Here's a quick rundown on some upcoming events I'm involved in, leading off with a very exciting keynote brainstorming workshop at the INNOVATE / ACTIVATE conference in Berkeley on April 21st. As some of you know, we've run a bunch of brainstorming workshops either at our own events or as part of other events (as we're doing here). In this case, we'll be doing a brainstorming workshop around the question of "What does a proactive intellectual property agenda mean?" This is a question that has received a lot of attention over the past few months, since the SOPA fight. Lots of people who were involved in that battle came out of it wanting to do something positive to move the debates about IP towards fixing the problems associated with it, rather than just reacting defensively to efforts to expand a broken system. So we're going to brainstorm some ideas. The session will kick off with three (very) brief talks to get people thinking out of the box -- one by Nicole Ozer from the ACLU, one by Mike McGeary from Engine Advocacy, and one by me. From there, everyone will go into breakout groups with a specific brainstorming task for an hour, and then we'll regroup and discuss what the different groups came up with. These events are always thought-provoking and a lot of fun. I'd suggest coming to check it out, but I've been told that the event is already sold out.

Separately, this coming week, I'll be in Belgium on Wednesday, April 11th, taking part in a stakeholder hearing about ACTA at the European Parliament (which looks like it will be streamed live online). Two days later, I'll be in London, where I'll be hosting a discussion with Coadec talking about our recent Sky is Rising report (and I'm sure I'll also be discussing other policy/tech/business model issues as well). If you're unfamiliar with Coadec, it's a wonderful, UK-based organization, focused on helping the innovation community get involved and engaged in policy issues in the UK. That one is free and open to the public, so please come and join us. It should be a lot of fun.

For anyone in Belgium on Wednesday, here's an afternoon event open to all that might be of interest: "'Self'-regulation: Should online companies police the internet?" If you can't make it to the European Parliament in Brussels, there's also a live video stream available.

It turns out that the seminar has an interesting connection with Techdirt. Back in September, we wrote about a proposed law in Italy that might lead to people losing their Internet connection after just one accusation of unauthorized sharing. Somebody who noticed this article was Marietje Schaake, the Member of the European Parliament who has organized the seminar to discuss self-regulation. She even mentioned the fact in a written question to European Commission:

Via the press, it has come to my attention that the Italian Parliament is currently considering a draft law under which Internet users may be disconnected and blacklisted if they have been accused of an intellectual property infringement. The accusation does not necessarily need to originate from the rights holder of the work in question.

The draft law, as proposed, violates several EC laws and principles, including:

— Article 1(3a) of the telecoms package, amending Framework Directive 2002/21/EC,
— Article 6 ECHR concerning a fair trial,
— Article 10 ECHR concerning the freedom to seek, receive and impart information,
— the principles of necessity and proportionality, and
— depending on implementation, the intermediary liability exemptions in the e-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC.

1. Does the Commission agree that the Italian proposal is in violation of EC laws and principles? If not, why not?

2. What concrete action will the Commission undertake to put a halt to measures being implemented by Member States whereby citizens may be disconnected from the Internet?

The Commission has now replied [pdf], although its answer is not particularly helpful:

The Commission has not yet received the notification of the draft law to which the Honourable Member refers.

However, it does add the following interesting comment:

limitations of end-users' access and use of electronic communications networks must be subject to adequate procedural safeguards, which ensures that these cannot be enacted on the basis of mere accusations alone.

That provides a clue as to why the copyright industries are so keen for online companies to "police" themselves in Europe: it avoids the need for accusations - or proof - altogether.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+