[LINK] itNews: 'ACTA treaty mauled in hearings'

[Roger Clarke]

ACTA treaty mauled in hearings
John Hilvert
Mar 23, 2012 2:01 PM (2 days ago)
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/294749,acta-treaty-mauled-in-hearings.aspx

Power to rights holders is a reason not to ratify agreement, say critics.

Academics have savaged the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) 
treaty over the power it affords intellectual property rights 
holders during a second round of joint committee hearings in Canberra.

Associate Professor Kimberlee Weatherall said the treaty - if 
ratified by Australia - would extend new powers to rights holders, 
despite assurances given by the Department of Foreign Affairs and 
Trade (DFAT) and representatives of the Attorney-General's office.

While she accepted that ACTA's ratification would not involve new 
legislation, Weatherall said the treaty expanded the reach of 
existing laws that governed commercial-scale infringements. 

Laws relating to these types of infringements are currently dealt 
with by individual countries per directions in the existing World 
Trade Organisation agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 
Property (TRIPS).

Weatherall called for ratification of the ACTA to be delayed or 
canned altogether on grounds including that the agreement's 
provisions aren't accepted as a legitimate basis for international 
intellectual property standards and that there are few benefits and 
many costs for Australians in the treaty.

She also argued the treaty was tainted by narrow consultations, 
redundant in the face of existing multilateral forums, and did not 
counter-balance powers given to rights holders with user rights of 
access.

In addition, Weatherall said that ratification could undermine 
regional relations with major trade partners that had expressed 
concerns over the treaty, such as China and India.

Weatherall received some support from fellow academic Dr Hazel Moir, 
who attacked the Government and DFAT for failing to outline the "net 
benefit" of ratifying the treaty.

Moir said the main beneficiaries of ACTA were overseas firms and that 
there was a general lack of research to support ratification of the 
treaty.

Moir also attacked the validity of research before the committee by 
rights holders that detailed lost business and the price of 
infringement on the music industry.

Meanwhile, Australian National University College of Law associate 
professor Dr Matthew Rimmer attacked a DFAT National Interest 
analysis [pdf] as inadequate and unsatisfactory.

He said DFAT failed to explain how mandatory and discretionary 
obligations imposed by the treaty would be implemented in practice. 

Rimmer also sought explanation of the so-called ACTA Committee's 
ability to change rules and standards, arguing its existence could 
subvert international standards and enact tougher enforcement regimes 
with little external scrutiny, causing fragmentation to intellectual 
property laws.


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law               University of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University