????傳媒業(yè)控制互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行為的最新嘗試遭遇滑鐵盧：《反假冒貿(mào)易協(xié)定》（Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, ACTA）遭到歐洲議會否決，直接被宣判了死刑。這個(gè)結(jié)果對大型版權(quán)所有人及其政治盟友不啻當(dāng)頭棒喝，但很可能他們并未意識到：社交媒體已經(jīng)強(qiáng)大到足以威脅他們的計(jì)劃。他們的反對者現(xiàn)在擁有前所未有的優(yōu)勢，可以迅速組織起來。

????歐洲議會上周三以壓倒多數(shù)投票否決了ACTA。這個(gè)協(xié)定意圖建立跨境保護(hù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，不僅適用于傳媒產(chǎn)品，比如通過互聯(lián)網(wǎng)傳送的音樂和電影，還適用于商標(biāo)和專利。也就是說，它會打擊那些試圖將仿冒古馳（Gucci）手袋和假藥運(yùn)往他國的罪犯。

????公眾對ACTA廣泛而強(qiáng)烈的不滿主要源于兩點(diǎn)：最初的談判太過隱秘，而協(xié)定條文又驚人的含糊不清。談判通過密室會談進(jìn)行，沒有聽取大眾以及公眾利益團(tuán)體的意見。條款太過模糊，根本無法判定將采取何種執(zhí)法手段。批評者警告說，該協(xié)定將培養(yǎng)一種被自由軟件基金會（Free Software Foundation）稱之為“監(jiān)視和懷疑的文化”。有個(gè)說法，按照ACTA，海關(guān)官員可以合法地隨機(jī)抽查個(gè)人使用的iPod里存儲的內(nèi)容。傳媒業(yè)對此嗤之以鼻。但其真實(shí)性已經(jīng)不重要，這種危言聳聽之所以有市場還是由于協(xié)定的模棱兩可使得懷疑甚囂塵上。

????在某種意義上，ACTA與《禁止網(wǎng)絡(luò)盜版法案》（SOPA）和《保護(hù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法案》（PIPA）非常相似。同樣是由于來自公眾和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)的強(qiáng)烈抨擊，這兩項(xiàng)法案今年早些時(shí)候分別在眾議院和參議院被擱置。特別是SOPA，人們擔(dān)心它到底將如何執(zhí)行。與此類似，ACTA要求互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)提供商（ISP）對其網(wǎng)絡(luò)上所傳遞的內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)。它甚至?xí)孖SP擔(dān)負(fù)起知識產(chǎn)權(quán)警察的職責(zé)，為ISP收集客戶信息提供免責(zé)規(guī)定，哪怕客戶僅僅是被懷疑傳送未經(jīng)授權(quán)的材料。批評者還指責(zé)說，像SOPA一樣，ACTA并沒有將正當(dāng)法律程序?qū)懭雲(yún)f(xié)定中。

????ACTA的某些細(xì)節(jié)、特別是談判的隱秘性已經(jīng)泄露，立即爆發(fā)了大規(guī)模的抗議。各色人等并肩作戰(zhàn)：在波蘭，人們上街游行示威；而黑客組織匿名者（Anonymous）的成員則對商業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)和政府發(fā)動了網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊。

????所有抗議活動的迅速組織，即便是臨時(shí)性的，也都是建立在社交媒體的基礎(chǔ)上。即使五年前，這樣的群體運(yùn)動都難以實(shí)現(xiàn)；而退回十年，則更加無法想象。不管是好是壞（很可能兩者兼有），Twitter和Facebook所提供的網(wǎng)絡(luò)交流的普遍性和易用性一經(jīng)成為這類行動的基石。政客和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的擁有者在制定執(zhí)行政策時(shí)必須好好考慮這一點(diǎn)。作為出發(fā)點(diǎn)，應(yīng)該直接對付奸商而不是無辜的第三方，同時(shí)還要確保任何法律和貿(mào)易協(xié)定應(yīng)遵循基本的民主原則，比如正當(dāng)?shù)姆沙绦颉?/p>

????The apparent death of ACTA, the media industry's latest attempt to control what can and cannot be done on the Internet should (but probably won't) be a wake-up call to the big copyright-owners and their political benefactors. Social media has become powerful enough to thwart their plans. And, their adversaries now have a method of quickly organizing themselves, an advantage they didn't have before.

????The European Parliament on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It would have created standards for enforcing intellectual property rights across borders. ACTA would have applied not only to copyrights on media products like music and movies transmitted over the Internet, but also to trademarks and patents. So it also targeted people trying to move knockoff Gucci handbags and fake pharmaceuticals from one country to another.

????There are two essential reasons for the widespread public outcry that ACTA has met with: the initial secrecy of the negotiations and the stunning vagueness of the agreement's language. The negotiations were held behind closed doors, without input from either the general public or from public-interest groups. And the terms were so murky that it was impossible to tell what enforcement tactics would and would not be allowed. Critics warned that it would have created what the Free Software Foundation called "a culture of surveillance and suspicion." One example, which the media industry called laughable, was that under ACTA, the content of people's iPods could be legally scrutinized at random by customs officials. Whether that's true or not is almost beside the point -- such warnings were taken seriously because the pact's vagaries left a lot of room for doubt.

????In some ways, ACTA was similar to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act(PIPA), two bills in the House and Senate, respectively, that were shelved early this year in the face of massive criticism from the public and the Internet industry. SOPA, in particular, also left people wondering what enforcement might look like. ACTA could similarly have made Internet service providers liable for what was transmitted over their networks. It might even have turned ISPs into IP cops by granting them "safe harbor" for collecting information on customers who were merely suspected of trafficking in unauthorized materials. And, critics said, like SOPA, there was no due process of law built into the pact.

????Once some of the details of ACTA were revealed -- particularly the secrecy of the talks --protests erupted. Those came from both bad actors and good: People actually marched in the streets in places like Poland. And the online vandals of Anonymous launched cyber attacks against businesses and governments.

????The speedy organization of all the protests, ad hoc though it was, was made possible by social media. Even five years ago, such a groundswell would have been difficult to achieve. Ten years ago, it would have been impossible. For good or ill (probably some of both), the ubiquity and ease-of-use afforded by the likes of Twitter and Facebook are making such actions possible. Politicians and owners of intellectual property would do well to keep that in mind as they try to create enforcement policies. A good start would be to more directly target profiteers rather than innocent third parties, and to ensure that any laws or trade agreements adhere to basic democratic principles, such as due process of law.