefully be a bit smart
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.torproject.org/ [torproject.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I think what he's actually saying here is more like, "L'Ãtat, c'est moi".