He also said that many on the committee felt that the sanctions for breaches of copyright were "disproportionate". Critics argue that it will stifle freedom of expression on the internet, and it has been likened to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act Sopa. If the European Parliament voted to reject Acta, it will be scrapped. Responding to the vote Peter Bradwell, a campaigner with the Open Rights Group, said: "MEPs have listened to the many, many thousands of people across Europe who have consistently demanded that this flawed treaty is kicked out.
It now falls to the vote of the whole European Parliament in early July to slam the door on Acta once and for all, and bring this sorry mess to an end. Counterfeiting and piracy, including on the internet, are creating a global black market threatening the economic basis of real jobs in the creative industries. It's a global problem that needs a global response. This Kat has long regretted the fact that the same thing that has canonised WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in the eyes of so many people has proved to be the damning of ACTA: the issue of openness and access to information.
ACTA was fatally tainted by the secrecy that surrounded its birth and it still seems inconceivable to this Kat that, while every other aspect of law that governs trade and commerce is apparently fit to be discussed, amended and applied in an open and above-board manner, anyone should have imagined that resentment, anger and likely rejection of its contents would not be a likely response from an increasingly conneccted world.
But where do we go from here? It seems to Merpel that most of ACTA's detractors have not read it closely enough to see how much of it is good and uncontroversial, and how many of the bits they don't like are already in place, or potentially so, even without the agreement being signed. What it needs, apart from a sensible debate, is a touch of rebranding. Scrap ACTA, launch a new agreement that addresses the bits that aren't so controversial anyway and give it a pretty new acronym that sounds nothing like ACTA or SOPA, listen to ACTA's serious critics, address genuine concerns of the online community as well as IP owners,then launch a fresh version of the internet bits.
Worth a try? Or hopeless idealism? Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. How many page-views has the IPKat received? Not just any old IPKat Get the Kat in your Inbox! Over 16, readers already subscribe to the IPKat by email.
To subscribe click here and enter your preferred e-mail address. Any problems, please let the IPKat team know. The Kat that tweets! Current followers: That ruling will be key, because if the ECJ rules that there is conflict, then there would be no point the European Commission or any member state proceeding to push to get ACTA ratified. But if, as expected, the court says there is no conflict, that might give the battered pro-ACTA lobby — both within and outside political circles — ammunition to resume the push.
Beyond Europe, it remains to be seen if this vote stops other ACTA signatories from having the treaty integrated into their national laws. Six signatory countries have to fully ratify the agreement — ie get it approved by their respective legislatures — before the treaty becomes binding on anyone. That could be achieved without any EU state being involved. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly.
How would you best describe that thing you're looking for? Today is the first anniversary of the rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA in the European Parliament — after months of debates, a large majority of Parliamentarians voted against the adoption. Many NGOs and international organisations advocated for the rejection of ACTA, which was a plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Dr Meir Pugatch, of the University of Haifa, argued that ACTA would not have an impact on access to generic medicine, as the agreement does not cover patents. The problem is counterfeited medicines and substandard medicines. If you end up using counterfeited medicine or substandard medicine, it could seriously damage your health. Those who suffer the most from substandard medicines and counterfeited medicines are poor populations.
Commission representative Mr Schlegelmilch later added: "Developing countries will be able to continue to buy the generic medicines that they need just as before. However, the British Social Democrat David Martin, who was responsible for steering ACTA through Parliament, said many questions still remained about how the treaty would have affected access to generic medicine.
How will this operate? Mr Martin said the workshop showed there was a need for more information, which is why it would have been good for the European Court of Justice to give a ruling on questions to be prepared by Parliament. The problem with ACTA is that the devil is in the lack of details.
We don't have enough information on many of the areas where in the end we will have to make a judgment on. International Trade Committee MEPs from all political groups wanted to know more about how the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA would be enforced before advising Parliament as a whole on whether or not to approve it, it emerged from the committee's first debate on it in early Mr Martin suggested that while the Court of Justice referral is being prepared, the time set aside for Parliament's assent to ACTA should instead be used to prepare an interim report setting out questions to the European Commission and EU Member States on how it is to be enforced.
He stressed that Parliament should prepare its own questions, rather than simply associating itself with the European Commission's parallel referral of ACTA to the court. Examples could include questions about how border control agencies would be expected to deal with counterfeit imports, or whether internet service providers would have to enforce ACTA against users, and if so what legislation would require them to do so. ACTA lacks detail. The main concern is how the text might be read".
For example, "There is no 'three strikes' rule in ACTA, but we do not know how internet service providers will interpret the tasks given to them and if they will feel that they have the duty to cut people off the internet". I will not take your word for it. We need to scrutinize it". Mr Martin and other speakers objected to the "lack of transparency" in the ACTA negotiations to date and reiterated Parliament's many requests to be more closely involved, and not merely left with the option of accepting or rejecting the existing text.
He also observed that if the aim now was to spread ACTA via bilateral agreements with countries not yet party to it, this would not be a democratic way to influence other countries. Several MEPs said the Commission must accept its share of responsibility for civil society protests against ACT, since it had not kept people properly informed of the progress of negotiations.
This might be a lesson to the future. We need to change things", said Mr Fjellner. In such circumstances you have to expect citizens to be afraid from the possible consequences", he said. Inese Vaidere EPP, LV , said the Commission had done too little to explain ACTA's benefits, even though there was much to be explained, such as the definitions of terms "counterfeiting" or "commercial scale".
I fear that we don't have much chance of reviving ACTA. The Commission has not done its job", she said. He was sure that properly interpreted, ACTA would not threaten fundamental freedoms. You are also responsible for that" he said, suggesting that Parliament should pay more attention to Member States' laws that threaten fundamental freedoms. On the contrary, ACTA explicitly states that you can not impose anything similar to three-strikes rule on the international level", he said.
Commissioner De Gucht reiterated his view that referring ACTA to the European Court of Justice would be the right decision, as "our responsibility as politicians is to establish the facts and not follow the crowd" and the "Court will provide much needed clarity on our concerns".
The EP received a petition signed by more than 2. They fear that the agreement will pose a threat to a free and open internet. The petition was organised by Avaaz, an organisation which uses internet to campaign on various issues. The petitions committee works to resolve infringements of citizens' rights through cooperation with local, regional and national authorities on the application of EU law on a range of issues.
It is an investigative committee and has no legal power, but tries to find non-judicial remedies for citizens whose claims are substantiated.
It can organise fact-finding visits and report to plenary. It has proved controversial because critics worry the agreement would favour the interests of large companies at the expense of citizens' rights and see its possible application in the online sphere as a threat to people's privacy and human rights.
At this time it was not known yet how the Parliament would vote on it. ACTA simply involves an update of the means, mechanisms and remedies to protect intellectual property rights.
ACTA is a multilateral agreement between some developed economies including the EU, the US and Japan, but also less-developed economies such as Mexico and Morocco, aimed at reinforcing, between those states, the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
It does not change the content, everything that was allowed continues to be allowed, everything that was forbidden keeps on being forbidden. It is about being more effective when it comes to infringements of intellectual property rights.
The sensitiveness of the issue concerns a small part of the agreement, regarding copyright on the internet, the download of music, literature, theatre and music shows, as well as other works protected by copyright.
Many of the arguments used are not foreseen in ACTA. For example, download for private use was not forbidden and is not forbidden, what is forbidden is the infringement of copyright for commercial purposes. This is an international agreement and so the consent of the EP is necessary, but it cannot change the text of the agreement, it can only say "yes" or "no" to it.
As this agreement has raised legal problems, the EP can ask the EU's Court of Justice to decide on its compatibility with EU law if a committee votes to do so. A political group or number of MEP's can also make that request.
If it is referred to the Court, the parliamentary procedure will be suspended until the Court rules.
0コメント