Evidence Outline
4/12/2012
Evaluation #4: Two Tales of a Treaty Revisited: The Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations were shrouded in secret for years.[1] The secrecy spurred two suspicions about the nature of ACTA.[2] First, many believed that ACTA was a way for intellectual property (IP) owners to distribute the enforcement costs of IP rights through enhanced enforcement measures. The second suspicion was that the enforcement provisions would not simply apply to counterfeited and pirated goods in commerce. Many believed that ACTA would also target to “willful infringements without motivation for financial gain to such an extent as to prejudicially affect the copyright owner.”[3] The final draft confirmed that these beliefs were true. ACTA was designed to target counterfeit and pirated goods, enforce digital IP rights, and promote more stringent enforcement standards for goods in international trade.[4] Focusing on all three of the concerns had led to many countries to drop their support of the treaty. The article will explore the potential impacts, and benefits, of widespread ratification of ACTA.
One of ACTA’ most important benefits is its ability to curb international criminal and terrorist organizations.[5] For example, INTERPOL launched Operation Jupiter in 2005 to stop organized crime groups operating in South America from trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods.[6] Over the course of the operation, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pirated goods were seized from groups in multiple countries.[7]According to a report by the RAND Corporation, the location of Operation Jupiter has emerged as “the most important center for financing Islamic terrorism outside the Middle East.”[8]
In 2008, INTERPOL launched Operation Mamba in an attempt to curb the trafficking of counterfeit pharmaceutical products in Tanzania and Uganda.[9] The operation resulted in over 100 types of
Evaluation #4: Two Tales of a Treaty Revisited: The Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations were shrouded in secret for years.[1] The secrecy spurred two suspicions about the nature of ACTA.[2] First, many believed that ACTA was a way for intellectual property (IP) owners to distribute the enforcement costs of IP rights through enhanced enforcement measures. The second suspicion was that the enforcement provisions would not simply apply to counterfeited and pirated goods in commerce. Many believed that ACTA would also target to “willful infringements without motivation for financial gain to such an extent as to prejudicially affect the copyright owner.”[3] The final draft confirmed that these beliefs were true. ACTA was designed to target counterfeit and pirated goods, enforce digital IP rights, and promote more stringent enforcement standards for goods in international trade.[4] Focusing on all three of the concerns had led to many countries to drop their support of the treaty. The article will explore the potential impacts, and benefits, of widespread ratification of ACTA.
One of ACTA’ most important benefits is its ability to curb international criminal and terrorist organizations.[5] For example, INTERPOL launched Operation Jupiter in 2005 to stop organized crime groups operating in South America from trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods.[6] Over the course of the operation, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pirated goods were seized from groups in multiple countries.[7]According to a report by the RAND Corporation, the location of Operation Jupiter has emerged as “the most important center for financing Islamic terrorism outside the Middle East.”[8]
In 2008, INTERPOL launched Operation Mamba in an attempt to curb the trafficking of counterfeit pharmaceutical products in Tanzania and Uganda.[9] The operation resulted in over 100 types of