Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World map with countries that participated in the ACTA negotiations or signed ACTA.
  • Party (signed and ratified)
  • Signatory
  • Signatory with additional EU signature
  • Non-signatories with EU signature
  • Non-signatories involved in the signing process

    • The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement , or ACTA for short (German Anti-Product Piracy Trade Agreement , “Anti-Piracy Agreement”) was a planned multilateral trade agreement based on international law . The participating nations or confederations wanted to use ACTA to establish international standards in the fight against product piracy and copyright infringements .

    After extensive international protests, the European Parliament rejected ACTA on July 4, 2012 with a large majority (478 against, 39 in favor, 165 abstentions).

    In terms of content, however, some clauses of the agreement were found in a draft version of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement EU-Canada (CETA), which was adopted in 2013 and should be ratified in autumn 2014. Critics fear that ACTA will de facto be introduced on the basis of bilateral agreements.

    content

    ACTA is an agreement that the found in the US and Europe and some other countries in common the enforcement of intellectual property rights for intellectual property , to bring stipulates as minimum standards with the intention of those in other countries to bear or bring them more advantage. According to the EU Commission, it is intended to ensure lasting growth in the global economy, remove imitation products from the market and help knowledge-based European economies to maintain their competitiveness.

    The agreement itself does not standardize any property rights, but aims to protect the agreements made in the TRIPS Agreement in 1994 and imposes additional obligations on the contracting parties relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, not the prerequisites for protection or the scope of protection.

    The European Commission and also the sales representatives of the United States name three areas in which ACTA provides regulations:

    1. International cooperation
    2. Coordination of law enforcement
    3. Creation of new laws for the exploitation of intellectual property

    An independent ACTA committee is to be set up with the task of monitoring compliance with the contract, negotiating changes to the ACTA contract, determining the admission of new members and helping non-ACTA partners, To incorporate ACTA provisions into their national law.

    The supporters of the agreement, especially the exploitation industry , such as record companies or film studios , hope that ACTA will deter the distribution, transfer and illegal sale of protected material.

    Regulations

    Chapter I (1–5) Introduction

    Section 1 (1-4)

    Article 1 expressly states that ACTA can use other agreements such as B. the TRIPS Agreement, does not repeal.

    Article 2 defines the nature and scope of the obligations arising from the ACTA Agreement:

    • The ACTA agreement specifies what the contracting parties have to implement into applicable law. How this happens is up to the contracting parties, as long as these measures do not contravene the ACTA contract. The possibility is also explicitly mentioned that contractual partners enforce stricter rules for the protection of intellectual property than those provided by ACTA.
    • In Article 2, Paragraph (2), the Agreement stipulates that it does not specify which means should be used to enforce intellectual property rights .

    Articles 7 and 8 TRIPS apply mutatis mutandis in accordance with Article 2 paragraph 3. These standards for the protection of citizens are therefore decisive when interpreting ACTA:

    • Article 7 TRIPS
      • The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technical innovation as well as the transfer and dissemination of technology, serve the mutual benefit of producers and users of technical knowledge, take place in a manner that is conducive to social and economic well-being and a balance between Establish rights and obligations.
    • Article 8 TRIPS
      • (1) When drafting or amending their laws and other regulations, the members may take the measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition and to promote the public interest in the sectors that are vital to their socio-economic and technical development; however, these measures must be compatible with this Convention.
      • (2) Appropriate measures, although compatible with this Convention, may be necessary to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by rightholders or the use of practices that inappropriately restrict trade or adversely affect international technology transfer .

    Article 3 states that ACTA does not affect national provisions on intellectual property law. It is explicitly stated that a contracting party is not obliged to implement measures if a certain aspect of intellectual property is not protected by the national legal system.

    Article 4 contains data protection provisions. In particular, it is specified that ACTA does not oblige a contracting party to pass on information that is protected by the national legal system (e.g. for the protection of privacy).

    Section 2 (5) Definitions

    The central definitions can be found here, including which intellectual property rights are actually affected.

    Chapter II (6-27) Measures to enforce intellectual property rights

    Section 1 (6) General Obligations

    Each signatory state is obliged to provide procedures in national law that enable the effective protection of intellectual property. Furthermore, a speedy procedure, the principle of proportionality and state liability law neutrality are laid down in Article 6 .

    (The former corresponds to the current regulations of the German legal system.)
    Section 2 (7–12) Civil and Civil Procedure Law

    According to footnote 2, patents and unpublished information can be exempted from the protective measures described in this section.

    Article 7 stipulates that each of the signatory states should provide civil law enforcement procedures for intellectual property rights.

    According to Article 8, civil courts in the signatory states should be able to issue warnings . The main purpose of this is to prevent the spread of counterfeit products within a signatory state. In certain cases, such a warning can be replaced by payment of a fee .

    Article 9 regulates claims for damages . These should be determined by civil law proceedings, in which the compensation for damages can be based on the loss of profit of the rights holder or on the current market value of the goods or their recommended retail price, especially in the case of copyright infringements , the compensation should be determined according to the following principles:

    • Payment of a lump sum and / or
    • Settlement of the damage incurred (estimated e.g. by calculating the turnover that the rights holder has lost) and / or
    • additional compensation payments.

    Litigation costs are to be paid by the losing party.

    The imitating products should be allowed to be destroyed (Article 10). Article 11 allows courts to order the infringer to provide the court or rights holder with further information in the infringer's possession. This information can e.g. B.

    Article 12 regulates the issuance of interim injunctions . In certain cases, it should even be possible to issue temporary injunctions without hearing both parties, e.g. B. if otherwise irreparable damage occurred or if evidence were destroyed. However, courts may require the applicant to produce evidence showing the need for an injunction. The applicant for such an interim injunction can be required to provide a security deposit to protect the opponent. Finally, it is determined that the respondent can demand compensation from the applicant if an injunction proves to be unjustified in retrospect.

    Section 3 (13-22) inches

    Here too (according to footnote 6) patents and unpublished information are excluded.

    Customs controls with regard to the protection of intellectual property are allowed, but should be designed in such a way that trade is not disproportionately difficult (Article 13).

    Controls should also be carried out for small consignments of a commercial nature. Private consignments can be exempted from these controls (Article 14).

    The competent authorities may ask rightholders to provide relevant information to help them prosecute copyright infringements (Article 15). Procedures are to be put in place to allow customs authorities to withhold suspicious goods or to delay their release. This applies to import and export shipments as well as to transit shipments.

    The customs authorities can act ex officio or at the request of a rights holder (Article 16).

    Article 17 determines how such an application should look. There must be sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate a copyright infringement. Otherwise the application can be rejected by the authorities. The elimination of border controls due to the Schengen Agreement is taken into account.

    Article 18 stipulates that the applicant must leave a proportionate deposit to prevent misuse of these customs controls. If the customs authorities discover a legal violation (Article 19), imitations and plagiarism can be destroyed (Article 20).

    The authorities should be empowered to impose administrative sanctions if a violation of the law is found. The signatory states can allow their customs authorities to pass on information about goods withheld or about their origin to the rights holder. This disclosure of information must take place in the event that a violation of the law has been established in accordance with Article 19 (Article 22).

    Section 4 (23-26) Criminal Law

    Article 23 of the treaty lays down standards that the criminal law of the signatory states should meet: penalties and criminal proceedings for violations of copyright should be imposed if this violation takes place intentionally and on a commercial basis. In this context, the term “commercial scale” includes all acts that “serve to obtain a direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage”. In particular, penalties are provided for the import or use of packaging or labels that infringe a registered trademark. Unauthorized recording of films during a cinema screening can be made a criminal offense. The aid to one of the above Offenses should be punished. Legal persons should also be able to be prosecuted.

    Article 24 provides that prison sentences as well as fines can be imposed. The penalties should be such that they have a deterrent effect on potential perpetrators.

    Article 25 sets minimum standards for seizure, confiscation and destruction. In general, the competent authorities should have the right to seize goods that are suspected of infringing copyright. Goods that have been found to have violated copyright may be confiscated and destroyed. Devices used to produce these goods may also be confiscated and destroyed. Compensation for the infringer is expressly excluded. In addition, the courts of the signatory states should have the power to order the seizure and confiscation of the infringer's assets.

    (Article 23, paragraph 1 should correspond to the current German standard in §§ 106, 108 UrhG and § 143 MarkenG. § 143 MarkenG in conjunction with § 14 MarkenG would correspond exactly to the wording "business dealings", "in the perception or promotion of one's own or third parties Participate in business interests in working life "and without" assuming profit-making or remuneration ", as stated by ACTA. The inclusion of labels and packaging in the second paragraph of Article 23 should correspond to Section 143 in conjunction with Section 14 (2) numbers 1, 2 and 3 of the Trademark Act The regulations in Articles 24 to 26 should correspond to the German regulations of §§ 106 paragraph 1, 108 paragraph 1 UrhG, § 143 paragraph 1 and 2 MarkenG, § 46 StGB , §§ 73 ff. StGB and § 160 StPO .)
    Section 5 (27) Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment

    Article 27 describes the intended procedures for the protection of intellectual property on the Internet and in the use of digital media.

    In principle, intellectual property should be treated in the same way in the digital environment as outside (Article 27 (1)). This also applies to digital networks. However, enforcement proceedings for intellectual property must not result in legal activities on the Internet (such as digital commerce) being impeded. In addition, the priority of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression , data protection and the protection of privacy is emphasized (Article 27 (2)). In a footnote, the contract proposes that rules should be introduced to limit the liability of internet service providers, as well as rules to limit legal remedies against internet service providers.

    Efforts to cooperate in business to protect intellectual property should be encouraged if these efforts to cooperate do not restrict legitimate competition. It is also emphasized that such cooperation must not affect general legal principles (such as freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial or the right to privacy protection) (Article 27 (3)).

    Online providers should be able to be forced by the responsible authorities to give a rights holder information that can be used to identify a rights infringer. Here, too, the primacy of fundamental legal principles (such as freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial or the right to privacy) is emphasized. It is also emphasized that such measures must not hinder legitimate activities on the Internet (Article 27 (4)).

    Paragraphs 5 to 8 of Article 27 deal with digital rights management (DRM). The contracting parties should introduce legal regulations against circumventing the DRM. The removal of such a protective mechanism as well as the creation, dissemination and use of procedures that serve to remove such a protective mechanism are intended to become punishable.

    (The regulations in paragraphs 4 to 8 should correspond to the German regulations in § 101 IX UrhG, § 95a  UrhG , § 303b  StGB and § 108b UrhG.)

    Chapter III (28–32) Enforcement Practice

    Article 28 states that border authorities should develop expertise in the field of intellectual property. Internal coordination between authorities is to be promoted and structures created for better communication between authorities and rights holders.

    Article 29 regulates the cooperation between the border authorities of the signatory states. It stipulates that the border authorities are allowed to exchange information if this appears necessary to secure intellectual property rights.

    Articles 30 and 31 stipulate that the contracting parties should take steps to make the existing laws for the protection of intellectual property known to the public. Furthermore, the signatory states should raise public awareness of the importance of intellectual property.

    The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party of the EU claims that the ACTA will not result in any violation of European data protection law.

    Chapter IV (33–35) International cooperation

    This describes the cooperation that the ACTA committee set up in Chapter V is supposed to coordinate. In particular, Article 35 regulates that other countries, including non-ACTA countries, should be helped with the introduction of regulations within the meaning of ACTA.

    Chapter V (36–38) Institutional Regulations (ACTA Committee)

    The ACTA committee is constituted here, and the working language is English.

    Chapter VI (39–45) final provisions

    Articles 39–45 regulate a.o. a. the following details: signature of the Treaty (Article 39), entry into force of the Treaty (Article 40), withdrawal of a signatory State from the Treaty (Article 41), amendment of the Treaty (Article 42), as well as the subsequent accession of a State to the Treaty (Article 43).

    The negotiations

    participating countries

    The following countries were involved in the ACTA negotiations:

    History of negotiations

    The preliminary talks on ACTA between the USA and Japan began on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Saint Petersburg in 2006 .

    Meeting for ACTA stakeholders and stakeholders on April 21, 2009 in Brussels
    The ACTA ratification process in the political system of the European Union

    Negotiations on the details of the agreement began in Geneva in 2008 and ended after the twelfth round of negotiations in Sydney in December 2010 . These negotiations took place in camera, which is why the exact status of the negotiations and the positions of the individual countries were unknown for a long time. The United Arab Emirates and Jordan no longer participated in the negotiations after the first round of negotiations in June 2008.

    In order to enforce copyright claims on the Internet on an international level, it was discussed, among other things, that Internet service providers should also be made liable as interferers for copyright infringements committed by their customers . They could only have evaded this responsibility through an obligation to monitor the data traffic of their customers and, in accordance with the controversial three strikes principle, to block their Internet access after three violations of copyright.

    In March 2010 there was an unauthorized release ( leak ) of a pre-release version. Another preliminary version, which summarized the results of the Lucerne Round of July 1, 2010, was also leaked in July 2010.

    At the beginning of March 2010, the European Parliament asked the EU Commission in an intergroup resolution to inform Parliament about all phases of the negotiations.

    After the last round of negotiations, the ACTA contracting parties submitted an almost final version on December 3, 2010. The final version was presented at the end of May 2011. Compared to the December version, this contained few changes and, above all, stipulated the period within which the contract was to be signed from May 1, 2011 to May 1, 2013.

    Before ACTA can come into force in the EU , the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament must approve the treaty. The approval of the council takes place in two steps. It must first adopt a decision to sign the agreement and then adopt a decision on the actual adoption of the agreement for ratification. The former happened on December 16, 2011 in a closed session of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council . Since ACTA also contains provisions on criminal law , for which the EU has no regulatory competence, it is a mixed agreement that the EU member states must also conclude and ratify themselves.

    Status of signature and ratification

  • Countries that have stopped ratification of ACTA
  • EU countries with an ongoing ratification process
  • Other countries with ongoing ratification process

    • On October 1, 2011, ACTA was signed by Canada, Australia, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore and the USA. At the round in Tokyo on January 26, 2012, the EU, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

    With a vote of July 4, 2012, the EU Parliament decided not to ratify ACTA, which is why ACTA cannot come into force for the EU. Some EU member states have also explicitly stopped ratification for the time being, despite their original commitment because of the mass protests ( Latvia , Poland , Slovakia , the Czech Republic , Austria , Bulgaria , Germany , the Netherlands , Lithuania , Slovenia , Romania , Finland ). The Ambassador of Slovenia even publicly apologized to the population for the signing.

    Only after six states have ratified ACTA does the Convention enter into force thirty days later (ACTA Art. 40). No country has yet deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the depositary of Japan.

    Proposals from NGOs

    Europe

    In addition to criticism and protests from civil society, a few of the NGOs also suggest how trade and international agreements that the EU negotiates and concludes should be structured - focused on the essentials, more flexible and democratic, with early involvement of those involved and more of transparency .

    Foodwatch suggests "concluding trade deals only to dismantle tariffs (preferably at a global level), but outsource the rest to industry agreements and more flexible regulations" .

    In its paper “Demands for the Democratization of EU Trade Treaties” (April 2016), more democracy states that “proposals for how trade policy should work differently in the future are very rare” and brings their “demands into the discussion ... how EU trade contracts can be democratized " , which the author divides into two areas - with and without changes to the EU treaties :

    A. Improvements without changing the EU Treaties

    1. Negotiation texts from all sides are to be published
    2. The mandate must be published
    3. Comprehensive information from the European Parliament
    4. Equal participation of stakeholders
    5. No non-terminable contracts and no contracts with very long terms
    6. No provisional application

    B. Improvements that make changes to the EU treaties necessary

    1. [EU] Parliament decides (together with the [EU] Council ) on the [negotiating] mandate
    2. [EU] Parliament can enforce renegotiations
    3. Direct democratic control of trade contracts is made possible

    criticism

    Protest in Munich , February 2012: ACTA opponents with Guy Fawkes masks
    Stop ACTA demonstration in Vienna , February 2012

    Several dozen well-known scientists (including from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition ), in cooperation with recognized lawyers, have called on the European Parliament in a detailed criticism not to agree to ACTA. The following points of criticism are also becoming increasingly known in politics and the public and are being discussed accordingly.

    Abolition of human rights and the rule of law

    Amnesty International believes that “because of its content, procedures and institutions, the agreement has negative implications for a number of human rights , including the right to due process , respect for private life , freedom of information , freedom of expression and the right to Access to essential medicines ”.

    EDRi , an international association of civil rights initiatives, sees ACTA as a defeat of fundamental legal principles. The promotion of cooperation between private companies to enforce the agreement could lead to alleged violations of the law by actors outside the justice system being prosecuted and punished. This renders the legal principles mentioned in Section 5 of the contract (freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial and data protection) ineffective. This in turn violates the obligation under Article 21 of the  EU Treaty to ensure compliance with the rule of law in all treaties .

    The best known is the assumption by opponents that ACTA could affect freedom of expression on the Internet and lead to censorship under private law. Many internet users see the reforms as an invasion of privacy and their fundamental rights . It was and still is feared that the international trade agreement could represent a starting point for the worldwide enforcement of internet bans or lead to a three-strikes model like in France.

    According to Paragraph 5 of the Federal Constitutional Court ruling on data retention , which would be required for verification by Internet service providers , a serious criminal offense is required in Germany in order to legally (if a constitutional law exists) intercept the entire content of a communication.

    According to Section 100a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), the monitoring of telecommunications traffic is only legal in Germany in the case of a “serious crime” listed in this section (e.g. high treason and endangering the democratic order).

    Damage to innovation development

    Another important point of criticism is that ACTA is curtailing freedom for innovation and thus also practicing democratic values ​​such as equal opportunities, educational opportunities, research and rights of all companies; Existing business models would be preferred unilaterally. For example, the Association of the German Internet Industry sees a threat to German economic growth from a weakening of the “reliable national and international legal framework for the Internet industry, which is a prerequisite for innovation and global digital development”. The working group against Internet blocking and censorship criticizes that ACTA is cementing copyright and exploitation rights that are in need of reform and that are out of date in today's digital age.

    Exclusion of the public

    Due to the exclusion from the public and from the organizations actually responsible for the topics discussed, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the EU Parliament , the years of ACTA negotiations were undemocratic. The organization Reporters Without Borders spoke of “preventing the democratic debate” in relation to the publication of the negotiation results. Since the negotiators assume that this is the only way to enforce the treaty, they deliberately bypass those international institutions that would be responsible for such talks, such as the WIPO, which was founded as a democratic body for the issues under discussion , and transparent negotiations with a large number of participants.

    Important documents on ACTA have also been withheld from the EU Parliament , whose responsible INTA committee is to decide on ACTA on June 21, 2012.

    Another criticism is that ACTA creates legal uncertainty through deliberately vague formulations . The negotiation minutes for the contract should be used to interpret unclear terms, but these have not yet been published. It is therefore absurd and in no way contributes to transparency if the parliaments were to vote on the draft treaty at this point in time, as they still do not know the precise content of the treaty and its meaning.

    Licensing of seeds and restriction of generic drugs

    Critics - e.g. B. from the Anonymous movement or the party Die Linke - assume that the agreement could prevent or at least restrict access to seeds and vital generics for poorer countries. Also Kader Arif , former rapporteur on ACTA by the European Parliament, sees a danger of ACTA for generics.

    The critics are also of the opinion that with regard to copyrights, "suspicious deliveries [...] could be checked - not only in the countries of origin and destination of the goods, but also in transit countries", which in turn companies "[could] take as an approach. to withdraw generics [or other products such as seeds] from the market if they pass third countries with corresponding bans - even if these drugs were legal according to the laws of the destination country ”.

    As a result, according to ACTA opponents, generics (inexpensive imitations or modifications of drugs) could be confiscated by the European customs authorities , for example , and thus the drug treatment of AIDS, HIV and other diseases in the Third World could be made difficult or even prevented.

    These concerns also come from the aid organization Doctors Without Borders , which has asked the participating states not to sign ACTA until all uncertainties about possible restrictions on generic production have been dispelled.

    Controversial compensation scheme

    The compensation regime in Article 9 is also problematized . The FFII is of the opinion that extending compensation to include lost profits would not reflect the loss suffered by the rights holders. Madhukar Sinha , professor at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, fears that this arrangement could lead to excessive compensation payments. Joachim Schrey thinks that this possibility already exists in German copyright law and would therefore not mean any change.

    Anti-ACTA mass protests and ratification freezes

    The pirate parties of various countries held demonstrations against the ACTA agreement on June 26 and 28, 2010. The demonstrations took place in several countries, including some German cities. The organizers here were the Pirate Party Germany and free, independent network activists . In the spring of 2011, further and significantly larger demonstrations followed across Europe as the ratification of the law by the EU countries approached.

    European Protest Days: February 11th and 25th, 2012 and June 9th, 2012

    Map of Europe from anti-ACTA protests on February 11, 2012

    In Germany, France, Poland, Great Britain, Bulgaria, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, as well as Canada and other countries, numerous demonstrations against ACTA took place on February 11, 2012 under the motto “ACTA ad acta ”. Across Europe, between 150,000 and 200,000 people demonstrated in 200 cities on February 11th.

    Despite temperatures around −10 ° C in Germany on February 11, 2012, over 100,000 people demonstrated against ACTA in 55 cities. The statement by the German Federal Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger , published the day before the demonstrations, not to sign ACTA for the time being , came under strong criticism, as this was seen as an attempt to make the demonstrations appear useless and the agreement nonetheless at a later date (e.g. during the European Football Championship 2012 ) when the public interest is no longer directed towards ACTA. The protests were supported by the globalization-critical network Attac , the Pirate Party , Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen , Die Linke , Anonymous and the Chaos Computer Club (CCC).

    On February 25, further protests took place in numerous European countries.

    On June 9, 2012, a few days before the expected vote in the EU Parliament, further international protests took place.

    Anti-ACTA online signatures

    • Avaaz: The political platform Avaaz has collected over 2.8 million online signatures against the ACTA project since January 25, 2012 , its second most successful campaign to date (after the one against SOPA with over 3.4 million signatures).
    After the European Commission formally submitted the controversial draft law to the European Court of Justice for review, Avaaz launched a new campaign on March 1 with the demand that the Court of Justice should investigate the legal effects of ACTA more extensively than requested by the European Commission and publish an opinion on this; over 730,000 signatures have now been collected for this purpose.
    On April 5, 2012, Avaaz launched a protest campaign against CISPA , a new US bill on the same subject. Over 680,000 signatures have now been collected for this.
    • Campact: The online campaign platform Campact made an appeal to the German members of the EU Parliament to reject ACTA on February 29, 2012 in the Committee on International Trade of the European Parliament, and collected over 71,000 online signatures for this.
    • Public online petition of the German Bundestag: A public petition was launched on February 10, 2012 via the German Bundestag's internet platform for online petitions with the aim of suspending the ratification of ACTA. This could be signed by supporters of the matter until March 22, 2012, which corresponded to a period of 6 weeks. The aim of the supporters was to be able to show more than 50,000 signatories in the first 4 weeks in order to be invited and heard by the Petitions Committee of the Bundestag; on March 10, 2012, however, there were only about 35,000 signatories, so this goal could not be achieved. On March 15, 2012, 55,000 signatories participated in the petition, so that a public consultation of the Petitions Committee has to take place.

    Poland

    Anti-ACTA protest in Sosnowiec (Poland) January 25, 2012: Guy Fawkes mask , symbol of the Anonymous movement

    Since January 25, 2012, there have been mass protests in Poland . In the cities of Warsaw , Gdansk , Krakow , Wroclaw , Gdynia , Kattowitz , Gorzów Wielkopolski , Sosnowiec , Bydgoszcz , Koszalin , Częstochowa , Olsztyn , Rzeszów , Stettin , Toruń , Bielsko-Biała , Zielona Góra and Łódź , several people went against Legislation on the streets. Sociologists speak of the “largest civil movement since the Solidarność trade union was founded in 1980”. On February 3, the ratification of ACTA in Poland was suspended until further notice due to strong protests. At the same time, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that “it is important to protect Western culture from Internet piracy” and that his government will not withdraw the ACTA agreement “just because a group demands it” - such a government could resign immediately. On February 17th, 2012 Tusk regretted his signature for ACTA and asked the EU Parliament to stop the anti-piracy agreement ACTA. Tusk said, “I was wrong. The arguments convinced me. ”[The agreement does not correspond]“ the reality of the 21st century ”. At the same time as the ratification of ACTA in Slovenia, Tusk has written an open letter to all parties in the EU Parliament with whom his Platforma Obywatelska works, in which he proposes to reject ACTA.

    Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Lithuania

    Anti-ACTA demonstration in Dortmund
    Anti-ACTA demonstration in Linz

    On February 6, 2012, the ACTA ratification by the Czech Republic was stopped until further notice after protests after the anti-ACTA protests had reached a new high point. For example, “hackers” from the Anonymous movement stole a list of private information on all members of the ruling ODS party and leaked it to the Czech newspapers.

    On February 7, there was a ratification freeze in Slovakia , also because of the mass protests, and on February 9 in Latvia .

    The Slovenian ambassador to Japan Helena Drnovsek Zorko regretted her signature and apologized “clearly to the public and to her children for having signed the contract”. She also called on “the Slovenes to take part in the anti-ACTA protest action as many as possible”.

    On February 14, Bulgaria suspended ratification and on February 15, Lithuania too . Slovenia was also considering stopping ratification at that time.

    Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands

    On February 10, in divided Germany , the Foreign Office that they had withdrawn the instructions issued for the signing of the controversial treaty again. The Netherlands followed suit on February 15 . On February 18, Johann Mayer, a member of the SPÖ, announced in Austria that the National Council would not ratify the agreement until it was confirmed by the EU Parliament. The Austrian People's Party is still hesitating, but cannot ratify anything on its own. On May 9, 2012, the Swiss Federal Council announced that it would not sign ACTA for the time being.

    Eu Parliament

    On July 4, 2012, the European Parliament rejected it by 478 votes against (39 for and 165 abstentions).

    The political groups in the European Parliament voted as follows:

    fraction Yes voices Votes against Abstentions did not vote
    ALDE 002 065 012 006th
    ECR 000 011 035 006th
    EVS 003 027 003 001
    EPP 033 096 109 033
    Greens / EFA 000 057 000 002
    GUE / NGL 000 030th 000 004th
    S&D 001 167 006th 015th
    Non-attached 000 025th 000 005

    Reactions from the EU Commission

    The EU Commission also looked despite the mass protests no reason to withdraw from ACTA legislation distance, and led the actions of the demonstrators to "inadequate information policy" on the part of the EU back. The responsible EU Commissioner Karel de Gucht spoke in this context of an “aggressive pan-European campaign against ACTA”, but advocates submitting ACTA to the ECJ for examination with regard to the fundamental rights concerned.

    On February 13, 2012, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding requested a review of the ACTA legislation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) . She said: "The protection of copyrights can never justify the abolition of freedom of expression and information" and therefore blocking networks is never an option for her. In December 2012, the EU Commission announced that it would withdraw its request to the ECJ for a legal opinion on the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) because it no longer sees any realistic prospects for a conclusion of this agreement.

    Content overlaps with future agreements

    IPRED

    Despite the promise of the head of the Conservative Party in the European Parliament, Joseph Daul , that ACTA is "at the end" , the critics of ACTA continue to see the issue as a threat, as the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED, Directive 2004/48 / EC, protection intellectual property rights ) is very similar to ACTA, especially with regard to the Internet. According to the Braunschweig Pirate Party, IPRED and ACTA can be used to block an Internet connection on demand by the rights holder and without a court order. This means “in the worst case scenario, a reversal of the burden of proof. If a person concerned wants his Internet access back, he [must] complain against it and prove his innocence. The principle of the presumption of innocence no longer applies here . Instead, [will] again tried every single citizen under a general suspicion to ask questions and to criminalize. "

    TPP

    The Agreement for Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) is also said to be very similar to ACTA. According to network activist Markus Beckedahl , under this agreement, under the leadership of the USA, the countries that represent a particularly tough line, such as jail sentences for file sharing users in Japan, will gather. The TPP contains points from ACTA that were removed or watered down from the agreement under the leadership of the EU.

    For the upcoming agreements for the Trans-Pacific Partnership , which Washington is currently negotiating with Pacific countries , the Internet Society  (ISOC) is pushing for more transparency and the question of whether this agreement contains provisions similar to ACTA or CETA.

    CETA and TTIP / TAFTA

    Excerpts from a planned EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement  (CETA) have been published by law professor Michael Geist . Controversial clauses from the ACTA agreement can be found in a chapter on the “protection of intellectual property” in this draft. If the two texts were compared, they would appear to have been copied from one another. It includes, for example, the three-strikes system of the “graduated response” to copyright infringements and a right to information on the determination of IP addresses of infringers. It can be assumed that the analogous free trade agreement with the United States, the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TTIP / TAFTA), which is also being negotiated in secret, contains corresponding clauses.

    John Clancy, spokesman for EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht , comments on the leaked document to the effect that passages on "increased cooperation" between Internet providers and rights holders and civil law claims to information on IP addresses are no longer part of the current CETA draft. There have been changes since then and further corrections could follow.

    IDG also cites that the EU Parliament's rejection of ACTA will be taken into account when reviewing the text. The Commission negotiates the criminal penalties contained therein solely on behalf of the Member States. The result could look similar to the trade agreement with South Korea.

    Reactions

    After similar projects emerged, civil rights organizations like La Quadrature du Net urged the initiator EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht , who is responsible for both ACTA and CETA , that he should no longer ignore the will of the citizens, since European representatives had clearly expressed their will. They are calling for CETA to be stopped, as are other attempts to resurrect ACTA.

    The Internet Defense League

    As a direct reaction to ACTA, the Internet Defense League (IDL for short, in German League for the Defense of the Internet ) was founded in July 2012 . In addition to ACTA, the organization has expressly spoken out against CISPA , PIPA and SOPA and fundamentally all interventions in the free structures of the Internet. The Internet Defense League includes, for example, the Mozilla Foundation , the WordPress software or the company behind it, Automattic, and the social bookmarking service Reddit . Every operator of a website can participate in the Internet Defense League by installing a widget.

    See also

    Web links

    Commons : Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement  - collection of images, videos and audio files
    Wikisource: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement  - Sources and full texts (English)
     Wikinews: Europe-wide protests against ACTA  - message

    Individual evidence

    1. ^ Golla: The ACTA Agreement, DFN-Infobrief Recht 05/2010, 4 f. (PDF; 2.4 MB)
    2. ↑ a b c d e Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (December 3, 2010) (PDF; 90 kB)
    3. ↑ Stefan Krempl: EU Parliament buries ACTA. In: heise online. July 4, 2012, Retrieved July 4, 2012 .
    4. ↑ a b c d e f g h Joachim Schrey and Thomas W. Haug : ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) - without effects on German and European law in Kommunikation & Recht 2011, issue 3, pages 171 ff.
    5. ↑ The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Fact sheet (PDF) trade.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    6. ↑ a b Commercial Agents of the United States: Trade Facts - Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (accessed June 6, 2011; PDF; 50 kB).
    7. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab Trade Convention to Combat Product and Brand Piracy (23 August 2011) (PDF; 200 kB) register .consilium.europa.eu. Retrieved March 2, 2012.
    8. ↑ a b c d e f Legal trainee Jens Ferner: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and German law. ( Memento of May 3, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) of February 1, 2012.
    9. ↑ BGH, March 11, 2004 - I ZR 304/01
    10. ↑ ECJ, November 12, 2002 - C-206/01
    11. ↑ BGH, February 10, 1987 - KZR 43/85.
    12. ↑ Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, July 15, 2010, D (2010) 11185.
    13. ↑ La Quadrature du Net: WikiLeaks Cables Shine Light on ACTA History ( Memento of November 2, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (accessed May 26, 2011)
    14. ↑ European Commission: Interesting facts about the trade agreement to combat counterfeiting and counterfeiting (ACTA) ( Memento of May 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (2010; PDF; 24 kB) (accessed May 17, 2011)
    15. ↑ The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Fact Sheet (PDF; 63 kB) of the EU Commission
    16. ↑ Information from the IPI on ACTA (PDF; 84 kB)
    17. ↑ Printed matter of the Bundestag 17/186 (2009; PDF; 85 kB), p. 2
    18. ↑ Spiegel Online: USA are pushing for rigid laws against copyright piracy. November 4, 2009.
    19. ↑ ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text . swpat.org. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    20. ↑ Consolidated Text: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Informal Predecisional / Deliberative Draft: July 1, 2010 (PDF) laquadrature.net. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    21. ↑ Heise online: EU Parliament calls for restriction of the anti-piracy agreement ACTA. 9 March 2010.
    22. ↑ Intellectual property . europa.eu. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    23. ↑ a b Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (May 2011) (PDF; 226 kB)
    24. ↑ European Parliament: Plenary debate Wednesday 20 October 2010 - Strasbourg , p. 287
    25. ↑ European Commission: Procedure for Adopting International Agreements, August 2, 2010 .
    26. ^ Stefan Krempl: EU Council approves ACTA anti-piracy agreement , heise.de, December 16, 2011
    27. ↑ Council of the European Union: 3137th Council meeting Agriculture and Fisheries Brussels, 15-16 December 2011, December 15, 2011 .
    28. ↑ Printed matter of the Bundestag 17/186 (2009; PDF; 85 kB), p. 3
    29. ↑ ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) - without effects on German and European law Joachim Schrey and Thomas W. Haug, Kommunikation & Recht Issue 03/2011, page 171 ff.
    30. ^ Official site of the United States Trade Representative October 1, 2011
    31. ^ Signing Ceremony of the EU for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). MOFA , notification dated January 26, 2012
    32. ↑ Out for ACTA agreement , tagesschau.de , message from July 4, 2012.
    33. ↑ Poland suspends ACTA ratification , futurezone.at, February 3, 2012
    34. ^ SPÖ wants to vote against ACTA in the EU Parliament . In: Der Standard , February 14, 2012. Retrieved April 29, 2012. 
    35. ↑ ACTA: IFPI holds that the Netherlands and Bulgaria exit ( German ) music market . Archived from the original on February 19, 2012. Retrieved on February 16, 2012.
    36. ↑ Lithuania postpones ACTA ratification ( German ) Abendzeitung München. Retrieved February 16, 2012.
    37. ↑ a b ACTA: Slovenia suspends ratification from ( German ) music market . Archived from the original on February 22, 2012. Retrieved on February 20, 2012.
    38. ↑ Romanian government backs down on ACTA ( German ) Punkt.ro. Retrieved February 24, 2012.
    39. ↑ Finland suspends ACTA ratification ( German ) vexr.de. Archived from the original on July 17, 2012. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
    40. ^ "I signed ACTA out of carelessness" - The Slovenian ambassador Helena Drnovsek Zorko regrets having signed the anti-piracy agreement ACTA for Slovenia in Japan. , futurezone.at, February 4, 2012
    41. ↑ The end of TTIP and the nationalism trap , by Rico Grimm, Krautreporter , October 26, 2016 (direct source Foodwatch?)
    42. ↑ Demands for the democratization of EU trade agreements , by Michael Efler, Mehr Demokratie , April 18, 2016, on background materials , mehr-demokratie.de
    43. ^ Institute for Legal Informatics, Leibniz University Hannover: Opinion of European Academics on ACTA. ( Memento of November 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) and text as PDF ( Memento of February 15, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (accessed on February 1, 2012)
    44. ↑ EU is not allowed to sign ACTA. Amnesty International, February 13, 2012, accessed February 3, 2014 .
    45. ↑ The impact of the ACTA on the EU's international relations (PDF; 127 kB) European Digital Rights . Archived from the original on February 5, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012: “The preamble of ACTA, as well as the“ Digital Chapter ”specifically promotes policing and enforcement through“ cooperation ”between private companies. This is an obvious violation of Article 21 of the TEU which re-states the EU's obligation to support democracy and the rule of law in its international relations. "
    46. ↑ Michael Geist on The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). (PDF; 647 kB)
    47. ↑ Heise Online: Legal experts see light and shadow in the ACTA Internet chapter. February 24, 2010.
    48. ↑ Jan Philipp Albrecht (MEP): ACTA Agreement - The monster comes into light. ( Memento from February 2, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
    49. ↑ N. Ruth: What is ACTA? A discourse and media analysis on the origin of the copyright dispute. Lit: Münster 2013, p. 69, ISBN 978-3-643-12119-6
    50. ↑ Erika Mann: Intellectual Property: A Tragedy Called Acta . In: Die Zeit , March 31, 2010. Retrieved May 13, 2014. 
    51. ↑ eco: ACTA endangers German economic growth . eco.de. February 10, 2012. Archived from the original on May 14, 2014. Retrieved on May 13, 2014.
    52. ↑ Joachim Bellé: ACTA, which has not yet been discussed . ak-zensur.de. February 6, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    53. ↑ Heimlich and CO. Why we learn so little about the ACTA negotiations from Michael Hörz, Telepolis, February 13, 2010
    54. ^ ACTA - An opaque international anti-piracy alliance. dradio broadband online, February 12, 2010. (Podcast; 9:40 min.)
    55. ↑ Le Monde diplomatique , The stashed knowledge. by Florent Latrive, March 12, 2010
    56. ↑ a b Campact.de ( Memento from February 17, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
    57. ↑ Spiegel Online: Copyright Agreement: Why ACTA belongs in the trash. (accessed on January 27, 2012)
    58. ↑ Enable knowledge transfer in developing countries - preserve internet freedom - stop ACTA! . die-linke.de. Archived from the original on February 11, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    59. ^ Charles Arthur: Acta goes too far, says MEP. The Guardian, February 1, 2012, accessed February 3, 2014 .
    60. ↑ Surfing under supervision. taz, February 9, 2012, accessed February 3, 2014 .
    61. ↑ BLANK CHEQUE FOR ABUSE: ACTA & its Impact on Access to Medicines - Doctors Without Borders (English)
    62. ↑ Jennifer Baker: ACTA Text Hurts Startups, Goes Beyond EU Law, Says FFII . In: IDG News , PC World , April 4, 2011. Retrieved January 29, 2012. 
    63. ↑ The world faces major challenges , Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure . December 18, 2011. Archived from the original on January 29, 2012. Retrieved on January 29, 2012. 
    64. ^ Madhukar Sinha: IPR rules and their uncertain effects . In: Business Line , June 2, 2011. Retrieved January 29, 2012. 
    65. ↑ Pirate Party Germany: Secretly hatched: ACTA - Who's Afraid of Parliament?
    66. ↑ International day of action against ACTA on June 9, 2012 . Stop Acta. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    67. ↑ Nationwide large demonstrations: Thousands protest against the anti-piracy agreement ACTA . ftd.de. February 11, 20121. Archived from the original on April 23, 2012. Retrieved on May 13, 2014.
    68. ^ Anti-ACTA day: Angry crowds take action . rt.com. February 11, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    69. ↑ Tens of thousands demonstrate against ACTA in Europe . stern.de. February 11, 2012. Archived from the original on March 16, 2012. Retrieved on May 13, 2014.
    70. ↑ Tagesschau.de: Germany does not sign ACTA for the time being ( Memento from February 13, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
    71. ^ Süddeutsche.de: Anti-ACTA demonstration in Berlin - example Poland
    72. ↑ Tens of thousands against ACTA on the street . deutschlandradio.de. February 11, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    73. ↑ Demonstrations February 25, 2012 . stopacta.de. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    74. ↑ StopACTA-Wiki . wiki.stoppacta-protest.info. Archived from the original on March 31, 2014. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    75. ^ Nico Ernst: Acta-Demos: Third day of action against Acta on June 9, 2012 . golem.de. April 5, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    76. ↑ ACTA: The new threat to the network . avaaz.org. April 13, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    77. ↑ Blackout - Save the Internet Today . avaaz.org. January 22, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    78. ↑ ACTA - time to win! . avaaz.org. March 1, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    79. ↑ Save the Internet from the United States . avaaz.org. April 5, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    80. ↑ Copyright - suspension of the ratification of ACTA from 02/10/2012 . epetionen.bundestag.de. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    81. ^ Peter Mühlbauer: Poland: street battles because of ACTA. heise.de, January 29, 2012, accessed on January 29, 2012 .
    82. ^ Futurezone : Poles demonstrated against ACTA. The wave of protests has been going on for the whole week. Futurezone , January 26, 2012, archived from the original on June 7, 2012 ; Retrieved January 29, 2012 .
    83. ↑ Archived copy ( Memento from December 27, 2019 in the Internet Archive )
    84. ↑ night magazine, 01 February 2012 . tagesschau.de. Archived from the original on February 3, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    85. ↑ Poland stops ratifying the controversial ACTA agreement . tagesschau.de. Archived from the original on February 4, 2012. Retrieved on May 13, 2014.
    86. ↑ a b c The Czech Republic is also suspending ACTA ratification . heise online. February 6, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    87. ↑ Poland calls for ACTA to stop in the EU Parliament ( German ) Österreichischer Rundfunk . Retrieved February 18, 2012.
    88. ↑ a b Slovakia joins ratification freeze for ACTA. on ORF on February 7, 2012, accessed on February 7, 2012.
    89. ↑ heise.de, Latvia suspends ACTA ratification for the time being. February 9, 2012
    90. ↑ a b ACTA: Slovenian Ambassador regrets signature . winfuture.de. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    91. ↑ a b Bulgaria Retracts Support for Global Anti-Piracy Agreement ACTA . businessweek.com. February 14, 2012. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved on May 13, 2014.
    92. ↑ The air is getting thinner for ACTA . heise online . February 15, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    93. ↑ Slovenia is considering stopping ACTA ratification on ORF on February 16, 2012, accessed on February 16, 2012.
    94. ↑ Austria is rowing back on Ö1 from February 18, 2012, accessed on February 18, 2012.
    95. ^ Trade agreement against counterfeiting and piracy ACTA (PDF) ejpd.admin.ch. May 9, 2012. Archived from the original on July 29, 2012. Retrieved on May 13, 2014.
    96. ↑ European Parliament rejects ACTA at europarl.europa.eu (accessed on June 27, 2013).
    97. ↑ VoteWatch.eu Trade Agreement to Combat Product and Brand Piracy between the EU and its member states, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States of America Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA ( Memento from February 13, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
    98. ↑ The European Commission is unaffected by the ACTA protests . heise online. February 12, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    99. ↑ EU Commission firmly adheres to ACTA . heise online. March 27, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    100. ↑ Reding advocates legal review by ACTA . heise online. February 13, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    101. ↑ Now final: ACTA is history (update) . By Markus Beckedahl, netzpolitik.org Published on: December 19, 2012
    102. ↑ LIVE EC Midday press briefing Daily EU Commission press briefing of 19/12/2012.
    103. ^ Pour Joseph Daul, "ACTA c'est fini" ( French ) cuej.info. February 14, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
    104. ↑ a b Braunschweig Pirate Party: IPRED that is ACTA²
    105. ^ ACTA in the last parliamentary committee , orf.at, June 19, 2012.
    106. ↑ The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde: It's Evolution, Stupid , Wired.com, February 10, 2012.
    107. ↑ Network activist Beckedahl: Acta is coming back - under a new name . In: Frankfurter Rundschau , July 4, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2014. 
    108. ↑ a b EU Commission: CETA is not ACTA. Heise, July 12, 2012, accessed February 3, 2014 .
    109. ↑ a b Canadian-European trade agreement: ACTA reloaded? Heise, July 10, 2012, accessed February 3, 2014 .
    110. ^ The Internet Defense League , last accessed July 21, 2012.
    111. ↑ Eike Kühl: The League of Network Activists. In: The time. July 20, 2012. Retrieved July 21, 2012 .
    112. ↑ Annika Demgen: Anti-ACTA: League for the defense of the Internet founded. In: netzwelt. July 20, 2012. Retrieved July 21, 2012 .