While not the most eloquent analysis, I agree. For those unaware, here is a run down of ACTA.
ACTA is a lot different to SOPA as it covers all intellectual property and not just digital versions.
The idea of the document is that it takes best practice from around the world and suggests a standard implementation that would allow a Government to create a system that allows them to protect intellectual property rights. It is based entirely on best practice and suggests that it should be altered to take into account the countries existing laws. It isn't a binding document - it is a set of guidelines.
Now some government's will blindly apply the document, but others won't. Japan has already implemented ACTA several months ago.
Most of the disagreement (in Europe) to the bill have been because of four reasons:
The document was written in 'secret'. This is standard procedure for these style of documents - releasing draft editions frequently just causes bad press by those who don't understand the process.
Those who oppose the EU on principle use any directives passed down by the EU as ammunition to claim that the EU is big brother and every country should leave.
Those who disagree with any controls on copyright based on the principle that they like getting stuff for free don't like it as it could lead them to get prosecuted.
Finally those who think that the implementation of the ruling will be taking literally and will never be altered. As with virtually all new regulations there will be teething problems that will need work.
ACTA has some pros and some cons:
Cons:
It's broad definition of what could be classed as an infringement of intellectual property means that it could lead to some unforeseen circumstances (like generic medicines being)
It suggests that 'lost profits' from the intellectual property owner by the infringer be taken into account when the case comes to court, which is open to abuse
It's rife for abuse by border control authorities - many companies don't have the most 'honest' border control and may use bribary
It's relatively loose in terms of its definition of penalties, which will be open to abuse (" sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity."
Websites are obliged to tell authorities who it was who was infringing copyright if they know
Pros:
It creates a standard framework across all countries - you can't plead "It's different in my country!" to get away with it, especially important in an international environment
It creates a framework that gives guidelines on how things work so that intellectual property owners can't go rogue and do things like take down megaupload without due process
It relates only to the goods/services etc that relate to the intellectual property infringement - you couldn't close down Reddit because one sub-reddit infringed
It sets out very clearly that it is the intellectual property holders job to enforce the law
The rights holder have to provide enough evidence for there to be prima facie an infringement before anything can be seized
If it turns out the rights holder is wrong then the goods seized have to be in a fit state to be returned to the defendant
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks