Difference between revisions of "Civil Liberties Arguments Against ACTA"

From La Quadrature du Net
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Infobox Version
 +
|en=:Civil Liberties Arguments Against ACTA
 +
|fr=:ACTA : Arguments contre LIBE
 +
}}
 +
 
<big>Below are arguments that you can use to convince the "Civil Liberties" ([https://memopol.lqdn.fr/europe/parliament/committee/LIBE/ LIBE]) committee's members of ACTA's dangers.</big>
 
<big>Below are arguments that you can use to convince the "Civil Liberties" ([https://memopol.lqdn.fr/europe/parliament/committee/LIBE/ LIBE]) committee's members of ACTA's dangers.</big>
  
Line 5: Line 10:
 
{{ACTA to know|lang=en}}
 
{{ACTA to know|lang=en}}
  
 +
<br />
  
==ACTA lacks crucial safeguards to protect fundamental rights==
+
= ACTA lacks crucial safeguards to protect fundamental rights =
===A study requested by the European Parliament underlines the lack of safeguards and calls on the EU Parliament to reject ACTA===
+
== A study requested by the European Parliament underlines the lack of safeguards and calls on the EU Parliament to reject ACTA ==
 
An independent study commissioned by the Directorate-General for External Policies of the European Parliament recognizes ACTA's lack of safeguards for fundamental rights, while underlining that it is "''difficult to point to any significant advantages that ACTA provides for EU citizens beyond the existing international framework''". According to the study, "''unconditional consent would be an inappropriate response from the European Parliament given the issues that have been identified with ACTA as it stands''".
 
An independent study commissioned by the Directorate-General for External Policies of the European Parliament recognizes ACTA's lack of safeguards for fundamental rights, while underlining that it is "''difficult to point to any significant advantages that ACTA provides for EU citizens beyond the existing international framework''". According to the study, "''unconditional consent would be an inappropriate response from the European Parliament given the issues that have been identified with ACTA as it stands''".
  
 
[http://www.laquadrature.net/files/INTA%20-%20ACTA%20assessment.pdf Study commissioned by EU Parliament on ACTA (pdf)]
 
[http://www.laquadrature.net/files/INTA%20-%20ACTA%20assessment.pdf Study commissioned by EU Parliament on ACTA (pdf)]
  
===European Economic & Social Committee stresses that fundamental rights are not taken into consideration in ACTA===
+
== European Economic & Social Committee stresses that fundamental rights are not taken into consideration in ACTA ==
 
In an opinion criticizing the EU Commission's IPR Strategy, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_and_Social_Committee European Economic and Social Committee] stresses that "''fundamental human rights, such as the right to information, health, sufficient food, the right of farmers to select seeds and the right to culture, are not taken sufficiently into consideration''" in ACTA, and that "''this will impact on future European legislation geared towards the harmonisation of Member States' legislation.''" According to the EESC, "''ACTA's approach is aimed at further strengthening the position of rights holders vis-à-vis the "public", certain of whose fundamental rights (privacy, freedom of information, secrecy of correspondence, presumption of innocence) are becoming increasingly undermined by laws that are heavily biased in favour of content distributors. ''".
 
In an opinion criticizing the EU Commission's IPR Strategy, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_and_Social_Committee European Economic and Social Committee] stresses that "''fundamental human rights, such as the right to information, health, sufficient food, the right of farmers to select seeds and the right to culture, are not taken sufficiently into consideration''" in ACTA, and that "''this will impact on future European legislation geared towards the harmonisation of Member States' legislation.''" According to the EESC, "''ACTA's approach is aimed at further strengthening the position of rights holders vis-à-vis the "public", certain of whose fundamental rights (privacy, freedom of information, secrecy of correspondence, presumption of innocence) are becoming increasingly undermined by laws that are heavily biased in favour of content distributors. ''".
  
 
[https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/EESC_on_IPR_Strategy Opinion of the EESC]
 
[https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/EESC_on_IPR_Strategy Opinion of the EESC]
  
==ACTA will drastically impact fundamental rights online==
+
= ACTA will drastically impact fundamental rights online =
 
+
== ACTA will lead to extra-judicial censorship measures ==  
===ACTA will lead to extra-judicial censorship measures===  
 
 
If ACTA is adopted, it will be possible for the entertainment industry to exert pressure on every Internet actor under the threat of criminal sanctions for "aiding and abetting" infringements (art.23.4) and under the guise of "cooperation" between both parties (art.27.3). ACTA also mentions "expeditious measures to deter further infringements" (art.27.1). Under this legal framework, Internet actors will be gradually compelled to deploy automated blocking, filtering of communications and deletion of online content. Such measures will inevitably restrict users' freedoms online.
 
If ACTA is adopted, it will be possible for the entertainment industry to exert pressure on every Internet actor under the threat of criminal sanctions for "aiding and abetting" infringements (art.23.4) and under the guise of "cooperation" between both parties (art.27.3). ACTA also mentions "expeditious measures to deter further infringements" (art.27.1). Under this legal framework, Internet actors will be gradually compelled to deploy automated blocking, filtering of communications and deletion of online content. Such measures will inevitably restrict users' freedoms online.
  
 
[http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-updated-analysis-of-the-final-version Detailed analysis of ACTA's digital chapter]
 
[http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-updated-analysis-of-the-final-version Detailed analysis of ACTA's digital chapter]
  
===Mexican lawmakers stress the dangers of ACTA for freedom of expression and culture===
+
== Mexican lawmakers stress the dangers of ACTA for freedom of expression and culture ==
 
In June 2011, the Mexican Senate approved a resolution calling on the government not to sign the anti-counterfeiting agreement ACTA. In its conclusions, it argues that the digital chapter could lead to privatized online censorship, with harmful effects on Net neutrality (and therefore freedom of expression), access to communications or access to culture.
 
In June 2011, the Mexican Senate approved a resolution calling on the government not to sign the anti-counterfeiting agreement ACTA. In its conclusions, it argues that the digital chapter could lead to privatized online censorship, with harmful effects on Net neutrality (and therefore freedom of expression), access to communications or access to culture.
  
 
[http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=sp&mn=2&sm=2&id=9376&lg=61 Resolution of the Senate of Mexico on ACTA]
 
[http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=sp&mn=2&sm=2&id=9376&lg=61 Resolution of the Senate of Mexico on ACTA]
  
===Criminalization of not-for-profit sharing was part of the EU Commission ACTA mandate===
+
== Criminalization of not-for-profit sharing was part of the EU Commission ACTA mandate ==
 
The Commission claims that ACTA does not target non-commercial users infringing on copyright. Why then does the 18 July 2007 discussion paper submitted in interservice consultation in the EU Commission for the negotiating mandate of ACTA include the criminalisation of not-for-profit sharing by individuals? The latter explicitly refers to the need of criminal sanctions for: “''significant willful infringements without motivation for financial gain to such an extent as to prejudicially affect the copyright owner (e.g., internet piracy)''”. This is a fundamentally flawed policy, and ACTA will make it impossible to reform in the EU while exporting it worldwide.
 
The Commission claims that ACTA does not target non-commercial users infringing on copyright. Why then does the 18 July 2007 discussion paper submitted in interservice consultation in the EU Commission for the negotiating mandate of ACTA include the criminalisation of not-for-profit sharing by individuals? The latter explicitly refers to the need of criminal sanctions for: “''significant willful infringements without motivation for financial gain to such an extent as to prejudicially affect the copyright owner (e.g., internet piracy)''”. This is a fundamentally flawed policy, and ACTA will make it impossible to reform in the EU while exporting it worldwide.
  
 
[https://www.laquadrature.net/files/ACTA%20Discussion%20Paper%20July%2018%202007.pdf EC discussion paper on ACTA negotiating mandate]
 
[https://www.laquadrature.net/files/ACTA%20Discussion%20Paper%20July%2018%202007.pdf EC discussion paper on ACTA negotiating mandate]
  
===The ACTA text does impact not-for-profit activities===  
+
== The ACTA text does impact not-for-profit activities ==  
 
ACTA modifies the scope of criminal sanctions in EU Member States, ensuring they will be applied for cases of infringement on a “commercial scale”, defined as inducing “direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage” (art. 23.1). This term is vague, open to interpretation, and just plainly wrong when it comes to determining the scope of proportionate enforcement, as it does not make any distinction between commercial and non-profit infringement.
 
ACTA modifies the scope of criminal sanctions in EU Member States, ensuring they will be applied for cases of infringement on a “commercial scale”, defined as inducing “direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage” (art. 23.1). This term is vague, open to interpretation, and just plainly wrong when it comes to determining the scope of proportionate enforcement, as it does not make any distinction between commercial and non-profit infringement.
  
 
[http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-updated-analysis-of-the-final-version#footnote10_fg5m2j4 Article 23.10 of ACTA]
 
[http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-updated-analysis-of-the-final-version#footnote10_fg5m2j4 Article 23.10 of ACTA]
  
===ACTA disrespects the position of the EU Parliament on criminal sanctions===
+
== ACTA disrespects the position of the EU Parliament on criminal sanctions ==
 
ACTA's overbroad definition of commercial scale runs counter to the EU Parliament position on the IPRED 2 proposal in 2007. According to the EU Parliament, acts "carried out by private users for personal and not-for-profit purposes" should be excluded from criminal sanctions. ACTA contradicts this by expanding the commercial scale definition to acts providing "indirect economic advantage".
 
ACTA's overbroad definition of commercial scale runs counter to the EU Parliament position on the IPRED 2 proposal in 2007. According to the EU Parliament, acts "carried out by private users for personal and not-for-profit purposes" should be excluded from criminal sanctions. ACTA contradicts this by expanding the commercial scale definition to acts providing "indirect economic advantage".
  

Revision as of 16:13, 5 April 2012


Below are arguments that you can use to convince the "Civil Liberties" (LIBE) committee's members of ACTA's dangers.




ACTA lacks crucial safeguards to protect fundamental rights

A study requested by the European Parliament underlines the lack of safeguards and calls on the EU Parliament to reject ACTA

An independent study commissioned by the Directorate-General for External Policies of the European Parliament recognizes ACTA's lack of safeguards for fundamental rights, while underlining that it is "difficult to point to any significant advantages that ACTA provides for EU citizens beyond the existing international framework". According to the study, "unconditional consent would be an inappropriate response from the European Parliament given the issues that have been identified with ACTA as it stands".

Study commissioned by EU Parliament on ACTA (pdf)

European Economic & Social Committee stresses that fundamental rights are not taken into consideration in ACTA

In an opinion criticizing the EU Commission's IPR Strategy, the European Economic and Social Committee stresses that "fundamental human rights, such as the right to information, health, sufficient food, the right of farmers to select seeds and the right to culture, are not taken sufficiently into consideration" in ACTA, and that "this will impact on future European legislation geared towards the harmonisation of Member States' legislation." According to the EESC, "ACTA's approach is aimed at further strengthening the position of rights holders vis-à-vis the "public", certain of whose fundamental rights (privacy, freedom of information, secrecy of correspondence, presumption of innocence) are becoming increasingly undermined by laws that are heavily biased in favour of content distributors. ".

Opinion of the EESC

ACTA will drastically impact fundamental rights online

ACTA will lead to extra-judicial censorship measures

If ACTA is adopted, it will be possible for the entertainment industry to exert pressure on every Internet actor under the threat of criminal sanctions for "aiding and abetting" infringements (art.23.4) and under the guise of "cooperation" between both parties (art.27.3). ACTA also mentions "expeditious measures to deter further infringements" (art.27.1). Under this legal framework, Internet actors will be gradually compelled to deploy automated blocking, filtering of communications and deletion of online content. Such measures will inevitably restrict users' freedoms online.

Detailed analysis of ACTA's digital chapter

Mexican lawmakers stress the dangers of ACTA for freedom of expression and culture

In June 2011, the Mexican Senate approved a resolution calling on the government not to sign the anti-counterfeiting agreement ACTA. In its conclusions, it argues that the digital chapter could lead to privatized online censorship, with harmful effects on Net neutrality (and therefore freedom of expression), access to communications or access to culture.

Resolution of the Senate of Mexico on ACTA

Criminalization of not-for-profit sharing was part of the EU Commission ACTA mandate

The Commission claims that ACTA does not target non-commercial users infringing on copyright. Why then does the 18 July 2007 discussion paper submitted in interservice consultation in the EU Commission for the negotiating mandate of ACTA include the criminalisation of not-for-profit sharing by individuals? The latter explicitly refers to the need of criminal sanctions for: “significant willful infringements without motivation for financial gain to such an extent as to prejudicially affect the copyright owner (e.g., internet piracy)”. This is a fundamentally flawed policy, and ACTA will make it impossible to reform in the EU while exporting it worldwide.

EC discussion paper on ACTA negotiating mandate

The ACTA text does impact not-for-profit activities

ACTA modifies the scope of criminal sanctions in EU Member States, ensuring they will be applied for cases of infringement on a “commercial scale”, defined as inducing “direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage” (art. 23.1). This term is vague, open to interpretation, and just plainly wrong when it comes to determining the scope of proportionate enforcement, as it does not make any distinction between commercial and non-profit infringement.

Article 23.10 of ACTA

ACTA disrespects the position of the EU Parliament on criminal sanctions

ACTA's overbroad definition of commercial scale runs counter to the EU Parliament position on the IPRED 2 proposal in 2007. According to the EU Parliament, acts "carried out by private users for personal and not-for-profit purposes" should be excluded from criminal sanctions. ACTA contradicts this by expanding the commercial scale definition to acts providing "indirect economic advantage".

EDRi's analysis of ACTA's "criminal sanctions" chapter