Acta is an international treaty that aims to protect intellectual property rights across borders. Copyright holders argue that it marks a recognition of the value of intellectual property rights to an economy's global competitiveness. By clamping down on counterfeit goods, generic medicines and internet copyright infringement, it is hoped that these valuable industries will be protected and will allow companies to recoup revenues lost to counterfeiting, for example.
Who opposes it? It is also opposed by the Members of the European Parliament. Acta has been largely negotiated behind closed doors, with many participating parties being forced to sign NDAs before being allowed to see Acta documents.
It is very difficult to find out who wrote it and what happened during the negotiations. It is highly unusual for criminal sanctions of this scale to be negotiated without democratic process. Organisations that have tried to find out more information about the processes used have failed to uncover all of the details. The European Parliament voted almost unanimously against Acta on this basis by adopting Written Resolution This included the statement that "economic and innovation risks must be evaluated prior to introducing criminal sanctions where civil measures are already in place" and that all documents related to the negotiations be made publicly available.
That doesn't really matter because Members of the European Parliament haven't been consulted. It is even being negotiated outside of existing trade bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Intellectual Property Organisation. It blurs the lines between piracy and counterfeiting Just as Mary Whitehouse would continually refer to "sex-and-violence" in broadcasting as if they were the same thing, so Acta appears to refer to piracy and counterfeiting in the same breath as if they were the same thing.
Piracy and counterfeiting are not the same thing. Counterfeiting generally requires the person receiving the copied goods to be deceived into thinking it is real. If you treat Chinese manufacturers who create counterfeit DVDs or medicines in the same way you treat individuals sharing not-for-profit in their homes you know that you will have problems. It criminalises copyright infringement when there are civil sanctions already According to the controversial Article 23, criminal penalties should be applied "in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale", although the phrase "commercial scale" is not clearly defined and specifically removes the intentionality, i.
Criminal sanctions should also be made available for those "aiding and abetting" infringement on a commercial scale. Critics argue that this means that ISPs and data centres would potentially be liable for aiding and abetting any commercial website that features a copyright infringing piece of content. He believes that the criminal section of Acta will be used as a weapon to ensure that ISPs cooperate with rights holders.
As the Sakharov laureates warn : "In the name of copyright enforcement, the European Union and other signatories would be bound to put pressure on internet actors, compelling them to monitor and police the network.
It creates a barrier to changing national law Acta takes away from democratic governments the right to set their own copyright policy or patent policy. This means that if lobbying organisations such as the Pirate Party manage to sway the UK government with regards to reducing copyright terms, they won't be able to effect change without breaking a trade agreement. How does it compare with Sopa and Pipa?
In the US, this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA] and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. Even if a country is not party to the ACTA negotiations, it is likely that accession to and implementation of its provisions by countries will be a condition imposed in future free trade agreements and the subject of evaluation in content industry submissions to the annual Special Report.
Ultimately, it will restrict nations' ability to choose policy options that best suit their domestic priorities and level of economic development. The constitutionality of ACTA can be challenged on the following bases :. They include both the student guide and the annotated instructor guide. These materials are associated Six years ago, Polish activists flooded the streets to oppose ACTA , an incredibly damaging, secretly negotiated Internet treaty hatched in the US to push both America and its European trading partners well beyond anything that could be democratically arrived at.
Six years later, as the EU fumbles its Join EFF Lists. Electronic Frontier Foundation. What do you think of trade commissioner Karel De Gucht's suggestion to send ACTA back to Parliament with clarifications once there is a court ruling on the agreement? Karel De Gucht is also a very eminent lawyer, so I was a little bit puzzled by his comments. No assurances the Commission could give to the Parliament would change a legal text. Five parliamentary committees came out against ACTA.
The legal affairs committee voted against a draft opinion recommending approval, while the industry committee and the civil liberties committees approved reports recommending rejection. Although this committee was in charge of the dossier, it was given input by four other committees, namely the ones dedicated to legal affairs, civil liberties, industry and development. British Social-Democrat David Martin, who was responsible for steering the agreement through Parliament, called on his fellow MEPs to reject the agreement in his report.
The international trade committee approved the report on 21 June. On 10 May it referred the agreement to the European Court of Justice for a ruling on whether it is compatible with the EU's fundamental rights and freedoms. ACTA is aimed at more effectively enforcing intellectual property rights on an international level.
However, opponents are concerned that it will favour large companies' interests at the expense of citizens' rights. They also deplore the secrecy of the negotiations. Does ACTA pose a threat to civil liberties and developing countries' access to generic medicine?
Many people oppose the controversial anti-counterfeiting agreement because of concerns over these two issues. Find out how they think the treaty would have affected civil liberties and access to generic medicine. Dr Olivier Vrins, of Altius Lawyers, said ACTA states that its provisions should be transposed with respect to fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and freedom to have a fair trial.
The idea of proportionality is particularly important because it is applied as well by the European Court of Human Rights when balancing out various fundamental rights which might be in conflict, here the right on property on the one hand and on the other the right of protection of private life, freedom of speech and freedom of access to information.
This preservation of fundamental rights means that not only that people would be able to say that certain acts do not infringe intellectual property, but parties must foresee certain exceptions and limits to intellectual property. Rupert Schlegelmilch, of the European Commission's directorate-general for trade, said that the Commission took concerns over civil rights extremely seriously, but there was no real reason to be worried.
Privacy and access to the net are just as important. We believe the treaty strikes a fair balance in that respect. ACTA does not impose a new standard. What will be imposed is what we have. Nothing new will be enforced. What is legal is legal, what is illegal is illegal. ACTA is just about making sure that people do something about it. Dr Meir Pugatch, of the University of Haifa, argued that ACTA would not have an impact on access to generic medicine, as the agreement does not cover patents.
The problem is counterfeited medicines and substandard medicines. If you end up using counterfeited medicine or substandard medicine, it could seriously damage your health.
Those who suffer the most from substandard medicines and counterfeited medicines are poor populations. Commission representative Mr Schlegelmilch later added: "Developing countries will be able to continue to buy the generic medicines that they need just as before.
However, the British Social Democrat David Martin, who was responsible for steering ACTA through Parliament, said many questions still remained about how the treaty would have affected access to generic medicine. How will this operate? Mr Martin said the workshop showed there was a need for more information, which is why it would have been good for the European Court of Justice to give a ruling on questions to be prepared by Parliament. The problem with ACTA is that the devil is in the lack of details.
We don't have enough information on many of the areas where in the end we will have to make a judgment on. International Trade Committee MEPs from all political groups wanted to know more about how the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA would be enforced before advising Parliament as a whole on whether or not to approve it, it emerged from the committee's first debate on it in early Mr Martin suggested that while the Court of Justice referral is being prepared, the time set aside for Parliament's assent to ACTA should instead be used to prepare an interim report setting out questions to the European Commission and EU Member States on how it is to be enforced.
He stressed that Parliament should prepare its own questions, rather than simply associating itself with the European Commission's parallel referral of ACTA to the court.
Examples could include questions about how border control agencies would be expected to deal with counterfeit imports, or whether internet service providers would have to enforce ACTA against users, and if so what legislation would require them to do so. ACTA lacks detail. The main concern is how the text might be read". For example, "There is no 'three strikes' rule in ACTA, but we do not know how internet service providers will interpret the tasks given to them and if they will feel that they have the duty to cut people off the internet".
I will not take your word for it. We need to scrutinize it". Mr Martin and other speakers objected to the "lack of transparency" in the ACTA negotiations to date and reiterated Parliament's many requests to be more closely involved, and not merely left with the option of accepting or rejecting the existing text.
He also observed that if the aim now was to spread ACTA via bilateral agreements with countries not yet party to it, this would not be a democratic way to influence other countries. Several MEPs said the Commission must accept its share of responsibility for civil society protests against ACT, since it had not kept people properly informed of the progress of negotiations. This might be a lesson to the future.
We need to change things", said Mr Fjellner. In such circumstances you have to expect citizens to be afraid from the possible consequences", he said. Inese Vaidere EPP, LV , said the Commission had done too little to explain ACTA's benefits, even though there was much to be explained, such as the definitions of terms "counterfeiting" or "commercial scale".
I fear that we don't have much chance of reviving ACTA. The Commission has not done its job", she said. He was sure that properly interpreted, ACTA would not threaten fundamental freedoms. You are also responsible for that" he said, suggesting that Parliament should pay more attention to Member States' laws that threaten fundamental freedoms. On the contrary, ACTA explicitly states that you can not impose anything similar to three-strikes rule on the international level", he said.
Commissioner De Gucht reiterated his view that referring ACTA to the European Court of Justice would be the right decision, as "our responsibility as politicians is to establish the facts and not follow the crowd" and the "Court will provide much needed clarity on our concerns". The EP received a petition signed by more than 2. They fear that the agreement will pose a threat to a free and open internet.
The petition was organised by Avaaz, an organisation which uses internet to campaign on various issues. The petitions committee works to resolve infringements of citizens' rights through cooperation with local, regional and national authorities on the application of EU law on a range of issues. It is an investigative committee and has no legal power, but tries to find non-judicial remedies for citizens whose claims are substantiated.
It can organise fact-finding visits and report to plenary. It has proved controversial because critics worry the agreement would favour the interests of large companies at the expense of citizens' rights and see its possible application in the online sphere as a threat to people's privacy and human rights. At this time it was not known yet how the Parliament would vote on it. ACTA simply involves an update of the means, mechanisms and remedies to protect intellectual property rights.
ACTA is a multilateral agreement between some developed economies including the EU, the US and Japan, but also less-developed economies such as Mexico and Morocco, aimed at reinforcing, between those states, the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
0コメント