Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog


Los Verdes

29 juin 2010 2 29 /06 /juin /2010 14:23





The technical solutions for providing millions of books to the blind and visually impaired exist; the political will does not.

A few months ago I asked an important EU official, who follows the proposal for a Treaty for the visually impaired and print disabled, what he thought of Africa´s “all or nothing” position of linking the treaty proposal with much larger demands of exceptions to copyright for libraries, archives and education.  The European Commission official said he thought the African radical stance was “amusing”. He implied that the maximalist African proposal did them a favour by allowing the EU not to be seen as the principal culprit in blocking all significant progress toward a binding legal solution to the right to read of millions of blind people. However questionable and irresponsible the tactics of the African group have been,  the most vocal opponent of a Treaty has been the European Union represented by Spain. The US also prefers to avoid a treaty.

The irony of the situation is that while blame for the lack of progress is being placed on African countries, these countries actually  support a legally binding Treaty for the visually impaired. The reality is that the US and the EU have been fighting tooth and nail against a legally binding treaty for the visually impaired and during the World Intellectual Property Organization meeting last week in Geneva they they were the target of massive criticism from civil society and many countries from the South.  The EU was even  adamant in rejecting any mention of creating “legal instruments” in favour of enhancing the right to read for millions of print disabled people. Now,  instead of blaming the EU and the US for their insensitive pro-corporate copyright fundamentalism, anger is being directed toward the “reckless, unrealistic” proposals of African countries. At the same time the EU and the US are now able to use the broad african proposal as proof in their view that an exception and limitation on copyright for the blind is just one step inin a larger strategy of weakening international copyright protection.  Since WIPO functions with a consensus principle the “African excuse” becomes the perfect pretext for the North to push lower expectations about achieving a new international legal norm and to instead push weak voluntary mechanisms.


What a  sad spectacle. The US and EU member states sat back with certain satisfaction as Latin American and African countries attacked eachother harshly over what should be the best strategy on copyright for the South, a realistic “issue by issue” one or a utopian “holistic” approach (obviously with other political motivations in play, as well) .  As the sterile debate went on for hours the hope of moving firmly toward a Treaty for the Blind faded.   In any case, while the African group was blocking any kind of satisfactory conclusion to the meeting,  the EU and US representatives were totally passive, making no visible attempt at reaching a compromise with the Africans. According to one Latin American diplomatic source this was a coordinated plan between the wealthy countries and the African group to sabotage movement toward a Treaty.  After 14 hours of meeting last Thursday the SCCR ended by default as the clock struck 12 midnight and time had run out. Lost was an opportunity, set forth by Brazil and Ecuador,  of setting a diplomatic time-table and a concrete negotiating framework.

The US and most EU countries already have national laws of limitations and exceptions of copyright within their countries. Nevertheless, these same countries refuse to create a simiiar international norm of exception for the world´s marginated print disabled population.  While legal access to copyrighted works is relatively easy in many countries of the North, the EU and the US propose a series of stringent, inviable and complicated “recommendations” for the rest of the world.  At the core of these recommendations would be the figure of the “trusted intermediary” for cross-border transfer of works that would be “consented” by right-holders and then allowed to distribute certain books in special formats for the blind.   Almost all libraries, universities and public institutions in the South, where most visually impaired live,  could not meet the strict conditions to become “intermediaries” and would be excluded.  In any case,  the difficult mechanics and the narrow technical restrictions of these US and EU proposals would allow very few books to be made available to the 300 million print disabled persons in the world.

New means are needed to pressure and shake a bit of common sense and justice into the countries members of WIPO. Here is a draft of a still unsigned note, not officially released, that was written by a few civil society representatives amidst the frustration of last week´s meeting:

We have been coming to WIPO for many years now,  not to protect any private or individual interest, but to defend the interest of a very disadvantaged group- blind people and other print disabled communities globally.  In the name of of civil society organizations that are working for a solution to the “book famine” that millions of citizens suffer around the world, and who support a legally binding Treaty for the visually impaired and other print disabled, we feel obliged to express our frustration and profound disappointment over the utter failure of WIPO Member States to seriously address the urgent needs of blind persons and other print disabled people.  We are dismayed by the confusing tactics of delay and denial exercised by a number of important countries today. Such behaviour contradicts their own stated commitments to work for effective and full solutions.

Our patience is great. We have worked  at WIPO for years on this matter. However, our resources are not without limits.  If WIPO members cannot fulfill their obligations under the United Nations and its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities it will be a very sad day indeed for this global body. In such a case we shall ensure that WIPO’s inability to conclude this issue with clarity and determination, will be reported to the the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Monitoring Commitee and to the Secretary General of the UN. We shall be forced to take our fight to other institutions and into the streets.

Partager cet article
28 mai 2010 5 28 /05 /mai /2010 18:21

           The informal open-ended consultation at the World Intellectual Property Organization on how to solve the "book famine" of the visually impaired and the print disabled ended today amidst  negation and autism on the part of the United States and the European Union. This meeting was organized in order to favour a possible agreement on the issue before the official WIPO meeting next month.

     Instead of supporting a binding treaty supported by most countries of the South the US and the EU have proposed inviable, complicated "voluntary recommendations" that are of little or no use in solving this grave problem.  The sponsors of the Treaty, such as Brazil and Equador, demolished point by point the voluntary "soft" proposal of the US for its legal incoherence with regards to the exhaustion of rights, its limited technical scope for audio versions and, above all, the lack of respect for the blind by not giving their problem the status of a legally binding international treaty.

       There exists no rational economic reason why the wealthy countries are against establishing a few exceptions and limitations on copyright so that millions of blind persons could have access to much more reading material. In no way do they constitute a viable market for commercial products.  Only a rabidly cold, fundamentalist, ideological perspective of the protection of intellectual property and the exaggerated lobbying power of publishers and other content-owners, such as the Motion Picture Association, can explain the US and EU rejection of World Blind Union´s proposal for a Treaty for the Visually Impaired.

     Of course, at least in theory, all countries and stakeholders are enthusiastic about helping blind persons with their lack of access to books, but in practice they could care less.  What really seems to matter more than the basic human rights of the large print disabled minority is not giving in one centimeter or or one inch on the principle of tougher and tougher copyright enforcement, even if it means turning a cold shoulder on some of the most marginated people on earth.

   The US delegate Justin Hughes came into the meeting as a confident super-star with CDs, pamphlets and press-releases under his arm. His speech ended by bashing the supposed attempt of some groups and countries to use this Treaty "to undermine international copyright law."  But what he expected would be another great photo-op and press splash about helping the disability community ended very quickly. He left with his tail between his legs amidst harsh criticism from European, US, Indian and South African NGOs and the skepticism of countries like Mexico, India, Turkey and others.

   The EU was surprisingly mute throughout the meeting. The European Commission was not present and the Spanish Presidency did not bring forth any clear proposals. Nevertheless, in response the parliamentary questions the European Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier has recently expressed its support for "soft solutions", "voluntary recommendations" and "stakeholder agreements", while asserting that a treaty would "take too long" and does not have political support.  While some EU countries, such as Finland, UK or Spain, are not closed to the idea of a treaty, a few big countries led by France are adamantly against any binding instrument. A number of sources confirm that the EU possesses a four page proposal for WIPO for a "voluntary recommendation" that is even more restrictive and limited than the weak US proposal(an important EU representative even confessed that the symbolic EU proposal would only be successful in supplying "a few hundred more accessible books to the world´s blind people). EU countries will meet on the 8th of June to decide a final common position.

  At the next WIPO meeting from the 21st to the 25th of June the the proposed Treaty for the Visually Impaired will be considered.

Partager cet article
9 avril 2010 5 09 /04 /avril /2010 08:47


policia Acata internet




ACTA nena bomba f
















acta banda














Partager cet article
9 avril 2010 5 09 /04 /avril /2010 05:05


If Internet users are to be truly free to choose whatever software and applications they desire to use,  we need an established norm for open standards as a prerequisite for both consumer friendliness and easy market innovation in a fair, anti-monopoly environment. In the last few years a number of European countries, including Denmark, Spain, Germany and UK, among others, have decided that open standards and interoperability should guide government policy in all fields. Today the European Union can play an even more crucial role in opening up markets, institutions and networks for Internet users by laying out a series of legal ground rules and establishing clear benchmarks for IT public procurement policy.

Nevertheless, openness still seems to be considered a dirty word in a number of official corridors of Brussels that are probably under the well-organized lobbying efforts of the Microsoft empire (according to some malicious rumours difficult to believe the campaign is being promoted by “revolving door” European Commission officials who returned to public service after a number of years of “leave” on the Microsoft payroll).  According to many observers this US IT giant is trying to counter-attack after taking heavy blows and fines precisely from the new Digital Commissioner Nelly Kroes who previously held the post of the EU’s competition czar.

acta nena poli


The fierce fight  underway inside the European Commission over the future of open standards and interoperability confronts the interests of consumers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.  Over the last few months the new digital Commssioner Nelly Kroes has put forth an ambitious defense of open standards in her  public appearances. In the first drafts of her “EU Digital Agenda” that will be the road map for European legislative and financial initiatives over the next five years, she established firm opposition to the monopolistic “locked-in” software practices both in the public and private spheres. Her clear words have insisted that the EU must “practice what it preaches” about interoperability in its own institutions by moving European Parliament, the Commission and the Council toward open source software in its own public contracts.   The early texts leaked of the Digital Agenda also seemed to propose a financial and legislative shift toward EU financial support for research as well as business and government models that are based on open-source standards. On a legislative level Kroes also has proposed to draft a new European Interoperability Framework with the same open objectives.

These are a few of the pro-openness proposals from the original draft of Digital Agenda that are now in danger from the anti-open source backlash:

“Reform the governance system for ICT standards in Europe to recognise ICT fora and consortia standards;
Issue a Recommendation to streamline the use of open standards in public services and public procurement;
Update the European Interoperability Framework to promote an open approach to technology and interoperability;
Examine the feasibility of measures to promote interoperability with applications based on de facto standards;
Promote the development of open standards for new applications and services by supporting industry-led platforms through EU-funded programmes.”

If this EU programme was put into practice a number of major IT companies would have a harder time at locking out  new innovative competitors and millions of internet users would have a much easier time at communicating without technical barriers. EU citizens would for the first time be able to participate in European democratic institutions without being forced to purchase one particular closed brand of software in order to exchange information with their elected representatives.

The final “EU Digital Agenda” will be presented at the end of April and the latest news is that the openness agenda is losing the battle within the European Commission while a few narrow business interests are taking the upper hand.   If it were published today the term “open standards” would be totally erased from the whole document.  In this important fight the positions of the general public interest have hardly been taken into account.  Voices in favour of open standards and interoperability urgently need to be heard in Brussels.

Partager cet article
23 mars 2010 2 23 /03 /mars /2010 11:05



  Studies that blame Internet downloads for massive job losses reflect a very faulty methodology put forward  by the US Motion Picture Association that has already been discredited by serious social science studies such as those carried out over a period of three years in seven countries by the Social Science Research Center of New York. European jobs have not been lost due to "piracy".  Industry financed studies that simply add up the number of downloads and conclude that a scandalous number of EU jobs are lost lack any serious objective scientific consideration of the economy and of consumer spending as a whole.


 Downloading cultural material means money is spent  instead in other areas such as housing, food and services rather than on buying CDs.  The alternative expenditures could be more job creating, more productive and more socially valuable than spending on digital entertainment materials.  There can even be a social benefit to spending less on digital entertainment and more on other goods. As well, both less money being spent on digital entertainment and more downloading can often mean more money spent on live performances and theater which benefits performers and creators more directly.


 It can even be argued that diverting this spending to other goods  generally made in the EU has a net benefit for the European economy and for the net creation of jobs. For example, a Dutch Government study suggests that music piracy has had a clear net positive impact on economic welfare in Netherlands. The supporters of the false studies on piracy should ask themselves if they are really defending European interests.


It is very true that certain industries have been hurt by the multiple effects of Internet. These companies need to reconvert and adapt their industrial structures to the new realities instead of trying to change the digital reality by means of new legislative and repressive measures. New business models needed to moulded for the digital age that respect fundamental rights,  that  strengthen citizens´ confidence  and  that promote cultural innovation.

David Hammerstein,
TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue

Partager cet article
21 mars 2010 7 21 /03 /mars /2010 11:51


Cuatro mitos y realidades acerca de las descargas ilegales en la Unión Europea


bandera pirata

1. Una metodología burda y no científica de la industria de entrenimiento de EE.UU.

Es manifiestamente falso el relacionar directamente el número de descargas "pirata" con la pérdida de empleos para la industria en Europa. Esta idea refleja es producto de una metodología científicamente defectuosa que es utilizada por la industria de cine de EE.UU, y que ya ha sido desacreditada por rigurosos estudios realizados desde las ciencias sociales (vease: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars ).

Es intelectualmente deshonesto el sumar simplemente el valor de todas las descargas electrónicas y el traducir automáticamente esta suma en un supuesto número escandaloso de puestos de trabajo perdidos. Los estudios realizados durante tres años en siete países por el "Social Science Research Center" de Nueva York (ssrc.org) muestran que estas afirmaciones de la industria son sencillamente manipuladoras y falsas, ya que no se apoyan en un análisis objetivo y complejo sobre el consumo y la economía en su conjunto.

2. L@os consumidor@s reorientan el gasto hacia otros productos a menudo  socialmente más útiles, como son el acceso a las actuaciones en directo y a otros productos culturales

 La "piratería" digital desplaza el consumo económico sin causar una pérdida neta a la economía. El dinero se gasta en cambio, en otras áreas como pueden ser la vivienda, los alimentos y los servicios en lugar de comprar CDs. Los gastos alternativos podrían crear más empleos, ser más productivos y socialmente valiosos que el gasto en productos de entretenimiento digital. Incluso menos gasto en CDs muchas veces puede significar más gasto en conciertos en directo o en el teatro, lo que beneficia más directamente a los creadores culturales y a los intérpretes europeos.

3. Las descargas digitales pueden aumentar el consumo cultural dentro de Europa porque el 80% del cine y software en la UE se importa de EE.UU

     Cualquier estudio de los impactos de las descargas digitales debe de tener en cuenta que la gran mayoría del material de cine y del software es importado de los EE.UU. Incluso es posible afirmar que la desviación de este gasto hacia otros productos, en general fabricados en la UE, tiene un beneficio neto para la economía de la UE y para la creación de puestos de trabajo. Un estudio reciente del Gobierno neerlandés sugiere que la "piratería" de música tiene un claro impacto positivo neto sobre el bienestar económico en los Países Bajos.

4.  Hay que buscar alternativas al modelo de negocio dominante en la industría de ocio que hoy está en crisis

 La "piratería" digital supone un verdadero reto para un modelo de negocio desfasado y no adaptado a la actual era digital. Estas industrias tienen la responsabilidad de reconvertir sus propios negocios a una nueva realidad y no deben intentar cambiar el mundo digital mediante draconianos cambios legislativos y medidas policiales represivas. Nos urge buscar unos nuevos modelos de negocio y de bienes culturales que sean compatibles con los derechos fundamentales, sensibles hacia las necesidades de la ciudadanía y a favor de la innovación y la creatividad cultural.


David Hammerstein

Diálogo Transatlántico de Consumidores

Partager cet article
20 mars 2010 6 20 /03 /mars /2010 07:04

Privacidad y protección de datos

"La propiedad intelectual debe ser protegida,
pero no debe estar por encima
de los derechos de las personas a la privacidad
y a la protección de datos ".

Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection
Supervisor (SEPD), emitió un informe sobre la
lucha contra la Falsificación de Comercio
(ACTA), alegando que podría resultar
inviable ante las actuales leyes de protección de datos de la Unión Europea.

Democracia y transparencia

"Acta es el blanqueo de legislación a nivel internacional,
algo que sería muy difícil de conseguir
mediante la mayoría de los parlamentos nacionales "

Stravros Lambrinidis, miembro del Parlamento Europeo, S y el grupo D de Grecia.

¿Los proveedores de servicios de Internet con responsabilidad civil?

"Todas las medidas relativas a los derechos básicos de las personas
han de ser llevadas a través de unas adecuadas vías democráticas,
y no a través de un Reglamento mundial
que sea convertido en ley de la Unión Europea ".

Andrea D'Incecco, gerente de asuntos públicos
de EuroISPA (Asociación Empresarial de
Europea de Proveedores de Internet).

"Con ACTA se ejerce presión sobre Internet
al posibilitar que los proveedores de servicios
abran la puerta de la privacidad de las personas,
y se generalize la vigilancia de la red. "

Françoise Castex, miembro del
Parlamento Europeo, S y D, Francia.

"Dar responsabilidad a terceros
como son las empresas de servidores de Internet
es como hacer que la oficina de correos
sea responsable de lo que está escrito dentro de las cartas
que se envían. "

Alexander Alvaro, Miembro del Parlamento Europeo, Alemania, ALDE.

Libertad de expresión

"Es extremadamente lamentable
que el debate democrático haya sido eliminado
de las conversaciones de ACTA,
lo que podría tener un impacto importante
sobre el derecho fundamental a la libertad
expresión ".

Reporteros sin Fronteras,
Premio Sajarov del Parlamento Europeo

Acceso a medicamentos

"Sólo podemos suponer que el texto final
podría hacer mucho daño en los países en desarrollo
y socavar el equilibrio
entre la protección de la propiedad intelectual
y la necesidad de proporcionar medicamentos a precios asequibles
para los pobres ".

Rohit Malpani, OXFAM

"Estamos en peligro de quedarnos con lo lo peor de ambos mundos,
fortaleciendo las normas de propiedad intelectual
que son muy eficaces para detener el acceso
a medicamentos que salvan vidas,
pero que a la vez son muy malas
para detener y evitar los medicamentos falsificados ".

Michelle Childs de Médecins Sans
Fronteras, Ganadores del premio Nobel

David Hammerstein
TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue
Partager cet article
19 mars 2010 5 19 /03 /mars /2010 15:27
 AN IMPORTANT POLICY PAPER, A Digital Agenda for Europe –


Open Standards and Interoperability

Consumers and public and private organisations should be able to interconnect their digital devices and applications simply and easily. While there is consensus that an open approach to technology stimulates economic growth, guidelines on open standards and interoperability have proved hard to define. The following actions will build on the debate on ICT standardisation.
Promoting more open standards
The headline target for this action area is to reform the EU standardisation regime by 2015 to reflect the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by various fora and consortia, in particular as regards the internet.
Another challenge is to ensure that public authorities – including the EU institutions – can make the best use of the full range of existing open standards when procuring hardware, software and IT services, for example to adhere to technology neutrality and to avoid technological lock-in to legacy ICT.
Transparent disclosure rules for intellectual property rights (IPR) and licensing conditions in the context of standard-setting can contribute to lower royalty demands for the use of standards and thus to lower market entry costs for SMEs. This can be achieved without a negative impact on the owners of IPRs. Therefore rules for ex-ante disclosure of essential IPR and licensing terms and conditions will be promoted.
A pragmatic approach is required to assess when and how measures can effectively lead significant market players to license interoperability information for de facto standards while promoting innovation and competition.

Interoperable public infrastructures and services
Procurement practices and rules for ICT products and services must be adapted to ensure that public authorities – including EU institutions – can make the best use of the full range of open standards. Interoperability across all policy fields, notably eHealth, eGovernment, Green ICT, and cloud computing-related initiatives must also systematically be promoted. An update of the European Interoperability Framework will be an important step in this regard.

Industry-led initiatives for open innovation
ICT drives value creation and growth across the economy. It represents over 25% of value added in automotive, over 40% in consumer electronics and home appliances and 33% in health and medical equipment. This means that industry is increasingly in need of open and interoperable solutions to exploit ICT across all sectors. Industry-led platforms promoting the development of open standards for new applications and services will be supported as an integral part of EU-funded programmes.


Reform the governance system for ICT standards in Europe to recognise ICT fora and consortia standards;

Issue a Recommendation to streamline the use of open standards in public services and public procurement;

Promote appropriate rules for ex-ante disclosure of intellectual property rights and license conditions in standard-setting;

Update the European Interoperability Framework to promote an open approach to technology and interoperability;

Examine the feasibility of measures to promote interoperability with applications based on de facto standards;

Promote the development of open standards for new applications and services by supporting industry-led platforms through EU-funded programmes.

David Hammerstein
TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue

Partager cet article
14 mars 2010 7 14 /03 /mars /2010 19:42

    The almost unanimous approval of a European Parliament resolution critical of ACTA (http://bit.ly/da3Mso) last Wednesday  seems to have taken the EC and some member states by surprise. Now according to our informations they are organizing the counter-attack and the future fight in the EU over the content of the ACTA negotiations is going to be much tougher and more controversial. 


It is clear that many of the Members of the European Parliament who usually support some of the IPR objectives of ACTA felt obliged to back the energetic resolution due to the lack of transparency, democratic accountability and due to their notable respect for the growing public campaign all over Europe.  The massive ACTA vote in the EP should be understood as of a vote that demanded " more respect for the Parliament!" or  "stop negotiating behind our backs" rather than a serious statement about  the  IP content of the negotiations.  At the same time,  many MEPs remember very well the massive pressure exercised by Internet activists against "the three strikes" graduated response proposals in the Telecommunications Package and do not want to be seen as weak on fundamental rights issues. Again the mobilization of civil society groups can play a key role in defending the public interest and the freedom and neutrality of Internet services. In the ACTA fight a new very relevant issue is the access to medicine that could be affected seriously by more border seizures and limitations.

   In the days leading up to the vote on the ACTA resolution last week in Strasbourg most MEPs received in hand or personally a summary of critical notes http://0z.fr/fSpyU and other data about the process and content of ACTA as part of a continuing campaign coordinated by the TransAtlantic Consumers Dialogue and La Quadrature du Net http://bit.ly/bUEKSR that is aiming to collect before June a majority of MEP signatures needed for approving written declaration 12/2010 that firmly rejects the key elements of both the process and content of ACTA negotiations.

  Simultaneously the European Commission is being bombarded by a series of parliamentary written questions from MEPs about ACTA and a number of initiatives demanding information and documents within the EP International Trade Committee. The Civil Liberties Committee is also vigilant and demanding that Commission Redding defends basic rights of citizens.

 On the 16th of March there will be a coordination meeting at the initiative of the Green Group in the European Parliament of all the major NGOs across Europe who are working on the ACTA question.

In reaction to the calls for transparency from the EP the European Commission is trying to show openness.   On Monday the 22nd of March in Brussels over 350 civil society "stakeholders" have been convened by the Directorate General of Trade of the European Commission.  Recent informations have revealed to me that the worldwide anti-ACTA campaign is having an impact on EU officials, a number of which are following closely the highlights of the most well-known blogs and webs. This is a sign of the  success of an effective public campaign that has forced the EU out of its bunker and into the open battlefield over the content of this important international agreement.

David Hammerstein
TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue 
Partager cet article
14 mars 2010 7 14 /03 /mars /2010 19:01

Privacy and data protection

"Intellectual property must be protected,
but it should not be placed above
individuals' rights to privacy and data

Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection
Supervisor (EDPS), issued a report on the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
(ACTA), claiming that it could prove
unworkable under current European Union
data protection laws.

Democracy and transparency

"ACTA is legislation laundering on an
international level of what would be very
difficult to get through most Parliaments"

Stravros Lambrinidis, Member of
European Parliament, S and D group from Greece.


Internet service providers liability

"Any measures concerning people's right to
go online need to be brought in through the
proper democratic channels, not via self-
regulation, and made into EU law".

Andrea D’Incecco, public affairs manager
from EuroISPA (Business association of
European Internet Service Providers).
"ACTA, by putting pressure on Internet
service providers opens the door to private
'three strikes' approaches and generalized
surveillance of the Net."


Françoise Castex
, Member of European
Parliament, S and D, France.

"Third party liability for Internet Server
Providers is like making the post office
responsible for what is inside the letters
they send."

Alexander Alvaro, Member of European Parliament, Germany, ALDE.

Freedom of expression

"It is extremely regrettable that
democratic debate has been eliminated
from talks that could have a major impact
on such a fundamental freedom as free


Reporters without Borders, European
Parliament Sakharov Prize Winners

Access to medicine

"We can only assume that the final text
could do great harm in developing countries
and undermine the balance between the
protection of intellectual property and the
need to provide affordable medicines for
poor people.”

Rohit Malpani, OXFAM, from a press
release criticising possible impact of ACTA.

“We are in danger of ending up with the
worst of both worlds, pushing IP rules,
which are very effective at stopping access
to life-saving drugs but are very bad at
stopping or preventing fake drugs.”

Michelle Childs of Médecins Sans
Frontières, Nobel Peace Prize winners, has
issued a very critical statement on ACTA.

David Hammerstein
TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue
Partager cet article