TACD Fights ACTA on "IPRs"

One of the frustrating aspects about the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) is that it is a cosy club of rich and powerful nations plus a few of their equally rich and powerful chums in select industry. Meanwhile, hoi polloi - that's you and me - don't get a look in, even though we are the most affected.

So I was delighted to find that a group of like-minded consumer organisations are not only getting together, but starting to stand up for us on this important issue. Behold the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue:

is a forum of US and EU consumer organisations which develops and agrees joint consumer policy recommendations to the US government and European Union to promote the consumer interest in EU and US policy making.

...

The TACD working group on intellectual property was created in 2001. The European Co-Chair of the working group is Jill Johnstone of Consumer Focus in the UK. The US co-chair is James Love of Knowledge Ecology International. The TACD IP working group staff expert is Anne-Catherine Lorrain.

It has now put out a Resolution on the enforcement of copyright, trademarks, patents and other intellectual property rights. Here's what the TACD says about it:

The TACD Resolution comes at a time when governments in Europe and North America are considering a wide range of new global standards for IP enforcement. Among those new norms are the proposed “Anti-Counterfeiting” Trade Agreement (ACTA) [On April 6, 2009, USTR released a detailed summary of the current state of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/factsheets/2009/asset_upload_file917_15546.pdf], new customs procedures through the World Customs Organization (WCO), anti-Counterfeiting measures at the World Health Organization (WHO), WTO disputes over enforcement, proposals in Europe for “graduated response” and other Internet filtering solutions, several European Union Directives and bills pending before the U.S. Congress and other countries on the topic of IP enforcement, bilateral trade agreements, and unilateral trade sanctions by Europe and the United States.

The 2,000 word TACD Resolution touches on a wide range of topics relating to IP enforcement policies and practices, ranging from transparency, evidence and process, to both general and detailed recommendations on substantive policies. TACD first discussed the Resolution with representatives from the European Union and the U.S. Government on June 9, 2009, during the TACD 10th Annual Meeting in Brussels.

The resolution itself is pretty sensible, requesting "Transparency and Openness", "Evidence and Analysis" amongst other things. As for ACTA, here's how it starts:

There should be no further meetings on the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty until the EU and the US publish the full text of all negotiating documents, and agree to additional transparency measures, including the accreditation of consumers and/or their representatives as observers.

The term "counterfeit" should not be used to describe activities relating to the mere infringement of copyrights or trademarks where there is no intent to deceive or any likelihood of confusion as to the authorized manufacturer, distributor or provider of the service. Possible patent infringements should not be referred to as counterfeits.

It would be too much to expect the ACTA participants to pay much attention, but it takes things up yet another notch; one day, the pressure will be too much, and something will have to give.

Intellectual Monopolists on the Back Foot

Given the constant cacophonous blaring of propaganda from the intellectual monopoly lobby, it's sometimes hard to tell whether we're making any progress in opening people's eyes to the evils of this approach. But here's heartening evidence from those same monopolists that we're having a big effect:

In October, US Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue announced that the GIPC, which had previously been focused on counterfeiters, would rise to the challenge of what the chamber characterised as a “second threat [from] a growing movement of anti-IP activists drawn from universities, foundations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), ideologically driven interest groups, and even governments.”

These anti-IP activists, the chamber said, were annually spending tens of millions of dollars on an agenda to minimise intellectual property rights.

This is extraordinary. It equates those who wish - legitimately - to minimise intellectual monopolies as the moral equivalents of counterfeiters. In other words, the intellectual monoplists seem to regard *any* threat to their fat-cat lifestyle as illegal, almost by definition.

The good news is that by identifying those against intellectual monopolies as this "second threat" on a par with counterfeiting is proof of just how successful we are becoming.

We are winning, people: spread the word - and up the pressure. (Via Techdirt.)

ACTA of Hypocrisy

I've written several times about the mysterious Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which is currently being negotiated behind closed doors, with little or no input from proles like you and me. Despite efforts to present us with a fait accompli, it seems that the Very Important People who are working on this are getting slightly rattled by the increasing criticism of both the process and the likely result.

For the fine site Digital Majority has managed to get its mitts on a leaked document put together by the European Commission in a desperate attempt to head off that growing discontent.

You can read the whole thing here, as well as Digital Majority's useful analysis. Basically, it's a case of the lady protesting too much: earnestly assuring us that it doesn't intend to bring in a shopping list of legal nasties - criminalisation of infringement, summary injunctions for those *suspected* of infringing, "three strikes and you're out", etc. - but convincing no one.

But what caught my attention were the closing words of this sad little document:

Fake medicines are reckoned to account for almost 10% of world trade in medicines. Most of these fake drugs are headed for the world’s poorest countries.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. And why, might one ask, are the world's poorest countries buying all those fake drugs? It couldn't possibly be because of the high prices demanded by the owners of the relevant patents on the "real" thing? And it couldn't possible be the case that much of the counterfeiting this treaty aims to expurgate is caused precisely by those self-same intellectual monopolies?

And yet, strangely, getting rid of monopolies is something that the people working so feverishly on ACTA simply cannot contemplate - despite all the economic evidence that it is the solution to so many of the the problems they claim to be addressing.

Counterfeiting bad, monopolies good.

ACTA's Unspeakable Acts

It seems that the Mighty behind the imminent ACTA are aware that what they are up to is literally unspeakable:

I’ve recently heard through a grapevine that ACTA negotiants have reportedly signed non-disclosure agreements as a condition of their participation in this week’s secret closed-door meeting in Geneva.

This is an amazing and frightening step backwards in the history of global governance. It also epitomizes the ACTA negotiants’ dismissive attitude towards the importance of credible, transparent trade policy-making in the current global environment.

Anyone who would seek to radically transform the world’s trade in intangible assets without the participation of most of the world’s governments has learned little from the Asian Financial Crisis, the Iraq War, or the ongoing real estate and credit catastrophe.

Why isn't the mainstream media up in arms about this? Or are they too busy contemplating their own growing impotence and irrelevance? Some of us have been warning about this for six months....

The New Great Lie

Here's a dangerous development:

“Our law enforcement resources are seriously misaligned,” NBC/Universal general counsel Rick Cotton said. “If you add up all the various kinds of property crimes in this country, everything from theft, to fraud, to burglary, bank-robbing, all of it, it costs the country $16 billion a year. But intellectual property crime runs to hundreds of billions [of dollars] a year.”

Cotton is spearheading the new effort, christened the “Campaign to Protect America,” as chairman of the newly formed Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy.

This is clearly total poppycock: the figures for the supposed losses due to "piracy" are hugely exaggerated and the result of wishful thinking - as if every copy represents a lost sale, which is patently false, even for analogue goods, never mind digital ones. Moreover, comparing the theoretical loss of revenue because of copying with the very real loss and pain that a burglary causes is a total insult to the victims of the latter.

It's also worth noting that in the "Campaign to Protect America" we have an apotheosis of weasel words: protect it from *what*? I think we need a campaign to protect everyone from the Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy, who are clearly a bunch of sad and selfish people if they can come out with statements like the one above.

The True Cost of Intellectual Monopoly Infringement

Not as big as some would have us believe:

International trade losses due to product counterfeiting and piracy are much lower than estimated by business lobby groups, according to the most detailed global study to date.

...

The report, due for endorsement by the OECD board later this month, could prove embarrassing for international business lobbies, which have used the higher estimates to lift intellectual property rights up the global political agenda and to demand crackdowns in China and elsewhere.

(Via Michael Geist's Blog.)