Mr. Martin Bugelli, Head of the European Commission Representation in Malta has kindly given his permission to reproduce this article that appears in today’s Times of Malta. Over the last few days I have been asked for my two cents on ACTA – I have politely refused to comment on the subject (thank you One News and MaltaToday for your interest) for the simple reason that I hate commenting on something that I do not know about. I have finally found time to start reading the text of ACTA – away from the pro- and anti- propaganda currently infesting the net. A little aside: do ignore our friendly PLPN’s posturing on the subject – the less said about them the better.
Back to ACTA. This subject merits our attention for many more reasons than simply “they want to destroy the internet”. The issue is one affecting international law and the very web that holds the global village together. It is about individual rights, corporate interests and who will best represent them. It is about the future of how the rules that bind us will effect us. On the other hand it is nothing new. International agreements have been signed for long before many of us were born. This time though we are armed with that all powerful weapon: information … and it is important to get it right. The interaction between civil society and its representatives is also evolving – we have a duty to work it out civilly and ensure that our prerogatives and freedoms are not abused of. So let’s start with Mr Bugelli’s article. Read it carefully and bear in mind that it is perforce a Commission perspective.
Needless to say that the opinions in the articles are Mr Bugelli’s and do not necessarily reflect J’accuse’s line. Later tonight I have been promised what I am sure will be an interesting perspective from a friend blogger in Estonia. Look out for that too (and if you have not subscribed for J’accuse updates in the mail remember that it is never too late). In the following text I have highlighted sections that I believe are crucial for further discussion.
(F)ACTA – the genuine article (Martin Bugelli)
Each year, we Europeans lose more than €8 billion through counterfeit goods sneaking into our markets, a figure which is steadfastly growing. Intellectual property is Europe’s raw material, the theft of which destroys jobs, harms competitiveness and stifles creativity and innovation.
On the other hand, European consumers should be protected from the potentially harmful effects of poor imitations and fake goods produced on a large scale by unscrupulous pirates of the high seas of trade. Unlike bona fide goods, the stuff supplied by these nefarious operations does not carry with it the responsibilities towards consumers, including the adherence to regulatory standards.
European adherence to the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta) appears to be causing concern, particularly among internet users, possibly due to the lack of knowledge about what it really entails. This is mainly being fuelled by the confusion of Acta with the US’s now shelved Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), against which Wikipedia and Google protested by blacking out their websites for a day last week.
Acta is not Sopa. Acta does not foresee any rules to cut access for citizens to the internet. Acta is not about checking or monitoring your iPod, laptop, e-mails or phone.
It will not censor websites and is not about your shared files on Facebook. Indeed, Acta introduces no new EU legislation, and is definitely not a threat to internet freedom. The allegation that the implementation of Acta shall lead to a limitation of fundamental rights or civil liberties simply has no ground.
Acta is an international agreement (also entered into by Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the US), which concerns procedures and measures to enforce rules which already exist in Europe. It gives holders of intellectual property rights protective tools against large-scale and organised counterfeiting operations. European intellectual property rights owners will see these rights also being upheld in participating countries outside the EU, even where previously they were exposed.
Contrary to some misperceptions being floated, Acta is not just about the internet. It is also about protecting our safety and health. Bogus medicines account for almost 10 per cent of world trade in medicines.
Acta concerns, in equal manner, the European author who is confronted with pirated copies of his or her book outside the EU, or the clothing company that discovers fake reproductions of its lines competing with its genuine products to the detriment of returns on its investment in product development.
The text of Acta has been publicly available since April 2010. It exists online in Maltese and all the other EU official languages. The negotiations for Acta within the EU structures were no different than similar negotiations on any other international agreement. Any intimations of secret proceedings are incorrect. Intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact do not however take place in public and negotiators are bound by a certain level of discretion. Under the Lisbon Treaty and the revised Framework Agreement, there are clear rules on how the European Parliament should be informed of such trade negotiations and these have been followed scrupulously.
The Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, has participated in three plenary debates of the European Parliament, replied to dozens of written and oral questions by MEPs, as well to two Resolutions and one Declaration of the EP. Commission services have also provided several dedicated briefings to MEPs during the negotiations.
The agreement is in line with current EU legislation which fully respects the fundamental rights and civil liberties of its citizens, in particular privacy, freedom of expression and data protection.
In a nutshell, Acta acts against large scale infringements very often being indulged in by criminal organisations. It is by no stretch of the imagination a restriction or control of the private use of the internet by citizens.
The European Commission is actively pursuing and promoting a digital agenda, including the most widespread, efficient and fully available internet for citizens, as a policy priority entrenched as one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 growth strategy.
Mr Bugelli is Head, European Commission Representation in Malta.
4 replies on “Perspectives on ACTA – Martin Bugelli”
The problem with all of this is that the first paragraph is pure mythology. The conflation of the concept of theft with that of IP rule infringement is a fiction perpetrated though the force of repetition by those with vested interest. The idea that copying somehow stifles innovation or creativity is simply untrue. Many scholars have argued, researched and shown that the richest environments for innovation and creativity are where there is unrestricted sharing of the ‘primary material’ of ideas. Indeed it is the enclosing of the Public Domain, and the irrational Patent regime that has for the past few decades the greatest obstacle to innovation. The causal link to the loss of jobs has yet to be demonstrated. Perhaps some re-distributors, and hoarders of IP will loose business, but not the actual creative people.
When a whole policy/agreement is based on a basic misunderstanding of the relationship of technology to creativity and innovation, a misunderstanding that seems to be grounded in a religious belief in Austrian School economics and a mis-reading of Darwin (i.e. that people are biologically selfish and they need to grab and protect any value laden resource) the rest is mere details. ACTA is flawed because it is anti-democratic in the sense that it nowhere reflects the collective will of the well informed public, it is rather totalitarian, because it imposes a narrative and a set of laws which the elite have arbitrarily determined to be good for the people.
Sure, if you’re talking about the arts maybe. But in many industries IPRs drive innovation because without the chance of having sole commercial rights for your product, for a number of years, it would not be worth investing in the development stages.
But the issue being debated is not whether IPRs are good or bad, but whether ACTA is. The arguments going around on the net and now recently in the newspapers have become really boring and many of them are uninformed. Despite having 2,000 + members, no one in the Malta Anti-ACTA facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/284478734946368/) has explained the implications of ACTA from a legal perspective.
From what I can see peoples’ biggest fears are that they are going to be held liable for putting copyrighted pictures on their facebook wall or for using copyrighted music as a background to meme videos. The fear that big torrent and filesharing sites will be shut down is unjustified since Megaupload and others were brought down even before ACTA was enacted.
This is sad since ACTA has some really frightening points such as enabling governments to hold ISPs liable for their subscribers’ use & the vague definition of counterfeit, which can have tremendous implications on the pharmaceutical industry http://jcpronline.com/final/2.%20REVIEW%20ARTICLE%20.koyal%20saini.pdf
J’accuse I’m looking forward to a breakdown of ACTA from an independent & legal perspective!
I agree that a lot of the discussion is ill-informed. That is also a problem with ACTA, it did not come into being in a democratically rasonable manner. But I disagree that it is even possible to discuss if ACTA is good or bad without questioning the idea of IPR in and of itself. If IPR is as important as life itself, then I would be willing sacrifice much in its protection, but if IPR is merly a monopolistic practice in support of an arbitraty small number of industries, then to hell with it.
And no it’s not just in the arts that innovation depends on copying. Sure, industry driven innovation needs monopolies to be financially viable, and subsidies too, but is it possible that with all of humanity’s ingenuity we cannot imagine alternative routes to innovation. Think about it, already most basic sicence (which then these IPR dependant industries exploit) is publicly funded, via universities etc. Is the only way a new medicine can ever be created the route of Big Pharma labwork? Can we not image a wide multi national collaboration (such as the EU’s FP7 tries to promote) between public research institutions, small generic’s pharma, and perhaps charities interested in public health, also being able to come up with new medicine?
Perhaps I am wrong, and IP is part of the unverse’s fabric of being, but unless we are willing to start questioning seriously the true nature and purpouse of IP, expect more and more such frezied lashbacks against attempts to enforce IPR, ’cause its grounding ontology is full of holes.
Martin represents the EU Commission, works for the EU Commission and gets his salary from the EU Commission. It is in his job description to promote the EU Commission’s work in Malta. It is part of his job to say ACTA is not bad. What about generic medicine and the academia who rely on research carried out by others. This is not about internet file sharing. Laws to protect such already exist. Ask the MEP that resigned over this and he will enlighten you how things were conducted in secrecy.