10 myths about ACTA
The European Commission has issued the following document in an attempt to counter misconceptions about ACTA – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which will regulate the use of the internet, among other aspects.
1. ACTA will limit the access to the internet and will censor websites.
Read the text of the ACTA Agreement – there is no single paragraph in ACTA that substantiates this claim. ACTA is about tackling large scale illegal activity, often pursued by criminal organisations.
It is not about how people use the internet in their everyday lives. Internet users can continue to share non-pirated material and information on the web. ACTA will not limit people’s rights on the internet nor will it shut down websites, unlike the proposals discussed in the US (SOPA and PIPA).
2. ACTA will lead to controls of laptops of air passengers at borders and it will monitor internet traffic.
The respect for fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom of expression and data protection is expressly mentioned as a basic principle of the agreement. ACTA even specifically mentions that travellers will be exempt from checks if any infringing goods are of a non-commercial nature and not part of large scale trafficking.
3. ACTA is a secret agreement. Negotiations were not transparent and conducted “behind closed doors”.
The European Parliament was not fully informed, stakeholders were not consulted. The text of ACTA is publicly available to all. The negotiations for ACTA were not different from negotiations on any other international agreement.
It is a fact that such agreements are not negotiated in public, but with the Lisbon Agreement and the revised Framework Agreement there are clear rules on how the European Parliament (EP) should be informed of such trade negotiations. And these have been scrupulously followed.
Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has participated in three plenary debates, replied to several dozens of written and oral questions, as well to two Resolutions and one Declaration of the EP, whilst Commission services have provided several dedicated briefings to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) during the negotiations.
Likewise, the public was informed since the launch of the negotiations about the objectives and general thrust of the negotiations. The Commission released summary reports after every negotiation round and the negotiating text since April 2010. It organised press briefings and four stakeholder conferences on ACTA, one of them even only a few days before the first negotiating round. Our negotiating partners, for example the US, Switzerland, Australia and Canada, have taken similar steps.
4. ACTA will lead to the introduction of a ‘3 strikes’ system for internet infringements, or to demands for internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor or filter the data they transmit.
ACTA does not provide for a “3 strikes” or a “graduated response” system to infringements over the internet. Neither does it oblige Internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor or filter content of their users. ACTA is fully in line with the current EU law, in force since 2000 (E-commerce Directive), and does not change a single page of it.
5. ACTA will prevent poor countries from buying cheap medicines.
There are no provisions in ACTA that could directly or indirectly affect the legitimate trade in generic medicines or, more broadly, global public health.
On the contrary, ACTA expressly refers to the Doha Declaration on intellectual property and public health. ACTA also excludes patents from criminal and border measures.
6. ACTA favours IP right-holders. ACTA eliminates safeguards and exceptions existing under international law.
Quite to the contrary, ACTA is drafted in very flexible terms and contains the necessary safeguards to allow the participating countries to strike an appropriate balance between all rights and interests involved, in line with their economic, political and social objectives, as well as with their legal traditions. All safeguards and exceptions under EU law or under the TRIPs Agreement remain fully preserved.
7. ACTA’s provisions on criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights require additional legislation at EU level.
There is no EU legislation on criminal measures. The criminal enforcement provisions of ACTA do not require additional legislation at EU level. A very limited number of Member States may need to adapt their own legislation related to criminal enforcement to comply with the commitments they undertook (ACTA is a mixed EU/Member States’ competence Agreement).
This has been confirmed in very clear terms by two Opinions of the Legal Service of the European Parliament, of 5 October 2011 and of 8 December 2011, answering respectively to questions by the INTA and JURI Committees.
8. ACTA leads to “harmonisation through the backdoor”.
A study ordered by the European Parliament’s committee for International Trade (INTA) to academics says that ACTA will require changes to EU enforcement legislation and/or to national laws. ACTA provisions are compatible with existing EU law. ACTA will not require any revision or adaptation of EU law and will not require any Member States to review the measures or instruments by which they implement relevant EU law.
ACTA is also in line with international law, in particular with the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The INTA study does not show evidence of any concrete situation where ACTA would contradict, repeal or require the modification of a single provision existing in EU legislation. This has been confirmed in very clear terms by the two above mentioned Opinions of the Legal Service of the European Parliament. Find out more here.
9. ACTA was negotiated as a self-standing agreement to avoid being negotiated at an inclusive multilateral forum, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).
The Commission would have preferred to address IPR enforcement problems in the WTO or in WIPO, and made many proposals to that effect. The point is that certain other Members of these organisations opposed any enforcement debate there. ACTA sets international IPR standards, and more countries are welcome to join this multilateral treaty.
10. The EU will impose the provisions of ACTA to third countries through incorporation of its provisions in free trade agreements.
There is no intention to do so, and this has not been proposed in bilateral trade negotiations conducted by the EU.
51 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st12/st12196.en11.pdf
A worthwhile read.
Two crucial things missing from their points:
1. What impositions are going to be done on ISPs in terms of monitoring and divulging customer data
2. Still all about what ACTA doesn’t do, not what it really does
Finally some sense.
1. “ACTA will not limit people’s rights on the internet nor will it shut down websites, unlike the proposals discussed in the US (SOPA and PIPA).”
Here we go again, it won’t do this, and it won’t do that, but not a word of what it will do. Or is it ACTA there just to frown at those it considers has broken the law?
2. “ACTA even specifically mentions that travellers will be exempt from checks if any infringing goods are of a non-commercial nature and not part of large scale trafficking.”
I see, so the EU will now be employing mind readers to see if (and by how much) you have a dirty conscience, before opening your laptop, cd player, and other mobile data holder.
3. “the European Parliament (EP) should be informed of such trade negotiations”
Forget trade, privacy invasive agreement negotiations are more accurate.
4. “ACTA is fully in line with the current EU law, in force since 2000 (E-commerce Directive), and does not change a single page of it.”
Fine, seeing it does nothing, we can do without it.
5. “There are no provisions in ACTA that could directly or indirectly affect the legitimate trade in generic medicines or, more broadly, global public health”
Vide comment 4 above.
6. “ACTA is drafted in very flexible terms”
You bet it is, so flexible in fact that it can allow anything, as it only lays down guidelines, and only tells ut what it CAN’T do.
7. “The criminal enforcement provisions of ACTA do not require additional legislation at EU level.”
What criminal provisions? And more importantly, how is the EU going to catch these piracy lords, if it does not force ISPs to not only log our data, but also sift through this data?
The EU should stick to discussing more usefull subjects, say something like Commission Regulation (EC) 2257/94, the one where they try to regulate the curvature of the banana. Simon, you are definately wasted there.
Point 6
I’ll mention this first because it’s the reason this document is ridiculous. ACTA needs to implemented in legislation and the EU expects member states to implement legislation differently. France already has a “Three Strikes” Law – other countries could follow. There’s no provision for one in ACTA, but there protection from it either. If any country feels a Three-Strike Law would help follow ACTA better, they could implement it. The EU can’t say (and doesn’t say) that this won’t happen.
If the MLP get to implement ACTA (which they might), where do you think they’ll lean? Will they act as bastions of free speech? Or will they legislate in favour of easy censorship? I live in the UK (for disclosure) and I also distrust the interests of the politicians – not because they’re all bad, but because big copyright lobbies have a louder voice than I do. Because of this our rights will get trampled on.
—
Point 1
“Internet users can continue to share non-pirated material and information on the web.”
This is not so black and white. What is non-pirated exactly? I haven’t read the terms under which this EU document was published, but are you sure you’re not violating copyright? How much of any article can you quote before it becomes infringement? How about Facebook statuses/photos? Their copyrights are held by their posters, so what about JPO, Franco, etc?
You’d be right in saying that in these cases, all the posts are fair use. JPO making a copyright claim in court to take down a page because you’ve copied a status would be laughed out.
The general consensus appears to be that with ratification of ACTA, hosts/ISPs will be responsible for takedowns of “infringing” data. If you have a disinterested party defending your rights, how do you think it will work out? Your host will just pull the offending data (which is completely legal) and leave you to fight it out in court. Simply because you’re less likely to cause them legal trouble (you have more limited resources) than a big company (with lawyers!) or soon-to-be-govenment political party (they can even make law!).
So ACTA may not actually state that it wants sites to be brought offline, but realistically, how willing are you (any site owner) to fight out (dozens? hundreds?) frivolous copyright infringement claims in court?
—
Point 3 – We found out about ACTA in 2008 when a document (dated 2007) was released on Wikileaks (not europa.eu). When ACTA was leaked “Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht” was Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium (back when they had a government) and Mayor Berlare. He was not Trade Commissioner until Feb 2010.
Point 9 sort of agrees that the discussions could’ve been had in a more open forum (WTO/WIPO).
The EU told us about it in 2010 (when it was involved), 3 years after negotiations started and that’s nice (that they told us).
—
Point 4 was in an earlier draft. France has implemented a Three-Strikes law (See point 6, at the top). ISPs/hosts may not need to filter content, but if they need to obey takedown notices, it’ll make little difference in terms of censorship because someone else will monitor and ask to take down offensive content aggressively (See point 1).
—
Point 5
Clear, referenced and simple. Concerns appeared to be focused around some TRIPS definition that included medicine, but this appears to address them categorically. Why aren’t the other 9 points like this?
—
Point 6 – see top
—
Point 9 – The text here doesn’t really address the concern raised. It merely agrees that there were better fora for discussion (remember the fora chosen are a contentious issue). Why weren’t more parties involved? The public concern (as is mine) is that this was done to limit opposition, even if it was legitimate.
—
One of my concerns is that ACTA originates from US, where SOPA and PIPA were recently defeated. The latter two take ACTA’s provisions to an extreme (and maybe beyond), so the intent behind ACTA and similar legislative efforts is clear.
Marietje Schaake (Danish MEP) has a good piece on why Copyright Reform is a better solution and mentions some of her concerns about ACTA – http://torrentfreak.com/we-need-copyright-reform-not-acta-120204/
Since you seem to be the unofficial spokesperson of the govenrment and you’re doing a ‘Sant’ and against all common sense even when everyone around you knows you’re wrong, then please shed some light on the following:
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but I don’t get your drift. I can’t see how I can be perceived as the unofficial spokesperson of the government on ACTA when I have no opinion on the matter myself and have done nothing but reproduce the opinions, for and against, of others. ‘Everyone around you knows you’re wrong’. You do not know the people around me, so you are not in a position to know what they think (or even who they are). ‘Against all common sense’ – sorry, but if common sense favours the illegal use of other people’s intellectual property/copyrighted material, then it is not common sense at all.]
– In point 1, ACTA doesn’t specify what “illegal material” means. I’ve been to your website and sometimes you copy-paste news items and credit them, something which I don’t think is wrong.
[Daphne – It is not up to you to decide whether it is right or wrong. The law gives the owners of those articles the right to stop or prevent that kind of thing, and in fact, where the owner does not permit it, then I comply. Once, during the Libyan war, I uploaded a fully credited news report from The Times (London). Within hours I received an email from their solicitors asking me to take it down immediately, and I did so.]
However, that would be enough for the ISP (which ACTA throws the responsibility on) to shut you down on their own policy on intellectual grounds. The ISP’s policy, not the government. Why will they do this? To cover their asses just in case it is illegal.
Through ACTA, the responsibility is thrown on the ISP and the ISP, as a profitable business, will cover its ass everytime there is a doubt, even if there was no law court who has decided that that material was illegal.
Putting the responsability on the ISP means authorities get what they ‘wanted’ without leaving fingerprints, as it was the ISP’s call.
ISP will close down websites ‘just in case’. You don’t throw a person ‘just in case’ they committed a crime, so the ISP shouldn’t close a website ‘just in case’.
ACTA may not have legal standing but it will create a chain of events which will lead to a restricted internet.
If entertainment companies (and let’s face it – from SOPA to ACTA this is whose funding and promoting it) want to restrict control of movies and music then they should change THEIR business model rather than expect everyone else to fit their needs.
Daphne: ‘Against all common sense’ – sorry, but if common sense favours the illegal use of other people’s intellectual property/copyrighted material, then it is not common sense at all.
Part of the problem is, in fact, that common sense does sometimes favour illegal use. Kenneth Clarke was discussing this last year. For example, copying a CD you bought legally to your computer is illegal in the UK. Is it not ‘common sense’ to do this? iTunes even offers to do this when you stick a CD in.
Some of the problem lies precisely in the definitions of what’s illegal. The Internet is revolutionising the distribution of information in a way we havent seen since Gutenberg and because the situation is unavoidably chaotic, a lot of the legislation involved was made with no understanding of where technology was (and is) going.
It’s precisely because many ‘common sense’ things are illegal today that we ought to aim for copyright reform and harmonisation of copyright law across the EU.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
Geroge Orwell – Nineteen Eighty Four
Point 9 clearly explains that the Commission would have preferred to leave IPR standards within the control of WTO or WIPO, but other states opposed this. Since the treaty was not discussed openly enough, we don’t know who these states are.
My own personal perception and main concern is that ACTA may give some states some more power to police their societies more closely with “the excuse” of protecting intellectual property rights. It’s not the Orwell’s Big Brother yet, but it could become that in the future; maybe not in Malta, maybe not in Europe, but elsewhere. If we do not oppose it now, in future it may be too late to abolish it. I am saying this generally, not necessarily specifically about ACTA. If citizens take these things lightly, then Orwell’s writing will become reality sooner rather than later… or never.
About downloading movies and music – The Internet will sort itself out no matter what. Betamax, VHS, CD, DVD, etc. were all touted as the solution to curbing illegal copying and every time the pirates worked their way around thanks to technology. The same will happen again and again.
The solution – in my humble opinion (which counts to absolutely nothing here), the solution is to make music and film more accessible to everyone, everywhere – cheaper, much cheaper and more easily accessible. Rather than control it and limit access to it, the creators should embrace the Internet as the showcase of their works. A worldwide platform for easy and very effective promotion. If the work is good ensough, people will pay for it. This has been proven with the iTunes model and Angry Birds for example. It made well over $7 million at only $0.99 per game. That’s just one example…
Hmmm. this might help give a fuller picture of the story:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in-inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars
The problem is that the agreement seems to use a hammer to crack a small nut. Also it seems that it is an unnecessary hammer as there are other legal instruments which are already in place vide the imprisonment of the founders of ThePiratebay.org, the arrest of Kim Dotcom owner of Megaupload and the voluntary closure of BTJunkie, all events.which happened in the last three weeks.
So the question is, if the current laws are already effective, what is the need for new agreements concocted in secret (despite what the EU said)?
Also the proposed agreement flies in the face of a radical digital evolution.
The issue of IP is very important. Many say that without it there would be no investment in research and development. However there are others who would say the otherwise, that it inhibits improvements as these would be stopped by legal issues.
This is why the idea of Open Source software came about as well as the concept of creative copyright.
What is interesting is that the Copyright owners seem to be changing their tunes following the SOPA backlash
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/paramount-humbled-by-sopa-protests-even-as-ceo-blasts-mob-mentality.ars?
Who’s words are these? your own?
[Daphne – Whose, not who’s. No, they’re not my own. You have a big clue right at the start of the piece.]
“It is not about how people use the internet in their everyday lives. Internet users can continue to share non-pirated material and information on the web. ACTA will not limit people’s rights on the internet nor will it shut down websites, unlike the proposals discussed in the US (SOPA and PIPA).”
I am not against ACTA per se and recognise the need to protect intellectual property. However, the above statement leaves a lot to be desired.
The ISP could, as a first option, decide to not monitor his subscibers’ internet traffic which in turn leaves the comnpany wide open to massive fines unless the allegedly illegal net traffic is not a) investigated and/or b) the offending website or subscriber is not shut down.
An ISP wanting to turn a profit would most probably choose to close the “offending” website down without investigation. Cheaper and a heck of a lot less risky to the company’s bottom line.
Alternatively, the ISP is morphed into an internet nanny. When the ISP has any doubts on the copyright status, it would be easier to shutdown/filter/block the traffic than investigating the status.
Both options may lead to abuse. True, “ACTA is about tackling large scale illegal activity, often pursued by criminal organisations” but where is the line drawn? How many expensive lawsuits will it take to neuter effectively the internet?
ACTA, itself, will not impinge on the legal internet user’s rights – market forces will do its job far more effectively than any law.
ACTA requires a well defined “Fair Use” clause to achieve its intended aims. My concern is with ACTA’s more than justified objectives, but with its vague implementation.
The cherry on the cake is that IP theft, such as downloading entertainment media from the Net, will not be affected. Ten minutes to setup proxies and a VPN subscription is all that is required to download “safely” illegal content. The current requirements to monitor encrypted data are way more intrusive than shutting down torrent sites.
I only read up to number two because, in my opinion, it gives the game away as an exercise in utter bull.
They first assert that “2. ACTA will lead to controls of laptops of air passengers at borders and it will monitor internet traffic.” is a myth.
Then, in the ensuing statement say: “…travellers will be exempt from checks if any infringing goods are of a non-commercial nature and not part of large scale trafficking.”
How do they propose to check whether infringements are of a commercial nature without demanding access to people’s laptops, tablets, netbooks, etc.? What about my privacy?
Does anyone get the feeling that we are fast approaching an era of dictatorship at the hands of the European parliamentarians? Whichever way they try to spin it, they are not fooling anybody.
Three cheers for Nigel Farage, anyone?
Nigel Farage is a Europhobic idiot. His stance on the EU is very much like Dr Sant’s during the referendum time.
He is one of those who thinks that the EU dictates what shape bananas should be, even though he can pop down to his local Tescos and see that it isn’t true.
Three cheers for Nigel Farage? Are you kidding me?
@ Edward
If you want to take the p#ss, may I suggest you choose another example instead of the banana. There is actual legislation in place regulating how hard and how soft, how green and how brown, how many fingers should there be in a bunch, etc etc. Don’t believe me? Look it up.
As the saying goes there is never any smoke without a fire. Here is another famous example.
I don’t know if you are familiar with the Yes Minister episode, wherein Jim Hacker made his bones and was promoted to Prime Minister, for refusing to let the EU rename the Great British Sausage to an Offal Tube. While we may find this amusing, packaging regulations from the EU did force a change in the ingredients of the sausage.
I suppose it lends credence to the adage of even a broken clock being right twice a day.
@Vanni. No there is no such regulation. It was something cooked up by British reporters. As was the idea that it is EU law for tightrope walkers to wear crash helmets during a show.
Yes, there are regulations made by the EU on things like fruit but they are exactly the same regulations that existed in the first place so there is no problem there. If you don’t believe me then look it up.
@ Edward
Read and weep:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994R2257:EN:HTML
@ Edward: you said, “…there are regulations made by the EU on things like fruit but they are exactly the same regulations that existed in the first place so there is no problem there.”
So what was the point of rewriting those regulations? Is it just for the sake of appearance? Of course, they can also be instruments of facilitation for use by those who want to rule.
I suppose they have to justify all those billions they are costing us for something that we had before anyway.
At the risk of turning this thread into a discussion about bananas (my fault I guess, sorry Daphne) I never said there were no regulations for food. There will always be regulations so that we can all be sure that the food we buy is safe.
The myth about the regulations is that they have to have a certain shape which no one in Europe has ever seen and this means throwing away lots of them which are otherwise perfectly find to eat. This is not true and you can see it in the supermarkets today.
I like the fact that there are standards because it ensures that the food is being grown properly and that farmers aren’t using their own feces to fertilize their crops, for example.
The people of UKIP and other right wing Europhobics in the UK often make things up, or object to rules that have been made up by the press, in order to make the EU look like an silly organization and to encourage people to be against it. So when I see someone showing support for people like Nigel Farage I question their value system that justifies such actions.
For a more light hearted example of what I am talking about follow this link to an episode of QI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqVJEZnYiZo
Nice one. Vanni.
I was told that there was considerable discussion about a proposal for the implementation of similar controls and standards on penile amplitude characterising those intellectual, academic, assertive, persistent and tenacious future aspirants intending to lay claim to eligibility to populate the corridors of power within the European Zone (apparently the Americas don’t need regulations) and could not agree on the minimum numeric constitution of any given bunch.
With apologies to Madame DCG, I think they were talking a load of “bolleaux”.
As you might imagine, I don’t fekin believe a word of it.
Are you mistaking us for kev ta’ Sharon?
The Mellieha Local Council just chopped down ALL the Trees in the Parking area near the Mellieha Sanctuary, in front of the police station. A literal case of paving paradise, putting up a parking lot. Daphne, PLEEEAASSSSE Make this an issue for all to know about. The same fate apparently await the trees in the Tokk in Gozo. We need to be rid of people with this, pardon the pun ‘bird brain’ mentality. Present and future leadership deserves altruistic intelligence.
I admit that beyond scanning the headlines, I have not read a single word written about this ACTA brouhaha, mostly because I can think of a zillion better things to do with my time.
I am however intrigued that opposition to ACTA seems to have acquired an existential significance in Malta, presumably because software piracy and illegal downloading is (allegedly) rampant.
I have also noticed similar anguished cries of outrage on the timesofmalta.com whenever there is talk of clamping down on illegal use of TV satellite equipment. Funny place, funny people.
Marku,
There is no illegal use of TV satellite equipment in Malta simply because these TV satellite operators, such as Sky, do not operate in our local market. Overseas suppliers are supplying these services on the internet such as http://cccamland.com/. No sales are being stolen in Malta. The main problem is that there is a ‘duopoly’ of two local operators who supply digital and cable TV and their aim is to stifle competition and restrict freedom of choice. They supply inferior products to those so called satellite providers at a price they fix. This is a restrictive practice and contrary to freedom of trade and choice. With ACTA in place ISPs who also provide Television Services will be in a position to stop card sharing and limit choice to the Maltese consumer. This has not been mentioned by our politicians. ACTA have far reaching implications on other sectors of the economy as well. Funny people indeed. Those who support free trade want to limit freedom of choice. Welcome to the age of The Dictators.
Marku,
If you don’t mind anybody sifting through your data packets, fine. Chapeau and all that crap.
However I do mind, thank you very much, and I hate to disappoint the EU, but I object not because I download videos, music etc, but because I believe in my privacy.
Whatever next?
Shall big brother implant a bug in my head to see what I am viewing?
This is a watershed moment as far as privacy goes.
Plant a chip? Vanni, this isn’t the George Bush years any more. You may have an valid point initially but don t discredit yourself by throwing around such statements.
@ Edward,
It was a hyperbole.
BUT come to think of it, are you sure it is far fetched? Have a look at this:
http://www.gpsmonitoring.com/
and this:
http://www.cmgtrac.com/products/tattle-tale/house-arrest-equipment.asp
Science fiction a couple of years ago. Reality today.
@ Vanni: Tracking has become a matter of course. A simple application downloaded into your iPad, iPhone etc. will result in its location being constantly tracked via gps. Bad news for cheating spouses I suppose, but you can’t hold up progress because it gives away people’s bit on the side.
This was highlighted recently in Malta when a device was stolen from a car in Sliema and was tracked for hours to a variety of locations and ultimately recovered in a swoop outside the detox centre in Gwardamangia, having changed hands twice in that short space of time.
Tracking was always possible but never really desirable. Every cpu has a unique identity capable of being read remotely. Have you gone checked to see if there was upgraded firmware for your device but were unsure about its actual version? The manufacturer will in many cases identify it for you, but they show you the courtesy of asking for your permission before doing so, not because you have to physically input something like you do with remote calls, but because they don’t want to abuse of their superior knowledge. C’est la vie and I am quite happy with that.
There doesn’t seem to be the political will to recover stolen goods unless they have huge value, at least that how it seems in UK. Around 1996, I tracked down a computer that was stolen from me in West Sussex to somewhere near Plymouth and when I told the police about it they said it would cost them too much to recover it. But the possibilities are very real as is the monitoring of criminals’ movements through tagging.
Again at Edward I’m afraid: “Vanni, this isn’t the George Bush years any more”.
You speak as though the George Bush years are a distant era not just three ad a half years ago. Guantanamo is still open. There are a bunch of Republican candidates vying for the post of president who might make even Attila the Hun seem conservative, and besides is it not better to prevent rather than find out too late the consequences of one’s actions?
It useless trying to justify ACTA. The damage has been done. Most young people have already formed their minds against it.
They’ve watched a lot of youtube videos etc that have conditioned them and they will not bother not listen to politicians such as Simon Busuttil. The Labour Party knows it and that’s why it’s questioning it and almost opposing it. They are fishing for votes.
Who, exactly, is against ACTA?
The first time I heard about ACTA was in what I would describe as a preemptive move to dispel the rumors that have been put about by those who oppose it. And that is all I have read in the press about ACTA.
Where have all these myths originated from and why are these people misinforming the public and trying to demonize ACTA and right it off as some sort of big brother?
Not to worry Edward, you just keep on believing what you like. However, I sincerily hope that you will never have to apologise for your stance to your children, as this lady did.
http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/
@vanni. I have no stance yet. I was just asking a few simple questions. I know very little about it. However I don’t respone very well to conspiracy theorists and their more insightful than n thou tones, which in fact have a habit of making me believe them less. But as I said before, no conclusions yet.
I have only just heard about it since it became the topic of headlines in Malta. Before now all I ever read about was the economic crisis.
@ Edward
I am not trying to steamroll you into believing anything . However may I suggest that you take all that is written by the EU with a pinch of the proverbial. Sure keep away from the Kevins of this world, but don’t just discard all he says because he is saying it.
Public opinion of ACTA seems poor in general. I’ve seen it discussed a number of times since 2008, mostly on technology news websites (don’t think I’ve ever seen an article in favour). Now that countries are signing it, the spotlight has been cast on it.
The ‘myths’ around ACTA are either not myths at all, or are concerns about previous versions of the agreement (see my earlier post). Some, like the concern regarding medicines, apparently are genuine misunderstandings. Having said that, this concern about medicines has hardly ever been mentioned. Most have their origins from the early discussions before 2010.
The following site shows how some MEPs plan to vote:
http://whovotesforacta.eu/main_page/votes.html
Quote: “The first time I heard about ACTA was in what I would describe as a preemptive move to dispel the rumors that have been put about by those who oppose it.”Unquote.
I do believe that is the exact point everyone is trying to make, i.e. that it has been engineered surreptitiously, which is why the first you heard about it was…
“Pirated medicines” is currently the preferred spin. But medicines are counterfeited in illicit laboratories not on the internet. How exactly will ACTA connect a distant laboratory with my laptop that I take with me when I visit my family living in another continent?
Maybe intellectual property owners should invest in finding improved ways to pre-empt theft, much in the same way as upgrading their front-door with a seven-lever lock (enhanced encryption in this case) BEFORE promoting their product on the web.
Globally, piracy laws already exist anyway, but if IPOs want more vigilance than is affordable at present, they should maybe consider collectively-funding high-tech resources in countries perceived as likely offenders.
That would at least create a few jobs in the process; Greece is full of unemployed IT specialists, I hear.
Every little bit helps, as they say at Tesco’s.
Hi Edward, you’re obviously not au courant if you hadn’t heard of ACTA before.
One of the people misinforming the public and is dead against it is the rapporteur to the European parliament who on January 27 described the ACTA negotiations as a masquerade. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142.
The problem with this trade agreement is that what originally started as an anti-counterfeiting agreement ( ACTA) has been taken over by the media business who have lobbied for some pretty vague articles which could allow for a very wide (mis-) interpretation in order, they say, to combat piracy.
Whilst not condoning piracy, there comes a point where under the guise of a single issue (which can already be tackled through other legal means – see my post above), may give government/the state more power then it should be allowed to handle with unintended consequences.
Ultimately yes ACTA, in its current format, can be used as a kind of Big Brother. We already have acts such as the Terrorism Act in the States which give a lot of leeway when it comes to the rights of the State versus the rights of the man in the street. And it is not unheard of for someone to be got at by some authority by a particularly fiendish interpretation of the. law.
I for one believe that it is far,far better to be suspicious of a law then to sit back and assume that the State knows what’s good for us.
Cheers
Ed, you can’t say you have no stance when you speak of 2people misinforming the public and demonizing ACTA.” Perhaps you should have just stopped with the question.
This is not a 2conspiracy theory”, this is an actual international trade agreement which has already been signed by the US and Canada. On the surface it is just big business twisting the arm of governments. Nothing new there. :) But yes, it might also be a case of it being convenient for governments to have their arms twisted.
The thing about trade agreements is that they do not normally need ratification by parliament, they do not get the due parliamentary scrutiny as they are not technically laws. However this one is peculiar as it includes reference to a number of situations which would be considered a crime throughout the world and therefore have criminal implications.
This agreement is also unusual in that despite having worldwide significance it did not pass through the usual channels of the WTO.
And finally an international agreement which in effect hands over power to powerful countries such as the United States giving them power over citizens of other countries and more importantly over how the internet functions, must be viewed with a lot of skepticism.
In laws as well as agreements one should always look for the unintended consequences, no matter how good the intentions
I don’t need to have an opinion to know that people are demonising something/someone. I know scaremongering when I see it.
Yes, people have clearly been misinforming the public because if they weren’t then there would be no myths.
I agree with you about skepticism but about the illegal side of the net? Piracy is a crime. It is stealing. So most people who have been voicing their opinions against ACTA sound less like concerned citizens and more like selfish people fighting for their right to rob others.
And let’s not forget all the other illegal activity that goes on on net.
So although I share your skepticism, I also welcome moves to deal with the downside of the Internet as it is today. I for one would like to see the end of piracy over the net.
@ Edward
OK, let’s solve the problem, and ban the net. And while we’re at it, let’s solve the rape problem by castrating all males. Third world famine? Hell drop a few dirty bombs on them, they are non productive anyway, + they have different skin colour, or funny shaped eyes. Too many people reaching the pensionable age? Hey there’s a solution. Top off anybody over 75.
There always a solution isn’t there, and many a time it is the Final One.
There is no need to think only in extremes. I would never be in favour of banning the net all together.
However, piracy is a crime. Like all crimes it should be stopped. I will always be keen to hear what ideas people have to put an end to it. Why is that so wrong?
There is no final solution happening. People are very much aware of the problems such efforts can create and all are rightfully going to approach the issue carefully.
Quoting Edward Caruana Galizia: “So most people who have been voicing their opinions against ACTA sound less like concerned citizens and more like selfish people fighting for their right to rob others.” Unquote
Edward, it is most unfair to cast aspersions and categorise as pirates, those who oppose ACTA. I oppose this interference because I believe it is for the IPOs to find ways to lock down their property. All this ACTA business is the result of lobbying and potential motivation of parliamentarians by the IPO promoters. We know that affected parties are mega-rich and can potentially influence those in authority, even individually and never mind, collectively. Listen to Farage’s “audit” of Barroso’s team if still in doubt… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npU3g5YnD4A … Conspiracy theorists indeed!
I have used the internet since its advent with ice-age modems of the early 80s and an upgraded Sinclair QL. My downloads are mostly technical issues/upgrades from manufacturers’ official websites for devices that I or my friends and family have legitimately purchased from them. Often, these files are of significant size and I get frustrated when performance drops because neighbours are downloading stupid films instead of hiring them on CD (IF indeed that is what happens) and because IPOs cannot be arsed to properly lock down their desirables, given that they can make the EU do it for them. I have no television set or associated paraphernalia because I am not impressed with the standards of programmes on offer by reason of which, you won’t find pirated movies in my possession. Time was when I had collections of hundreds of LPs, CDs, DVDs and video cassettes but all original and paid for… that was until my St Leonard’s (Hastings) seafront home was burgled and I lost everything. Technically, wherever those goods are, they are still my property and I am entitled to have copy of them, but having reported them to the police, I never bothered to replace them, not even with legitimised copies.
Other than that, my entertainment surfing consists of public domain stuff (watched not downloaded), on youtube, browsing dictionaries (although I have genuine purchased editions as well), wiki, and trying to identify and find solutions to technical problems. All this, not for money, but for the pleasure and satisfaction of finding an elusive workaround.
I have many original MCSE volumes with accompanying CDs from Microsoft, including Windows NT server 4.0. I still have original teaching-versions of Quattro Pro. These are books that cost serious money so please don’t categorise me as a pirate because you don’t happen to share my concerns about the future of the Internet. All my applications are genuine and paid-for even though it would have been simple to acquire these other than from the proper source.
You will undoubtedly surmise that I have reason to disapprove of theft, not least the fact that I have been a victim; so you should also understand why I believe you are wrong to accuse in the way that you did.
@Peppi iehor;
Just to clarify; I said that most people come across that way, and I did not say that all people do.
Secondly, I agree with what you said. Yes, this is a move from the rich entertainment industry to stop the sharing of music etc and make people pay to watch things on youtube. SOPA, the American version of ACTA but not exactly the same as ACTA, is about putting an end to streaming, and using the media to create and share with others. It s like they are against the old mixed-tape people used to make in the 90s.
I also agree that ACTA is not the only possible solution to the problem of piracy. But I am in favor of looking for a solution.
I have managed to get more information about ACTA, but I haven’t made up my mind entirely. The main problem at the moment is not what it wants to do- put an end to piracy, which I gather you are in favor of from what you said at the end of your post. The problem is how they plan on doing that , which has not been made clear.
However I don’t think ACTA is a move to create Big Brother.
I would never be in favor of a system that would give people the potential to invade my privacy.
Until I know exactly what methods will be used I will not make up my mind. And I will not trust just anyone’s explanation either. I want to see all the information first.
“I would never be in favour of banning the net all together.”
All together? That means it is OK to ban partially? And which part would you consider banning? The illegal side? But are you aware that what is illegal in one country is acceptable in another?
Criticise the regime in China, and you get a knock on your door. Mind you, the Chinese have no problem with this:
http://gemssty.com/2006/10/29/top-10-copycat-cars/
Closer to home: Denying the Holocaust in Germany is illegal. One may argue that this is draconian and infringes freedom of speech, although one has to appreciate that it is a sensitive subject for Germans.
Britain? Are you aware that selling a simple toy (made famous by Enid Blyron in Noddy) may lead to a visit from P.C. Plod. Have a read here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442509/Police-seize-golliwogs-racism-probe.html.
And lest we forget about that bastion of Freedom, America. You know, the one with a extrajudicial detainment and interrogation facility within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. These are the same people who used to point fingers at the Russian Gulags, btw. Things were bad under Hoover (with his dossiers), but nowadays citing terrorist concerns, Homeland Security can do pretty much what it likes and more.
Take Malta. It was in recent history illegal to use the word Nazzjon.
The point I am trying to make is this Edward. I treasure my freedom, am ill at ease when the state intereferes with unnecessary rules and laws. Especially when these same can be changed at a moment’s notice. I am even more wary of people using any sort of excuse, be it anti terrorism or anti piracy or anti whatever, to nibble away at my rights. Once gone, they’re gone. And don’t forget, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You clearly didn’t understand me.
I agree with protecting freedom. I disagree with allowing the following to exist anywhere; piracy, terrorist websites, child pornography.
I am not ignorant to the difficulties of cracking down on these types of websites. But I will not rule out trying to find a way to do so.
You clearly do.
I have done some reading on the matter of ACTA and spoken to a friend who knows a lot about IT since he is very successful in his field and have learnt a lot- but still not enough. Read my post I made on “another bandwagon” blog entry to see where I stand and why.
The European Commission cannot, but say that the agreement’s (ACTA) provisions are compatible with existent EU law, simply because it does not have the power to go beyond.
However, it is must be borne in mind that some member states already use the existent legislation, namely the E-Commerce Directive, to block web-sites through ISPs, even if as per same Directive, ISPs are ‘mere conduits’ (no duty/obligation to monitor content). Our E-Commerce Regulation Act that implements this directive includes same provisions – namely that ISPS are mere conduits and that the competent authorities can block illegal content. Almost all remote gambling legislation in European jurisdictions includes provisions that empowers the authorities, through Courts to block illegal web-sites through ISPs – and most of them enforce them (e.g France and Italy to mention 2 of them that have been reported in the media at the time).
Secondly, the Agreement still needs to be ratified by the national parliaments, European Parliament and then Council of Ministers.
Thirdly, like any multi-lateral agreement, which by its very nature is a ’political’ agreement, it still lacks the means and methods on how it will be actually implemented by the signatories. That is where, I think, it may become confusing and possibly even heavy handed. The ‘devil’, if there is one, will come with the detail of the implementing mechanisms or even instruments that will have to be adopted to put it in practice and then, in the way each country will actually operate these.
“It is not about how people use the internet in their everyday lives. Internet users can continue to share non-pirated material and information on the web. ACTA will not limit people’s rights on the internet nor will it shut down websites, unlike the proposals discussed in the US (SOPA and PIPA)”
From my reading of the agreement, the above argument in the latest commission communique is essentially the crux of the matter. Whilst it may be true, that sharing (aka as downloading) of material will not be criminalised, the websites that make such sharing possible will be. Today these websites provide hosting real estate for free making money out of advertising and performance subscriptions.
The only way these may continue to exist is through the establishment of a royalty payment system to owners of copyrights.
One cannot really blame owners of physical, intellectual and creative property, for having pressed so much for this “enforcement” agreement, however this will undoubtedly change the way the online environment has functioned so far. Until now googols of individuals had unlimited free access to material beyond their financial capabilities – with ACTA, a price is being set. What may be a consequence of this, is that poorer countries will experience a greater difficulty to access knowledge.
Where is our IT minister on this?Austin hello are you out there?
Watching Bondi+ yesterday, I couldn’t help notice Labour’s usual tactics, to keep to themselves the conditions they intend to use to negotiate with the EU.
Is there something in the agreement they signed with the Chinese communist party we ought to know?
I found Bondi-plus program yesterday on the subject very informative.
And here is another perspective on the changing face of IP:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/technology/in-piracy-debate-deciding-if-the-sky-is-falling.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
I know nothing – absolutely nothing – about ACTA, but, if Labour is against it, therefore it must be a good thing. Do you remember Labour was against the EU?