EFF, Public Knowledge, drop ACTA lawsuit
p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge have dropped their Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) lawsuit.
The two organisatiosn were demanding access to important documents about the secret intellectual property enforcement treaty.
But, they say, the Obama administration’s decision to support, “Bush-era concealment policies” has forced them to abandon their case.
Federal judges have very little discretion to overrule executive branch decisions to classify information on “national security” grounds, “and the Obama administration has recently informed the court that it intends to defend the classification claims originally made by the Bush Administration,” says the EFF.
“There’s a fundamental fairness issue at stake here,” says EFF international policy director Gwen Hinze. “It’s now clear that the negotiating texts and background documents for this trade agreement have been made available to representatives of major media copyright owners and pharmaceutical companies on the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property.
“Yet private citizens — who stand to be greatly affected by ACTA — have had to rely on unofficial leaks for any substantive information about the treaty and have had no opportunity for meaningful input into the negotiation process. This can hardly be described as transparent or balanced policy-making.”
But, says Public Knowledge deputy legal director Sherwin Siy, “Even though we have reluctantly dropped this lawsuit, we will continue to press the US trade representative and the Obama administration on the ACTA issues. “The issues are too far-reaching and too important to allow this important agreement to be negotiated behind closed doors,” he added.
Leaked documents indicate ACTA could establish far-reaching customs regulations governing searches over PCs and MP3 players.
“Multi-national IP corporations have publicly requested mandatory filtering of Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, as well as the adoption of ‘Three Strikes’ policies requiring the termination of Internet access after repeat allegations of copyright infringement, like the legislation recently invalidated in France,” says the EFF.
“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close,” said Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) counsel David Fewer.
Dan Glickman runs Hollywood enforcement unit the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), “fully supports this and other US government efforts to promote the protection of intellectual property around world,” he said.
“It is unfortunate that other groups are attempting to derail the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement through scare tactics and false information.”
More than 100 international public interest organizations were last year demanding officials from Canada, the United States, Mexico, the European Union, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, all of which are negotiating ACTA, publish immediately the draft text of the agreement.
“Secrecy around the treaty negotiation has fueled concerns that its terms will undermine vital consumer interests,” said CIPPIC.
Organisations demanding open publication of the documentincluded: CIPPIC, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, The Canadian Library Association, Consumers Union (USA), Electronic Frontier Foundation (USA), Essential Action (USA), Global Trade Watch (USA), Public Knowledge (USA), Australian Digital Alliance, Consumers Union of Japan, IP Left (Korea), Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) Campaign for Essential Medicines and National Consumer Council (UK).
Thw EFF and Public Knowledge first filed suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in September of 2008 demanding that background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
They now say that rather than pursuing a lawsuit with little chance of forcing the disclosure of key ACTA documents, they’ll devote their efforts to advocating for consumer representation on the US Industry Trade Advisory Committee on IP, the creation of a civil society trade advisory committee, and greater government transparency about what ACTA means for citizens.
EFF – Government’s ‘National Security’ Claims Keep IP Treaty Under Wraps, June 17, 2009
property laws for Christmas – PI organisations demand action on ACTA, September 16, 2008
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.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:34 am
ACTA somehow related to national security? What a crock! It’s a trade agreement concerning IP and counterfeiting, not a document on nuclear weapons design and manufacturing! Talk about corporations pushing to control everything.
If this continues, I’m going to patent just about everything I can and sue corporations out of existence and then abolish patents and copyrights globally.
What’s next, Gap decides that where their clothing is made is also a matter of national security so you can’t go after them for supporting sweat shops? (Slight slippery slope fallacy here, but only slight!)
June 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am
“What’s next, Gap decides that where their clothing is made is also a matter of national security so you can’t go after them for supporting sweat shops? (Slight slippery slope fallacy here, but only slight!)”
The “slippery slope” might not apply at all.
In fact, you may have drawn a pretty accurate parallel.
After all, these “trade conferences” have ALL been conducted in secret (not just ACTA), amongst a limited number of invitees, of which never include anyone representing The People of any of these countries. It’s a convenient way to make sweeping changes to a lot of “troublesome” laws and policies, without the “interference” of public rebuttal or democratic processes, while completely ignoring the existing laws and constitutions of all sovereign nations involved.
They don’t want public input.
They don’t care if the whole world objects.
And, they don’t have to worry about the whole thing being illegal.
As far as they’re concerned, this is a PRIVATE BUSINESS MEETING, and we’re not invited… period.
And, it’s being conducted in the confines of a “virtual corporate world” they’ve created for themselves, where no authority exists but their own. They’re there to discuss what obstacles the “Real World” places on their Corporate Agendae, and how to wipe them all out.
The last thing they want is public scrutiny.
As far as they’re concerned, the Public IS one of the major obstacles on their list.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“As far as they’re concerned, the Public IS one of the major obstacles on their list.”
No, it’s their slave.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Where are the lobbying groups that are pushing for overthrow of the secretive government?
Oh right. They’re called terrorists.