For Immediate Release:
November 5, 2009 Sixteen library, consumer, creator, and civil liberties organizations today told the Obama Administration of their “deep concerns about the lack of transparency and openness” surrounding the negotiation of an international trade agreement that has the potential to rewrite U.S. copyright law.
The letter comes as talks were held this week in Seoul, South Korea, on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The U.S. Trade Representative has repeatedly declined to make public the draft text of the agreement, and has “actively resisted disclosure of relevant information during the course of litigation under the Freedom of Information Act.” The Administration’s secrecy conflicts with President Obama’s promise of “a more transparent, collaborative and participatory government,” the groups said.
A main problem, the groups said in a letter to President Obama and high-ranking Administration officials, is that ACTA is not a traditional trade agreement as much as it is a treaty dealing with intellectual property: “Much of ACTA’s transparency deficit stems from the disconnect between ACTA’s apparent aims and its formulation as a trade agreement. In negotiating agreements focusing on traditional trade matters such as tariffs and trade barriers, confidentiality regarding some negotiating positions may be appropriate. But ACTA aims to set international legal norms, potentially driving changes to substantive intellectual property legal regimes on an international basis. Attempts to force a multilateral intellectual property agreement through trade processes unsuited for it does a disservice to citizens, public policy, and the USTR alike.”
“As an instrument affecting multiple nations’ laws and policy, ACTA should be negotiated in public, as has been done routinely with international intellectual property agreements in the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization,” the groups said.
As a substantive matter, the groups said the information which is known about the treaty negotiations shows that the terms are heavily weighted in favor of big media companies: “With respect to ACTA’s substance, we remain concerned that the terms may not adequately account for all of the interests that would be affected. Intellectual property law requires a balance between the benefits conferred upon creators and the rights of the general public to access and use those creations in free discourse and for the public good. Yet the public and the industries enabling such uses would face crippling liability under an improperly calibrated intellectual property regime. ACTA could increase the risk of participating governments taking an imbalanced approach.”
The full text of the letter is here.
Information on the current negotiations is available in a number of sites, including that of Professor Michael Geist and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
