Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Moooond (talk | contribs)
SasiSasi (talk | contribs)
updated article with countries, also restructured (tried to make the intro shorter), still needs work
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{pp-move-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{update}}
{{update}}
The '''Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)''' is a proposed [[Plurilateral agreement|plurilateral]] [[trade agreement]] in response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> The scope of ACTA is broad, including [[counterfeit]] physical goods, as well as "internet distribution and information technology".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.eff.org/issues/acta | title=What is ACTA?| publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) | accessdate=1 december 2008}}</ref>
The '''Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)''' is a proposed [[Plurilateral agreement|plurilateral]] [[trade agreement]] that would impose strict enforcement of [[intellectual property rights]] related to [[Internet]] activity and trade in information-based goods. The negotiations around ACTA "represent a cooperative effort by the governments to respond to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> The agreement is currently negotiated by the governments of the United States, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Canada, and Mexico, and the [[European Commission]].<ref name=geiger>{{cite news | last=Geiger | first=Andrea | title=A View From Europe: The high price of counterfeiting, and getting real about enforcement | url=http://thehill.com/business--lobby/a-view-from-europe-the-high-price-of-counterfeiting-and-getting-real-about-enforcement-2008-04-30.html | publisher=The Hill | date=2008-04-30 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref><ref name=Pilieci>{{cite news | last=Pilieci | first = Vito | title=Copyright deal could toughen rules governing info on iPods, computers | publisher=Vancouver Sun | date=2008-05-26 | accessdate=2008-05-27 | url=http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=ae997868-220b-4dae-bf4f-47f6fc96ce5e&p=1}}</ref> ACTA would "establish a new international legal framework" and participants seek seek to complete the negotiation by the end of 2008.<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> New Zealand states that "The goal of ACTA is to set a new, higher benchmark for intellectual property rights enforcement that countries can join on a voluntary basis."<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> ACTA is part of a broader "forum shifting" strategy employed by the trade representatives of the US, [[EC]], Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement: similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty.<ref name="WCO SECURE Draft">{{cite web | url=http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/PDFandDocuments/Enforcement/SECURE_E.pdf | title=SECURE Draft (Feb. 2008) | publisher=World Customs Organization (WCO) | date=February 2008}}</ref>


In October 2007 the [[United States]], the [[European Community]], [[Switzerland]] and [[Japan]] announced that they would negotiate ACTA. Furthermore the following countries have joined the negotiations: [[Australia]], the [[Republic of Korea]], [[New Zealand]], [[Mexico]], [[Jordan]], [[Morocco]], [[Singapore]], the [[United Arab Emirates]] and [[Canada]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.eff.org/issues/acta | title=What is ACTA?| publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) | accessdate=1 december 2008}}</ref><ref name=geiger>{{cite news | last=Geiger | first=Andrea | title=A View From Europe: The high price of counterfeiting, and getting real about enforcement | url=http://thehill.com/business--lobby/a-view-from-europe-the-high-price-of-counterfeiting-and-getting-real-about-enforcement-2008-04-30.html | publisher=The Hill | date=2008-04-30 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref><ref name=Pilieci>{{cite news | last=Pilieci | first = Vito | title=Copyright deal could toughen rules governing info on iPods, computers | publisher=Vancouver Sun | date=2008-05-26 | accessdate=2008-05-27 | url=http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=ae997868-220b-4dae-bf4f-47f6fc96ce5e&p=1}}</ref> The ACTA negotiations have been conducted in secrecy until on 22 May 2008 a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded to [[Wikileaks]], and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.<ref name="Wikileaks-firstversion">{{cite web | url=http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282007%29&oldid=29522|title=Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007) | publisher=Wikileaks | date=22 May 2008}}</ref><ref name="dailytech-080523">{{cite web | url=http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11870 | title=Wikileaks Airs U.S. Plans to Kill Pirate Bay, Monitor ISPs With Multinational ACTA Proposal | publisher=DailyTech | date=23 May 2008 | author=Jason Mick}}</ref><ref name=Pilieci/><ref name=Weeks>{{cite news | last=Weeks | first=Carly | title=Anti-piracy strategy will help government to spy, critic says | url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080526.COPYRIGHT26//TPStory/National | publisher=The Globe and Mail | date=2008-05-26 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref>
The negotiation of the ACTA treaty are not conducted as part of any international organisation.<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> The European Commission, the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]], the [[Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)|Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade]], and other government agencies have acknowledged participating in ACTA negotiations, but they have refused to release drafts of the treaty or to discuss specific terms under discussion in the negotiations. Public interest advocates in Canada filed an [[Freedom of information legislation|access to information request]] but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.<ref name=Pilieci/>


ACTA would "establish a new international legal framework" and participants seek to complete the negotiation by the end of 2008.<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> New Zealand states that "The goal of ACTA is to set a new, higher benchmark for intellectual property rights enforcement that countries can join on a voluntary basis."<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> ACTA is part of a broader "forum shifting" strategy employed by the trade representatives of the US, [[EC]], Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement: similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty.<ref name="WCO SECURE Draft">{{cite web | url=http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20files/PDFandDocuments/Enforcement/SECURE_E.pdf | title=SECURE Draft (Feb. 2008) | publisher=World Customs Organization (WCO) | date=February 2008}}</ref> If adopted the treaty would establish an international coalition against [[copyright infringement]], imposing strong, top-down enforcement of [[copyright law]]s in [[developed nation]]s. The proposed agreement would allow border officials to search [[laptop]]s, [[MP3 player]]s, and [[cellular phone]]s for copyright-infringing content. It would also impose new cooperation requirements upon [[Internet service provider]]s (ISPs), including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, and restrict the use of [[online privacy]] tools. The proposal specifies a plan to encourage [[developing nation]]s to accept the legal regime, as well.
The ACTA negotiations have been conducted in secrecy until on 22 May 2008 a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded to [[Wikileaks]], and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.<ref name="Wikileaks-firstversion">{{cite web | url=http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282007%29&oldid=29522|title=Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007) | publisher=Wikileaks | date=22 May 2008}}</ref><ref name="dailytech-080523">{{cite web | url=http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11870 | title=Wikileaks Airs U.S. Plans to Kill Pirate Bay, Monitor ISPs With Multinational ACTA Proposal | publisher=DailyTech | date=23 May 2008 | author=Jason Mick}}</ref><ref name=Pilieci/><ref name=Weeks>{{cite news | last=Weeks | first=Carly | title=Anti-piracy strategy will help government to spy, critic says | url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080526.COPYRIGHT26//TPStory/National | publisher=The Globe and Mail | date=2008-05-26 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref>


== Legal framework ==
If adopted the treaty would establish an international coalition against [[copyright infringement]], imposing strong, top-down enforcement of [[copyright law]]s in [[developed nation]]s. The proposed agreement would allow border officials to search [[laptop]]s, [[MP3 player]]s, and [[cellular phone]]s for copyright-infringing content. It would also impose new cooperation requirements upon [[Internet service provider]]s (ISPs), including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, and restrict the use of [[online privacy]] tools. The proposal specifies a plan to encourage [[developing nation]]s to accept the legal regime, as well.
ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> and would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO), the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO) or the [[United Nations]].<ref name=Pilieci/><ref name=ec>{{cite web | title=Fact Sheet: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement | publisher=European Commission | url = http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/fs231007_en.htm | date=2007-10-23 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref> Citing a fact sheet published by the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]] (USTR) and the USTR's 2008 ''Special 301'' report the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) states that the goal of ACTA is to create a new standard of [[intellectual property]] enforcement beyond the existing standards in the [[TRIPs]] Agreement and to increase international cooperation, including the sharing of information between signatory countries' law enforcement agencies.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.eff.org/issues/acta | title=What is ACTA?| publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) | accessdate=1 december 2008}}</ref> According to [[New Zealand]] ACTA aims to facilitate a "strong and modern legal framework so that law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and private citizens have the most up-to-date tools necessary to effectively bring counterfeiters and pirates to justice." Areas for possible ACTA provisions include: criminal enforcement, border measures, civil enforcement, optical disc piracy, and internet distribution and information technology.<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____34358.aspx</ref>

== Negotiations ==
The negotiations for the ACTA treaty are conducted in secrecy<ref name="Wikileaks-firstversion">{{cite web | url=http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282007%29&oldid=29522|title=Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007) | publisher=Wikileaks | date=22 May 2008}}</ref><ref name="dailytech-080523">{{cite web | url=http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11870 | title=Wikileaks Airs U.S. Plans to Kill Pirate Bay, Monitor ISPs With Multinational ACTA Proposal | publisher=DailyTech | date=23 May 2008 | author=Jason Mick}}</ref><ref name=Pilieci/><ref name=Weeks>{{cite news | last=Weeks | first=Carly | title=Anti-piracy strategy will help government to spy, critic says | url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080526.COPYRIGHT26//TPStory/National | publisher=The Globe and Mail | date=2008-05-26 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref> and are not part of any international organisation.<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref> The European Commission, the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative]], the [[Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)|Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade]], and other government agencies have acknowledged participating in ACTA negotiations, but they have refused to release drafts of the treaty or to discuss specific terms under discussion in the negotiations. Public interest advocates in Canada filed an [[Freedom of information legislation|access to information request]] but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.<ref name=Pilieci/>


==Provisions==
==Provisions==
Although the treaty's title suggests that the agreement only covers [[counterfeit]] physical goods (such as medicines), the proposed treaty will have a broader scope, including "Internet distribution and information technology".<ref name="fsf-speak-out">[http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/ Speak out against ACTA - Free Software Foundation]</ref>
Although the treaty's title suggests that the agreement only covers [[counterfeit]] physical goods (such as medicines), the proposed treaty will have a broader scope, including "Internet distribution and information technology".<ref name="fsf-speak-out">[http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/ Speak out against ACTA - Free Software Foundation]</ref> A leaked document entitled ''Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement'' suggests that the following provisions will be included in ACTA: new legal regimes to "encourage [[ISPs]] to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing materials", criminal measures and increased border search powers.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.eff.org/issues/acta | title=What is ACTA?| publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) | accessdate=1 december 2008}}</ref>


=== Legal framework ===
====ISP cooperation====
The leaked document includes a provision to force Internet service providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a [[warrant (law)|warrant]], making it easier for the record industry to sue music [[file sharing|file sharers]] and for officials to shut down non-commercial [[BitTorrent]] websites such as [[The Pirate Bay]].<ref name=Ingram>{{cite news | last=Ingram | first=Matthew | title=Do we need copyright cops? | work=Ingram 2.0 | publisher=Globe and Mail | url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080527.WBmingram20080527120809/WBStory/WBmingram | date=2008-05-26 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref>
ACTA aims to facilitate a "strong and modern legal framework so that law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and private citizens have the most up-to-date tools necessary to effectively bring counterfeiters and pirates to justice." Areas for possible ACTA provisions include: criminal enforcement, border measures, civil enforcement, optical disc piracy, and internet distribution and information technology.<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____34358.aspx</ref>


====Border searches====
===Border searches===
Newspaper reports indicate that the proposed agreement would empower security officials at [[airport]]s and other [[international border]]s to conduct random ''ex officio'' searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travelers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.<ref name=Pilieci/><ref name=Weeks/>
Newspaper reports indicate that the proposed agreement would empower security officials at [[airport]]s and other [[international border]]s to conduct random ''ex officio'' searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travellers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.<ref name=Pilieci/><ref name=Weeks/>


Some countries already conduct border searches of electronic devices without [[probable cause]]. In July 2008, the [[United States Department of Homeland Security]] disclosed that its border search policies allow [[U.S. Customs and Border Protection]] agents to conduct random searches of electronic devices for "information concerning terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other national security matters; alien admissibility; contraband including child pornography, monetary instruments, and information in violation of copyright or trademark laws; and evidence of embargo violations or other import or export control laws."<ref name=Nakashima>{{cite news | last=Nakashima | first=Ellen | title=Travelers' Laptops May Be Detained At Border | publisher=Washington Post | date=2008-08-01 | accessdate=2008-08-01 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103030.html?hpid=topnews}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissability/search_authority.ctt/search_authority.pdf | title=Policy Regarding Border Search of Information | publisher=[[U.S. Customs and Border Protection]] | date=2008-07-16 | accessdate=2008-08-01}}</ref> [[United States senator|Senator]] [[Russell Feingold]] called the policies "truly alarming" and proposed to introduce legislation to require reasonable suspicion of illegality and to prohibit [[racial profiling]].<ref name=Nakashima/> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] has previously upheld the constitutionality of laptop searches without [[reasonable suspicion]] at border crossings.<ref name=Nakashima/>
Some countries already conduct border searches of electronic devices without [[probable cause]]. In July 2008, the [[United States Department of Homeland Security]] disclosed that its border search policies allow [[U.S. Customs and Border Protection]] agents to conduct random searches of electronic devices for "information concerning terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other national security matters; alien admissibility; contraband including child pornography, monetary instruments, and information in violation of copyright or trademark laws; and evidence of embargo violations or other import or export control laws."<ref name=Nakashima>{{cite news | last=Nakashima | first=Ellen | title=Travelers' Laptops May Be Detained At Border | publisher=Washington Post | date=2008-08-01 | accessdate=2008-08-01 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103030.html?hpid=topnews}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissability/search_authority.ctt/search_authority.pdf | title=Policy Regarding Border Search of Information | publisher=[[U.S. Customs and Border Protection]] | date=2008-07-16 | accessdate=2008-08-01}}</ref> [[United States senator|Senator]] [[Russell Feingold]] called the policies "truly alarming" and proposed to introduce legislation to require reasonable suspicion of illegality and to prohibit [[racial profiling]].<ref name=Nakashima/> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] has previously upheld the constitutionality of laptop searches without [[reasonable suspicion]] at border crossings.<ref name=Nakashima/>

====ISP cooperation====
The leaked document includes a provision to force Internet service providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a [[warrant (law)|warrant]], making it easier for the record industry to sue music [[file sharing|file sharers]] and for officials to shut down non-commercial [[BitTorrent]] websites such as [[The Pirate Bay]].<ref name=Ingram>{{cite news | last=Ingram | first=Matthew | title=Do we need copyright cops? | work=Ingram 2.0 | publisher=Globe and Mail | url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080527.WBmingram20080527120809/WBStory/WBmingram | date=2008-05-26 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref>

== International status of ACTA ==
ACTA would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO), the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO) or the [[United Nations]].<ref name=Pilieci/><ref name=ec>{{cite web | title=Fact Sheet: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement | publisher=European Commission | url = http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/fs231007_en.htm | date=2007-10-23 | accessdate=2008-05-27}}</ref> ACTA would form a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis.<ref>http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx</ref>


==Support==
==Support==

Revision as of 02:38, 2 December 2008

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral trade agreement in response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."[1] The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit physical goods, as well as "internet distribution and information technology".[2]

In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan announced that they would negotiate ACTA. Furthermore the following countries have joined the negotiations: Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada.[3][4][5] The ACTA negotiations have been conducted in secrecy until on 22 May 2008 a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded to Wikileaks, and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.[6][7][5][8]

ACTA would "establish a new international legal framework" and participants seek to complete the negotiation by the end of 2008.[9] New Zealand states that "The goal of ACTA is to set a new, higher benchmark for intellectual property rights enforcement that countries can join on a voluntary basis."[10] ACTA is part of a broader "forum shifting" strategy employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement: similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty.[11] If adopted the treaty would establish an international coalition against copyright infringement, imposing strong, top-down enforcement of copyright laws in developed nations. The proposed agreement would allow border officials to search laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for copyright-infringing content. It would also impose new cooperation requirements upon Internet service providers (ISPs), including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, and restrict the use of online privacy tools. The proposal specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime, as well.

Legal framework

ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis[12] and would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.[5][13] Citing a fact sheet published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the USTR's 2008 Special 301 report the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) states that the goal of ACTA is to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement beyond the existing standards in the TRIPs Agreement and to increase international cooperation, including the sharing of information between signatory countries' law enforcement agencies.[14] According to New Zealand ACTA aims to facilitate a "strong and modern legal framework so that law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and private citizens have the most up-to-date tools necessary to effectively bring counterfeiters and pirates to justice." Areas for possible ACTA provisions include: criminal enforcement, border measures, civil enforcement, optical disc piracy, and internet distribution and information technology.[15]

Negotiations

The negotiations for the ACTA treaty are conducted in secrecy[6][7][5][8] and are not part of any international organisation.[16] The European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other government agencies have acknowledged participating in ACTA negotiations, but they have refused to release drafts of the treaty or to discuss specific terms under discussion in the negotiations. Public interest advocates in Canada filed an access to information request but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.[5]

Provisions

Although the treaty's title suggests that the agreement only covers counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines), the proposed treaty will have a broader scope, including "Internet distribution and information technology".[17] A leaked document entitled Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement suggests that the following provisions will be included in ACTA: new legal regimes to "encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing materials", criminal measures and increased border search powers.[18]

ISP cooperation

The leaked document includes a provision to force Internet service providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a warrant, making it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay.[19]

Border searches

Newspaper reports indicate that the proposed agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travellers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.[5][8]

Some countries already conduct border searches of electronic devices without probable cause. In July 2008, the United States Department of Homeland Security disclosed that its border search policies allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to conduct random searches of electronic devices for "information concerning terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other national security matters; alien admissibility; contraband including child pornography, monetary instruments, and information in violation of copyright or trademark laws; and evidence of embargo violations or other import or export control laws."[20][21] Senator Russell Feingold called the policies "truly alarming" and proposed to introduce legislation to require reasonable suspicion of illegality and to prohibit racial profiling.[20] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously upheld the constitutionality of laptop searches without reasonable suspicion at border crossings.[20]

Support

Recording Industry Association of America

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) supports the agreement, and has given input and suggestions to the creation of ACTA. [22]

European Union

European Commission

The European Commission identifies ACTA as an attempt to enforce intellectual property rights and states that countries involved in the negotiations see consider intellectual property rights as "a key instrument for their development and innovation policies". The European Commission and argues that:

"The proliferation of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements poses an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable development of the world economy. It is a problem with serious economic and social consequences. Today, we face a number of new challenges: the increase of dangerous counterfeit goods (pharmaceuticals, food and drink, cosmetics or toys, car parts); the speed and ease of digital reproduction; the growing importance of the Internet as a means of distribution; and the sophistication and resources of international counterfeiters. All these factors have made the problem more pervasive and harder to tackle."[23]

Regarding the question why this agreement is not pursued through the G8, WTO, WIPO or other formal existing structures the European Commission explains that a free-standing agreement provides the most flexibility "to pursue this project among interested countries", while stating that "the membership and priorities of those organizations (G8, WTO, and WIPO) simply are not the most conducive to this kind of path breaking project."[23]

European Parliament

With a draft Report from 26 August 2008 the European Commission tries to get a Mandate from the European Parliament for the negotiation of ACTA[24]. The document will be discussed and probably amended within the INTA Comittee of the European Parliament. Eva Lichtenberger prepared a Draft Opinion[25] that heavily criticises this paper within the JURI-committee. The resolution is scheduled for adoption in the committee on 6 November 2008 and on 16 December 2008 for the plenary[26]. There are 107 Amendments to the original Draft[27]

Council of the European Union

Shortly after, the Council of the European Union also started to work on a Draft for a Resolution dealing with ACTA.[28]. On 25 September 2008 the council adopted a blatant pro-ACTA resolution[29].

G8 Leaders' Communiqué on the World Economy

Published in July 2008 paragraph 17 of the G8 Leaders' Communiqué on the World Economy (G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit) states under the heading "Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)" that:

"Effective promotion and protection of IPR are critical to the development of creative products, technologies and economies. We will advance existing anti-counterfeiting and piracy initiatives through, inter alia, promoting information exchange systems amongst our authorities, as well as developing non-binding Standards to be Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement (SECURE) at the World Customs Organization. We encourage the acceleration of negotiations to establish a new international legal framework, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and seek to complete the negotiation by the end of this year. We will promote practical cooperation between our countries to develop tools to combat new techniques in counterfeiting and piracy and spread best practices. We reaffirm our commitment on government use of software in full compliance with the relevant international agreements and call on other countries to follow our commitment."[30]

Criticism

Secrecy of negotiations

The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes ACTA, calling for more public spotlight on the proposed treaty.[31] Since May 2008 discussion papers and other documents relating to the negotiation of ACTA have been uploaded to Wikileaks, and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.[6][7][5][8] In June 2008 Michael Geist from Copyright News called argued that "Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy" noting before documents leaked on the internet ACTA was shrouded in secrecy. Coverage of the documents by the Toronto Star "sparked widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade deal that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities." Geist argues that public disclosure of the draft ACTA treaty "might put an end to fears about iPod searching border guards" and that it "could focus attention on other key concerns including greater Internet service provider filtering of content, heightened liability for websites that link to allegedly infringing content, and diminished privacy for Internet users." Geist also argues that greater transparency would lead to a more inclusive process, highlighting that the ACTA negotiations have excluded both civil society groups as well as developing countries. Geist reports that "reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty's provisions leaking to the public." He argues that there is a need for "cooperation from all stakeholders to battle counterfeiting concerns" and that "an effective strategy requires broader participation and regular mechanisms for feedback".[32]

Legal scope

It has been argued that the main thrust of ACTA is to provide safe harbor for service providers so that they may not hesitate to provide information about infringers; this may be used, for instance, to quickly identify and stop infringers once their identities are confirmed by their providers. Similarly, it provides for criminalization of copyright infringement, granting law enforcement the powers to perform criminal investigation, arrests and pursue criminal citations or prosecution of suspects who may have infringed on copyright. It also allows criminal investigations and invasive searches to be performed against individuals for whom there is no probable cause, and in that regard weakens the presumption of innocence and allows what would in the past have been considered unlawful searches. More pressingly, being an international treaty, it allows for these provisions—usually administered through public legislation and subject to judiciary oversight—to be pushed through via closed negotiations among members of the executive bodies of the signatories, and once it is ratified, using trade incentives and the like to persuade other nations to adopt its terms without much scope for negotiation.[33]

Privacy

The Free Software Foundation argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion.[17] Aaron Shaw argues that "ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Even though the precise terms of ACTA remain undecided, the negotiants' preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement." such as removing "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers" in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions. Shaw further says that "[ACTA] would also facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process".[34]

Practicality

A British study found that iPods owned by persons 14-24 today contain an average of more than 840 tracks downloaded on file-sharing networks, nearly fifty percent of all music possessed by this segment.[35] The same study also found that 95% of individuals falling under this category have copied music in some way.[35] Thus, some critics argue that ACTA directly incriminates the ordinary consumer activity.[36][37][38]

Threat to free software

The Free Software Foundation has published "Speak out against ACTA", stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting."[17] Specifically the FSF argues that ACTA will makes it more difficult and expensive to distribute free software via file sharing and P2P technologies like BitTorrent, which are currently used to distributing large amounts of free software. The FSF also argues that ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play media because DRM protected media cannot be played with free software.[17]


Requests for disclosure

In November 2008, FFII requested secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents from the EU Council, specifically naming 12 documents to be published.[39] The request was denied by the EU council, stating that "disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations, would weaken the position of the European Union in these negotiations and might affect relations with the third parties concerned" [40]. FFII stated that although the case could be won in the European court of justice, the legal process could take many years (citing an earlier case on transparency of EU legislation that took 6 years). Consequently, FFII suggests going via parlaments of Europe to force Council to publish the texts.

See also

External links

References

  1. ^ http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx
  2. ^ "What is ACTA?". Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Retrieved 1 december 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ "What is ACTA?". Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Retrieved 1 december 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ Geiger, Andrea (2008-04-30). "A View From Europe: The high price of counterfeiting, and getting real about enforcement". The Hill. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Pilieci, Vito (2008-05-26). "Copyright deal could toughen rules governing info on iPods, computers". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
  6. ^ a b c "Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007)". Wikileaks. 22 May 2008.
  7. ^ a b c Jason Mick (23 May 2008). "Wikileaks Airs U.S. Plans to Kill Pirate Bay, Monitor ISPs With Multinational ACTA Proposal". DailyTech.
  8. ^ a b c d Weeks, Carly (2008-05-26). "Anti-piracy strategy will help government to spy, critic says". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
  9. ^ http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx
  10. ^ http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx
  11. ^ "SECURE Draft (Feb. 2008)" (PDF). World Customs Organization (WCO). February 2008.
  12. ^ http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx
  13. ^ "Fact Sheet: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement". European Commission. 2007-10-23. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
  14. ^ "What is ACTA?". Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Retrieved 1 december 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  15. ^ http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____34358.aspx
  16. ^ http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx
  17. ^ a b c d Speak out against ACTA - Free Software Foundation
  18. ^ "What is ACTA?". Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Retrieved 1 december 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  19. ^ Ingram, Matthew (2008-05-26). "Do we need copyright cops?". Ingram 2.0. Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2008-05-27.
  20. ^ a b c Nakashima, Ellen (2008-08-01). "Travelers' Laptops May Be Detained At Border". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  21. ^ "Policy Regarding Border Search of Information" (PDF). U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  22. ^ Anderson, Nate (2008-06-30). "RIAA's ACTA wishlist includes gutted DMCA, mandatory filters". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
  23. ^ a b Fact Sheet: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - European Commission (23 October 2007)
  24. ^ "Draft Report on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade".
  25. ^ JURI Draft Opinion: Impact of Counterfeiting on International Trade
  26. ^ "Procedure file INI/2008/2133". {{cite web}}: horizontal tab character in |title= at position 18 (help)
  27. ^ "Point 4 of the Agenda on the INTA Meeting from 13/10/2008".
  28. ^ Presidency of the Council (26 August 2008). "Draft Council Resolution on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting plan" (PDF). Council.
  29. ^ Presidency of the Council (25 September 2008). "Council Resolution on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting plan" (pdf). Council.
  30. ^ http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx
  31. ^ "Sunlight for ACTA". EFF. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
  32. ^ http://www.faircopyrightforcanada.ca/government-should-lift-veil-on-acta-secrecy/
  33. ^ Anderson, Nate (2008-06-02). "The real ACTA threat (it's not iPod-scanning border guards)". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
  34. ^ http://www.kestudies.org/ojs/index.php/kes/article/view/34/59
  35. ^ a b "Average teenager's iPod has 800 illegal music tracks". Times. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
  36. ^ "IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)". IPJustice.org. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
  37. ^ "Students (unaware/don't care) about music legalities". ZDNet. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
  38. ^ "Piracy as a social phenomenon - It's not about the $". ZDNet. Retrieved 2008-07-05.
  39. ^ FFII Press Release from November 3 2008 FFII opposes stealth legislation, demands ACTA documents
  40. ^ FFII Press Release from November 10 2008 EU Council refuses to release secret ACTA documents