The movie “The Pirates of the Caribbean” is the perfect application of the phrase “It takes one to know one”. Two pirate captains, Barbossa and Jack Sparrow, battle against each other to gain power by the use of dirty tricks. Even the Royal Navy, who you would think to be the good guys, sink to the use of treachery. Moreover, the highest ranking officer, Lord Cutler Beckett, is in cahoots with the East India Trading Company and turns out to be the biggest rat aboard ship.
The message, if there is one, seems to be: Trust no one- least of all government bureaucrats.
Our government is hunting pirates in way that mirrors this movie. The Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), is a treaty between the U.S., the E.U, Australia, Canada and other countries, that tries to clampdown on Internet piracy by using pirate tactics. The ACTA is an outlaw treaty that seeks to steal one of our most precious possessions- our right to free speech.
ACTA Treaty negotiations have been going on, in secret, for the past two years. The main advocates of the Treaty are the Movie and Music Industries. The obvious question is why are the governments of the world playing henchman for these corporations? While there are many possible explanations, the one that is the most troubling is that the ACTA is pirate booty for politicians.
“It is unprecedented for an IP treaty that impacts literally millions of people to be negotiated in such secrecy.” he said, adding that the U.S. negotiated stance “runs counter to the Obama Administration’s commitment to transparency.” Michael Giest- Law Professor at Ottowa University- quoted in Computerworld
This global treaty has a shocking proposal. A PCWorld article from IDG News Service titled “Leaked ACTA Draft Treaty Reveals Plans for Net Clampdown” explains that if you are caught, or even accused, of copyright abuse 3x, you will lose your Internet access FOREVER. Your family members could also be permanently denied access to all Internet Service Providers. In the information age, this is tantamount to exile in Siberia.
Moreover, the accused will have nowhere to protest. Copyright holders don’t even have to prove that they actually own the material in question. All that is required is that an accusation be made; there are no investigations or court orders. An article from “Computerworld” by Paul Meller, explains that ISPs that don’t comply will also be labeled as pirates and held liable. You don’t need a degree from Harvard Law to figure out the myriad of ways this draconian treaty could be abused.
The lack of national coverage is another disturbing component to this story. The information I found for this article came from a radio tech show and computer magazines. The ramifications of this treaty are startling. Imagine how easy it would be for a government to silence dissent using this treaty as political cover. Do you think that the governments of China or Venezuela will honor the intent of the treaty? Will our government? Where is the media spotlight? Sorry, I forgot about Tiger Woods. I can’t help but feel that we about to set sail aboard The Black Pearl. I anticipate the day that I click the wrong key on my computer and some bureaucrat pirate screams “Walk the plank Limey!”
The U.S., Europe and other countries are secretly drawing up rules designed to crack down on copyright abuse on the Internet, in part by making ISPs liable for illegal content, according to a copy of part of the confidential draft agreement that was seen by the IDG News Service.
It is the latest in a series of leaks from the anticounterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) talks that have been going on for the past two years. Other leaks over the past three months have consisted of confidential internal memos about the negotiations between European lawmakers.
The chapter on the Internet from the draft treaty was shown to the IDG News Service by a source close to people directly involved in the talks, who asked to remain anonymous. Although it was drawn up last October, it is the most recent negotiating text available, according to the source.
It proposes making ISPs (Internet service providers) liable under civil law for the content their subscribers upload or download using their networks.
To avoid being sued by a record company or Hollywood studio for illegally distributing copyright-protected content, the ISP would have to prove that it took action to prevent the copyright abuse, according to the text, and in a footnote gives an example of the sort of policy ISPs would need to adopt to avoid being sued by content owners:
"An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider's system or network of repeat offenders," the text states.
Terminating someone's subscription is the graduated response enacted in France last year that sparked widespread controversy. The French law is dubbed the "Three Strikes" law because French ISPs must give repeat file sharers two warnings before cutting off their connection.
Other countries in Europe are considering similar legal measures to crack down on illegal file-sharing. However, E.U.-wide laws waive ISPs' liability for the content of messages and files distributed over their networks.
European Commission officials involved in negotiating ACTA on behalf of the E.U. insist that the text being discussed doesn't contradict existing E.U. laws.
"There is flexibility in the European system. Some countries apply judicial solutions (to the problem of illegal file-sharing), others find technical solutions," said an official on condition he wasn't named.
He said the E.U. doesn't want to make a "three strikes" rule obligatory through the ACTA treaty. "Graduated response is one of many methods of dealing with the problem of illegal file-sharing," he said.
He also admitted that some in the Commission are uncomfortable about the lack of transparency in the ACTA negotiations.
"The fact that the text is not public creates suspicion. We are discussing internally whether the negotiating documents should be released," he said, but added that even if it was agreed in Brussels that the documents should be made public, such a move would require the approval of the E.U.'s 10 ACTA negotiating partners.
The participating countries are the U.S., the E.U., Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.
In a separate leak that first appeared on blogs last week, the European Commission updated members of the European Parliament on the most recent face-to-face meeting between the signatory countries, which took place in Mexico at the end of last month.
According to that leak, the Internet chapter of the treaty was discussed, but no changes to the position suggested by the U.S. last fall were agreed.
"The internet chapter was discussed for the first time on the basis of comments provided by most parties to US proposal. The second half of the text (technological protection measures) was not discussed due to lack of time," the memo said, adding:
"Discussions still focus on clarification of different technical concepts, therefore, there was not much progress in terms of common text. The U.S. and the E.U. agreed to make presentations of their own systems at the next round, to clarify issues."
The Commission official refused to comment on the content of the leaked documents.
The next meeting of ACTA negotiators will take place in New Zealand in April.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral trade agreement for establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement throughout the participating countries.[1] It's proponents describe it as a response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works."[2] The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit goods, generic medicines, as well as "piracy over the Internet".[3]
Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies. Similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty,[4] and critics have argued that the anticircumvention provisions of Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were similarly passed after policy laundering via treaties negotiated through the World Intellectual Property Organization.[5]
A document leaked to the public in 2008 includes a provision to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a warrant.[6]
The negotiations for the ACTA treaty are conducted behind closed doors and are not part of any international organisation.[2] In October 2007 the USA, the European Commission, Switzerland and Japan first announced that they would negotiate ACTA. Since then the following countries joined the negotiations: Australia, Canada, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore and United Arab Emirates.
Provisions
Although the treaty's title suggests that the agreement only covers counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines), the proposed treaty has a much broader scope, including "piracy over the Internet".[3] In an ACTA fact sheet published in November 2008 the European Commission stated that "There is, at this stage, no agreed text."[7] A leaked document entitled Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement suggests that the following provisions will be included in ACTA: new legal regimes to "encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing materials", criminal measures and increased border search powers.[8]
In reaction to the leaks, the European Commission issued a statement in November 2008, stating:
"The negotiations are still ongoing. This means that there is no agreement yet, and that, at the time of writing this fact sheet, there is not even a draft text on which negotiating parties converge. A number of "texts", wrongly presented as draft ACTA agreements have been circulated on the web. At a preliminary stage of the discussions about the idea of a future ACTA, some of the negotiating parties have submitted concept papers, to present their initial views of the project to other partners. Some of these concept papers have been circulated on the net or commented in the press and presented as "draft ACTA texts or negotiating guidelines", which they are not."[7]
Details published in February 2009 indicate that ACTA has six main chapters. Most discussion to date is focused on the "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights" chapter, which has four sub chapters:[3]
- Initial Provisions and Definitions;
- Enforcement of IPR;
- Civil Enforcement
- Border Measures
- Criminal Enforcement
- Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in the Digital Environment
- International Cooperation;
- Enforcement Practices;
- Institutional Arrangements;
- Final Provisions.
[edit] ISP cooperation
The leaked document includes a provision to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a warrant, something which many feel should not be lawful, making it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay.[6]
[edit] Border searches
Potential border searches are covered by the "Border Measures" proposal of ACTA. As of February 2009 and according to University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist there is significant disagreement among countries on this topic: "Some countries are seeking the minimum rules, the removal of certain clauses, and a specific provision to put to rest fears of iPod searching customs officials by excluding personal baggage that contains goods of a non-commercial nature. The U.S. is pushing for broad provisions that cover import, export, and in-transit shipments. "[9]
Newspaper reports advise the proposed agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travellers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.[10][11]
Some countries already conduct border searches of electronic devices without probable cause. In July 2008, the United States Department of Homeland Security disclosed that its border search policies allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to conduct random searches of electronic devices for "information concerning terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other national security matters; alien admissibility; contraband including child pornography, monetary instruments, and information in violation of copyright or trademark laws; and evidence of embargo violations or other import or export control laws."[12][13] Senator Russell Feingold called the policies "truly alarming" and proposed to introduce legislation to require reasonable suspicion of illegality and to prohibit racial profiling.[12] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously upheld the constitutionality of laptop searches without reasonable suspicion at border crossings.[12]
An ACTA fact sheet updated in November 2008, published by the European Commission states:
"ACTA is not designed to negatively affect consumers: the EU legislation (2003 Customs Regulation) has a de minimis clause that exempts travellers from checks if the infringing goods are not part of large scale traffic. EU customs, frequently confronted with traffics of drugs, weapons or people, do neither have the time nor the legal basis to look for a couple of pirated songs on an i-Pod music player or laptop computer, and there is no intention to change this."[7]
[edit] Institutional Arrangements
In a confidential draft[14] Canada proposed the creation of an international organization for ACTA oversight. The proposed name is ACTA Oversight Council and its functions would include:
- supervising ACTA implementation (and also considering amendments, interpretations, and modifications)
- establishing and delegating responsibilities to ad hoc working groups
- assisting with resolving any disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation of application of ACTA
- ensuring that ACTA avoids duplication of other international efforts regarding IP enforcement
- seeking input from non-governmental persons or groups, particularly with respect to best practices in the field of intellectual property enforcement
- endorsing best practice guidelines for implementing ACTA
- supporting the efforts of international organizations active in the field of intellectual property enforcement
- assisting non-Party governments with developing assessments of the benefits of accession to ACTA; and
- adopting its own rules of procedure.
[edit] Negotiations
The negotiations for the ACTA treaty are conducted in secrecy and are not part of any international body.[2] The European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other government agencies have acknowledged participating in ACTA negotiations, but refused to release drafts of the treaty or to discuss specific terms under discussion in the negotiations.[citation needed] However, on 22 May 2008 a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded to Wikileaks.[15]
According to the United States Trade Representative agency (USTR), preliminary talks about ACTA took place throughout 2006 and 2007 between United States, Canada, the European Commission, Japan and Switzerland.[3] In October 23, 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan simultaneously announced that they would negotiate ACTA.[16] The first official round of negotiations took place in Geneva during 3 and 4 June 2008; at that time, at least the following countries had joined the negotiations: Australia,[17] the European Union, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore and United Arab Emirates.[18] A second round took place in Washington, DC, from 29 to 31 July,[19], the third round was in Tokyo, during 8 and 9 October,[20] a fourth in Paris from 15 to 18 December [21]
[edit] 5th Round of Negotiation, Rabat, July 2009
The 5th round of the ACTA negotiations was hosted by the Kingdom of Morocco in Rabat on July 16 and 17 2009. Participants in the negotiations included Australia, Canada, the European Union (represented by the European Commission, the EU Presidency (Sweden) and EU Member States), Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the USA.[22]
The discussions at the meeting focused on international cooperation, enforcement practices and institutional issues. Transparency was also discussed, including providing information to stakeholders and the interested public. Participants agreed to release draft agendas before all subsequent negotiation rounds.[22]
[edit] 6th Round of Negotiation, Seoul, November 2009
The 6th round of the ACTA negotiations was hosted by the Republic of Korea in Seoul on November 4 to 6, 2009. Participants in these negotiations included Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States of America. The discussions in this round of negotiations focused on enforcement in the digital environment and criminal enforcement.[23]
[edit] 7th Round of Negotiation, Mexico, January 2010
The 7th round of negotiations took place on 26–29 January 2010 in Guadalajara, Mexico. Participants were the same as the 6th round.[24]
[edit] 8th Round of Negotiation, New Zealand, April 2010
The 8th round of negotiations is scheduled on 12–16 April 2010 in Wellington, New Zealand.[24]
[edit] 9th Round of Negotiation
The 9th round of negotiations is scheduled on the week of 7 June, before the TRIPs Council and should take place in Geneva.[24]
[edit] Support
[edit] Industry groups
The main industry groups on fields related to intellectual property support the agreement and give input and suggestions to the creation of ACTA. These groups include the International Intellectual Property Alliance[25] (including the RIAA[26]) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America[27]
[edit] European Union
[edit] European Commission
The European Commission identifies ACTA as an attempt to enforce intellectual property rights and states that countries involved in the negotiations see intellectual property rights as "a key instrument for their development and innovation policies". It argues:
"The proliferation of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements poses an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable development of the world economy. It is a problem with serious economic and social consequences. Today, we face a number of new challenges: the increase of dangerous counterfeit goods (pharmaceuticals, food and drink, cosmetics or toys, car parts); the speed and ease of digital reproduction; the growing importance of the Internet as a means of distribution; and the sophistication and resources of international counterfeiters. All these factors have made the problem more pervasive and harder to tackle."[1]
Regarding the question why this agreement is not pursued through the G8, WTO, WIPO or other formal existing structures the European Commission explained:
The EU considers that the approach of a free-standing agreement gives us the most flexibility to pursue this project among interested countries. We fully support the important work of the G8, WTO, and WIPO, all of which touch on IPR enforcement. The membership and priorities of those organizations simply are not the most conducive to this kind of path breaking project.—European Commission , [28]
[edit] European Parliament
With a draft Report from 26 August 2008 the European Commission tried to get a mandate from the European Parliament for the negotiation of ACTA[29]. The document will be discussed and likely amended within the INTA Committee of the European Parliament. Eva Lichtenberger prepared a Draft Opinion[30] that heavily criticises this paper within the JURI-committee. On 18 December 2008 the European Parliament adopted the resolution from the Greens with 309 against 232 Votes.[clarification needed][citation needed]
[edit] Council of the European Union
Shortly after, the Council of the European Union also started to work on a Draft for a Resolution dealing with ACTA.[31]. On 25 September 2008 the council adopted a pro-ACTA resolution[32].
[edit] G8
Published in July 2008 paragraph 17 of the G8 Leaders' Communiqué on the World Economy (G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit) states under the heading "Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)" that:
"Effective promotion and protection of IPR are critical to the development of creative products, technologies and economies. We will advance existing anti-counterfeiting and piracy initiatives through, inter alia, promoting information exchange systems amongst our authorities, as well as developing non-binding Standards to be Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement (SECURE) at the World Customs Organization. We encourage the acceleration of negotiations to establish a new international legal framework, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and seek to complete the negotiation by the end of this year. We will promote practical cooperation between our countries to develop tools to combat new techniques in counterfeiting and piracy and spread best practices. We reaffirm our commitment on government use of software in full compliance with the relevant international agreements and call on other countries to follow our commitment."[2]
[edit] Advisory Committees
While negotiations are secret, a number of corporations are part of advisory committees of the USTR and have access to classified documents.[33][34] These include Abbott Laboratories, Association of American Publishers, CropLife America, DuPont, eBay, Entertainment Software Association, FMC Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Generic Pharmaceutical Association, IBM Corporation, Independent Film & Television Alliance, Intel Corporation, Intellectual Property Owners Association, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co, Monsanto Company, Motion Picture Association of America, Oracle Corporation, Pfizer, Recording Industry Association of America, Sun Microsystems, The Dow Chemical Company, The Gorlin Group, The Procter & Gamble Company, Time Warner, and Verizon Communications.
[edit] Criticism
[edit] Secrecy of negotiations
The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes ACTA, calling for more public spotlight on the proposed treaty.[35] Since May 2008 discussion papers and other documents relating to the negotiation of ACTA have been uploaded to Wikileaks,[15] and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations swiftly followed.[10][11][36]
In June 2008 Canadian academic Michael Geist writing for Copyright News argued that "Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy" noting before documents leaked on the internet ACTA was shrouded in secrecy. Coverage of the documents by the Toronto Star "sparked widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade deal that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities." Geist argues that public disclosure of the draft ACTA treaty "might put an end to fears about iPod searching border guards" and that it "could focus attention on other key concerns including greater Internet service provider filtering of content, heightened liability for websites that link to allegedly infringing content, and diminished privacy for Internet users." Geist also argues that greater transparency would lead to a more inclusive process, highlighting that the ACTA negotiations have excluded both civil society groups as well as developing countries. Geist reports 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." He argues that there is a need for "cooperation from all stakeholders to battle counterfeiting concerns" and that "an effective strategy requires broader participation and regular mechanisms for feedback".[37]
In November 2008 the European Commission responded to these allegations as follows:
"It is alleged that the negotiations are undertaken under a veil of secrecy. This is not correct. For reasons of efficiency, it is only natural that intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact, do not take place in public and that negotiators are bound by a certain level of discretion. However, there has never been any intention to hide the fact that negotiations took place, or to conceal the ultimate objectives of the negotiations, the positions taken in European Commission Trade 5/6 the negotiations or even details on when and where these negotiations are taking place. The EU and other partners (US, Japan, Canada, etc.) announced their intention to start negotiations of ACTA on 23 October 2007, in well publicised press releases. Since then we have talked about ACTA on dozens of occasions, including at the European Parliament (INTA committee meetings), and in numerous well attended seminars. Commission organised a stakeholders' consultation meeting on 23 June in Brussels, open to all – industry and citizens and attended by more than 100 participants. US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other ACTA partners did the same."[1][citation needed]
[edit] Legal scope
It has been argued that the main thrust of ACTA is to provide safe harbor for service providers so that they may not hesitate to provide information about infringers; this may be used, for instance, to quickly identify and stop infringers once their identities are confirmed by their providers. Similarly, it provides for criminalization of copyright infringement, granting law enforcement the powers to perform criminal investigation, arrests and pursue criminal citations or prosecution of suspects who may have infringed on copyright. It also allows criminal investigations and invasive searches to be performed against individuals for whom there is no probable cause, and in that regard weakens the presumption of innocence and allows what would in the past have been considered unlawful searches. More pressingly, being an international treaty, it allows for these provisions—usually administered through public legislation and subject to judiciary oversight—to be pushed through via closed negotiations among members of the executive bodies of the signatories, and once it is ratified, using trade incentives and the like to persuade other nations to adopt its terms without much scope for negotiation.[38]
[edit] Privacy
The Free Software Foundation argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion.[39] Aaron Shaw argues that "ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Even though the precise terms of ACTA remain undecided, the negotiants' preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement." such as removing "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers" in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions. Shaw further says that "[ACTA] would also facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process".[40]
[edit] Practicality
The Times has quoted an unnamed British research study which found that iPods owned by persons aged 14 to 24 today contain an average of more than 840 tracks downloaded on file-sharing networks, nearly fifty percent of all music possessed by this segment.[41] The same study also found that 95% of individuals falling under this category have copied music in some way.[41] Thus, some critics argue that ACTA directly criminalizes ordinary consumer activity.[42][43][44]
[edit] Threat to free software
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has published "Speak out against ACTA", stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting."[39] Specifically the FSF argues that ACTA will make it more difficult and expensive to distribute free software via file sharing and P2P technologies like BitTorrent, which are currently used to distribute large amounts of free software. The FSF also argues that ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play non-free media because DRM protected media would not be legally playable with free software.[39]
[edit] Requests for disclosure
In September 2008 a number of interest groups urged parties to the ACTA negotiations to disclose the language of the evolving agreement. In an open letter the groups argued that: "Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited." The interest groups included: the Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, the US Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), the Canadian Library Association, the Consumers Union of Japan, the National Consumer Council (UK) and the Doctors without Borders' Campaign for Essential Medicines.[45]
[edit] Australia
A coalition of concerned organisations submitted to the responsible Australian Government department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.[46]
The submission agreed that reducing counterfeiting is important where it endangers consumer health or safety, or constitutes commercial scale infringement. However, the coalition urged that pursuit of that goal should not threaten legitimate commercial, social, innovative and creative activities, the rights of consumers or the free flow of information. The coalition noted the current proposed treaty raised serious concerns with respect to transparency, increased customs search powers, increased penalties for IP infringement, and lack of due process.
The coalition consisted of:
- the Australian Digital Alliance – a public interest copyright organisation advocating for an appropriately balanced copyright regime;
- the Australian Library and Information Association – the peak professional organisation for the Australian library and information services sector;
- Choice – a not-for-profit consumer organisation that campaigns on behalf of Australian consumers; and
- the Internet Industry Association – Australia's national Internet industry organisation that provides policy input to government and advocacy on a range of issues.
[edit] Canada
The University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic filed an access to information request but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.[10]
[edit] European Union
In November 2008, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) requested secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents from the EU Council, specifically naming 12 documents to be published.[47] The request was denied by the EU council, stating that "disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations, would weaken the position of the European Union in these negotiations and might affect relations with the third parties concerned" [48]. FFII stated that although the case could be won in the European court of justice, the legal process could take many years (citing an earlier case on transparency of EU legislation that took 6 years). Consequently, FFII suggests going via parliaments of Europe to force Council to publish the texts.[citation needed]
In March 2009, the European Parliament passed a resolution demanding greater transparency in public affairs, which among other things called on the European Commission to make public all documents relating to the negotiations.[49]
[edit] New Zealand
In August 2009 a coalition of NGOs and individuals formed to request more transparency in ACTA negotiations. At briefings held by the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) on 16 December 2009, representatives from the coalition organisations supported the New Zealand negotiators stated desire to call for more transparency. In December 2009 two New Zealand members of Parliament, Clare Curran (Labour) and Peter Dunne (United Future) also publicly questioned the need for secrecy[50][51] .
[edit] United States
Knowledge Ecology International also filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in the United States but had their entire request denied. The United State Trade Representative's FOIA office stated the request was withheld for being material "properly classified in the interest of national security."[52] However, a recent leak has shown that the Obama administration intends to start an undisclosed Internet chapter.[vague][citation needed] US Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) penned a letter on November 23, 2009 asking the United States Trade Representative to make the text of the ACTA public.[53]
Posts
