Hacker News Reader

Comment by aerique | Hacker News Reader

Especially resolution 3 is pertinent:

"3. Resolution of Member Verhoeven (21 501-30, No. 288), 29 May 2012 (original Dutch text in PDF)

The House of Representatives,

- observes that treaties like ACTA lead to a further formalization of copyrights rules on the international level,

- observes that such treaties are very difficult to modify and as a result can be an extra impediment for future reforms of copyright law,

- observes that strict enforcement of intellectual property on the internet is no solution for the ongoing difficulties regarding copyright law and interferes with internet freedom,

- requests the government to vote against new similar treaties,

- requests the government to focus the copyright policy on economic growth opportunities offered by the internet through, amongst others things, new revenue models for legal content.

Verhoeven (D66 – Democrats 66)"

I hope this will be a catalyst for other countries to implement similar regulations.

View on HN

> an extra impediment for future reforms of copyright law

This is the really important part (ACTA was almost dead anyway). The continued push for ever more draconian copyright enforcement measures is slowly creating a backlash that puts copyright reform on the political agenda.

Once copyright reform is seriously on the agenda, all ACTA-like initiatives that enhance copyright enforcement are likely to be shelved indefinitely, and we finally get some breathing room for a real debate on copyright.

How strong are these "observes" and "requests"? Why not "requires"?

Observes are the argumentation, requests are the basis for new law.

These are motions, which are not binding, and the government can ignore them if it wishes, although it may then have a political problem and parliament might send it home with a "motion of distrust", which the government cannot ignore. However, these motions were very broadly supported: only CDA voted against motion 286; motion 287 was accepted by general acclaim; only VVD voted against motion 288. (CDA and VVD are the two parties currently forming a minority caretaker government.)

Strictly speaking, there is no law dictating the government has to leave when receiving a "motion of distrust", although it never happened they did not.

is that in theory where the queen steps in?

Not sure; it has never happened yet and it would certainly get ugly, so she might. She does usually step in at a few other places, though. We're getting off-topic here; for a very nice but not yet complete overview, see http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/ .

Hmm, I may have misunderstood adavies42 slightly here; I thought (s)he meant what would happen if a motion of no confidence were ignored, which has never happened and would be quite a shock. When a motion of no confidence is passed by parliament, either against the entire government or against one or more of its members, which has happened several times, usually the target of the motion goes to the queen to resign; the governmental parties then seek a replacement who has to be officially appointed by the queen. If the entire government resigns, the queen usually asks for advice from all political leaders, and then there are several options, all of which involve her, since she officially appoints the members of the government. In practice, power is in the hands of the political parties; she does have some possibilities to influence the process, but not very much.

> I thought (s)he meant what would happen if a motion of no confidence were ignored

yes, that's what i meant. thanks for the info!

FYI – "motion / vote of no confidence" is the term you're looking for. Thanks for explaining.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com