Podcasting since 2004; Conversations, conflicts, adventures and monologues from around the world.
The negotiations are secret as is the text of the agreement, but what is ACTA then? What will adopting this international treaty on counterfeit and piracy effect the everyday activities we take part in offline and online.
My guest, Mike Masnick of techdirt.com, has been following and writing on the topic of ACTA for some time. He joins me on the program to help give an introduction to what it is, what and who it effects, and how it is being developed.
The first time I heard about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was in a news report on EURACTIV.com about how something called ACTA had suffered a defeat in the EU parliament. I figured it was one of these anti-file sharing, increase-internet surveillance type bills you hear about here and there in the media and through online discussions. Measures of that nature have been threatened and in some cases passed over the past decade with limited coverage and even more limited understanding among the general public.
A little further reading and it turns out that report out of parliament was just the tip of the iceberg. ACTA isn’t a European Union initiative, it turns out – ACTA is an international trade agreement which claims to create international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement throughout the participating countries.
Sound boring? It gets exciting. This trade agreement is being shopped all over the world in an attempt to convince nations to sign on because this will be the agreement that brings effective and up-to-date control over counterfeit goods, generic medicines, as well as “piracy over the Internet”. The terms to achieve these goals are being laid out during rounds of negotiations that have been going on since 2008.
Such an agreement that addresses so many areas of our lives, surely both we and our representatives should be able to read the terms and policies as they take shape? Nope. The negotiations are being handled through closed door sessions, the proceedings are kept secret. Since 2008 some information has leaked and a handful of corporations and organizations have been allowed to look over the treaty. Or so it seems according to some reports.
I have plenty more to learn about this treaty, but one thing that already has me concerned, is the power of this treaty, and the dangerous secrecy with which it is being pushed. In the coming weeks I intend to interview individuals who have insight and knowledge into this treaty and see what more can be learned. This will begin this week with a podcast interview with Michael Massnick of techdirt who has been following ACTA for the past few years.
In less than one month I will be in Siberia, at the University of Tomsk where I will be guest lecturing for a few days. After that I will set off to several parts of Siberia and eventually if all goes well, on to Mongolia. The following podcast, instead of the usual interview style program I do, is simply me testing out the old binaural microphones while walking around my house explaining the trip as well as my recent guest lecture at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. Its odd to think that 6 years ago when this podcast got started, this style was quite common.
Lobbying is a strange practice when we’re talking about how a government works. In theory, lobbying is what citizens can do to try and influence what their representatives do; write a letter, make a phone call, organize a meeting or rally… in some way, you’re lobbying your government. But of course when you see the word lobby in the context of government these days, it means something else. It refers to these groups of professionals, using various tactics to get government officials to vote a certain way. These lobby groups usually have a funding source, and it is very much a full time job. Lets try the webster dictionary definition:
Main Entry: 2lobbyFunction: verbInflected Form(s): lob·bied; lob·by·ingDate: 1837intransitive verb : to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation transitive verb 1 : to promote (as a project) or secure the passage of (as legislation) by influencing public officials
2 : to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action
Whereas lobbying could be a legitimate and respected tool in different types of democracies, it can be, and has been, abused. Abused when groups with large amounts of money, mount concentrated and constant campaigns to get a representative to act in favor of their goals. Commonly “their goals” are connected to the interests of a corporation or a group of corporations, like the telecommunications, banking, or arms manufacturing industries. For such lobby groups the concern for the nation or society, is secondary to their business goals.
While this isn’t the only kind of lobbying that exists, it is certainly the type that has become must common and most well funded in capitals of nations around the world.
Unique from most other capitals in the world, Brussels is a city with a booming lobbyist population. The seat of the European Parliament and Commission, among other institutions, the decisions that come out of Brussels have impact in not just 1 nation, but in 27 member states. Yet while it has tremendous reach with its decision making, it is not as often or as closely scrutinized by its citizens the way their individual state governments are. Thus making it all the more easy for powerful interests with deep funding sources to expand and entrench their lobbying activities with little notice and even less criticism.
According to the Corporate European Observatory and a recent article in the EU Observer, the situation described above is actually far worse. Two years ago, in an attempt to get a handle on who is a lobby group and for whom, the EU commission created a voluntary registry system. Even after two years in existence, it seems more than 60% of Brussels based European Lobby Consultancies have not signed up. Another blatant sign that the lobby machine at the European level has settled in and feels no need to be accountable or transparent to the EU government or its citizens.
After the mass student uprising all across Europe in late 2009, the movement has awoken all across the United States this month. Students, faculty, and staff began walking out of their classes and holding marches and rallies at University campuses across the nation. With the lack of support and resources from the federal government, tuition hikes, staff layoffs, and massive budget cuts from state governments, millions of people are making their voices heard and refusing to go about their business as if nothing is wrong.
I was particularly excited and proud to have seen video footage (included in this video entry) from the school I graduated from in 2001, William Paterson University of New Jersey. As you can see from the images, that spirit of resistance and dedication to a cause is alive and well at my alma mater. It is particularly wonderful to see the familiar faces and hear the passionate voices of faculty members who played and continue to play a big role in helping me find my voice and choose my path as an activist-journalist.
The following is an excerpt from a piece I wrote this past week for the Guardian CiF, to read the full text, click the link below:
The media have recycled the same headlines following Dutch elections for about a decade now, and similar observations are regularly trumpeted in international newspapers. Part of me thinks they actually just run the same articles, updating the picture, changing a few names, and maybe touching up a few percentage points. The political landscape is changing in the Netherlands, it is true. “How could this happen in this bastion of a liberal democracy?” commentators ask in an accusing tone.
I shall go against the international headlines and some of the Dutch media when I say to you, please remain calm. This sudden explosion of intolerance and fragmented politics is nothing new; we have been reading about it for decades. The myth maintained by international media outlets and perhaps the Dutch bureau of tourism, which parrots the Netherlands as an open-minded leftwing paradise, has long kept a smoke screen over the well-established and not always tolerant tradition of smaller parties, extremist or moderate, left or right, which rise up suddenly, gain power and occasionally disappear into obscurity as fast as they came.
The international press summed up the results of yesterday’s Dutch legislative elections as a major victory for the far-right, anti-Islam and ironically named Freedom Party (PVV). They are also quick to point to the two cities (out of the entire country!) where the PVV managed to top the polls in local elections. But while The Hague, where the PVV is now the second-largest party, is certainly a city of international and national importance, gaining control of it, along with the little-known city of Almere, does not equal an electoral sweep.
The PVV’s sporadic success is significant not so much because of the small number of votes they won, but because of the xenophobic, nationalist rhetoric that has managed to get them votes. While this development grabs the headlines, several Dutch political parties on both the centre and the left have made just as many – if not more – gains. In the cities of Utrecht and Nijmegen, the Green-Left party (GroenLinks) gained enough to become the largest party. The more moderate D66 party made the biggest gains nationwide, becoming the largest party in Leiden, Haarlem, and Hilversum. The socially progressive and fiscally conservative party’s success was far greater than that of the PVV, but since they don’t say controversial things about the Muslim faith or try to convince people that the country is being taken over, they’re just not as fun for the front page.