IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (original) (raw)
IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
IP Justice White Paper
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
25 March 2008
By IP Justice Executive Director Robin Gross
- International “Cooperation” and Government Spying
- Enforcement Practices & Propaganda Campaigns
- New Civil & Criminal Legal Framework for Internet & Digital Technology
i) Criminal enforcement
ii) Border measures
iii) Civil enforcement
iv) Optical discs (CDs / DVDs)
v) Internet distribution and information technology
1. Concerns with ACTA’s Process
i) Lack of Transparency in Process
ii) Undemocratic Process
iii) Public-Interest Groups Excluded from Process
iv) What about WTO-TRIPS and WIPO?
v) Relies upon questionable data
2. Substantive Problems with ACTA
i) Burdens Public for Private Interest
ii) Criminalizes Ordinary Consumer Activity
iii) Threatens Freedom of Expression
iv) Encourages Privacy Violations
v) Curtails Legal Due Process Rights
vi) Need Flexibility to Address Technological Change
viii) Anti-Innovation and Competition
ix) No Need for “Stronger” Protections
x) Imperialistic view of the world
V. IP Justice ACTA Campaign & Mailing List
VI. More Info on ACTA
IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
In 2007 a select handful of the wealthiest countries began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement, the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA is spearheaded by the United States, the European Commission, Japan, and Switzerland — those countries with the largest intellectual property industries. Other countries invited to participate in ACTA’s negotiation process are Canada, Australia, Korea, Mexico and New Zealand. Noticeably absent from ACTA’s negotiations are leaders from developing countries who hold national policy priorities that differ from the international intellectual property industry.
After the multi-lateral treaty’s scope and priorities are negotiated by the few countries invited to participate in the early discussions, ACTA’s text will be “locked” and other countries who are later “invited” to sign-on to the pact will not be able to re-negotiate its one-sided terms. It is claimed that signing-on to the trade agreement will be "voluntary", but few countries will have the muscle to refuse an “invitation” to join, once the rules have been set by the select few conducting the negotiations.
The US is negotiating ACTA through the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), an office within the Bush Administration that has concluded more than 10 “free trade” agreements in recent years, all of which require both the US and the other country to increase intellectual property rights and enforcement measures beyond the international legal norms in the WTO-TRIPS Agreement and WIPO Internet Treaties.
As of 25 March 2008, no draft text for ACTA has been published to provide the public with any substance of the proposed international treaty. A “Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” was reportedly provided to select lobbyists in the intellectual property industry, but not to public interest organizations concerned with the subject matter of the proposed treaty.
In October 2007 the USTR published a press release