Cables reveal how US authorities cooked up ACTA
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 04 February 2011
Cables from US Embassies in Japan and Europe, leaked to the Wikileaks website, show how the US government set about creating an ‘ACTA'. They expose ACTA as an instrument of US foreign policy. It's arguable that the European Union was merely a puppet.
The cables, discovered by La Quadrature du Net, discuss how ACTA was born out of conversations between Stanford McCoy, then head of the US Trade Representative, and various representatives of the Japanese government, including the head of Japan's intellectual property office. The EU was one of a list of possible ‘preferential partners' for the agreement.
The Japanese informed the US Embassy correspondent that ‘the intent of
The cable correspondent reveals how the US and Japan agreed to use the message of protecting consumers and health as a means to make the proposed ACTA politically acceptable. They tell us how the USTR Stan McCoy persuaded the Japanese to keep this as a separate initiative from other existing global organisations, such as the OECD.
Japan and the US agreed to try to push ACTA through with a minimum of scrutiny, and were not keen to address issues that, for example, were important to the European Union, such as geographic indicators. They said that such discussions would slow the process down.
Officials from Japan and the US discussed how they could best manipulate the European Union - was it better to get the Commission involved, or to go direct to the Member States? The latter might be slower, they felt.
And we learn that ACTA was always understood by the US to be more than just a trade agreement. One US official is quoted as saying that ACTA also involves (in addition to trade) "intellectual property rights, customs, law enforcement and judicial issues".
As those who followed the Telecoms Package will know, judicial issues are an important aspect of copyright enforcement measures such as graduated response.
La Quadrature du Net have further analysis of the ACTA cables.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2011) Cables reveal how US gov't cooked up ACTA http://www.iptegrity.com 4 March 2011
- Article Views: 16253
IPtegrity politics
- What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?