Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty.

Wikileaks points out that the U.S. politician behind ACTA is Howard Berman from California, a Democrat whose top four campaign contributors for 2006 were Time Warner ($21,000), News Corp ($15,000), Sony Corp of America ($14,000), and Walt Disney Co ($13,550).

So what can you do, other than shake your head in disgust? Well, here's a list of members of the subcommittee overseeing the U.S. side of things, so you could start by seeing if your rep is listed and contacting him or her directly. One Boing Boing reader suggests contacting your representative regardless of committee membership—you can find the correct contact information here using your zip code or address.

"Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007)" [Wikileaks via Boing Boing]
(Photo: Getty)

He writes:

Either way, I'm just a college kid who draws for fun. I don't know what to do, what step to take next or even if I'd have enough support to really make these guys realize what they're doing. I realize that this situation could possibly be a result of art scouts giving the corporation designs without really crediting anyone (and, as a result, not be any fault of the company themselves), but I feel like this deserves an explanation or an apology at the least. Maybe even compensation, since they seem to be making a Swiss mint on these things.

You know, I didn't expect it to happen, but things actually did end up with (somewhat of) a happy ending. I managed to get back in touch with the head of Manches, the guys that do administrative or production or whatever for All Saints, and we managed to work out a settlement.

Because they deal with plagiarism of their stuff a lot, they were apparently very receptive and sympathetic. Apparently, designers get about 2 - 3 percent of the profits in royalties. I managed to squeeze 7.5% out of them. So, that equals out to about $2,400 with the weak dollar.

Long story short, I've licensed the design to them for this run, and I'm still in ownership of it.

All in all, they were kind to me about it - however, from what I hear, them paying me wiped out all of their profit on these shirts. Should teach their designers a lesson!

The Crimson speculates that the Coop may be reacting this way because of Crimsonreading.org, an online database that lets students search for the lowest prices by using ISBN. Harvard's Undergraduate Council President says he's spoken with an intellectual property lawyer and confirms that the ISBN-ownership claim is hogwash.

We understand taking severe measures to protect your business against cost-cutting competitors—especially when they have a business model that potentially gives them the upper hand against your traditional brick-and-mortar establishment. But we think it's pretty hilarious to invent copyright law. And we wonder, do they own the ISBNs of all books, or just the ones in their inventory? Does the publisher have any ISBN ownership rights? Maybe we should create some sort of international, standardized book numbering system so we can replace this proprietary one.

Anyway, so yeah, don't use ISBNs without writing to the Coop first and asking for permission.

"Coop Discourages Notetaking in Bookstore" [The Harvard Crimson, submitted by Joe—thanks, Joe!)

Innovate! Technology shut down Colon's auctions because he wasn't complying with their minimum advertised pricing. Colon buys his stuff from authorized wholesalers. In responding to Colon v. Innovate! Technology, Inc., No. 07-21349 (S.D. Fla.) [big PDF], IT cited the recent Supreme Court decision, Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, which overturned an 80-year old law against price-fixing, saying, "manufacturers have the right to sell [their] products at the retail level at a minimum price."

In Merle Norman Cosmetics v. LaBarbera, No. 07-60811 (S.D. Fla.), eBayer LaBarbera says she buys the makeup at flea markets. Merle says she buys it from salons, which violates an agreement Merle made with the salons to not sell the makeup online. Merle asserts its right to "require dealers to charge certain resale prices to promote interbrand competition," and that "the law is well settled that manufacturers like [Merle Norman] have the right to control the manner of distribution of their products."

Both these suits are pretty ridiculous (come one, getting sued for violating someone else's contract??), but it just shows how the Leegin ruling gave succor to the crackpot forces of anti-competitive, anti-consumerism.

Companies Claim Right to Interfere with eBay Auctions for Charging Too Little [Consumer Law & Policy]
(Photo: Ryan Fanshaw Photography)