For those who thought the ACTA, the controversial trade pact, was dead, think again.
ACTA would have allowed the EU and other global law enforcement agencies to impose criminal sanctions on those who violate intellectual property rights and patent laws, but the agreement was voted down last year in the European Parliament.
Today, the spirit of ACTA lives again in the form of a new revised European Union directive.
A planned overhaul of EU copyright and intellectual property laws could pave the way for the implementation of new “technical measures” and we use quotation marks because that is the diplomatic way of saying anti-piracy law enforcement measures, such as website blocking and ISP interceptions.
But a group representing more than 1,800 broadband providers, telecoms companies and mobile phone networks from the 27 member states has criticised the EU's plans.
EuroISPA argues that the current 2004 Directive on the Civil Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRED), “has provided a very well-balanced and functional framework for dealing with intellectual property infringements.”
The group also issued a stark warning that fundamental rights to privacy and innovation would be “seriously jeopardized if Internet intermediaries were to be required to oversee or censor the Internet.”
The EuroISPA group went on to highlight a recent EU study [PDF], giving an example of the impact of piracy on music sales. The study finds that “digital music piracy does not affect or displace legitimate digital music purchases,” and that “illegal music downloads have little or no impact on legitimate digital sales.”
Any changes made to the 2004 directive “would be incompatible with the fundamental rights to the protection of personal data and freedom of communications, which are essential for innovation and the development of the digital market,” the group warned.
How 2004 changed the piracy landscape in Europe
The 2004 directive first requires EU member states to implement effective legal remedies and sanctions against those who engage in copyright infringement.
It essentially gave copyright holders the political power to directly seek legal remedies if their rights were violated by peer-to-peer networks, for example.
The additional additions to this existing framework, of the original 2004 directive, would be excessive.
“Incorrect” consultations
A consultation on changes to the 2004 directive, which closed on 30 March, proved controversial.
The consultation aimed to gather views from the wider community on possible changes to the 2004 directive, such as changes to the fight against piracy and copyright law relevant to modern times. However, some believed that the process was flawed and biased towards copyright holders.
Meanwhile, Internet describes the consultation as a “very serious problem.” Writing on her blog, she warned that the whole story “gives a sense of déjà vu to anyone who followed the ACTA debate.”
Hello ACTA 2.0?
ACTA would force ISPs to block access to websites that infringe copyright – or worse – force them to install a “mandatory level of network .”
While these provisions were removed from ACTA, a new revision of the 2004 directive “may force the application of unspecified, disproportionate and, potentially, repressive technical measures against their customers,” according to EuroISPA.
The European Union has adopted a provision on internet freedom, stating that any measures taken by EU member states that affect citizens' access to the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.".
So any changes to the 2004 directive will likely need to be closely monitored to ensure that ACTA provisions are not implemented.
Although ACTA failed in the European Parliament the first time, no one is sure that it could not infiltrate Europe through some legislative backdoor.
The article was published on ZDNet
