No Geographical Indications in ACTA

Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht explaining that US authorities will not enforce European geograpical indications according to ACTA

Enforcement of Geographical Indications by US customs officials is not part of the ACTA agreement on intellectual property rights enforcement. This was made clear by the EU’s trade commissioner Karel De Gucht when he appeared before the International Trade Committee INTA in the European Parliament yesterday.

In Europe, you are only allowed to market a sparkling wine as ”champagne” if it actually comes from the Champagne district in France. This is because the word ”champagne” is a Geographical Indication, or GI. Other examples are Parma ham, which may only be called that if it is produced in Parma, and Feta cheese, which may only be called that if it is produced in Greece. Geographical Indications are similar to trademarks (in particular, certification marks), but they constitute an intellectual property right of their own.

The protection of GIs has been a controversial subject in the ACTA negotiations, since some countries involved in the negotiations, in particular the US, do not protect geographical indications. European producers of Champagne, Parma ham etc. would have wanted the ACTA agreement to cover geographical indications as well, in addition to regular trademarks.

The US has been opposed to this all along, but there have still been rumors and statements suggesting that geographical indications would be part of the ACTA agreement anyway.

To bring some clarity on the issue I took the opportunity to ask the Commissioner when he appeared before the committee in the European Parliament yesterday. You can watch the recording from the committee meeting here (the questioning of the Commissioner begins at 17:14, and my question starts at time code 18:13:30).

My question was:

Q: I have one question on Geographical Indications in ACTA. You said that there has been an absolute refusal by the US to add geographical indications, and I can understand that. Indeed, this is borne out in the Agreement itself, if we look at paragraph 1.3.2, where it says:

This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under the laws and regulations of that Party.

Of course, as we all know, geographical indications are not protected in the US. So that seems clear, geographical indications seem to be out of it.

But then you said that there has been a ”good result” [relating to GIs], and there have been other reports suggesting that geographical indications where in fact in, although they appear not to be. Could you please clarify?

Commissioner Karel De Gucht: ACTA is not a treaty on changing substantive law, so ACTA does not change the substantive law on geographical indications in either contractual Party. ACTA cannot change the law on geographical indications in the United States.

What ACTA aims at is the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and there you have the equal treatment of all intellectual property rights, GIs included. This was clearly refused in the beginning, but now it’s part of it.

This also means that the border enforcement can take place only in those countries where GIs are recognized. That is what is in the ACTA agreement, and that is what ACTA is about: the enforcement of substantive law. When there is no substantive law, there can be no border enforcement.

In fact, in practice this concerns especially Singapore, where you have the GIs protected, where you have a national register, and where normally you can now have enforcement at the border. Probably you will have to distinguish between end users and products in transit. That is what it is about.

What we have been trying to do as the European Commission is to gain recognition for GIs, but that is not an easy task, because a lot of countries do not recognize GIs, and that cannot happen through ACTA.

So, to summarize: As the ACTA agreement now stands, there is nothing in it that obliges the US to assist European customs authorities in the enforcement of geographical indications. Even if US customs officials come across containers of Californian Champagne, or Parma ham made in Texas, and they can see that the containers are destined for Europe, they are under no obligation to even notify their European counterparts, or react in any other way.

The ACTA agreement in its current form includes enforcement of trademark rights by all contracting parties, but it does not offer the same level of protection to the European geographical indications. I am not quite sure why the Commission, which is supposed to be looking after European interests when negotiating, has agreed to this US demand.

I am, however, very grateful to the Commissioner for this clarification.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Eight questions on ACTA

The Greens/EFA site Act-on-ACTA.eu contains news about the ACTA agreement

Members of the European Parliament can ask questions to the Commission (and the Council), much in the same way as members of national parliaments can ask questions to their respective governments.

Ordinary questions by MEPs are answered by the Commissison or Council within 6 weeks. There is also a possibility to ask a ”priority” question, to be answered within 3 weeks. Each MEP is allowed to ask one priority question per month.

Last week, I and other members of the Green Group in the European Parliament submitted eight priority questions on the ACTA agreement on intellectual property rights enforcement. Although the text of the agreement has now been published, the language is (deliberately) very ambiguous in many key areas. Some more clarity would be very much appreciated.

We submitted the following questions to the Commission:

SKA KELLER: ACTA – competence to negotiate criminal measures

The Criminal Enforcement section of ACTA concern provisions on criminal procedures, criminal liability, criminal offenses, criminal enforcement and penalties.

- Can the Commission explain on which legal basis these criminal measures are negotiated?

- Considering that the provisions on aiding and abetting concern the general structure of national legal systems of criminal law, does the Commission consider that the provisions on aiding and abetting are compatible with its negotiation mandate?

ORIOL JUNQUERAS: ACTA – minimum rules proved essential?

In 2007, the Commission launched a questionnaire addressed to the Member States in order to conduct a study [1] to verify if Member States consider criminal sanctions essential to ensure the effective implementation of community law in the area of intellectual property rights, as required by Art 83.2 TFEU.

- How will the Commission take into account the answers to the questionnaire in the context of the ACTA negotiations?

[1] See Reply P-0541/2008 from Commission

INDREK TARAND: ACTA – proportionality principle with regards to copyright crimes

Considering when proper account is taken of the proportionality principle, harmonisation of criminal penalties can only be justified when all the following elements are present:

* Identity with the infringed object of protection
* Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit
* Intent with regard to the existence of the infringed right

- Does the Commission consider the definition of copyright crimes in ACTA meet the requirements of the proportionality principle as formulated above?

JAN PHILIPP ALBRECHT: ACTA – legality principle

Considering that ACTA art 2.14.1 contains a definition of commercial scale: ”For the purposes of this section, acts carried out on a commercial scale include at least those carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage” and considering that ACTA footnote 9 says: ”Each Party shall treat wilful importation or exportation of counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods on a commercial scale as unlawful activities subject to criminal penalties under this Article. A Party may comply with its obligation relating to exportation and importation of pirated copyright or counterfeit trademark goods by providing for distribution, sale or offer for sale of counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods on a commercial scale as unlawful activities subject to criminal penalties”;

- Has the Commission assessed the compatibility of the definition of commercial scale in ACTA with the requirements of the legality principle of criminal law?

- Does the Commission deem it appropriate to extend criminal responsibility in a footnote as is done in footnote 9?

CARL SCHLYTER: ACTA – injunction powers beyond EU Acquis

In the Civil Enforcement Section, ACTA allows judicial authorities to issue an order (injunction) against a party, or a third party, to “prevent infringing goods from entering into the channels of commerce” (see Article 2.x.1 – Injunctions). This injunction power is considerably different from the EU Acquis[1] which permits injunctions “to prevent any imminent infringement”, in addition, the third parties need to be involved in the infringement (“against an intermediary whose services are being used”). The ACTA text essentially eliminates the thresholds of the injunction powers in the EU Acquis.

- Considering that the EU Aquis has, through laying down the thresholds for injunctions, struck a delicate balance between enforcement and safeguards of fundamental rights, how will Commission ensure these safeguards in the current EU Aquis are maintained?

- How will the Commission safeguard the thresholds currently in the EU Acquis?

[1] 2004/48/EC, Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive, Article 9

SANDRINE BÉLIER: ACTA – preventing infringements from occurring

Article 2.5 says: “Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order prompt and effective provisional measures: (a) against a party, or where appropriate, against a third party over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property rights from occurring, and in particular to prevent infringing goods from entering into the channels of commerce”;

- What does exactly mean “prevent from occuring” within the digital environment?

- Would it imply the ISPs must implement technical measures to prevent their customers from committing infringements?

- If so, how can the Commission guarantee that the implementation of such technical measures will be compatible with the respect of privacy, data protection and fundamental rights?

EVA LICHTENBERGER: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

Directive 91/250/EEC (the ”Software Directive”) and Directive 2001/29/EC (the ”Information Society Directive”) clearly and explicitly distinguish between anti-circumvention provisions for computer programs, which expressly preserve the Software Directive’s reverse engineering provisions, and anti-circumvention provisions for other copyrighted works. Article 2.18 paragraphs 5 and 8 of the 2 October 2010 of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (”ACTA”) appear to provide sufficient basis for the European Commission to preserve the EU Aquis, in accordance with the European Commission’s repeated and explicit promise, and in particular to safeguard the Software Directive’s special regime preserving reverse engineering and circumvention.

- Considering the above, and in light of the critical importance of the reverse engineering regime to fundamental EU policies related to interoperability, competition and innovation, can the Commission explicitly confirm that the ACTA anti-circumvention provisions leave the Software Directive’s special regime of circumvention unaffected and preserve the Software Directive’s reverse engineering provisions, and in particular that ACTA would not require any changes to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Software Directive or Information Society Directive or the Member States’ laws implementing those provisions?

CHRISTIAN ENGSTRÖM: ACTA – corporative efforts

Article 2.18.3 of the proposed ACTA agreement says that “Each party shall endeavor to promote cooperative efforts within the business community to effectively address” copyright infringements in the digital environment. This text appears to mandate a form of cooperation such as extra-judicial ‘three-strikes’ mechanisms with users cut off the Internet as the result of an obligation (“shall”) on the Parties to “effectively address” infringements.

This wording does not respect the EP Resolution on ACTA of March 2010, which explicitly excludes such cooperative efforts.

Furthermore, it contradicts the Commission’s repeated statements that ‘three-strikes’ is not an outcome sought by the ACTA.

- How does the Commission justify the non-compliance with the EP Resolution on ACTA?

- How does the Commission foresee amending the text to explicitly exclude any interpretation able to introduce ‘three-strikes’ or similar extra-judicial regimes that the Commission has repeatedly said are not meant to be the subject of ACTA?

The site Act-on-ACTA.eu is continuously updated with news about ACTA. Answers to the questions are expected in three weeks.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Olika besked om vad ACTA innebär

Jens Holm (V) ställde frågor till justitieministern om ACTA

ACTA-avtalet debatterades i EU-parlamentet i onsdags, och i den svenska riksdagen i torsdags. I EU-parlamentet sa den ansvariga kommissionären Karel De Gucht att avtalet inte kräver några förändringar av europeiska lagar. I den svenska riksdagen sa justitieminister Beatrice Ask att avtalet kräver en del förändringar av svenska lagar.

Vad är det som gäller?

Debatten i riksdagen hölls med anledning av en interpellation som vänsterpartisten Jens Holm hade ställt. Han skriver:

Jag ville veta om Acta-avtalet kommer att leda till krav på nya svenska lagar (se min fråga). EU-kommissionen har ju tidigare försäkrat att så inte var fallet. Nu berättade justitieminister Beatrice Ask (M) att Acta visst kommer att leda till att vi måste ändra i svensk lag. Det var intressant.

Jens Holm tog också upp ett antal av problemen med ACTA, men fick inga ordentliga svar av justitieministern.

Läs mer hos Jens Holm (V), Europaportalen, DN, SvD och Henrik Alexandersson.

Se hela debatten i den svenska riksdagen.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Debate on three-strikes in ACTA

Trade commissoner De Gucht attended a debate on ACTA in the European Parliament on Wednesday

Yesterday evening there was a debate in the European Parliament about the ACTA agreement on intellectual property rights enforcement. The EU Commission, which has been negotiating the agreement, was represented by trade commissioner Karel De Gucht, who defended the agreement.

Many of the Members of the European Parliament who spoke in the debate were critical of the agreement, while others seemed to accept the Commissions view that the agreement will change nothing, and that all criticism of the agreement is based on misunderstandings.

I focused on the issue of ”three-strikes”, i.e.: whether Internet Service Providers will be forced to start policing their customers, and cut the internet connection for people who are accused of illegal file sharing.

This is what I said:

On the 10th of March this year, this house adopted with an overwhelming majority a resolution saying, among other things, that the agreement ”should not make it possible for any so-called ”three-strikes” procedures to be imposed.

This is because we don’t want the Internet service providers to start acting as private police forces, or be forced to take on that role. The Commission has repeatedly said in various oral statements that this is not the case, and I welcome those statements.

However, when you look at the text, it starts already in the preamble: ”Desiring to promote cooperation between service providers and rights holders with respect to relevant infringements in the digital environment”. Then, in Article 2.18.3, as Ms. Schaake was quoting: ”shall endeavor to promote cooperative efforts within the business community to effectively address copyright infringements”.

Now, if this doesn’t mean ”three-strikes”, what does it mean? It’s all very well to talk about ”cooperation” between rights holders and ISPs, but what are the ISPs supposed to do? And if the don’t want to do it, what measures will be taken against the ISPs?

I’m very, very concerned that the language in this agreement, as Ms. Castex was saying, is so ambiguous that it isn’t really clear what it means. So the basic concerns that have been with us all along, I still have them.

I would very much want to see a proper evaluation of the fundamental rights aspects of this agreement.

In commissioner De Gucht’s response he reiterated his claim that ACTA does not demand three-strikes, but he failed to give any explanation of what the paragraphs about ”cooperation” are supposed to mean if it is not three-strikes, or why those paragraphs are present in the agreement in the first place.

On the issue of an impact study on fundamental rights (which I was not the only one to ask for) he dismissed it by referring to himself: ”I have made several statements in this plenary that there is no impact whatsoever on fundamental rights in any way”. In the commissioner’s view, that apparently is sufficient reason not to conduct any such study before the agreement.

I was not very impressed by the commissioner’s statement. In my opinion, there are far to many aspects of this agreement that still need to clarified before the European Parliament should even consider giving its consent.

If the best argument the Commission can give for this controversial agreement is that it ”changes nothing”, that is hardly good enough even if it were to be true.

…………

Web streams and transcripts of the debate can be found at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/speeches.do?sessionDate=20101020.

The blog På djupa vatten has a good summary in Swedish of the debate.

Picture by Christian Engström, free for publication CC0

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

ACTA debate tonight Wednesday evening

"Death of ACTA" by Dan Bull

There will be a debate on the ACTA agreement on intellectual property rights enforcement in the European Parliament tonight, Wednesday October 20. The debate will start some time between 22.00 and 22.30 (approximately, as it is the last point on the agenda for the evening).

Web streams and transcripts of the debate can be found at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/speeches.do?sessionDate=20101020

While waiting for the debate to start, please feel free to check out the music video ”Death of ACTA” by UK rapper Dan Bull, or read Torrentfreak’s interview with him.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Swift: USA vill ha alla våra banktransaktioner

 

USA vill ha insyn i alla banktransaktioner som europeiska företag och privatpersoner gör

 

Swift-avtalet mellan EU och USA innebär att EU skickar information om européers banktransaktioner till USA, så att de amerikanska säkerhetstjänsterna får tillgång till dem. Det föregivna syftet är att jaga terrorister. Datat skickas i bulk, så även transaktioner från personer som inte alls är misstänkta för något brott åker med.

Det var många turer innan EU-parlamentet godkände avtalet i somras. I februari 2010 röstade EU-parlamentet nej till avtalet.

- En seger både för det folkvalda parlamentet och för rätten till ett privatliv, skrev jag då.

Men kampen var inte över med det. För Sveriges EU-kommissionär Cecilia Malmström (FP) blev det omedelbart en prestigefråga att få igenom avtalet. I juni presenterade hon ett reviderat avtal, som hon menade innehöll betydligt starkare garantier för dataskydd.

- EU ska granska dataöverföringarna. För att säkerställa att överföringarna uppfyller villkoren för avtalet ska Europol granska att USA:s förfrågningar är nödvändiga i kampen mot terrorism. De ska också se till att förfrågningarna är så specificerade som möjligt för att minimera mängden av data som förs över. Förfrågningar som inte uppfyller villkoren kommer att avslås, skrev Cecilia Malmström på sin blogg.

En annan huvudpoäng i Cecilia Malmströms reviderade avtal var att det skulle tillsättas en europeisk person som permanent övervakar vad USA gör med datat om våra banktransaktioner.

De här garantierna fick EU-parlamentets stora partigrupper att byta sida och bli för avtalet. De enda som fortfarande var emot var den Gröna gruppen (inklusive Piratpartiet) och Vänstergruppen, men det räckte inte långt.

Den 8 juli 2010 antog EU-parlamentet avtalet med röstsiffrorna 484 för och 109 mot.

- Det var inte lätt, men tack vare öppna och ärliga förhandlingar blev detta en framgångssaga, sa Cecilia Malmström då.

Nu har det gått några månader sedan omröstningen, och det politiska dammet har lagt sig. Nu kan vi börja se hur det blir i praktiken.

USA vill ha tillgång till alla banktransaktioner över 1000 dollar, skriver Dagens Industri. Någon misstanke om brott ska överhuvudtaget inte behöva finnas.

Och den där personen från EU som skulle kontrollera att allt går rätt till ska få hemlig identitet. Det kommer alltså inte ens i teorin finnas någon att ställa till svars om USA gör vad de vill med uppgifterna om europeiska privatpersoners och företags transaktioner.

Det finns inget tristare än att lyssna på folk som säger ”vad var det vi sa”, men ibland är det faktiskt svårt att låta bli att säga det.

Jag, Carl Schlyter (MP) och folkrättsjuristen Mark Klamberg försöker dock så gott vi kan i pratminusen i artikeln.

Läs mer hos Dagens Industri.

…………

Andra som skriver om Swiftavtalet: E24, Henrik Alexandersson, Ipse Cogita, Anarkia

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

The Economist: What’s working in music

Between 1999 and 2009 concert-ticket sales in America tripled in value. Read more in The Economist

The Economist has an in-depth article this week about how the music industry is changing. For the past ten years sales of recorded music have declined steeply, and the rise in digital music-sales is scant compensation. But the article continues:

Yet the music business is surprisingly healthy, and becoming more so. Will Page of PRS for Music, which collects royalties on behalf of writers and publishers, has added up the entire British music business. He reckons it turned over £3.9 billion ($6.1 billion) in 2009, 5% more than in 2008. It was the second consecutive year of growth. Much of the money bypassed the record companies. But even they managed to pull in £1.1 billion last year, up 2% from 2008.

A surprising number of things are making money for artists and music firms, and others show great promise. The music business is not dying. But it is changing profoundly.

The longest, loudest boom is in live music. Between 1999 and 2009 concert-ticket sales in America tripled in value, from $1.5 billion to $4.6 billion (see chart 1).

[...]

Rising income from live performance, merchandising, sponsorship, publishing, online streaming and emerging markets has come to counterbalance losses from declining CD sales. As a result, some musicians are singing a different tune. Last year a new group, the Featured Artists Coalition, objected to government plans to punish file-sharers by suspending their broadband connections. Its leaders, including established artists such as Billy Bragg and Annie Lennox, argue that file-sharing is a useful form of promotion. But not everybody agrees.

Read more in The Economist.

Also read the article by Torrentfreak on the recent study of the Norwegian music market, which comes to similar conclusions: Artists make more money in the file sharing age than before it.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Delade meningar om ACTA

DN skriver om ACTA-avtalet

DN skriver om ACTA-avtalet under rubriken ”Delade meningar om avtal mot piratkopior”.

Daniel Westman, forskare i IT-rätt vid Stockholms universitet, menar att avtalet inte kommer att inne­bära fler skyldigheter än dem vi redan har i vår lagstiftning.

Kritikerna är dock av en annan åsikt. De båda EU-parlamentarikerna Christian Engström (PP) och Carl Schlyter (MP) säger till DN att de hårdare regleringarna finns kvar, om än mer luddigt formulerade.

– I ett försök att desarmera frågan står det i kodat språk att upphovsrättsägare ska kunna gå till internetleverantörer och kräva ut uppgifter om folks datorer, säger Schlyter.

Engström menar att det krävda ansvaret för enskildas beteende på internet i förlängningen kan leda till att operatörerna tvingas ta det säkra före det osäkra och stänga av användare från internet.

Piratpartisten kritiserar också det faktum att EU inte lyckades rädda skyddet för geografiska ursprungsmärkningar, vilket ­exempelvis berör produkter som Cognac, Champagne, Parma och Roquefort.

Läs mer hos DN.se

…………

Tidigare artiklar om ACTA

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

The ACTA secrecy continues

The ACTA text is released (click to download), but the secrecy continues

The text of the ACTA agreement was released yesterday, and you can download it here.

But the secrecy around this new legislation still continues. At this very minute the EU Commission is holding a meeting to brief members of the European Parliament. At the very outset of the meeting, it was declared from the chairman that ”this is not a press conference, or a meeting to feed La Quadrature du Net or Wikileaks”.

I then chose to leave the meeting immediately.

I am not interested in receiving information on ACTA that I am not allowed to share with the citizens I represent. I think that goes against the transparency that citizens have right to demand from the EU in general, and the elected members of the parliament in particular.

But it is the text that is the important thing anyway. I have read through the agreement, and it is very depressing reading.

This is legislation being introduced over the heads of the European and national parliaments, under the guise of an international agreement. And it is bad legislation.

Internet service providers should cooperate with rights holders to combat copyright infringements, according to the ACTA text. It should be illegal to circumvent DRM, or to spread computer programs that can be used for that purpose. Damages should be calculated according to the principle that each illegal download corresponds to one lost sale. And a lot of similar things.

We will have to analyse the exact implications of the text over the coming weeks and months. This is tricky stuff, and the devil is always in the details.

Some early analysis can be found here:

• Techdirt: You can’t craft a reasonable agreement when you leave out stakeholders
• Monica Horten – Final ACTA puts Europe under more pressure for graduated response
• Henrik Alexandersson: ACTA: Första genomläsningen…

…………

Previous articles on ACTA

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

ACTA text released

The text of the ACTA agreement can now be downloaded from keionline.org, who are commenting here.

Michael Geist also has some initial comments.

…………

Previous articles on ACTA

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik