Christian Engström, Pirat

9 mars 2010

Common EU Parliament resolution on ACTA tabled

Filed under: ACTA,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 10:57

Our ACTA team: Erik Josefsson, Lassi Jyrkkiö, Christian Engström, Henrik Alexandersson

I have just signed a parliamentary resolution on ACTA. The resolution was tabled officially a couple of minutes ago. It will be discussed in plenary this evening (some time between 21.00 and 24.00), and voted in plenary tomorrow Wednesday.

Here is the full text of the Common Resolution on ACTA.

This is a joint resolution by all the party groups in the European Parliament (except the small EFD group, which was not asked).

I was present at the meeting yesterday evening when we finalized the wording of the resolution, and this is the text we agreed on. The formal decision on how to vote is of course up  to the individual members of parliament, so we should not start celebrating before the vote has actually taken place on Wednesday. But right now it looks very promising indeed.

It is a very strong resolution that leaves no room for doubt that the European Parliament demands that the Council and the Commission put all papers on the table immediately.

The first six paragraphs say that the European Parliament

1. Reminds that the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all stages of international negotiations;

2. Expresses its concern over the lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations which contradicts the letter and the spirit of the TFEU; is deeply concerned that no legal base has been established before the start of the ACTA negotiations and that no parliamentary approval has been asked for the mandate;

3. Calls on the Commission and Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries in accordance with the Treaty and the Regulation 1049/2001 on Public Access to Documents;

4. Calls on the Commission and Council to pro-actively engage with ACTA partners to rule out any further negotiations of an a piori confidential nature and to timely and entirely inform Parliament about its initiatives in this regard; expects the Commission to make proposals already prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010 and to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of that meeting, and to refer to Parliament the outcome of this round immediately after its conclusion;

5. Stresses that, unless the Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, Parliament reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives;

6. Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of ACTA’s implementation on fundamental rights and data protection, on the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, and on E-Commerce, prior to any EU agreement to a consolidated ACTA treaty text, and to timely consult with Parliament about the results of this assessment;

After that, the resolution also goes into the content of the ACTA agreement as such. The resolution says no to three-strikes Hadopi-type legislation, and no to searches of laptops, cell phones and other digital devices at the borders by customs officers.

If there is to be an ACTA agreement, the parliament wants it to be about combating goods counterfeiting (i.e.: fake Rolexes and hand bags, fake Viagra on the net, fake cigarettes that are even more harmful that proper ones etc.). It should not be about restricting our fundamental civil liberties on the net.

It is not over until the fat lady sings, and the vote is not until Wednesday.

But today is a day when it feels good to be a Pirate in the European Parliament. :)

…………

Previous articles on ACTA

The picture is free for publication, cc0

Andra bloggar om: , , ,

49 kommentarer

  1. Excellent news. I must say that it feels great to be a pirate that voted for you to be a Pirate in the European Parliament. It is of course unclear if this will fly or not yet, but even if unsuccessful I think you are doing great. The alternatives that we either pierce the Acta secrecy or get ironclad proofs of what parties that want to keep the secrecy even though the claim to be for more openness looks like great news. Keep the good work!

    Kommentar av Fiery Spirited — 9 mars 2010 @ 11:17

  2. Lysande!

    Dock måste upmärksamma Christian på att formuleringen ”The resolution was tabled” lätt kan tolkas till den svenska direktöversättningen ”bordlades”, vilket har en HELT annan betydelse.

    Men det kanske är ett etablerat begrepp i på ”parlamentarisk engelska”?

    Kommentar av Markus "LAKE" Berglund — 9 mars 2010 @ 11:22

  3. @Lake Det är ett väl etablerat begrepp… I The UK och Irland, där det betyder att föra fram ett förslag till övervägande och/eller debatt. I USA, däremot, betyder det bordlägga, samma som i Sverige. Bara för att göra det enkelt.

    Kommentar av Sin Trenton — 9 mars 2010 @ 11:35

  4. I felt that the wording about respecting the ”mere conduit” rules in the E-commerce directive could have been a bit stronger, but other than that a very good text. Well done.

    ”Urges the Commission to ensure that the enforcement of ACTA provisions (…) demands that no personal search is undertaken at the EU borders”

    Wouldn’t a better phrasing have been: ”does not demand that any personal search is undertaken at the EU”?

    Kommentar av Tor M — 9 mars 2010 @ 11:35

  5. Christian!

    Keep up the good work! Det här var ett av de trevligaste mail jag fått på ett bra tag. Man ska inte sälja skinnet o.s.v. men det ser onekligen lovande ut och det känns som en genuin styrkedemonstration att samtliga partigrupper kunnat enas om denna text.

    Kommentar av Michael Gajditza — 9 mars 2010 @ 11:36

  6. Christian,

    It is sad to see you promoting Microsoft proprietary file formats.

    I thought you were an educated nerd, that knows not to spread proprietary file formats.

    Here is the resolution in plain text for your readers that do not have a Microsoft Word license:

    =================================================================================

    [pic] | | |
    | |EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT |2009 – 2014 |

    Session document

    {9.3.2010

    MOTION FOR A COMMON RESOLUTION

    pursuant to Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure

    on Transparency and State of Play of ACTA
    negotiations

    Tokia SAIFI, Daniel CASPARY, Cristiana MUSCARDINI and
    Georgios PAPASTAMKOS on behalf of the EPP group

    Kader ARIF, Gianluca SUSTA, Bernd LANGE and David MARTIN on
    behalf of the S&D Group

    Niccolò RINALDI, Sophie IN’T VELD, Alexander ALVARO, Metin
    KAZAK, Marielle DE SARNEZ and Michael THEURER on behalf of ALDE
    group

    Carl SCHLYTER, Eva LICHTENBERGER, Christian ENGSTROEM Jan-Philip
    ALBRECHT, Franziska KELLER and Judith SARGENTINI on behalf of
    the Greens/EFA Group

    Syed KAMALL on behalf of the ECR Group

    Helmut SCHOLZ on behalf of the GUE Group

    Motion for a resolution on Transparency and State of Play of ACTA
    negotiations

    The European Parliament,
    –  having regard to Articles 207 and 218 TFEU
    – having regard to its Resolution of 9 February 2010 on a ”Renewed
    Framework Agreement between the Parliament and the Commission for the
    next legislative term” (B7-0091/2010)
    –  having regard to its Resolution of 11 March 2009 on ”Public access to
    European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (recast)” to be
    considered as Parliaments position in First Reading (COM(2008)0229 – C6-
    0184/2008 – 2008/0090(COD))
    –  having regard to its Resolution of 18 December 2008 on ”the impact of
    counterfeiting on international trade” (2008/2133(INI))
    – having regard to the Opinion of the European Data Protection
    Supervisor of 22 February 2010 on ”the current negotiations by the
    European Union of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)”
    – having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
    Union, and in particular its Article 8,
    – having regard to Directive 2002/58/EC of European Parliament and
    Council concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of
    privacy in the electronic communications sector, as last amended by
    Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
    25 November 2009
    – having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC of European Parliament and
    Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society
    services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market
    (Directive on Electronic Commerce)
    – having regard to Rule 110 of its Rules of Procedure,

    A. whereas in 2008 the European Union and other OECD countries opened
    negotiations on a new plurilateral agreement designed to strengthen the
    enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and combat
    counterfeiting and piracy (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – ACTA),
    and jointly agreed on a confidentiality clause,
    B. whereas in its report of 11 March 2009 Parliament called on the
    Commission to ”immediately make all documents related to the ongoing
    international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
    (ACTA) publicly available”,
    C. whereas the Commission on 27 January 2010 assured its commitment to a
    reinforced association with Parliament in the terms of its Resolution of
    9 February 2010 on a renewed Framework Agreement with the Commission,
    demanding ”immediate and full information at every stage of negotiations
    on international agreements, in particular on trade matters and other
    negotiations involving the consent procedure, to give full effect to
    Article 218 TFEU”,
    D. whereas Council representatives have attended ACTA negotiation rounds
    alongside with Commission representatives,
    E. whereas the Commission as guardian of the Treaties is obliged to
    uphold the acquis communitaire when negotiating international agreements
    affecting legislation in the EU,
    F. whereas, according to documents leaked, the ACTA negotiations touch,
    among others, on pending EU legislation regarding the enforcement of
    IPRs (COD/2005/0127, Criminal measures aimed at assuring the enforcement
    of intellectual property rights, (IPRED-II)) and the so-called ”Telecom
    Package”, and on existing EU legislation regarding E-Commerce and data
    protection,
    G. whereas the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures
    should not be circumvented by trade negotiations which are outside the
    scope of the normal EU decision-making processes,

    H. whereas it is crucial to ensure that the development of IPR
    enforcement measures is accomplished in a manner that does not impede
    innovation or competition, undermine IPR limitations and personal data
    protection, restrict the free flow of information, or unduly burden
    legitimate trade,

    I.  whereas any agreement reached by the European Union on ACTA must
    comply with the legal obligations imposed on the EU with respect to
    privacy and data protection law, as notably set forth in Directive
    95/46/EC, in Directive 2002/58/EC and in the jurisprudence of the
    European Court of Human Rights and of the Court of Justice,

    J. whereas the Treaty of Lisbon is in force since 1 December 2009,

    K. whereas as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the
    Parliament will have to give its consent to the ACTA Treaty text, prior
    to its entry into force in the EU,

    L. whereas the Commission committed itself to provide immediate and full
    information to the European Parliament at every stage of negotiations on
    international agreements,

    1. Reminds that the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal
    obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all
    stages of international negotiations;

    2. Expresses its concern over the lack of a transparent process in the
    conduct of the ACTA negotiations which contradicts the letter and the
    spirit of the TFEU; is deeply concerned that no legal base has been
    established before the start of the ACTA negotiations and that no
    parliamentary approval has been asked for the mandate;

    3. Calls on the Commission and Council to grant public and parliamentary
    access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries in accordance with the
    Treaty and the Regulation 1049/2001 on Public Access to Documents;
    4. Calls on the Commission and Council to pro-actively engage with ACTA
    partners to rule out any further negotiations of an a piori confidential
    nature and to timely and entirely inform Parliament about its
    initiatives in this regard; expects the Commission to make proposals
    already prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010
    and to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of
    that meeting, and to refer to Parliament the outcome of this round
    immediately after its conclusion;
    5. Stresses that, unless the Parliament is immediately and fully
    informed at all stages of the negotiations, Parliament reserves its
    right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the
    Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives;
    6. Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of ACTA’s
    implementation on fundamental rights and data protection, on the ongoing
    EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, and on E-Commerce,
    prior to any EU agreement to a consolidated ACTA treaty text, and to
    timely consult with Parliament about the results of this assessment;
    7. Welcomes affirmations by the Commission that any ACTA agreement will
    be limited to the enforcement of existing IPRs, with no prejudice for
    the development of substantive IP law in the European Union;
    8. Calls on the Commission to continue the negotiations on ACTA in order
    to improve the effectiveness of the IPR enforcement system against
    counterfeiting;
    9. Urges the Commission to ensure that the enforcement of ACTA
    provisions – especially its provisions on copyright enforcement
    procedures in the digital environment – are fully in line with the
    acquis communitaire; demands that no personal search is undertaken at
    the EU borders and requests full clarification of any clauses that would
    allow for warrantless searches and confiscation of information storage
    devices, such as laptops, cell phones and MP3 players, by border and
    customs authorities;
    10. Considers that in order to respect fundamental rights such as freedom
    of expression and the right to privacy, with full respect for
    subsidiarity, the proposed Agreement must refrain from imposing any so
    called ”three strikes” procedures, in full respect of the decision of
    Parliament on article 1.1b in the (amending) Directive 2009/140/EC that
    calls to insert a new para 3 a to article 1 Directive 2002/21/EC on the
    matter of  ”three strikes”
    11. Emphasizes that privacy and data protection are core values of the
    European Union, recognised in Article 8 ECHR and Articles 7 and 8 of the
    EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which must be respected in all the
    policies and rules adopted by the EU pursuant to Article 16 of the TFEU;
    12. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission,
    the Council and the Governments and Parliaments of ACTA negotiation
    participants.

    =================================================================================

    Kommentar av droka — 9 mars 2010 @ 12:04

  7. @Markus ”LAKE” Berglund (#2)

    Jo, ”tabled” och ”bordlagd” är samma begrepp. Jämför 4 kap 1 § Riksdagsordningen

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 9 mars 2010 @ 12:15

  8. Well done! You have successfully made lemonade with the Lisbon treaty. I hope the ACTA copyright-mongers find the taste bitter-sweet. Wednesday will show. Good job!

    Kommentar av Mollemand — 9 mars 2010 @ 12:27

  9. This is indeed interesting stuff. Besides the issue at hand, one must really be surprised that the Commission by its own actions did invite this kind of reaction from Parliament.

    What we’re seeing this legislative term is a shift of power towards the EU Parliament. And the shift has occurred in the most important of subjects: civil rights including privacy and the freedom of information.

    I think if the EU Parliament can hold is stance in these issues through out this term, it will be a most important landmark for the EU project itself, as a guardian for the human rights granted to European citizens in the ECHR. Finally a governing body is pro actively acting to uphold ECHR.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 9 mars 2010 @ 12:29

  10. Man skall också hålla i minnet att detta är en kompromisstext. Vi hade gärna skärpt till den ytterligare. Men vi tyckte att det var viktigast att få med hela parlamentet på en mycket stark signal till kommissionen.

    I EP är ”tabled” lika med ”inlämnad” till Tabling Office.

    Kommentar av Henrik Alexandersson — 9 mars 2010 @ 12:30

  11. Ops! Wrote in Swedish…

    One should keep in mind that this is a compromise resolution. We could had gone for more. But we thought it was important to get a really broad support, sending a strong signal from the EP to the Commission.

    Kommentar av Henrik Alexandersson — 9 mars 2010 @ 12:34

  12. [...] via Hax och Christian får jag precis nyheten att texten till resolutionen nu är postad. Det är starka kanoner så att [...]

    Pingback av PP i Europaparlamentet: ACTA faller? | Rick Falkvinge (PP) — 9 mars 2010 @ 13:12

  13. Christian, idag är jag riktigt stolt att jag la min röst på dig.

    Kommentar av André — 9 mars 2010 @ 13:12

  14. @ Tor M

    I hope you are just having a bit of a laugh there mate.

    The standing phrasing means that the parlament demands that there will be no personal searches at the EU borders. Your phrasing would in effect mean that the parlament couldn’t care less if personal searches are conducted at the EU borders or not.

    This is not a case of the double negative.

    Kommentar av Daniel Sjöberg — 9 mars 2010 @ 13:15

  15. Great work down there. So when can we expect to see the documents in public? Or will it only lead to giving the parliament access but not the public?

    Kommentar av stroll — 9 mars 2010 @ 13:25

  16. As we all know, It’s not only about whats in the treaty, it’s about democratic processes.

    I honestly got really pleasent goosebumps and shivers when reading about this all over the blog sphere just now.

    Can this be the begining of a turningpoint within the western free countries?
    A point where the word democracy starts to actually have a real meaning once again, and its not just
    about choosing between the bad or worse politicians who really dont care about us, the people.

    Im sure if this goes well there will be democracy ripples within the EU states (we already see it here in Sweden how they suddenly start to compete about trying to show that they do care) and also further out, and there will be a good setting for citizens to ride on and start to amplify those ripples.

    yeah, maybe im reading to much into the implications, but i really really get a good feeling about this.
    Thanks to all the pirates for using my vote with such respect and integrity, i will never regret voting for you.
    And thanks to all the others too for observing the big picture and overcoming less important differences.

    Kommentar av Leffe — 9 mars 2010 @ 13:36

  17. Daniel Sjöberg wrote: ”The standing phrasing means that the parlament demands that there will be no personal searches at the EU borders. Your phrasing would in effect mean that the parlament couldn’t care less if personal searches are conducted at the EU borders or not.”

    I think you misunderstood my point.
    The standard phrasing could be taken to mean that no personal searches whatsoever should be allowed at EU borders. I don’t think this is what was intended. For example, what about cases beyond the scope of ACTA like people being suspected for smuggling drugs or weapons?
    My phrasing makes it clear that ACTA shouldn’t impose any new personal search requirements at borders and that any old laws and rules pertaining to personal searches motivated by things other than counterfeiting and piracy remain unaffected.

    Kommentar av Tor M — 9 mars 2010 @ 14:12

  18. [...] } Glädjande nyheter från EU-parlamentet idag; en resolution om Acta har lagts fram, underskriven av alla partigrupper utom den lilla EFD, som inte tillfrågats. [...]

    Pingback av Acta er, kommissionen « Per pladdrar på — 9 mars 2010 @ 14:59

  19. [...] glæde at kunne meddele, at vi er tæt på at have taget første stik hjem. Christian Engström rapporterer på sin blog, at alle grupperne i parlamentet, på nær EFD-gruppen der aldrig blev spurgt noget der i øvrigt [...]

    Pingback av EU-parlamentet kæmper for sin berettigelse – Onsdag stemmes der om en ACTA-resolution | — 9 mars 2010 @ 15:03

  20. It’s great to see someone take the side of citizens of EU instead of multinational companies – keep it up, Christian ! Greetings from Denmark.

    Kommentar av Matt — 9 mars 2010 @ 15:45

  21. Jag vill bara säga att jag aldrig någonsin varit så nöjd med en lagd röst som jag är med min röst på PP i EU-valet. Du och dina medarbetare gör ett fantastiskt bra jobb.

    Kommentar av Tobbe — 9 mars 2010 @ 18:24

  22. Jag må ha bott i Danmark sedan två år tillbaka, men jag har fortfarande rösträtt i Sverige, och Piratpartiet har min röst i det stundande valet. :)

    Kommentar av Anders — 9 mars 2010 @ 18:51

  23. [...] gibt auch einen interfraktionellen Antrag zu ACTA. Der schwedische Pirat Christian Engström hat ihn online gestellt (Passenderweise in einem piratigen doc-Format). Michael Geist hat den Inhalt in einem [...]

    Pingback av Heute: EP debattiert über ACTA : netzpolitik.org — 9 mars 2010 @ 19:01

  24. @ 7

    About using MS proprietary file formats.

    Do you mean the .doc file?
    I’ve just opened it with Open Office on Ubuntu 9.10.
    Are you telling me I need to buy a Word license to use OOO on Ubuntu?

    Kommentar av JakeTucker — 9 mars 2010 @ 19:26

  25. The debate live from the European Parliament at 21:44 CET: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/video.do

    Kommentar av Henrik Alexandersson — 9 mars 2010 @ 21:32

  26. Läste igenom dokumentet – låter nästan för bra för att vara sant! Hur blir det med hyperlänkning – har ni diskuterat det? För enligt läckan var det tydligen uppe till diskussion i ACTA-förhandlingarna eftersom en nyazeeländsk förhandlare yppat frågan – ‘How can hyperlinking be a violation of copyright’ el likn vilket ju betyder att det måste ha varit uppe till diskussion – och det låter ju fullständigt förfärligt. Har ni diskuterat hyperlänkning? Det måste ju vara tillåtet för annars upphör ju debatten och det får oöverstigliga konsekvenser för pressfriheten, yttrandefriheten, forskning, etc etc

    Så – då tänker jag – skall ni inte skriva in något specifikt om hyperlänkning precis som ni gjort om ‘three strikes’ measures – det är ju liksom hyper-viktigt.

    Kommentar av Nemokrati — 9 mars 2010 @ 21:37

  27. Excellent speech in the parliament, Christian. You managed to capture the mood of the citizens.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 9 mars 2010 @ 22:32

  28. Hi Christian.

    Can you explain the difference between the resolution you are talking about here and the Written Declaration 12/2010 about ACTA mentioned here?

    http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Help_sign_the_Written_Declaration_12/2010_about_ACTA

    Thanks in advance.

    Kommentar av Javier Pedreira (Wicho) — 9 mars 2010 @ 23:39

  29. @ Tor M

    I find that it is quite clear in the original wording of the document that the issue is about searching information storage devices and not about searching for drugs and weapons (the phrase you and I are discussiong is just part of the sentece after all). It is a quite long and possibly somewhat brutal sentence, I grant you, but the issue is in fact properly adressed before punctuation.

    I maintain that saying ”does not demand that any personal search is undertaken” would be wrong, seeing as how stating that you do NOT demand something is absolutely pointless.

    The phrasing as it stands is the same as: ”I am telling you not to do this”. As in: ”you had damned well better not do warrantless searches and confiscations of information storage devices”.

    Your phrasing would be somewhat like: ”I am not telling you to do this”. As in: ”We are not ordering you to do warrantless searches and confiscations of storage devices, but we are not telling you not to do it either”.

    Kommentar av Daniel Sjöberg — 10 mars 2010 @ 0:22

  30. @ Leffe (17): The turning point was the EP’s rejection of the SWIFT agreement on transfers of bank data to the U.S. a month ago. MEPs have made numerous references to that in the recent ACTA debates.

    But in general: Something big may be happening here, you are right.

    Kommentar av Ralf Bendrath — 10 mars 2010 @ 1:29

  31. Saw the whole debate. Keep up the good work. The german Pirates Party stands behind you in uniformity. Arr.. I’m a pirate..

    Kommentar av wordmouth — 10 mars 2010 @ 3:23

  32. [...] Detta är viktigt inte bara för PP/Gröna och PPE/ECR, som från början lade fram varsin resolution, utan nu har en gemensam resolution nåtts över partigrupperna och lämnats in. [...]

    Pingback av Det svänger om kanonerna | Sanningen som jag ser den — 10 mars 2010 @ 7:17

  33. If Parlaiment votes for this, will it be legally binding on the Council and Commission? If not, and the Commission refuses to co-operate, is there any likelihood that Parliament will sack the Commission?

    Kommentar av cabalamat — 10 mars 2010 @ 7:19

  34. [...] Common EU Parliament resolution on ACTA tabled [...]

    Pingback av ACTA – ”The parliament is not a door mat” « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP — 10 mars 2010 @ 11:16

  35. Daniel Sjöberg wrote: ”Your phrasing would be somewhat like: ”I am not telling you to do this””

    No, it would be more like ”I am telling you not to require this”. Anyway, after re-reading the text I see some problems both with the original and my suggested rephrasing. Instead of talking about ”enforcement of ACTA provisions” it might be simpler just to require that the ACTA provisions does not mention or indirectly lead to any personal search at EU borders.

    Kommentar av Tor M — 10 mars 2010 @ 11:33

  36. [...] som skriver om ACTA: Henrik Alexandersson, Michael Gajdtza, Per Pettersson , Christian Engström, NewsByKim, Scaber [...]

    Pingback av ACTA – öppenhet kanske så fall tack vare Lissabon « Andreas Froby – kandidat till kommunfullmäktige i Botkyrka — 10 mars 2010 @ 16:40

  37. And this is the reason I read arstechnica.com. Awesome pots.

    Kommentar av Dominique — 10 mars 2010 @ 22:17

  38. [...] Common EU Parliament resolution on ACTA tabled [...]

    Pingback av Wednesday, March 10, 2010 « The Jeff Farias Show — 11 mars 2010 @ 0:37

  39. [...] MEP Christian Engström reports that the European Parliament has passed a resolution coming out against the secretive ACTA copyright treaty negotiations and demanding transparency in [...]

    Pingback av Open Source Pixels » European Parliament pushes back on ACTA — 11 mars 2010 @ 6:45

  40. Excellent!

    Kommentar av mok0 — 11 mars 2010 @ 10:15

  41. Wow. arstechnica.com deserves an award.

    Kommentar av Dario — 11 mars 2010 @ 10:50

  42. christtianengstorm.wrodpress.com, how do you do it?

    http://hilariprogrammatic.blogspot.com/2010/03/hilari-video-provenience-robotic.html

    Kommentar av Garrett — 11 mars 2010 @ 17:11

  43. [...] har tidigare skrivit om resolutionen som skrevs av bland annat Piratpartiets Christian Engström. Resolutionen omförhandlades lite och röstades redan igenom med 633 – 13 – 16, vilket är helt lysande! Ett enormt [...]

    Pingback av EU parlamentet kanske inte kan skydda oss från ACTA — 20 mars 2010 @ 13:11

  44. I do not know whether this is the proper place to write this but IPR, as we have them today, sabotage market mechanisms and do not serve our community. The key problem is ”increasing returns”. The more you sell, the cheaper it gets to produce and sell more, and the more customers will be prepared to pay. The result is a monopoly with lobbyists. A solution is to assign a ”share” of the IP to every copy sold (with an initial number of shares fixed that will impact on the price of a share/copy). When successful, shares are split and early adopters are rewarded with extra copies, which they can use themselves or resell. In that way, markets will do their job, early adopters get paid for their contribution to the success, and starting artists, software developers get better prices for their first sale (as part of the price is for speculation on its success). IP buyers becomes IP protectors. We need to rethink our IPR. Such a mechanism may allow the seller to start with a huge number of shares when s/he is dominating her/his market, and the system becomes equivalent to the current IPR. However, a seller will be attracted into schemes with less shares (because it shifts revenues to an earlier point in time).

    Kommentar av Paul Valckenaers — 20 april 2010 @ 8:59

  45. It’s always possible to tweak surveilance, but why should musicians live like slaves beacuse its ‘okay’ to copy things you did not buy?
    Can i get your sister for free then?

    Kommentar av sdf — 22 april 2010 @ 4:06

  46. @sdf (#46)

    This is a key point. It’s not file sharing that forces the conditions for musicians. The main problem is that the competition in this field is unbelievably hard.

    If anything, file sharing is free marketing for little known musicians so that they can attract an audience for their concerts. It’s not the destiny for any wannabe to be able to work full-time with music.

    Record companies do not gain from file sharing because they are used to pay musicians a one time fee and then they can live on that for 50 years or even 70 years if Finland turns around. The EU is thereby reducing the number of recording opportunities for musicians by extending the protected life of a recording.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 22 april 2010 @ 9:53

  47. @sdf (#46):

    Let us hope that it is possible to always tweak surveillance!

    No individual can demand to live on something just because they choose to work with it. If the income is to little they should not choose it from the beginning or later change to some other branch.

    I have a lot of things which i have not paid for. It may be things that i have written myself, photographs and so on. Ofcourse I should be allowed to copy these things. It is therefore not the copying that is wrong.

    My sister is not ”my property”. She has her own will and if she likes you she will come to you – for free. Do they own women where you live?

    Kommentar av Hans J — 22 april 2010 @ 15:51

  48. [...] občanů od Internetu a odmítá prohlídky laptopů na hranicích; více najdete na (EN) webu poslance EP za švédskou Pirátskou stranu. Na přípravě rezoluce se podílela i česká [...]

    Pingback av FUNTIME | Kopíruješ? Marš do kriminálu! (A.C.T.A.) — 23 juli 2010 @ 10:18


RSS-flöde för kommentarer till det här inlägget.

Theme: Rubric. Get a free blog at WordPress.com

Följ

Få meddelanden om nya inlägg via e-post.

Gör sällskap med 1 974 andra följare

%d bloggare gillar detta: