When was acta made

These agreements include provisions on "criminal penalties and procedures in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale; border measures in cases involving trademarks and copyrights; and civil remedies for all intellectual property rights e. While the title of the proposed agreement denotes it as a "trade agreement," the ACTA differs in nature from U. The ACTA negotiation has spurred debates among various stakeholder groups within and among the various countries on both process and substance.

Certain stakeholders have voiced concerns about the negotiation's scope, transparency, and inclusiveness. Members of the U. Other business groups, including Internet service providers, have expressed concerns about the digital enforcement provisions of the proposed agreement. In addition, various civil society groups, such as public health and consumer rights advocates, have voiced concerns about the implications of the ACTA for trade in legitimate goods, consumer privacy, and free flow of information.

The following section discusses in greater detail some of these key points of debate. As titled, the ACTA would suggest a focus exclusively on combating counterfeit goods. While definitions of "counterfeiting" vary, the term tends to refer to trademark infringement of physical goods.

As a result, when the agreement was proposed initially, many observers believed that it would focus primarily on combating trade of fake medicines, toys, auto parts, computer parts, and the like. However, as ACTA negotiations progressed, the scope of IPR in the agreement broadened from beyond traditional notions of "counterfeiting," to also include piracy.

While definitions of "piracy" vary, the term generally refers to infringement of copyrights. According to press reports, ACTA negotiating parties differed on the range of intellectual property that should be covered in the various provisions of the agreement.

For example, the European Union reportedly advocated for the inclusion of patents in the civil enforcement section.

The EU argued that exclusion of patents from civil remedies would limit the extent to which certain industries, such as the automotive, machinery, pharmaceutical, and agro-chemical industries, may be able to take advantage of the ACTA.

The United States opposed the inclusion of patents in the civil enforcement section; some have speculated that the opposition was due to a concern that the inclusion would contradict U. As another example, the EU and the United States also took differing positions regarding the inclusion of trademarks in the digital enforcement section of the ACTA.

The EU supported the inclusion of trademarks, along with copyrights, in the scope of the digital enforcement section, expressing concern about the volume of Internet sales of goods infringing on European trademarks. In contrast, the United States opposed the inclusion of trademarks in this section; some have speculated that the opposition was due to a concern that the inclusion would contradict U.

For instance, some U. However, it does include a provision stating that a Party may provide its competent authorities with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose information to a right holder sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for trademark or copyright infringement and where such information is being sought to protect or enforce those IPR.

The ACTA negotiation has spurred debates about the transparency of the negotiation process. Among some groups, there is a perception that the ACTA negotiation lacked sufficient public transparency and meaningful public input. As is customary during negotiations among representatives of sovereign states, the negotiators agreed that they would not disclose proposals or negotiating texts to the public at large, particularly at earlier stages of the negotiation.

This is done to allow participants to exchange views in confidence, facilitating the negotiation and compromise that are necessary to reach agreement on complex issues. USTR reportedly shared a draft of the digital enforcement chapter with cleared advisors in the USTR formal trade advisory system and selected industry and public interest groups, who were required to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to view the negotiating text. USTR publicly released a summary of key elements under discussion in November , following the 6 th round of negotiations; a draft text in April , following the 8 th round of negotiations; a consolidated text in October , following the 11 th and final round of negotiations; a finalized text on November 15, , subject to legal verification; and a final text in May As additional examples of increasing transparency, USTR pointed to a number of steps it took in , including establishing a dedicated ACTA web page on the USTR website; releasing a public summary of issues under negotiation; and releasing public agendas on the ACTA web page prior to each negotiating round.

USTR also contends that it consulted sufficiently with Congress and outside stakeholders. It has stated that the ACTA is the "product of close collaboration between the Administration and Congress as well as intensive consultations with U. The range of participants included in the ACTA negotiation was subject to controversy.

One element of debate was the absence of developing country participation. Some groups are critical that the ACTA was negotiated as a plurilateral agreement primarily among largely advanced industrialized countries. For instance, during WTO TRIPS Council meetings, China and India have stated that the ACTA, among other things, could weaken the balance of rights, obligations, and flexibilities that have been negotiated in WTO agreements; create barriers to trade; constrain flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement, such as for public health and trade in generic medicines; limit government's freedom to allocate resources for IPR by compelling them to focus on enforcement; and lead to the incorporation of ACTA standards in future regional and other agreements.

Other developing countries not party to the ACTA negotiation also have espoused similar views. The selection of certain countries as participants in the ACTA has been another element of debate. The ACTA Committee, which oversees the agreement and accession of new members, is to decide upon the terms of accession for each applicant. Some groups voice concern that developing countries will feel pressured to adhere to the ACTA in order to obtain trade benefits from ACTA participants.

The ACTA negotiation has generated debate about the potential impact of increasing IPR protection and enforcement standards on legitimate trade and consumer activities.

This speaks to a long-standing broader debate about the perceived trade-off between the protection of IPR and the facilitation of trade. IPR-based industries have voiced strong support for the ACTA, contending that its enhanced standards will contribute to greater economic growth and employment. Other stakeholders, including some consumer rights, public health, and civil liberty groups, contend that ACTA provisions may interfere with trade in legitimate goods and consumer activity.

Negotiating parties maintain that the ACTA respects the WTO Doha Declaration on Public Health, is not intended to interfere with citizens' fundamental rights or undermine civil liberties, and contains safeguards to protect against creating barriers to legitimate trade. Following the 9 th round of negotiation, USTR released a statement saying:. ACTA will not interfere with a signatory's ability to respect fundamental rights and liberties.

Participants reiterated that ACTA will not hinder the cross-border transit of legitimate generic medicines, and reaffirmed that patents will not be covered in the Section on Border Measures. ACTA will not oblige border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials. One flashpoint in the debate has been the ACTA's potential impact on consumer privacy and the free flow of information.

For example, some critics charge that digital enforcement provisions of the ACTA would require Internet Service Providers ISPs to terminate customers' Internet accounts after repeated allegations of copyright infringement, a provision akin to a "three-strikes" law introduced by the French government. Such provisions reportedly have been controversial in the European Union, where some members of Parliament consider Internet access to be a fundamental human right that should only be terminated by judges.

Some civil liberties groups have expressed concern about what they perceive as a low threshold for terminating consumers' Internet access; they assert that proof of online piracy, not allegations, should be the requirement for termination of Internet accounts. In addition, some commentators have been concerned with the extent to which U. There has been speculation about potential ACTA provisions on providing remedies against circumvention of technological protection measures TPM used by right owners to prevent the use of their copyrighted works in unwanted ways.

ACTA includes a range of provisions that impose third party liability upon suppliers of pharmaceutical inputs and services, as well as other actors in generics supply chains.

For instance, following an IPR owner request, judicial authorities can order an alleged IP infringer to provide information regarding any entity that contributed to the alleged infringement Baker, This provision does not protect against misuse, including use of the provision by an IP right holder to obtain details about the supply chains of its generics-producing competitors Flynn and Madhani, Generics could be seized on short notice without the other party being heard and without a full juridical review by the court Health Action International Europe, Furthermore, under ACTA, parties are asked to ensure that criminal sanctions for aiding and abetting counterfeiting, or attempted counterfeiting, are provided in their national laws.

Aiding and abetting targets third parties and could affect entities involved in supporting drug development, providing support for trade in and commercialisation of generics, or helping to procure generic medicines, if generics are deemed to constitute counterfeits Baker, Moreover, ACTA rules for calculating damages for infringement compound the disincentives for the generics industry because they would result in over-compensation of IP right holders and could deter entry of generics into the market Flynn and Madhani, IP owners have the possibility to suggest ways of calculating the damages, including lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

TRIPS safeguards are removed. Finally, while ACTA included only two developing-country negotiators, Morocco and Mexico, civil society was concerned that other developing countries would be pressured to sign ACTA, or to agree to similar provisions incorporated in free trade agreements Geist, Although ACTA itself does not expressly state such intentions, its key proponents, the US and EU, have stated their intention for it to become a global standard.

Ensuring medicines safety and quality, and fighting counterfeit medicines, are important challenges—but ACTA is not the solution. ACTA is counter-productive to the goal of improving public health, which is strengthened by measures that promote access to quality generic medicines and by improving the capacity of drug regulatory authorities to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of all medicines.

Fundamentally, an IP enforcement approach to a public health problem is extremely limited in what it can achieve, particularly since many medicines that should be removed from the market do not infringe any IP Oxfam, This would impose unacceptable costs upon developing countries, especially—but not only—those that ratify the Agreement.

Fragile gains in improving healthcare and access to treatment could be reversed if countries can no longer procure quality medicines at low prices for their populations. In the last decade, IP protection and additional enforcement measures have been extended in ways that curb access to affordable treatment.

This trend is highly regrettable considering that most patients in developing countries must still pay for medicines out of pocket, and competition created by generic medicines remains the most efficient way to decrease the price and broaden accessibility of medicines and health care.

For good reason, ACTA provoked significant outcry throughout the world; it should not be resurrected from its ashes. This could mean any website found to be hosting pirated content that has a large audience or even those companies deemed to be "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement, which could extend to ISPs, but not necessarily to the average individual at home using Bittorrent to download a song.

Who supports it? Acta is supported by major copyright holders including pharmaceutical companies, movies studios and record labels. It looks like the European Commission supports it but the European Parliament are unanimously against it. Acta is an international treaty that aims to protect intellectual property rights across borders. Copyright holders argue that it marks a recognition of the value of intellectual property rights to an economy's global competitiveness. By clamping down on counterfeit goods, generic medicines and internet copyright infringement, it is hoped that these valuable industries will be protected and will allow companies to recoup revenues lost to counterfeiting, for example.

Who opposes it? It is also opposed by the Members of the European Parliament. Acta has been largely negotiated behind closed doors, with many participating parties being forced to sign NDAs before being allowed to see Acta documents.

It is very difficult to find out who wrote it and what happened during the negotiations. It is highly unusual for criminal sanctions of this scale to be negotiated without democratic process.

Organisations that have tried to find out more information about the processes used have failed to uncover all of the details. The European Parliament voted almost unanimously against Acta on this basis by adopting Written Resolution This included the statement that "economic and innovation risks must be evaluated prior to introducing criminal sanctions where civil measures are already in place" and that all documents related to the negotiations be made publicly available.

That doesn't really matter because Members of the European Parliament haven't been consulted. It is even being negotiated outside of existing trade bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

It blurs the lines between piracy and counterfeiting Just as Mary Whitehouse would continually refer to "sex-and-violence" in broadcasting as if they were the same thing, so Acta appears to refer to piracy and counterfeiting in the same breath as if they were the same thing.

Piracy and counterfeiting are not the same thing. You can change your mind at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at newsletter ecipe.

We will treat your information with respect. For more information about our privacy practices please visit our website Terms of Use.