Jennie Andrews

Issues Assignment
December 1, 2016

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Two Opposing Views Affecting Libraries

The controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has incited international

contention since 2007. This failed, legal proposal has invested parties with two distinct opposing

views, those who supported the legislation and a mobilized global community that vehemently

opposed ACTA. It is important for librarians to fully understand the historical significance of

ACTA as well as any changes within the political landscape that threaten equitable access to

information in the future.

According to J.J. Simons, The export of intellectual property is believed to be one of the

most important economic factors in the future of the United States (67). Piracy in the music,

entertainment and software industries has significant economic concerns that warrant a solution-

focused approach. The United States coordinated international discussion committees to

investigate possible solutions and curtail piracy on an international scale. Committee members

signed nondisclosure agreements in efforts to protect each countrys national security. These

discussions lead to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Individuals, companies and institutions that take advantage of counterfeited products

would be subject to criminal penalties. This regulation of intellectual property would criminalize

infringement on a global scale. Several countries, including the U.S., European Union, Japan,

South Korea, Canada, Mexico, and New Zealand met in October 2007 to officially negotiate

ACTA. Talks began in June 2008 in Geneva, Switzerland. Committee members included

representatives from governments as well as private sector companies with vested interests in
this legislation. Sony, IBM, Warner Brothers and other major corporations were included in the

ACTA negotiations. The committees met four times in 2008 and twice in 2009. The United

States, Australia, Canada, Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Morocco, and Singapore signed the

agreement in Tokyo, Japan on October 1, 2011.

ACTA was first initiated in The United States. Manta details how the Obama

Administration supported ACTA through a published official government report, or white paper,

detailing recommendations to increase criminal sanctions for a number of different IP

offenses(2011).

The US initiation of ACTA is not surprising. Both the US and the global economy have a

vested financial need for intellectual property rights enforcement. Simmons lists The United

States Information Agencys persuasive arguments detailing why all countries should secure

these protections (Simmons).

Multinational companies that need intellectual property protection for their

products are reluctant to locate in countries that do not offer this type of protection. It is

hard to imagine, for example, a record company locating a CD manufacturing plant in a

country that does not offer adequate protection against record piracy.

Many companies that deal in intellectual property are reluctant to distribute in

countries that do not protect intellectual property. If their property cannot be protected,

they will frequently refuse to license legitimate distributors and will simply ignore the

market. This means that legitimate channels of distribution will not develop inside the

country.

The market of a country that does not protect intellectual property will tend to be

flooded with inferior illegitimate products. If legitimate producers of intellectual property

 stay out of a market because their products are unprotected, the products available in the

market will frequently be of inferior quality. Thus, while the availability of pirated

products may seem an economic advantage in the short term, in the long term it will

inevitably impede a countrys development.

Compliance with requirements of international law for the protection of

intellectual property is important not only if a country wants to be a participating member

of the world community but also if the country wishes to avoid trade sanctions that can

have an economic impact on trade far beyond the boundaries of intellectual property

industries.

If a country does not protect intellectual property, it is far less likely that it will

develop its own intellectual property industries. The encouragement and development of

local authors and inventors depends to a great extent on their ability to earn a living from

their work. Without such protection, local intellectual property is less likely to be created,

and the developing country may be permanently relegated to the role of net importer of

intellectual property.

The list above details the specific international needs for piracy protection. Developing countries

are the most at-risk without sanctions in place. Creators are less likely to distribute without

intellectual rights protections and companies are less likely to become economically involved if

they are unable to protect their financial investments.

This economic need prompted many corporations to encourage ACTA legislation.

Supporters included book publishers, media companies, recording industries, pharmaceutical

companies, movie studios and TV networks. Smith states that copyright owners no longer have a

distinct monopoly on high quality digital reproductions. Computers allow users access to easily
reproduce digital artifacts. According to Smith, The argument is that without security for

economic rewards, there would be little incentive to innovate within a capitalist society (426).

It is also important to note that many individual copyright holders supported ACTA. They

needed infringement reform to protect their intellectual property. Legal actions against online

infringement were difficult. The procedures are long, expensive and the outcomes are

uncertain (Baraliuc, Depreeuw, & Gutwirth, 92). The government could reform these negative

concerns by allowing ISPs to monitor and police infringements. Floridi noted that Some Online

Service Providers supported ACTA. They would have legal justification to collect unfettered

data. This would provide the Online Service Providers with fantastic data analytics for targeted

advertising (170).

While closed, international ACTA negotiations were ongoing, The US House of

Representatives submitted a similar Bill for US domestic policy. Although this Bill was

unaffiliated with ACTA, it politically connected both controversial topics. This lead to the

downfall of both propositions. Farrand explains how the United States Stop Online Piracy Act

(SOPA) was a key development that resulted in the international outrage against ACTA. This Bill

contained a provision that would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to

websites used to infringe copyright or trademark(508). The ISPs were concerned as well. This

Bill would legally require Internet Service Providers to gather private data and police their own

customers.

Thousands of websites collaborated on January 18, 2012 and staged a collective black

out. Sites such as Wikipedia, Google and Reddit were no longer available to the global public.

Users were met with a black home page with white lettering. A notice explained their protest
reasoning and encouraged the public to contact their US government representatives. This digital

protest informed Europeans of the issues concerning SOPA and ACTA.

The possibility of online policing infuriated the opposition as it would affect internet

users worldwide. Millions of people did not support ISP monitoring. ACTA was meant to ensure

more effective enforcement of those rights already provided (Mercurio, 4). It was not meant to

infringe upon citizens privacy or access to information. The secretive nature of ACTAs policy

and lack of transparency concerned many protesters. Although intentions were never publically

acknowledged to include any nefarious plans, concerned citizens interpreted this differently.

Europeans were outraged by these policies. Polands citizens were the first to mobilize an

international protest. According to Merccea & Funk, Social Media content such as tweets,

twitter hashtags, YouTube videos, Facebook groups and pages seemed to act as a lifeline to

protests, connecting disparate demonstrations into a scalable network that materialized on the

streets (Mercea & Funk 289). Less than a month later street protests had been globalized on

February 11, 2012. Activists utilized social media to assemble demonstrations. 25,000 German

protesters flooded the streets to rally against ACTA. Thousands of other concerned protesters met

across several different EU countries.

One significant issue protesters were concerned for was SOPAs ambiguity. Leaked

documents confirmed ACTAs policy was similarly vague and could be interpreted harshly by

intolerant countries wishing to suppress access to information.

Many protesters were worried about how Internet Providers would regulate infringing

content using the three strikes rule. Smith explained how this rule would affect the collective

population. for example, [if] one person in the household at a particular Internet address file

shared copyrighted material, ISPs would also have to enforce what is known as provisions for
notice and takedown (Smith 423). Once this occurred three times at the same internet address

the IP would have the legal right and responsibility to deny Internet access. This would affect all

users that share one online access point. For example, whole families would be denied access if

one family member was continuously accused of infringement. Baraliuc argued that ISPs cannot

distinguish between lawful and unlawful content which might lead to the blocking of legitimate

communications (4). These restrictions would invade the rights to privacy, personal data, and

access to information.

Understanding both viewpoints concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is

especially important for librarians. Laws and copyrights should be applied as well as respected.

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) identifies that

Libraries play an essential role in fostering equitable access to information and cultural

expression while ensuring compliance with copyright principles and regulations within their

communities (IFLA). All library patrons have a right to be free from unreasonable intrusion into

the surveillance of their lawful library use. Many people believed that ACTA endangered

equitable access to information, privacy and ultimately freedom of speech. It is imperative for

librarians to stay informed and voice their opinions concerning current and future policies that

affect librarianship.

Smith noted that the Australian Library and Information Association as well as many

other concerned groups collectively submitted their concerns about ACTA enforcement. Their

official submission included the need for transparency and accountability in negotiations,

presumption of innocence, the need to balance the rights of owners and users and to avoid

promoting a surveillance culture, and the need for safeguards against liability for intermediaries

such as educational institutions, libraries, and ISPs (Smith 433-34).

 Institutional liability is a grave concern. The three strikes rule could eliminate Internet

access to entire populations due to infringement, and censorship of online information. School

libraries and educational facilities could limit the use of copyrighted works for school

assignments and projects such as textbooks, documents, movies, and photographs. Charlton

predicts that libraries could be required to install expensive monitoring equipment to monitor

their networks for copyright infringement and essentially look over the shoulders of users

seeking information(14).

In light of ACTAs legislation, Bitton encourages librarians to initiate educational

campaigns that will educate patrons on copyrights. They should also address and cope with

peoples perceptions regarding copyright owner's economic motives and deal with the injustice

allegations commonly raised regarding copyright protection (Bitton, 67). These educational

campaigns would serve as a valuable alternative to criminalization.

IFLA submitted a formal statement detailing their defined position concerning the Anti-

Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The IFLA understands and respects the role that copyright plays in information creation

and dissemination around the world. IFLA recognizes that copyright grants creators and

content providers certain rights to the commercial exploitation of information and

cultural expression, but also believes that these exclusive economic rights must be

balanced by fair limitations and exceptions as well as access to the public domain in

order to allow for a vibrant civil society...In this spirit, IFLA is concerned that the recent

non-transparent negotiations regarding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

pose a threat to the balance of copyright. (IFLA)

In other words, the IFLA respects copy rights and advocates for a balanced limitations. The IFLA

is also uneasy concerning ACTA due to the secrecy involved during negotiations.

The IFLA also voiced their concerns pertaining to the possible inequitable access to

information.

commend[s] international efforts to combat commercial counterfeiting, especially in

situations where such counterfeiting places the public's health and safety at risk. IFLA is

deeply troubled by reports emerging from the ongoing negotiations surrounding ACTA.

These reports suggest that ACTA's objectives and methods endanger the balance of

copyright, and seriously conflict with the library community's commitments to equitable

access to information and cultural expression. (IFLA)

The IFLA report expressly supports efforts to reduce counterfeiting but conversely opposes

infringement upon their patrons rights.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an excellent example of how governmental

policies can be challenged when global communities protest collectively. Extensive news

coverage shared the protesters concerns and ultimately impacted legislation. The European

Parliament rejected the treaty by a landslide. Although many countries previously signed the

treaty, none have ratified its enforcement. Unfortunately, copyright infringement and piracy

continue to impact world economies. Lawmakers continue to search for solutions for protecting

the global economy and copyright ownership according to Fair Use guidelines. The Anti-

Counterfeiting Trade Agreement can be considered an excellent worldwide learning opportunity.

Social media has connected interested parties across the globe. These technological tools make it
easier to mobilize political engagement and stand up against polarizing legislation such as those

that threaten fundamental rights and civil liberties.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement attempted to meet the needs of copyright

holders and support global economic stability. Opposing populations believed the ACTA

negotiations would result in the infringement of their civil liberties. When laws are used to

control behavior, they can give special interests groups or organizations unfair advantages.

Bureaucratic failures ensue when those involved attempt to control the outcome for economic

agendas. In order to preserve intellectual property rights, legislation should uphold and protect

fundamental rights among both consumers and producers. Legislators need to consider and

respect all citizens viewpoints before initiating governing laws or doctrines. It is crucial for

librarians to fully understand the historical significance of political agendas that threaten

unbiased access to the full range of human expression.

Works Cited

ACTA Statement. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions , The

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions , 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 28

Nov. 2016.

Alin, Speriusi-Vlad. "General Guidelines Concerning The Relation International Intellectual

Property Business Versus Human Rights And Civil Liberties." Annals Of The University

Of Oradea, Economic Science Series 23.1 (2014): 50-57. Business Source Complete.

Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Baraliuc, I. et al. Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Age: a Post-ACTA View on the
 Balancing of Fundamental Rights. International Journal of Law and Information

Technology, 21.1(2012): 92104. Print.

Bitton, Miriam. "Rethinking The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement's Criminal Copyright

Enforcement Measures." Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology 102.1 (2012): 67-117.

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Charlton, John. IFLA Raises Concerns About ACTA. Information Today, June 2012:14-15.

Print.

Farrand, Benjamin. Lobbying and Lawmaking in the European Union: The Development of

Copyright Law and the Rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Oxford

Journal of Legal Studies, 35.3 (2015): 487514. Print.

Floridi, Luciano. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: the Ethical Analysis of a Failure,

and Its Lessons. Ethics and Information Technology, 17.2, (2015): 165173. Print.

Manta, Irina D. "The Puzzle Of Criminal Sanctions For Intellectual Property Infringement."

Harvard Journal Of Law & Technology 24.2 (2011): 469-518. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Mercea, D., and A. Funk. The Social Media Overture of the Pan-European Stop-ACTA Protest:

An Empirical Examination of Participatory Coordination in Connective Action.

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies,

22. 3 (2014): 287312. Print.

Mercurio, B. Beyond the Text: The Significance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Journal of International Economic Law, 15. 2 (May 2012): 361390. Print.

Simmons, J.J. Cooperation and Coercion: The Protection of Intellectual Property in Developing
 Countries. Bond Law Review, 11.1 (1999): 57-97. Print.

Smith, Peter Jay. Speaking for Freedom, Normalizing the Net? Journal of Information

Technology &Amp; Politics, 10.4 (2013): 423443.Print

Zavin J and Martin SM. The Value of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in

Developing Countries. Economic Perspectives: A USIA Electronic Journal (1997).

USIS.Web.