Watt: Are there increasing indications of links between this problem and terrorism? Have you found any of those links and would you describe them for the committee?

Holder: Yes, that's a very good question. It's something that's very worrisome. As we saw organized crime get into a variety of other businesses in order to support their efforts, we're now seeing terrorist groups getting into the theft of intellectual property. Again, to generate money to support what they're trying to do for their terrorist means. So we have to broaden our enforcement efforts, broaden the investigative efforts that we take, to examine what are the precise reasons why people are engaging in this kind of intellectual property thievery. And to consider whether or not there's a terrorist connection to it. This is a relatively new phenomenon, but one we have to be aware of.

Arguing that piracy is integral to such networks [organized crime and terrorism] means ignoring the dramatic changes in the technology and organizational structure of the pirate market over the past decade. By necessity, evidentiary standards become very loose. Decades-old stories are recycled as proof of contemporary terrorist connections, anecdotes stand in as evidence of wider systemic linkages, and the threshold for what counts as organized crime is set very low. The RAND study, which reprises and builds on earlier IFPI and Interpol reporting, is constructed almost entirely around such practices. Prominent stories about IRA involvement in movie piracy and Hezbollah involvement in DVD and software piracy date, respectively, to the 1980s and 1990s. Street vendor networks in Mexico City--a subject we treat at length in the Mexico chapter--are mischaracterized as criminal gangs connected with the drug trade. Piracy in Russia is attributed to criminal mafias rather than to the chronically porous boundary between licit and illicit enterprise. The Pakistani criminal gang D-Company, far from "forging a clear pirate monopoly" in Bollywood, in RAND's words, plays a small and diminishing part in Indian DVD piracy--its smuggling networks dwarfed by local production.

The US record isn't more convincing in this regard. Jeffrey McIllwain examined the Department of Justice’s IP-related prosecutions between 2000 and 2004 and found that only 49 out of the 105 cases alleged that the defendant operated within larger, organized networks. Nearly all of these were "warez" distribution groups for pirated software--hacker communities that are explicitly and often fiercely non-commercial in orientation. McIllwain found "no overt references to professional organized crime groups" in any of the DOJ's criminal charges (McIllwain 2005:27). If organized crime is a serious problem in these contexts, it should not be difficult to produce a stronger evidentiary record.

"This operation is a great example of the tremendous cooperation between ICE and our international partners at the [Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center]," ICE Director John Morton said in a statement. "Our partnerships enable us to go after criminals who are duping unsuspecting shoppers all over the world. This is not an American problem, it is a global one and it is a fight we must win."

The powerful business lobby, perhaps the biggest supporter of controversial legislation intended to stem online piracy, is at it again. The group is up with a billboard advertisement in Manhattan's Times Square and an online video series urging Congress to "protect America's IP rights."

World-wide cross border trade in physical counterfeits alone costs the global economy $250 billion a year.

96% of all online pharmacies are operating illegally, many out of compliance with international IP laws that protect the public health and safety.

In the United States, the domestic value of counterfeit pharmaceutical seizures in FY 2011 rose by more than $11 million, an increase of almost 200%.

Counterfeits also have the potential to put our military at risk and jeopardize our national security missions, according to two recent reports by the Department of Commerce and the Government Accountability Office.

But a case reported on TorrentFreak suggests that the distinction between the two worlds is starting to blur:

A New York federal court has ordered a rare default judgment in favor of John Wiley & Sons, one of the world’s largest book publishers. Robert Carpenter from Poughkeepsie, New York, has been ordered to pay the publisher $7,000 in damages for sharing a copy of "WordPress All-in-One For Dummies" on BitTorrent. According to Judge William Pauley, the man is guilty of both copyright and trademark infringement.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

That's especially the case for China, which probably needs investment less than any nation on earth, since its currency reserves are currently around the $3 trillion mark. But even if external investment isn't much of an incentive, maybe there are others.

That wasn't the case back in 2010, when China was unconvinced about the value of ACTA:

Causing particular concern to them [India and China] is the draft Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) being negotiated by Australia, Canada, the EU and its 27 member states, Japan, Rep.Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the US. Briefly, China's and India's lengthy statements argued that ACTA and other agreements could:

• Conflict with TRIPS Agreement (a reference to TRIPS Art.1.1) and other WTO agreements, and cause legal uncertainty
• Undermine the balance of rights, obligations and flexibilities that were carefully negotiated in the various WTO agreements
• Distort trade or create trade barriers, and disrupt goods in transit or transhipment
• Undermine flexibilities built into TRIPS (such as for public health, and trade in generic medicines)
• Undermine governments’ freedom to allocate resources on intellectual property by forcing them to focus on enforcement

A recent article provides some insight into China's attitude towards TPP, and its plans in this area:

For evidence of China's vision for an integrated East Asian political economy -- binding China, Japan, and Korea -- look at remarks of China's Commerce Minister yesterday in Beijing. Speaking at a press conference during the ongoing Chinese National People's Congress, Minister of Commerce Chen Deming's said of that Japanese entry into negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, if it happens, "Should not be allowed to influence progress on other types of cooperation in the East Asian region."

Translation: Japan should give priority to and focus first on the talks being promoted by Beijing to create a regional Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which would closely bind China, Japan, and Korea.

That's the key problem with the ACTA proponents' vague hope that China will one day join a treaty it had no input on and which aims to shut down parts of its economy: ACTA would not only diminish China's sovereignty in terms of limiting what laws it could pass, it would also undermine its attempts to strengthen China's position as the undisputed regional leader in South-East Asia.

There is simply no benefit for China to join ACTA or TPP; and without China, both become largely pointless exercises.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

“Strictly speaking, the workshops sponsored by these corporations will, of course, teach our law enforcement officers how to act in the interest of those business entities,” observed Ricardo R. Blancaflor, Director General of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL). “However, it is also true that these brands are the most pirated in the country. They have lost a lot of profits due to piracy.”

Make no mistake, I share the committee's goal of fighting counterfeiting and protecting our creative industries and the good paying jobs they support. The Internet has unquestionably created new opportunities to traffic in counterfeit and illegal goods. The fact that the law has not always kept pace with technology may make it easier for bad actors to exploit new opportunities. Congress is right to want to go after those who are "stealing American intellectual property." However, in writing laws to target the bad actors, Congress cannot afford to forget that the primary uses of the Internet are activities protected by the First Amendment, not civil or criminal violations.

[...] Yes, the Internet needs reasonable laws and bad actors need to be pursued, but the freedoms of billions of individual Internet users cannot be sacrificed in the interest of easing that pursuit. The decisions we make to police the Internet today will also govern how this relatively new medium will continue to develop and shape our world. I objected to last year's Combating Online Infringement of Copyrights Act not because it might reduce the Internet's ability to facilitate infringement, but because I believe it went about it in a way that would also reduce the Internet's ability to promote democracy, commerce and free speech.

1. Don't be hasty. Good public policy is not made on the back of a galloping horse. While both Congress and law enforcement are understandably eager to go after bad actors, both must be mindful of the precedents that they are setting in the U.S. and around the world. The law is best applied when the government's assertions can be challenged before its actions are approved.
2. Avoid collateral damage. Granting law enforcement broad authority to censor online content has a chilling effect on free speech. Narrowly focus law enforcement’s authority on those who are deliberately breaking the law or infringing on others’ property rights for commercial gain.
3. Preserve Fair Use and secondary liability protections. These safeguards are fundamental to Internet commerce and explain why American companies have been so successful in the global marketplace. The network effect is such a powerful driver of commerce on the Internet that any restriction on links and referrals is a serious barrier to economic activity.
4. Be mindful of how remedies can threaten and shape the integrity or architecture of the Internet. Decisions made today can have lasting results.
5. Avoid taking actions that will empower foreign regimes to censor the Internet. The United States has led the world in promoting free speech; our example cannot be allowed to give authoritarian regimes any excuse to go backwards.
6. Recognize the difference between copyright infringement and counterfeits. A one-size-fits-all approach towards trademarks and copyright may not be appropriate.

You really should visit and talk to some companies that are living this experience. There is no way to file a legal law suit in every instance someone is stealing my D'Addario Strings trademark. We are family owned business in the USA with sales of $150 million. Sounds big, and rich and all that!!! However last year we spent $750,000 on legal battles and got nowhere. We would be bankrupt trying to protect the 1000 jobs that we provide here in the USA. We are not General Motors, IBM or NIke. The scale is not there.

If we were allowed legitimate access to the Chinese market and the Chinese were not counterfeiting our product we would be able to create 200 to 500 more jobs in the USA.

Don't paint everyone with a broad stroke of the brush. Telling the companies on the list to work harder is an insult. We work as hard as we possibly can already (its 5:30 AM where i am right now and dont stop working until 6:30 PM.

I have personally visited stores in four Chinese cities to see 7 out of 10 sets of my brand of strings are fake. The packaging is perfect, right down to the American flat and the words "Printed and Made in USA". The strings are shxt.

I wonder how that would make you feel if you started a brand name from nothing in 1974 and built it to the largest in the world only to watch people completely rip it off.

So your suggestioin to me is to work harder and sue everyone? I may as well close up or cash out and watch the 1000 jobs evaporate. Or better, maybe i should move the factory to China and destroy another 1000 US jobs?

Go on Alibaba.com and witness the hundreds of thousands of fake product listings. There is nothing on the site that is real or legitimate. At some point the government has to take some kind of police action. This is not just a civil matter, there are criminal (grand larceny) implications here.

I agree there should be due process before a site is shut down. I dont know what that process should be, but when threre is clear evidence submitted to a government agency that a site is selling fake merchandise the government should have some authority to put a URL on hold until they can defend themselves. Let the theives absorb the burden of defending themselves, don't expect the legitimate folks to foot the bill.

How is possible for the public to ask the legitimate manufacturers to bear the role of the government and police every instance of fraud with a law suit? It would be tens of millions of $$$ a year.

Learn more before developing such strong views and 'black listing' good people.

Jim D'Addario - CEO D'Addario and Company

I agree there should be due process before a site is shut down. I dont know what that process should be, but when threre is clear evidence submitted to a government agency that a site is selling fake merchandise the government should have some authority to put a URL on hold until they can defend themselves. Let the theives absorb the burden of defending themselves, don't expect the legitimate folks to foot the bill.

Can you copyright a design? I mean, you can't copyright a book title, can you?

Kai, no, you cannot copyright a fashion design in the United States at this point. However, I have been very involved working on legislation that would permit copyrighting of fashion designs, or rather a very, very short-term form of copyrighting -- a three-year copyright. A good fashion lawyer needs to know the basics of the intellectual property system, but also get creative and borrow from areas of intellectual property law that might apply. We're talking about the trademarks that protect labels and logos, for example. So it's about getting creative with the lot out there and learning to apply it to the special needs of the fashion industry.

Trying to shut down counterfeits and knock-offs is a little bit like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. I think that the consumer doesn't always understand the potential harm from carrying that fake Louis Vuitton purse. And the harm is particularly intense when it comes not to the big companies, but to the little ones, the ones whose names you might not even know but whose designs are stolen, sometimes even before they can get those designs to market.

The idea of design being part of our culture is also part of what's making it more possible to respect and protect design. Once upon a time, fashion was that frivolous thing that girls did, that women did, maybe some gay men did, but surely not the upstanding members of the bench and bar who were attired in their pinstripes or their black robes. Now, as fashion becomes more and more part of American culture, it becomes something that we respect, and therefore something that we protect, as a key element of our economy and as a creative medium that we find enchanting and engaging. So fashion law is catching up with how the culture is starting to perceive fashion.

As currently drafted, given the expansive use of the broadly-defined term "intellectual property," ACTA goes far beyond addressing the subject matter of counterfeiting. This broad definition encompasses issues that are most appropriately handled as civil infringement causes of action in most jurisdictions around the world, and especially so in the case of the United States.

We believe ACTA potentially changes United States law by transforming what are the commonly occurring non-counterfeit-types of civil action infringements into activity that is to be punished under federal criminal law.

ACTA is unwittingly broadening the scope of the seizure power of Customs and Border Patrol forces to encompass civil action trademark infringement and raising the specter of potential abuse in many countries around the globe. The determination of whether marks are similar and whether there is a likelihood of confusion should not be conducted hastily and in an ex parte manner by a border official, but should instead be based upon the appropriate legal analysis (possibly resulting from extensive pre-trial preparation and discovery where allowed).

Thus, IPO urges USTR to review ACTA to ensure that the scope of the Act is appropriately limited to its stated purpose of addressing the limited, though important, subset of infringement known as "counterfeiting."

On June 28, 2010, at 7:30pm Swiss time, a group of civil society representatives met with 21 ACTA negotiators. The negotiators included representatives (21 in all) from the Switzerland, France, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, U.S., Morocco, Canada and Korea....

It was agreed that, reflecting civil society's objectives to represent and report back to the broader public, this meeting would be on the record. The following are notes taken by Sean Flynn, American University Washington College of Law's Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. These notes are direct quotes to the best of my note taking ability and memory. But others at the meeting may have more complete notes in some areas. Rohit Malpani of Oxfam and Sanya Smith of TWN were also taking notes.

The questions raised were given to the negotiators in advance and the answers were represented as those of the collective views of the negotiators rather than of an individual negotiator unless otherwise indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the speaker is the chair of the Swiss Delegation who was appointed to speak for the group.

There are a couple news items here.

• First, there is an "emerging consensus" to take patents out of the border measure chapter, but not out of the rest of the agreement. Some parties appear to desire to take patents out of the whole text. The EU appears to be in favor of leaving patents in the civil chapter. The change appears to be a rather direct result of concerns raised by access to medicines advocates.
  
  There are still major concerns on access to medicines and free flow of goods in the border chapter. Negotiators seem committed to requiring in transit seizure and it is possible (although there seems some division) that it will include common trademark infringements and non-commercial scale copyright infringement, thus reaching far beyond TRIPS standards.
  
  
• There was an admission that countries may have to change their laws to comply with ACTA. That may not be real news, but I have not heard it admitted by a delegate before. But the EU continued to press that they will not change their laws.
  
  
• There seemed to be little desire to remove or narrow considerably the internet chapter. There was a desire by some delegates to ensure that DMCA-like protections are in the ACTA internet chapter. Several discussed (off line) the desire to combat "file sharing," even apparently when not done on a commercial scale.

Q: Will negotiators commit to continue releasing the text of the Agreement following completion of this week's negotiating round and subsequently until the completion (or abandonment) of negotiations?

A: This is a question that the delegation takes up at end of each round. This will be a question to be discussed and agreed by consensus.

On issue of public comments, this is a plurilateral process and each country will have to take that into account. It is not as if the ACTA group is a formal organization. For a plurilateral agreement, we have promoted a great deal of transparency already more than in other agreements.

Q. Wait. In other processes (e.g. anything done at WIPO or the example of the Doha declaration) civil society got access to text before and after each round. That has not been the case here. We received text once, after years of negotiations and close to what you declared to be the end point of the discussions.

A. Those are multilateral negotiations. This is a plurilateral negotiation. We do not have a secretariat to assist with such matters. This has been an extremely transparent process.

Q: Are negotiators reviewing the text of the Agreement to ensure it is fully consistent with the WTO TRIPS Agreement? Will the WTO or other independent legal experts be asked to review the text of the Agreement to ensure it is legally consistent with WTO rules? Will you provide clear and objective information regarding the evidence base upon which ACTA is purportedly justified, as far as international law, access to medicines and Internet are concerned?

A: This is in the process of being negotiated. It is clear that parties are WTO members and they have rights and obligations under WTO. This does not change if they should join ACTA. There is dispute settlement possibility. If there is a question of compliance then another interested WTO member could invoke dispute settlement. With regard to the press release of the 8th round, the negotiators declared that the ACTA will be consistent with TRIPS and Doha.

On the question of the evidence base -- the ACTA countries are seriously concerned about the phenomena of growing counterfeiting and piracy. We will not cite one particular figure or study. Taken together the development cannot be denied. Whether it is about real or intellectual property it is the government's duty to provide effective enforcement. More effective enforcement standards are needed to address this phenomenon.

Q: Criminal sanctions are being negotiated, which imply the usage of police & judiciary systems, as proven by the presence among the negotiators of the EU Presidency. How can you justify any legitimacy for criminal sanctions (which highly impact fundamental freedoms) being negotiated outside of any democratic frame, in the secrecy of what is much more than a "trade agreement"?

A: I think here it is important to point out that the ACTA negotiations are no different than other inter party negotiations. If at the end the agreement should contain additional obligations for a party compared to a country's laws, implementation of the ACTA will necessitate that it will adjust its national legal situation. For most countries, simply the approval of ACTA is dependent on parliamentary approval. Thus we very much do believe that the democratic process is being complied with. And this process of consulting with stakeholders is evidence of that commitment.

Q: What is the prevailing definition of a 'counterfeit' amongst negotiators? With respect to pharmaceuticals, is it the official position of negotiators that medicines which are suspected of patent infringement are counterfeit? If not, will you commit to ensure that the entirety of ACTA excludes patents from the scope of the agreement as the inclusion of patents is unrelated to the issue of counterfeit, and poses significant risks for access to medicines in developing countries?

A. The issue of definitions is still under negotiation. The only definition currently in the text is for counterfeit trademark goods, which reflects the TRIPS agreement.

As regard to risks to access to medicines in developing countries, which is a concern also raised in question 5: As far as border measures is concerned there is an emerging consensus that patents should not be included in border measures.

Q. The concern about patents is much broader. The April draft mentions patents in every section of the text, at least in brackets.

A. I can only say that there is an emerging consensus on patents being taken out of border measures.

Q: Should customs authorities be authorized to seize medicines in 'transit countries', even when the medicines do not infringe any laws in the producing or importing countries? Will you commit to ensure that any inclusion of ex officio action and/or in-transit seizures is optional and not mandatory for countries? If permitted, do negotiators maintain that customs officials in exporting, transit or importing countries are capable of determining whether medicines infringe patents or whether a pharmaceutical product is 'confusingly similar'? Should there be any anti-abuse provisions included?

Follow up question: You said that there is an emerging consensus to take patents out of border measures, but you did not comment on the broader question of applying transit measures to all trademark infringement was opposed to the more limited set of true criminal trademark counterfeiting. Nor did you address the question of whether there will be transit seizures authorized based on the law of the transit country rather than the law of the country of importation, as TRIPS Art. 52 requires.

A: We see trademarks and patents as different. We see justification to have trademark in the scope of border measures. This is the most common practice we are trying are trying to respond to. There is little justification for someone who chooses a mark that is confusingly similar, to the degree that it cannot be distinguished from the original mark.

Q. You seem to be confusing two standards in your answer. The standard that a mark cannot be distinguished from the original -- that it is identical or intended to be identical -- is a criminal counterfeit. But the concept of trademark infringement is much broader, at least in U.S. law. The question is whether you are applying the same border measure seizure standards to alleged counterfeits as to alleged confusingly similar trademark violations which are normally a civil matter and involves more complex legal and factual determinations. Do you understand the distinction we are making?

A: A mark that is confusingly similar is counterfeit.

(A from Susan Wilson, U.S.): Wait a minute. There are civil, criminal and administrative remedies for multiple kinds of trademark violations. But there are only criminal sanctions for counterfeiting -- using an identical label. The category of confusingly similar is only subject to civil remedies in most countries. There is a distinction there. Confusingly similar is not the counterfeit legal standard.

Q. Thank you. And the question is whether the confusingly similar standard of trademark infringement, as opposed to counterfeiting, is being included for consideration for in transit seizures of goods, ex officio [on the official's own instigation, without a complaint], based on a suspicion or prima facie evidence. That is the Amoxicillin case and it worries access to medicines advocates. Is that still on the table or is there an emerging consensus to remove that standard?

A: There is no emerging consensus. It is still on the table in the border chapter.

Q: Could negotiators list out the relevant anti-abuse provisions in ACTA to ensure that rights holders do not use the Agreement to expand intellectual property protection for products, including medicines? ACTA currently contains no pro-consumer provisions and minimal protections for an alleged infringer, alongside maximum privileges and incentives for a right-holder to allege infringement (including extraordinarily limited liability for abuse of recourse measures). The enforcement provisions are universally mandatory while the protections are optional. There are virtually no references to exceptions and limitations, or to TRIPS flexibilities and safeguards. Do negotiators feel that sufficient balance has been achieved under the Agreement?

A: ACTA delegates would like to make clear that ACTA is not about substantive standards. It is not to expand existing rights. With regard to alleged infringers, the agreement may not directly address this issue. National law on the protection of consumers will apply to implementation at the national level.

ACTA delegates do consider that ACTA provides for exceptions. E.g. the de minimus provision has been proposed by some parties and is being considered.

With regard to maximum privileges to prohibit abuse, I can point to parts of the draft permitting rights holders to request customs authorities to assist with border measures and the authorities may ask for security before asking for assistance.

One consistent problem with the April draft is that is incorporates some but not all TRIPS protections from abuse, balancing provisions and proportionality requirements. The de minimus provision referred to is a direct quote from TRIPS. But in many other areas the agreement repeats or expands a TRIPS enforcement measure but omits any reference to the accompanying abuse protection or balancing feature in TRIPS. The Washington Communique notes, for example, that ACTA fails "to fully protect and incorporate key protections against abuse (e.g. Articles 41.1, 48.1, 48.2, 50.3, 53.1, 56), flexibilities to promote public interests (e.g. TRIPS Art. 44.2), requirements for the proportionality of enforcement measures (e.g. Arts. 46, 47), and provisions providing for balance between the interests of proprietors, consumers and the greater society (e.g. TRIPS Arts. 1, 7, 8, 40, 41.2, 41.5, 54, 55, 58)."

Q: Are negotiators aware that the Agreement could create third party liability for suppliers of active pharmaceutical ingredients whose materials may be used in mislabeled products without their knowledge? What are the reasons for holding suppliers of active pharmaceutical ingredients unknowingly liable for mislabeled products?

A: Liability is still under negotiations. Under national laws, liability depends on knowledge and fault. These national standards will still apply in this context.

Q: ACTA can become a very strict text should certain proposals be followed, not leaving much room to maneuver for its application. Are contracting parties foreseeing to include in the agreement exceptions to preserve the public interest or flexibilities allowing for adaptation to different national realities? Will you remove institutional measures in which ACTA Member countries attempt to export heightened TRIPS-plus IP protections to other countries, and in particular developing countries

A: All the parties are negotiating to enter this agreement in an autonomous, voluntary manner. ACTA parties see that the agreement they would like to fashion will leave parties free to implement as they see fit in their national system.

Q: How do you guarantee that policies required to benefit from liability safe harbour for Internet service/access providers won't have the effect to force them to restrict fundamental freedoms -- such as freedom of expression and communication, privacy, and the right to a fair trial -- turning them, via contractual policies, into private copyright police/justice?

A: It is important to recall that ACTA parties have expressed concern about fundamental rights after Wellington. We are aware of the importance of this matter and we have made clear . . . It is clear that ACTA parties are bound by human rights declarations and their own constitutions. ACTA will obviously have to comply with those norms.

Q. but you think encouraging companies to take down expression is respecting rights? This is how you make enforcement comply with freedom of expression?

A. from French delegate: You think in EU we live in a totalitarian state? Is France a dictatorship? Have you no rights in France?

Q. That is not my question.

A. I am telling you it will comply with EU law. Are you saying EU does not comply with fundamental freedoms?

Q. It is companies that collect the information. You are encouraging the companies to use that information in ways that, if done by the state, would violate fundamental privacy protections. Is that promoting fundamental rights?

A (French): Is France a totalitarian state? Is it?

Q: No, that is not what I am saying. Ok, fine. You have addressed the issue. Lets move on.

Q: There have been no open hearings or other engagements with civil society since the text was released. Will you commit for the establishment of consistent mechanisms for the ongoing engagement of civil society? More generally, how are you going to fix the process to encourage greater public deliberation on the record, with access to text, and in a meaningful setting? And how are you going to fix all of the specific concerns raised in the previous questions and in all the critics upon ACTA made until now?

A: This is the responsibility of each ACTA country itself. This is underway. It is happening according to the rules and practices of each member. It is a country choice.

So when I finally got around to reading the text of ACTA, I thought that I would find the concerns I'd seen floating around the internet to be a little overblown.

In fact, I think that the concerns of the EFF are understated. I am not so concerned about confidential negotiations to give trade representatives some time to brainstorm. But the text appears to be so one-sided as to appear to have been spoonfed by certain aggressive Hollywood rights-holders who don't think anyone can make fun of Mickey Mouse and that anyone crossing a border should be frisked for a fake Louis Vuitton handbag.

I am surprised that ISP's and technology users seem to have had so little input into the process.

What is counterfeiting? In my humble estimation, it is knowingly making large quantities of exact copies of a trademarked, patented, or copyrighted good with the intention of selling such large quantities to defraud consumers and the rights holders.

Thus, any anti-counterfeiting treaty would have the elements:

1. exact copies or copies intended to be so similar that a consumer could not tell the difference;
2. protected goods;
3. large quantities (500?) (2,000?);
4. intent to defraud consumers and rights holders.

Some kid copying stuff to his Ipod is not counterfeiting. Even 2,000 songs.

So anyone labeling a treaty "anti-counterfeiting" and that does not have the foregoing elements is trying to pull a scam on me.

ACTA appears to be an attempt to tie Congress's hands in terms of domestic copyright legislation, rather than a legitmate attempt to pursue counterfeiting.

1. Copyright and Related Rights
2. Trademarks
3. Geographical Indications
4. Industrial Designs
5. Patents
6. Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits
7. Protection of Undisclosed Information

Intellectual property protection is critical to jobs and exports that depend on innovation and creativity. Trade in counterfeit and pirated products undermines those jobs and exports, exposes consumers to dangerous knock-offs from toothpaste to car parts, and helps fund organised crime.

The ACTA negotiations are one of many international efforts to fight counterfeiting and piracy -- not to "transform" already strong US and European Union copyright laws. Far from keeping them secret, governments participating in these negotiations have sought public comments, released a summary of issues under discussion, and enhanced public engagement.

Among other things, the summary states clearly that "ACTA is not intended to interfere with a signatory's ability to respect its citizens' fundamental rights and civil liberties".

I've noted several times an increasingly popular trope of the intellectual monopolists: since counterfeiting is often linked with organised crime, and because counterfeiting and copyright infringement are vaguely similar, it follows as surely as night follows day that copyright infringement is linked with organised crime.

*Counterfeiting* can certainly be a threat to consumer health and safety, and needs to be combated vigorously, but the idea that copyright infringement might be is simply risible, and it's an insult to our intelligence even to suggest it.