The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The vote blocks the treaty from taking effect in EU member states, and is likely to make the treaty a dead letter around the world.

European and American officials have long insisted that ratifying ACTA would not require any substantive changes to European or US laws. Indeed, when President Obama signed ACTA in October, he argued that, because ACTA does not change US law, he could call it an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty, thereby bypassing the Senate ratification process.

So why did he sign a treaty if it does nothing more than maintain the status quo? The point seems to have been to establish US- and EU-style copyright laws as a global standard, and then use that to pressure less-developed nations to beef up their copyright laws.

The European Parliament's rejection of ACTA, by a vote of 478 to 39, leaves that strategy in shambles. It will be hard for the United States to argue that ACTA represents an international standard after the treaty was defeated so decisively across the pond.

ACTA's implosion

ACTA's future in Europe has been in doubt since early this year, when activists in Poland and elsewhere took to the streets against the treaty. Countries began backing away from the agreement, and several committees of the EU parliament voted against its ratification.

Hoping that a favorable ruling would bolster support, the European Commission asked the European Court of Justice to weigh in on the rules. But the European Parliament pushed forward with its own vote without waiting for the ECJ's ruling.

On Wednesday, EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht pledged to continue the proceeding before the ECJ despite the Parliament's vote.

"Today's rejection does not change the fact that the European Commission has committed itself to seeking answers to the questions raised by the European public," he said, according to the BBC. "The European Commission will continue to seek the legal opinion of the European Court of Justice on whether this agreement harms any of the fundamental rights of European citizens—including freedom of speech."

"Virtually unthinkable"

In a blog post, Canadian law professor Michael Geist called it a "remarkable development that was virtually unthinkable even a year ago." He argued that the growing opposition to ACTA in Europe has had "ripple effects" in Australia and elsewhere.

He noted that ACTA could still technically come into force if six countries ratify it. But, he said, the agreement is now "badly damaged and will seemingly never achieve the goals of its supporters as a model for other countries to adopt."

ACTA opponents hailed the vote. "Access is ecstatic that the Parliament today, by an overwhelming majority, said 'No' to ACTA, delivering the long-awaited fatal blow to this dangerous agreement," said Mike Rispoli of the activist group Access.

Another opponent, UK Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye agreed. "The European Parliament vote is a triumph of democracy over special interests and shady back-room deals," he told the BBC. "It is becoming increasingly politically poisonous to be 'anti-Internet.'"