EU-US trade talks - soft words but what's the real IPR agenda?
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 24 June 2013
The EU mandate for the TTIP trade talks with the US indicates that 'issues related to intellectual property right's (IPR) will form part of the discussions. The bureacrats in charge of the talks have managed to draft a text that looks quite benign, designed to fool the politicians and the uninitiated. But when decoded, it would seem to amount to the same old enforcement agenda.
The mandate specifies that the intellectual property discussion will address 'areas most relevant for fostering exchange of goods and services with IP content, with a view to reducing costs and supporting innovation'.
This language sounds harmless enough, it never mentions enforcement, and says nothing about 3 strikes or web blocking. Indeed it is so vague that we may almost dismiss it as meaningless bureaucratic garbage. But I think we do so at our peril. Having studied the copyright industries and their lobbying tactics for over five years, I remain sceptical.
The negotiators of the EU -US trade talks (TTIP) have learned something from ACTA. Being too specific about IPR enforcement measures brings bad publicity. This is just what the EU does not want prior to next year's European elections.
Therefore, they have couched their requirements in a new language. Let's pull it apart. 'Fostering exchange of goods and services [...]'. That means they want to encourage the distribution of US movies and music in the EU, and conversely, the distribution of European music and movies in the US. Bear in mind that whilst the EU has a very small film industry, Britain, at least, has a global music industry and a growth market in film production working for the Hollywood studios.
From their viewpoint, the showstopper is the free circulation of their products on 'pirate' websites and services. If you wanted to 'foster exchange', would you demand enforcement measures to kill off those 'pirate' sites? Perhaps we should put that question to the USTR and DG Trade.
Similarly, 'reducing costs' might also mean reducing the costs of enforcement measures. 'Supporting innovation' might mean measures that protect the innovation of the film and music industries - which could well mean, stronger enforcementmeasures taken against the 'pirate' websites.
We learn a bit about the substance of the IPR negotiations from a report report released by a so-called High Level Working Group. This was a committee of bureacrats who will be running the talks.
The TTIP High Level Working Group report says the EU-US talks will promote "a high level of intellectual property protection including enforcement, and to cooperating extensively. "
The High Level Working Group report goes on to say that "both sides explore opportunities to address a limited number of significant IPR issues of interest to either side". What are these limited but significant issues'?
In the digital environment, , 'protection' and 'enforcement' means measures such as website blocking, payment blocking and some form of 3 strikes or 6 strikes. Could they also comprise the 'limited number of significant IPR issues of interest to either side'.
The meaning of 'cooperating extensively' is not clear. Are the EU and the US cooperating with each other to produce like-for-like IPR laws? Does it mean industry cooperation ( reprising the language of the Telecoms Package, see "Co-operation" amendment WAS designed to support 3-strikes )? Or some other type of cooperation?
The copyright industries' perspective does not change. Their limited interest will be to dispose of the largest peer-to-peer file-sharing sites, and to find ways of dealing with people who download or stream copyrighted material without permission or payment.
This is an original article from Iptegrity.com and reflects research that I have carried out. If you refer to it or to its content, please cite my name as the author, and provide a link back to iptegrity.com. Media and Academics - please cite as Monica Horten, 2013,EU-US trade talks - Soft words but what's the real IPR agenda? , in iptegrity.com, 24 June 2013. Commercial users - please contact me.
- Article Views: 27852
IPtegrity politics
- 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
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
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
- 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?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill