Media Wonk

Link This | Email this | Comments (0)

Echoes of PRO-IP in ACTA? - June 17, 2008

In a previous post, Media Wonk noted a rough family resemblance between the PRO-IP Act recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, and elements of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement currently being negotiated by the U.S., Canada, Japan, the EU and other developed countries. And we wondered aloud whether the resemblance was simple coincidence, or reflected a common genesis.

According to NBC Universal general counsel Rick Cotton--the spiritual father of PRO-IP in his capacity as chairman of the Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy--the apparent resemblance is more karma than actual paternity.

"ACTA's origins lie with a number of different countries," Cotton told Media Wonk yesterday. "Its conception and championing rest as much with Japan and some other countries as with the U.S. The initiative to in some sense raise the bar and set international standards of enforcement that are adequate to address the current tidal wave of counterfeiting and digital theft has multilateral origins."

That said, CACP did have input into the discussion paper prepared for the negotiations by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that leaked last month, touching off the current controversy surrounding the proposed treaty.

"The USTR solicited a broad range of input for the negotiations," Cotton said. "Certainly, CACP has urged the USTR to set high standards that address a variety of issues that CACP has identified. But the scope of ACTA, which has been determined on a government-to-government basis, has elements that go beyond the PRO-IP Act. What they share is the notion that specialized, dedicated resources are necessary to combat the problem of counterfeiting and digital theft, and that an increase in those resources is necessary."

A polished lawyer, Cotton actually talks like that. But his carefully chosen words come across more stilted in print than Cotton does in person.

Cotton addressed, but didn't quite answer, criticism from some quarters that the negotiations around ACTA lacked transparency, as well as suspicions that the ACTA process--conducted outside of established international trade bodies--reflects an effort by a small number of advanced countries to create a blueprint that could then be imposed on emerging and developing countries that are not party to the talks.

"I wouldn't agree that it's lacked transparency," Cotton said. "The USTR in this country has solicited input, it issued public notices. It's made no secret of the existence of plans for the agreement. In the EU, the process has been enormously open. They had a long process there to be empowered to enter into negotiations and it was widely debated. It's hard to say at that level that there hasn't been transparency."

As to why no countries with developing economies have yet been invited to join the club, Cotton demurred, noting that those decisions were made at the governmental level and that CACP simply offered input when asked. But he also argued that developing economies had something to gain from stepped up enforcement, too.

"There are certain sectors where there is a legitimate debate in terms of how particular provisions [of the treaty] might affect a developing country's economy," he said. "But you have to start from the premise that developing economies have a stake themselves in developing those sectors of their economies and encouraging investment. To the degree that many IP-related industries provide higher-paying jobs and economic growth, developing economies have a stake in seeing IP protected."

So there you have it.
[Deals & Dealmakers]  [Digital Copyright]  [Trade]   LEAVE A COMMENT