Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Kira M. Alvarez CHIEF NEGOTIATOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT U.S.T.R. For intellectual property enforcement

 ACTA aims to:  Build on existing international IPR rules  Establish and strengthen standards for the enforcement issues where international legal frameworks do not exist or need to be strengthened  Increase international cooperation, strengthening the framework of practices that contribute to effective enforcement of intellectual property rights  Focus is on counterfeiting and piracy activities that significantly affect commercial interests, rather than on the activities of ordinary citizens

 Proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods in international trade poses threat to development of the world economy.  Trade in these goods causes significant financial losses for the right holders and legitimate businesses and, in some cases, represents a risk to consumers.  Expertise, innovation, quality, and creativity are the main factors for success in knowledge-based economies.

 Provide a framework to more effectively combat the challenges of IPR infringement today, particularly in the context of piracy and counterfeiting.  Commitments to strong laws  Framework for ongoing cooperation and  Promotion of effective enforcement practices.  Establish a Leadership agreement, setting a positive example for on strengthening IPR enforcement.  Growth over time, reflecting the growing international consensus on the need for strong IPR enforcement.

In alphabetical order  Australia  Canada  EU (and its Member States)  Japan  Korea  Mexico  Morocco  New Zealand  Singapore  Switzerland  United States

 Three main areas: CAVEAT: EVERYTHING STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION  International Cooperation:  capacity building and technical assistance in improving enforcement, and  international cooperation among enforcement agencies.  Enforcement Practices:  Formal or informal public/private cooperation;  Fostering of specialized intellectual property expertise within law enforcement structures; and  Measures for raising consumer public awareness.  Legal Framework:  Criminal enforcement  Border measures  Civil enforcement and  IPR enforcement issues related to the Digital Environment.

 June 2008: Border Measures  July 2008: Civil Remedies for infringements of IPR  October 2008: Criminal enforcement and continued Civil Enforcement  December 2008 International cooperation, Enforcement practices and Institutional Issues

 On June 12, 2009: USTR announces resumption of negotiations.  July 2009: continued International Cooperation, Enforcement Practices, Institutional Issues and Transparency.  November 2009IP Enforcement in the Digital Environment, Criminal provisions, and Transparency

 USTR has made and will continue to make efforts to ensure that the public is well-informed about and can provide meaningful input into the negotiation. Steps taken in 2009 include:  ACTA web page;  Public summary of issues under negotiation;  Agendas made public;  sought advice from a broad group of experts about prospective U.S. positions on IPR enforcement in the digital environment; and  provided links to relevant portions of past agreements, in order to shed light on the U.S. approach to possible legal framework provisions of the ACTA.

Q: What is the value of this agreement if more countries are not initially part of it? A: The ACTA will provide leadership toward better protection and enforcement of IPRs and enhance partnership with countries (representing 50% of global trade) that share a similar level of ambition. Piracy and counterfeiting are growing global issues that have become a concern for all. They have adverse effects on a nation’s economy, as well as on the public health and safety of its population. Through enhanced leadership and partnership, the ACTA can improve the international climate for IPR enforcement in ways that potentially benefit all countries.

Q: Will the border enforcement provisions of the ACTA require searching travelers’ music players or laptops for infringing content? A: No. The focus of the discussion on border measures has been on how to deal with large-scale intellectual property infringements, which can frequently involve criminal elements and pose a threat to public health and safety. As noted in the public summary, we are considering the inclusion of a de minimis exception that could permit travelers to bring in goods for personal use.

Q: Is the U.S. seeking to “internationalize” the Digital Millennium Copyright Act via the ACTA? A: The DMCA in fact implemented 2 prior international treaties (the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty). So, in fact, there is already an international consensus for extending protections against copyright piracy into the digital realm.

Q: Will ACTA create a global “3 strikes” policy and empower Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to become “copyright cops”? A: ACTA will not require ISPs to do anything that they are not already required to do under U.S. law and the law of several other ACTA partners. The U.S. does not support requiring ISPs to actively monitor their networks.

Q: Will ACTA “cement” current DMCA provisions, thus making it harder to Congress to “fix” the perceived shortcomings of the law? A: We are aware of concerns expressed by the U.S. Congress that we should not impinge on their ability to legislate in the future in this field, and have written our proposals with those concerns in mind.

Q: Why is ACTA not transparent like WIPO? A: Initial and final treaty proposals at WIPO are circulated for public information, but the discussions and negotiations that are used to “evolve” these texts are confidential.