The ACTA Copyright Treaty and Why You Should Care
By Michael Geist
May. 2, 2010
After years of secrecy, the eighth round of talks aimed at drafting an international treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) recently concluded in New Zealand — and in the face of public pressure, a version of the text was subsequently made available to the public. The ACTA is neither a trade agreement nor one focused primarily on counterfeiting, but a copyright deal featuring provisions on Internet service provider and Internet company liability, DMCA-style notice and takedown requirements, legal protection for digital locks, and requirements for statutory damages that could result in millions in liability for non-commercial infringement — even heightened searches at border crossings.
Ever since the ACTA partners — among them the U.S., E.U., Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Morocco and Singapore — announced negotiations plans in October 2007, ACTA has been dogged by controversy over a near-total lack of transparency. Early talks were held in secret locations with each participating country offering virtually identical, cryptic press releases that did little more than fuel public concern. Now that the ACTA text is public, some might wonder whether there’s still cause for concern. Indeed, given widespread support for measures that target genuine commercial counterfeiting, some might believe it’s time to actively support ACTA.
It’s not — at least not this version.
Still secret
From a transparency perspective, the text release still feels like the exception to the general secrecy rule. The ACTA governments have revealed that the next round of negotiations will take place in Switzerland in June, but currently refuse to provide a specific location or dates. Moreover, the official release scrubbed all references to country positions (such information was available in a previously leaked version), so as to U.S. government claims that ACTA is fully consistent with current U.S. law, at this point we have to take their word for it.
Different region, different rules
Of even greater concern are the provisions themselves. Because of the large number of substantive rules and the differences in domestic law among the ACTA countries, fears about specific provisions vary from region to region. In the U.S., ACTA might means the rules for obtaining injunctions would have to be changed, removing some of the balancing safeguards that currently exist. In Europe, ACTA’s privacy implications have generated concern from data protection authorities and the prospect of mandatory statutory damages, which has led to the multimillion-dollar file-sharing lawsuits in the U.S., would represent a major change in the law there.
Virtually every member country would have to amend its own rules and regulations: Japan would have to change its laws to require ISP policies on allegations of subscriber infringement, Australia would need anti-camcording rules, New Zealand would have to change its anti-circumvention rules and Canada would be forced to adopt a notice-and-takedown system similar to the one found in the U.S. Of course, the many countries excluded from the ACTA talks — including China, Brazil and India — would likely face pressure to conform to ACTA standards and if they complied, even more dramatic changes.
Behind closed doors
Beyond the fundamental reshaping of intellectual property law on a global scale, ACTA is also reframing how those laws are made. The alphabet soup of international organizations typically responsible for such issues — WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, UNCTAD, OECD –- are all far more open, transparent and inclusive than ACTA.
Moreover, final approval of ACTA raises significant constitutional issues. In the U.S., ACTA is being treated as executive agreement in a blatant attempt to sidestep Congressional approval. Across the pond, the European Parliament has demanded far greater involvement in the ACTA process, but has been largely rebuffed by the European Commission, which heads its delegation.
Public pressure helped make ACTA marginally better, but the release of text only confirms many of the fears regarding the substance of the treaty. Add in the ongoing transparency and process concerns and it is clear that public engagement on ACTA is needed now more than ever.
Showing posts with label OECD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OECD. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Economic and Corporate Powers Call for Hike in Global Water Price
Really? That's messed up. Nothing surprises me anymore...
World Bank and OECD say water is a finite resource that must be valued at a higher price in order to repair old supply systems and build new ones
by Juliette Jowit in Paris
Major economies are pushing for substantial increases in the price of water around the world as concern mounts about dwindling supplies and rising population.
Water drips from an irrigation pipe on fallow fields on a farm in Firebaugh, California. (Photograph: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)With official UN figures showing that 1 billion people lack access to clean drinking water and more than double that number do not have proper sanitation, increases in prices will be – and in some countries are already proving to be – hugely controversial.
However experts argue that as long as most countries provide huge subsidies for water it will not be possible to change the wasteful habits of consumers, farmers and industry, nor to raise the investment needed to repair old supply systems and build new ones. And price rises can be managed so that they do not penalise the poorest.
Last Friday, the World Bank held a high-level private meeting about water in New York, at which higher prices were discussed. Days before that the OECD, which represents the world's major economies, issued three water reports calling for prices to rise. "Putting a price on water will make us aware of the scarcity and make us take better care of it," said Angel Gurría, the OECD secretary-general. It has also been a key theme at this week's meeting of industry leaders in Paris, hosted by Global Water Intelligence.
The discussion at the World Bank was raised by Lars Thunell, chief executive officer of the International Finance Corporation. "Everyone said water must be somehow valued: whether you call it cost, or price, or cost recover," said Usha Rao-Monari, senior manager of the IFC's infrastructure department. "It's not an infinite resource, and anything that's not an infinite resource must be valued."
Concern about dwindling water supplies has been rising with growing populations and economies. And with climate change altering rainfall patterns, experts warn that unless changes are made, up to half the world's population could live in areas without sustainable clean water to meet their daily needs.
Global Water Intelligence's 2010 market report estimated the industry needs to spend $571bn (£373bn) a year to maintain and improve its networks and treatment plants to meet rising demand - more than three times this year's projected spending.
At the same time, a major report last year by consultants McKinsey, paid for by a group of water-dependent global brands including SABMiller and Nestlé, said that most of the estimated "gap" in water in 2030 could be met from efficiency savings such as better irrigation and new showerheads.
However, highly subsidised prices are hampering both investment and efficiency, because private and public companies cannot collect enough water, nor persuade farmers, homeowners and businesses to make - and sometimes pay for - changes to reduce their water use, say the experts.
"We were in a vicious cycle," says Virgilio Rivera, a director of Manila Water, which took over water and sewage services in the city when the Philippines government passed a National Water Crisis Act in 1997. "Lack of investment; poor service; government can't increase the water rates because customers are dissatisfied; they are not paying, so low cash flows; so the government can't improve the service."
Huge opposition to price rises is expected however, especially as so many prices are set by elected politicians.
Even in Washington DC there has been an outcry over calls for prices to double over the next five years to help the city raise money to spend on its 76-year-old network of leaking lead pipes.
Obstacles include a long term "legitimacy" from providing free or very cheap water; and vested interests, says Rao-Monari, who cites the example of water vendors in India making big profits from desperate households.
The biggest concern though is the impact on the poorest households. There is evidence that they suffer most from the bad services of poorly funded water companies, because often they are not connected at all or have such bad services they are forced to rely on even more expensive water vendors.
In Manila, Manila Water increased bills from 4.5 to 30 pesos per cubic metre. At first there was resistance but by 2003 the company doubled connections from 3m to 6m, including 1.6m of the poorest squatters, leakage had been cut drastically, and pressure and quality had improved, said Rivera, one of the company's directors visiting Paris. Bills for the poorest households are now less than one-tenth of when they relied on vendors, and payment in the slum areas is 100%, said Rivera.
Some say step pricing can be used to protect a basic water allowance for drinking, cooking and washing – either for very low prices or for free, as it is in South Africa.
"I fully agree the water we need of hydration and minimal hygiene are part of the Human Rights declaration, but this is 25 litres of water [a day], which is the smallest part," said Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, chairman of food giant Nestlé and one of the most prominent global business leaders campaigning on water. More than 95% of water is used to grow food, for other household needs and for industry, he added.
Food prices should not have to rise as higher water bills could be offset by efficiency improvements, from irrigation, to new seeds, or even a changing pattern of what is eaten to favour less water-intensive ingredients, said Brabeck-Letmathe.
Others favour separating water supply from government's duty to take care of the most vulnerable. "Ideally utilities should not make any distinction between rich and poor," said Prof Asit Biswas, president of the Third World Centre for Water Management. "The moment you subsidise [someone's bill] people don't use water prudently."
~~//o0o\\~~
World Bank and OECD say water is a finite resource that must be valued at a higher price in order to repair old supply systems and build new ones
by Juliette Jowit in Paris
Major economies are pushing for substantial increases in the price of water around the world as concern mounts about dwindling supplies and rising population.
Water drips from an irrigation pipe on fallow fields on a farm in Firebaugh, California. (Photograph: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)With official UN figures showing that 1 billion people lack access to clean drinking water and more than double that number do not have proper sanitation, increases in prices will be – and in some countries are already proving to be – hugely controversial.
However experts argue that as long as most countries provide huge subsidies for water it will not be possible to change the wasteful habits of consumers, farmers and industry, nor to raise the investment needed to repair old supply systems and build new ones. And price rises can be managed so that they do not penalise the poorest.
Last Friday, the World Bank held a high-level private meeting about water in New York, at which higher prices were discussed. Days before that the OECD, which represents the world's major economies, issued three water reports calling for prices to rise. "Putting a price on water will make us aware of the scarcity and make us take better care of it," said Angel Gurría, the OECD secretary-general. It has also been a key theme at this week's meeting of industry leaders in Paris, hosted by Global Water Intelligence.
The discussion at the World Bank was raised by Lars Thunell, chief executive officer of the International Finance Corporation. "Everyone said water must be somehow valued: whether you call it cost, or price, or cost recover," said Usha Rao-Monari, senior manager of the IFC's infrastructure department. "It's not an infinite resource, and anything that's not an infinite resource must be valued."
Concern about dwindling water supplies has been rising with growing populations and economies. And with climate change altering rainfall patterns, experts warn that unless changes are made, up to half the world's population could live in areas without sustainable clean water to meet their daily needs.
Global Water Intelligence's 2010 market report estimated the industry needs to spend $571bn (£373bn) a year to maintain and improve its networks and treatment plants to meet rising demand - more than three times this year's projected spending.
At the same time, a major report last year by consultants McKinsey, paid for by a group of water-dependent global brands including SABMiller and Nestlé, said that most of the estimated "gap" in water in 2030 could be met from efficiency savings such as better irrigation and new showerheads.
However, highly subsidised prices are hampering both investment and efficiency, because private and public companies cannot collect enough water, nor persuade farmers, homeowners and businesses to make - and sometimes pay for - changes to reduce their water use, say the experts.
"We were in a vicious cycle," says Virgilio Rivera, a director of Manila Water, which took over water and sewage services in the city when the Philippines government passed a National Water Crisis Act in 1997. "Lack of investment; poor service; government can't increase the water rates because customers are dissatisfied; they are not paying, so low cash flows; so the government can't improve the service."
Huge opposition to price rises is expected however, especially as so many prices are set by elected politicians.
Even in Washington DC there has been an outcry over calls for prices to double over the next five years to help the city raise money to spend on its 76-year-old network of leaking lead pipes.
Obstacles include a long term "legitimacy" from providing free or very cheap water; and vested interests, says Rao-Monari, who cites the example of water vendors in India making big profits from desperate households.
The biggest concern though is the impact on the poorest households. There is evidence that they suffer most from the bad services of poorly funded water companies, because often they are not connected at all or have such bad services they are forced to rely on even more expensive water vendors.
In Manila, Manila Water increased bills from 4.5 to 30 pesos per cubic metre. At first there was resistance but by 2003 the company doubled connections from 3m to 6m, including 1.6m of the poorest squatters, leakage had been cut drastically, and pressure and quality had improved, said Rivera, one of the company's directors visiting Paris. Bills for the poorest households are now less than one-tenth of when they relied on vendors, and payment in the slum areas is 100%, said Rivera.
Some say step pricing can be used to protect a basic water allowance for drinking, cooking and washing – either for very low prices or for free, as it is in South Africa.
"I fully agree the water we need of hydration and minimal hygiene are part of the Human Rights declaration, but this is 25 litres of water [a day], which is the smallest part," said Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, chairman of food giant Nestlé and one of the most prominent global business leaders campaigning on water. More than 95% of water is used to grow food, for other household needs and for industry, he added.
Food prices should not have to rise as higher water bills could be offset by efficiency improvements, from irrigation, to new seeds, or even a changing pattern of what is eaten to favour less water-intensive ingredients, said Brabeck-Letmathe.
Others favour separating water supply from government's duty to take care of the most vulnerable. "Ideally utilities should not make any distinction between rich and poor," said Prof Asit Biswas, president of the Third World Centre for Water Management. "The moment you subsidise [someone's bill] people don't use water prudently."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)