|
IP Justice White Paper on ACTA “Cooperation” is the “key component” to ACTA, which means governments agree to exchange information with each other about their citizens in order to protect the IPR industry (although the data exchange won’t be limited to that goal). According to the USTR, this includes “sharing of information and cooperation between law enforcement authorities, including customs and other relevant agencies.”... |
EFF Submission to USTR on ACTA In the effort to curtail genuine commercial-level copyright infringement, the USTR must avoid harming other important public policy priorities, including in particular, citizens’ privacy and expression rights, and technology innovation. If enforcement mechanisms are perceived to undermine the traditional balance embodied in the copyright system, it is inevitable that there will be less respect for, and correspondingly lower compliance with, copyright law... |
|
Comments Submitted by Google Inc. Regarding ACTAInternet companies and other intermediaries, like Google, telecom companies and ISPs more generally, do not engage in counterfeiting and piracy; they are legitimate businesses critical to the U.S. economy. To impose potential liability and obligations on them, or to dictate terms of substantive intellectual property law that affect Internet intermediaries, is shooting at the wrong target, potentially contrary to U.S. law, and in any event not appropriate subject matter for an Executive agreement not submitted to the Congress.... |
Secret Counterfeiting Treaty Public Must be Made PublicMore than 100 public interest organizations from around the world today called on officials from the countries negotiating Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) -- the United States, the European Union, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand -- to publish immediately the draft text of the agreement. Secrecy around the treaty negotiation has fueled concerns that its terms will undermine vital consumer interests... |
Cautionary Letter on ACTA from US Senators Leahy and SpecterWe write to express our concern, however, about the breadth of the issues it could cover, and the specificity with which it could be written... We are concerned, however, that the ACTA under consideration will prescribe rules for protection so specifically that it could impede Congress's ability to make constructive policy changes in the future... |
European Generic Medicines Association Statement on ACTA ...the EGA has major concerns that the common enforcement practices proposed by ACTA in order to promote strong intellectual property rights could be misapplied and misused by intellectual property holders against legitimate competition in the areas of patents... |
|
750,000 lost jobs? The dodgy digits behind the war on piracyTwo statistics have become a staple of calls for stronger IP enforcement: 750,000 jobs lost! $200 billion [to] $250 billion in costs to the U.S. economy! The problem is that both figures have almost no basis in fact... |
The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada The report, prepared by University of London researchers, Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz, found that music downloads have a positive effect on music purchases among Canadian downloaders but that there is no effect taken over the entire population aged 15 and over... |
What is ACTA?
For the latest news on ACTA click here. (updated Mar. 20, 2009)
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a controversial international trade agreement spearheaded by the U.S., Japan and the EU Commission. If signed, ACTA would curtail the rights and freedoms of citizens around the world, including freedom from warrantless search and seizure and the right to privacy.
While the perpetuators of ACTA claim the agreement is designed to fight piracy, rather than take aim at commercial infringers who profit from infringement, ACTA goes after the ordinary citizen who uses copyrighted material in ways allowed by fair use and fair dealing. ACTA was created to cater to the interests of corporate lobbyists such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), as evidenced by their inclusion in negotiations and the exclusion of all public interest groups. Allowing corporate giants to use taxpayer money and government officials (i.e. - border guards, police) to protect their private interests at the expense of consumers sets a dangerous precedent from which there may be no return.
Some of the recommended ACTA provisions include: lowering current standards to put copyright infringers who do so only for private use (not for profit) in the same category and punishable by the same prison sentences and hefty fines as commercial infringers; having border guards search laptops, mp3 players and cell phones for copyright infringement (i.e. - a backup copy of a movie on your laptop or a song you cannot prove you legally own on your mp3 player) and seizing any material that is suspected of being used for infringement; forcing Internet Service Providers to report on any customer they believe may be engaging in copyright infringement online (i.e. - using peer to peer programs, posting material they do not own on their personal website) and handing over the customer's personal information to copyright holders (RIAA, MPAA etc), requiring ISPs to permanently disconnect anyone from the Internet who is found to be infringing copyright online (i.e. - posting a mix and mash fan video on YouTube, using a photograph you do not own the rights to on your website), requiring governments to share the names and personal information of all suspected copyright infringers with all other member countries of ACTA.
The only official documentation the public has been provided regarding ACTA is a one page “fact sheet,” however, two ACTA documents, an ACTA discussion paper and an ACTA Memo to Negotiators, have since been leaked to the public. The secrecy of the ACTA negotiations and the contents of these two documents has created grave concerns among dozens of public interest groups around the world, including: IP Justice, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Doctors Without Borders’ Campaign for Essential Medicines, Global Trade Watch, Consumers Union, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Australian Digital Alliance, Australian Privacy Foundation, The Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, The Canadian Library Association, Entertainment Consumers Association. To see a full list click here.
Should we wish to continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms we now have, we must stop this new global legislation in the guise of a trade agreement from being signed. ACTA’s intention is nothing short of turning back the digital revolution and criminalizing ordinary citizens in order to protect corporate profits. I encourage you to read more and make your voice heard.
What is Bill C-61?
For the latest news on Bill C-61 click here.
Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Copyright Act of Canada is a highly criticized bill which, if passed, would drastically curtail fair dealing and potentially criminalize millions of average, law-abiding Canadians. Bill C-61 is touted as giving Canadians new rights but, in fact, it would turn dozens of everyday activities into criminal actions and, "tip the legal balance further in favour of those who sell and disseminate cultural content, rather than everyone who consumes it." (A copyright call to arms - Globe & Mail.)
Activities that would become illegal under Bill C-61 include:
-circumventing any “digital lock” (e.g. - unlocking a cell phone, viewing DVDs bought overseas);
-making a backup copy of a DVD or CD on disc or on your computer;
-transferring a DVD to your iPod;
-distributing any software or equipment that can be used to unlock digital content (e.g. - software that can burn a copy of a "locked" DVD);
-circumventing any lock, even for repair or other legitimate purposes;
-making copyrighted material available to others (e.g. - posting a video on YouTube to which you do not own all the rights, using a song on your website to which you do not own the rights, sharing through peer to peer networks);
-allowing any electronic library materials to be checked out for more than 5 days;
-copying digital materials for research or educational purposes;
-allowing distance education students to keep course materials that contain coyprighted material after the class is finished
Breaking these new laws could result in a fine of up to $20,000 per infringement. Though Bill C-61 died on the table in parliament when an election was called on September 7, 2008, the Conservative Party has promised to reintroduce the bill.
Bill C-61 has been lobbied for by organizations such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and would allow a whole new flood of lawsuits to be waged against Canadians (similar to what is already happening in the US). Among those standing in opposition to Bill C-61 are: The New Democratic Party, Fair Copyright for Canada, The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), Canadian Music Creators Coalition, Canadian Library Association, Canadian Software Innovation Alliance, Consumers Council of Canada, B.C. Civil Liberties Association, Documentary Organization of Canada, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), Online Rights Canada, The Canadian Association of University Teachers, Canadian Newspaper Association, Appropriate Art: A Coalition of Art Professionals, Option consommateurs.
To join the chorus of voices in opposition to Bill C-61 join the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook Group and write your Member of Parmliament.