Differences between revisions 1 and 43 (spanning 42 versions)
Revision 1 as of 2008-11-10 14:50:09
Size: 4551
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Revision 43 as of 2009-02-09 12:48:48
Size: 3069
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
Dear ...,

We write to express our concerns about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
(ACTA) under negotiation. The ACTA negotiation process violates the
transparency requirements of the "Protocol on the role of the national
parliaments in the European Union". We call upon you to ensure that these
requirements are respected and not circumvented. In this letter we will
address competence, subsidiarity, proportionality and transparency issues.
(no wiki markup)
Line 11: Line 4:
== Introduction on ACTA We call upon the Parliaments of Europe to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It may be the only way to stop silent adoption in the Council.
Line 13: Line 6:
Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). On its website, the European
Commission calls ACTA "path breaking". A U.S. government spokesman said that
the ACTA text will only be made public after the parties have agreed to the
actual text. In the U.S., ACTA is treated as an Executive Agreement, meaning
that it will not go through the US Congress for approval.
Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating ACTA. No drafts are published. Leaked documents show ACTA will not only target criminal piracy and counterfeiting, but will criminalize plain infringements of copyright and trade mark rights. The drafts also contain very harsh civil measures against plain infringements of so called intellectual property rights. This approach is biased. Copyright, trade mark rights, patents and other rights ban competition. The scope of such rights is often unclear, bona fide infringements occur daily. Whether an act is an infringement or fair competition has to be established in a civil trial. By putting maximum pressure on acts that may still be fair competition, trolls get free reign and companies are chased of the market. This will stifle innovation and competitiveness, limit access to software and medicines.
Line 20: Line 8:
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concerns about this modus
operadi: "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. (...)
Regarding the potential breadth of ACTA, we strongly urge you not to permit
the agreement to address issues of liability for service providers or
technological protection measures." [senate]
Media companies may like to chase every kid on the block that shares a music or movie fragment. But this approach crimininalizes journalists that reveal a document as well. ACTA needs scrutiny by all stakeholders, experts and parliaments.
Line 28: Line 10:
More than a 100 public interest organisations from around the world have
called on officials from the countries negotiating ACTA to immediately
publish the draft text of the agreement. [100g] Based on leaked documents and
industry comments on the proposed treaty, the groups expressed concerns that
ACTA may:
It is still unclear whether Parliaments will be able to scrutinize ACTA. It is unclear whether the final draft will be published prior to Political Agreement in the EU Council. ACTA may pass silently during Parliamentary recess.
Line 34: Line 12:
+ Require Internet Service Providers to monitor all citizens' Internet
communications;
In the EU decisions are normally taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. Preparatory legal texts are published. If full disclosure is not possible, parts are published. Translations are made prior to adoption in the Council. With ACTA, Parliaments and public get nothing. In a Resolution the European Parliament called for disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate.
Line 37: Line 14:
+ Interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials; In the case of trade agreements, both the EU Member States and the European Parliament have vetoes on aspects of the trade agreement. ACTA's secrecy makes it impossible to assess whether the vetoes apply and should be used.
Line 39: Line 16:
+ Criminalize peer-to-peer electronic file sharing; and

+ Undermine access to low-cost generic medicines.

We share these concerns and support the call for transparency.
In order to safeguard transparency and parliamentary legislative power, we call upon the Parliaments of Europe, both the national as the European Parliament, to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations.
Line 46: Line 19:
== Transparency = Vetoes
Line 48: Line 21:
ACTA has three major legs: International Cooperation, Enforcement Practices,
and Legal Framework. In this letter we will concentrate on ACTA providing a
new legal framework.
The following vetoes apply to ACTA:
Line 52: Line 23:
+ ACTA will not be published prior to adoption in the Council. Adding a legal
framework to a trade agreement circumvents the "Protocol on the role of the
national parliaments in the European Union"'s transparency requirements for
Community legislation. The Protocol stipulates that translations have to be
available 6 weeks prior to adoption by the Council.
+ In so far as ACTA will relate to trade in cultural, audiovisual and educational services, the Member States have a veto.
Line 58: Line 25:
+ in the landmark ECJ judgment on the Turco case (joined cases C-39/05 P and
C-52/05 P), the Court stressed the importance of the public right of access
to the documents of the institutions, including preparatory ones, especially
in the case of legislative acts.
+ In so far as ACTA will relate to non commercial acts, the Member States have a veto.
Line 63: Line 27:
+ while ACTA is not a legislative act in the strict sense, it will be legally
binding for the member states. ACTA is therefore de facto legislation and
ACTA texts should be made directly accessible.
+ The Member States have a veto on criminal measures in ACTA.
Line 67: Line 29:
+ keeping the ACTA texts secret makes both properly assessing ACTA's
proportionality and subsidiarity issues, and political scrutiny, impossible.
+ The European Parliament has vetoes if ACTA entails amending an act adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 or if a specific institutional framework is established by instituting cooperation procedures.
Line 71: Line 32:
== Community Competence
Line 73: Line 33:
+ ACTA can not surpass present Community legislation. (TEC 133.3)
Line 75: Line 34:
+ ACTA will relate to trade in cultural and audiovisual services and
educational services. This falls within the shared competence of the
Community and its Member States. (TEC 133.6)
Line 79: Line 35:
+ the intention expressed in a leaked discussion paper to address
non-commercial acts by civilians does not fall within TITLE IX Common
Commercial Policy. The Community is not competent. And even if it would fall
within TITLE IX, it does not fall within "commercial aspects of intellectual
property" (TEC 133.5). Therefore, unanimity in the Council is needed and
Parliament has to be consulted (TEC 133.7)
Line 86: Line 36:
+ if a specific institutional framework is established by instituting
cooperation procedures, assent of the European Parliament has to be obtained.
(TEC 300.3) The same is true if ACTA entails amending an act adopted under
the procedure referred to in Article 251.

+ ACTA cannot be concluded before the study on whether criminal measures are
essential, is ready, and the criminal measures proven essential. (TEC 133.6,
ECJ C-176/03) [study]

For more competence issues, we would like to refer you to the FFII analysis.
[analysis]
Yours sincerely,

(no wiki markup)

We call upon the Parliaments of Europe to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It may be the only way to stop silent adoption in the Council.

Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating ACTA. No drafts are published. Leaked documents show ACTA will not only target criminal piracy and counterfeiting, but will criminalize plain infringements of copyright and trade mark rights. The drafts also contain very harsh civil measures against plain infringements of so called intellectual property rights. This approach is biased. Copyright, trade mark rights, patents and other rights ban competition. The scope of such rights is often unclear, bona fide infringements occur daily. Whether an act is an infringement or fair competition has to be established in a civil trial. By putting maximum pressure on acts that may still be fair competition, trolls get free reign and companies are chased of the market. This will stifle innovation and competitiveness, limit access to software and medicines.

Media companies may like to chase every kid on the block that shares a music or movie fragment. But this approach crimininalizes journalists that reveal a document as well. ACTA needs scrutiny by all stakeholders, experts and parliaments.

It is still unclear whether Parliaments will be able to scrutinize ACTA. It is unclear whether the final draft will be published prior to Political Agreement in the EU Council. ACTA may pass silently during Parliamentary recess.

In the EU decisions are normally taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. Preparatory legal texts are published. If full disclosure is not possible, parts are published. Translations are made prior to adoption in the Council. With ACTA, Parliaments and public get nothing. In a Resolution the European Parliament called for disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate.

In the case of trade agreements, both the EU Member States and the European Parliament have vetoes on aspects of the trade agreement. ACTA's secrecy makes it impossible to assess whether the vetoes apply and should be used.

In order to safeguard transparency and parliamentary legislative power, we call upon the Parliaments of Europe, both the national as the European Parliament, to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations.

= Vetoes

The following vetoes apply to ACTA:

+ In so far as ACTA will relate to trade in cultural, audiovisual and educational services, the Member States have a veto.

+ In so far as ACTA will relate to non commercial acts, the Member States have a veto.

+ The Member States have a veto on criminal measures in ACTA.

+ The European Parliament has vetoes if ACTA entails amending an act adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 or if a specific institutional framework is established by instituting cooperation procedures.

Yours sincerely,

acta letter (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:38 by localhost)