News
BackThe EU Commission regards ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) as an important step towards enforcing intellectual property rights also outside the Union. In contrast, many critics warn against massive restrictions on the liberty of Internet users, which the Agreement might entail. Whilst public protests have already prompted some governments to halt the ratification process of the Agreement, the Commission rejects the criticism of ACTA.
On 11 February, thousands of people in several European cities braved freezing temperatures to demonstrate against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA. Citizens in Vienna, Graz, Salzburg, Innsbruck and Bregenz took to the street. Although the negotiations of ACTA started away from public perception, the planned Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement has long become the subject of heated debates.
However, from the point of view of the EU Commission these protests are unfounded. The trade agreement, which is to combat product piracy, among other on the Internet, would be necessary to better enforce intellectual property rights. Many European industries were based on quality and innovation, and these were at risk through pirated products and counterfeits. According to the Commission, ACTA was by no means concerned with changing existing European copyright laws, but rather with improving the enforcement of these rights and to export the high standard of intellectual property rights in Europe to other countries.
Vague provisions could result in restrictions of User rights
However, it is questionable whether ACTA will indeed be able to force back product piracy. After all, the controversial Agreement was in particular negotiated between the USA, the EU and Japan whilst those countries, where intellectual property rights are often difficult to enforce, such as China or India, did not participate. The criticism of large parts of the public, including the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, is above all aimed at the many vague provisions of the Agreement, which might allow the restriction of user rights in favour of intellectual property rights. For example, a provision of the Agreement might make it possible to oblige Internet providers to block the web access of private users if these are suspected of having breached copyrights. In general, so the tenor of many critics, the interpretation of some contents of ACTA had been provided with a lot of scope and discretion.
The negotiation process itself has also disappointed a lot of people. Most of it has taken place behind closed doors and did not include any broad civil society discussion.
Austria, as did most of the other EU States, signed the Agreement in Tokyo at the end of January. However, ACTA has yet to be ratified by the EU Parliament and the Parliaments of the Member States before it can come into force. Some Member States, such as Germany, Poland and Czechia have, due to pressure applied by their citizens, decided to put the ratification on ice for the time being. In Austria, Home Secretary Johanna Mikl-Leitner and Under Secretary of State Sebastian Kurz have recently come out in favour of waiting for the decision of the EU Parliament before confirming ACTA. The decision of the EU Parliament has been scheduled for 12 June - one can be sure that there will be many discussions before this date.
However, from the point of view of the EU Commission these protests are unfounded. The trade agreement, which is to combat product piracy, among other on the Internet, would be necessary to better enforce intellectual property rights. Many European industries were based on quality and innovation, and these were at risk through pirated products and counterfeits. According to the Commission, ACTA was by no means concerned with changing existing European copyright laws, but rather with improving the enforcement of these rights and to export the high standard of intellectual property rights in Europe to other countries.
Vague provisions could result in restrictions of User rights
However, it is questionable whether ACTA will indeed be able to force back product piracy. After all, the controversial Agreement was in particular negotiated between the USA, the EU and Japan whilst those countries, where intellectual property rights are often difficult to enforce, such as China or India, did not participate. The criticism of large parts of the public, including the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, is above all aimed at the many vague provisions of the Agreement, which might allow the restriction of user rights in favour of intellectual property rights. For example, a provision of the Agreement might make it possible to oblige Internet providers to block the web access of private users if these are suspected of having breached copyrights. In general, so the tenor of many critics, the interpretation of some contents of ACTA had been provided with a lot of scope and discretion.
The negotiation process itself has also disappointed a lot of people. Most of it has taken place behind closed doors and did not include any broad civil society discussion.
Austria, as did most of the other EU States, signed the Agreement in Tokyo at the end of January. However, ACTA has yet to be ratified by the EU Parliament and the Parliaments of the Member States before it can come into force. Some Member States, such as Germany, Poland and Czechia have, due to pressure applied by their citizens, decided to put the ratification on ice for the time being. In Austria, Home Secretary Johanna Mikl-Leitner and Under Secretary of State Sebastian Kurz have recently come out in favour of waiting for the decision of the EU Parliament before confirming ACTA. The decision of the EU Parliament has been scheduled for 12 June - one can be sure that there will be many discussions before this date.