Anti-ACTA group lists its reasons, plans demo - EU details 'myths'
The Malta Anti-ACTA Group (MAAG) said today that it will hold a protest against ACTA - the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - on Saturday at 11am in Valletta.
Various organisations, including the Malta Linux User Group, Moviment Graffitti, Front Kontra ċ-Censura, Kunsill Studenti Junior College, Malta Alliance for Freedom, ir-Realtá Collective, MOVE Progressive Students, Alternattiva Demokratika Żgħażagh, Forum Żgħażagħ Laburisti and Pulse, support and will be attending the demonstration.
"The ACTA Treaty has been negotiated behind closed doors without engaging public debate and has suffered from numerous problems of transparency. This treaty establishes a committee which operates outside the normal framework of the World Trade Organisation and which has powers to amend the treaty itself in a way which potentially circumvents the normal democratic process," the group said.
"The MAAG is worried that this treaty would result in disproportionate actions against intellectual property rights infringement becoming the norm. The ambiguous nature of the treaty also makes the measures introduced for protecting intellectual property rights liable to abuse."
In particular, it said, the implementation of these measures can have a detrimental effect on the rights to privacy of individuals, forcing ISPs to reveal personal information about alleged infringers. The treaty also paves the way for courts to consider ordering compensation for infringements consisting of amounts based on questionable criteria defined arbitrarily by rights holders themselves.
"The ambiguous language used in ACTA also puts generic medicine at the risk of being targeted unjustly as a counterfeit product, stopping the distribution of essential medicines to those who require them most. This is further aggravated by the border control provisions in the treaty, which would also allow for the interruption of the transit of these medicines between two non-signatory countries whenever they pass through a signatory country."
EU LISTS 'MYTHS'
Meanwhile, the European Commission has issued the following document in an attempt to counter misconceptions about ACTA.
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.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
44 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
K Grech
Feb 13th, 22:39
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120213/09564217746/debunking-eu-commissions-myths-about-acta.shtml
Jean-Michel Azzopardi
Feb 8th, 16:37
STOP ACTA!
Emmanuel Carabott
Feb 8th, 13:18
I am truly amazed as to how much push this agreement that supposedly doesn’t add any new legal burdens is getting. If it truly adds nothing new and people do not want it, why bother? The reason is in truth it adds and a lot. Now I am not even going to touch piracy in my argument I will just point out one clause that will take away legal rights and adds costs for customers, the anti circumvention rule. This rule which is found under section 5 article 27 says that countries need to protect against unauthorized circumvention of copy protections, sounds nice on paper but there are plenty of legal activities that require people do circumvention.
Take DVDs for example. DVDs have one such copy protection called CSS. What legal reasons would you have to remove such copyprotection? In order to play a dvd you need a device that is capable of decrypting DVDs. Unfortunately for years no commercial vendor bothered releasing a DVD player for the Linux operating system, which is used worldwide by millions of people. So until a guy came up with DeCSS a program that circumvents the dvd protection it was impossible to watch a legally purchased DVD on a computer for anyone who’s choice of OS was Linux. Also what if you want to watch your DVD on a tablet which doesn’t even have an optical drive? To rip your dvd in order to transfer it to a tablet you need first to circumvent the copy protection. You’re allowed to RIP and transfer your video of a legally purchased DVD but this would make the RIPPING part of the process illegal ! so now if you want to watch your legally purchased DVD on a tablet you have to buy It again or break the law. Pay twice for the same content.
These are two clear examples of how ACTA is hurting the people, making illegal things which they have a right to do right now and to add insult to injury we’re being told that we do not need to worry as this is not going to add any new laws or requirements since our current laws are strong enough so my Question is why do we need to lose these rights? And mind you this was just one example there are more reasons for circumvention that some industries depend on it! for example what if a virus is released encrypted (they generally are) would an anti virus company be breaking the law if it decrypted it to be able to provide rules for their antivirus to detect it since this would too be circumvention of copy protection?
Francis Attard
Feb 8th, 08:41
The CIA rules the world without any resistance whatsoever.
Reuben D. Spiteri
Feb 8th, 01:55
If whoever's pushing this agreement thinks that customers will just go out and buy a genuine item they're seriously mistaken. This is especially true in malta since the wages are sub-standard when compared to other EU countries.
I personally intend to boycott big brands regardless whether it's software or clothing. I suggest other people do the same so that we can deliver a solid, yet peaceful response.
Francis Coquelin
Feb 7th, 21:49
What is ACTA and why are so many natives restless and on the warpath?
mario piscopo
Feb 7th, 19:26
people simply do not want acta !!
Its useless twisting its importance , people simply dont want it
Ramon Casha
Feb 7th, 17:17
In the famous Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln said the famous words "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
Sadly he was wrong. Through agreements like ACTA, it has turned into "Government of the people, for the corporations, by the lobby groups".
ACTA is not the first, and it will not be the last. It is time that the people start to push back and remind legislators that the ONLY ones they represent, and the ONLY source of their authority, are the citizens NOT the corporations. The latter matter only inasmuch as they employ people and are owned by people, but even the owners are no more important than any other person.
Thomas Vella
Feb 7th, 16:46
2012 is not the end of the world, but it will be the end of internet if this passes !
James Micallef
Feb 7th, 15:26
More specifically, from the ACTA text:
3(b) - presupposition that every copy represents a lost sale is extended from the physical to the digital world, where it does not hold
12 - provisional measures 'inaudita altera parte', ie the rights holder can ask for a takedown without needing to prove their case
article 14 - "MAY exclude" not "WILL exclude" personal luggage. In practice I believe personal luggage will not be exempt, and that will automatically include personal computers, phones, tablets, MP3 players etc
article 23 - criminal offence for any 'commercial scale' - 'commercial scale' defined as 'direct or indirect economic advantage'. No mention is made of the scale of that economic advantage, so in practice all websites, forums etc that carry ads (pratically all of them), are criminally liable for any infringing embedded media post on it. (possibly for links as well) . ISPs are also liable under 23.4 (aiding and abetting)
27.7 - criminal sanction for decoding or providing decoding software. In practice if you buy a Blu-Ray and rip it to a digital file to be able to play on an iPad or phone, you're a criminal
Besides that, there is not one single use of the phrase "fair use" in the entire document.
Brian Johnson
Feb 7th, 15:16
May I suggest that the text of the agreement is read, and then used as a base for sensible and intelligent discussion, instead of name calling, insults and opinions based on second hand reports...such terms as LIES, and BS do not do anybody any good, least of all the argument itself. The text in English is available here, on the EU Council's website for legal texts..
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st12/st12196.en11.pdf
I hope that nobody attributes to me any motive other than objectivity, as I have absolutely no vested interest! I just intend to keep on doing whatever it is I have been doing these past years, although I shall stop short of telling all of you publicly what it was...
pat muscat
Feb 7th, 14:38
The Socialists Group, the Greens and the Liberals do not agree with ACTA.
Francis Coquelin
Feb 7th, 21:55
Well there you go then. Game, set and match. Case closed.
j brincat
Feb 7th, 14:12
@Bernard Pollacco
"laqwa li ngergru xorta wahda :| l-mistoqsiet tan-nies risponduti u xorta jgergru u leeeeeee"
Cause not everyone is that easily convinced and takes everything for granted!
(jb)
Karl Abela
Feb 7th, 14:11
I do not pretend to be holy because free stuff is convenient but nevertheless, I struggle to find the logic behind the grumbling of many people commenting here.
Internet users had it good for many years downloading movies, music, software, operating systems illegally without paying a penny, sharing this, sharing that, streaming football illegally at the expense of the rights holders, investors and artists.
So why do you lot attack the EU and ACTA for defending property? Would you like to be robbed from your home only to find your stuff being used by others or resold on the black market?
You can never defend stealing or piracy even if it is wide spread.
James Micallef
Feb 7th, 15:47
Mr Abela, you are perfectly right that IP should be protected, especially considering that in the western world IP is a major economic driver and without IP protection, countries in Asia will capture much of that value. However treating everyone as a criminal and guilty until proven innocent is not the way to go. Let's start by admitting that in practice 100% removing of piracy will never happen.
There's no silver bullet here (if I had a solution I'd be busy implementing it and making myself rich). One idea I can offer is to make buying things as convenient and practical as downloading for free, and at as low a cost as possible. The rights holders cannot just demand more powers without offering anything in return. How about that if I buy a movie, I am free to port it onto any and every device I own, without needing anyone's permission, and without needing to circumvent DRM? How about that if I buy a book on Kindle, that book is mine in perpetuity (currently Amazon can simply zap it or change the text remotely), and that I can use it on a non-Kindle reader? How about that if I buy a software, I am buying a COPY of the software and I can do with it as I please, including selling it on, not simply a license to run the software? DRM is only partly about IP protection, it's also about lock-in.
Ramon Casha
Feb 7th, 17:13
IP protection should be about striking a balance between the rights of the artist and the rights of the consumer. ACTA was created by groups representing the industry (not even the artist) and caters ONLY for the desires of the industry, not of the consumer and not involving the artist much either. Essentially, the industry gets to decide whether you have broken copyright without involving the courts, whereas you would have to open an expensive lawsuit to prove your innocence. Damages are calculated at the retail revenue multiplied by the number of copies made - which is the same absurd and fraudulent formula by which they make claims about the harm being caused.
j brincat
Feb 7th, 14:07
So, a couple of weeks ago the Government declared its intentions to carry out a major overhaul of the censorship laws and NOW it seems that the way forward is that the ACTA agreement would be lumped on us!
One step forward and three backwards!
Where goes thou, Malta?
(jb)
jeneba caruana
Feb 7th, 14:04
NO to ACTA!! Will be attending the protest!!
M Abdilla
Feb 7th, 13:56
I wonder why organisations like KSU, SDM and MZPN are not attending this, not that the answer is hard to figure out.
Ramon Casha
Feb 7th, 17:08
You mean there's a difference between them? :)
Reuben D. Spiteri
Feb 7th, 13:54
EU 'leaders' get this through your impossibly thick skull:
ACTA is NOT WANTED. Period.
Tarcisio Bonello
Feb 7th, 13:36
.... So - If I cannot afford to go to see (say) a film or maybe purchase its DVD - the Artist will not be getting anything out of me anyway.... I simply cannot afford to pay.
Now I might just afford to have some Internet with my TV / Telephone / Mobile package and so for my personal viewing I might just download a pirated copy....because I'm an unlucky, unrich, of practically poor or even middle class status , thanks to ACTA, I might have the friendly neighbourhood bobby give me a call and even send me to jail.
And the film industry still makes its millions - and wants to make more and more millions out of us bums !!
Call that Social Justice !!
James Micallef
Feb 7th, 15:36
Mr Bonello, your not being able to afford something does not mean that it's OK to take it. I am completely against ACTA because the provisions will require monitoring of Internet traffic, not because I want to download films for free. Also keep in mind that big blockbuster movies make most money at the box office, while independent movies rely more on DVD sales. So the result of piracy is more generic crap movies and less genuinely interesting ones.
S Caruana
Feb 7th, 13:32
In reply to Point 4
how is ''a Party may authorize its competent authorities to provide a right holder with information
about goods, including, but not limited to, the description and quantity of the goods, the name
and address of the consignor, importer, exporter, or consignee, and, if known, the country of
origin of the goods, and the name and address of the manufacturer of the goods, to assist in
the determination referred to in Article 19 (Determination as to Infringement)'' not be interpreted as '' asking an ISP to disclose to the people that request it the details of a person's browsing'' ?
Bernard Pollacco
Feb 7th, 13:17
laqwa li ngergru xorta wahda :| l-mistoqsiet tan-nies risponduti u xorta jgergru u leeeeeee
Steve Demicoli
Feb 7th, 13:58
U zgur li jgergru jekk se jnaqsulhom il-kwalita tal-hajja!
O. Grixti
Feb 7th, 13:07
People do not want ACTA!
Can this article tell us also how these regulations will be performed and enforced without monitoring and interfere with our PRIVATE packets and Internet traffic?
If the ISP or any other organization are forced to check our internet, than we are monitored.
ACTA mean more restrictions, more laws and rules. We will lose our PRIVACY – The internet will not be the same. Information will be controlled and not available as it is right now.
j brincat
Feb 7th, 12:59
One wonders why the EU is so bullish about the ACTA agreement coming into effect!
(jb)
Darren J. Galea
Feb 7th, 12:55
Had I known that the European Commission thinks the average IQ of the people it (allegedly) serves is around 75, I would never have voted to membership with these self-serving hypocrites. What are they trying to sell us here? That "ACTA" is for our own good? Ha hi! I would be more interested in knowing exactly why there trying to shove it down our throats. Can anyone guess?
Charles W. Sammut
Feb 7th, 12:51
Does anybody believe what the EU and its organisations state any more?
If what is illegal today will still be illegal after ACTA and what is legal today will still be legal after ACTA, why bother with ACTA at all?
This is just the thin end of the wedge as with al things EU. The EU itself started off as a 'Common Market' and look at the EUSSR behemoth we have now. And with no end in sight except for a providential collapse of the whole rotten system starting with the Euro.
i cassar
Feb 7th, 12:49
NO to acta and that all.
Ramon Casha
Feb 7th, 12:04
The European Commission is getting frantic in its lies to force ACTA through.
Yes, ACTA WILL limit access to the internet by making ISPs liable to the IP rights holders. ACTA is about individual users as well as large scale operations, since it envisages searches of travellers' personal luggage, possibly including laptops or music devices. ACTA requires ISPs to divulge information about alleged infringers at the request of the IP rights holder without any judicial involvement. ACTA was created by IP rights holders, for IP rights holders and at the expense of the citizen. Some safeguards were introduced later but they're nowhere near sufficient to protect basic civil rights. ACTA can require the seizure of generic medicines and other goods, where the origin and destination countries are signatories, if it passes through a signatory country. This may lead countries to avoid using services like our freeport. ACTA DOES limit trade in generic medicines by changing what is legitimate trade. Things that are currently legal will become illegal.
ACTA is against the interests of EU citizens.
Ramon Casha
Feb 7th, 13:14
* meant to say "where the origin and destination countries are NOT signatories"
Michael Flaherty
Feb 7th, 11:50
People DO NOT WANT IT. As long as that is the case, the EU can bring forth a million pages worth of arguments, but if it passes, it will be a blow to democracy - which requires that a majority of the population shares the same opinion for something to pass.
Why don't they hold an HONEST referendum, where results would not be altered in any way, to see what we think? Oh wait, it would be a "no" so loud, it would be heard from China.
Besides, even this very press-release is full of conditional statements and qualifiers.
"Internet users can continue to share non-pirated material and information" -- yet virtually everything on the internet can be considered to be in breach of copyright, even if one uses a photo off a stock photography website! Not only that, the onus of proving innocence is now on the accused - we are now guilty until proven innocent, and all it takes is a claim by the alleged copyright holder to start a full-scale investigation.
"Neither does it oblige Internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor or filter content of their users" Nicely worded, however ISPs would much rather do this (which would significantly increase the cost of our monthly tariff and reduce the quality) than face potential fines themselves.
"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." Fair enough, but how will they know that there are "any infringing goods" without checking first? More than that, how will the airport staff know the difference between a legitimate piece of software and a pirated one, and how will they be able to check for this? I for one will refuse to co-operate and provide my passwords, or allow anyone to probe into any of my stuff.
See, dear EU, your ACTA goes beyond the culling of piracy (which, in itself, is not entirely bad, given that stuff is genuinely too expensive). It's a gateway to giving you more rights, rights against our privacy, rights to monitor our every action, with the excuse that it's for our own safety. Parallels to the V for Vendetta film are not unjustified. Hey, guess what. We know that what we're getting when buying "counterfeit" products might not be as good. How about you investigate the so called "genuine IP holders" to see if THEIR products are up to the marketed standard?
Narcy Calamatta
Feb 7th, 11:50
Can the salaried defenders and promotors of ACTA tell the voluntary leaders of international artists' associations how many such leaders or artists were involved in the discussions to formulate this document imposed by the few on the many from above?
George Azzopardi
Feb 7th, 11:42
They forgot no.11
ACTA will make the rich richer.
I heard some stuff about this on the news where downloading of films and software by common home user is becoming illegal when you know that Film industry and Software houses are practically making millions out of us normal citizens anyway!!!
Daniel Dimech
Feb 7th, 12:06
vera kumment intelligenti..... nice one
Steve Demicoli
Feb 7th, 12:56
Criminalization of sharing was part of the EU Commission ACTA mandate
The Commission claims that ACTA does not target non-commercial users infringing on copyright (LIE).
Why then does the 18 July 2007 discussion paper submitted in interservice consultation in the EU Commission for the negotiating mandate of ACTA include the criminalisation of not-for-profit sharing by individuals? The latter explicitly refers to the need of criminal sanctions for: “significant willful infringements without motivation for financial gain (e.g., internet piracy)”.
This text was quoted from the site below SINCE FOR THE TIME BEING (BEFORE ACTA) IT IS STILL LEGAL TO SHARE INFORMATION FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITHOUT BEING BRANDED AN ACTA CRIMINAL
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Counter-Arguments_Against_ACTA
J. Debono
Feb 7th, 14:17
I beg to differ on 2 points
1. It seems that the Film Industry are not getting richer out of your pockets.
2. If they where not rich, talented persons will look elsewhere, and on rainy days, I wouldn't have a nice film to see, or a good song to hear!
Karl Abela
Feb 7th, 14:19
Is your comment a joke George?
What are you expecting ?
Are you pretending Warner Bros to spend millions on a film for you to see it for free?
Are you expecting Microsoft to spend millions to make an operating system for you to enjoy for free?
They are making millions because they invested and we are enjoying their product. The film and software industry is a business not a charitable institution. If I am a programmer you can be sure that I want to make money out of it and not others take a free ride.
True, free stuff is nice, but not when it is classified as stealing.
R Bartolo
Feb 7th, 14:44
"where downloading of films and software by common home user is becoming illegal "
Becoming? Very well informed and in a position to have an opinion on the matter, NOT.
Sorry to hear about your concerns with others making millions, my heart bleeds.
George Azzopardi
Feb 7th, 16:28
@Karl Abela and the rest who are defending the already millionairs companies like Microsoft or Warner Brothers .. are you seriously thinking that that this law will defend the smaller fish!
Matthew Bugeja
Feb 7th, 11:30
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Counter-Arguments_Against_ACTA
- Answers all these statements. Once again B.S. is the dish of the day from the commission it would seem.