Tag: ACTA

Categories
Internet Rights

The Emperor’s New “Internet Civil Rights”

There seems to be “all-round support for the internet as a civil right” if we are to believe the Times, and we have no reason not to. Lawyer Antonio Ghio described it as “the legal crystallisation of a reality we live in”, which is an interesting statement for many a reason. Ever since PM Gonzi announced “four new civil rights related to online behaviour” there seems to have been much clapping and jumping with enthusiasm. J’accuse has a problem with this enthusiasm – yes we’re going to be the usual wet blanket but we feel duty bound to point at the herd of elephants presently occupying the centre of the debate.

Elephants, might I add, that seem to have escaped everybody’s attention. So here are the questions in short: What exactly are these rights and if we do not know what they are how can we be so bloody enthusiastic about them?

The pseudo-psychological analysis of the situation is simple. “The people” were pissed off about ACTA – all that yada yada about lack of consultation and infringement of rights without actually looking into the darn agreement still gathered momentum. Enter Castille Office’s new technique of tackling complaints yesterday and we get the impromptu promise of “new civil rights”. Which brings us to the first problem… does anybody know what these rights are… and more importantly do we need them?

Mysterious rights you (probably) already have

So what actual facts do we have about these new rights? Well we have a DOI press release (PR0293 – thank you Fausto for the split second research). The rights are mentioned in the introductory paragraph:

Il-Prim Ministru Lawrence Gonzi jemmen li l-aċċess mingħajr xkiel ta’ persuna għall-Internet; id-dritt għall-informazzjoni u l-libertà tal-espressjoni permezz tal-internet; u d-dritt li jiddeċiedi x’informazzjoni jikkomunika huma drittijiet ċivili ġodda li għandhom jidħlu fil-liġijiet ta’ pajjiżna. Għalhekk il-Prim Ministru se jressaq liġi fil-Parlament li tiggarantixxi dawn id-drittijiet ċivili ġodda f’pajjiżna.

There you have it we find a generally worded reference to the four “rights”:

1) a right of unobstructed access to the internet;

2) a right to receive information via the internet;

3) a right to freely express oneself on the internet;

4) a right to decide what information to communicate.

Let us assume that rights two to four overlap insofar as they can be generally summed up as the right to exchange information (send/receive, upload/download) using this technology. That leaves us with the right to access the internet and the right to use it to exchange information. Can someone in their right mind who has been unaffected by this civil right frenzy stand up and tell me which of these rights does not already exist today?

As somebody put it (rightly) – why not introduce the basic civil right to read books, to watch TV and to listen to radio? Do you know why? Because it is already there – in the fundamental rights and freedoms that even our supposedly faulty and archaic laws include. So what is Castille selling?

Well, the people at Castille are not that stupid. If I can get you to believe that I am giving you the right to the air that you breathe and that for that you will be extremely grateful then why not? So who is being a silly ninny then?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

We’ve said it before and we say it again. All too often nowadays we are being besieged by an army of supposed experts wanting to tinker with our legislation. The Franco Debono Reform is fast becoming an example of that. What could start off as a well meaning change ends up becoming a sweeping bungling exercise by the uninformed. And that is dangerous.

The anti-ACTAvists had us all in a twist about strip-searches at the border and Big Brother and Corporate intrusion into our private lives. What almost every indignant ACTAvist missed was the simple point that even if the strip-search myth turned out to be true it would be conducted in order to discover and prosecute an illegality. Downloading bootleg copies is a crime with or without ACTA. Illegal use of the instrument called internet is just as illegal as the illegal use of a book, radio or TV.

The Gonzi Civil Rights are stating the obvious. What they do not do is tell you that you have the right to use the internet illegally. Downloading your favourite Lana Del Ray album from Pirate Bay remains a technical illegality. Caveat pirata. Expression? You have always had the right to express yourself on the internet.. you did not need Gonzi’s 4 rights to do so. Is it clear? For example if you have decided to publish something like “Li Tkisser Sewwi” (or any other literary essay) on your blog you are just as likely to be sued under Maltese laws as you would be if you printed it in pamphlet form.

We should not be confusing the medium with the content. Sure we all want the right to the internet and soon we’ll be claiming for the right to wifi and fast-speed access. But the basic rules of society that have evolved since Socrates and Plato need not change. You have a right to express yourself – from graffitti on a wall to pamphlets to a blog – whether your use of that right impinges on the rights of others is a choice you make and that right has consequences you that you must also consider. I shall never stop repeating it: we are servants of the law so that we may be free (Cicero).

Those who should know

So if Fr Joe Borg is the communications expert he claims he is I expect him to be more clear about this ploy and not call it a “noble and laudable” measure. As for Antonio Ghio, with all due respect, the whole point of the “legal crystallisation of a reality” is that the very crystallisation is futile. You don’t need to be given a right that you already have – unless you mistakenly believe that these new rights will give you something extra.

Which brings me to the masked men and women at MAAG. Here’s Ingram Bondin from MAAG speaking about the rights that aren’t new:

Ingram Bondin, from the Malta Anti-Acta Group, which staged the protest on Saturday, welcomed the initiative, saying the rights were a “step forward for Maltese society”. However, he cautioned that the proposals would not stop opposition to Acta, which was driven by a host of other issues.

A host eh? I’m still waiting for an answer about the Convention on Cybercrime. It’s the kind of convention that shows you the limits of internet rights – particularly because crimes are crimes no matter what the medium. The Convention is a perfect example of the limits to the freedoms (that you already have) on the internet. More particularly take a look at the Protocol on Racism and Xenophobia. Yes, you can express yourself on the internet but that does not mean you can do so illegally.

Same goes with downloading, uploading etc. J’accuse’s conclusion remains the same: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Gonzi’s new “Four Civil Rights for the Internet” are nothing more than a marketing ploy of appeasement. We can afford to say it here because we don’t need to pander to the people for a vote or two. Our spineless opposition is so lost in the knee-jerk pandering to the “civil rights on internet” that it has forfeit any possibility of exposing the Emperor’s latest set of clothes.

 

Categories
Internet Rights

What laws would you sign? International law by plebiscite?

One of the interesting spin-offs of the ACTA controversy is the newly discovered devotion that national representatives have towards what they deem to be “public opinion”. There are undoubtedly a number of factors  that have precipitated this state of affairs. Primary among these is the general feeling of misrepresentation that has increasingly gripped the European demos following the economic crisis. Austerity measures are seen as a direct consequence of mismanagement and decisions taken in the name of the people without their consent. When government start using your money to pay for other people’s (bad) debts then you are bound to explode.

Then came PIPA and SOPA – the US’s attempt at controlling the net as we know it. ACTA “went public” soon after – too soon – and the governments of many countries like Poland and Malta found out that they were signatories of – to put it mildly – not too popular an international agreement. Following the recent fad of playing to the public tune governments such as those in Poland and Malta swiftly backtracked and opened the way for public consultation. Of what? For what? And that is the question. This is an international instrument and agreement that facilitates the cooperation between already existing laws and jurisdictions. And yet, and yet we are suddenly bemused by the whole process of signature and ratification.

How dare Dr Gonzi sign ACTA without consultation? How dare they sign an agreement negotiated in secrecy? Yes how dare the government sign an international agreement without consulting the people?

Excuse me but what the hell is ratification if not the process of obtaining the consent of the people via a parliamentary vote? This is not the first time that our nation becomes signatory to another convention without so much of a squeak from the community. In actual fact were it not for the fuss kicked up about “international corporations and their agenda” we would probably never have heard of ACTA or its signing. Instead now we have the anti-ACTAvists forcing parliament to become an open house of consultation in order to get to the  point where we will have a unanimous show of anti-ACTA hands pandering to public perception. If only all laws were passed in this manner we’d legalise marijuana tomorrow.

Then again how about an example of hypocrisy from the pro-internet freedom crowd. I do not see anyone calling for a public consultation on the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. It’s now 10 years and more since it was originally signed and includes protocols on “hate crime in cyberspace”. On the 17th January 2012 10 years had passed since Malta put its signature on the Convention. For some reason I do not know Malta has not ratified the convention yet but that’s not my point. Here’s article 10 from this convention:

Article 10 – Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the infringement of copyright, as defined under the law of that Party, pursuant to the obligations it has undertaken under the Paris Act of 24 July 1971 revising the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, with the exception of any moral rights conferred by such conventions, where such acts are committed wilfully, on a commercial scale and by means of a computer system.

2 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the infringement of related rights, as defined under the law of that Party, pursuant to the obligations it has undertaken under the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, with the exception of any moral rights conferred by such conventions, where such acts are committed wilfully, on a commercial scale and by means of a computer system.

3 A Party may reserve the right not to impose criminal liability under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article in limited circumstances, provided that other effective remedies are available and that such reservation does not derogate from the Party’s international obligations set forth in the international instruments referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article.

I’d love to hear what the eager legal beavers of the Anti-ACTAvist camp have to say about this particular article. Not to mention the fact that a sufficiently creative mind might even construe the provisions on corporate liability to be a vague attempt at putting the onus of criminal acts on ISP providers. Whoaaaaa… I’ve just read Article 18 and I think you should read it too…

Article 18 – Production order

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to order:

a a person in its territory to submit specified computer data in that person’s possession or control, which is stored in a computer system or a computer-data storage medium; and

b a service provider offering its services in the territory of the Party to submit subscriber information relating to such services in that service provider’s possession or control.

Dare I show you article 19? Sit down. Take a deep breath. We’re entering the territory of vague references to strip searching you for that USB key you keep tightly hidden up your anus…

 

Article 19 – Search and seizure of stored computer data

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to search or similarly access:

(a) a computer system or part of it and computer data stored therein; and

(b) a computer-data storage medium in which computer data may be stored in its territory.

Hmm. I wonder if those scheming corporations have taken over the Council of Europe too? I’ll let you discover the other interesting questions such as “interception of data” or the juicy bit about “extradition” (I wonder if you could get interned into Guantanamo). That’s nothing. Look at the  …

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME, CONCERNING THE CRIMINALISATION OF ACTS OF A RACIST AND XENOPHOBIC NATURE COMMITTED THROUGH COMPUTER SYSTEMS

….  Malta signed this protocol too (28th January 2003) but it has also failed to ratify it. The aim of the protocol is to criminalise acts of racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems (duh). Quite topical no? Here is a sample article (Article 5):

Article 5 – Racist and xenophobic motivated insult

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right, the following conduct:

insulting publicly, through a computer system, (i) persons for the reason that they belong to a group distinguished by race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion, if used as a pretext for any of these factors; or (ii) a group of persons which is distinguished by any of these characteristics.

2 A Party may either:

(a) require that the offence referred to in paragraph 1 of this article has the effect that the person or group of persons referred to in paragraph 1 is exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or

(b) reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, paragraph 1 of this article.

It’s quite a useful instrument especially in this day and age when we seem to be feeling the need for defining such “aggravated” crimes.

Unfortunately Malta has neither ratified the Convention nor of the Protocol. I doubt whether ten years down the line somebody will start yelling about the lack of consultation when Dr Fenech Adami’s government put its signature at the end of both. Why we have delayed ratifying both is a question I’d love to find an answer to. What I’d also like to know is why all the newly discovered legal experts who have summarily judged ACTA’s content have not also been barking and warning about the dangers of some of the provisions in this convention… you never know when it will become law do you! Nor whose behind it (right Mr Scicluna?)

How come this MAAG and other similar groups are suddenly awakened in their V for Vendetta guise challenging this particular agreement and not others? How come nobody has warned against the much more intrusive Convention on Cybercrime?

 

Categories
Internet Rights Politics

Fighting the law and winning – The Imagined Evil

Saturday saw 500 or more (mostly) young people don their Anonymous masks and demonstrate their general anti-ism against ACTA and the international conspiracy of (as Edward Scicluna would have it) the monsters behind it. The interviews posted on the Times of Malta (see video on link) website simply confirmed the blindness of the protesters as interviewee after interviewee regurgitated slogans of the weakest, unfounded kind. There was the geezer who pointed out that we “already have enough regulation of the internet …. case in point the Megaupload case” (my transcription but he did say Caseinpoint).

What effin’ case in point? Kim Schmitz, or as he likes to be known Mr Dotcom the Megaupload magnate was arrested in New Zealand in a raid requested by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. The laws he is alleged to have violated are US laws. This is not one individual trundling through customs with an MP3 player full of (illegally) downloaded music. More to the point the “case in point” relates to events and laws that are not even EU laws let alone Maltese. As I mentioned in the previous post ACTA is doomed for the simple reason that it was badly timed and badly marketed and not for its content.

ACTA has become a parody of itself. It is not just in Malta that ACTA has lost any of its original significance and has been hijacked to become the latest battleground in the battle of perceived injustices and evils. I am still curious about the major assumption being made about the “behind closed doors” drafting of this technical agreement : what now, shall we sit on the desk of lawyers as they draft contracts just in case someone (who?) is arcanely implanting hidden messages ? Who exactly anyway? Is it Opus Dei? The Elders of Zion? Minnie Mouse?

Sure – as in all political issues there are different lobbies with different interests. Sure, the music and entertainment industry would make a pact with the devil  to get their own way if they could. Sure, industrial lobbying always needs to be counterbalanced by pressure groups from civil society. Incidentally has someone bothered to look up the difference between “signature” and “ratification” of an international agreement or did the evil smelly monsters blot out those pages on the internet?

It’s just that this whole business of playing the man not the ball is just as dangerous as any possible fascist law controlling expression… and that is what many are failing to distinguish. The failure to tackle the content of the proposed agreement and the obvious effort to dilute available (free) information with info scaremongering of the cheapest order is just as big an assault on democracy and expression as someone finding the off-switch to the internet. Yes. To all of it.

Categories
Internet Rights

Perspectives on ACTA – Andrei Tuch (Part II)

Andrei continues his reasoned analysis of ACTA, concluding that though it is not evil it must be rejected anyway.

ACTA is not evil : It must be rejected anyway – Part II

In Part I, I described why ACTA is not the intrinsically evil entity that people think it is. In fact, it is a relatively boring and toothless trade agreement that does not place any additional burdens on countries beyond what most signatories already have in their own national legislations.

So, am I going to go and withdraw my signature from the petition to stop ACTA, and tell my MEPs that they are free to vote for it if they can trade that favor for, let’s say, better agricultural subsidy terms for Estonian farmers?
I won’t. While ACTA’s text is nowhere near scary enough to warrant the level of public opposition it has received, the existence of that opposition is in itself a reason to reject the treaty.

As I have said before, if the majority of a democratic society expresses its desire sufficiently unambiguously, then that desire must be implemented, even if it is counter to the prevailing ideology. Governments and legislation exist only because it is not feasible to seek a referendum on each policy decision. At this stage, it would actually be technologically possible, but the general population does not have the time to thoughtfully consider the implications of a matter and arrive at an informed opinion. This is replaced by politicians running on broad platforms, and the people choose the broad direction they feel most comfortable with, then delegate their decision power. But the decision power stems from the people, and if the people actually care about an issue strongly enough, then that overrides the opinions of politicians, and the existing laws of the land.

ACTA is a touchstone issue. The anti-ACTA protests are not the result of the text of ACTA itself, or its implications; they are the result of an attempt to impose outdated behavioral models on an evolved technological world. And while a small layer of specialists may be genuinely worried about things like region-free DVDs or burdens on service providers, the majority of the human force of protesters is worried about something else. Everyone who saw the Wikipedia blackout and called their senator – for them, SOPA/PIPA/ACTA was only the last straw. Their patience was worn down, and their anger slowly built up, by the fight between rights holders and filesharers.

The Internet allows digital content – music, video, text, software – to be copied near-infinitely, at very little incremental cost. This creates a conflict. Consumers would like all content to be available for free. Rights holders would like to receive full retail payment for each created copy. Over the last decade or so, a dynamic balance has been reached. Businesses generally do not use pirated software, and this is heavily enforced. Consumers will prefer to use legitimate software and acquire legitimate content, where it has been made convenient for them, and where the price reflects the fact that the incremental cost of creating and delivering a copy has fallen dramatically since the days of cassette tapes. They do this partially on moral grounds, and partially because they recognize the importance of supporting the content creator. But consumers remain very aware of two things.

  1. The content creator and the rights holder are often different entities. Consumers part with their money far more easily when it goes directly to the content creator (who then covers the expenses of production and delivery out of their revenue, and keeps the profit) than when it goes to a rights holder, who distributes that revenue in opaque ways. Even if the content creator makes a lot of money, people still resent the middleman. There is no sympathy for rights holders.
  2. People are aware that the filesharing alternative exists. Where cumbersome artificial copy-protection measures makelife difficult for legitimate customers, and prices are perceived as being too high, they will turn to torrenting.

The origin of SOPA/PIPA, and the perceived threat of ACTA, is that the rights holders are attempting to legislate away the advances of digital technology, and the de-facto capabilities of consumers. This is why the public opposes ACTA. And the public’s voice must be heard. In a democratic state, if the will of the people is as clear as it has been made with ACTA, governments must submit to it, even if it is contrary to the interests of the rights holders.

If the public feels that intellectual property should not be protected or enforced in the way envisioned by ACTA, that’s just too bad for the rights holders. The public must then deal with the possibility that content will no longer be created if rights cannot be enforced. Implications must not be hidden from the people, and their impact must not be softened. But the will of the people must be paramount.

Digital rights enforcement is broken, and is actively counter to both the will of the people and the technological reality. That is what the web demos are protesting, really. Yes, ACTA was the catalyst because its communication was grossly mishandled, but it does come down to the issue that modern technology allows for free content distribution, and the rights holders have mostly chosen to ignore the change in technology and attempt to enforce outdated business models through legislative means.

It’s the same as the War on Drugs in that sense; if everyone is smoking weed, it’s stupid to put people in jail for carrying a joint. If everyone is downloading, it’s stupid to put people in jail for downloading.

One of the most preposterous things is that the issue has been successfully resolved for a different medium (analog-media copying) and works today. There was a hidden tax on every blank cassette tape and VHS tape sold, and that money was divided amongst rights holders. Even before that, there was the radio fee distribution scheme – radio stations pay to broadcast music, as do public venues that play music through their in-house audio systems. The equivalent solution – long since proposed and already adopted by some EEC members and other countries – is to place a flat levy on Web access, as payment for the implied piracy. This produces far less revenue for rights holders than they would like, but it resolves the moral issue while protecting the rights of consumers.

There are compromises to be made in the fight against piracy. As for ACTA, it is an issue of democracy. Because the people have chosen to reject it, and made their opinions heard, the politicians must reject it as well.

My signature is still on the petition.

Categories
Internet Rights

Perspectives on ACTA – Andrei Tuch

The J’accuse impromptu ACTA series continues. I knew that when I asked (provoked?) fellow blogger Andrei for his ideas on ACTA that I would not be short-changed. Based in Estonia Andrei describes himself as a “technical writer, freelance translator, standup comedian, occasional journalist, all too rarely blogger, wannabe exegete”. Here is the first part of his take on all things ACTA. The title of his post (ACTA is not Evil: It should be rejected anyway) is pretty much a very concise summary of the hunch I have been gathering over the past few days. In my case it’s an uninformed hunch. Andrei grounds his argument with reason backed up by research. Feel free to debate. Civilly. Thank you again Mr Tuch.

ACTA is not Evil: It should be rejected anyway (Andrei Tuch)

There has been plenty of noise on the Internet about ACTA, the treaty that includes provisions on regulating copyright infringement on the Internet. There is a lot of criticism, but most of it is emotional and confusing. A fellow Euroblogger, looking for clarification on the meaning of ACTA, contacted me and asked if I had actually read the full text.

I hadn’t. So I did.

A few disclaimers to begin: I Am Not A Lawyer. I am, however, interested in European affairs and technology politics; I have been asked to comment on politics before, by press and official organizations; and by occupation I am a technical writer and translator. Some people pay me to read complicated legal texts, understand what they mean, and recreate that meaning very accurately in a different language. Other people pay me to take complicated ideas and concepts, and explain them in simple, understandable ways. They keep paying me, so I guess I’m good at it. (If any lawyers are reading this and have substantial objections to my analysis, I’d love to talk to you in the comments!)

The text of ACTA that I am using is this one: http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/acta/Final-ACTA-text-following-legal-verification.pdf. There are many versions and drafts of ACTA around. That one appears to be the final one that’s being signed. I will quote relevant bits of text, but in any case I encourage you to go and read the source. By the standards of international treaties, ACTA is very understandable and unambiguous.

Most of ACTA’s text is actually about counterfeit trademark goods – things like knock-off designer handbags and fake name-brand sneakers. I will disregard all of that, and just focus on things that have to do with the Internet. (None of the stuff about knock-off handbags and sneakers is objectionable, it’s all about seizing shipments and border controls.)

Got that? OK.

First, the good news:

ACTA does not supersede national legislation. It is an international treaty under the umbrella of the World Trade Organization. It is not a law of the land in the same way that SOPA/PIPA was in America. It has very specific language to this effect, in Article 3:

“This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions in a Party’s law governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights. […] This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under its laws and regulations. […] In implementing the provisions of this Chapter, each Party shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties, and the applicable measures, remedies and penalties.”

In the text of ACTA, some paragraphs say “shall” and some say “may”. For the latter, the country gets to decide if those will be implemented in its own legislation. Each country is explicitly permitted to have exceptions in its own legislation, choosing not to make certain activities illegal. This is part of the opening paragraphs, the context for everything that follows. Also pay attention to the principle of proportionality. In America, where massive civil lawsuits result in disproportionate financial settlements, the principle of proportionality does not seem to be widely upheld. In Europe – and particularly in Estonia, where many have complained about overly lenient prison sentences for crimes such as rape and murder – a specific reference to proportionality is very soothing to individual Internet users.

ACTA does not turn individual pirates into criminals. Even if it is accepted as written and the country does not claim an exception under its own laws. There are two relevant sections here: Chapter II, Section 2 “Civil Enforcement” and Section 4 “Criminal Enforcement”. Under the latter, Article 23 says:

“Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale. For the purposes of this Section, acts carried out on a commercial scale include at least those carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage.”

ACTA requires each country to criminalize companies such as Megaupload (which was making a profit directly out of copyright infringement) and the sort of counterfeit software shops that Estonia used to have in the late 90s-early 2000s, where people were actually selling CDs and DVDs of software – making money out of it. As written, ACTA’s criminal enforcement articles would not even apply to The Pirate Bay, which does not make money from copyright infringement (it takes donations and sells merchandise with its own logo, demonstrably only making enough money to cover its operational expenses – a non-profit organization, not operating on a commercial scale). These provisions certainly do not apply to individual downloaders, for whom no money ever changes hands while they torrent.

ACTA does not place unreasonable burdens on service providers. The American version, SOPA/PIPA, scared the likes of Google and Wikipedia because it would have made it possible for rights holders to force-close websites for something as small as a visitor posting a link to unlicensed media in a comment box, and because it would have forced ISPs – the companies that provide Internet connections to homes and offices – to actively hide websites, effectively censoring content. All of this would be done without any involvement by courts, and without any ability to challenge the rights holders’ claims. But in ACTA, there is specific language to prevent this. In Article 6:

“These procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse.”

And in Article 27:

“These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with that Party’s law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.”

Again, ACTA leaves a lot of room for countries to individually decide what constitutes a barrier, an abuse and a fair process.

ACTA does not introduce limits that are not already in Estonian legislation, nor in any Western country’s legislation, I suspect. The Estonian government already released a statement saying nothing in Estonian law or practice would have to change because of ACTA. The test case for this is Estonia’s filesharing loophole: it is technically illegal (though rarely prosecuted) to upload unlicensed content, but if you’re only downloading a copy and not allowing anyone else to copy it off you, then you’re fine. From ACTA’s most draconian part, Article 27 paragraph 7b:

“to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast, communicate, or make available to the public copies of works, performances, or phonograms, knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.”

You will note that it says distribute, but not acquire. The loophole stands.

Now for the bad news. There are two parts of ACTA that can justifiably make the Internet public nervous.

The first is Article 27, which requires countries to have legislation against copyright offenses on the Internet. However, this is about circumvention – actively removing copy-protection from works, and does not cover using works with it already removed for personal purposes. (You can’t crack a game, but you can download and play a cracked one, if you set your torrent client’s upload speed limit to zero.) It is also about making circumvention measures available – but not using them. (Building a keygen or a cracked EXE file for a game is illegal; downloading that EXE and using it on your own computer is not.) This is where you have to do some soul-searching. Will the Internet really be destroyed if the people who create copy-protection workarounds are declared criminals? Remember that a) they already have been under most national legislations and ACTA does not introduce any new measures to find them, b) they are few and far between, and c) as a group they have stayed anonymous very effectively until now, and will probably stay anonymous if ACTA passes.

Article 27 also makes distributing that content illegal. You are liable for uploading content, including participating in BitTorrent file-sharing the way it is meant to work – not just receiving data, but sending it to others as well. But remember that this is merely illegal, not criminal; and that ACTA leaves room for countries to decide just how much they care about stopping you from doing it.

The other disturbing part of ACTA is in Chapter II, Section 2 “Civil Enforcement”, Article 9. Without quoting the full text (go and read it!), this introduces the rights holders’ favorite idea: that civil damages from copyright infringement should be measured in the retail cost of a single copy of the content, multiplied by the number of copies made. Or, for a single filesharer, the sum of the retail prices of all songs, movies, games etc. found on their computers. This obviously is to the benefit of the rights holders, letting them demand more money. It is also completely, self-evidently idiotic to anyone who has studied even the simplest, most basic level of economics, the elasticity of demand. Actually, it’s intuitively idiotic to anyone who has ever made a purchasing decision when they wanted two things and only had enough money for one.

When a type of product is available for free, and is easy to get, then people will get any item that seems even the least bit interesting. Digital content that you will end up not liking doesn’t even take up room in your closet, so there isn’t even an opportunity cost to stop you from getting it. And since downloading a file doesn’t mean someone else is deprived of the ability to use that file – perfect copies are created without damaging the original – there is no low-level moral argument against downloading, like there is against stealing an apple from a tree in your neighbor’s garden. But if you have to give up some of your money in exchange for digital content, then you will simply get a lot less of that content, because your money is limited, and there are a lot of things which you would like to have more than music or movies that aren’t very interesting to you.

The revenue that rights holders lose to digital piracy is not equivalent to the sum retail price of all existing pirated copies. They would never have sold that many copies. To claim otherwise is disingenuous on the part of the rights holders, and this is the main reason why normal people – not zealots who believe all information must necessarily be free – have no sympathy for the rights holders.

And normal people are the ones who matter. That is why ACTA – which is not evil, nowhere near as destructive as SOPA/PIPA, and in fact a boring trade agreement that does not change anything significant in any participating country’s legislation – must be rejected.

But this article is long enough already, so you’ll have to wait for Part II to read what I mean by that. (Sorry, Jacques, I know it was the second part you really wanted me to write today, but I got carried away!)

But this article is long enough already, so you’ll have to wait for Part II to read what I mean by that. (Sorry, Jacques, I know it was the second part you really wanted me to write today, but I got carried away!).
This post first appeared on Andrei’s blog: blog.antyx.net
Categories
Internet Rights

Perspectives on ACTA – Martin Bugelli

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.