LibertyVoice

IP Watch reports on plans by China and India to raise concerns about ACTA at the World Trade Organization this week.

Three major U.S. technology industry groups have jointly spoken out against ACTA.  The Consumer Electronics Association, TechAmerica and the Computer & Communications Industry Association plan to oppose the current ACTA draft.

With the next round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations scheduled for later this month in Lucerne, Switzerland (governments have been painfully slow this round in confirming dates, location, and agenda), the global politics behind the agreement escalated over the weekend with Indian officials acknowledging that they plan to establish a coalition of government opposed to the agreement.  Reports indicate that a major concern involves the possible seizure of goods in transit, which raises access to medicines fears with the potential detention of generic pharmaceuticals.

If India is able to line up a coalition of opposition – likely allies include Brazil, China, and Egypt – this will unquestionably escalate pressure on the ACTA countries to open the process.  I have previously argued that ACTA represents a major threat to WIPO and the Development Agenda.  The opposition from the U.S. and E.U. on a treaty for the visually impaired at a meeting last week in Geneva provides further evidence that with IP enforcement effectively removed from within WIPO's scope, those countries will have little incentive to advance the IP development concerns of the rest of the world. 

While some may suggest that the opposition provides evidence that ACTA is on the right track, the reality is that ACTA is largely designed to apply to the very countries that are now preparing to openly oppose it.  There is no mechanism to "force" these countries to abide by ACTA standards.  The best approach to gaining broader acceptance is to include those countries in the talks, not leave them on the outside in the hope of later pressuring them to comply with an agreement from which they were deliberately excluded.

The European Parliament Legal Service has issued a legal opinion on the disclosure of ACTA documents to the European Parliament.  It concludes that persistent failure to do so could lead to legal action.

U.S. Copyright Office official Steven Tepp appeared at a Future of Music Coalition debate on ACTA yesterday, arguing that the release of the ACTA text proved the prior concerns wrong. The full debate is available online as Tepp offers gruff responses to fellow panel members, but refuses to answer many other questions on the grounds that the USTR leads on the file.

The Greens/EFA Members of the European Parliament have written a follow-up letter to the WTO, asking for clarification on whether ACTA might supercede the WTO's own dispute resolution policy.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón issued a joint statement this week that touched on ACTA, reaffirming "their commitment to the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and charged their administrations to conclude these negotiations soon."

The Australian Digital Alliance has submitted a detailed analysis of ACTA's impact on intermediaries and individuals with the Australian government.  The analysis includes 16 recommended changes.

The WTO has declined a request from the European Parliament to comment on ACTA, since it currently has no role in the negotations.

Rogers Communications appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and was asked by NDP MP Charlie Angus about their position on ACTA and ISP liability.  Ken Englehart, Senior VP Regulatory, left little doubt about the company's concerns with ACTA and the possibility of a three-strikes and you're out model coming to Canada:

We are concerned, as many ISPs are, about the ACTA negotiations. It's supposed to be about counterfeiting, but it seems to have gone way past counterfeiting to talking about issues of ISPs and the downloading activities of our customers. We don't think ISPs should be put in the position of being traffic cops to decide what is legal and what is not. We really hate any idea that we would have to terminate our customers' service on a three-strikes policy. We do not want to do that at all. I have a great deal of sympathy for the copyright holders who feel that their content is being stolen. It's a big problem. But I don't want to see this done by putting ISPs in the position of having to disconnect their customers or aid in the conviction of their customers.

When asked to expand on how ISPs and copyright holders strike the balance, Englehart focused on the effectiveness of the current notice-and-notice system, arguing that "those types of mechanisms should be exhausted before any kind of more Draconian measures are imposed."