After the ninth round of talks between the EU and its ten partners on the draft Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), in late June in Lucerne, Switzerland, Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht was not able to present many advances to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE), on 13 July in Brussels. MEPs are still critical of the opacity of the talks being held behind closed doors since 2008 ⁽¹⁾.

The controversy so far has focused mainly on the alleged determination of the United States and Japan to introduce a penalty mechanism for illegal downloading in the final text, similar to the ‘three-strike’ system (two warnings followed by cut-off of access) chosen by France. European internet service providers are also concerned about being held liable for the actions of their subscribers. “This is not about creating a Big Brother,” affirmed De Gucht, but “establishing essential standards for everything done on internet and in matters of design, the automotive industry, etc,” in order to combat “counterfeiting” worldwide. “The ACTA does not establish what may be implemented but how we can implement what already exists,” he added. The commissioner also noted that the EU’s objective is “to keep to the Community acquis”.

Socialist and Green MEPs repeated their concerns, after the controversy created by the French Hadopi law against online piracy that led the EU to negotiate a compromise on the right of access to the web as part of the telecoms package. These approaches are national and the ACTA does not prohibit them. “The EU may take a stand on this question at some point,” added the commissioner. In today’s context, however, in Belgium for instance, where a three-strike system does not exist, “the ACTA has nothing to implement on this point,” said De Gucht.

Greek Socialist Stavros Lambrinidis voiced another concern: “Will the customs authorities be able to inspect all of travellers’ portable computers and other downloading equipment?” The commissioner’s answer: “We live under the rule of law so this type of measure is banned”.

PROTECTED DESIGNATIONS

De Gucht stressed, on the other hand, the disagreement among the parties on the inclusion of ‘geographical indications’ (or ‘protected designations’) in the ACTA. The United States is opposed. For the commissioner, “if they are not included, I am really going to start wondering about the advantage of such an agreement”. The commissioner also rejected any hindrance to trade in generic drugs. He concluded: “It’s going to take a few more negotiating rounds to make progress”. The next is set for late July in Washington. The EP will have to approve the final agreement.

⁽¹⁾ The ACTA is being negotiated by the United States, the EU, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore and Switzerland