As we watch defenders of Wikileaks committing cyber-vandalism on websites from VISA, Mastercard, Paypal, and even the government of Sweden, most reasonable people recognize that the hackers’ vandalism undermines their professed high moral ground and reinforces the general conclusion that Wikileaks itself is simply a form of cyber-vandalism.
Something similar has been occurring for years in the area of intellectual property. Those of the “copyleft” persuasion, who believe that copyright law has tilted too strongly in favor of rights holders and against the interest of consumers, may have an argument to make, though we strongly disagree with it.
But by defending copyright piracy--indeed, by holding up sources of massive copyright piracy as romantic heroes of some revolutionary cause, much as the cyber-vandals are doing with Julian Assange--the copyleft reveals itself to be less about principled rational policy discussion, and more about just attacking the profit motive, property rights and corporations.
Because organized copyright piracy on a massive scale is costing the U.S. economy huge losses in income, jobs and revenue, it’s appropriate for government to take reasonable steps to fight against piracy. One such effort is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which has been negotiated over a period of years and is now reaching the final text to be presented to those nations that wish to participate.
ACTA, in our estimation, is a good idea. There may be concerns about certain features of the text by some parties, and it’s important in our estimation to maintain certain key principles, such as not shifting liability onto the backs of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). That debate will take place in its proper time.
But we predict that opposition to ACTA will be characterized by a lot of inflammatory and unhelpful rhetoric, along the lines of “copyright is theft” and “they’re going to seize your laptop when you go through customs.”
Here’s hoping that the ACTA debate takes place rationally, over substantive policy issues, and is not characterized by histrionics and inflammatory rhetoric on the part of its opponents. Though we’re not holding our breath.