Secrecy is old-fashioned. Editorial

The enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) is under discussion on several forums: the World Trade Organisation WTO, the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO and the World Customs Organization WCO.

They all are multinational organizations. Their issues are discussed publicly in open meetings where also non-governmental organizations are participating. In the end of 2006, this openness changed. Japan and the United States launched the idea of a new plurilateral treaty ”to help in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy”, the so called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Round 8 of the ACTA negotiations is scheduled for April 12 to 16 2010. The aim is to conclude ACTA in the end of 2010.

The ACTA negotiations are held in secrecy. Information about the discussions and the contents of the agreement is not publicly available. This has led to wild rumors. The lack of real knowledge also hinders public discussion based on facts.

The Press Statement given after the 7th Round of Negotiations in Mexico in January 2010 stated that the discussions at the meeting had been ”productive” and focused on civil enforcement, border enforcement and enforcement of rights in the digital environment. The participants also reaffirmed their commitment to intensify their efforts to provide opportunities for meaningful public input and collectively enhance transparency.

Also the MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) have deplored the lack of transparency in the ACTA negotiations. They feel that the negotiations are conducted by bypassing parliamentary and public oversight. Since the Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December 2009, the European Commission has a legal obligation to ”immediately and fully inform at all stages of the negotiations”, which it has, according to MEPs, neglected.

Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, maintains a web site with large amount of information about ACTA. For example, a brief report from the European Commission about the negotiations in Mexico which leaked can be found in Professor Geist’s home page (www.michaelgeist.ca/).

ACTA is eventually meant to be as wide as the TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). The lack of transparency is highly unusual for a trade agreement with so many parties involved. The agreement can have an impact on the workings of the Internet and affect hundreds of millions of people around the world.

The reason for this lack of transparency has never been explained. The possibility to efficient enforcement of intellectual property rights is crucial to rightholders who should be able to protect their work. The secrecy, however, does not inspire confidence about the real motivations behind the proclaimed aim of the ACTA.

Many peoples of the world have adopted democratic and transparent decision making systems. That we need to rely on an individual collecting and distributing prohibited information reminds us of a totalitarian system and brave dissidents. In ACTA, as elsewhere, only an open discussion and the possibility to influence to the enforcement procedures can make the end result balanced and acceptable.

A draft version of the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) was published on 21 April 2010. Information on the negotiations including the draft text is available e.g. on the web site of the European Commission.

Addition on 16 June 2010/phh
The opinion (2010/C 147/01) of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on the current negotiations by the European Union of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union N:o C 147, 5 June 2010, p. 1-13.

LISÄYS 29.6.2010/tph:

ACTA-sopimusluonnoksen arviointikokous: vireillä oleva sopimus uhkaa yleistä etua

ACTA-sopimusluonnosta eli väärentämisenvastaisen kauppasopimuksen aihiota kritisoitiin asiantuntijakokouksessa Washingtonissa kesäkuussa 2010. The American University Washington College of Law’ssa 16-18. kesäkuuta kokoontuneet akateemisen alan edustajat, ammatinharjoittajat ja järjestöt näkivät, että huhtikuussa julkaistu sopimusluonnos uhkaa lukuisia yleisiä etuja. Kokouksen julkilausuma on julkaistu nimellä ”International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Threatens Public Interests”.

Osallistujien mukaan luonnos puuttuu kansalaisten perusvapauksiin ja -oikeuksiin eikä ole yhdenmukainen TRIPS-sopimuksen kanssa. Lisäksi sopimus lisäisi laillisten, geneeristen lääkkeiden rajatarkastuksia tai puuttuisi niiden rajanylittäviin kuljetuksiin sekä voimakkaasti rohkaisisi internet-palvelutarjoajia menettelytapoihin, joilla ihmisiä voidaan sulkea pois internetistä.

Julkilausuman mukaan ACTA-luonnos on odotetusti puutteellinen tulos syvällisesti virheellisestä prosessista. Merkittävien sopimusten tulee osallistujien mielestä muun muassa pohjautua laajaan ja mielekkääseen julkiseen valmisteluun ja neuvottelutekstien saatavuuteen. ACTA-luonnoksen nähdään suhtautuvan vihamielisesti seitsemään aihealueeseen: perusoikeuksiin, internetin hallinnointiin, lääkkeiden saatavuuteen, immateriaalioikeuksien laajuuteen ja luonteeseen, kansainväliseen kauppaan, kansainväliseen oikeuteen ja instituutioihin sekä demokraattiseen prosessiin.

Julkilausuman allekirjoitti yli 600 kansainvälisen tahon lisäksi 11 Euroopan parlamentin jäsentä, Suomesta Vihreiden Heidi Hautala. Myös suomalainen Electronic Frontier Finland allekirjoitti lausuman.

LINKKI:

Analyysikokouksen julkilausuma ja allekirjoitukset, ”Text of Urgent ACTA Communique, International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Threatens Public Interests”, The American University, Washington College of Law, 23.6.2010.