ACTA: Worse Than SOPA and PIPA -
Obama's "Attempt To Foist US Law
22 Jan 2012By Stephen Lendman
Internet freedom's on the line. SOPA and PIPA
threatened Net Neutrality and free expression. So does
ACTA. More on it below.
For now, the largest online protest in Internet
history got Congress to abandon SOPA and PIPA but not
permanently. Expect resurrection in modified form.
Language may change but not intent. ACTA's worse.
Launched on October 23, 2007, America, the EU,
Switzerland and Japan began secretly negotiating a new
intellectual property enforcement treaty - the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Other nations got involved, including Canada,
Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan,
Singapore, and the UAE. Ostensibly for counterfeit
goods protection, it's about fast-tracking Internet
distribution and information technology rules at the
expense of Net Neutrality, privacy, and personal
freedoms.
It establishes unrestricted supranational global trade
rules. In the process, it tramples on national
sovereignty and personal freedoms. Moreover,
negotiations were secret until WikiLeaks reported in
May 2008:
"If adopted, (ACTA) would impose a strong, top-down
enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements
upon (ISPs), including perfunctionary disclosure of
customer information."
"The proposal also bans 'anti-circumvention measures
which may affect online anonymity systems and would
likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players. The
proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing
nations to accept the legal regime." Those opting out
face retaliatory measures.
On April 22, 2010, Electronic Frontier Foundation
writer Gwen Hinze headlined, "Preliminary Analysis of
the Officially Released ACTA Text," saying:
"The text (leaves no doubt) that ACTA is not just
about counterfeiting." It's far more. It covers
copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property
forms, including the Internet.
It's also about the ability of users to "communicate,
collaborate and create" freely. In addition, it
imposes obligations (on) Internet intermediaries
(and), requir(es) them to police" cyberspace and its
users. As a result, it raises serious questions about
open affordable access, free expression, personal
privacy, and "fair use rights."
On May 27, 2011, the Foundation for Free Information
Infrastructure (FFII) said the European Commission
published a final ACTA text with few changes from its
last known version. Since introduced, major media
scoundrels reported little about its destructive
provisions.
Last October, Washington, Australia, Canada, Japan,
Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea
signed ACTA. US deputy trade representative Mariam
Sapiro hailed the occasion, saying:
"As with many of the challenges we face in today's
global economy, no government can single-handedly
eliminate the problem of global counterfeiting and
piracy. Signing this agreement is therefore an act of
shared leadership and determination in the
international fight against intellectual property
theft."
Public Knowledge attorney Rashmi Rangnath called the
deal the Obama administration's "attempt to foist US
law on other countries."
It also broke another candidate Obama promise to "(s)upporte
the principle of network neutrality to preserve the
benefits of open competition on the Internet."
In fact, doing so lawlessly circumvented Congress. On
October 1, 2011, Obama acted by "executive agreement."
He falsely claimed ACTA's not a treaty requiring
Senate approval. Constitutional issues remain
unresolved.
By law, executive agreements apply only to sole
presidential authority issues. Treaties must be
ratified by a two-thirds Senate supermajority. As a
result, a circulating petition demands Senate
consideration. By February 21, 25,000 are needed. So
far, thousands are recorded. Dozens of legal scholars
support it.
So far, the administration's stonewalling. It's
circumventing the law like it always does and breaking
a campaign pledge in the process. Post-SOPA/PIPA,
Obama diktat authority rammed it through illegally.
In contrast, the Mexican Senate rejected it in a
non-binding resolution. On January 26, Poland's Japan
ambassador, Jadwiga Rodowicz-Czechowska, signed it.
It's yet to pass parliament.
Public anger raged across the country against it. The
hacktivist group Anonymous targeted signatory
countries' official web sites. It threatened to reveal
sensitive information about officials in countries
passing it.
Anti-ACTA sentiment affected Poland's parliament.
Opposition MPs wore masks to reflect their refusal to
back it. Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk said
he'll submit the treaty to parliament and sign it
provided "the government is sure Polish law guarantees
freedom on the Internet...."
On January 26, infojustice.org headlined, "EU Signs
ACTA, But Treaty Remains in Doubt," saying:
The European Parliament (EP) has final say.
Consideration begins late February or early March.
Committee voting follows in April or May. In June,
Parliament decides.
After SOPA and PIPA's derailing, expect a close vote.
On January 23, 2012, FFII headlined, "EP (European
Parliament) legal service consistently overlooks known
issues with ACTA," saying:
In a letter to members of the European Parliament,
FFII said:
"The legal service fails to see major issues with
damages, injunctions and provisional, border and
criminal measures. The legal service consistently
overlooks known issues." Clearly, "ACTA goes beyond
current EU law, the acquis."
According to FFII's Ante Wessels:
"ACTA will negatively impact innovation, start up
companies, mass digitization projects, access to
medicines and Internet governance. ACTA threatens the
rule of law and fundamental rights."
FFII asked Parliament to reject ACTA. Issues cited
included:
(1) Violating EU law.
(2) Unjustifiably discriminating. Threatens access to
generic drugs and local foods.
(3) Criminalizes "everyday computer use." Liability
extends to private individuals, newspapers, web sites,
office workers forwarding files or documents, and
whistleblowers revealing information in the public
interest.
(4) Civil measures also apply to the digital
environment. ACTA pressures ISPs to preemptively
censor online communications. It also "incites
privatized enforcement outside the rule of law."
"The ARTICLE 19 organization" said ACTA's
"fundamentally flawed from a freedom of expression and
information perspective. If enacted, it will greatly
endanger the free-flow of information and the free
exchange of ideas, particularly on the internet."
(5) Endangering public health by restricting access to
medicines. It cracks down on generic drugs, makes food
patents more extreme, enforces global standards on
seed patents, empowers agribusiness, and threatens
small farms and food independence.
(6) Global pricing and cultural life issues aren't
addressed.
(7) Violates Article 21 of the Treaty on European
Union (TEU), stating:
"The Union's action on the international scene
shall be guided by the principles (of) democracy, the
rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of
human rights and fundamental freedoms...."
Negotiations were conducted secretly. Civil society,
public interest groups, and legislatures were entirely
shut out. Major decisions were made extralegally. They
violate established laws and fundamental freedoms.
On December 27, 2011, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation said:
ACTA threatens personal and digital freedoms. It
creates an extralegal "global IP enforcement
institution to oversee its implementation." It turns
ISPs into enforcers.
The agreement requires signatories "promote
cooperative efforts within the business community" on
issues regarding copyright and trademark infringement.
As a result, Internet access, censoring, and lost
freedom may result.
"ACTA suffocates collaborative creativity and
innovation, and less explicitly, but just as gravely,
threatens free speech through provisions that may lead
to Internet access restrictions for the 'sake' of
combating 'imminent violation' of intellectual
property laws."
Worst of all, secret negotiations facilitate similarly
drafted future international agreements, benefitting
powerful interests at the expense of personal
freedoms. For ACTA, heavy-handed Washington pressure
forced through draconian provisions.
Civil society organizations are outraged. In addition,
some nations exposed gross political treachery in
back-room dealmaking. For example, Brazil called ACTA
"illegitimate." The Dutch Parliament refused to
consider it. India strongly opposes it. So do other
emerging economies saying it stifles their
development.
Other nations are undecided. They all have until May
2013 to vote up or down. As a result, Washington's
exerting immense pressure to bring opponents on board.
EFF calls back room dealmaking "an affront to a
democratic world order." It's committed to work with
other anti-ACTA groups to defeat ACTA.
The Inquisitr calls the agreement worse than SOPA and
PIPA. It "takes a fairly bland idea - the right of
companies to profit from their own intellectual
property - and turns it into a governmental power grab
and an excuse to weaken" Internet privacy.
La Quadrature du Net (Internet & Libertes) says ACTA
"has absolutely no democratic legitimacy." Unelected
bureaucrats drafted it. It urges mass actions to
defeat it.
A Final Comment
ACTA potentially criminalizes almost anything online.
It lets government and corporate predators censor,
shut down sites, and prosecute owners if they object
to posted content. Imagine the effect on free thought
and opinion.
Criticize government or corporate lawlessness and be
silenced behind bars. That's why stopping ACTA is
crucial. SOPA and PIPA outrage was round one. ACTA's
the main event.
A truth emergency exists. So far, it's mostly below
the radar. Exposing it widely is crucial. Now's the
time to act before it's too late.
Internet freedom's on the chopping block for
elimination unless mass public outrages stops it. EFF
cites other plurilateral deals like the Trans Pacific
Partnership Agreement (TPP). It's more draconian than
ACTA.
Secret negotiations again drafted it. Bureaucrats
alone were involved. Civil society, public interest
groups, and lawmakers had no say.
Internet freedom's on the line. The stakes are
immense. Jefferson understood by saying that:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a
state of civilization, it expects what never was and
never will be."
Now's the time to assure it doesn't happen. Spread the
word! Mobilize! Agitate! Involve Congress! Stop this
monster! It's our Internet! Get in the fight to save
it!
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached
at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog
site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on
the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive
Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and
Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are
archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments