ACTA comments

Σχολιασμός άρθρων

Παρακαλούμε η παράθεση να γίνεται ως προς το αγγλικό κείμενο.

Εισαγωγή

THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT,

NOTING that effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is critical to sustaining economic
growth across all industries and globally;

NOTING further that the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods, as well as of services that
distribute infringing material, undermines legitimate trade and sustainable development of the world
economy, causes significant financial losses for right holders and for legitimate businesses, and, in
some cases, provides a source of revenue for organized crime and otherwise poses risks to
the public;

DESIRING TO combat such proliferation through enhanced international cooperation and more
effective international enforcement;

INTENDING TO provide effective and appropriate means, complementing the TRIPS Agreement,
for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, taking into account differences in their respective
legal systems and practices;

DESIRING TO ensure that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not
themselves become barriers to legitimate trade;

DESIRING TO address the problem of infringement of intellectual property rights, including
infringement taking place in the digital environment, in particular with respect to copyright or
related rights, in a manner that balances the rights and interests of the relevant right holders, service
providers, and users;

DESIRING TO promote cooperation between service providers and right holders to address
relevant infringements in the digital environment;

DESIRING that this Agreement operates in a manner mutually supportive of international
enforcement work and cooperation conducted within relevant international organizations;

RECOGNIZING the principles set forth in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and
Public Health, adopted on 14 November 2001, at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference;

HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1 - Relation to Other Agreements

Nothing in this Agreement shall derogate from any obligation of a Party with respect to any other
Party under existing agreements, including the TRIPS Agreement.

Article 2 - Nature and Scope of Obligations

1. Each Party shall give effect to the provisions of this Agreement. A Party may implement in its
law more extensive enforcement of intellectual property rights than is required by this Agreement,
provided that such enforcement does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party
shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement
within its own legal system and practice.

2. Nothing in this Agreement creates any obligation with respect to the distribution of resources
as between enforcement of intellectual property rights and enforcement of law in general.

3. The objectives and principles set forth in Part I of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular in
Articles 7 and 8, shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to this Agreement.

Article 3 - Relation to Standards concerning the Availability and Scope of Intellectual Property Rights

1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions in a Party's law governing the
availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights.

2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in
intellectual property is not protected under its laws and regulations.

Article 4 - Privacy and Disclosure of Information

1. Nothing in this Agreement shall require a Party to disclose:

(a) information, the disclosure of which would be contrary to its law, including laws protecting
    privacy rights, or international agreements to which it is party;

(b) confidential information, the disclosure of which would impede law enforcement or otherwise
    be contrary to the public interest; or

(c) confidential information, the disclosure of which would prejudice the legitimate commercial
    interests of particular enterprises, public or private.

2. When a Party provides written information pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, the
   Party receiving the information shall, subject to its law and practice, refrain from disclosing
   or using the information for a purpose other than that for which the information was provided,
   except with the prior consent of the Party providing the information.

Article 5 - General Definitions

For the purposes of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified:

(a) ACTA means the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement;

(b) Committee means the ACTA Committee established under Chapter V
    (Institutional Arrangements);

(c) competent authorities includes the appropriate judicial, administrative, or law enforcement
    authorities under a Party's law;
 
(d) counterfeit trademark goods means any goods, including packaging, bearing without
    authorization a trademark which is identical to the trademark validly registered in respect of
    such goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trademark,
    and which thereby infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in question under the law
    of the country in which the procedures set forth in Chapter II (Legal Framework for
    Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights) are invoked;

(e) country is to be understood to have the same meaning as that set forth in the
    Explanatory Notes to the WTO Agreement;

(f) customs transit means the customs procedure under which goods are transported under
    customs control from one customs office to another;

(g) days means calendar days;

(h) intellectual property refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject
    of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement;

(i) in-transit goods means goods under customs transit or transhipment;

(j) person means a natural person or a legal person;

(k) pirated copyright goods means any goods which are copies made without the consent
    of the right holder or person duly authorized by the right holder in the country of
    production and which are made directly or indirectly from an article where the making of that
    copy would have constituted an infringement of a copyright or a related right under the law of
    the country in which the procedures set forth in Chapter II (Legal Framework for Enforcement of
    Intellectual Property Rights) are invoked;

(l) right holder includes a federation or an association having the legal standing to assert rights
    in intellectual property;

(m) territory, for the purposes of Section 3 (Border Measures) of Chapter II (Legal Framework for
    Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights), means the customs territory and all free zones [1]
    of a Party;

(n) transhipment means the customs procedure under which goods are transferred under customs
    control from the importing means of transport to the exporting means of transport within the
    area of one customs office which is the office of both importation and exportation;

(o) TRIPS Agreement means the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
    Rights, contained in Annex 1C to the WTO Agreement;

(p) WTO means the World Trade Organization; and

(q) WTO Agreement means the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade
    Organization, done on 15 April 1994.

Υποσημείωση:
1
   For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that free zone means a part of the territory of a
   Party where any goods introduced are generally regarded, insofar as import duties and taxes
   are concerned, as being outside the customs territory.

Article 6 - General Obligations with Respect to Enforcement

1. Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures are available under its law so as
to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights
covered by this Agreement, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and remedies
which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. These procedures shall be applied in such
a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards
against their abuse.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

"To prevent infringements"; Δηλαδή τι pro-active μέτρα εννοεί ? Θα μπορούσε π.χ. να είναι πιο strict policy στο registration ενός site ή στη δημιουργία ενός blog κλπ, που σημαίνει ότι αυτομάτως πλήττει το δικαίωμα στην ανωνυμία (και εδώ έρχεται το θέμα ότι αν θέλουμε να είμαστε επώνυμοι στο Internet δεν υπάρχει σχετικό νομικό πλαίσιο - μόνο ψηφιακές υπογραφές, όχι ψηφιακές ταυτότητες - ακόμα οπότε είναι τελείως φλου η κατάσταση). Άσε που τεχνικά αυτό δε γίνεται. Το σκηνικό είναι το ίδιο με το IPRED2, και το ίδιο σχεδόν wording, είναι προφανές που το πάνε. Το επόμενο βήμα είναι όποιος δεν εφαρμόσει τα pro-active μέτρα να θεωρείται παράνομος, δηλαδή φέρνουν απ' το παράθυρο τη δευτεροβάθμια ευθύνη του provider (κοινώς μπορούν να "κατεβάσουν" το youtube επειδή κάποιος ανέβασε copyrighted material, ακυρώνοντας έτσι παράλληλα ένα κατά τα άλλα πολύ χρήσιμο μέσο δημοκρατικής και καλλιτεχνικής έκφρασης).

2.     Procedures adopted, maintained, or applied to implement the provisions of this Chapter shall
be fair and equitable, and shall provide for the rights of all participants subject to such procedures to
be appropriately protected. These procedures shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, or
entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays.

3.     In implementing the provisions of this Chapter, each Party shall take into account the need for
proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties, and the
applicable measures, remedies and penalties.

4.     No provision of this Chapter shall be construed to require a Party to make its officials subject
to liability for acts undertaken in the performance of their official duties.

Article 7 - Availability of Civil Procedures

Σημείωση, τα άρθρα 7-12 ανήκουν στην ενότητα CIVIL ENFORCEMENT για την οποία ισχύουν τα παρακάτω:

Υποσημείωση: 
A Party may exclude patents and protection of undisclosed information from the scope of
this Section.

1. Each Party shall make available to right holders civil judicial procedures concerning the
enforcement of any intellectual property right as specified in this Section.

2. To the extent that any civil remedy can be ordered as a result of administrative procedures on
the merits of a case, each Party shall provide that such procedures shall conform to principles
equivalent in substance to those set forth in this Section.

Article 8 - Injuctions

1. Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of
intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to issue an order against
a party to desist from an infringement, and inter alia, an order to that party or, where appropriate,
to a third party over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent goods
that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of
commerce.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Και το Internet είναι δίκτυο εμπορίας, οπότε με αυτό το άρθρο μπορεί π.χ. οι αρχές χωρίς να ρωτήσουν αυτόν που έχει το site ή να του δώσουν το δικαίωμα να υπερασπιστεί τον εαυτό του (inter alia στα νομικίστικα σημαίνει χωρίς όλα τα στοιχεία), να εφαρμόσουν προσωρινά μέτρα και καλά για να προστατεύσουν έγκαιρα τον δικαιούχο. Αυτό μπορεί να στέκει για υλικά αγαθά και για site που κάνουν αποκλειστικά πειρατεία κλπ, αλλά αν ένα blog π.χ. μαζί με το κείμενο έχει και ένα κομμάτι να παίζει στο background (πολύ κοινή πρακτική) ή μια εικόνα/φωτογραφία που το copyright ανήκει σε κάποιον άλλο, κινδυνεύει να κατέβει ολόκληρο πλήττοντας σαφώς την ελευθερία της έκφρασης. Κοινώς δε γίνεται διαχωρισμός του τι θα βγει απ' τα "δίκτυα εμπορίας", αν θα βγει το copyrighted περιεχόμενο ή όλο το περιεχόμενο. Άσε που λέει για prevent οπότε έχουμε και πάλι pro-active μέτρα του στυλ αφού ανεβάζεις στο blog σου μαζί με άρθρα και μουσική που είναι copyrighted θα κατεβάσουμε το blog σου προληπτικά (και όπως βλέπετε εδώ δεν έχει τα freedom of speech κλπ που έβαλαν στο 27, με τη λογική ότι όλοι θα κοιτάξουν το 27 και δε θα δώσουν προσοχή εδώ).

2. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Section, a Party may limit the remedies available against
use by governments, or by third parties authorized by a government, without the authorization of the right
holder, to the payment of remuneration, provided that the Party complies with the of Part II of the TRIPS
Agreement specifically addressing such use. In other cases, the remedies under this Section shall apply or,
where these remedies are inconsistent with a Party’s law, declaratory judgements and adequate compensation
shall be available.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Εδώ έχουμε το πανηγύρι της ΑΕΠΙ, μπορεί δηλαδή να δρουν αυτεπάγγελτα χωρίς την έγκριση του δικαιούχου. Μπορεί π.χ. ο δικαιούχος να μην επιθυμεί να κάνει μήνυση ή να κινηθεί δικαστικά όπως π.χ. ο Θεωδοράκης που έδωσε public όλα του τα κομμάτια (και τυπικά είναι παράνομος :P) ή ο Coehlio που λέει ανοιχτά "κατεβάστε τα βιβλία μου" και πολλοί άλλοι. Κοινώς το δικαίωμα του δικαιούχου να δώσει τη δουλειά του ελεύθερη καταργείται (έχουμε βέβαια τα commons και τη GPL γι' αυτή τη δουλειά αλλά στη μουσική π.χ. και στους εκδοτικούς οίκους πολλές φορές τα συμβόλαια είναι τέτοια που ακόμα και αν ο δημιουργός θέλει να δώσει τη δουλειά του ελεύθερη, το συμβόλαιο τον εμποδίζει. Το μόνο που του μένει είναι ουσιαστικά το δικαίωμα να μη κινηθεί νομικά (θα κινηθεί βέβαια ο εκδότης αλλά τεσπα). Γενικώς είναι πολύ προβληματική αυτή η φάση του "δρούμε στο όνομα των δημιουργών", στο όνομα των εκδοτικών οίκων και των δισκογραφικών δρουν μια ζωή, τουλάχιστον αυτό δείχουν τα μέχρι στιγμής γεγονότα! Οι δημιουργοί έχουν λόγο για τη δουλειά τους και πρέπει να πιέσουμε γι' αυτό (έχουμε ξανά αναφερθεί στο θέμα του copyright στο άρθρο που είχαμε γράψει με τον Πρόδρομο για το sound copyright - πολύ - παλαιότερα).

Article 9 - Damages

1.     Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of
intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the infringer who,
knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity to pay the right
holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered as a result of the
infringement. In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights,
a Party's judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure
of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or
services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

2. At least in cases of copyright or related rights infringement and trademark counterfeiting, each Party
shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the
infringer to pay the right holder the infringer’s profits that are attributable to the infringement. A Party
may presume those profits to be the amount of damages referred to in paragraph 1.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Πολύ δυσανάλογη αντιμετώπιση, με ποια λογική θεωρείται δεδομένο ότι όσοι κατέβασαν copyrighted υλικό θα το αγόραζαν αν δεν διακινούνταν παράνομα; Ίσα ίσα τα περισσότερα ίσως έργα που διακινούνται παράνομα έχουν απαγορευτικές τιμές, γελοία υψηλές που πολύ λίγοι θα πλήρωναν για να τα αγοράσουν, πρακτικά δεν έχουν απώλειες, το αντίθετο μάλιστα, με αυτό τον τρόπο γίνεται γνωστή η δουλειά αρκετών δημιουργών γρήγορα και υπό περιπτώσεις βοηθάει και τις πωλήσεις. Υπάρχουν και σχετικές μελέτες γι' αυτό:

http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/study-p2p-music-downloads-increase-music-cd-sales-2287/

Μερικά ενδιαφέροντα δεδομένα απ' τη παραπάνω μελέτη..

For every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases increase by 0.44 CDs.
About 50% of all P2P downloads were to preview before purchase or to avoid having to buy an entire CD.
Roughly 25% were downloaded because they weren’t available for purchase.

Άλλες μελέτες:

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A//www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/musikk/article3034488.ece&sl=no&tl=en

http://www.zeropaid.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/survey.pdf

3. At least with respect to infringement of copyright or related rights protecting works,
   phonograms, and performances, and in cases of trademark counterfeiting, each Party shall also
   establish or maintain a system that provides for one or more of the following:
   (a) pre-established damages; or
   (b) presumptions [1] for determining the amount of damages sufficient to compensate the right
       holder for the harm caused by the infringement; or
   (c) at least for copyright, additional damages.

4. Where a Party provides the remedy referred to in subparagraph 3(a) or the presumptions
   referred to in subparagraph 3(b), it shall ensure that either its judicial authorities or the
   right holder has the right to choose such a remedy or presumptions as an alternative to the remedies
   referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.

5. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities, where appropriate, have the authority to
   order, at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings concerning infringement of at least copyright
   or related rights, or trademarks, that the prevailing party be awarded payment by the losing party of
   court costs or fees and appropriate attorney's fees, or any other expenses as provided for under that
   Party's law.

Υποσημείωση 1:
 The presumptions referred to in subparagraph 3(b) may include a presumption that the amount
 of damages is: (i) the quantity of the goods infringing the right holder's intellectual property
 right in question and actually assigned to third persons, multiplied by the amount of profit per
 unit of goods which would have been sold by the right holder if there had not been the act of
 infringement; or (ii) a reasonable royalty; or (iii) a lump sum on the basis of elements such as
 at least the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due if the infringer had
 requested authorization to use the intellectual property right in question.

Article 10 - Other Remedies

1. At least with respect to pirated copyright goods and counterfeit trademark goods, each Party
shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, at the right holder's request, its judicial authorities
have the authority to order that such infringing goods be destroyed, except in exceptional
circumstances, without compensation of any sort.

2. Each Party shall further provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order that
materials and implements, the predominant use of which has been in the manufacture or creation of
such infringing goods, be, without undue delay and without compensation of any sort, destroyed or
disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to minimize the risks of
further infringements.

3. A Party may provide for the remedies described in this Article to be carried out at the
infringer's expense.

Article 11 - Information Related to Infringement

Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information
sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial
proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have
the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative,
the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the
purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and
regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may
include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged
infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing
or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be
involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels
of distribution.

Article 12 - Provisional Measures

1. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order prompt and
effective provisional measures:

 a) against a party or, where appropriate, a third party over whom the relevant judicial
    authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property
    right from occurring, and in particular, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of
    an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce;

 b) to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Και πάλι το Internet είναι δίκτυο εμπορίας, αυτό που λέει εδώ μπορεί να σημαίνει ότι θα έχουν τη δυνατότητα να διατάξουν ISPs ή service providers γενικά να εφαρμώσουν pro-active μέτρα (βλ. comments στο ar6).

2. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to adopt provisional
measures inaudita altera parte where appropriate, in particular where any delay is likely to
cause irreparable harm to the right holder, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence
being destroyed. In proceedings conducted inaudita altera parte, each Party shall provide its
judicial authorities with the authority to act expeditiously on requests for provisional measures
and to make a decision without undue delay.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Εδώ προβλέπει πάλι προσωρινά μέτρα χωρίς να ακουστεί η άποψη της άλλης πλευράς (inaudita altera parte στα νομικίστικα σημαίνει χωρίς όλα τα μέρη), συμπληρώνοντας ουσιαστικά το ar8.1. Οπότε και χωρίς όλα τα στοιχεία και χωρίς όλα τα μέρη..

Μιλάει βέβαια για αποζημίωση σε περίπτωση που έκαναν λαθος...

3.    At least in cases of copyright or related rights infringement and trademark counterfeiting,
each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities have the authority
to order the seizure or other taking into custody of suspect goods, and of materials and implements
relevant to the act of infringement, and, at least for trademark counterfeiting, documentary
evidence, either originals or copies thereof, relevant to the infringement.

4.    Each Party shall provide that its authorities have the authority to require the applicant, with
respect to provisional measures, to provide any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy
themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant's right is being infringed or that
such infringement is imminent, and to order the applicant to provide a security or equivalent
assurance sufficient to protect the defendant and to prevent abuse. Such security or equivalent
assurance shall not unreasonably deter recourse to procedures for such provisional measures.

5. Where the provisional measures are revoked or where they lapse due to any act or omission by
the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement of an
intellectual property right, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the
applicant, upon request of the defendant, to provide the defendant appropriate compensation
for any injury caused by these measures.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

...αλλά αν λάβουμε υπόψη τους βανδαλισμούς που έχουν γίνει απ' τις αρχές στο παρελθόν (βλ. υπόθεση blogme) αυτή η πρακτική μπορεί να οδηγήσει σε πολύ άσχημες καταστάσεις !

Article 13 - Scope of the Border Measures

Σημείωση: Τα άρθρα 13-22 ανήκουν στην ενότητα BORDER MEASURES για την οποία ισχύουν τα παρακάτω:

Υποσημειώσεις
1
  Where a Party has dismantled substantially all controls over movement of goods across its
  border with another Party with which it forms part of a customs union, it shall not be required
  to apply the provisions of this Section at that border.
2
  It is understood that there shall be no obligation to apply the procedures set forth in this
  Section to goods put on the market in another country by or with the consent of the
  right holder.

In providing, as appropriate, and consistent with its domestic system of intellectual property rights
protection and without prejudice to the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement, for effective border
enforcement of intellectual property rights, a Party should do so in a manner that does not
discriminate unjustifiably between intellectual property rights and that avoids the creation of
barriers to legitimate trade.

Σημείωση: Για το άρθρο 13 συγκεκριμένα ισχύει η παρακάτω υποσημείωση

Υποσημείωση 3:
  The Parties agree that patents and protection of undisclosed information do not fall within the
  scope of this Section.

Article 14 - Small Consignments and Personal Luggage

1. Each Party shall include in the application of this Section goods of a commercial nature sent
in small consignments.

2. A Party may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a
non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage.

Article 15 - Provision of Information from the Right Holder

Each Party shall permit its competent authorities to request a right holder to supply relevant
information to assist the competent authorities in taking the border measures referred to in this
Section. A Party may also allow a right holder to supply relevant information to its
competent authorities.

Article 16 - Border Measures

1. Each Party shall adopt or maintain procedures with respect to import and export shipments
under which:
(a) its customs authorities may act upon their own initiative to suspend the release of suspect
    goods; and
(b) where appropriate, a right holder may request its competent authorities to suspend the release
    of suspect goods.

2.  A Party may adopt or maintain procedures with respect to suspect in-transit goods or in other
    situations where the goods are under customs control under which:
(a) its customs authorities may act upon their own initiative to suspend the release of, or to
    detain, suspect goods; and
(b) where appropriate, a right holder may request its competent authorities to suspend the release
     of, or to detain, suspect goods.

Article 17 - Application by the Right Holder

1. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities require a right holder that requests the
procedures described in subparagraphs 1(b) and 2(b) of Article 16 (Border Measures) to provide
adequate evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that, under the law of the Party providing the
procedures, there is prima facie an infringement of the right holder's intellectual property right, and
to supply sufficient information that may reasonably be expected to be within the right holder's
knowledge to make the suspect goods reasonably recognizable by the competent authorities. The
requirement to provide sufficient information shall not unreasonably deter recourse to the
procedures described in subparagraphs 1(b) and 2(b) of Article 16 (Border Measures).

2. Each Party shall provide for applications to suspend the release of, or to detain, any suspect
goods[1] under customs control in its territory. A Party may provide for such applications to apply to
multiple shipments. A Party may provide that, at the request of the right holder, the application to
suspend the release of, or to detain, suspect goods may apply to selected points of entry and exit
under customs control.

3. Each Party shall ensure that its competent authorities inform the applicant within a reasonable
period whether they have accepted the application. Where its competent authorities have accepted
the application, they shall also inform the applicant of the period of validity of the application.

Υποσημείωση
1
  The requirement to provide for such applications is subject to the obligations to provide
  procedures referred to in subparagraphs 1(b) and 2(b) of Article 16 (Border Measures).

4. A Party may provide that, where the applicant has abused the procedures described in
subparagraphs 1(b) and 2(b) of Article 16 (Border Measures), or where there is due cause, its
competent authorities have the authority to deny, suspend, or void an application.

Article 18 - Security or Equivalent Assurance

Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities have the authority to require a right holder
that requests the procedures described in subparagraphs 1(b) and 2(b) of Article 16 (Border
Measures) to provide a reasonable security or equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the
defendant and the competent authorities and to prevent abuse. Each Party shall provide that such
security or equivalent assurance shall not unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures. A Party
may provide that such security may be in the form of a bond conditioned to hold the defendant
harmless from any loss or damage resulting from any suspension of the release of, or detention of,
the goods in the event the competent authorities determine that the goods are not infringing. A Party
may, only in exceptional circumstances or pursuant to a judicial order, permit the defendant to
obtain possession of suspect goods by posting a bond or other security.

Article 19 - Determination as to Infringement

Each Party shall adopt or maintain procedures by which its competent authorities may determine,
within a reasonable period after the initiation of the procedures described in Article 16 (Border
Measures), whether the suspect goods infringe an intellectual property right.

Article 20 - Remedies

1. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities have the authority to order the
destruction of goods following a determination referred to in Article 19 (Determination as to
Infringement) that the goods are infringing. In cases where such goods are not destroyed, each Party
shall ensure that, except in exceptional circumstances, such goods are disposed of outside the
channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm to the right holder.

2. In regard to counterfeit trademark goods, the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully
affixed shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional cases, to permit release of the goods into the
channels of commerce.

3. A Party may provide that its competent authorities have the authority to impose administrative
penalties following a determination referred to in Article 19 (Determination as to Infringement) that
the goods are infringing.

Article 21 - Fees

Each Party shall provide that any application fee, storage fee, or destruction fee to be assessed by its
competent authorities in connection with the procedures described in this Section shall not be used
to unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures.

Article 22 - Disclosure of Information

Without prejudice to a Party's laws pertaining to the privacy or confidentiality of information:
(a) a Party may authorize its competent authorities to provide a right holder with information
    about specific shipments of goods, including the description and quantity of the goods, to
    assist in the detection of infringing goods;
(b) a Party may authorize its competent authorities to provide a right holder with information
    about goods, including, but not limited to, the description and quantity of the goods, the name
    and address of the consignor, importer, exporter, or consignee, and, if known, the country of
    origin of the goods, and the name and address of the manufacturer of the goods, to assist in
    the determination referred to in Article 19 (Determination as to Infringement);
(c) unless a Party has provided its competent authorities with the authority described in
    subparagraph (b), at least in cases of imported goods, where its competent authorities have
    seized suspect goods or, in the alternative, made a determination referred to in Article 19
    (Determination as to Infringement) that the goods are infringing, the Party shall authorize its
    competent authorities to provide a right holder, within thirty days[1] of the seizure or
    determination, with information about such goods, including, but not limited to, the
    description and quantity of the goods, the name and address of the consignor, importer,
    exporter, or consignee, and, if known, the country of origin of the goods, and the name and
    address of the manufacturer of the goods.

Υποσημείωση
  1 
    For the purposes of this Article, days means business days.

Article 23 - Criminal Offences

3. A Party may provide criminal procedures and penalties in appropriate cases for the
unauthorized copying of cinematographic works from a performance in a motion picture
exhibition facility generally open to the public.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Αυτό εδώ σχεδόν ισχύει ήδη, τις προάλλες πήγα στο κινηματογράφο και είχαν ένα σχετικό intro να παίζει, σε συνδιασμό με τα pro-active μέτρα θα μπορούσε να σημαίνει ότι πριν μπεις στο κινηματογράφο σου παίρνουν το κινητό π.χ. ή σε ψάχνουν.

Article 24

For offences specified in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of Article 23 (Criminal Offences), each Party shall
provide penalties that include imprisonment as well as monetary fines12 sufficiently high to provide a
deterrent to future acts of infringement, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a
corresponding gravity.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Εδώ έχουμε ωμή παρέμβαση στην άσκηση της δικαιοσύνης. Επιβάλει δηλαδή στους δικαστές οι ποινές που εφαρμόζουν να είναι "αρκετά βαριές για παραδειγματισμό" ! Δουλευόμαστε μου φαίνεται. Βάλτο αυτό παράλληλα με το τι πάνε να σείρουν στον ιδιοκτήτη του Megaupload και γίνεται προφανές που πάει το πράγμα...

Article 25

1. With respect to the offences specified in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Article 23 (Criminal
Offences) for which a Party provides criminal procedures and penalties, that Party shall
provide that its competent authorities have the authority to order the seizure of suspected
counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods, any related materials and implements
used in the commission of the alleged offence, documentary evidence relevant to the alleged
offence, and the assets derived from, or obtained directly or indirectly through, the alleged
infringing activity.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Και πάλι θυμίζω τη φάση με τον blogme που του σηκώσαν το σπίτι, αναρωτιέμαι αν ποτέ πήρε πίσω τον υπολογιστή του (που ήταν και το εργαλείο της δουλειάς του). Πραγματικά τέτοια μέτρα μπορεί να κολάνε μια χαρά στα μαϊμού προϊόντα (που υποτίθεται γι' αυτό φτιάχτηκε η ACTA) αλλά όταν μπλέκουν με το Internet και τη τεχνολογία είναι τελείως απαράδεκτο. Δεν μπορείς να κατασχέσεις κάτι άυλο ! Α και εδώ δε λέει τίποτα για αποζημίωση...

Article 26

Each Party shall provide that, in appropriate cases, its competent authorities may act upon their own
initiative to initiate investigation or legal action with respect to the criminal offences specified in
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Article 23 (Criminal Offences) for which that Party provides criminal
procedures and penalties.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Συμπληρώνει το ar8.2 και χωρίς την έγκριση του δικαιούχου και με δικιά τους πρωτοβουλία (δηλαδή αυτεπάγγελτα όπως είπα και πάνω).

Article 27 - Enforcement in the Digital Environment

1. Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures, to the extent set forth in Sections 2 (Civil
Enforcement) and 4 (Criminal Enforcement), are available under its law so as to permit
effective action against an act of infringement of intellectual property rights which takes place
in the digital environment, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringement and
remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Συμπληρώνει το ar6.1 βάζοντας στα pro-active μέτρα και το διαδίκτυο (το ar6.1 αφορά και μαϊμού προϊόντα κλπ) και πάλι χωρίς να λέει τίποτα για ελευθερία της έκφρασης, ιδιωτικότητα κλπ που έχουν βάλει στις επόμενες παραγράφους του άρθρου.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη DG

Το δεύτερο μέρος "..including expeditious remedies to prevent infringement and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements" (ελληνική μετάφραση: συμπεριλαμβάνομένων κατασταλτικών µέτρων που αποτρέπουν και αποθαρρύνουν περαιτέρω παραβιάσεις) δε συνδέεται απαραίτητα με την πράξη που περιγράφεται στο πρώτο μέρος. Όπως το καταλαβαίνω, μιλά γενικά και αόριστα για περαιτέρω παραβιάσεις από οποιονδήποτε. Το άρθρο συνιστά την επιβολή ΠΡΟΛΗΠΤΙΚΩΝ μέτρων για την αποτροπή πράξεων παραβίασης δικαιωμάτων ιδιωτικής ιδιοκτησίας. Τέτοια μέτρα μπορεί να είναι και το λεγόμενο "deep packet inspection" (έλεγχος από τον ISP της κίνησης που φτάνει στον υπολογιστή σας), η "εξαφάνιση" (μέσω DNS-blacklist) ενός ιστοτόπου από το διαδίκτυο κ.α.

2. Further to paragraph 1, each Party's enforcement procedures shall apply to infringement of
copyright or related rights over digital networks, which may include the unlawful use of means of
widespread distribution for infringing purposes. These procedures shall be implemented in a
manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce,
and, consistent with that Party's law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of
expression, fair process, and privacy [1].

Υποσημείωση 1
For instance, without prejudice to a Party's law, adopting or maintaining a regime providing
for limitations on the liability of, or on the remedies available against, online service
providers while preserving the legitimate interests of right holder.

3. Each Party shall endeavour to promote cooperative efforts within the business community to
effectively address trademark and copyright or related rights infringement while preserving
legitimate competition and, consistent with that Party's law, preserving fundamental principles such
as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.

4. A Party may provide, in accordance with its laws and regulations, its competent authorities
with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder
information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement,
where that right holder has filed a legally sufficient claim of trademark or copyright or related rights
infringement, and where such information is being sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing
those rights. These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers
to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with that Party's law,
preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη DG

Εδώ φαίνεται ότι τα στοιχεία ενός χρήστη μπορούν να αποκαλυφθούν σε εταιρία του εξωτερικού προτού ο χρήστης βρεθεί όντως ένοχος μετά από μια "δίκαιη δίκη" σε τοπικό δικαστήριο. Γιατί να συμβεί κάτι τέτοιο;

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Αυτό που λες καλύπτεται με το "consistent with that Party's law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy" Είναι απ' τις θετικές αλλαγές που έγιναν στο κείμενο (και προϊόν αρκετής πίεσης).

5. Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the
circumvention of effective technological measures[1] that are used by authors, performers or
producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights in, and that restrict
acts in respect of, their works, performances, and phonograms, which are not authorized by the
authors, the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Το πανηγύρι του DRM, σε συνδιασμό με το cite note που έχει από κάτω...

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη DG

Εδώ η λέξη "circumvention" (στην ελληνική μετάφραση: εξουδετέρωση) έχει πολύ γενικό νόημα και δεν είναι σαφές αν εννοείται η πράξη της εξουδετέρωσης ή η θεωρητική εξουδετέρωση ενός μηχανισμού (δηλ. η ανακάλυψη από ερευνητές ενός αδύναμου σημείου του μηχανισμού που προκαλεί την εξουδετέρωση αυτού).

Αν πρόκειται για την πράξη, πώς ορίζεται αυτή;

• Πρέπει μέσω της πράξης να προκύψει μια μορφή του ψηφιακού μέσου που δε συνοδεύεται από το κλείδωμα;
  • Αν ναι, τότε πώς διαφέρει αυτό από την νόμιμη αναπαραγωγή; :-)
• Σημείωση: Ο αγγλικός όρος είναι circumvention σημαίνει "παράκαμψη" και όχι "εξουδετέρωση".

Όταν η ίδια η πράξη της παράκαμψης γίνεται από λογισμικό ή υλικό.

• Κατά τη διάρκεια της πράξης υπόλογος (accountable) είναι ο χρήστης ή ο δημιουργός του υλικού / λογισμικού;
• Πώς μπορεί να ξέρει ένας καταναλωτής ότι η συσκευή/λογισμικό που αγόρασε ξεκλειδώνει με το νόμιμο τρόπο το περιεχόμενο που αναπαράγει, όταν η πληροφορία αυτή δεν περιέχεται στη συνοδευτική τεκμηρίωση;

Η πράξη της παράκαμψης μπορεί να συμβαίνει στα πλαίσια αναπαραγωγής νόμιμου περιεχομένου σε σύστημα που δεν είναι συμβατό με την τεχνολογία του κλειδώματος. Θα πρέπει σώνει και καλά οι χρήστες να περιοριστούν στα προϊόντα λογισμικού + υλικού που είναι "συμβατά" με το κλείδωμα για να μπορέσουν να απολαύσουν το περιεχόμενο με νόμιμο τρόπο; Γιατί να μπει ένας τέτοιος περιορισμός στην ελεύθερη αγορά; Επίσης, είναι τεχνικά εφικτό να κλειδωθεί το υλικό κατά τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε η διαδικασία του ξεκλειδώματος να μπορεί να κοινοποιηθεί και έτσι να γίνει μέρος ελεύθερου λογισμικού ή συσκευών ανεξάρτητων κατασκευαστών.

Να σημειώσω ότι το παραπάνω πρόβλημα παρουσιάστηκε πολύ χαρακτηριστικά στους χρήστες του λειτουργικού συστήματος Linux, όπου δεν ήταν δυνατό για ένα χρήστη να έχει ένα σύστημα πλήρως βασισμένο σε Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό και παράλληλα να μπορέσει με αυτό να αναπαράγει κάποιο DVD που νοίκιασε από ένα video club.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Για να συμπληρώσω αυτό που λες αρκετές φορές τα μέτρα DRM παρακάμπτονται γιατί και τα ίδια αποτελούν μέσο άσκησης παράνομης δραστηριότητας όπως το κλασσικό σκηνικό με τη προστασία που έβαζε η Sony στα CD της, το οποίο περιείχε rootkit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal). Γενικά η ιδέα του περιορισμού της χρήσης προϊόντων που νόμιμα έχεις αγοράσει δε στέκει, επίσης δείγματα DRM είναι η προστασία των DVD που είναι ανα χώρα και δεν μπορείς να δεις ένα DVD άλλου region, η προστασία στα HD-DVD που μπορεί να φτάσει στο σημείο να σου βάζει μέσα στο DVD διαφημίσεις τις οποίες μάλιστα δεν μπορείς και να κάνεις skip και πολλά άλλα τελείως παράλογα μέτρα.

Υποσημείωση 1:
For the purposes of this Article, technological measures means any technology, device, or component that, in the
normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works, performances, or
phonograms, which are not authorized by authors, performers or producers of phonograms, as provided for by a
Party’s law. Without prejudice to the scope of copyright or related rights contained in a Party’s law, technological
measures shall be deemed effective where the use of protected works, performances, or phonograms is controlled
by authors, performers or producers of phonograms through the application of a relevant access control or
protection process, such as encryption or scrambling, or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the objective of
protection.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

...δε γίνεται ποιο σαφές !

6. In order to provide the adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies referred to in
paragraph 5, each Party shall provide protection at least against:
(a)  to the extent provided by its law:
    (i)   the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological measure carried out
          knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know; and
    (ii)  the offering to the public by marketing of a device or product, including computer
          programs, or a service, as a means of circumventing an effective technological
          measure; and

(b) the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a device or product, including computer
    programs, or provision of a service that:
    (i)   is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing an effective
          technological measure; or
    (ii)  has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an
          effective technological measure[1].

Υποσημείωση 1:
In implementing paragraphs 5 and 6, no Party shall be obligated to require that the design of,
or the design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics,
telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular
technological measure, so long as the product does not otherwise contravene its measures
implementing these paragraphs.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη DG

Ο τρόπος με τον οποίο "κλειδώνεται" ένα έργο σε ψηφιακή μορφή μοιάζει με ένα παζλ. Στην ουσία η συσκευή ή η εφαρμογή που κάνει την νόμιμη αναπαραγωγή "γνωρίζει" τον τρόπο επίλυσης του παζλ.

Με ένα παρόμοιο "παζλ" προστατεύουμε σήμερα τις αγορές μας στο internet. Αν η ακαδημαϊκή κοινότητα ή όποιοσδήποτε άλλος ερευνητής βρει μια (γενικευμένη) λύση για αυτό το παζλ, τότε όλοι θα θέλουν να το γνωρίζουν αυτό, όχι τόσο για να κατασκοπεύσουν τις αγορές σας, αλλά για να ΠΙΕΣΟΥΝ αυτούς που φτιάχνουν αυτή την τεχνολογία να βρουν και να διαθέσουν μια καλύτερη (πιο ασφαλή) τεχνολογία ώστε να εφαρμοστεί αυτή όσο πιο άμεσα γίνεται στις ηλεκτρονικές συναλλαγές.

Στην περίπτωση των έργων σε ψηφιακή μορφή, ο άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενος για τα αποτελέσματα της παραπάνω έρευνας δεν είναι ο καταναλωτής αλλά η εταιρία. Θα έπρεπε όμως να συμβαίνει το ίδιο ακριβώς πράγμα και εκεί. Δηλαδή το κονσόρτιο των εταιριών που χρησιμοποιούν αυτή την τεχνολογία να επιδιώκει να μάθει για τα τυχόν ελαττώματά αυτής ώστε να μπορέσει να την αντικαταστήσει. Δεν είναι δυνατόν να μηνύει τον αγγελιοφόρο (τον ερευνητή που βρίσκει και ανακοινωνει δημόσια στο internet τη λύση του παζλ) και μάλιστα να του χρεώνει και τη ζημιά της εταιρίας..

7. To protect electronic rights management information,16 each Party shall provide adequate legal
protection and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing without
authority any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies, having
reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement
of any copyright or related rights:

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Με αυτό του δείνουν και καταλαβαίνει καθιστώντας τη παράκαμψη του DRM παράνομη (δηλαδή το deCSS πάει περίπατο, όπως και τα διάφορα άλλα hacks που παίζουν).

Article 33

1. In order to combat intellectual property rights infringement, in particular trademark
counterfeiting and copyright or related rights piracy, the Parties shall promote cooperation,
where appropriate, among their competent authorities responsible for the enforcement of
intellectual property rights. Such cooperation may include law enforcement cooperation with
respect to criminal enforcement and border measures covered by this Agreement.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Ναι αλλά ποιανού party ο νόμος θα ισχύει ? Για κάποιο αδίκημα που έγινε εδώ π.χ. θα δικαζόμαστε με τον εδώ νόμο ή με τον "εκεί" ? Αυτό το θέμα είναι πολύ σοβαρό καθότι στο Internet δεν υπάρχουν πρακτικά σύνορα...

Article 36 (Acta commitee)

3a. establish ad hoc committees or working groups to assist the Committee in carrying out
its responsibilities under paragraph 2, or to assist a prospective Party upon its request in
acceding to this Agreement in accordance with Article 43 (Accession);

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Ναι τα working groups ξέρουμε ποιοι θα είναι, η MPAA, η RIAA και οι υπόλοιποι, έτσι για να πάρετε μια ιδέα δειτε ποιοι συμετείχαν στο αρχικό draft της συμφωνίας πέρα από κράτη:

http://www.keionline.org/node/660 (table 2)

3d. share information and best practices with third parties on reducing intellectual property
rights infringements, including techniques for identifying and monitoring piracy and
counterfeiting; and

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Monitoring privacy and counterfeiting, μάλλον τους ξέφυγε :P

3e. take other actions in the exercise of its functions.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Δηλαδή το other actions τι μπορεί να είναι ??? Κάνουμε ότι γουστάρουμε ?

4. All decisions of the Committee shall be taken by consensus, except as the Committee may
otherwise decide by consensus. The Committee shall be deemed to have acted by consensus
on a matter submitted for its consideration, if no Party present at the meeting when the
decision is taken formally objects to the proposed decision. English shall be the working
language of the Committee and the documents supporting its work shall be in the English
language.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Αυτό δε στέκει στην E.U. όπου τα πάντα πρέπει να είναι σε όλες τις γλώσσες της ένωσης και πλήτει σαφώς τη διαφάνεια των διαδικασιών, πρέπει όλοι οι πολίτες να μπορούν να ελέγχουν αυτή την επιτροπή είτε ξέρουν Αγγλικά είτε όχι.

8. After the period specified in paragraph 7, the Committee may adopt or amend the rules and
procedures upon the consensus of the Parties to this Agreement.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Δηλαδή η συμφωνία μπορεί να αλλάξει σε 5 χρόνια, άψογα ! Σε 5 χρόνια που δε θα τη θυμάται κανείς θα κάνουν ότι γουστάρουν, κλασσική πρακτική...

Article 41

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by means of a written notification to the Depositary. The
withdrawal shall take effect 180 days after the Depositary receives the notification.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Γιατί 180 μέρες ? Αν ένα κράτος θέλει να αποχωρίσει απ' το σχήμα η απόφασή του πρέπει να γίνεται σεβαστή άμεσα, για κράτη μιλάμε όχι για παιδάκια ! Αυτό καθιστά τη συμφωνία binding !

Article 44

This Agreement shall be signed in a single original in the English, French, and Spanish languages, each
version being equally authentic.

Σχολιασμός από το χρήστη MickFlemm

Και πάλι έχουμε το θέμα της γλώσσας εδώ, αν δε ξέρεις Αγγλικά, Γαλλικά ή Ισπανικά είσαι εκτός !

Επιστροφή στην ACTA