A C T A
The new threat to the net
|
|
ACTA is short for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis 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.
An open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, EDRi (27 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC (French trade association for web 2.0 companies), and the Free Knowledge Institute (FKI), states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy."
The Free Software Foundation argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion. Aaron Shaw, Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, 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".
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis 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.
An open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, EDRi (27 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC (French trade association for web 2.0 companies), and the Free Knowledge Institute (FKI), states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy."
The Free Software Foundation argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion. Aaron Shaw, Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, 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".
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) 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." ACTA would also require that existing ISPs no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media; this would substantially affect many sites that offer free software or host software projects such as SourceForge.
More information
- Sunlight on ACTA
- Demand to see ACTA!
- The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the EIPA (the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008), which would create copyright cops.
|
|
Take action!
|
|
Final draft of ACTA watered down, TPP still dangerous on IP rules
January 28, 2012
by E.D. Kain, FORBES-Contributor
So it turns out that many of the worst provisions in ACTA, once they saw the light of day, were scaled way back. Nate Anderson ofArs Technica writes:
US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, whose office negotiated the US side of the deal, issued astatement this morning about the “tremendous progress in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy,” but the real story here is the tremendous climbdown by US negotiators, who have largely failed in their attempts to push the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) onto the rest of the world.
That’s another piece of the puzzle.
ACTA was, at least at its inception, an attempt to push the DMCA onto the rest of the world, and especially the developing world. It was an attempt by the rich Western nations to keep a tight grip on and a narrow definition of what constituted IP and counterfeiting.
Thankfully, it appears many of the worst aspects of the agreement were sliced out of it, though it remains troubling for other reasons.
Rashmi Rangnath, writing at Public Knowledge, lists the ways the final draft of the agreement was watered down:
- The provision that proposed to criminally punish ordinary users (think college kid downloading music) with fines, jail time, seizure of computers, etc., was significantly scaled back as the negotiation process moved on and finally eliminated in the final text.
- The provision that required all ACTA countries to hold third parties, such as ISPs and consumer electronics manufacturers, liable for their customers’ infringement was eliminated. This provision, as drafted, was inconsistent with U.S. law and would have required changes to this complex and evolving policy space.
- The provision that required countries to institute safe harbors for ISPs from their customer’s infringement was eliminated. While the idea of providing ISPs with a safe harbor is a good one and facilitates the development of platforms and services on the Internet, the way in which ACTA would have required these safe harbors was not good. It lacked safe guards for users that are contained in U.S. law. Further, it could have provided the excuse for measures such as three strikes and deep packet inspection.
- The DRM provisions of ACTA were improved significantly. Earlier leaked drafts had called upon countries to prevent circumvention of DRM, treat them as both civil and criminal offenses, and consider them illegal even when there was no underlying attempt to infringe copyright. Furthermore, these drafts had not acknowledged that circumvention could be done for lawful purposes. The final text overcomes these deficiencies and gives countries flexibility in how they implement DRM provisions.
She points out that many problems still exist within the final ACTA product, including over-zealous statutory damages rules (such as fining someone hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a couple dozen songs) and asset seizure rules.
Anderson notes that there are still “plenty of other opportunities for mischief, especially when it comes to technical details or to items like statutory damages and how they might be calculated. This is especially true since ACTA negotiators have shown the usual preference for exporting intellectual property protections while leaving limitations and fair uses up for grabs.”
Meanwhile, Rangnath points out that negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) continue in complete secrecy. She writes:
Perhaps the fact that ACTA was a stand-alone IP agreement worked to our advantage. The TPP, on the other hand, is a trade agreement that covers a diverse range of issues including textiles, telecommunications, agriculture, etc. It is easy for our concerns about unbalanced intellectual property provisions to get lost among other priorities as countries trade concessions in one chapter for stronger IP rules. Think of how controversial provisions often manage to pass Congress because they get buried in the must pass omnibus bills.
The more I’ve begun to dig into these various bills, agreements, and the negotiations surrounding them, the more it becomes apparent that these assaults on the internet aren’t going away. They will continue to take place, either on the international stage or in congress, and they will always either be veiled in secrecy or buried within a larger document.
ACTA may have been watered down and the US government’s attempt to export DMCA rules to the rest of the world may have been a failure. SOPA and PIPA may have guttered out in congress for the time being. But TPP represents the latest present danger to internet freedom, and ACTA may still allow government’s to adopt more restrictive IP rules.
If lawmakers start baking restrictive IP laws into larger bills – maybe stitching them into defense funding bills, for instance – it may become increasingly difficult to see what’s happening. Each of these laws and agreements has been defined by its opacity: secret negotiations, closed door talks, no public discussion.
And it’s no wonder. Like vampires, these laws seem to die off once they see the light of day.
For now, the real threat to internet freedom appears to be the TPP, though this could change as the agreement evolves. More public discussion and open negotiations would help achieve a better final product.
On the domestic front, don’t expect the SOPAs of the world to go away. The entertainment industry will rise again once this whole thing blows over, in one form or another.
Meanwhile, developing countries have the most to lose if ACTA does open the door for the export of DMCA-style rules to the rest of the world. It’s understandable, then, that countries like Poland have concerns that richer countries might not share.
And lawmakers here in the US, like Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) are still warningthat ACTA is a dangerous agreement, in spite of the watering down of the final draft.
“As a member of Congress, it’s more dangerous than SOPA,” he said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
“It’s not coming to me for a vote. It purports that it does not change existing laws. But once implemented, it creates a whole new enforcement system and will virtually tie the hands of Congress to undo it.”
You can read the final draft of the agreement here (pdf.)
Source: Forbes
ACTA-Dominoes are falling...
Germany says it will not be signing ACTA for the time being
February 10, 2012
The news (Spiegel, Netzpolitik) seems to cast the future of ACTA into serious doubt. The accord requires signatures and ratification from all 27 of the European member states as well as from the European Parliament itself.
It started with Poland announcing a hold to the ACTA ratification, which – just like that – put the whole agreement in doubt. Few people seem to know this, but Poland is a heavyweight in the European Union’s policymaking.
That was followed by the Slovenian Ambassador apologizing in public for her signature on the agreement, saying she had failed in her civic duty, and calling for anti-ACTA rallies, which is profoundly unique.
Since then, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Latvia have stepped forward and said they’re putting ratification on hold.
With Germany – the European Union’s superpower, by far the heaviest politically – now saying that it won’t even sign ACTA for the time being, much less ratify it, it looks like we can actually win this fight and kill ACTA dead in the water.
And let’s be clear: while the US and Japan could theoretically have ACTA between them, without the European Union, there is effectively no ACTA at all.
Tomorrow, there are anti-ACTA rallies all over europe. This is one seriously impressive map of rallies:
Tomorrow, rallies all over Europe demand freedom of speech and protest laws that were made in backroom deals by corporate executives.
This article was originally published at http://falkvinge.net/
Acta loses more support in Europe
Bulgaria and the Netherlands join Poland and Germany in refusing to ratify Acta, citing privacy and human rights issues
15 February 2012
Support for Acta in Europe is waning as both Bulgaria and the Netherlands refuse to ratify the international anti-piracy agreement.
Bulgaria will not ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement over fears it will curb freedom to download movies and music for free and encourage internet surveillance, economy minister Traicho Traikov said on Tuesday.
Support for Acta in Europe is waning as both Bulgaria and the Netherlands refuse to ratify the international anti-piracy agreement.
Bulgaria will not ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement over fears it will curb freedom to download movies and music for free and encourage internet surveillance, economy minister Traicho Traikov said on Tuesday.
More than 4,000 people marched in the capital Sofia last Saturday calling on parliament not to ratify the act. Similar rallies drew thousands of protesters across eastern Europe, as well as in Germany, France and Ireland.
"I will table a proposal to the Council of Ministers to stop the procedure of Bulgaria's signing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement," Traikov said.
The decision means Bulgaria will not take any action concerning Acta before European Union member states come up with a unified position.
Meanwhile, the Dutch Lower House has backed a motion from the Green Left party which says the Netherlands should, for the time being, refrain from signing Acta, according to a report at Radio Netherlands Worldwide.
The RNW report says that the parliament is seeking clarity about whether the treaty threatens the rights and the privacy of internet users.
Acta aims to cut trademark theft and tackle other online piracy but the accord has raised concerns, especially in eastern Europe, over online censorship and increased surveillance. Some protesters have compared it to that used by former communist regimes.
Many Bulgarians also fear the free download of movies and music, a common practice in the bloc's poorest state, might lead to imprisonment if the treaty is ratified.
"Bulgarian society is not ready to accept mechanisms which raise suspicions of violation of the freedom of expression and freedom [on the] internet," Traikov said.
Negotiations over Acta have been taking place for several years. Some European countries have signed Acta but it has not yet been ratified in many countries.
Source: The Guardian
"I will table a proposal to the Council of Ministers to stop the procedure of Bulgaria's signing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement," Traikov said.
The decision means Bulgaria will not take any action concerning Acta before European Union member states come up with a unified position.
Meanwhile, the Dutch Lower House has backed a motion from the Green Left party which says the Netherlands should, for the time being, refrain from signing Acta, according to a report at Radio Netherlands Worldwide.
The RNW report says that the parliament is seeking clarity about whether the treaty threatens the rights and the privacy of internet users.
Acta aims to cut trademark theft and tackle other online piracy but the accord has raised concerns, especially in eastern Europe, over online censorship and increased surveillance. Some protesters have compared it to that used by former communist regimes.
Many Bulgarians also fear the free download of movies and music, a common practice in the bloc's poorest state, might lead to imprisonment if the treaty is ratified.
"Bulgarian society is not ready to accept mechanisms which raise suspicions of violation of the freedom of expression and freedom [on the] internet," Traikov said.
Negotiations over Acta have been taking place for several years. Some European countries have signed Acta but it has not yet been ratified in many countries.
Source: The Guardian
ACTA error: Democracy not found
Members of Ruch Palikota Party wear masks during a vote of no confidence for Health Minister Bartosz Arlukowicz in Poland's parliament in Warsaw January 26, 2012 (Reuters / Wojciech Olkusnik / Agencja Gazeta)
15 February, 2012
As European parliaments reject the Anti-Counterfeiting trade Agreement on human rights grounds, some are asking why it was signed in the first place.
It looks like some of the countries who signed ACTA in Tokyo on January 26 are already having second thoughts.
“I don’t know why I signed ACTA”, former Romanian prime minister Emil Boc said on February 6.
“We made insufficient consultations before signing the agreement in late January," said Polish PM Donald Tusk on February 3, implying that his government had not taken steps to fully "ensure it was entirely safe for Polish citizens.”
A few days later Slovenia's foreign minister, who signed the agreement on behalf of her country, apologized for doing so: "Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children."
Lithuanian Justice Minister Remigijus Simasius wrote in his blog: “I don’t know where it came from and how it originated, but I don’t like that this treaty was signed skillfully avoiding discussions in the European Union and Lithuania.”
And last Saturday, thousands of people took part in coordinated protest across Europe. Over 200 cities were filled with crowds opposing the controversial agreement.
On Wednesday Bulgaria and The Netherlands withdrew Support in response to protests.
The question is – why was the agreement signed in the first place, if its chances of being ratified are dropping by the day?
This is an excerpt of an article by Natalia Novikova, RT, click here to read the entire article.
As European parliaments reject the Anti-Counterfeiting trade Agreement on human rights grounds, some are asking why it was signed in the first place.
It looks like some of the countries who signed ACTA in Tokyo on January 26 are already having second thoughts.
“I don’t know why I signed ACTA”, former Romanian prime minister Emil Boc said on February 6.
“We made insufficient consultations before signing the agreement in late January," said Polish PM Donald Tusk on February 3, implying that his government had not taken steps to fully "ensure it was entirely safe for Polish citizens.”
A few days later Slovenia's foreign minister, who signed the agreement on behalf of her country, apologized for doing so: "Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children."
Lithuanian Justice Minister Remigijus Simasius wrote in his blog: “I don’t know where it came from and how it originated, but I don’t like that this treaty was signed skillfully avoiding discussions in the European Union and Lithuania.”
And last Saturday, thousands of people took part in coordinated protest across Europe. Over 200 cities were filled with crowds opposing the controversial agreement.
On Wednesday Bulgaria and The Netherlands withdrew Support in response to protests.
The question is – why was the agreement signed in the first place, if its chances of being ratified are dropping by the day?
This is an excerpt of an article by Natalia Novikova, RT, click here to read the entire article.
3rd international day of action against ACTA, IPRED & Co
Saturday, 9 June 2012
Facebook-event English
Facebook-event German
Anti-ACTA Facebook-page
Join here:
www.rloveution.de/?r=fbe
Google protest map
June 12, 2012 - EU-Parliament voting on ACTA
Get more information at:
www.stopacta.info/
edri.org/stopacta
GET ACTIVE!
You can get active before June 9th.
Contact your member of the European Parliament now!
Find names & emails easily at:
www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search.html
Contact your member of the European Parliament now!
Find names & emails easily at:
www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search.html
July 4, 2012 - Important update
ACTA rejected by the European Parliament!
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), was rejected by the European Parliament on Wednesday, and hence cannot become law in the EU. This was the first time that Parliament exercised its Lisbon Treaty power to reject an international trade agreement. 478 MEPs voted against ACTA, 39 in favour, and 165 abstained.
"I am very pleased that Parliament has followed my recommendation to reject ACTA" said rapporteur David Martin (S&D, UK), after the vote, reiterating his concerns that the treaty is too vague, open to misinterpretation and could therefore jeopardise citizens' liberties. However, he also stressed the need to find alternative ways to protect intellectual property in the EU, as the "raw material of the EU economy".
The EPP's key ACTA advocate, Christofer Fjellner (EPP, SE), asked before the vote that Parliament should delay its final vote until the European Court of Justice has ruled on whether ACTA is compatible with the EU treaties. However, when a majority of MEPs rejected this request, a substantial minority responded by abstaining in the vote on Parliament's consent.
While debating whether to give its consent to ACTA, Parliament experienced unprecedented direct lobbying by thousands of EU citizens who called on it to reject ACTA, in street demonstrations, e-mails to MEPs and calls to their offices. Parliament also received a petition, signed by 2.8 million citizens worldwide, urging it to reject the agreement.
ACTA was negotiated by the EU and its member states, the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland to improve the enforcement of anti-counterfeiting law internationally. Wednesday's vote means that neither the EU nor its individual member states can join the agreement.
Source: European Parliament - Procedure: Consent - REF. : 20120703IPR48247
