Comparison ACTA ESTA

De La Quadrature du Net
Révision datée du 24 octobre 2013 à 13:52 par Arthur (discussion | contributions) (Created page with "Negotiations between the EU and Singapore on a free trade agreement started in March 2010. On 16 December 2012, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and Singapore's Minister o...")
(diff) ← Version précédente | Voir la version actuelle (diff) | Version suivante → (diff)
Aller à la navigationAller à la recherche

Negotiations between the EU and Singapore on a free trade agreement started in March 2010. On 16 December 2012, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and Singapore's Minister of Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang completed final negotiations on the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (ESTA). The EU and Singapore released this text on 20 September 2013.

ESTA covers numerous issues, including protection of "intellectual property" in its chapter 11. Some articles of this chapter are directly copied from ACTA.


Definitions

ESTA: “pirated copyright goods” means any goods which are copies made without the consent of the right holder or of a person duly authorised by the right holder in the country of production, and which are made directly or indirectly from an article where the making of that copy would have constituted an infringement of a copyright or a related right under the domestic law of the Party where the goods are;

ACTA: "pirated copyright goods" means any goods which are copies made without the consent of the right holder or person duly authorized by the right holder in the country of production and which are made directly or indirectly from an article where the making of that copy would have constituted an infringement of a copyright or a related right under the law of the country in which the procedures set forth in Chapter II (Legal Framework for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights) are invoked;


Injonction

ESTA Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings where a judicial decision is taken finding an infringement of a right holder’s intellectual property right, its judicial authorities shall, upon application by the right holder, have the authority to issue against the infringer or, where appropriate, against a third party over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction, an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. [...]

ACTA

Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to issue an order against a party to desist from an infringement, and inter alia, an order to that party or, where appropriate, to a third party over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce.


Damages

ESTA


Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the infringer who, knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement.

In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party’s judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

ACTA

Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the infringer who, knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement.

In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Party’s judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.


DRM

ESTA

In order to provide the adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies referred to in paragraph 1, each Party shall provide protection at least against: (a) to the extent provided by its domestic law: (i) the unauthorised circumvention of an effective technological measure carried out knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know; and (ii) the offering to the public by marketing of a device or product, including computer programs, or a service, as a means of circumventing an effective technological measure; and

(b) the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a device or product, including computer programs, or provision of a service that: (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing an effective technological measure; or (ii) has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an effective technological measure.

...

To protect electronic rights management information, each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing without authority any of the following acts knowing or, with respect to civil remedies, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any copyright or related rights. Such following acts are: (a) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information; (b) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast, communicate, or make available to the public copies of works, performances, or phonograms, knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.


ACTA

In order to provide the adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies referred to in paragraph 5, each Party shall provide protection at least against:

(a) to the extent provided by its law: (i) the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure carried out knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know; and (ii) the offering to the public by marketing of a device or product, including computer programs, or a service, as a means of circumventing an effective technological measure; and

(b) the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a device or product, including computer programs, or provision of a service that: (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing an effective technological measure; or (ii) has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an effective technological measure.

...

To protect electronic rights management information, each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing without authority any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any copyright or related rights: (a) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information; (b) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast, communicate, or make available to the public copies of works, performances, or phonograms, knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.