Differences between revisions 43 and 49 (spanning 6 versions)
Revision 43 as of 2009-02-09 12:48:48
Size: 3069
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Revision 49 as of 2009-02-17 14:48:52
Size: 2748
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 4: Line 4:
We call upon the Parliaments of Europe to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It may be the only way to stop silent adoption in the Council. We call upon the Parliaments of Europe to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It may be the only way to stop silent adoption in the Council. 
Line 6: Line 6:
Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating ACTA. No drafts are published. Leaked documents show ACTA will not only target criminal piracy and counterfeiting, but will criminalize plain infringements of copyright and trade mark rights. The drafts also contain very harsh civil measures against plain infringements of so called intellectual property rights. This approach is biased. Copyright, trade mark rights, patents and other rights ban competition. The scope of such rights is often unclear, bona fide infringements occur daily. Whether an act is an infringement or fair competition has to be established in a civil trial. By putting maximum pressure on acts that may still be fair competition, trolls get free reign and companies are chased of the market. This will stifle innovation and competitiveness, limit access to software and medicines. Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating ACTA. No drafts are published. Information surrounding the negotiations shows a too broad definition of piracy is used. As a result, bona fide entrepreneurs and civilians are criminalised, and excessive civil and administrative measures can be invoked against them. This will have far reaching consequences on legal certainty, innovation, competitiveness, freedom of speech and privacy. Trolls will get free reign and companies are chased off the market. ACTA will limit access to medicines, software and the Internet.
Line 8: Line 8:
Media companies may like to chase every kid on the block that shares a music or movie fragment. But this approach crimininalizes journalists that reveal a document as well. ACTA needs scrutiny by all stakeholders, experts and parliaments. It is essential the public and parliaments can scrutinize ACTA. It is unclear whether they will be able to do that. It is unclear whether the final draft will be published prior to Political Agreement in the EU Council. ACTA may pass silently during Parliamentary recess.
Line 10: Line 10:
It is still unclear whether Parliaments will be able to scrutinize ACTA. It is unclear whether the final draft will be published prior to Political Agreement in the EU Council. ACTA may pass silently during Parliamentary recess.

In the EU decisions are normally taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. Preparatory legal texts are published. If full disclosure is not possible, parts are published. Translations are made prior to adoption in the Council. With ACTA, Parliaments and public get nothing. In a Resolution the European Parliament called for disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate.
In the EU decisions are normally taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. Preparatory legal texts are published. If full disclosure is not possible, parts are published. Translations are made prior to adoption in the Council. With ACTA, parliaments and public get nothing. In a Resolution, the European Parliament called for disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate. The Council did not release documents.
Line 16: Line 14:
In order to safeguard transparency and parliamentary legislative power, we call upon the Parliaments of Europe, both the national as the European Parliament, to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations. In order to safeguard transparency and parliamentary legislative power, we call upon the parliaments of Europe, both the national as the European Parliament, to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations.
Line 21: Line 19:
The following vetoes apply to ACTA: We believe that, if ACTA indeed combines a broad definition of piracy with very harsh measures, vetoes should be exercised. The following vetoes apply to ACTA:

(no wiki markup)

We call upon the Parliaments of Europe to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It may be the only way to stop silent adoption in the Council.

Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating ACTA. No drafts are published. Information surrounding the negotiations shows a too broad definition of piracy is used. As a result, bona fide entrepreneurs and civilians are criminalised, and excessive civil and administrative measures can be invoked against them. This will have far reaching consequences on legal certainty, innovation, competitiveness, freedom of speech and privacy. Trolls will get free reign and companies are chased off the market. ACTA will limit access to medicines, software and the Internet.

It is essential the public and parliaments can scrutinize ACTA. It is unclear whether they will be able to do that. It is unclear whether the final draft will be published prior to Political Agreement in the EU Council. ACTA may pass silently during Parliamentary recess.

In the EU decisions are normally taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. Preparatory legal texts are published. If full disclosure is not possible, parts are published. Translations are made prior to adoption in the Council. With ACTA, parliaments and public get nothing. In a Resolution, the European Parliament called for disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate. The Council did not release documents.

In the case of trade agreements, both the EU Member States and the European Parliament have vetoes on aspects of the trade agreement. ACTA's secrecy makes it impossible to assess whether the vetoes apply and should be used.

In order to safeguard transparency and parliamentary legislative power, we call upon the parliaments of Europe, both the national as the European Parliament, to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations.

= Vetoes

We believe that, if ACTA indeed combines a broad definition of piracy with very harsh measures, vetoes should be exercised. The following vetoes apply to ACTA:

+ In so far as ACTA will relate to trade in cultural, audiovisual and educational services, the Member States have a veto.

+ In so far as ACTA will relate to non commercial acts, the Member States have a veto.

+ The Member States have a veto on criminal measures in ACTA.

+ The European Parliament has vetoes if ACTA entails amending an act adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 or if a specific institutional framework is established by instituting cooperation procedures.

Yours sincerely,

acta letter (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:38 by localhost)