• Have a rights violation to report?
  • 0800 300 044
  • info@cehurd.org
Search
Close this search box.
UCHD 2023
Posted on Categories Featured

Is ACTA treaty worse than SOPA and PIPA ?

As ACTA treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, gains more and more government support, the internet world is revolting against it. This agreement is set to establish a new ruling body that would be responsible for targeting online piracy and was drafted/signed by a variety of countries.

As of October 1, 2011 there have been 31 various countries that have signed the agreement including the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, and many others. Those supporting the agreement state that it is necessitated due to the massive increase in the trade and production of counterfeit goods and copyrighted content.

With SOPA and PIPA now out of the way (hopefully) the attention of the Internet protesting masses have turned towards this Act but why? Here we will examine the reasons behind the negativity against ACTA and also see if the protesting is justified or if it is merely due to thousands of uninformed individuals “jumping the protest band wagon”.

Why are people protesting the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement?

1) Secrecy
A big issue with ACTA treaty is the fact that those involved in its negotiations are being incredibly secretive about it. Many people rightfully believe that if an agreement is being worked on that will affect EVERYONE then they have a right to know what is being proposed and discussed. The shroud of secrecy cloaking ACTA treaty was almost impenetrable until secret documents were leaked on WikiLeaks.

Michael Geist, who writes for Copyright News, stated that: “reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty’s provisions leaking to the public.”

2) Infringing on human rights
The freedom of expression is one that everyone holds dear. It is something that defines freedom and when that right is infringed upon, people rightfully get angry. Unfortunately it is incredibly profitable for both governments and businesses to make it so that this right is restricted which is what they are doing in the ACTA agreement.

There was a letter signed by a variety of prominent European organizations (27+ actually) that stated how ACTA infringed on the fundamental rights of European citizens because of its restrictions on freedom of expression and communication. Additionally the Act, as the letter stated, would allow undue and harsh legal standards to be placed and these standards don’t “reflect contemporary principles”

3) Generic medicine
One of the big issues that ACTA is covering is the issue of intellectual property. They are fighting against all violations of intellectual property which acutally poses a huge threat to a number of common household items mainly generic medicine. Since ACTA would give god-like powers to the ruling members it would allow them to stop generic drugs since they are “counterfeit”. This would make it so that drugs would not be shipped to developing countries and that the medications can even be destroyed. Unfortunately developing companies simply do not have the funds to pay for such expensive medication which is why they turned to cheaper versions of the drugs to help the sick and needy.

4) Similarities to SOPA/PIPA
Lastly, the similarity of this act to both SOPA and PIPA is surprisingly close when you take a deeper look at it. The fact that the piracy and sale of counterfeit materials is at the heart of the matter is obvious. Unfortunately the big issues are that the punishments for violations of these laws are severe and unjust in almost every sense.

Are The Protests Justified?

When you closely look at all of the possibilities that ruling body created by ACTA treaty can do then you can see that they are given too much freedoms, too many exceptions, and are able to operate in secrecy. The right to expression and freedom of speech should never be undermined and when a ruling body is enacted to do just that then it should be fought.

The fact that ACTA would ban generic drugs -drugs made cheaper so that everyone could afford them and drugs responsible for saving lives – is outrageous to say the least. Additionally “there is a provision on ACTA specifically exempting travellers from checks if the infringing goods are of a non-commercial nature and not part of large-scale trafficking”.

If the government officials constructing this treaty had nothing to fear and nothing to hide then there would be no reason for such secrecy as to have others sign a nondisclosure agreement. Hopefully the overwhelming amount of pressure both offline and online will overturn the decision for this act before it’s too late!

Source: http://www.itsagadget.com/2012/02/acta-treaty-sopa-and-pipa.html

Posted on Categories General News

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multi-nation trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property laws across the globe.

The nine nations currently negotiating the TPP are the U.S., Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, and Brunei Darussalam. Expected to be finalized in November 2011, the TPP will contain a chapter on Intellectual Property (copyright, trademarks, patents and perhaps geographical indications) that will have a broad impact on citizens’ rights, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and innovation across the world. A leaked version of the February 2011 draft U.S. TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter indicates that U.S. negotiators are pushing for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The TPP will rewrite the global rules on IP enforcement. All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the U.S. this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of U.S. copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s broad ban on circumventing digital locks and frequently disproprotionate statutory damages for copyright infringement) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. The recently leaked U.S. IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current U.S. law. This raises significant concerns for citizens’ due process, privacy and freedom of expression rights.

The leaked U.S. IP chapter includes many detailed requirements that are more restrictive than current international standards, and would require significant changes to other countries’ copyright laws. These include obligations for countries to:

Treat temporary reproductions of copyrighted works without copyright holders’ authorization as copyright infringement. This was discussed but rejected at the intergovernmental diplomatic conference that created two key 1996 international copyright treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
Ban parallel importation of genuine goods acquired from other countries without the authorization of copyright owners.

Create copyright terms well beyond the internationally agreed period in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of IP. Life + 70 years for works created by individuals, and following the U.S.- Oman Free Trade Agreement, either 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation for corporate owned works (such as Mickey Mouse).

Adopt laws banning circumvention of digital locks (technological protection measures or TPMs) that mirror the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and treat violation of the TPM provisions as a separate offence, even when no copyright infringement is involved. This would require countries like New Zealand to completely rewrite its innovative 2008 copyright law. It would also override Australia’s carefully-crafted 2007 technological protection measure regime exclusions for region-coding on movies on DVDs, videogames, and players, and for embedded software in devices that restrict access to goods and services for the device — a thoughtful effort by Australian policy makers to avoid the pitfalls experienced with the U.S. digital locks provisions. In the U.S., business competitors have used the DMCA to try to block printer cartridge refill services, competing garage door openers, and to lock mobile phones to particular network providers.
Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation, based on the provisions of the 1997 U.S. No Electronic Theft Act.

Adopt the U.S. DMCA Internet Intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety. This would require Chile to rewrite its forward-looking 2010 copyright law that currently provides for a judicial notice and takedown regime, which provides greater protection to Internet users’ expression and privacy than the DMCA’s copyright safe harbor regime.

In short, countries would have to abandon any efforts to learn from the mistakes of the U.S. experience over the last 12 years, and adopt many of the most controversial aspects of U.S. copyright law in their entirety. At the same time, the U.S. IP chapter does not export the limitations and exceptions in the U.S. copyright regime like fair use, which have enabled freedom of expression and technological innovation to flourish in the U.S. It includes only a placeholder for exceptions and limitations. This raises serious concerns about other countries’ sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities.

Non-Transparent and On The Fast Track

Despite the broad scope and far-reaching implications of the TPP, negotiations for the agreement have taken place behind closed doors and outside of the checks and balances that operate at traditional multilateral treaty-making organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization.

Like ACTA, the TPP is being negotiated rapidly with little transparency. Since 2009 when United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk notified the U.S. Congress that President Obama intended to begin talks on TPP, there have been five formal rounds of TPP negotiations in Melbourne, Australia (March 2010), San Francisco, USA (June, 2010), Brunei (October 2010), Auckland, New Zealand (December 2010), and Santiago, Chile (February 2011). The negotiating countries hope to complete the TPP agreement by the 19th meeting of the Economic Leaders of APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to be held in Hawaii in November, 2011.

In the meantime, further negotiations are planned for March 24 – April 1 (round 6, Singapore), 20 – 24 June (round 7, Vietnam), 6 – 11 September (round 8, San Francisco, USA), and 24 – 28 October (round 9, Lima, Peru).

During the TPP negotiation round in Chile in February 2011, negotiators received strong messages from prominent civil society groups demanding an end to the secrecy that has shielded TPP negotiations from the scrutiny of national lawmakers and the public. Letters addressed to government representatives in Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand and the U.S. emphasized that both the process and effect of the proposed TPP agreement is deeply undemocratic. TPP negotiators apparently discussed the requests for greater public disclosure during the February 2011 negotiations, but took no action.

Why You Should Care

TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ privacy, freedom of expression and due process rights, innovation and the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities and enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is pursuing a TPP agreement that will require signatory counties to adopt heightened copyright protection that advances the agenda of the U.S. entertainment and pharmaceutical industries, but omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.

The TPP will affect countries beyond the nine that are currently involved in negotiations. The new TPP agreement will build upon a 2005 agreement between New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam (the P4 agreement) but will include more extensive provisions on intellectual property and other issues. The TPP will set rules that will likely be adopted initially by the 21 member economies in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. The TPP is being negotiated by 9 members of APEC, and negotiators plan to finalize the “TPP concept” at the APEC Economic Leaders meeting in November 2011.

Like ACTA, the TPP Agreement is a plurilateral agreement that will be used to create new heightened global IP enforcement norms. Countries that are not parties to the negotiation will likely be asked to accede to the TPP as a condition of bilateral trade agreements with the U.S. and other TPP members, or evaluated against the TPP’s standards in the annual Special 301 process administered by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Source:https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Posted on Categories Featured

ACTA: Absolutely Everything You Need To Know About Europe’s Grand Anti-Piracy Plan

Sanya Khetani

What is ACTA?
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a broad agreement that aims to create uniform international standards on protecting the rights of those who produce music, movies, medicines, fashion, and other products that are victim to intellectual property theft (which costs $250 billion annually) and patent issues, the Guardian reports.

The idea for the treaty was born in October 2007, as a collaborative effort between the United States, the EU, Switzerland, and Japan. The reason there were no protests until almost five years later is because the public remained mostly unaware of EU negotiations, until they were put in the spotlight by Anonymous, according to RT.

Who has signed it?
While Japan, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed it in 2010, the European Commission and non elected representatives from 22 of the EU’s member states signed ACTA in 2011, according to StopACTA.info.

However, the bill still needs to be ratified by the EU parliament before it can come into effect. The vote is scheduled for June, but MEPs are already under immense pressure from pro- and anti-ACTA activists.

Who is against it?
So far, Switzerland, Germany, Cyprus, Estonia, the Netherlands, and Slovakia have not signed the bill. Several non-European countries have also expressed reservations over ACTA.

And while both France and Slovenia have signed, one French Member of European Parliament (MEP) resigned from the scrutinizing process, calling it a “masquerade”, while the Slovenian representative wrote a statement apologizing to Slovenian citizens for agreeing to the proposals of ACTA.

How it’s different from SOPA and PIPA
There’s a few ways ACTA is more dangerous and all-encompassing, according to most internet activists.
ACTA is an international treaty. SOPA was a bill before the U.S. Congress, although it also aimed at stopping web piracy of U.S. content on overseas sites.

So ACTA would set up its own legal framework and independent governing body, rather than amending existing national laws in signatory countries. This would give it a wider reach than SOPA, which would require changes to U.S. copyright law and would be administered by U.S. authorities, says the UK’s Intellectual Property Office.

While SOPA and PIPA required approval from the U.S. Congress (and by extension, the American public) to become laws — the major reason they were shelved — ACTA’s negotiations and signings seemed to have gone on behind closed doors, and they do not require the approval of national parliaments (which cannot undo it once ratified), or citizens, because it does not involve changes to existing laws or constitutions.

The EU says ACTA will also not shut down any sites or cut off internet access for anyone, unlike SOPA, which threatened to target those posting pirated content on sites and host sites themselves.

The reason people are protesting it
Internet service providers could be forced to monitor all user activity for possible copyright violations, and trademark owners and law enforcement could get away with greater invasion of privacy and violation of civil liberties during investigations, RT reports.

Opponents also fear authorities will block content on the web, adding ACTA to a long line of attempts at internet censorship.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACTA would block the free flow of information on the internet, hampering innovation and legitimate commerce.

It also does not allow developing countries to create their own policies. Not all of them might have the resources to create and maintain ACTA safeguards for web piracy, medicines, and other necessary goods. India says it would greatly affect trade of generic medicines, vital to a country where a large section of the population cannot afford brand-name medicines.

People are also suspicious of the way ACTA seems to be a unilateral international agreement, and was prepared behind closed doors (a charge the EU denies, among other ‘ACTA myths’) and signed without consulting international bodies, developing countries, national parliaments, and ordinary citizens.

“This agreement might have major consequences on citizens’ lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter,” Kader Arif, the French rapporteur for ACTA who resigned, said, according to StopACTA.info.

What now?
Protests have now spread across Europe, with Anonymous playing a key role in online protests — and they might yet be able to stop the ACTA juggernaut: Poland has decided to put off its final approval of the bill, AFP reports.

While the European Commissioners have negotiated the treaty, the Eurpoean Parliament has the final say on whether the treaty will be ratified or not, which means we will only know in June if the cracks that have begun to show in Poland will spread to the rest of Europe.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/acta-europe-piracy-2012-2#ixzz1lWx3SPbf

Posted on Categories News

Drugs cut cost, but highten the risks

By Shan Juan and Wang Qingyun (China Daily)

Poor cancer patients turning to Indian copies from illegal traders

BEIJING – When Zong Jiujin was diagnosed with leukemia in his senior year at college, his doctor told him only two things could save his life: a bone marrow transplant or Gleevec, an approved cancer drug.
Both are expensive options in China, far too costly for the son of poor farmers from East China’s Jiangsu province.

Yet, as he got up to leave the examination room, the doctor suggested another alternative: unapproved, “generic” cancer medication imported from India. The costs are low but the risks are high.
“My parents could never have afforded the other remedies, so I began to take the Indian drugs,” said Zong, who has been successfully battling his condition since December 2010.

Instead of spending 24,000 yuan ($3,800) a month on Gleevec (or Glivec in some parts of the world), the 24-year-old said he pays a black-market trader just 1,600 yuan for generic copies.

“Another patient introduced me (to an agent),” he explained. “We’ve never met, we just communicate over the phone. The drugs are mailed to my home.”

Although illegal, health experts say there is a huge demand for such services in China, particularly among cancer patients, who are increasing in number at a rapid rate.

Ministry of Health data released ahead of World Cancer Day on Saturday show that there are 2.8 million new cases reported nationwide every year, with the disease killing an annual average of 1.8 million people. Over the past three decades, the mortality rate among cancer patients has soared by 80 percent on the mainland.
“I’ve been consulted about India-made drugs quite a lot by patients,” said Zhu Guangying, a lung specialist and head of radiotherapy at Peking University Cancer Hospital. “I always recommend my patients stay away from them, as without scientific evaluation it is difficult to determine the effect.”
Demand and supply

The wide availability of India’s generic drugs stems largely from patent laws it introduced in 2005, which state that only new compounds developed after 1995 can be protected. This means that many products are recognized as new versions of old treatments.

Jia Ping, a Beijing lawyer who specializes in public health cases, explained that, without intellectual property rights protection, manufacturers of generic drugs can freely copy these medicines and slash the price, sometimes by as much as 90 percent.

Analysis by Medicins sans Frontieres, an international health organization, suggests India now makes one-fifth of the world’s generic drugs, with about 50 percent shipped abroad and sold (often illegally) at a fraction of the cost.

An online sales agent for Bao An Tang, which supplies generic drugs, said the most popular product among Chinese customers were copies of Gleevec, Iressa, Tarceva and Nexavar, which are all used to treat cancer.
“We’ve been doing business for three years,” said Lu, the agent, over the QQ messaging service. “It’s kind of special business, so we only mail drugs and never meet clients in person.”
Lu added that the company sells hundreds of units every month.

The people who market generic drugs in China claim the medication can have the same effect as the expensive originals. However, manufacturers of the approved drugs warn otherwise.

“A number of noted authorities, including the World Health Organization, estimate that drugs purchased on the Internet are more likely to be substandard or counterfeit products,” said Novartis, the Switzerland-based pharmaceuticals company that makes Gleevec, in an e-mail statement. “Counterfeit and poor quality drugs may contain impurities and metabolic products exceeding international standards, which may pose health issues for patients using these medicines.”

In 2010, authorities in Jiangsu’s Huai’an reported that a man diagnosed with lung cancer had suffered adverse reactions after taking an India-made generic copy of Iressa purchased online.

An investigation by the State watchdog found that the drug was produced by a US-trained biochemist identified only as Zhang.

To tackle the problem of illegally imported drugs, the State Council last year launched a special health campaign.

“It mainly aimed at Internet scams in which profiteers promoted and sold fake drugs or those sourced through illegal channels,” said Bian Zhenjia, deputy director of the State Food and Drug Administration, who added that medication designed for long-term use, such as treatments for impotence, diabetes, hypertension and cancer, are major targets for criminals.

In November, public security officials in Guangdong province seized almost 40,000 illegally imported anti-cancer tablets and capsules during a raid on premises being used by an online-drugs seller.

“Drugs were special commodity and should be given special attention in terms of intellectual property rights protection,” Bian said, referring to India’s patent laws.

With research and development on new drugs sometimes taking more than 10 years, patents should be secured, “otherwise counterfeit and substandard drugs will enter the market, threatening public health and delaying treatment”, he added.

Crackdown on crime

Like many people in his position, Zong Jiujin knows the risks of buying generic drugs on the Internet. However, he argues that the more the government cracks down on black-market traders, the fewer options poor people have.

Treatments like Gleevec, which typically cost upwards of 10,000 yuan a month, are not covered by the government-run medical insurance system on the mainland. However, official data shows the average salary of Chinese urbanites in 2011 was about 24,000 yuan, and far less for rural residents.

“If I had the money, I’d definitely buy the legal drug, as it’s more secure,” Zong said. “But (with the crack down) it’s almost like we are being deprived by the government of the right to affordable treatment. Poor patients have no other choice but to buy cheap drugs. If the government wants to crack down, it should at least give us more subsidies.”

Lung specialist Zhu agreed, and added that more local governments should follow the example of Guangdong province, which has started to cover the cost of Iressa for cancer patients who respond well to the medicine.
International watchdogs such as Medicins sans Frontieres say generic competition has dramatically reduced drug costs in some countries. For pharmaceuticals that treat AIDS and tuberculosis, countries such as Brazil, South Africa, India, and Thailand have introduced compulsory licensing systems for domestic drug suppliers, allowing them to better guarantee safety.

However, lawyer Jia Ping said he fears that the drugs market is not currently a priority for authorities in China.
“The decision-makers have varied opinions,” he said. “Some say China has become rich and can afford patent drugs, others say the country should depend on innovation and develop its own drug research.”

Although there is no legal barrier to such a system in China, “no domestic pharmaceutical company has so far applied for compulsory licensing of a foreign patent drug”, he said, adding that Chinese manufacturers had a “relatively poor understanding about World Trade Organization treaties and public health”.

Li Jiancheng, an attorney based in Shandong province, said that, under current law, compulsory licensing of drugs can only be granted in the event of a major public health crisis.

“Conditions like cancer hardly fit that category,” he said.
China Daily

Source:http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-02/03/content_14528974.htm

Posted on Categories News

WHO Board Plan For Fake Medicines Mechanism Excludes Trade And IP

By William New, Intellectual Property Watch

The World Health Organization Executive Board this week agreed to propose to the May World Health Assembly the establishment of a mechanism for international collaboration on counterfeit and substandard medical products, but with the exclusion of trade and intellectual property issues.

The Executive Board resolution would “establish a new Member State mechanism for international collaboration among Member States, from a public health perspective, excluding trade and intellectual property considerations, regarding “substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit medical products” in accordance with the goals, objectives and terms of reference annexed to the present resolution.”

The next Assembly in May will decide on this resolution. The mechanism would be reviewed by the World Health Assembly after three years, and will submit a progress report after one year.

The Executive Board resolution on “substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit medical products,” EB130.R13, is available here [pdf].

Documents from 130th Executive Board meeting, held from 16-23 January, are available here.

The resolution as proposed by the board has only one modification from the earlier draft version from the Working Group of Member States on Substandard/Spurious/Falsely-Labelled/Falsified/Counterfeit Medical Products, as established by decision WHA63(10) from 2010.

The draft version urged member states to: “participate in and collaborate with the Member State mechanism referred to in operative paragraph 4” (which establishes the new member state mechanism). The Board added at the start of the sentence, “on a voluntary basis.” This was suggested by China, according to participants.

Other elements of the resolution include a statement of the role of WHO in these issues, which is: “ensuring the quality, safety and efficacy of medical products; in promoting access to affordable, quality, safe and efficacious medicines; and in supporting national drug regulatory authorities in this area, in particular in developing countries and least-developed countries.”

It also declares that WHO should “continue to focus on and intensify its measures to make medical products more affordable, strengthening national regulatory authorities and health systems which includes national medicine policies, health risk management systems, sustainable financing, human resource development and reliable procurement and supply systems; and to enhance and support work on prequalification and promotion of generics, and efforts in rational selection and use of medical products. In each of these areas, WHO’s function should be: information sharing and awareness creation; norms and standards and technical assistance to countries on country situation assessment; national policy development; and capacity building, supporting product development and domestic production.”

And it calls on WHO to increase its efforts to support members in “strengthening national and regional regulatory infrastructure and capacity.”

A contentious issue around counterfeits has been the suspicion on the part of some developing countries that concerns about counterfeit and substandard medicines are being purposely confused with trade in legitimate generic medicines from those countries. Removing intellectual property and trade from WHO discussions likely minimises the possibility of confusion.

Participants said a lack of agreement persisted during the Executive Board meeting over definitions and the WHO’s involvement in the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT).

Meetings of the new mechanism would normally take place in Geneva, but could be held elsewhere. Argentina offered to host the first meeting after the WHA, according to participants. Regional groups will provide input as appropriate, according to the resolution.

The resolution also places the provision of financial resources on member states.

The report on the financial and administrative implications of this resolution, document EB130/122 Add.1, show that over three years (2012-2015) it would cost between US$ 3.56 million and US$4.84 million. This includes staff costs of $2.72- $4 million, and activities of $840,000. This would assume only one annual meeting of the mechanism. These costs were not within the approved 2012-2013 budget, and could not be implemented by existing staff. It would require two professional staff and one general services staff member.

For 2012-2013, funds of $2.37-$3.23 million would be needed from voluntary contributions from interested governments, as it may not fit with donors, the analysis said.

Source:http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/01/28/who-board-plan-for-fake-medicines-mechanism-excludes-trade-and-ip/

1 … 107 108 109 110 111 … 120
Close