The hot-button issue of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) not being transparent became a major issue again recently. Three senators are demanding that ACTA be made more transparent and that it wouldn’t undermine congress’s ability to govern.
Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter issued an open letter to Susan Schwab today regarding ACTA, a controversial international agreement that has, so far, remained secret to the general public.
“Protecting intellectual property through better international coordination and improved standards of enforcement abroad is a valuable pursuit. We have steadfastly supported funding in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to assist foreign countries in combating the piracy of U.S. intellectual property rights. A top priority of ours in this Congress is legislation to provide greater tools and resources for law enforcement to combat intellectual property theft,” the senators wrote, “and to improve coordination of such efforts within the Federal government. We are disappointed that the Administration has been resistant to this effort and has opposed additional enforcement authority, such as civil enforcement in copyright cases where the violation rises to the level of criminal activity.”
The letter (PDF) continues:
We are concerned, however, that the ACTA under consideration will prescribe rules for protection so specifically that it could impede Congress’s ability to make constructive policy changes in the future. Our concern that ACTA, if not drafted with sufficient flexibility, could limit Congress’s ability to make appropriate refinements to intellectual property law in the future is institutional and one that we raised when the United States Senate implemented the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement. It is compounded in this situation by the lack of transparency inherent in trade negotiations and the speed with which the process is moving.
Regarding the potential breadth of ACTA, we strongly urge you not to permit the agreement to address issues of liability for service providers or technological protection measures. The contours of the law and liability exposure in these areas continue to be debated in the courts and in Congress. As technology is not static, Congress must have the ability to tailor the law as developments warrant without concern that a change may run afoul of ACTA.
Documents about ACTA were leaked early on this year which sparked major criticism against the legislation – namely its contents. Just a few months ago, another ACTA leaked on Wikileaks, confirming (as good as a confirmation ever got so far) many of the suspicion around the treaty and what it would do to several countries legal system. Reports indicate that the controversy was sufficient to stall the legislation, though the plans were to have the talks completed by the end of the year still. Last month, over a hundred organizations called for ACTA to be made public. In the United States, calls were so strong to make ACTA public, it sparked a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the government from US advocacy organizations.
Hat tip: Public Knowledge
Tags: acta, counterfeit, piracy, us
Loading ...
