Bei Wikileaks findet sich der Entwurf eines bilateralen Handelsabkommen zwischen der EU und Kanada mit dem Kapitel „Intellectual Property“: Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) Intellectual Property chapter, 22 Sep 2009. Es wird vermutet, dass dieser Entwurf Einblicke in die Positionierung der EU in Sachen ACTA-Abkommen gibt.
Netzpolitik.org ist unabhängig, werbefrei und fast vollständig durch unsere Leserinnen und Leser finanziert.
Aus der Zusammenfassung bei Wikileaks:
The document covers all aspects of rights aggregated as „Intellectual Property Rights“, ranging from copyright to patents to plant production, geographical indications, designs and trademarks. It describes among other issues enforcement measures, calculation of damages, liability of intermediary service providers and border measures.
It also covers aspects related to broadcast, where intermediates would be allowed to do temporary copies of works (caching) only when transmitting for „lawful uses“ (art. 5.12). This could have the dreadful consequences of turning them into private police auxiliaries.
The draft also elaborates on the „technical measures“ (DRM) covered by the 1996 WIPO treaty, DMCA and EUCD directive, and proposes the criminalization of advertisement, for commercial purpose, of circumvention tools.
The part on „Enforcement of Intellectual Property rights“, (subsection 3, page 14) recognizes the right to seek enforcement by any „professional defense body“ or „collective rights management bodies“. These could request for injunctions from the judicial authorities to „forbid the continuation of alleged infringements“, possibly „against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right“ (art. 19). This concerns commercial as well as non-commercial infringement, whereas other dispositions are limited only to commercial scale infringement, such as the seizure or blocking of bank accounts.
The „damages“ part (art.23) considers that damages shall take into account „negative economic consequences, including lost profits, which the injured party has suffered,“ which goes against all economic evidence (for instance to make the downloading of 1000 movie files equivalent to a lost sale of 1000 DVDs). It allows the rights holders to get rid of the burden of proving the economic prejudice caused by file-sharing. The document also conveniently proposes to „set the damages as 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“.