ACTA must be stopped at the Bulgarian border

Yavor Alexiev

Today, the Minister of Economy, Energy and Tourism, Traycho Traykov, announced that Bulgaria is withdrawing from the ACTA agreement. The position seems clear: "There will be no ratification of the agreement until a unified position of governments in the European Union is reached." Is this enough? What does "unified position of governments in the European Union" mean?

Bulgaria should not tie its accession to ACTA to the will of other countries. Even if the whole of Europe turns its tail and turns in unison, the Bulgarian government must resist the pressure. A united Europe has recently begun to view democracy as an expensive luxury, instead of as an imperative for its existence. This way of thinking must be stopped at the Bulgarian border. Every government is responsible for its actions and on behalf of the Expert Club for Economics and Politics I would like to call on the Bulgarian government to fulfill its role as a conduit of the will of its voters. ACTA should not be ratified or even discussed in the Bulgarian parliament.

Momchil Elenkov

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a controversial document, the interpretation of which at the national level will ultimately be in the hands of experts in intellectual property, copyright and related rights. It is striking, however, that it contradicts general and specific statements (a typical example is the already much-cited Art. 27 of ACTA). The bad thing is that once again the attempt of the ruling public body to deal with something it does not understand is clearly visible. Like a bull in a glass shop, legislators are capable of doing much more harm to the entertainment industry, technological progress and innovation in general than to help.

Draconian measures are far from being a way to protect the valuable items in the shop windows. That is why the appeal to governments is: let us decide the future (of the Internet) ourselves. The fact is that the American company Apple, for example, has already managed to turn the music industry in the US and the habits of consumers upside down by purchasing individual songs for $0.99. Certainly, turning internet providers and the end user into accomplices, informers and criminals is as unnecessary as it is absurd. After all, if a law automatically creates millions of violators, the problem is most likely with the law, not with the affected legal entities.

And what should we worry about: the statements on the subject by our own politicians are too incompetent (Vezhdi Rashidov), general (Traycho Traykov) or unprofessional (Kristian Vigenin). Let us demand two things from them: 1) to really understand the problem and 2) not to ratify blindly once again.

Stoyan Panchev

Attempts to impose legislation restricting the distribution of content on the Internet are a clear example of how politicians and certain companies do not understand one of the most important economic processes – creative destruction. The term originates from the works of Marx and was significantly enriched by Schumpeter, it generally means the collapse of certain business models at the expense of new, more optimized and faster-growing ones. Technological leaps in recent decades only accelerate creative destruction, and those companies, unable to contain their panic, rush to throw funds to preserve the old way of making money – and the easiest way to do this is through the uncomprehending and servile political class.

Stella Zlatkova

The ratification processes of the mysterious ACTA trade agreement have caused widespread discontent among the European public. In reality, the need to preserve copyright and related rights is undeniable, their violation brings great losses to business worldwide. The question is how this should happen. Future regulation should address the challenge of finding a balance between rights holders, consumer protection and privacy. Tipping the scales in favor of any one party implies harm to the other two. ACTA does not achieve this balance.

The main argument in favor of ACTA is the protection of business interests (copyright and related rights, trademarks, patents, etc.). The question is whose business is it protecting? If we do a quick check, according to Business Week's ranking, the top 20 global brands are Coca Cola, Microsoft, IBM, GE, Intel, Nokia (Finland), Toyota (Japan), Disney, Mc Donalds, Mercedes Benz (Germany), Citi, Marlboro, HP, American Express, BMW (Germany), Gillette, Louis Vuitton (France), Cisco, Honda (Japan) and, of course, the Hollywood guild and pharmaceutical companies, the latter two groups considered the main lobbyists in the drafting and signing of such an agreement.

In summary, about 85% of the world's famous brands (which would suffer serious losses from copyright infringements) are based in the USA, and the remaining 15% in Japan and the strong European economies (Germany and France). The truth is that Europe is not so competitive in the sectors where intellectual property rights infringements are most often observed (IT sector, creative industries - cinema, film, music, etc.). There are also globally recognizable brands in Europe, but it is practically very difficult for them to be plagiarized. I personally do not remember massive counterfeiting of Mercedes, IKEA (Sweden) or BMW products, but MP3s have been a problem for some links in the chain for some time.

Let's take a quick look at the main objections of those who spoke out against the agreement.

It is not necessarily true, although the very possibility is very worrying, that internet providers will play the role of whistleblowers. The problem in this case is not that the texts in the agreement impose an imperative, but that these same texts are very vague and unspecific. According to Art. 24, item 4 “a given party may, in accordance with its laws and regulations, authorize its competent authorities to order a given online service provider to provide …(information)…” In fact, it depends on the state itself whether it will grant such powers to the relevant institutions, but the experience with the Bulgarian reality and the strong lobby of some circles makes such concerns completely justified.

The issue of pharmaceuticals is also shrouded in mystery. First of all, I cannot imagine how two industries of completely different nature can be brought under a common denominator. The role of pharmaceutical production on a global scale has ethical dimensions. It seems crazy to me that the same should be regulated by norms applicable, for example, to the entertainment industries. Regulations in the pharmaceutical sector should be extremely strict and in the interest of consumers (for example, combating double standards in pricing or preventing the marketing of drugs that threaten the lives and health of consumers). It is not normal to limit access to reasonably priced generic drugs in order to protect the trademark of others or to prevent counterfeiting (which should be the main task of the competent authorities). An analogous situation would be in which hospitals and hotels have to comply with identical sanitary norms...

The other fundamental and illogical point is of a purely institutional nature. The creation of an ACTA Committee implies that the agreement should establish generally accepted standards in international and electronic commerce. And aren't these same standards already long enshrined in legislation and applicable in all ACTA signatory countries? Moreover, on what principle should it be determined who will represent the 27 European countries, given that only France and Germany have an interest in the agreement?

There are many such misconceptions, but I will not dwell on them now. There is indeed a need to strengthen control in the digital and Internet environment, every author and merchant has the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor and creativity, but not through the adoption of an unclear international agreement, the implementation of which is monitored by an institution with vague powers.

Moreover, this time the EU seriously violated its principle of transparency. Developing countries and civil society were deliberately excluded from the negotiation process, and Europe forgot about its desire to create a “Citizens' Europe”, seriously undermining the democratic process.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!