Posizione molto critica e ragionata del BEUC contro ACTA

marzo 5, 2012 alle 6:48 pm | Pubblicato su CONSUMATORI, DIRITTO, INTERNET, PROPRIET INTELLETTUALE | 1 commento
Tag: , ,

Sono di corsa e non riesco al momento a tradurla, mi sembra di poter dire che il pregio della posizione molto critica del BEUC su ACTA stia nell’approfondimento dell’analisi:

BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation calls upon the members of the European Parliament to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA fails to provide a balance between the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and the fundamental rights of consumers. MEPs should reject ACTA for the following reasons:

 Lack of transparency: full access to the Treaty was officially granted in April of 2010 and only after the conclusion of agreement, while access to the accompanying documents remains restricted.

 Lack of accountability: ACTA has been negotiated outside existing international organisations and multilateral fora.

 Lack of public support: The failure to distinguish between organised criminal entities and individuals engaged in file-sharing for personal use creates not only a problem of proportionality, but also raises issues of ethics and risks eroding public support for IPR in general.

 Lack of balance: ACTA shifts the balance between the need for effective enforcement and the fundamental rights of users in favour of rights holders.

 Lack of compliance with the EU acquis: there are a number of provisions which raise doubts as to their compatibility with EU law:

–          Provisional measures: ACTA does not adhere to the procedural safeguards introduced in Directive 2004/48 on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, namely: the right of the defendant to request a review of the decision; the possibility for the provisional measures to be revoked and the right of the defendant to be heard.

–          Damages: The criteria established by ACTA for the quantification of compensatory damages do not match the criterion of “appropriateness of the damages to the actual prejudice suffered” as introduced in Directive 2004/48.

–          Criminal sanctions: Criminal sanctions for IPR infringements have not been harmonised at EU level.

–          Scope of criminal sanctions: The definition of commercial scale is very broad and includes at least those acts carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect economic advantage and also acts which aid or abet copyright infringements. There is no definition of indirect economic advantage or what to aid and abet means.

Fundamental rights: ACTA fails to guarantee the fundamental right to due process and the right to the presumption of innocence.

Disclosure of subscribers’ personal data: ACTA requires the disclosure of personal data of alleged subscribers, thus going beyond the scope of Article 8 of Directive 2004/48 on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.

 Lack of compliance with 2003 inter-institutional agreement: According to the 2003 Inter-Institutional Agreement on better law-making, the European Commission is precluded from supporting self and co-regulatory mechanisms where fundamental rights are at stake. However, Article 27 of ACTA requires the signatory parties to promote cooperation within the business community to effectively address IPR infringements.

Qui la posizione completa di BEUC su ACTA, buona lettura !

Blog su WordPress.com.
Entries e commenti feeds.

%d blogger hanno fatto clic su Mi Piace per questo: