Would Australia Go Back And Reject ACTA?
from the wouldn't-that-be-something? dept
The ACTA backlash continues. While ACTA support is melting away in Europe, over in Australia there may be some pushback as well. Australia already signed the agreement in the original batch last October, but as we noted at the time, it still needed legislative ratification there. And, with all of the protests and attention in Europe, it appears that the Australian Parliament might not just rubberstamp it. At a hearing for Parliament, a group of Australian intellectual property experts explained why Australia should reconsider its support of ACTA, and the chair of the committee that hosted the hearing admitted that “this is a controversial treaty nationally and internationally….” If this keeps up, perhaps the US will just have an agreement with itself.
Filed Under: acta, australia, controversy, copyright
Comments on “Would Australia Go Back And Reject ACTA?”
Like that's gonna stop 'em
Not having expedition treaty did not stop US from getting their hands on Saddam, did it?
Re: Like that's gonna stop 'em
extradition treaty NOT expedition doh!
Re: Re: Like that's gonna stop 'em
Damn, you’re right! Small vocab screwed me up, thank god I’m Anonymous…
Re: Re: Re: Like that's gonna stop 'em
Though when you think about it, they went on an expedition that became a huge exhibition since their was no extradition.
Re: Like that's gonna stop 'em
Who needs extradition when you’ve got irregular rendition?
“If this keeps up, perhaps the US will just have an agreement with itself.”
This might be an opportunity for me to work overtime in my corporate masters attempts to get this treaty passed.
I will be a big fat jerk while making stupid comments that make no sense, turning more people against the bill ensuring it fails, which will hopefully get my employer to give me even more hours trying to push through more legislation.
Re: Re:
After reading this it reminded me of 2 things, one the Pirate Bay is supernatural and two Zuckeberg appears to be sick since apparently Facebook will sue any employer who asks for passwords, and with the law saying in the US being murky about who can really access an account he may be able to sue employers for hacking into employee’s personal accounts.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/100386/facebook-well-take-legal-action-against-employers-asking-for-your-password/
What this has to do with what you said I have no idea since I am still trying to figure out what was the intent of it, which is not clear to me at all.
Re: Re: Re:
My post is a parody of the IP extremist Techdirt shills.
They say dumb things and act like jerks because their strategy is to make sure pro IP legislation fails so that they can get more hours (and money) trying to push through bad legislation.
Politicians here are not necessarily know for their common sense
Our pollies are not known for their common sense. Federally, we are run by Labour and the Greens. They have brought us the Carbon Tax, which will screw the electorate right into the ground. The Victorian government is run the Liberals, so we still have MyKi (not working properly and still costing a fortune) and the desalination plant which is still not finished and still not working and the smart electricity meters – our power costs are still going up through the roof. All of these brought in by Labour but now supported by Liberal.
ACTA will still probably get through because the Greens (tail wagging the dog) and Labour (the dog being wagged by the tail) will find some reason to make it match their particular party policies. The Liberals would be no different.
Unfortunately, Australia is no longer the Lucky Country but is the country waiting next in line for the guillotine.
So say a sad aussie lad.
Re: Politicians here are not necessarily know for their common sense
Senator Ludlam has been arguing against ACTA and similar policies. It’s not likely to get much support from the Greens.
wow, some nobody from America is quoting some nobody from London about some nobody from Australia, way to go right to the sauce masnick !!!
could you not even find a single Australian reporter who thought it was worthy of a comment ?
At a hearing for Parliament beware, Masnick lie alert !!!!
“Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING”
Public and parliament both start with P… but they are NOT the same thing… A public hearing is FOR THE FUCKING PUBLIC, NOT for the Parliament…
Keep up the good work Masnick..
Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
Ummm … where does it say that?
Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
first paragraph… right there using real words and all !!!
Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
Real words?
Unlike imaginary words I guess.
I suspect the new DSM-V doesn’t even have a descriptor for what ails you
Re: Re: Re:2 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
I believe people in certain circles call that kind of behavior “acting out” LoL
He is afraid the public will call his BS out and so he keeps throwing tantrums.
Re: Re: Re:2 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
If we can have Imaginary Property then we should allow him Imaginary Words.
Otherwise he could live his entire life without making a single point.
Re: Re: Re:3 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
Well he hasn’t made a single cohesive (let alone comprehensible) point yet in his life..
So I’ll stick with my real words until at such time as he actually makes any sense 😉
Re: Re: Re: "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
but… it is only one paragraph…
Re: Re: Re:2 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
there is actually 4 para’s, one heading, and one sub-heading.
Para 1 starts with “law academics”
Para 2 with “Rimmer”
3 with Committee
4 “the Committee
Para one: lines 2 and 3 state
“spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING into ACTA organised by the Federal Parliament’s Treaties Committee”
Not FOR the parliament, and not BY the parliament, and not TOO the Parrliament…
Re: Re: Re:3 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
It’s called a ‘link’. When you click it, it will take you to another site and, in this case, an article written by Emma Barraclough that is referenced by Mike as a source. Mike writes on this site, techdirt.com.
I understand the concept of linking can be confusing. Heck, half of the copyright lobby doesn’t understand it either.
Re: Re: Re:4 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
ah ok, I thought the previous AC was talking about the Techdirt paragraph, that clears things up.
Re: Re: Re:4 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
It’s called a ‘link’. yes, it is genius !!!
Did you follow it ? did it take you to another site ?
To an article written by Emma Barraclough of LONDON ?
Re: Re: Re:5 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
Yes, from London. Modern times are truly remarkable. No longer do we need to set sail to penal colonies and wait several months for news: these days we can communicate almost instantly with the help of this wonder of the modern world called the internet.
Re: Re: Re:3 "Spoke today at a PUBLIC HEARING"
“organised by the Federal Parliament’s Treaties Committee”
and not BY the parliament
Parliamentary committees are made up of members of said parliament. So this was BY the parliament.
and not TOO the Parrliament
Are you saying not the Parrliament(sic), also? Too?
(Normally I don’t care about spelling errors but if you want to split hairs, so will I.)
Re: Re:
Darryl, have you ever made sense at any time in your existence? Scientists are curious.
Re: Re: Re:
That us a fact !!!! Scientists ARE curious…
But dont use me as your excuse for your inability to understand or make sense of things. That is your problem. And a big one!!
I am guessing you are not a scientist.. they have to have some skills in making sense of things.
I cant help if you are brain dead.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So “no” is your answer then. Thank you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
‘no’ you are not a scientist ? (I did not think so)..
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
NO
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I know, you are no scientist, (no one calls themselves ‘scientists’ anyway, even if they are).
A scientist would never answer a question with a single word response.
A scientist also looks at reality, gathers FACTS, and performs scientific rigor and analysis to address their observations.
You cant string two words together !!!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“A scientist also looks at reality, gathers FACTS, and performs scientific rigor and analysis to address their observations.”
And how does that exclude the possibility of someone saying “no”? Or do you think that we need to get our comments peer-reviewed now, and cite every source we used to reach our conclusion of “no”?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Or do you think that we need to get our comments peer-reviewed now, and cite every source…
But we wouldn’t be able keep tabs on Darryl’s mental stability that way since most of his comments wouldn’t pass a basic sniff test, let alone a full-blown peer review.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Scientists in the midst of a psychology experiment have been known to do many strange things. Perhaps his comment was a stimulus with which he hopes to gather more data. We won’t know until we see the published paper (I don’t think they’ve started conducting experiments through those yet).
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
mwhahahaha! >:D
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, the scary part is you speak of “making sense” and things like that (along with telling people to spell correctly and use proper grammar, on occasion) and yet I just read your comment and little if any of it makes any ACTUAL sense.
It’s English. That much I grasp. Those are real words. But it’s essentially gibberish. Almost as if there’s a person on the other end leaving the comment who is the personification of all those common errors taught to us in school (in regards to the English language, or how to properly form a reasonable argument to something, and so on and so forth).
Besides, Darryl, who are you to say who can or can’t comment on Australian related topics? I see you sticking your nose into articles on a regular basis that only affect those of us in America or across the pond and whatnot. Maybe you should practice what you try and preach.
Re: Re:
Actually you are absolutely incorrect.
They spoke at a Public hearing held by a Parliamentary committee for PARLIAMENTARY PURPOSES!
Troll and Thick both start with T, and it seems they mean the same thing!
Re: Re:
The source Mike provides states a group of Academics was talking to a Parliamentary committee… soooo… your wrong 😛
Re: Re:
>wow, some nobody from America is quoting some nobody from London about some nobody from Australia, way to go right to the sauce masnick !!!
And who are we getting this criticism about Mike from? Oh, that’s right, some nobody from Australia.
Way to be the sauce, darryl.
Re: Re:
Forgetting for the moment that Parliamentary hearings can also be public… do you have an actual point?
Re: Re: Re:
true, but the reverse is not true.
Public hearings are by definition PUBLIC, NOT parliamentary.
Just because a hearing (ANY hearing) is public does not mean, it is by definition therefore Parliamentary.
you’re saying “Parliamentary hearings are public, therefore all public hearings are Parliamentary”.
He might look like an idiot, might talk like an idiot and act like an idiot, but it’s ok because he IS an idiot…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
… actually, public hearings are usually held by parliament so that they can hear from, gasp, the public.
generally it’s only a commity rather than the full parliament that holds the hearing, but still.
the public can be heard, the public is allowed to attend to hear. it’s still for the benefit of parliament.
Re: Re: Re:
and yes, clearly I have made a clear point, several of them in fact, but no, it looks like I do not have a point that you are able to provide a reasoned counter for.
Clearly you choose to ignore anything you cant argue against.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the provided source the article claimed it was a group of academics speaking to a parliamentary committee. I don’t know why you keep insisting the article claims it was at a “Public Hearing” but ignore the big bold letters that state that it was indeed for parliament, or at least a committee
Re: Re:
WHAT?! You’re splitting hairs here, really. At the end of the paragraph the MP states they are to have another hearing so they can continue to gather perspectives and information from the public. Somehow the committee is gathering. Maybe they just gave an invite and remotely monitored the public gathering by some well placed cctv cameras and microphones…yeah, that seems more likely. You are so desperate it hurts puppies.
Crook letter spells doom for MP
“In this new era of political honesty and morality, sparked by Brian Burke, yesterday Kelvin Thomson fell on his sword. If there was a seven-year statute of limitations for daft behaviour, Thomson had only to make it past August, the same month in 2000 he signed a reference for Tony Mokbel.”
Re: Crook letter spells doom for MP
ohhh, lets just pretend we did not see this HAHAHAH..
Re: Re: Crook letter spells doom for MP
I was wondering about that, didn’t mean to paste that here? 😀
It would be quite silly if the US ends up being the only country signed onto an “international” trade agreement… I mean executive order 😛
Re: I'm a team of *ONE*
actually that’d be something to boast about…
Re: Re: I'm a team of *ONE*
yes, that is what is all about for you ‘Americans’ your boasting rights, it’s an international pissing competition !!
Re: Re:
Don’t worry, no matter who gets into office next year, he’ll completely ignore that fact and continue to rail on Congress about how they need to uphold their “international” agreements. You know, the agreements between the international media corps and the politicians they paid for.
But if the US ended up only having a treaty with itself, who would get upset when the US breaks it.
Re: Re:
Hollywood
Re: Re:
I know right! It’s like executing ‘ssh localhosst’ and getting ‘Connection Refused’!!!! 😛
‘perhaps the US will just have an agreement with itself.’
i am quite sure that that would be the best thing to happen. why would any country that has it’s own financial (and otherwise) problems be interested in sorting out those of a US industry? particularly when that industry does whatever it can to NOT help itself.
Re: Re:
why help yourself when you can spend your time and your customers’ money to destroy other industries?
Re: Re: Re:
US would just declare war on any country that did not agree with them.
“you are either with them (and a terrorist) or you are WITH US”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
NO
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
thats right we’re not going to youtube to watch some moron,,,, NO…
Just remember, every country has their Mike Masnicks and Larry Lessigs who would oppose this. It’s not the opinion of all, just the opinion of some.
Re: Re:
It’s not the opinion of all, just the opinion of some.
Based on some of the protests in Europe, your “some” might actually be a majority.
Re: Re:
Just remember, every country has their Chris Dodds and Ron Kirks who would support this. It’s not the opinion of all, just the opinion of some. -FTFY
2 Million signatures on the Avaaz petition. Tons of protestors using various forms of protests around the globe. A whole group of nations (BRIC) speaking out against it. Lots of entrepreneurs and engineers picking these laws and treaties apart and showing their failings. The majority is against, globally. Your campaigns to stir up support failed.
Re: Re: Re:
2 million out of how many?
Sounds like a minority opinion to me!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Chris Dodds in the world number less than that.
Sounds like a minority-er opinion to me.
ACTA Supporters: You see, this is why we need a dictatorship, to protect the rights of property owners! That way we won’t have the people, err, feeble legislators backing out of good treaties!
And we will still her lobbyists telling politicians that we need to change our laws to make then inline with our international agreement – you know the agreement that the US has with itself.
The reason given for bypassing WIPO and keeping all ACTA negotiations closed was efficiency — exactly how is it “efficient” for governments to spend years working on an international treaty only to eventually have it completely rejected?
The frustrating part of this for Americans is that Obama signed ACTA because he is in the entertainment industry’s back pocket. This was their chance to sneak something through, having learned that they could never get the approval of voters.
Rimmer
Just as an aside, I think it’s quite cool that one of the speakers against ACTA in this situation is Rimmer. Good to know that there are some Rimmers that aren’t smegheads, hehe. Maybe we should call Matt Rimmer “Ace” from now on. That would be fun to see, him on his way out of the parliament room after he’s done speaking, turning to the other politicos and saying “Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast!” Just need to get him some shades and a bomber jacket, hehe.
Re: Rimmer
For once, Trans-Am Wheel-Arch Nostrils is right.