Simon Busuttil’s newspaper piece about ACTA, today
Simon Busuttil had this piece published in The Times today. It’s uploaded with his permission.
IS ACTA A THREAT TO INTERNET USERS?
Last week, representatives of 22 EU countries, including Malta, signed the international agreement called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or “ACTA”.
The agreement was entered into between the EU, the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland.
This news generated a flurry of protests, especially on the web, not least in Malta.
For this agreement to enter into force it requires the consent of the European Parliament. A vote on the agreement will be taken in the first half of this year.
As a Member of the European Parliament, I will therefore be able to cast my vote to accept or reject it. Let me explain what this agreement is all about.
First of all, the aim of the agreement is to combat counterfeiting and piracy of goods by strengthening international cooperation in the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
I am sure we all agree on the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. If we do not, then we would be putting at risk your job if you work in the manufacturing sector or if you work in the software industry – both victims of counterfeiting and piracy.
Yet, a number of complaints have been made in the sense that, despite its good intentions, this agreement can restrict internet freedom and even have other consequences, such as restrict access to generic medicines.
These are serious complaints. I for one, would vote against ACTA if these concerns proved valid.
Let us look at some of them and find the answers. And I am here relying on official information published by the European Commission as well as on the advice of the Legal Services of the European Parliament.
Firstly, the most important point: anything that you can legally do today, you can continue doing even with ACTA. Of course, if what you do is already illegal then it will remain illegal with or without ACTA.
Secondly, there have been fears that ACTA would limit our access to the internet or our privacy.
On this, the European Commission states categorically that ACTA will not affect how people use the internet in their daily lives and it will not limit our rights on the internet. Moreover it will not cut us off the internet. Nor will it censor or shut down websites.
This is a major difference from the draft laws (SOPA and PIPA) that were withdrawn in the US just a few days ago following widespread concerns on their restrictions.
Crucially, the Commission adds that ACTA will not require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to monitor or filter the content of internet users.
Indeed, the Commission adds that ACTA will not lead to the so-called “three-strikes” system.
“Three strikes” is a system which allows copyright holders to monitor internet users and identify alleged copyright infringers. ISPs would then be asked to warn the users and after three warnings, disconnect their access to the internet. The Commission makes it clear that ACTA will not lead to this system.
Thirdly, the Commission makes it clear that ACTA will not limit access to generic medicines, whether in Europe or to poor countries. Again, if there is illegal trade, then this is already illegal and ACTA will just improve enforcement against illegal trade. But legal trade of generics will not be curtailed.
So our access to generic medicines is not affected and nor are our companies that produce generic medicines. If anything, ACTA should help these companies because it hits out against illegal trade.
What happens now?
As I said, the agreement must now be voted in the European Parliament, first at committee stage, then in plenary. So far there has not been a vote on the final agreement. So statements to this effect making the rounds should be ignored because they are clearly incorrect.
Two initiatives that were taken in the European Parliament at the time when ACTA was still being negotiating in 2010.
The first was a Written Declaration that called on the negotiators to avoid the concerns mentioned above. I signed this declaration back in 2010.
Then in November 2010, when the negotiations on ACTA were being wrapped up, the European Parliament adopted a resolution which I supported. This resolution supported the aims of ACTA to fight counterfeiting and piracy. But at the same time it took note of the Commission’s assurances on the key concerns identified above.
Another resolution, drafted jointly by the Socialist, Liberal, Green and Communist groups was defeated. I voted against it because it would have killed ACTA rather than help to improve it – and this would have put jobs in jeopardy. But Labour MEPs voted in favour regardless.
So when the time comes to cast my vote, I will want to make sure that ACTA truly serves to protect jobs by fighting effectively against counterfeiting and privacy. And that it does so without creating undue restrictions for internet users.
43 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectual-property/anti-counterfeiting/
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/january/tradoc_149002.pdf
“Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO SIGN with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children.” – the Slovenian ambassador to Japan Helena Drnovsek Zorko on ACTA signing
Meanwhile, the Polish government has announced it is to suspend the ratification of the ACTA treaty, in light of public concern. “I consider that the arguments for a halt to the ratification process are justified,” said Polish prime minister Donald Tusk,
French EP member Kader Arif, who resigned in protest the day the treaty was signed, urged his fellow parliamentarians to reject ACTA. “I see a great risk concerning checks at borders, and the agreement foresees criminal sanctions against people using counterfeited products as a commercial activity,” he told The Guardian. “This is relevant for the trade of fake shoes or bags, but what about data downloaded from the internet? If a customs officer considers that you may set up a commercial activity just by having one movie or one song on your computer, which is true in theory, you could face criminal sanctions.”
“I don’t want people to have their laptops or MP3 players searched at borders,” Arif said. “There needs to be a clearer distinction between normal citizens and counterfeiters which trade fake products as a commercial activity. ACTA goes too far.”
Thanks, Daphne for this. This morning our helper who votes Labour was very worried; she told me “taf li il-gvern ser jaghmel kollox fuq l-internet bil-hlas? youtube issa trid thallas, biex tisma xi diska trid thallas, kollox bil-hlas gej issa!”
It seems that this is what they are trying to make people believe.
My daughter’s friends at school were saying that facebook will have to close down. Somebody heard it on Super 1. How pathetic.
Well…if Facebook are deemed to be broadcasting information that infringes on other people’s copyrights (e.g. music videos, comic strips from newspapers, football fixtures, league tables, “Happy birthday” song at a party), they may end up in trouble and may have to moderate content. An unlikely interpretation, but not impossible.
I’d like to remind you that a few years ago it was thought Youtube would need to shut down if it didn’t rein in all the copyrighted content on it – they had to install automatic filtering to stop it (you don’t hear any fuss about violating fair use).
Remember that you “pirate” stuff more often than you think, even though you might not think of it as such.
—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
Labour: Jew b’xejn, jew xejn.
If you happen to want to do something for your country, educate her! At least try.
The Slovenian ambassador to Japan who physically signed ACTA in the her country’s name has admitted she did not fully understand what she was signing. Now, after listening to people’s criticism and going through the document itself, she has taken the bold step of apologising to her nation for signing “the agreement that, according to (her) own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children.”
She is now encouraging people to attend the protest against ACTA being held in Ljubljana on 4th February.
Food for thought!
Read more here: http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/
“Firstly, the most important point: anything that you can legally do today, you can continue doing even with ACTA. Of course, if what you do is already illegal then it will remain illegal with or without ACTA”
Good enough for me.
It appears that all this fuss is simply about ACTA’s limiting of the current “freedom” to act illegally. ‘Nuf said.
It’s not that black or white. Ever heard of the term “fair use”?
Let’s say that I have an old CD which I rip and add to my iTunes collection. That would in turn be synced with my collection in the cloud via iMatch, giving me the facility to listed to that CD wherever I want – on my ipad, my apple TV, my iphone, or my ipod.
After reading the text of ACTA, it does seem to me that all of the above will become illegal and I could be prosecuted in court for it.
Well it’s not really clear if you are breaking the law or not when downloading stuff off the internet is it?
What about the free information that one can find while doing research? Who knows how much of this is technically illegal?
Simon Busutill is a lawyer and knows how to place words.
What needs to be specified is how much of the internet freedom which we take for granted is actually illegal.
“It appears that all this fuss is simply about ACTA’s limiting of the current “freedom” to act illegally. ‘Nuf said.”
If you follow this blog on a regular basis you must have read this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/
Last week (or the week before, can’t remember eaxctly) Wikipedia, amongst other sites, blacked out their homepage in favour of the anti-SOPA campaign.
In view of all this, your comment indirectly implies that Wikipedia cares so much about the “freedom” for internet users “to act illegally”. I find that rather strange, don’t you?
Could Simon Busuttil tell us what ACTA does, instead of only stating what it does NOT do? He says what the goal is, but with no word does he mention how this goal should be achieved and what legal changes ACTA will bring.
I am as confused (and undecided) as before.
Daphne, I don’t think that it’s as simple as Simon is making it out to be.
(a) Most of what Simon says that is-not-in-ACTA today, was-in-ACTA at one point like the “three strikes” system so there is some element of truth to the fear mongering that is going on.
(b) What is really bad about ACTA is that it was mostly conducted behind closed doors, hence further fueling the fear.
(c) For all good intentions, some things do not turn out exactly like we wished them too. If its too good to be true, it probably isn’t. Taking an analogy to the euro (and I support the currency), it’s road is a little more bumpy then forecasted. A major question re ACTA is what will be its effect on developing countries?
Therefore, even though Simons says it’s good, the EU is ringing the bells, etc. we just can’t take their word for it. We need to stay on top of it.
We cannot take their word for what exactly? You mean you still want guarantees that you’ll be able to download every album, movie or book that you like for free?
Misers really get on my nerves.
Why did you resort to calling me names? It’s shameful. In my comment I did not defend piracy, I did not mention downloads, for that’s the last thing on my mind. Do you know what I download for free? Free podcast from The Economist, Bloomberg, WSJ and co. Try watching a couple episodes about etiquette, will you? And, if you do need to offend people, be a woman/man and sign your name.
Do you know anything about ACTA?
How it came to light, and why it came to light? Do you know the effects it will have on your life? Did you know that today, just today, the Slovenian Ambassador (Helena Drnovšek-Zorko) apologized to the Slovenian people for signing ACTA.
I never said ACTA is wrong. I just said, we cannot take Simon’s and the EU Council’s word for it being good. We need to know what is being agreed. So, go ahead and read the agreement, and make up your own mind. Try reading. It’s more fulfilling then name calling, trust me.
To put things strait. Piracy is a crime and me, as a self employed software developer fully support the enforcement of copyright infringements.
But we have already everything in place to enforce IP theft. We do not need ACTA which allows stake holders simply to bypass our legal system and authorities. It will open the box of the Pandora and we cannot even predict to what it will lead!
What bothers me most is that only the impact of ACTA to the internet is discussed. Nobody discusses the issue of generic medicines, nobody discusses the impact to seeds, nobody discusses the fact that the it will enable “Software Patents” which have been rejected by the EU parliament and which are forbidden in the EU.
Just imagine the future when everyone has to pay royalties just for using a web shop, a pay button on the website, a blog, etc.
It makes me vomit to see MEPs making statements that nothing changes but the the same MEPs do not even the details of ACTA since it was discussed behind closed doors.
Those MEPs risk our future for the sake of the local elections. Shame on them.
If ACTA is harmless why is it discussed behind closed doors?
Unfortunately it seems that Simon has already decided that ACTA is kosher. I wonder if he could answer a few questions.
1. Could he explain why Kader Arif, rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament has resigned?
2. Would Simon explain why all negotiaitons were held in secrecy, keeping the public out of the loop? ACTA negotiations started in 2007.
3. Is it true that if for example a blog lifts a photo published by a third party without their permission it could be facing closure? (If I understand this correctly, it means that this blog could be closed for taking the mickey out of JM’s photos).
4. If as you claim that all this agreement wants to do is to preserve the status quo, why is it being rammed our throats?
Simon and his colleagues would do to well to remember that they represent the people who elected them and nobody else, and are answerable to the electorate. Should they decide to nail their colours to any other mast, they will be judged accordingly.
When it comes to civil rights, I DO take the EU’s word for it. Take how much grief the UK has to go through when it tries to proceed against people who openly foment hate because they have civil rights.
If it protects the rights of people who probably deserve to have them taken away, I would imagine the EU would not sign up for something that infringes the rights of private citizens.
“anything that you can legally do today, you can continue doing even with ACTA. Of course, if what you do is already illegal then it will remain illegal with or without ACTA.”
Yeah, this is like saying “cannabis smoking is already illegal, so the law-abiding citizen shouldn’t be worried. The only thing the law will do is increase monitoring and surveillance so that any criminal (obviously) caught smoking a joint will be thrown in prison.”
Consider the following scenarios invloving the purchase of a CD:
1) I invite my friend over to listen to the cd.
2) I lend him the cd.
3) I make him a copy of the cd.
4) I ‘rip’ the cd and send the mp3 files by email.
5) I upload the mp3s online and share them with my close friends.
6) I upload the mp3s on a torrent website, hence making them avialable to the general public.
At which point does sharing become theft?
From point 3 onwards, it would definitely be illegal, unless you obtain the consent of the copyright holder/s.
Although I am not a lawyer by profession and stand to be corrected, I would think sharing music/video CDs becomes illegal after point (2).
The issue is that there is no legal way (that I know of) to lend your friend a CD electronically via an upload or e-mail.
ACTA is refusing to cater for this scenario and instead opts for a treaty which is way too open to interpretation.
(3)
I think the last word in the penultimate sentence should be “piracy”, not “privacy”.
The only way such a vague bill can pass is if the bill of rights is updated to better protect the individual citizen from corporate bullying.
The only solution for June is for parliament to fail the bill and start working on an updated bill of rights. There is another trade bill in works anyway…
While I’m still reserving judgement on the ACTA law, I think it’s great concern when someone goes through such an effort to list all the things a proposal won’t do, rather than what it will do.
[Daphne – A pertinent observation.]
Besides, I’m very ill at ease with the fact that Simon Busuttil is, in his own words, “relying on official information published by the European Commission as well as on the advice of the Legal Services of the European Parliament”, rather than doing his homework to understand the legislation and interpret it for the man in the street.
I have a good deal of respect for Mr Busuttil, but his handling of the ACTA process and of the ensuing backlash has put quite a dent in it.
Could Mr. Busuttil let us know who is negotiating with whom? This ACTA set of laws has the same timing as a similar set of laws which wanted to go through in the USA. Why is this sounding suspicious?
Why was this ACTA process started ? Was there an immediate threat to some organisation or lobby group, which pushed it so high on the agenda…. when the European Financial Crisis is so important to tackle right now?
International Copyright laws already protect copyright and patent holders. It hasnt stopped the USA to shutdown Megaupload ( a famous pirating site ) and to taking ThePirateBay to court, whom have just lost their appeal to the case.
So why did we need a new set of laws… when the current ones already work? What’s the hurry? What’s the urgency?
WHAT IS GOING ON ?
Seriously…. you might have all the right reasons and logic for the ACTA argument…… but the lobby group which is pushing this to go through, do NOT have the right intentions.
Our manufacturing industry is at a disadvantage with non of these countries which were mentioned,China is the biggest threat in piracy and counterfeit and nobody can make China sign the ACTA.ie.the real threat for jobs and companies.
Absolutely. The only way – ONLY WAY – to put an end to the economic crisis is to shaft China and pay that extra 200% for a bone fide, made in Europe product.
Not if you want to buy an Apple computer or an iphone or most of the many consumer electronics that are all made in China, and that’s just to name a few.
What I mean is that there is little the consumer can do to shaft China until capitalists (including Europeans) keep pocketing additional profit at the expense of poor working conditions in such countries.
I agree. This is a case which perfectly illustrates what I’ve been saying all along, viz. that “every little counts” and “YOU can do something about it” is a load of bollocks.
I can’t very well build an iPad in my garden shed out of raw materials manufactured in Europe, as you point out.
And it’s not as if the manufacturing cost itself is significantly higher in the West. A recent study showed that at equal salaries, an iPod made in the USA would only cost 20 Dollars more. I’ll try to find the original article, because it’s a fascinating study.
Equal salaries. That is where the nub of the problem lies. European workers would have to be paid Chinese salaries. However, if you consider the huge profits that are made by companies like Apple, surely it wouldn’t be too much for the top management to forgo its blasphemous salaries, bring production back to the West, and screw China once and for all. Because make no mistake, we’re screwed if we don’t.
Correction: It would cost 23% more, under US labour conditions. So my statement about equal salaries was wrong. (But the general argument is even more correct.) At equal salaries it would probably cost even less than the current price, when you factor in transportation costs.
Source: http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2009/07/a_fair_labor_ipod_what_would_i.html
So there you go. Is that 23% worth giving up on our human rights standards? Or on our dreams of prosperity for the West?
Surely you’re not so naive as to take Simon’s simple word for it. Simon will say anything to keep his seat on the gravy train. So if you want the WHOLE truth, you will have to look elsewhere.
Basically ACTA will enable the owner of any intellectual property to sue the pants off anyone who uses it without paying for it. So If you upload a picture of Donald Duck on your website, Disney can sue you for a percentage of what you’re worth. And that applies for every infringement. Upload a picture of Mickey Mouse and you become liable for that percentage, again. It is not the ISP who is liable, but the owner of the website.
Of course it will be applied selectively to suppress whoever pisses off the powers that be.
If you accept the concept of ATCA, you should accept the Security Service having CCTV in your home. You don’t have to worry unless you’re doing something illegal, n’est pas?
Do do some proper research and ask someone who is unbiased and well informed before you agree to ATCA simply because it suits Simon to toe the EU line and tell us it’s just what we want.
So, what the good doctor is trying to convince us about is that this ACTA thing is virtually harmless and does not in any way restrict/curtail/limit our present use of Internet.
Well, I do have to wonder then why all the world is in such an uproar, why the chief executive of the EU commission tendered his resignation in utmost disgust as to the way things had been conducted.
Up pops our good doctor ( much as I respect him ) and states that no, we will absolutely not be affected and that it’s all fear-mongering.
So why has this prospective legislation been studied and discussed since 2008 – in apparently, total secrecy, by the all-powerful nations of the world ? I mean, if it’s not going to change anything, why bother with it ? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is an American maxim which springs to mind.
I’m more confused I must admit but I do suspect that much depends on the way ‘legal’ and ‘enforcement’ are being subtly inter-changed within many official statements.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120203/local/House-Committee-to-scrutinise-secret-Acta.405110
Please note that it is not that simple. Even generic pharmaceutical companies are feeling threatened by ACTA. I know for sure because I work for one of these companies in Malta and all pharmaceutical companies in Malta are generic. For those who do not know, generic medicines are a copy of the original medicines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy3zBZ4vI4E
We have the nerve to complain and worry about ACTA (which is essentially the enforcement of what is already blatantly illegal), then we don’t even celebrate one of the biggest victories in terms of freedom of speech.
A ruling against ex journalist (now lawyer) Joe Mifsud, who years back was ordered to pay Dr. Louis Galea (then PN Minister) €5000, was overturned by the Court of Appeal….THIS IS A BIG WIN FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM IN MALTA (whatever little is left of it)….. and yet no one knows…
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120204/blogs/a-victory-worth-talking-about.405266
“which is essentially the enforcement of what is already blatantly illegal”
Says who? Were you invited to all the discussions? Have you studied each and every clause? On what basis are you better qualified to disagree with Kader Arif and with Helena Drnovšek Zorko? Or are you just doing a Simon Busuttil, just quoting from the EU handout?
@ Alison Bezzina: I think you’re making too much of a big deal of it.
The libel case was about Joe Mifsud’s book and media release which may have given the impression that Louis Galea had connections with drug traffickers. Louis Galea felt libelled and originally won the case. Joe Mifsud appealed and won the appeal.
In neither ruling did the court suggest that Louis Galea was in any way connected to drug traffickers. The court of appeal’s ruling only said that it did not deem that Louis Galea was libelled.
The only noteworthy thing about all this is that the court of appeal took so long to make a ruling. And that’s no victory at all.
Has THE “Joseph” spoken on this yet? or is he considering whether a “yes” or “now” reduse his number of votes?