Stopping ACTA: DEVE Committee

Most people have concentrated on the ITRE, JURI and LIBE committees (as I did in my previous posts this week). But there's a fourth committee that is meeting to decide upon its recommendation to INTA: that of Development. Here's how it...

Share

Most people have concentrated on the ITRE, JURI and LIBE committees (as I did in my previous posts this week). But there's a fourth committee that is meeting to decide upon its recommendation to INTA: that of Development. Here's how it describes itself on its home page:

More than a billion people around the world live in extreme poverty. Many more face hunger and disease or have no access to healthcare or education. And, increasingly, people in poor countries face the devastating effects of climate change.

The citizens of Europe firmly believe that the EU has a duty to put a stop to poverty and suffering in a world where there is enough for everybody, if fairly shared.

That reference to sharing is interesting in the context of ACTA and its evident intent to put a stop to that sort of thing.

Here are the DEVE members from the UK:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

And here's what I've sent them:

I am writing to you in connection with the imminent submission of your committee's opinion on ACTA. As you know, this has become an extremely contentious issue, with much misinformation flying around. Since I appreciate that time is short, and you will be very busy on this topic, I just wanted to point out four basic reasons why I feel ACTA is problematic, and should be rejected.

ACTA is a "country club" treaty that is biased against developing countries

ACTA was negotiated among a small group of self-selecting nations. The vast majority of these have mature economies, and ACTA reflects their preoccupations. In particular, the concerns of developing countries are ignored.

For example, thanks to ACTA's harsher policing of trademarks, we are likely to see shipments of generic drugs seized at the borders of ACTA signatories. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has produced a detailed document explaining why, for these and other reasons, it is "deeply concerned about the impact of the enforcement agenda on the production and supply of affordable, legitimate medicines" (http://www.msfaccess.org/content/acta-and-its-impact-access-medicines).

ACTA deliberately avoids protecting civil liberties

As the important court case in the European Court of Justice recently established (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=119512&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=291042):

a fair balance [must] be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other

The problem is that ACTA is completely one-sided on this question: it provides no safeguards for civil liberties. Disturbingly, it tries to hide this fact in a particularly troubling way. Here's what Amnesty International wrote on the subject (https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/eu-urged-reject-international-anti-counterfeiting-pact-2012-02-10):

Amnesty International is also gravely concerned about the ACTA's vague and meaningless safeguards. Instead of using well-defined and accepted terminology, the text refers to concepts such as "fundamental principles" and even invents a concept of "fair process", which currently has no definition in international law.

"Worryingly, ACTA's text does not even contain references to safeguards like ‘fundamental rights', ‘fair use', or ‘due process', which are universally understood and clearly defined in international law," said Widney Brown.

That is, ACTA deliberately uses language that literally has no meaning in the context of an international treaty: "fundamental principles" and "fair process" simply do not exist, and are therefore worthless as safeguards for civil liberty. What's worrying is that ACTA negotiators would have known this – this was a deliberate attempt to give the appearance of balance and proportionality while ensuring that the resulting wording of the treaty would in practice be entirely one-side in favour of enforcement. That is, this is not just bad drafting, but drafting in bad faith, with a deliberate intention to deceive.

ACTA has dangerously vague wording that could criminalise trivial online activities

Throughout the treaty, measures are couched in very vague terms. It means that the European Parliament is being asked to ratify something whose real-world effects are unknown.

For example, Article 23 of ACTA is as follows:

Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale. For the purposes of this Section, acts carried out on a commercial scale include at least those carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage.

The definition of "commercial scale" is crucially important, because it is used throughout ACTA, and triggers the application of criminal sanctions (which would include, for example, extradition to the US – as you know, a particularly hot topic in the UK at the moment.)

The section above says "acts carried out on a commercial scale include at least those carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage." But no minimum level is set here or elsewhere – something that would have been easy to do. Instead, we have "at least those carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage".

Because of the imprecision of this wording, that would include a Web site where Google ads were being run. Now imagine that someone posted a link on that site to an unauthorised copy of material elsewhere on the Net, and that this causes people to visit that page with the link, and sometimes to click on the Google Ads. The posting of the link would then be a commercial activity for indirect economic gain, and the person running the site would fall foul of laws implementing ACTA.

The vague, over-broad wording of ACTA means that it is likely to applied in a completely disproportionate fashion. The fact that the ACTA negotiators chose not to avoid that problem by specifying a minimum level below which it did not apply suggests that they were happy with this extreme interpretation.

ACTA won't – and cannot – achieve what it sets out to do

The European Commission has emphasised the damage that counterfeit goods are doing to the European economy, and the threat they represent to jobs. Here, for example, is what it said in its latest ACTA press release (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/354&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en):

ACTA is an international trade agreement that will help countries work together to tackle more effectively large-scale Intellectual Property Rights violations. Citizens will benefit from ACTA because it will help protect Europe's raw material – innovations and ideas

….

As Europe is losing billions of Euros annually through counterfeit goods flooding our markets, protecting Intellectual Property Rights means protecting jobs in the EU. It also means consumer safety and secure products.
The EU's national customs authorities have registered that counterfeit goods entering the EU have tripled between 2005 and 2010.
Statistics published by the European Commission in July 2011 show a tremendous upward trend in the number of shipments suspected of violating IPR. Customs in 2010 registered around 80,000 cases, a figure that has almost doubled since 2009. More than 103 million fake products were detained at the EU external border

But the Commission's own statistics on counterfeiting, referred to above, have the following to say (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/506&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en):

In 2010, 85% of the total amount of articles infringing IPR came from China. This represents an important increase compared to 2009 (64%). Other countries were the main source of provenance for different product categories, notably Turkey for foodstuff, Thailand for non-alcoholic beverages, Hong Kong for memory cards and India for medicines.

None of those countries is a signatory to ACTA. This means that even if ratified, ACTA will have zero effect on those countries' output of counterfeits. ACTA will only affect signatories, and the only signatory that is mentioned in the Commission's own list of top counterfeits is Greece, which supplies 0.91% of counterfeit goods in the EU. In other words, 99.09% of counterfeit goods will be unaffected if ACTA goes into effect. ACTA will do nothing to protect European citizens against counterfeits, which must be tackled with the laws we already have. We simply don't need ACTA.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+