ANALYSIS
TREATY PROVOKES WORLDWIDE TENSIONS OVER DIGITAL RIGHTS
Siân Harris finds out why a treaty on intellectual property and digital rights is causing protests A
round the world many blog inches and social network discussions are being devoted to a new treaty on intellectual property. With a name
that sounds like a scholarly journal and text that, in all honesty, hardly makes riveting reading, the ACTA treaty may seem an unlikely choice for attracting public attention. But, dry read though it may be, ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has led people to take to the streets in protest, sign online petitions, lobby government officials and, in some cases, launch cyber attacks on businesses that support the treaty. The latest development is that in late February the European Commission took the unusual step of referring the treaty to the European Court of Justice asking the court to check that ACTA did not contravene the EU’s fundamental human rights and freedoms. This referral will delay the ratification of the treaty by the EU, one of the most important trading groups whose interests the treaty is supposed to be furthering. So what is ACTA and why has it made people so angry? ACTA’s purpose is to give its signatories authority to tackle infringements of existing intellectual property and copyright laws. As Angela Mills Wade, executive director of the European Publishers Council (EPC), explained: ‘Legal certainty and common rules are needed for European companies and right-holders when incidents of piracy take place outside the EU. ACTA will give right-holders a set of common rules regarding the way their complaint is dealt with and a set of practical questions to deal with urgent protection, evidence collection and procedures for seizure of counterfeit or pirated goods and content.’ Much of ACTA’s text relates to, for example, destroying counterfeit products and treating the commercial sale of such goods
8 Research Information APR/MAY 2012
consumption; such actions could interfere with international trade in lawfully available products.’
Indeed, this issue of generic medicines was one of the reasons behind the resignation in January of Kader Arif, a member of the European parliament’s international trade group and the former lead negotiator of ACTA. However,
European Trade
Commissioner Karel De Gucht countered these claims in a speech in early March when he argued that ‘ACTA will not impose any restrictions on trade in generic medicines.’ He claimed that ‘ACTA is very closely modeled on the European system’ and that ‘there will be no change whatsoever to the current balance of rights and safeguards for European citizens.’ And, in a document called ‘10 Myths about ACTA’ the EC argued that: ‘There are no provisions in
as criminal. Such measures, although bad news for manufacturers of products such as fake designer handbags, hardly sound extreme.
But there are concerns, especially about whether ACTA could impede the process of taking legitimate products across international borders. In an analysis of the treaty, the charity Oxfam warned that ‘ACTA will undermine access to affordable medicines by impeding trade in quality generic medicines,’ noting that this has already been the result of previous measures to tighten up intellectual property enforcement.
The Oxfam report continued: ‘There are great concerns that ACTA’s impact will extend beyond those countries that initially sign the agreement, potentially undermining access for millions of patients in developing countries who depend on affordable, quality generics. ACTA provides for the seizure of in-transit medicines that do not infringe any IP in the place of production or
ACTA that could directly or indirectly affect
the legitimate trade in generic
medicines or, more broadly, global public health.’
It is not medicines, however, that are causing the biggest stir about ACTA. Instead it is the parts of the treaty that relate to the digital space that are generating particular controversy. More than one blog post has stated that: ‘ACTA threatens your privacy and freedom of speech.’ The concerns are that the definitions of criminal liability in the treaty are broad and will push private companies to police the internet and that private interests will be given more control over what users do online and more disclosure of users’ personal information. In addition, there is concern over harsh penalties for acts such as downloading music tracks without paying the copyright holder.
Commissioner De Gucht disputed these
claims too in his speech in early March: ‘Today’s law is quite specific here. To steal even an apple remains a crime that can be reported to the police. However, to
www.researchinformation.info
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36