Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement [ACTA]

[Click here for a link related to ACTA. Another one. Another one. Never rely on a single source - which, in light of the treaty, will sound rather ironic.]

ACTA is the latest 'non-news' news which, if Singapore put its name to it, will effectively criminalize at least 75% of web users. ACTA has been discussed under hush-hush conditions and involves a number of countries as well as global companies, most of which have vital stakes in the Internet. No one knows for sure what is in ACTA other than those in the treaty negotiations - but the implications of ACTA is worldwide.

And there is not a peep about this on Singapore news sites (neither CNA nor Straits Times). This worries me.

To simplify things a lot: ACTA deals with counterfeits. It wants to eliminate counterfeit goods, especially medicines, luxury brands and assorted material items. In this sense the ACTA is good. It promotes the commercial trade of legitimate items and thus strengthens the economy and benefits those who owns the patent to these products.

Here is the darker half: a portion of the treaty indicates that file sharing, even for non-profit purposes, will infringe copyright. That means that the ISPs (in Singapore that would be Starhub and Singnet) have the right to track down copyright infringers and - this is where it affects you - disconnect them from the internet. If you have ever downloaded songs, movie clips... anything, you have essentially trespassed on another person's copyright.

Why is this bad? In my view, ACTA infringes my privacy. It assumes that I am guilty and I have to prove my innocence; it ought to be (as it has been) "innocent until proven guilty".

It also disregards the progress of the Internet and attempts to push it back two to three decades. Sites such as Flickr, Youtube, Photobucket and others could (and very probably would) be shut down because they could be made liable for users who infringe copyright. Each of these sites have tens of thousands of users who upload material, be it user-created or from other sources. It would be nigh impossible for the owners of these sites to employ enough lawyers to check that each uploaded content is NOT infringing copyright.

ACTA has not seen or is actively ignoring the fact that the Internet is no longer an option for those of us who live in a developed country. It also regards content sharing as something bad. I agree that it is not good to pirate songs or movies, but instead of trying to stem the tsunami, what ACTA and other media giants could have chosen to do is to look for alternative ways to direct revenue from content-sharing. Instead, they have chosen to (figuratively) spit in the face of the global internet community and set themselves up as the Guardians of the Gate, determining who should be allowed access.

That may have worked in the early days of the Internet, but now?

Sharing is what created this vast network of creativity and ideas and connections. Cutting off users of ISP for sharing content or use of sharing sites will lead to users being increasingly turned off or suspicious of new content or new ideas. How is that to build a generation of creative thinkers, of inter-connectivity, or even of basic trust that we can strive to be more than one singe island?

Singapore is also involved in the negotiations. If the treaty is signed, all users of the Internet in Singapore are limited, restricted and guarded - without even knowing why. And that is - again, in my view - a far greater crime.

[ Entirely the view of the blog owner ]