ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement overview"

(Who can approve or reject the final version?: (See also: [http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/acta-s-constitutional-problem ACTA's Constitutional Problem], 15 Nov 2010, '''Pijip'''))
(All other parties)
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{navbox}}
 
{{navbox}}
 
:''For the effects on software patents, see: '''[[ACTA and software patents]]'''.''
 
:''For the effects on software patents, see: '''[[ACTA and software patents]]'''.''
:''This needs to be reviewed in light of [http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2338 the October 2010 publication of the near-final text].  HELP SOUGHT!''
+
:{{help|This needs to be reviewed in light of [http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2379 the November 2010 publication of the proposed-final text]}}
The '''Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement''' ('''ACTA''') is a proposed [[international agreement|international trade agreement]].  It is primarily being advanced by the [[USA]], [[EU]], [[Japan]], and [[Switzerland]] but other countries are also involved such as [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[South Korea]], [[Mexico]] and [[New Zealand]].
+
 
 +
The '''Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement''' ('''ACTA''') is a proposed [[international agreement|international trade agreement]].  It is primarily being advanced by the [[USA]], [[EU]], [[Japan]], and [[Switzerland]].
  
 
({{SITENAME}} hosted two big leaks in early 2010, but the official text has now been published.)
 
({{SITENAME}} hosted two big leaks in early 2010, but the official text has now been published.)
  
 
Despite the name, this agreement covers much more than counterfeiting.
 
Despite the name, this agreement covers much more than counterfeiting.
 +
 +
==Versions==
 +
 +
* 2010-11-15: Official: [http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2379 15 November text, published by USTR] ([http://action.ffii.org/acta/compare?action=diff&rev2=3&rev1=1 diff with Tokyo round])
 +
* 2010-10-08: Official: [http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2338 October text, published by USTR] "Tokyo Round" version
 +
* 2010-07-13: Leak: [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/ACTA_20100713_version_consolidated_text the "July 1st" text], "Lucerne Round" version
 +
* 2010-05-xx: Official: [http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/april/tradoc_146029.pdf April text], "New Zealand Round" version
 +
* 2010-03-22: Leak: [[201001 acta.pdf as text]] - full text
 +
* 2010-03-01: Leak: [[ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text]] - almost complete text plus notes on which parties want what
 +
* 2010-02-25: Leak: {{translate nl|url=http://www.bigwobber.nl/2010/02/25/acta-verslagen-van-het-ministerie-van-economische-zaken/|title=Dutch govt report on Mexico Round negotiations}}
 +
* 2008-05-22: Leak: ACTA proposal published by WikiLeaks from 2007[http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282007%29] - NOTE: those links have been down since mid-2009.  As of Nov 2010, they're still down.
  
 
==What's in it?==
 
==What's in it?==
Line 18: Line 30:
 
==Participating countries==
 
==Participating countries==
  
[[Australia]], [[Canada]], the [[European Union]], [[Japan]], [[Jordan]], [[Korea]], [[Mexico]], [[Morocco]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]], [[Switzerland]], the [[United Arab Emirates]], and the [[United States]] (US).<ref>http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2008-3691&language=EN</ref>
+
[[Australia]], [[Canada]], the [[European Union]], [[Japan]], [[Jordan]], [[Korea]], [[Mexico]], [[Morocco]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]], [[Switzerland]], the [[United Arab Emirates]], and the [[United States]] (US).<ref>http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2008-3691&language=EN</ref> With 27 countries represented by the EU, there is a total of 39 countries involved in ACTA.
  
 
==Government bodies supporting, criticising==
 
==Government bodies supporting, criticising==
Line 31: Line 43:
  
 
==Timeline==
 
==Timeline==
* 2010-03-22: bigger leak: [[201001 acta.pdf as text]]
+
:''(For the various leaks and texts, see [[#Versions|above]])''
* 2010-03-01: big leak: [[ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text]] (this includes comments from the EU)
+
 
 
* 2010-02-25: leak of 2-page document[http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4819/125/]
 
* 2010-02-25: leak of 2-page document[http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4819/125/]
 
* 2008-07-29: '''Second ACTA negotiating round''', 29‑31 July 2008, in Washington
 
* 2008-07-29: '''Second ACTA negotiating round''', 29‑31 July 2008, in Washington
Line 39: Line 51:
 
* 2008-05-22: leaked ACTA proposal published by WikiLeaks from 2007[http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282007%29]
 
* 2008-05-22: leaked ACTA proposal published by WikiLeaks from 2007[http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282007%29]
 
* 2008-04-14: EU: negotiating guidelines for ACTA formally adopted by the Council
 
* 2008-04-14: EU: negotiating guidelines for ACTA formally adopted by the Council
 
+
* 2007-11-xx: Australia holds consultations about ACTA participation<ref>http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2380/125/</ref>
==Versions==
+
* 2007-01-xx: Canada privately circulates secret ACTA discussion paper<ref>http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2859/196/</ref>
 
 
* 2010-11-15: http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2379 ([http://action.ffii.org/acta/compare?action=diff&rev2=3&rev1=1 diff with Tokyo round])
 
  
 
==Who can approve or reject the final version?==
 
==Who can approve or reject the final version?==
Line 53: Line 63:
 
===All other parties===
 
===All other parties===
  
For the other parties, there are two constraints.  One is their internal approval process, and the other is there international trade relations.  That second issue is even a problem for large economies such as the EU, as described by [[German]] patent attorney Axel Horns:<ref>http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/175-News-From-ACTA-Negotiations.html</ref>
+
For the other parties, there are two constraints.  One is their internal approval process, and the other is their international trade relations.  That second issue is even a problem for large economies such as the EU, as described by [[German]] patent attorney Axel Horns:<ref>http://www.ipjur.com/blog2/index.php?/archives/175-News-From-ACTA-Negotiations.html</ref>
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
Line 91: Line 101:
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
===Information from Civil Society===
+
===About the final text===
 +
 
 +
* [http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/us-trade-agency-releases-final-text-of-acta US trade agency releases final text of ACTA], 16 Nov 2010, '''Computerworld.co.nz'''
 +
* [http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/acta-s-constitutional-problem ACTA's Constitutional Problem <nowiki>[in the USA]</nowiki>], 15 Nov 2010, '''Pijip'''
 +
* [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/11/final-draft-of-acta-released.html Final Draft of ACTA Released], 16 Nov 2010, '''Patently-O'''
 +
 
 +
===Overview pages===
 +
* [http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA La Quadrature] - public interest group based in France who did a lot of work on improving ACTA
 +
** [http://www.laquadrature.net/en/help-the-european-parliament-oppose-acta Help the European Parliament Oppose ACTA], '''La Quadrature'''
 
* [http://action.ffii.org/acta/Analysis FFII's analysis], '''[[FFII]]'''
 
* [http://action.ffii.org/acta/Analysis FFII's analysis], '''[[FFII]]'''
 
* [http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-147082/the-acta-draft-treaty-is-covering-patent-infringement DigitalMajority.org commentary]
 
* [http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-147082/the-acta-draft-treaty-is-covering-patent-infringement DigitalMajority.org commentary]
Line 98: Line 116:
 
* [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/ November 2009 status - focus is "internet enforcement"], by '''Michael Geist'''
 
* [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/ November 2009 status - focus is "internet enforcement"], by '''Michael Geist'''
 
* [http://www.pcinpact.com/media/Report_7th-round-TPC.doc A leaked report from the January 2010 ACTA meeting], from the [[European Union]] delegation
 
* [http://www.pcinpact.com/media/Report_7th-round-TPC.doc A leaked report from the January 2010 ACTA meeting], from the [[European Union]] delegation
* [http://www.laquadrature.net/en/help-the-european-parliament-oppose-acta Help the European Parliament Oppose ACTA], '''La Quadrature'''
 
 
* Broken links: [http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Classified_US%2C_Japan_and_EU_ACTA_trade_agreement_drafts%2C_2009 2009 leaked draft], [http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282007%29], from wikileaks (Since late 2009, and as of Feb 2010, this site is offline)
 
* Broken links: [http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Classified_US%2C_Japan_and_EU_ACTA_trade_agreement_drafts%2C_2009 2009 leaked draft], [http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282007%29], from wikileaks (Since late 2009, and as of Feb 2010, this site is offline)
 
* [http://www.erikjosefsson.eu/blogg/2010/02/23/acta-ever-more-questions ACTA (ever) more questions], 23 Feb 2010, '''[[Erik Josefsson]]'''
 
* [http://www.erikjosefsson.eu/blogg/2010/02/23/acta-ever-more-questions ACTA (ever) more questions], 23 Feb 2010, '''[[Erik Josefsson]]'''
 +
 +
===Articles===
 +
 +
* Michael Geist:
 +
** [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2859/196/ ACTA Discussed Internally Months Before Public Announcement], 23 Apr 2008
 +
** [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2898/125/ DFAIT's Consultation on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement], 1 May 2008
 +
** [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2380/125/ Ask First, ACTA Later], 15 Nov 2007
 +
** [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2318/125/ Is ACTA the New WIPO?], 24 Oct 2007
  
 
===European Union===
 
===European Union===

Latest revision as of 01:33, 13 November 2013

For the effects on software patents, see: ACTA and software patents.
Can you help? This needs to be reviewed in light of the November 2010 publication of the proposed-final text


The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed international trade agreement. It is primarily being advanced by the USA, EU, Japan, and Switzerland.

(ESP Wiki hosted two big leaks in early 2010, but the official text has now been published.)

Despite the name, this agreement covers much more than counterfeiting.

Versions

What's in it?

(see ACTA and software patents)
  • Intermediaries, such as ISPs, can be required to remove or block files at the request of the holder of any copyright, patent, trademark, or any other form of "intellectual property", without a court case
  • ISPs can be forced to hand over identifying information about Internet users to right holders, without a court case
  • Circumventing or removing a "technical protection mechanism" becomes illegal

Participating countries

Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States (US).[1] With 27 countries represented by the EU, there is a total of 39 countries involved in ACTA.

Government bodies supporting, criticising

Expressing full support:

Expressing criticism:

Timeline

(For the various leaks and texts, see above)
  • 2010-02-25: leak of 2-page document[2]
  • 2008-07-29: Second ACTA negotiating round, 29‑31 July 2008, in Washington
  • 2008-06-23: European Commission holds "stakeholder consultation", Brussels
  • 2008-06-03: First ACTA negotiating round, 3‑4 June 2008, in Geneva
  • 2008-05-22: leaked ACTA proposal published by WikiLeaks from 2007[3]
  • 2008-04-14: EU: negotiating guidelines for ACTA formally adopted by the Council
  • 2007-11-xx: Australia holds consultations about ACTA participation[6]
  • 2007-01-xx: Canada privately circulates secret ACTA discussion paper[7]

Who can approve or reject the final version?

USA

In the USA, the final version could get classified as an "executive agreement", in which case the president can simply sign it. Opponents of ACTA would like it to be classified as a "treaty",[8] which would require a vote (in the Senate? Congress? or both?).

(See also: ACTA's Constitutional Problem, 15 Nov 2010, Pijip)

All other parties

For the other parties, there are two constraints. One is their internal approval process, and the other is their international trade relations. That second issue is even a problem for large economies such as the EU, as described by German patent attorney Axel Horns:[9]

In case the EU Council accepting the result of the negotiations conducted by the EU Commission, the political pressure on the MEPs to accept the Agreement surely will be enormous.

As we recently have seen with regard to the SWIFT agreement, the Parliament most probably will be threatened by prospects of a significant deterioration of U.S. - Europe relations in case of a rejection of ACTA.

New or old

ACTA changes existing law without changing the text. It changes the nature of certain laws, moving them from national legislation which is controlled by Congress/Parliament to an international treaty which would be very difficult to change. ACTA thus chains our laws to the 20th century and makes mistakes (such as DRM laws) very difficult to review.

People arguing in favour of ACTA sometimes minimise the impact of ACTA by saying that it doesn't create any new crimes or offences. That may or may not be true, but it ignore the above, crucial problem. It greatly broadens the responsibility, investigation, and enforcement of existing crimes and offences.

A lot of requirements of ACTA already exist in the US and the European Union.[10]

(Terminology: in the EU, the set of domains that are currently under the control of the EU institutions is the acquis communautaire.)

Does not require software patents

ACTA makes all patents more dangerous, but it contains nothing requiring signatories to allow software to be patented. From the text of the leaked 25-August-2010 draft, we can see that this is explicitly stated:

ARTICLE 1.3: RELATION TO STANDARDS CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY AND SCOPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights contained in a Party's law.

2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under the laws and regulations of that Party.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

About the final text

Overview pages

Articles

European Union

Questions officially submitted to the European Commission

The European Commission is obliged to respond to questions officially submitted by members of the European Parliament. They have to do so in a certain time limit (six weeks?).

USA

References