While this class has extensively discussed the relationship between copyright and culture in the United States, it has only briefly touched on copyright on an international scale. The infringement of intellectual property rights is in many cases more widespread abroad, where the United States and its copyright industries experience difficulty enforcing copyright laws. The United States Trade Representative has proposed an Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement which includes the United States, the European Union and other developed countries. I am interested in exploring the consequences and limitations of this agreement and whether it will effectively curb international piracy and change the culture of copyright infringement.

The RIAA submitted this letter in response to public requests for comment on the ACTA. The RIAA provides a detailed prescription of what it needs in order to ensure that its intellectual property rights are not infringed anywhere in the world. This includes recommendations for the definition of “piracy,” and which infringement cases should be prosecuted. It also sets out specific requirements for law enforcement and monitoring officials to follow. The RIAA expresses its strong supports for the dialogue the ACTA has provoked and expresses its wish that all of its arguments be taken into account when formulating its final version.
    The RIAA provides by far the clearest and most non-negotiable opinion. It explicitly states that all acts of piracy, commercial or non-commercial, should be prosecuted and the strictest laws should be applied. It seems that the RIAA has already created its own legal framework that advances the industry’s ambitions and protects its interests efficiently. The Association is merely looking for a conduit of its legal system and does not intend to negotiate with any party. It also disregards the motives of user worldwide to seek and use illegal materials online. The RIAA does directly address the links between piracy and organized crime, which shows that it recognizes some of the ramifications of copyright infringement that affect areas completely exterior to music.  While the Association’s stance should not be ignored, its positions should be considered alongside economic and empirical evidence (like the one provided by the IIPA). Additionally, the confidence and severity of the RIAA’s opinion should caution all countries that the U.S. organization is a powerful player and can include the international arena in its jurisdiction if its demands are completely met by any multinational agreement.

The statement of this interest group discusses the concerns the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) raises. These include the lack of transparency of its content, the limited information given to the public, the fact that this is an executive agreement and the implications this will have in practice in the Unites States political context. Public Knowledge is also uneasy with the terminology used in the ACTA – the use of “piracy” and “counterfeit” without concrete definitions of what these words would encompass. 
    The opinion of Public Knowledge adds an important perspective to my argument because it criticizes the format and the ramifications of ACTA implementation on a domestic level. The interest group raises the fact that the ACTA is an executive agreement and as such does not require the “signatories to be accountable to the public” since it circumvents Congress. If one links this information to the claim that the ACTA is supported predominantly by copyright industries then it leads me to believe that the sole purpose of this accord is to give the companies such as the RIAA and MPAA greater powers to prosecute copyright infringement internationally at their own discretion. Eliminating accountability also signifies that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) does not want to directly involve the U.S. in multinational infringement disputes but only seeks to facilitate the domestic copyright industry to defend its rights in the international arena. The limitation of the Public Knowledge opinion is that it doesn’t consider the newest Fact Sheet that was released by the USTR in August 2008. Even though the fact sheet does not give a substantial amount of concrete information, it does formally address some of Public Knowledge’s questions.

    The United States Trade Representative has provided the fact sheet and the document is a clear outline of the goals and provisions of the ACTA. The sheet provides information concerning international cooperation, enforcement policies and the legal framework. It stipulates that international cooperation needs to be strengthened through increased sharing of information. Enforcement policies need to be intensified through the creation of multinational oversight institutions.
    This document is useful in my research because it succinctly describes what the ACTA is about. However, I found the description very vague and general. Considered separately, each of the aforementioned stipulations is valuable and necessary. Yet, there is no mention of how they will actually come to life. What will be the jurisdiction of the proposed agencies be? Where will they be based? Is the judiciary of each country involved? Is there accountability? The EFF seems to be correct to question the legitimacy and transparency of this document, because information about the execution of ACTA is absent. While the fact sheet addressed this problem, the documents it offers to support its transparency do not give necessary details for the implementation of the project. The realization, however, is the most important part of the agreement. After all, there is no point in signing a contract, which reiterates that piracy should be stopped and the international community needs to work together to successfully eliminate online intellectual property infringement. Everybody wants to accomplish these goals, but what is crucial is the way countries interact on the international scene to carry out enforcement of copyright and punish its infringement.