Last month, we found that, Kader Arif, rapporteur for the ACT - or responsible for the "search" of the ACT for the EU parliament - was resigned, disgusted by the fact that the EU ahead of ACTA. He noted that he was denounced both the process and the agreement itself. Arif recently gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal came into much more detail on issues relating to ACTA. It is really worth to read it all, because while the defenders of ACTA (as defenders of the SOPA before them) continue to insist that the allegations are based on erroneous information, you can not accuse someone very Parliament to investigate the agreement to be a victim of misinformation. Here's an excerpt:

MINUTES The problem is that, unlike the title suggests, is not only an agreement on the fight against counterfeiting, but a much wider agreement to fight against against all forms of violation of intellectual property rights, including on the Internet. And here I am afraid that I (and many international experts) believe that the text of the agreement is broken this fragile balance between the interests of rights holders and the protection of civil liberties. Let me give two examples to illustrate this concern.

The first is Article 11 of the Agreement, which stipulates that the right holder is entitled to request information "regarding any person involved in a any aspect of the offense or alleged offense. "This article is written so broadly and blurred leaving much room for interpretation. In practice, almost anyone could be related to a violation of intellectual property rights and are subject to criminal penalties in such a loose definition. It is our responsibility as legislators and representatives of the people who do not leave a judicial authority to decide the scope of an agreement that could affect the civil liberties of people.

The second is the issue of having the personal luggage of passengers for the borders. LAW provides for the use of counterfeit products on a commercial scale can result in criminal penalties. But Again, there is no definition of "commercial scale" is given. Article 14 of the Agreement makes clear that unless the measures taken by the opposing party, you can search the luggage of people even in small consignments. So if a traveler is on your laptop or MP3 player download a song or movie illegally is punishable? How many songs or movies that you need to establish an illicit trade? In theory it would be enough ... The problem here again is that the Act gives no clear indication. Besides the fact that this is an extremely sensitive issue to allow the baggage search of all passengers, and personally I am totally opposed to it, I see here a great risk of abuse and unjustified sanctions.



Later, he explains how to support ACT saying he will have no impact on EU legislation, are to be misleading. He said if this is true, then the document is useless. And if this is not true, then it is a threat to the rights of persons:


Therefore, if the law does not create new rights for the foreign company, which is the point of the agreement? Or is it our business to secure new rights for the action to take in the partner countries, while companies based in our partner countries do not gain anything? The Commission's argument is that the Act does not change for European citizens, but represents a huge step forward for our companies operating abroad. It does not matter. Perhaps if China and India had been part of the transaction, which could have considered that the ACT is a way to export to these countries, our legislation is very protective of intellectual property rights. It could have been real progress. But this is not the case, almost all parts of the Act are developed economies with well-functioning judicial systems. The conclusion is simple: RECORD is either useless, or is a threat. This point becomes even more important that information from substitute Arif, David Martin, who appears not to have a very good record on issues like this. This is unfortunate. Apparently some other members of Parliament who were online employment, but who had taken is against the law and rejected it. Therefore, it may have fallen for someone who says he is OK
Find best price for : --David----ACTA----Kader--