Nära hundra lobbyorganisationer vill se ”Ja till ACTA”
Efter de massiva protesterna mot ACTA-avtalet från medborgare runt om i Europa har den europeiska industrin sedan några veckor tillbaka gjort sitt bästa för att slå tillbaka. Senast igår skickade CISAC (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers) ett mail till EU-Parlamentarikerna där de bifogade ett dokument betitlat ”Joint Yes to ACTA” som nu blivit undertecknat av nära hundra olika branschorganisationer för rättighetsinnehavare.
Bland det glada gänget av undertecknare ingår kända ”människorättskämpar” som exempelvis IFPI. Nästan alla de organisationer som skrivit under dokumentet var också med och påverkade utformningen av ACTA-avtalet under bl.a. åren 2008-2009, exempelvis FEP, INTA, BASCAP, BIEM, EPC m.fl. (leta upp dem här för att se vad som gömmer sig bakom förkortningarna).
I förmiddags passade Carl Schlyter på att skriva ett svar;
Thank you for your letter but I do not agree. I think ACTA has been a bigger attack on the EP since we were excluded from the process. The fact that thousands of concerned citizens have expressed their wishes and actively participated in democracy brings me great joy, and I can tell you 100% of the citizens contacting me are against ACTA. ACTA has been kept out of normal democratic procedures within WIPO, WTO and strongly been avoiding a public debate. 91% of invited organizations are beneficiaries of ever harsher IPR-regimes, the ISP:s and other economic interests that might be troubled by ACTA have had less influence, and the general public no influence at all, something they even shared with the EU data-protection officer.
If you support facts and are against misinformation why do you then state ACTA, does not change EU law? Most experts agree that it will have an impact on EU-law and especially its implementation. And even if ACTA signatories represent approximately 50% of world trade it only covers about 5% of where the IPR-infringements are made. According to EP own study it has”No significant benefit for the EU-citizens”.
You write ”The ACTA treaty sends an important message to third countries and to Europe’s workforce that our rights must be protected in practice, and that Europe will not fall behind other countries in this regard” I think this is a highly undemocratic way to force them to accept the ACTA conditions in bilateral agreements that will follow ACTA. Since you claim ACTA will not change the EU-law the ”benefit” must be that it changes non-ACTA signatory countries, by imposing ACTA later in bilateral agreements. I think our image as a reliable trade partner will be more damaged by confiscating ever more legal generic drugs in transit through EU, which is a risk with ACTA.
ACTA:s changes to current EU-law or practice will redefine definition of commercial scale, calculation of damages and technological avoidance of DRM. Additionally it will put a bigger burden on customs to spend more time looking for trademark violations, but who will pay?
I am also worried about the B2B co-operation mentioned regarding internet and the risks this poses to undermining already agreed standards on protecting citizens rights. ACTA do not have any balance whatsoever between your interests and other more fundamental values about an open and free society. I also find it a highly undemocratic way to change/impose criminal law.
I am willing to discuss how we can increase innovation, new models for getting paid for creative works and protect EU-citizens from dangerous false goods, in public! But scrapping ACTA first is a necessary condition for a useful dialogue about mechanisms for promotion of creativity.