Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T13:32:35.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - ACTA’s Digital Chapter

Remaining Concerns and What Can Be Done

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2014

Rita Matulionyte
Affiliation:
Newcastle Law School
Pedro Roffe
Affiliation:
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development
Xavier Seuba
Affiliation:
Université de Strasbourg
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a new plurilateral treaty with the goal of “improving global standards for the enforcement of IPR [in order] to more effectively combat trade in counterfeit and pirated goods.” It was negotiated by Australia, Canada, the EU (and EU member states in their own national capacity), Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States between 2008 and 2010, leading to the adoption of the final text on 3 December 2010. It is currently undergoing internal ratification procedures in negotiating states. It is open for signature until 31 March 2013; six signatories are needed before it comes into force.

During negotiation ACTA was criticized by different stakeholders on many grounds. First of all, the secret nature of negotiations was condemned by the online community, academics, as well as by the institutions of the EU such as the European Parliament and the European Data Protection Supervisor. Secondly, critics argued that by negotiating the agreement plurilaterally, parties are trying to avoid the established fora for IP agreements (i.e. the World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] or the World Trade Organization [WTO]) and thereby threatening the established international institutional framework. Thirdly, although ACTA is intended to be a special agreement made under the auspices of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and thus not derogate from its obligations, some have argued that it may still violate TRIPS. Its legality in some of the negotiating states has been contested. For instance, in the EU, the European Commission has repeatedly made reassuring noises that it will not set any acquis-plus standards, but European academics have warned that ACTA may lack conformity with EU law and require additional action by the EU institutions. Its legality under US law has also been disputed. Various issues addressed by ACTA have been attacked by groups of academics as well as individuals worldwide,probably the most important of which being privacy and restriction on freedom of expression on the Internet, criminal liability and border measures. Last but not least, strong concerns were expressed by developing countries which did not join the negotiations, such as China, India and Brazil. Arguably, ACTA will be extended to non-negotiating parties by being adopted as a new baseline in bilateral negotiations.

Type
Chapter
Information
The ACTA and the Plurilateral Enforcement Agenda
Genesis and Aftermath
, pp. 115 - 142
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Outterson, K., ‘Import Safety Rules Should Not Hinder Legitimate Generic Drug Markets: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’, in Coglianese, C., Finkel, A. and Zaring, D. (eds.), Import Safety: Regulatory Governance in The Global Economy (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009
Wan, Ch. W., ‘Three Strikes Law: A Least Cost Solution to Rampant Online Piracy’, 5/4 Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 232 (2010Google Scholar
Zilkha, G., ‘The RIAA’s Troubling Solution to File-Sharing’, XX/2 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 667 (2010Google Scholar
Spindler, G., in Spindler, G. and Schuster, (eds.), Recht der Neuen Medien. Kommentar (Beck: München 2008
Walter, M., v Lewinski, S., European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010
Dreier, Th. and Schulze, G., Urheberrechtsgesetz (Beck 2008
v Lewinski, S., International Copyright Law and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×