Security

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Fact or Fiction?

There’s been speculation for months concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. If ratified, many suggest it would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers’ communications. Yet all we know for certain is it’s a treaty (.pdf) about beefing up intellectual property protections being negotiated in […]

Knockoffs
There's been speculation for months concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. If ratified, many suggest it would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.

Yet all we know for certain is it's a treaty (.pdf) about beefing up intellectual property protections being negotiated in secret by the European Union, the United Sates, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand.

Dozens of special-interests groups on Monday urged the trade representatives from those nations to disclose the language of the evolving agreement in a bid to end speculation on its contents and to assist in crafting its language.

"Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited," the groups said in a letter (.pdf) to trade representatives from the participating nations.

The groups include Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), Australian Digital Alliance, The Canadian Library Association, Consumers Union of Japan, National Consumer Council (UK) and Doctors without Borders' Campaign for Essential Medicines.

Robert Weissman, director of the public interest group, Essential Action of Washington, D.C., said, "Intentionally or not, a treaty to prevent unauthorized copying may easily go too far, and undermine important consumer interests. That's why it is so important that this deal be negotiated in the light of day."

The rampant speculation concerning the treaty's contents is based largely on a leaked document posted on WikiLeaks, and from comments from copyright and patent holders.

Among other things, according to the comments and leaked document, the special interest groups speculate the treaty would:

Require Internet Service Providers to monitor all consumers' Internet communications, terminate their customers' Internet connections based on rights holders' repeat allegation of copyright infringement, and divulge the identity of alleged copyright infringers possibly without judicial process, threatening Internet users' due process and privacy rights; and potentially make ISPs liable for their end users' alleged infringing activity.

Interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials.

Criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing.

Interfere with legitimate parallel trade in goods, including the resale of brand-name pharmaceutical products.

Impose liability on manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), if those APIs are used to make counterfeits -- a liability system that may make API manufacturers reluctant to sell to legal generic drug makers, and thereby significantly damage the functioning of the legal generic pharmaceutical industry.

Improperly criminalize acts not done for commercial purpose and with no public health consequences; and Improperly divert public resources into enforcement of private rights.

Photo: Flyinace2000/Flickr

See Also: