Michael Geist ACTA roundup
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Next week marks the start of one of the stranger consultations in recent memory, says Michael Geist.
“Officials have invited roughly 70 stakeholder groups to discuss an international intellectual property treaty that the U.S. regards as a national security secret and about which the only public substantive information has come from a series of unofficial leaks.”
ACTA, in other words.
Now, “I thought it be useful to develop an ACTA timeline so that the progression of the still-secret treaty can be more easily understood,” says Geist, going on »»»
This lengthy post builds on a range of articles, blog postings, official documents released under Access to Information, and well-publicized leaks. While the starting point is October 2007, when there was a coordinated announcement from participating countries, David Harris has an insightful post tracing ACTA lobbying to 2004 and the first Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting. Further, I’ve uncovered Canadian documents as early as January 2007 that discuss ACTA.
Assuming October 2007, however, the chronology looks something like this:
October 2007 – The United States, European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada announce plans to negotiate ACTA.
November 2007 – April 2008 – Governments conduct initial consultations on ACTA. Australia consults in November 2007 on whether to participate. The U.S. consults in February 2008. Canada consults in April 2008.
The results of the Canadian consultation are not released to the public but an Access to Information request uncovers a report on the results that note that “individual Canadian citizens were generally critical of Canada’s role in the formal negotiation of ACTA.” Individual responses cited the lack of transparency associated with the process, the absence of evidence that a new treaty is needed, the exclusion of developing countries from the negotiations, and the concern that ACTA might undermine Canadian law.
March 2008 – Negotiating countries hold preliminary meeting on ACTA. The outline of ACTA is confirmed with six main chapters: (1) Initial Provisions and Definitions; (2) Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights; (3) International Cooperation; (4) Enforcement Practices; (5) Institutional Arrangements; and (6) Final Provisions. The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights chapter has four sections: civil enforcement, border measures, criminal enforcement, and the Internet.
Meanwhile, RIAA submits recommended ACTA provisions to the USTR.
June 2008 – First round of negotiations held in Geneva on June 3rd and 4th. Canadian speaking notes for the meeting are available here. Participating countries are Australia, Canada, the EC, European Union Presidency (Slovenia), Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, United Arab Emirates, and the U.S. The meeting is chaired by the USTR and hosted at the U.S. Mission in Geneva.
Canada submits two “non-papers” on Institutional arrangements (Chapter 4 of ACTA) and procedural matters. The institutional arrangements paper call for the creation of an “ACTA Oversight Council” that would meet each year to discuss implementations, best practices, and assist other governments who are considering joining ACTA.
The U.S. and Japan provide draft language for the Border Measures section. The proposals call for provisions that would order authorities to suspend the release of infringing goods for at least one year, based only on a prima facie claim by the rights holder. Customs officers would be able to block shipments on their own initiative, supported by information supplied by rights holders. Those same officers would have the power to levy penalties if the goods are infringing. Moreover, the U.S. would like a provision that absolves rights holders of any financial liability for storage or destruction of the infringing goods. A delegation also raises the prospect of a provision addressing disclosure of information:
With a view to establishing whether an intellectual property right has been infringed under national law and in accordance with national provisions on the protection of personal data, commercial and industrial secrecy and professional and administrative confidentiality, the competent authorities have detained infringing goods, shall inform the right holder of the names and addresses of the consignor, importer, exporter, or consignee, and provide to the right holder a description of the goods, the quantity of the goods, and, if known, the country of origin and name and addresses of producers of the goods.
Many countries suggest amendments including de minimum rules and the removal of certain clauses. Moreover, the EU has proposed a specific provision to put to rest fears of iPod searching customs officials by excluding personal baggage that contains goods of a non-commercial nature. It provides:
“Where a traveler’s personal baggage goods of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance and there are no material indication to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, each Party may consider to leave such goods or part of such goods outside the scope of this section.”
July 2008 – Second round of negotiations held in Washington, DC on July 29 – 31st. Participating countries are Australia, Canada, the EC, European Union Presidency (France), Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore, and the U.S. (official press release here). Discussions focus on border measures (second time), civil enforcement (first time), as well as non-papers on institutional issues and international cooperation.
The U.S. and Japan supply draft text of the civil enforcement provisions. They call for the availability of civil judicial procedures for the enforcement of any intellectual property right, though some countries would like this limited to copyright and trademark. Parties to the treaty would be required to implement procedures that include the availability of statutory damages for copyright and trademark infringement (some countries would like this to be optional, while the U.S. would like the damages provisions expanded to patent infringement) as well as court costs. The statutory damages provisions include:
1. Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities on application of the injured party shall have the authority to order the infringer who knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity of intellectual property rights to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the actual prejudice the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement, taking into account all appropriate aspects, inter alia, the lost profits, the value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, the suggested retail price, unfair profits and elements other than economic factors or other legitimate measure of value submitted by the right holder.
2. As an alternative to paragraph 1, each Party may establish or maintain a system that provides:
(a) pre-established damages, or
(b) presumptions for determining the amount of damages,
sufficient to compensate [Option US: fully] the right holder for the harm caused by the infringement.
Additional required remedies include orders to destroy the infringing goods without compensation. The proposals also call for significant mandated information disclosure, including ordering alleged infringers to disclose information regarding any person or third parties involved in any aspect of the infringement (some countries want this deleted and others are seeking to preserve privacy protections). That provision states:
Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer to provide, for the purpose of collecting evidence, any information [Option J: in the form as prescribed in its applicable laws and regulations] that the infringer possesses or controls, [Option J: ,where appropriate,] to the right holder or to the judicial authorities. Such information may include information regarding any person or persons involved in any aspect of the infringement and regarding the means of production or distribution channel of such goods or services, including the identification of third persons involved in the production and distribution of the infringing goods or services or in their channels of distribution.
October 2008 – Third round of negotiations held in Tokyo, Japan on October 8th and 9th (the meeting was scheduled to last 2 1/2 days but wrapped up early)(official press release here). Participating countries are Australia, EU, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the U.S., Japan, and Canada. Countries agree that it is too ambitious to have two more meetings in 2008 and settle for a single, longer meeting later in the year.
Day one focuses on criminal enforcement. The U.S. and Japan supply draft text of the criminal enforcement provisions. The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties – including imprisonment – sufficient to deter future acts of infringement (specific language is “include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement, consistent with a policy of removing the monetary incentive of the infringer.”)
Moreover, trafficking in fake packaging for movies or music would become a criminal act as would unauthorized camcording. The fake packaging provision provides:
Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied, even absent willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy, at least in cases of knowing trafficking in:
(a) counterfeit labels affixed to, enclosing, or accompanying, or designed to be affixed to, enclose, or accompany the following:
(i) a phonogram,
(ii) a copy of a computer program or other literary work,
(iii) a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
(iv) documentation or packaging for such items; and
(b) counterfeit documentation or packaging for items of the type described in subparagraph (a); and
(c) illicit labels affixed to, enclosing, or accompanying, or designed to be affixed to, enclose, or accompany items of the type described in subparagraph (a).
The anti-camcording language says:
Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied against any person who, without authorization of the holder of copyright or related rights in a motion picture or other audiovisual work, knowingly uses an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of or transmits to the public the motion picture or other audiovisual work, or any part thereof, from a performance of the motion picture or other audiovisual work in a motion picture exhibition facility open to the public.
Day two focuses on the civil enforcement provisions (for the second time).
November 2008 – Canadian government re-launches ACTA consultation, treating it as ongoing. Marie-Lucie Morin, then the Deputy Minister of International Trade (and now National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper), warns Minister Stockwell Day that “should there be no consensus among the ACTA partners to make the ACTA text public, the Department will need to develop options to address Canadian stakeholders concerns about the lack of transparency in the ACTA process.”
December 2008 – Fourth round of negotiations held in Paris, France on December 15 – 18th (official press release here). Participating countries are Australia, Canada, the EC, the EU Presidency (France), Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the U.S. Canada supplies the draft text for the Institutional Arrangements chapter, which is the lead issue for discussion on day one. Later in day one, parties continue negotiation on criminal enforcement (first raised in Tokyo in October). Day two includes further discussion on criminal enforcement in the morning and institutional cooperation and enforcement practices in the afternoon.
Day three focuses on Internet issues. The U.S. provides a “non-paper” on the Internet issues section with each delegation to answer questions on the state of their domestic law. The paper discusses Internet copyright provisions, liability for Internet service providers, and legal protection for digital locks and raises questions about damage awards, liability for hosting or storing content, and the extent to which the anti-circumvention provisions mirror the U.S. approach.
February 2009 – U.S. seeks delay in March 2009 negotiation session to allow for transition at the USTR.
March 2009 – The European Parliament passes a resolution calling for the public availability of all ACTA materials. The U.S. government denies requests for access to ACTA documents on national security grounds but promises to review its approach.
To be continued …
Michael Geist – Battle over ACTA Heats Up, March 30, 2009
ACTA – Europe wants greater ACTA transparency, March 12, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 am
Hi. Michael got my name wrong in his first edition, but has since amended it. Could you please change “David Harris” to Mark Harris”? Thanks