ACTA - the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

[Rodica]

I read plenty about SOPA but have not heard about ACTA.

Not sure if it's just me, but maybe other folks would find this info useful: http://wakeup-world.com/2012/01/29/acta-global-internet-censorship-–-foreign-governments-will-be-able-to-shut-down-websites/

[crabfoot]

It's not new, and it got written into the ICANN rules - anyone with a copyright gripe only has to provide evidence that they are a TM holder and object to a site to get it taken down.

Mind you, there was a nasty occurrence about 3 years ago (before it got into the ICANN rules) where macro$hit objected to anyone using "windows" in their domain name. GoDaddy went industrial about the objection, leaving a lot of very dissatisfied customers without their sites selling double glazing and wooden frames.

As the holder of a minor TM, I like the idea because it reduces the effort I would have to put in to stop someone abusing my "good name".

As a member of the public, I'm fed up of seeing counterfeit goods all over the place. I've seen some really bad trademarked copies of porcelain and guitars in auctions, and I'm fed up of "bent copies" on eBay (who do sweet FA if you complain).

As a human being the "Big Brother" aspects scare the $hit out of me - but then, a lot of legal systems work that way (eg. Germany). Study German law and you'd be happy to live in France.

Yes, it's heavy - but it depends on how it is implemented as to whether we should complain. It needs an international agreement on the implementation.

Glad I'm not selling window frames (frames? is that another issue?).

[KenW3]

ACTA is not law yet, but it could trigger creation of a world organisation similar to WIPO. Many countries have signed onto this proposed international standardisation for targeting problems such as copyright infringment and counterfeit products, but I don't believe any have ratified it (as currently written) yet. (Signing a draft is not ratification of a final mandate, and some articles are not even close to reporting on this properly.)

The biggest problem with this law, as I see it, is a loss of protection for Online Service Providers, which includes ISPs (Internet Service Providers). For example, current ISP Liability for Copyright Infringement is limited through OCILLA, which shields the service providers from prosecution for acts of copyright infringement by their customers (such as downloading or viewing infringing material).

Under threat of prosecution (under ACTA) for enabling infringement, service providers would be required to provide private customer information for anyone accused by owners of intellectual property. ACTA removes OSP protections provided under OCILLA. The end result of this law would be removal of freedom of speech, civil rights, and privacy protection. This would also circumvent a country's ability to protect its citizens by giving authority to a world organisation, so I cannot imagine the US, for example, would allow a law such as this to supercede the US Constitution and the protections this provides citizens. I would hope most countries would want to protect their citizens from something like this.

[KenW3]

Now here's a country that has come to a rational conclusion, having decided to protect its citizens and its businesses.

Poland freezes anti-piracy pact ratification

[Clinton]

But this new treaty is very, very serious. It basically mandates that all Internet communications be constantly monitored for copyright infringement. Sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter will have to monitor accounts for copyright infringement 24 hours a day.

Sounds good to me!

He continues to say that Facebook, Twitter etc., may decide it's too much trouble to monitor millions of pieces of content. Huh? They exist only because of those millions of pieces of content. Remove that and they don't have a business. I think the article is a bit of scaremongering.

Wikipedia says:

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement.[3] The agreement aims to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, and would create a new governing body outside existing forums, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, or the United Nations

In theory I think that's a good thing. The current implementation sounds botched ...but we need to start somewhere. I've used WIPO in the past to protect what I own.

I own lots of content websites. The 101 Ways to Make Money Online article I wrote has about 1000 copies on the internet - these are all copies that have been reproduced without my permission.

A new organisation designed to make it easier for me to get sites closed down when they blatantly copy my content sounds like a good thing. Am I missing something here?

[Clinton]

Germany delays signing ACTA

A foreign ministry spokesperson told AFP that the delay was to "give us time to carry out further discussions".

Latvia also put off signing on Friday. Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have already delayed ratification.

International protests against the agreement are expected on Saturday.

[KenW3]

Wikipedia says:

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement.[3] The agreement aims to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, and would create a new governing body outside existing forums, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, or the United Nations

In theory I think that's a good thing. The current implementation sounds botched ...but we need to start somewhere. I've used WIPO in the past to protect what I own.

I own lots of content websites. The 101 Ways to Make Money Online article I wrote has about 1000 copies on the internet - these are all copies that have been reproduced without my permission.

A new organisation designed to make it easier for me to get sites closed down when they blatantly copy my content sounds like a good thing. Am I missing something here?

Every one of the bills that were under consideration, SOPA, PIPA, and now ACTA, has parts and pieces that would be useful for protection of IP. The difficulty is bureaucrats writing proposed legislation, that do not comprehend the Internet and the structure well enough to avoid infringing upon civil rights. The bureaucrats and legislators are being guided and influenced by lobbyists that have their own interests in mind, and do not care whether fair use and rights of others are impacted.

Yes, WIPO is designed to protect IP ownership rights, and works. So does the DMCA. Is a more oppressive policy needed, for perpetrators to be persecuted in a world court, without the protection of their countries, the best solution? Large IP owners are frustrated, and rightly so, but removal of civil rights and reversal of current laws (such as OCILLA) to permit this breach of rights, is not needed - ACTA is not needed - to stop and prosecute IP violations.