EU refers ACTA to court
The anti-Acta protest in Valletta two weeks ago.
The European Commission said today that it has asked the EU's highest court to rule on the legality of a controversial treaty covering copyright, counterfeiting and Internet freedom.
The EU executive "decided today to ask the European Court of Justice for a legal opinion to clarify that the ACTA agreement and its implementation must be fully compatible with freedom of expression and freedom of the internet," said a statement.
The United States, Japan and Canada are also among signatories, but a number of mainly eastern European states have threatened not to ratify the treaty, which critics say could curtail Internet freedom.
In Malta, the treaty has been submitted for consideration by the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee and has not yet been referred for ratification.
The European Commission has defended ACTA against accusations that it amounts to a witch hunt against individuals illegally downloading content and has vowed to try to keep the deal alive when it comes up for ratification later this month by the European Parliament.
"Let me be very clear: I share people's concern for these fundamental freedoms... especially over the freedom of the Internet," EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht told a news conference in announcing the decision.
"This debate must be based upon facts, and not upon the misinformation and rumour that has dominated social media sites and blogs in recent weeks," he added.
He said the agreement "aims to raise global standards for intellectual property rights" and said ACTA "will help protect jobs currently lost because counterfeited, pirated good worth 200 billion euros are currently floating around."
However, there appeared to be differences of view even within the Commission.
Viviane Reding, the EU's commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship had shortly earlier flagged up on Twitter a statement of her own in which she said "cpyright protection can never be a justification for eliminating freedom of expression or freedom of information."
She underlined: "That is why for me, blocking the Internet is never an option."
Twenty-two of the 27 EU states signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on January 26 in Tokyo.
Since then, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania have said they will not ratify the pact.
Slovenia's newly-appointed government also said last week it was considering freezing its ratification of the accord signed by the previous government in January.
European Parliament president Martin Schulz has called the pact "unbalanced" and difficult to accept in its current form, and Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) media freedom representative Dunja Mijatovic last week it could undermine freedom of expression.
An EU negotiator said a rejection by one EU state or parliament could bury the whole project.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
No appeals board for first part of power...
25 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr C Camilleri
Feb 23rd 2012, 10:51
Dear Mr Cassar, as i already stated earlier on I have corrected myself to PROTESTERS not PROTESTANTS. Its was a mistake. I do know what intellectual property is and i do not need you to tell me about it.
Regarding your story about the novel, I never said or stated i do not agree with the protection of copyright material. Probably you do not know what ACTA is about. It goes much beyond all this fairytale stuff of copyright and protection of the innocent. It goes against Data Protection Act. And the more governments try to say this is not true the more i convince myself it is. Again ... i say ... over 3 million PROTESTERS cannot be wrong.
Nicholas Cassar
Feb 22nd 2012, 16:18
@Mr C Camilleri
Protestants? You're arguing about intellectual property when you can't tell the difference between 'protestors' and 'Protestants'.
Plus you told me to 'go and enjoy' intellectual property myself. Do you even know what intellectual property is?
Let's take an example, shall we?
How would you feel, Mr C Camilleri, if you wrote a best-selling novel, only to find that someone somehow got a copy of it and published it before you, or posted the draft online to be downloaded by people at their leisure? I imagine you'd be quite angry - the work would after all have, for all intents and purposes, been yours to commercially exploit.
Intellectual property protection means that, in such case, you'd be able to sue the person who stole your novel for copyright infringement. You'd ask the court to stop him publishing that novel and to allow you to commercially exploit your own work.
Do you think anyone would bother to write a novel, or disclose an invention, if they knew that it could be copied and sold by others at will? People invent and publish stuff for a reason - to earn a living.
No one said ACTA is perfect, and it may need to be amended in some way, but you are arguing against the existence of intellectual property. I'm sure most of the other 3 million 'Protestants' disagree with you, mainly because intellectual property protection in and of itself promotes growth and investment.
Emmanuel Carabott
Feb 22nd 2012, 17:21
@ Nicholas Cassar
How would you feel if after you wrote your best seller and gained international fame warner brothers sue you because in your story you included the lyrics from the song Happy birthday not realizing that's copyrighted or because you didnt think about the font you were using in your book and suddenly you end up sharing your hard earned money with a few people who really did no work on your book?
Stronger copyright laws might seem nice on paper but they're a double edged sword. They can hurt authors too. The only people not getting hurt are people who pirate stuff because guess what, what you're saying is illegal today!
My next question is would you really risk the scenario above? would it be worth it? do you really think people are fine with breaking a single law but somehow would shy away if they have to break 2 laws?
Also I would like to point out that even with situation as is today people write novels, disclose inventions and all other things even though they can be copied and sold by others and creating new laws will not change that.
T Gauci
Feb 22nd 2012, 18:39
People paid you, you no longer own the physical material and rightly they can they do whatever they want with it. By your logic then, if i buy a book only i can read my book and nobody else. One must distinguish between stealing, copying/imitating and sharing.
Robert Agius
Feb 23rd 2012, 07:29
Let me start by stating that I do not pretend to know much about intellectual property on a legal bases but here is my 2pennies worth.
'How would you feel, Mr C Camilleri, if you wrote a best-selling novel, only to find that someone somehow got a copy of it and published it before you, or posted the draft online to be downloaded by people at their leisure?'
That would be tantamount to theft and not a copyright infringement. One need to retain a patent to legally say it is his I assume.
'Do you think anyone would bother to write a novel, or disclose an invention, if they knew that it could be copied and sold by others at will? People invent and publish stuff for a reason - to earn a living.'
If that is the sole reason then their spirit of both the individual and society is corrupted. It is also a false statement. Look at the music industry. Since napster (and although it closed) music has exploded and many still make a living out of it. It is the industry which needs to change. In fact musicians in general never see much money from CD sales (before downloading it was only a few well known, and aggressively marketed, artists who actually did get money from CD sales). The film industry is the same. Although pirate copies did effect the industry, it was only marginally since you can't replace a cinema with a downloaded copy of a movie. It is also a matter of prestige - that is why you pay for a large sum of money when you buy an original painting. having said that, as with everything else, where you have a high price you have a black market.
I might me mistaken but the way I see intellectual property, which I guess started as a western concept, is as a symptom of the western perspective of the self and his his focus on individualism. 'I am'. The flaw in this I find is that there is a fine line between 'i am' and 'we are'. Would Einstein have come up with the theory of relativity, had he been born in a tribe in the jungle? or another century? I think that while people should be acknowledged for their creation we must also bear in mind building blocks (you don't have internet, tv etc without electricity) and education (things we learn from our surroundings). 'I am' does not exist without an environment which helped it flourish. This is where I think intellectual property needs to be worked upon as a legal instrument. Maybe i got it wrong however, and perhaps Mr. Cassar can clarify.
Joseph Brincat
Feb 22nd 2012, 15:50
A C T A
ANOTHER CRAZY TABU ASSIGNED
Ramon Casha
Feb 22nd 2012, 15:23
While the court will determine whether ACTA is legal - that is whether it conflicts with any existing law such as the acquis communautaire, it will not address the many other concerns raised, including that of diminishing citizen rights and bypassing judicial overview.
Joseph Cutajar
Feb 22nd 2012, 15:46
Naqbel mieghek Ramon. U ghalhekk forsi hemm bzonn ta' emenda kostituzzjonali, kif gie propost.
Victor Rodenas
Feb 22nd 2012, 15:22
Just as a side plate. Why masks are not allowed but then somebody wearing a burqa,with only the eyes showing is allowed?
Ramon Casha
Feb 22nd 2012, 15:21
While the court will determine whether ACTA is legal - that is whether it conflicts with existing legislation such as the acq
Francis Attard
Feb 22nd 2012, 15:05
No to ACTA and whatever the CIA dictates.
Nicholas Cassar
Feb 22nd 2012, 15:12
Oh God... another conspiracy theorist.
ACTA is a very, very diluted version of SOPA. The two are incomparable. That being said, it is clear that ACTA is not perfect, and it is clear that further discussions are required in its regard. But no one (least of all the Government) has ever said that it is, in fact, perfect.
It is clear you know absolutely nothing about intellectual property protection, so please just spare us.
Mr C Camilleri
Feb 22nd 2012, 15:48
NO TO ACTA ... FULLSTOP. Nicholas Cassar, if you know so much about intellectual property protection please go and enjoy it yourself. I agree with the OVER 3 MILLION protestants worldwide, so PLEASE SPARE US YOU INTELLECTUAL WORDING !
Mr C Camilleri
Feb 23rd 2012, 10:45
I correct myself ... its protesters not protestants !
Joseph Cutajar
Feb 22nd 2012, 14:46
Dawk kollha li qed jghidu li dan jikkonferma li qal il-PL qed jergghu jipprovaw jingannaw in-nies.
Il-PN DEJJEM qal li d-drittijiet fundamentali (fosthom id-dritt ta' espressjoni libera) ghandhom jigu protetti. Tant hu hekk li giet proposta emenda kostituzzjonali li tipprotegi dawn id-drittijiet fejn jidhol b'mod specifiku l-Internet.
Il-PN qal ukoll li hemm bzonn djalogu izjed koerenti u komplet dwar l-ACTA. Min-naha l-ohra Joseph Muscat qal 'le' ghal kollox minghajr ebda forma ta' dibattitu, ghax kull ma jimpurtah hu li jidher sabih man-nies u jitla' fil-Gvern.
Hbieb, araw il-fatti kollha u tindunaw min qed ikun sincier f'din il-bicca.
A. Borg
Feb 22nd 2012, 14:24
round about turn ohra!
F. Pisani
Feb 22nd 2012, 14:05
NO to ACTA. Internet is free for everybody.
John Zammit
Feb 22nd 2012, 14:03
So the labour party was Right in raising the eyebrow.Hope PN apologist and Bloggers will shut their mouth now
Franco Farrugia
Feb 22nd 2012, 14:36
No, you simply have it wrong.
John Zammit
Feb 22nd 2012, 14:56
@ Franco I have all right I don't want a policeman in my bedroom
Jean-Michel Azzopardi
Feb 22nd 2012, 13:37
BoooooYaaaaaaa
pat muscat
Feb 22nd 2012, 13:36
Ara x'kull wahda! Daqs kemm qalulna bloggers u apologisti tal-PN li il-PL hu favur is-serq fuq l-internet! Anke l-EU bil-President Socjalist huma favur is-serq? Jew, l-ACTA- saret behind people's back-u fl-ahhar, id-dubji serji fuq il-privatezza se jkunu mgharbulha bis-serjeta?
Franco Farrugia
Feb 22nd 2012, 14:36
Emmm.... il-Kummissjoni Ewropea tista' ddur fuq il-Qorti Ewropea biex din il-Qorti taghi OPINJONI LEGALI. Il-Kummissjoni dak biss ghamlet - ma tatx ragun lil min huwa kontra l-ACTA.
Qabel ma niktbu affarijiet fil-publiku, tajjeb li nkunu nafu fuq xiex qed niktbu.
pat muscat
Feb 22nd 2012, 18:56
Allura kull ligi li tghaddi fl-EU titlob lil Qorti ghall-opinjoni legali, jew din tintalab biss fejn ikun hemm dubji serji.....bhal fil-kaz ta l-ACTA?
Franco Farrugia
Feb 23rd 2012, 11:23
Din tintalab, jew fejn ikun hemm dubji serji ... iva, bhal fil-kaz tal-ACTA ... jew meta legizlazzjoni tkun kontroversjali hafna.
Please choose the reason of your report below: