This morning, I returned to the States (and Internet access) to find a lot of news going down in the good old You Ess of Ehya: Sen. Chris Dodd shoveling out his Financial Reform Bill, everyone worth knowing freaking out about South By Southwest (with a tech presence to rival its musical superiority), a Democratic proposal for health care that actually (like, really truly) will be released…soon. Maybe.

Big stuff.

But there’s plenty going on outside the U.S. border, too. Take, for instance, the fantastic resolution that just passed the EU Parliament: voting against the bill 663 to 13, Parliament has publicly flogged the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and prevented its passage in the European Union.

I can see you blinking: Errr. Right. Let’s step back for a moment:

ACTA, noun: 1. a series of proposed international standards for defining and enforcing forms of global ownership in trade.

Although its provisions do address the sale of counterfeit goods, most of ACTA’s provisions relate to the ownership of intellectual property (and this is why you should give a darn). The extension of ACTA’s reach means an increase in governmental regulations over world trade in generic medicines, in the creation of an international standard for Internet regulation, and the penalization of non-commercial use of copyrighted information, to name a few.

Apparently, most of ACTA’s provisions are based on what the EU Parliament and ACTA critics refer to as “US-style draconian” methods for intellectual property regulation. I say “apparently” because most of ACTA has been drafted in secret. It’s through (a few) leaks of information that we’ve learned just how heavily the US is involved in negotiating this “executive treaty” and pushing its own restrictive approach to copyright law.

Throw in issues over policy laundering, the freedom from Congressional Review enjoyed by ACTA’s status as an “executive treaty”, the proposed creation of yet another international bureaucracy covering intellectual property, the questions about the sovereignty of international law, and the basic policies ACTA includes that we know about and you can (maybe) see why Members of the European Union Parliament should be applauded for their decision.

Or can they? Do you agree with the EU Parliament’s decision?

Before you defend ACTA on the grounds of supporting copyright law, consider: the rejection of ACTA isn’t some leftist rejection of all copyright law or ownership rights. Really, it’s not. The EU Parliament made its decision in defense of the Internet user against major corporations. You can sling the term “anti-corporatist” around all you like, but the Parliament’s decision is fundamentally libertarian — an attempt to restrict the size of governing power and control external influences on the future of international Internet commerce and communication. (I’m looking at you, U.S.A.) ACTA isn’t out to just stymie your attempts at posting Disney mash-ups on YouTube (yes, your attempts – ACTA would ultimately affect the US, too). If passed, this trade agreement would encroach on individual initiatives to create, share, and communicate that non-commercial organizations and independent entrepreneurs rely on. (Have we so quickly forgotten Google’s recent poaching of content on Blogger?)

Think the world spins another way? Then share your opinion, but be sure to read up before you fight for Uncle Sam. Some links to get you started:

• ACTA wiki, because you should have already been reading it by now.
• FAQ on a leaked chapter of ACTA by European Digital Rights Initiative.
• General FAQ from Public Knowledge.
• ACTA’s page on the EU Commission’s* website (*the executive branch of the EU)
  

Categories: Co-learn

This entry was posted on Monday, March 15th, 2010 at 9:20 pm and is filed under Co-learn. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.