News
BackThe lack of openness concerning the negotiations in respect of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which attracted harsh criticism, shall now be replaced by a transparency offensive by the European Parliament. Accompanied by the lively participation of interested citizens, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and experts presented their assessments in respect of the impact of the controversial agreement in a workshop on 1 March. Many experts are still concerned about the vague provisions of the agreement text.
The pressure of the general public that fears that the ambiguous wording of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA could throw the doors wide open for restricting the freedom of Internet users had obviously assumed unforeseen dimensions. EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht had proposed on 22 February that the Court of Justice of the European Union would review the Agreement’s compatibility with the fundamental rights and freedoms of the EU. Nevertheless, the ACTA Workshop saw a Commissioner who is convinced of the Agreement. The success of the European creative industries would depend on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. De Gucht emphasized once again that the copyright currently applied within the EU would not have to be changed as a result of ACTA; participating in ACTA should only ensure that this copyright could also be enforced outside Europe. De Gucht rejected worries in the population ACTA might affect the freedom of expression on the Internet: “ACTA is not an attack on your freedom but a defender of your prosperity.”
Criticism of lack of transparency and ambiguous provisions
Some of the experts invited were far more critical of the controversial Agreement. The harm done by ACTA would significantly outweigh its benefit, commented Martin Geist of the University of Ottawa. One could accuse the ACTA negotiations of a lack of transparency, the consequence of which was a serious loss of trust by the population. It was also problematic that agreements such as ACTA would try to bypass multilateral forums such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). ACTA would mean a step backwards for relations with developing countries, as industrial states would not grant the countries of the South any concessions, such as access to education and medical drugs to get them on board. Should ACTA come into force, developing countries might be pressurized in the future to enter into an agreement, on the creation of which they would have no influence. Geist also warns that the contracting parties to ACTA might in practice interpret flexible provisions as binding rules. For example, the participating countries were not forced to oblige internet providers to reveal information about their users; however, there will probably be massive pressure on the states to interpret these provisions as binding.
Christophe Geiger, Associate Professor at the University of Strasbourg, thinks the EU Member States should examine very carefully what impact ACTA would have on their national penal regulations in respect of intellectual property. Due to the fact that the text of the Agreement would contain many vague provisions, the Appendix would have to provide relevant explanations, should the EU adopt the Agreement. Two of the authors of a study, which had been commissioned by the EU Parliament, also provided a scientific expert opinion. Anselm Kamperman Sanders and Dalindyebo Shabalala of Maastricht University concluded that the text of the Agreement would not represent a massive shift in the Acquis of the EU; however, there was no guarantee that the implementation would conform with current EU law. Apart from that, no great impact was expected on the innovation capacity or competitiveness of the Union, and the text of the Agreement would be more advantageous for rightholders than the TRIPS Agreement. In view of some ambiguous provisions, the authors of the study advise the MEPs, not to agree to ACTA unreservedly. The ACTA Trade Committee’s rapporteur David Martin (S&D) is in favour of the Parliament approaching the European Court of Justice with its own questions in respect of the issues still to be clarified.
Further information:
Study “The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): An Assessment“
Criticism of lack of transparency and ambiguous provisions
Some of the experts invited were far more critical of the controversial Agreement. The harm done by ACTA would significantly outweigh its benefit, commented Martin Geist of the University of Ottawa. One could accuse the ACTA negotiations of a lack of transparency, the consequence of which was a serious loss of trust by the population. It was also problematic that agreements such as ACTA would try to bypass multilateral forums such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). ACTA would mean a step backwards for relations with developing countries, as industrial states would not grant the countries of the South any concessions, such as access to education and medical drugs to get them on board. Should ACTA come into force, developing countries might be pressurized in the future to enter into an agreement, on the creation of which they would have no influence. Geist also warns that the contracting parties to ACTA might in practice interpret flexible provisions as binding rules. For example, the participating countries were not forced to oblige internet providers to reveal information about their users; however, there will probably be massive pressure on the states to interpret these provisions as binding.
Christophe Geiger, Associate Professor at the University of Strasbourg, thinks the EU Member States should examine very carefully what impact ACTA would have on their national penal regulations in respect of intellectual property. Due to the fact that the text of the Agreement would contain many vague provisions, the Appendix would have to provide relevant explanations, should the EU adopt the Agreement. Two of the authors of a study, which had been commissioned by the EU Parliament, also provided a scientific expert opinion. Anselm Kamperman Sanders and Dalindyebo Shabalala of Maastricht University concluded that the text of the Agreement would not represent a massive shift in the Acquis of the EU; however, there was no guarantee that the implementation would conform with current EU law. Apart from that, no great impact was expected on the innovation capacity or competitiveness of the Union, and the text of the Agreement would be more advantageous for rightholders than the TRIPS Agreement. In view of some ambiguous provisions, the authors of the study advise the MEPs, not to agree to ACTA unreservedly. The ACTA Trade Committee’s rapporteur David Martin (S&D) is in favour of the Parliament approaching the European Court of Justice with its own questions in respect of the issues still to be clarified.
Further information:
Study “The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): An Assessment“