Submitted by crinadmin on
The United States Congress recently voted against the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) amid mass opposition on the grounds that, if approved, the bills place the interests of large corporations above the rights and freedoms of citizens. While media and free speech groups in the US breathe a sigh of relief, the road is by no means clear, as there is yet another copyright law – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) – which has been defined by some as PIPA and SOPA’s “big brother” for its harsher proposals and its wider implications in both reach and scope. Background to the controversy While the treaty aims to protect intellectual property from piracy and counterfeiting, there are fears that its draconian provisions will adversely impact citizen’s freedom of expression and their right to access information and to privacy, among others. Despite ACTA supporters claiming that the treaty respects the rights of citizens and the concerns of numerous stakeholders, critics have repeatedly called attention to the lack of transparency in the treaty’s drafting process, as it was negotiated in secret taking into account only executive and corporate interests, and effectively ignoring the concerns expressed of civil society groups. As a result, opposition groups say ACTA lacks democratic credibility. Access to the negotiating documents through freedom of information requests have repeatedly been denied. Even the European Commission has allegedly refused to provide drafts of ACTA to members of the European Parliament. All these concerns were symbolically verified with the resignation of the European Rapporteur for ACTA, Mr Kader Arif, who refused to "take part in this masquerade." Ramifications The following section identifies how ACTA, if approved, could affect NGOs, civil society, and internet users, including children and young people, as highlighted by Article 19, Access Now, and Avaaz. - The responsibility of making sure there are no breaches of intellectual property would fall on internet service providers, forcing them to carry out surveillance of their networks and to employ intrusive measures to identify infringers, effectively acting as a surveillance mechanism for corporate interests, and threatening internet users’ privacy. - Entire sites with user-generated content would be held accountable for the actions of its users, even if intellectual property infringement is unintentional. - Smaller sites may be forced to shut down if faced with allegations of breaches of intellectual property, as they would not be able to afford a costly litigation process to challenge such an allegation. - Internet users themselves who are found to have committed even minor infringement of intellectual property, for example uploading a video of an event in which copyrighted music is played, could face criminal liability. - The vague wording of some of ACTA’s proposals, such as “digital networks” or “digital environments”, risks arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes a breach of intellectual property law. As a result, internet users and websites could be criminalised for trivial or unintentional offences, particularly in countries already known to restrict fundamental rights and which could use ACTA to do so further. Why the issue is important Opposition to ACTA is not discrediting the right to intellectual property. It is, however, challenging the treaty’s harsh approach to the enforcement of this right on the Internet, and its presumption that intellectual property and the interests of rights holders should be upheld at the expense of fundamental freedoms such as free speech, the right to access information and to privacy, and other human rights. It is about corporate interests seeking to regulate internet activities at the expense of fundamental freedoms. Over 20 European Union states have already signed the treaty, as have other powerhouses such as the United States, Australia and Japan. But the European Parliament has yet to cast its vote. If it were to reject ACTA, the treaty could fall apart, and force those behind the legislation to re-think it and find a better balance protecting intellectual property and preserving the fundamental rights of society as a whole. It is crucial that NGOs, civil society and internet users come together to oppose ACTA, as if approved, the treaty could lead to the deterioration of the respect for fundamental human rights such as free speech, the right to access information and to privacy, among others. For CRIN, at least, access to and sharing of information is crucial to our work. Avaaz is calling on the European Parliament to reject ACTA as it stands. Sign the petition, entitled ‘People Before Profit!’ here.