News
BackThe world looked alright for the European Commission at the start of the year: in January, ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, had been signed in Tokyo by 22 of the 27 EU Member States. Neither the Commission nor the Member States expected that the Agreement would trigger such a storm of indignation with the population. This resulted in a number of EU Member States deciding to back down. EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht reluctantly announced in February that he would ask the European Court of Justice to review the Agreement. And the European Parliament has also put the brakes on: the House will probably reject ACTA.
Taking the decision to submit ACTA to the European Court of Justice for review, De Gucht pre-empted the intention of the European Parliament, which had already demanded to have the Agreement reviewed with regard to its compatibility with EU law. Since the new EU Treaty has come into force, the European Parliament must approve of trade agreements, a new provision, which obviously in particular the European Commission must get used to.
In a discussion on ACTA in the Trade Committee, the rapporteur in charge, David Martin of the Socialists & Democrats clearly stated that he would recommend not approving of ACTA. There should be competition with creativity and intellectual property rights and the protection of intellectual property rights should be maintained. There was, however, the question, whether ACTA was able to guarantee this protection. This is not the case in his opinion as ACTA would compare apples with pears. The text would contain issues, said Martin, which had little to do with the Agreement. Surely, a commercial scale did not exist if one downloaded a film from the internet and viewed it in the knowledge that others would probably do the same. Apart from that, China and India, two countries that were significant suppliers of counterfeits, were not part of the Agreement. Martin hopes for an Agreement that can be applied globally. A German colleague pointed out: ACTA would bring more problems than it would solve. Germany had developed a culture of written warnings, where fines of € 100,000 are imposed on teenagers who posted a picture on Facebook they had seen on the internet. That could not be right.
MEP Christofer Fjellner, who represented the European People’s Party, was cautious in his comments: how should jobs be protected, medial drugs and art be safeguarded? The destruction of ACTA will not get us anywhere, said Fjellner. From the point of view of the European People’s Party it would be better to continue the negotiations. There were in particular two points, which had to be discussed: the commercial scale and the conditions, someone outside the EU had to fulfil, to come under ACTA, had to be better defined. It would be better to repair ACTA than to reject it.
The Liberals also appeared to have come to a decision in respect of ACTA. The spokesman on this subject, MEP Niccolo Rinaldi, reported that the Liberals would support the opinion of rapporteur Martin. He would ask the European Commission to withdraw the Agreement. The Commission should obtain a new mandate for sectorial agreements in order to ban product piracy.
Similarly cautious as Fjellner was the comment of MEP David Campbell Bannerman of the European Conservatives: everybody wanted protection against brand piracy. But the devil was in the detail. He would urge people to consider what would happen if ACTA was rejected – would this be the end of it? If the EU would reject ACTA and the other countries would sign the Agreement – would this result in creative people leaving the European Union?
The Green MEP Amelia Andersdotter emphasised that her faction had always warned that the negotiations would go in the wrong direction. It would be necessary in any case to revise the Agreement.
João Aguiar Machado, European Commission Deputy Director General for Trade, was in favour of calming the situation. The Agreement was concerned with the increasing problem of the violation of property rights in Europe. The damage caused was serious. ACTA would not represent any censorship for the internet. The main achievement of ACTA would be that it was tailor-made for the European system; changes to EU law were not required. Normal consumers would not be dragged in front of the court. According to Machado, it will not be possible to apply ACTA directly in the European Union. The only provisions, which would be applied, are already in place today. ACTA was not about copyright provisions, but about the implementation of those provisions. The European Court of Justice would now decide whether ACTA would be a danger to European fundamental rights.
The vote on ACTA will take place in the Trade Committee of the European Parliament in June. It is expected that the European Parliament will make its decision in the Plenum in July.
In a discussion on ACTA in the Trade Committee, the rapporteur in charge, David Martin of the Socialists & Democrats clearly stated that he would recommend not approving of ACTA. There should be competition with creativity and intellectual property rights and the protection of intellectual property rights should be maintained. There was, however, the question, whether ACTA was able to guarantee this protection. This is not the case in his opinion as ACTA would compare apples with pears. The text would contain issues, said Martin, which had little to do with the Agreement. Surely, a commercial scale did not exist if one downloaded a film from the internet and viewed it in the knowledge that others would probably do the same. Apart from that, China and India, two countries that were significant suppliers of counterfeits, were not part of the Agreement. Martin hopes for an Agreement that can be applied globally. A German colleague pointed out: ACTA would bring more problems than it would solve. Germany had developed a culture of written warnings, where fines of € 100,000 are imposed on teenagers who posted a picture on Facebook they had seen on the internet. That could not be right.
MEP Christofer Fjellner, who represented the European People’s Party, was cautious in his comments: how should jobs be protected, medial drugs and art be safeguarded? The destruction of ACTA will not get us anywhere, said Fjellner. From the point of view of the European People’s Party it would be better to continue the negotiations. There were in particular two points, which had to be discussed: the commercial scale and the conditions, someone outside the EU had to fulfil, to come under ACTA, had to be better defined. It would be better to repair ACTA than to reject it.
The Liberals also appeared to have come to a decision in respect of ACTA. The spokesman on this subject, MEP Niccolo Rinaldi, reported that the Liberals would support the opinion of rapporteur Martin. He would ask the European Commission to withdraw the Agreement. The Commission should obtain a new mandate for sectorial agreements in order to ban product piracy.
Similarly cautious as Fjellner was the comment of MEP David Campbell Bannerman of the European Conservatives: everybody wanted protection against brand piracy. But the devil was in the detail. He would urge people to consider what would happen if ACTA was rejected – would this be the end of it? If the EU would reject ACTA and the other countries would sign the Agreement – would this result in creative people leaving the European Union?
The Green MEP Amelia Andersdotter emphasised that her faction had always warned that the negotiations would go in the wrong direction. It would be necessary in any case to revise the Agreement.
João Aguiar Machado, European Commission Deputy Director General for Trade, was in favour of calming the situation. The Agreement was concerned with the increasing problem of the violation of property rights in Europe. The damage caused was serious. ACTA would not represent any censorship for the internet. The main achievement of ACTA would be that it was tailor-made for the European system; changes to EU law were not required. Normal consumers would not be dragged in front of the court. According to Machado, it will not be possible to apply ACTA directly in the European Union. The only provisions, which would be applied, are already in place today. ACTA was not about copyright provisions, but about the implementation of those provisions. The European Court of Justice would now decide whether ACTA would be a danger to European fundamental rights.
The vote on ACTA will take place in the Trade Committee of the European Parliament in June. It is expected that the European Parliament will make its decision in the Plenum in July.