European Publishers Council. "Hamburg Declaration Regarding Intellectual Property Rights." Berlin: European Publishers Council. June 25, 2009.

This brief statement from the European Publishers Council (EPC) argues for "urgent improvements in the protection of intellectual property on the Internet." Without providing an answer to the problem or even asserting a path toward improvement of the situation, the statement simply places the onus of blame on sites that index their content. Meanwhile, the statement applauds national and internation governments for their efforts to protect international property.

Practically speaking, this statement is fairly ineffectual. Google's response has been essentially, "Go ahead and stop us from indexing your content" – a response that clearly demonstrates how vital news aggregation is to online media. Without offering a solution that will help users find content online while also crediting the correct sources, the EPC doesn't have much weight to throw around. This statement, instead, serves as a thermometer of the rising tension between investigative journalists and news aggregation websites.

     This article discusses the legal framework in which copyright cases are debated and decided. Geller begins by describing the basis of “territoriality” and how it is derived from the international system of nation-states and clear boundaries. The author admits that this definition is highly problematic when dealing with cyberspace and transfers of data that cut across borders. He then goes on to discuss the variations in each country’s laws regarding cyberspace copyright infringement and how this often leads to inconsistent judgments. For example, in a case that involves multiple countries, a court may award infringement compensation within the conservative limits of a particular country’s legal system. At the same time, it might use justification from another country’s legal code to grant a severe punishment. Geller concludes that the most effective way of combating international intellectual piracy is through a standardized legal code that eliminates such gross inconsistencies.
     This paper is very valuable for the question that I am trying to answer, because it shows the legal perspective and legal limitations of the prosecution of international copyright infringement cases. The Internet operates in a borderless context and if the international community wants to regulate online copyright infringement, multinational institutions needs to modify their framework. Similarly, if the ACTA is to be effective, it should not be based on a borders and territoriality. The paper also demonstrates that the ACTA will merely add another set of rules to the already complicated international legal network. Nevertheless, the paper fails to propose a way to iron out the inconsistencies in legal codes around the world. Perhaps the ACTA is a valuable multinational forum but its focus should be shifted to addressing the problems within the existing legal system and not creating new laws.