ACTA Susta-report amendments

franz schaefer wrote: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/organes/inta/inta_20081013_1500.htm

i have read through the 107 amendments in the document above and rated them beween --- and +++

some things to note:

most amendments are bad. there are no amendments from GUE/NGL at all. even the green amendments are not always convincing.

we also have to note that where there are amendments that make the text slightly better, these often come with the implicit affirmation of the main-line of the argument. i marked those with a single "+" (i.e. that it is better to vote for them then to have nothing at all).

my comments on AMENDMENTS 1 - 107 To "Gianluca Susta" Draft "AM\739072EN.doc PE412.022v01-00" (PE405.983v01-00 on the Impact of Counterfeiting on International Trade (2008/2133(INI))

sources of amendments:

a.) Tokia Saïfi + Jean-Pierre Audy    both french EPP members, b.) Gianluca Susta italian ALDE and author of the horrible pro-ACTA resolution

c.) Carl Schlyter, Greens/EFA    swedisch green

d.) Corien Wortmann-Kool   danish EPP

e.) David Martin   UK labour party

f.) Christofer Fjellner   swedish EPP

g.) Seyed Kamall    UK conservativ EPP

h.) Daniel Caspary   german EPP (CDU)

i.) Pervenche Berès   france, PSE

amandments: Ratings range from --- to +++

--- very bad -- bad - not recommended 0 rather neutral + not good but slightly better then nothing ++ good +++ very good

Am1 (audy): Rating: --

short: inclusion of "An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe" COM(2008)0465 within the citations. the paper is mostly pro-IP hogwash.

Am2 (susta): Rating: -- identical with Am1

Am3 (susta): Rating: --

Am4 (schlyter): Rating: + short: lessens scope to "systemically" infringements which makes it slightly better but is still affirmative to the general idea of IPR.

Am5 (susta): Rating: -- "counterfeiting not only luxury goods"

Am6 (susta): Rating: --- short: mentioning the OECD report zillions of damage.

Am7 (schlyter): Rating: - short: "considerable share of pirated goods originates within the EU"

Am8 (schlyter): Rating: + slightly limiting the scope but general affirmation

Am9 (susta): Rating: --- short: digital piracy is increasing (OECD)

Am10 (schlyter): Rating: 0 Am11 (wortmann-kool): Rating: 0 short: combating counterfeiting is expensive for SMEs

Am12 (schlyter): Rating: + short: listen to consumer organisations when fighting against counterfeiting

Am13 (schlyter): Rating: - short: we need more public pro-IP propganda

Am14 (wortmann-kool): Rating: - short: more propganda

Am15 (audy): Rating: - short: even more repressiv action in case of helath risks Am16 (schlyter): Rating: 0 short: no substantial change

Am17 (wortmann-kool): Rating: + short: some countries already have effective laws to destroy counterfeited goods. (we could argue that thus we could avoid ACTA)

Am18 (susta): Rating: --- short: Pro-IP hogwash from G8

Am19 (susta): Rating: --- short: heiligendamm pro-IP

Am20 (d. martin): Rating: + slightly less agressiv wording,

Am21 (fjellner): Rating: 0 changed wrong date from 2007 to 2008

Am22 (susta): Rating: --- hogwash

Am23 (susta): Rating: -- to ".. developed countries;" he added the sentence: "whereas, moreover, counterfeit medicines account for only part of      illegal medicines," maybe he wants to suggest that thus ACTA does not hurt the developing countries??

Am24 (audy): Rating: - short: the internet is the distribution channel for all evil

Am25 (fjellner + kamall): Rating: ++ short: we already have IPRED (COM(2005)0276) and do not need that process distrubed by outside decesion making

Am26 (fjellner + kamall): Rating: ++ short: limits to IPR-enforcement are necessary.

Am27 (fjellner + kamall): Rating: + short: the EU already has balanced IPR

Am28 (schlyter): Rating: ++ short: TRIPS is an "agreed level" and not "minimum level"

Am29 (caspary): Rating: -- short: TRIPS is not protecting us good enough

Am30 (schlyter): Rating: + short: medicine for developing countries. comment: i am sick of this. why do people agree that developing countries need access to medice but at the same time ignore that they also need lots of other technology and education and art etc.. as well??

Am31 (susta): Rating: + short: TRIPS flexibilties should be maintained. (problem: limited to "public health" see above)

Am32 (d. martin): Rating: ++ short: be more "balanced"

Am33 (schlyter): Rating: ++ short: use WTO instead of ACTA

Am34 (d. martin): Rating: + delete pragraph 4 (asking for financial coverage)

Am35 (schlyter): Rating: + in paragraph 4: "consumer eductaion" instead of "fight against terror"

Am36 (susta): Rating: - pro-IP hogwash

Am37 (susta): Rating: - short: "creative industries are good for developoing countries" and for "sustainable development"

Am38 (audy): Rating: - short: protocal, equals counterfeiting with organised crime

Am39 (schlyter): Rating: + short: more networking amoung "consumer organisations" instead of "harmonisation of laws" Am40 (audy): Rating: + slight change of scope

Am41 (susta): Rating: + safeguards against abuse of IPR

Am42 (audy): Rating: - more "Euro-Mediterranean Partnership"

Am43 (wortmann-kool): Rating: - 60% of counterfeiting comes from china: thus asks for "action plan" ASAP.

Am44 (fjellner): Rating: 0 short: "plurilateral" instead of "regional" in paragraph 6

Am45 (schlyter): Rating: ++ short: "respect sovereignty and international treaties" Am46 (schlyter): Rating: ++ short: use the already establish framework of WTO and do not undermine it by ACTA

Am47 (d. martin): Rating: + short: "consider viewpoints of developing countries"

Am48 (fjellner): Rating: -- use "plurilateral" instead of "multilateral" from wikipedia: "A plurilateral agreement is an agreement between	more than two countries, but not a great many, which would be	multilateral agreement."

Am49 (schlyter): Rating: - ask for pro IPR-propaganda

Am50 (schlyter): Rating: ++ against "criminal sanctions"

Am51 (schlyter): Rating: +++ asks for "utmost transparency"

Am52 (d. martin): Rating: ++ asks for "open and inclusive debate" on ACTA

Am53 (audy): Rating: -- asks for "task force"

Am54 (schlyter): Rating: +++ ACTA is against EU-legislation

Am55 (schlyter): Rating: +++ distinguis "for personal use"

Am56 (audy): Rating: --- hardcore: "ambitious, exemplary and deterrent criminal sanctions"

Am57 (caspary): Rating: +++ ensure that ACTA does not allow "access to your private PC"

Am58 (d. martin): Rating: + include "emerging economies"

Am59 (schlyter): Rating: ++ more time for negotiations, fully include emerging economies

Am60 (audy): Rating: + adds "india"

Am61 (susta): Rating: - IPR helps to "attract foreign investment" Am62 (schlyter): Rating: +++ inform parliament and ask before signing anything

Am63 (susta): Rating: + avoid contradiction and overlaping beween TRIPS and ACTA

Am64 (susta): Rating: - "calls on the chinese authorities"

Am65 (susta): Rating: 0 "cooperation with chinese customs"

Am66 (susta): Rating: -- threaten china

Am67 (susta): Rating: -- threaten turkey

Am68 (fjellner + kamall): Rating: ++ ACTA should not modify existin IPR in the EU

Am69 (fjellner + kamall): Rating: ++ delete paragraph 10

Am70 (schlyter): Rating: + avoid threatening developing countries

Am71 (d. martin): Rating: +++ recognize privacy concerns, avoid DRM

Am72 (fjellner + kamall): Rating: ++ ACTA should only concentrate on "enforcement" but not change IPR

Am73 (wortman-kool): Rating: - simplify IPR-enforcement

Am74 (fjellner + kamall): Rating: ++ delete paragraph 11

Am75 (audy): Rating: + slightly limits scope of paragraph 11 to "serious threat"

Am76 (fjellner + kamall + caspary): Rating: ++ transparancy, keep EP informed

Am77 (schlyter): Rating: + slightly limit scope: "alleged" IPR infringments

Am78 (susta): Rating: --- pro-IP hogwash

Am79 (schlyter): Rating: ++ deleted most of the bad stuff from paragraph 13

Am80 (schlyter): Rating: ++ removes some bas stuff from paragraph 14

Am81 (d. martin): Rating: + removes call for "harmonisation" from paragraph 14

Am82 (susta): Rating: + we have no definition for "counterfeiting and piracy"

Am83 (audy): Rating: -- pro-IP hogwash

Am84 (d. martin): Rating: + focus on existing legislation before ACTA

Am85 (wortman-kool): Rating: -- minimum sanctions within the EU in case of IPR-infringements

Am86 (audy): Rating: -- pro-IP hogwash

Am87 (audy): Rating: - training for customs

Am88 (susta): Rating: --- IP protects "Sport"

Am89 (wortman-kool): Rating: + investigate first to see if further measures are needed

Am90 (d. martin): Rating: + delete paragraph 16

Am91 (fjellner + kamall): Rating: + same as Am90: delete paragraph 16

Am92 (caspary): Rating: - against "mark of origin legislation" (which would probably be       slightly better then trademark legislation)

Am93 (d. martin): Rating: + delete paragraph 17

Am94 (fjellner): Rating: + same as Am93: delete paragraph 17

Am95 (wortmann-kool): Rating: 0 slightly changes paragraph 17

Am96 (audy): Rating: 0 replaces "authority" with "monitoring center" in paragraph 17

Am97 (audy): Rating: 0 wants statistical data from the commission

Am98 (berès): Rating: - wants data about internet counterfeiting

Am99 (wortmann-kool): Rating: - SME helpdesk for counterfeiting

Am100 (wortmann-kool): Rating: -- demands pro-IP indoctrination

Am101 (audy): Rating: -- use new technology for distinguish coutnerfeited products

Am102 (schlyter): Rating: + replaces "criminal measures" with "consumer eduction"

Am103 (audy): Rating: -- proposes "counterfeiting awareness day"

Am104 (d. martin): Rating: -- proposes "international counterfeiting scorebord" Am105 (schlyter): Rating: ++ more central role for the parliament

Am106 (caspary): Rating: ++ "stresses that ACTA has to be ratified by the EP under the assent procedure;"

Am107 (d. martin): Rating: +++ "believes that in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, the EP should be fully associated        in the ACTA negotiations;"