EU Lawmakers Could Quash ACTA if Digital Copyright Concerns Aren’t Addressed, Official Report Author Says

The lack of openness in ACTA negotiations has doubtless undermined people’s confidence in it, but lawmakers have to move forward, said Martin, who will write the official report on behalf of the International Trade (INTA) Committee, which is taking the lead in vetting the treaty. Developments surrounding the agreement have shown “the worth of the European Parliament” as at least six governments have decided to hold off on ratifying it until the legislature acts, he said. INTA will recommend whether ACTA should be approved or rejected, with input from four other panels, Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), Legal Affairs, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and Development, Parliament said.

ACTA suffers from several major problems, Martin said. Intellectual property (IP) is Europe’s global raw material and it must be protected, he said. But the treaty could have potential intended and unintended consequences, he said. It doesn’t require a three-strikes approach to digital copyright infringement, but it clearly places obligations on ISPs while leaving it unclear how those duties will be implemented, he said.

Martin welcomed an EC decision to seek European Court of Justice review of ACTA, and said the European Parliament will also refer it to the high court so that it can ask its own questions. He said he'll issue an interim report just before or after summer that will ask the EC to lay out exactly what it will expect from online providers, border guards and other affected sectors so lawmakers will have all available information on hand. Parliament doesn’t want the EC just to “regurgitate” statements it has already made, but to provide detailed guidance on how ACTA will be implemented, he said. The ECJ said it will give the case rather high priority, but its review could still take 12-18 months, he said.

The high court will be asked if ACTA aligns with existing laws and treaties, and whether it respects fundamental rights, Martin said. If the ECJ says it doesn’t, ACTA is likely dead. But even if the court finds the agreement legal, that doesn’t mean the European Parliament will back it, he said. If the vagueness of the text isn’t resolved, lawmakers will have to decide what to do, he said.

Intellectual property is a crucial issue for the European People’s Party, partly because of its economic importance to the EU, said Swedish member and “shadow” reporter Christofer Fjellner. The EPP has sought an international IP pact for a while, but it’s unclear if ACTA is that agreement, he said. Around half of the concerns raised by the public about ACTA have been resolved in Fjellner’s mind, he said, but that leaves the other 50 percent, all involving the treaty’s intended and unintended consequences.

Asked his response to the recent ECJ decision rejecting blanket monitoring for illegal downloads by social networks (WID Feb 17 p1), Martin said he personally has no interest in criminalizing individual Internet users who access unlawful content. ISPs should have to take it down, which they already do, and that won’t change under ACTA, he said. If ACTA does criminalize individual users, he said, he can’t support it.

Nearly 2.5 million Europeans signed an anti-ACTA petition presented to Parliament’s Petition Committee (PETI) Tuesday, said Alex Wilks, director of global political Web movement Avaaz, at a later press briefing. They want lawmakers to ensure their online freedoms aren’t compromised by “this clumsy international agreement,” he said. PETI Chair Ermenia Mazzoni said she’s never gotten a petition with so many signatures and will examine the documents closely. Without the new parliamentary powers gained under the Lisbon Treaty, “ACTA would be a done deal” already, Martin said. He promised lawmakers will go through it with a “fine-toothed comb” and won’t hesitate to can it if it swings too far away from civil liberties in favor of commercial interests.

Parliamentary scrutiny began later Tuesday with a debate in the Industry Committee. Recent months have seen lively debates in most EU governments and public protests, but lawmakers should be concerned about ACTA’s impact on industry, said member Amelia Andersdotter, of Sweden and the Greens/European Free Alliance, who will write ITRE’s report on the treaty. The ECJ review won’t, for example, address telecom sector worries that the document will force cooperation between private actors that could compromise net neutrality, she said. Andersdotter asked if Parliament should commission a study on how the agreement might affect e-commerce and telecom providers.

In its current form, ACTA doesn’t solve the issue it purports to address -- counterfeiting -- and raises the irrelevant topic of online copyright, said Francesco De Angelis, of Italy and the Socialists and Democrats. It will make ISPs Internet regulators, which could harm privacy rights, he said. It’s an attempt to legislate “through the back door” in areas Parliament has already rejected, he said. EU law relieves ISPs of liability for content they transmit, said Catherine Trautmann, of France and the Socialists and Democrats. But ACTA introduces the concept of criminal enforcement against individuals that could lead to airport searches of MP3 players and other invasive acts, she said. Legislators must be clear about what its text means, she said.

ACTA aims to improve access to justice for IP rights holders, not to boost IP protections as such, said an EC representative. Its standards are already enshrined in EU community law, he said. The EC wants a balanced debate uncontaminated by misinformation, particularly on copyright, which isn’t part of the trade agreement, he said. ACTA won’t stop Internet connections or create private online policing, but will coordinate Internet players in the fight against IP violations, a situation that already exists under current EU directives, he said.

INTA will have its first discussion with the EC on ACTA Wednesday, followed Thursday by a public workshop on the agreement.