Transcript Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative
Kira M. Alvarez
CHIEF NEGOTIATOR AND
DEPUTY ASSISTANT U.S.T.R.
For intellectual property enforcement
 ACTA




aims to:
Build on existing international IPR rules
Establish and strengthen standards for the
enforcement issues where international legal
frameworks do not exist or need to be
strengthened
Increase international cooperation, strengthening
the framework of practices that contribute to
effective enforcement of intellectual property
rights
Focus is on counterfeiting and piracy activities
that significantly affect commercial interests,
rather than on the activities of ordinary citizens
 Proliferation
of counterfeit and pirated goods
in international trade poses threat to
development of the world economy.
 Trade in these goods causes significant
financial losses for the right holders and
legitimate businesses and, in some cases,
represents a risk to consumers.
 Expertise, innovation, quality, and creativity
are the main factors for success in
knowledge-based economies.

Provide a framework to more effectively combat
the challenges of IPR infringement today,
particularly in the context of piracy and
counterfeiting.
Commitments to strong laws
 Framework for ongoing cooperation and
 Promotion of effective enforcement practices.

Establish a Leadership agreement, setting a
positive example for on strengthening IPR
enforcement.
 Growth over time, reflecting the growing
international consensus on the need for strong IPR
enforcement.

Australia
 Canada
 EU (and its Member States)
 Japan
 Korea
 Mexico

Morocco
 New Zealand
 Singapore
 Switzerland
 United States

In alphabetical order

Three main areas:


International Cooperation:



capacity building and technical assistance in improving
enforcement, and
international cooperation among enforcement agencies.
Enforcement Practices:




CAVEAT: EVERYTHING STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION
Formal or informal public/private cooperation;
Fostering of specialized intellectual property expertise
within law enforcement structures; and
Measures for raising consumer public awareness.
Legal Framework:




Criminal enforcement
Border measures
Civil enforcement and
IPR enforcement issues related to the Digital
Environment.
 June
2008: Border Measures
 July 2008: Civil Remedies for infringements
of IPR
 October 2008: Criminal enforcement and
continued Civil Enforcement
 December 2008 International cooperation,
Enforcement practices and Institutional
Issues
On June 12, 2009: USTR announces
resumption of negotiations.
 July 2009: continued International
Cooperation, Enforcement Practices,
Institutional Issues and Transparency.
 November 2009IP Enforcement in the Digital
Environment, Criminal provisions, and
Transparency

USTR has made and will continue to make efforts to
ensure that the public is well-informed about and
can provide meaningful input into the negotiation.
Steps taken in 2009 include:






ACTA web page;
Public summary of issues under negotiation;
Agendas made public;
sought advice from a broad group of experts about
prospective U.S. positions on IPR enforcement in the
digital environment; and
provided links to relevant portions of past agreements,
in order to shed light on the U.S. approach to possible
legal framework provisions of the ACTA.
Q: What is the value of this agreement if more
countries are not initially part of it?
A: The ACTA will provide leadership toward better
protection and enforcement of IPRs and enhance
partnership with countries (representing 50% of
global trade) that share a similar level of
ambition. Piracy and counterfeiting are growing
global issues that have become a concern for all.
They have adverse effects on a nation’s
economy, as well as on the public health and
safety of its population. Through enhanced
leadership and partnership, the ACTA can
improve the international climate for IPR
enforcement in ways that potentially benefit all
countries.
Q: Will the border enforcement provisions of
the ACTA require searching travelers’ music
players or laptops for infringing content?
A: No. The focus of the discussion on border
measures has been on how to deal with
large-scale intellectual property
infringements, which can frequently involve
criminal elements and pose a threat to public
health and safety. As noted in the public
summary, we are considering the inclusion of
a de minimis exception that could permit
travelers to bring in goods for personal use.
Q: Is the U.S. seeking to “internationalize” the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act via the
ACTA?
A: The DMCA in fact implemented 2 prior
international treaties (the WIPO Copyright
Treaty and the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty). So, in fact, there is
already an international consensus for
extending protections against copyright
piracy into the digital realm.
Q: Will ACTA create a global “3 strikes” policy
and empower Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) to become “copyright cops”?
A: ACTA will not require ISPs to do anything
that they are not already required to do
under U.S. law and the law of several other
ACTA partners. The U.S. does not support
requiring ISPs to actively monitor their
networks.
Q: Will ACTA “cement” current DMCA
provisions, thus making it harder to Congress
to “fix” the perceived shortcomings of the
law?
A: We are aware of concerns expressed by the
U.S. Congress that we should not impinge on
their ability to legislate in the future in this
field, and have written our proposals with
those concerns in mind.
Q: Why is ACTA not transparent like WIPO?
A: Initial and final treaty proposals at WIPO are
circulated for public information, but the
discussions and negotiations that are used to
“evolve” these texts are confidential.