Anti-Counterfeit Deal Close to Being Signed for Illegal Downloads
DOWNLOAD: A picture taken on March 2009 in Paris shows the screen of a computer showing a web site of downloading contents. Internet users who illegally download movies or music could be slapped with tough penalties. (Caroline Ventezou/Getty Images )
Representatives from almost a dozen governments and authorities are expected to meet in Tokyo later this month to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Details of the agreement are still shrouded in mystery after the U.S. government blocked the release of the latest draft document that was hammered out during two years of negotiations.
Despite assurances from participant governments, the ACTA has already become a lightning rod for civil rights activists and developing countries around the world.
“In negotiating this agreement,” the newly-formed Internet Freedom Movement said in a recent statement, “the governments and power brokers of the world have chosen to ignore the voice of the people, opting instead to expand their authoritarian spheres of influence into the digital frontier.”
Despite its inception in the Bush administration, the ACTA has since been adopted by Obama, who has described it as a key plank in the government’s strategy against the global trade in counterfeit goods, valued at US$200 billion annually.
The potential signatories to the agreement—the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, the E.U. and its 27 member states, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland, Singapore, Mexico, and Morocco—agreed in the last meeting in Washington on Aug. 20 to wrap up negotiations in late September.
U.S. officials have said that since ACTA does not require changes in U.S. law, it would not need to be approved by Congress prior to its implementation. However, the secrecy surrounding the negotiations has raised concerns over the content of the final agreement.
An early draft negotiating document that was leaked on the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks in 2007 indicated that authorities would crack down on peer-to-peer file sharing.
The document indicated that travelers could see their iPods or laptops being screened by border security at airports and face criminal charges if found with illegally downloaded films or music. In addition, it would require ISPs to monitor the communication of users, and cut off the Internet connection of serial copyright violators.
Those measures appear to have been watered down, in documents that have been subsequently leaked in 2008, 2009, and earlier this year.
In a joint statement in August, participating countries sought to allay fears over the content of the agreement, saying that it “will not oblige border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials.” Despite that, the agreement is still likely to grant customs officials the authority to seize counterfeit goods without a court order in all the participating countries.
A further cause for concern raised by Indian officials is that the agreement could affect the free flow of goods—particularly in generic drugs. The country launched a WTO dispute against the E.U. earlier this year over seizures of generic drugs in transit to South America.
However in the August statement, the participatory countries said that the ACTA “will not hinder the cross-border transit of legitimate generic medicines.”
The level of confusion over the content of the agreement is a reflection of the efforts of governments in obscuring the detail of current negotiations.
In March last year, the U.S. government denied a Freedom of Information Act request into the text of the ACTA draft, declaring it a “property classified” national security secret. Unnamed sources told the EurActiv website that the U.S. government has influenced a clampdown on information about ACTA being released widely.
Members of the European Parliament (MEP), who will vote on the treaty later this year, have not been given the full negotiating text—although they have been regularly debriefed.
At a meeting in July this year, Swedish MEP and Swedish Pirate Party member Christian Engström said he was told he could not circulate the details of the briefing with his constituents.
“In a democracy, new laws should be made by the elected representatives after an open public debate,” he wrote on his blog. “They should not be negotiated behind closed doors by unelected officials at the commission, in an attempt to keep the citizens out of the process until it is too late.”
The document has reportedly been circulated to lobbyists for some of the biggest commercial interests.
The U.S. movie, music, and software industries claim that they lose more than $16 billion in sales every year to pirated products, sold, or distributed on the Internet. In a speech at the Export-Import Bank in March this year, President Obama said that his administration was going to “aggressively protect our intellectual property.” But details of the negotiations suggest already that the implementation new agreement could be fraught with confusion.
According to a recent report by Reuters, the E.U. is pushing for “geographical indicators” being added to the draft document—which would protect goods that are drawn from a particular location, such as Cognac or Champagne. However, business groups are concerned that goods such as Kraft Parmesan cheese could also be regarded as an illegal item.
Nefeterius McPherson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office, was quoted as saying that all of the current disputes are resolvable by the time the participants meet later this month in Tokyo.
No comments:
Post a Comment