Helen Charles, alum of the Department of Media and Communications (2010), argues that the new EC piracy treaty needs to be re-examined

Charles, Helen

LSE Research Online

7/6/2017 ACTA Down? | LSE Media Policy Projecthttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2012/02/24/acta-down/ 1/2ACTA Down?Helen Charles, alum of the Department of Media and Communications (2010),argues that the new EC piracy treaty needs to be re-examined.On Wednesday, the European Commission put its attempts to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on hold, blaming “misinformation” aboutthe agreement for the mounting opposition. While some of the more vocal criticsmay overstate their case, there are valid concerns about the agreement.ACTA was ostensibly designed to establish common international standards for intellectual property(IP) rights enforcement. It covers digital copyright infringement as well as counterfeiting – running thegamut from creative works to knock-off designer handbags and generic medicines. ACTA will,supporters argue, extend high standards of protection for intellectual property around the globe andmake it easier for rightsholders to enforce standards across borders.But opponents to the agreement, who include the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Open RightsGroup, maintain that the agreement threatens privacy, freedom of speech and will hinder innovationthrough harsh criminal measures. Others worry ACTA will allow border agents to check people’slaptops for copyrighted material and allow media companies to claim damages for lost sales for eachillegal download.While these scenarios would be concerning, it is hard to discern what the actual impact of ACTA willbe. The agreement is, by necessity, or perhaps intention, vaguely worded. Supporters say it is mostlyin line with existing EU and UK law and they are moving closer to their aims, despite yesterday’sdecision. Part of the strength in the supporter’s position comes from ACTA being an internationaltrade agreement signed by 31 nations including the U.S., Canada, and Japan as well as 22 EUmember states. ACTA conveys legitimacy which increases with each signatory. This makes it easierfor governments to agree with advocates of the agreement and dismiss opposition as alarmist.The perceived legitimacy of ACTA as an international trade agreement also gives cover to thosewhose interests are represented in the agreement allowing these aims to be furthered with minimalscrutiny. Alexander Furnas argues ACTA is another tool for ratcheting up IP regulation to the ‘highest’standard of protection. Indeed successive treaties set new minimums that were higher than what waspreviously thought “above-and-beyond” with the result being a move to greater IP protections – withthe “new minimum” standards becoming the norm. These minimum standards become a weaponused by current rightsholders, often stifling creativity.This slight of hand, however, isn’t the only misdirection taking place. ACTA implies counterfeiting anddigital copyright infringement are the same. They are not. Fake branded electrical goods present areal risk to consumers who trust the product to be as safe and reliable as the real thing. In contrast,digital copyright infringement does not endanger people in the same way – if at all. So in addition toprotecting rightsholders, there are further justifications for regulating counterfeit goods over andabove the justifications for digital. IP law is about finding a balance between the competing interestsof the rightsholder and the public. The danger of equating counterfeiting and digital copyrightinfringement is that the balance is tipped towards the rightsholder and away from the public. Unlikediscussions about counterfeiting, the debate about digital copyright enforcement requires voicesconcerned with freedom of speech and privacy.7/6/2017 ACTA Down? | LSE Media Policy Projecthttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2012/02/24/acta-down/ 2/2February 24th, 2012 | Copyright, Guest Blog | 0 CommentsThe opposition to ACTA in UK is a missed opportunity for consumer rights groups because finding aworkable balance between the often competing interests of rightsholders and the public is an ongoingconcern for legislators and regulators. Critics say ACTA was drafted without scrutiny from civil societygroups who were excluded from closed-door negotiations between parties with vested interests in theoutcome. It is indeed troubling that an agreement which enters this debate was reached with nodemocratic accountability. Decisions on matters of public concern, which are how some issuessurrounding ACTA should be considered, are usually reached by a very different route than a tradeagreement. The arguments against removed decision making in the UK are well-known on the right,with frequent calls-to-arms against bureaucrats in Brussels. Curiously, as far as ACTA is concerned,this line of argument has been noticeably quiet.And in winning the trade agreement argument, the proponents of ACTA have successfully framed thethoughts regarding the policy. Critics need to find new ways to engage the public. The first step isexplaining how and why catching people touting fake watches is different from catching someoneillegally providing media content and how it will affect them. This will involve uniting disparate groupswho have very different agendas including champions of digital rights, broader consumer groups, aswell as those concerned with democratic accountability. Only by bringing in new voices will thedebate between the competing interests of rightsholders and the public turn into a fair fight.Otherwise ACTA will finish the debate by tying the hands of governments.

ACTA Down?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online