Informational lobbying in the European Union: Explaining information supply to the European Commission

Information supply is an important instrument through which interest groups can exert influence on political decisions. However, information supply to decision-makers varies extensively across interest groups. How can this be explained? Why do some interest groups provide more information than others? I argue that variation in information supply can largely be explained by organizational characteristics, more specifically the resources, the functional differentiation, the professionalization and the decentralization of interest groups. I test my theoretical expectations based on a large new dataset: Using multilevel modeling, I examine information supply to the European Commission across 56 policy issues and a wide range of interest groups by combining an analysis of consultation submissions with a survey conducted among interest groups.

El "Lobbying"

En el curso del debate parlamentario que, a fines de 1994 culminó con la aprobación de la Ley de televisión, y por razón de las intensas presiones que hicieron los grandes grupos económicos interesados en la explotación del nuevo esquema de privatización, se habló de reglamentar el lobby o más exactamente el lobbying', en el país. Tanto el presidente del Congreso como otros parlamentarios consideraron que era necesario enmarcar esa práctica en un marco legal serio y severo.

Il passaggio dalla Business Intelligence all'Advanced Analytics: individuazione e analisi di un modello in merito all'influenza del lobbying nel sistema economico

I Big Data stanno guidando una rivoluzione globale. In tutti i settori, pubblici o privati, e le industrie quali Vendita al dettaglio, Sanità, Media e Trasporti, i Big Data stanno influenzando la vita di miliardi di persone. L’impatto dei Big Data è sostanziale, ma così discreto da passare inosservato alla maggior parte delle persone. Le applicazioni di Business Intelligence e Advanced Analytics vogliono studiare e trarre informazioni dai Big Data. Si studia il passaggio dalla prima alla seconda, mettendo in evidenza aspetti simili e differenze.

State of the arts and innovation : before and after the review of the national innovation system

This article examines the relationship between the arts and national innovation policy in Australia, pivoting around the Venturous Australia report released in September 2008 as part of the Review of the National Innovation System (RNIS). This came at a time of optimism that the arts sector would be included in Australia’s federal innovation policy. However, despite the report’s broad vision for innovation and specific commentary on the arts, the more ambitious hopes of arts sector advocates remained unfulfilled. This article examines the entwining discourses of creativity and innovation which emerged globally and in Australia prior to the RNIS, before analysing Venturous Australia in terms of the arts and the ongoing science-and-technology bias to innovation policy. It ends by considering why sector-led policy research and lobbying has to date proved unsuccessful and then suggests what public policy development is now needed.

Preventing injuries on a state-wide basis : researchers and parliamentary committees are partners in turning injury prevention and safety research into practice and policy

Context: Parliamentary committees established in Westminster parliaments, such as Queensland, provide a cross-party structure that enables them to recommend policy and legislative changes that may otherwise be difficult for one party to recommend. The overall parliamentary committee process tends to be more cooperative and less adversarial than the main chamber of parliament and, as a result, this process permits parliamentary committees to make recommendations more on the available research evidence and less on political or party considerations. Objectives: This paper considers the contributions that parliamentary committees in Queensland have made in the past in the areas of road safety, drug use as well as organ and tissue donation. The paper also discusses the importance of researchers actively engaging with parliamentary committees to ensure the best evidence based policy outcomes. Key messages: In the past, parliamentary committees have successfully facilitated important safety changes with many committee recommendations based on research results. In order to maximise the benefits of the parliamentary committee process it is essential that researchers inform committees about their work and become key stakeholders in the inquiry process. Researchers can keep committees informed by making submissions to their inquiries, responding to requests for information and appearing as witnesses at public hearings. Researchers should emphasise the key findings and implications of their research as well as considering the jurisdictional implications and political consequences. It is important that researchers understand the differences between lobbying and providing informed recommendations when interacting with committees. Discussion and conclusions: Parliamentary committees in Queensland have successfully assisted in the introduction of evidence based policy and legislation. In order to present best practice recommendations, committees rely on the evidence presented to them including the results of researchers. Actively engaging with parliamentary committees will help researchers to turn their results into practice with a corresponding decrease in injuries and fatalities. Developing an understanding of parliamentary committees, and the typical inquiry process used by these committees, will help researchers to present their research results in a manner that will encourage the adoption of their ideas by parliamentary committees, the presentation of these results as recommendations within the report and the subsequent enactment of the committee’s recommendations by the government.

Queensland Emergency Medicine Research Foundation: Special report

The development of any new profession is dependent on the development of a special body of knowledge which is the domain of the profession and key to this is the conduct of research. In 2007, as part of the settlement of an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement and following sustained lobbying by Emergency Physicians, the Queensland Government agreed to establish an Emergency Medicine Research Fund to foster the development of research activities in Emergency Medicine in Queensland. That fund is now managed by the Queensland Emergency Medicine Research Foundation. The aims of this article are to describe the strategic approaches taken by the Foundation and its first three years of experience, to describe the application of research funds and to foreshadow an evaluative framework for determining the strategic value of this community investment. The Foundation has developed a range of personnel and project support funding programs and competition for funding has increased. Ongoing evaluation will seek to determine the effectiveness of this funding strategy on improving the effectiveness of research performance and the clinical and organisational outcomes that may derive from that initiative.

Public service versus private interest : a comparative analysis of the Australian and British debates

This paper will compare and evaluate the effectiveness of commercial media lobbying and advocacy against public service media in two countries, the United Kingdom and Australia. The paper will focus empirically on the commercial media coverage of public service media issues in these countries (relating to the BBC and ABC respectively) over the period since the election of the Conservative-led Coalition in Britain in June 2010, and the election of the Gillard government in Australia in August 2010. Reference will be made to preceding periods as relevant to an understanding of the current environment. In both countries the main commercial media rival to public service media is News Corp and its associated organisations – News Ltd and Sky News in Australia, and News International and BSkyB in the UK. The paper will examine with analysis of print and online news and commentary content how News Corp outlets have reported and commented on the activities and plans of public service media as the latter have developed and extended their presence on digital TV and online platforms. It will also consider the responses of the ABC and BBC to these interventions. It will consider, thirdly, the responses of Australian and British governments to these debates, and the policy outcomes. This section of the paper will seek to evaluate the trajectory of the policy-public-private dynamic in recent years, and to draw conclusions as to the future direction of policy. Particular attention will be devoted to recent key moments in this unfolding dialogue. In Britain, debates around the efforts of News Corp to take over 100% of BSkyB, both before and after the breaking of the phone-hacking scandal in July 2011; in Australia, the debate around the National Broadband Network and the competitive tender process for ABC World, that country’s public service transnational broadcaster; and other key moments where rivalry between News Corp companies and public service media became mainstream news stories provoking wider public debate. The paper will conclude with recommendations as to how public service media organisations might engage constructively with commercial organisations in the future, including News Corp, and taking into account emerging technological and financial challenges to traditional rationales for public service provision.

A proposed approach to monitor private-sector policies and practices related to food environments, obesity and non-communicable disease prevention

Private-sector organizations play a critical role in shaping the food environments of individuals and populations. However, there is currently very limited independent monitoring of private-sector actions related to food environments. This paper reviews previous efforts to monitor the private sector in this area, and outlines a proposed approach to monitor private-sector policies and practices related to food environments, and their influence on obesity and non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention. A step-wise approach to data collection is recommended, in which the first (‘minimal’) step is the collation of publicly available food and nutrition-related policies of selected private-sector organizations. The second (‘expanded’) step assesses the nutritional composition of each organization's products, their promotions to children, their labelling practices, and the accessibility, availability and affordability of their products. The third (‘optimal’) step includes data on other commercial activities that may influence food environments, such as political lobbying and corporate philanthropy. The proposed approach will be further developed and piloted in countries of varying size and income levels. There is potential for this approach to enable national and international benchmarking of private-sector policies and practices, and to inform efforts to hold the private sector to account for their role in obesity and NCD prevention.

The game of clones and the Australia tax : divergent views about copyright business models and the willingness of Australian consumers to infringe

It is often said that Australia is a world leader in rates of copyright infringement for entertainment goods. In 2012, the hit television show, Game of Thrones, was the most downloaded television show over bitorrent, and estimates suggest that Australians accounted for a plurality of nearly 10% of the 3-4 million downloads each week. The season finale of 2013 was downloaded over a million times within 24 hours of its release, and again Australians were the largest block of illicit downloaders over BitTorrent, despite our relatively small population. This trend has led the former US Ambassador to Australia to implore Australians to stop 'stealing' digital content, and rightsholders to push for increasing sanctions on copyright infringers. The Australian Government is looking to respond by requiring Internet Service Providers to issue warnings and potentially punish consumers who are alleged by industry groups to have infringed copyright. This is the logical next step in deterring infringement, given that the operators of infringing networks (like The Pirate Bay, for example) are out of regulatory reach. This steady ratcheting up of the strength of copyright, however, comes at a significant cost to user privacy and autonomy, and while the decentralisation of enforcement reduces costs, it also reduces the due process safeguards provided by the judicial process. This article presents qualitative evidence that substantiates a common intuition: one of the major reasons that Australians seek out illicit downloads of content like Game of Thrones in such numbers is that it is more difficult to access legitimately in Australia. The geographically segmented way in which copyright is exploited at an international level has given rise to a ‘tyranny of digital distance’, where Australians have less access to copyright goods than consumers in other countries. Compared to consumers in the US and the EU, Australians pay more for digital goods, have less choice in distribution channels, are exposed to substantial delays in access, and are sometimes denied access completely. In this article we focus our analysis on premium film and television offerings, like Game of Thrones, and through semi-structured interviews, explore how choices in distribution impact on the willingness of Australian consumers to seek out infringing copies of copyright material. Game of Thrones provides an excellent case study through which to frame this analysis: it is both one of the least legally accessible television offerings and one of the most downloaded through filesharing networks of recent times. Our analysis shows that at the same time as rightsholder groups, particularly in the film and television industries, are lobbying for stronger laws to counter illicit distribution, the business practices of their member organisations are counter-productively increasing incentives for consumers to infringe. The lack of accessibility and high prices of copyright goods in Australia leads to substantial economic waste. The unmet consumer demand means that Australian consumers are harmed by lower access to information and entertainment goods than consumers in other jurisdictions. The higher rates of infringement that fulfils some of this unmet demand increases enforcement costs for copyright owners and imposes burdens either on our judicial system or on private entities – like ISPs – who may be tasked with enforcing the rights of third parties. Most worryingly, the lack of convenient and cheap legitimate digital distribution channels risks undermining public support for copyright law. Our research shows that consumers blame rightsholders for failing to meet market demand, and this encourages a social norm that infringing copyright, while illegal, is not morally wrongful. The implications are as simple as they are profound: Australia should not take steps to increase the strength of copyright law at this time. The interests of the public and those of rightsholders align better when there is effective competition in distribution channels and consumers can legitimately get access to content. While foreign rightsholders are seeking enhanced protection for their interests, increasing enforcement is likely to increase their ability to engage in lucrative geographical price-discrimination, particularly for premium content. This is only likely to increase the degree to which Australian consumers feel that their interests are not being met and, consequently, to further undermine the legitimacy of copyright law. If consumers are to respect copyright law, increasing sanctions for infringement without enhancing access and competition in legitimate distribution channels could be dangerously counter-productive. We suggest that rightsholders’ best strategy for addressing infringement in Australia at this time is to ensure that Australians can access copyright goods in a timely, affordable, convenient, and fair lawful manner.

Plain packaging for the Pacific Rim: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and tobacco control

Big Tobacco has been engaged in a dark, shadowy plot and conspiracy to hijack the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and undermine tobacco control measures – such as graphic health warnings and the plain packaging of tobacco products... In the context of this heavy lobbying by Big Tobacco and its proxies, this chapter provides an analysis of the debate over trade, tobacco, and the TPP. This discussion is necessarily focused on the negotiations of the free trade agreement – the shadowy conflicts before the finalisation of the text. This chapter contends that the trade negotiations threaten hard-won gains in public health – including international developments such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and domestic measures, such as graphic health warnings and the plain packaging of tobacco products. It maintains that there is a need for regional trade agreements to respect the primacy of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. There is a need both to provide for an open and transparent process regarding such trade negotiations, as well as a due and proper respect for public health in terms of substantive obligations. Part I focuses on the debate over the intellectual property chapter of the TPP, within the broader context of domestic litigation against Australia’s plain tobacco packaging regime and associated WTO disputes. Part II examines the investment chapter of the TPP, taking account of ongoing investment disputes concerning tobacco control and the declared approaches of Australia and New Zealand to investor-state dispute settlement. Part III looks at the discussion as to whether there should be specific text on tobacco control in the TPP, and, if so, what should be its nature and content. This chapter concludes that the plain packaging of tobacco products – and other best practices in tobacco control – should be adopted by members of the Pacific Rim.

Just label it: Consumer rights, GM food labelling, and international trade

In the United States, there has been fierce debate over state, federal and international efforts to engage in genetically modified food labelling (GM food labelling). A grassroots coalition of consumers, environmentalists, organic farmers, and the food movement has pushed for law reform in respect of GM food labelling. The Just Label It campaign has encouraged United States consumers to send comments to the United States Food and Drug Administration to label genetically modified foods. This Chapter explores the various justifications made in respect of genetically modified food labelling. There has been a considerable effort to portray the issue of GM food labelling as one of consumer rights as part of ‘the right to know’. There has been a significant battle amongst farmers over GM food labelling – with organic farmers and biotechnology companies, fighting for precedence. There has also been a significant discussion about the use of GM food labelling as a form of environmental legislation. The prescriptions in GM food labelling regulations may serve to promote eco-labelling, and deter greenwashing. There has been a significant debate over whether GM food labelling may serve to regulate corporations – particularly from the food, agriculture, and biotechnology industries. There are significant issues about the interaction between intellectual property laws – particularly in respect of trade mark law and consumer protection – and regulatory proposals focused upon biotechnology. There has been a lack of international harmonization in respect of GM food labelling. As such, there has been a major use of comparative arguments about regulator models in respect of food labelling. There has also been a discussion about international law, particularly with the emergence of sweeping regional trade proposals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This Chapter considers the United States debates over genetically modified food labelling – at state, federal, and international levels. The battles often involved the use of citizen-initiated referenda. The policy conflicts have been policy-centric disputes – pitting organic farmers, consumers, and environmentalists against the food industry and biotechnology industry. Such battles have raised questions about consumer rights, public health, freedom of speech, and corporate rights. The disputes highlighted larger issues about lobbying, fund-raising, and political influence. The role of money in United States has been a prominent concern of Lawrence Lessig in his recent academic and policy work with the group, Rootstrikers. Part 1 considers the debate in California over Proposition 37. Part 2 explores other key state initiatives in respect of GM food labelling. Part 3 examines the Federal debate in the United States over GM food labelling. Part 4 explores whether regional trade agreements – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – will impact upon

A Submission to the Inquiry into the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 (Cth)

A right of resale, or droit de suite (a right to follow), is a legislative instrument under intellectual property law, which enables artists to receive a percentage of the sale price whenever artistic works are resold. A French legal scholar, Albert Vaunois, first articulated the need for a 'droit de suite' in connection with fine art back in 1893. The French Government introduced a scheme to protect the right of resale in 1920, after controversy over artists living in poverty, while public auction houses were profiting from the resale of their artistic creations. In the United States, there has been less support for a right of resale amongst legislatures. After lobbying from artists such as the king of pop art, Robert Rauschenberg, the state of California passed the Resale Royalties Act in 1977. At a Federal level, the United States Congress has shown some reluctance in providing national recognition for a right of resale in the United States. A number of other European countries have established a right of resale. In 2001, the European Council adopted the Artists' Resale directive and recognised that the 'artist's resale right forms an integral part of copyright and is an essential prerogative for authors.' In 2006, the United Kingdom promulgated regulations, giving effect to a right of resale in that jurisdiction. However, a number of Latin American and African countries have established a right of resale. The New Zealand Parliament has debated a bill on a right of resale.

Trick or treaty?: The Australian debate over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The secretive 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – known in short by the catchy acronym ACTA – is a controversial trade pact designed to provide for stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights. The preamble to the treaty reads like pulp fiction – it raises moral panics about piracy, counterfeiting, organised crime, and border security. The agreement contains provisions on civil remedies and criminal offences; copyright law and trademark law; the regulation of the digital environment; and border measures. Memorably, Susan Sell called the international treaty a TRIPS Double-Plus Agreement, because its obligations far exceed those of the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement 1994, and TRIPS-Plus Agreements, such as the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004. ACTA lacks the language of other international intellectual property agreements, which emphasise the need to balance the protection of intellectual property owners with the wider public interest in access to medicines, human development, and transfer of knowledge and technology. In Australia, there was much controversy both about the form and the substance of ACTA. While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was a partisan supporter of the agreement, a wide range of stakeholders were openly critical. After holding hearings and taking note of the position of the European Parliament and the controversy in the United States, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament recommended the deferral of ratification of ACTA. This was striking as representatives of all the main parties agreed on the recommendation. The committee was concerned about the lack of transparency, due process, public participation, and substantive analysis of the treaty. There were also reservations about the ambiguity of the treaty text, and its potential implications for the digital economy, innovation and competition, plain packaging of tobacco products, and access to essential medicines. The treaty has provoked much soul-searching as to whether the Trick or Treaty reforms on the international treaty-making process in Australia have been compromised or undermined. Although ACTA stalled in the Australian Parliament, the debate over it is yet to conclude. There have been concerns in Australia and elsewhere that ACTA will be revived as a ‘zombie agreement’. Indeed, in March 2013, the Canadian government introduced a bill to ensure compliance with ACTA. Will it be also resurrected in Australia? Has it already been revived? There are three possibilities. First, the Australian government passed enhanced remedies with respect to piracy, counterfeiting and border measures in a separate piece of legislation – the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth). Second, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade remains supportive of ACTA. It is possible, after further analysis, that the next Australian Parliament – to be elected in September 2013 – will ratify the treaty. Third, Australia is involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The government has argued that ACTA should be a template for the Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United States Trade Representative would prefer a regime even stronger than ACTA. This chapter provides a portrait of the Australian debate over ACTA. It is the account of an interested participant in the policy proceedings. This chapter will first consider the deliberations and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on ACTA. Second, there was a concern that ACTA had failed to provide appropriate safeguards with respect to civil liberties, human rights, consumer protection and privacy laws. Third, there was a concern about the lack of balance in the treaty’s copyright measures; the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations and remedies. Fourth, there was a worry that the provisions on trademark law, intermediary liability and counterfeiting could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy and innovation in the digital economy. Fifth, there was significant debate about the impact of ACTA on pharmaceutical drugs, access to essential medicines and health-care. Sixth, there was concern over the lobbying by tobacco industries for ACTA – particularly given Australia’s leadership on tobacco control and the plain packaging of tobacco products. Seventh, there were concerns about the operation of border measures in ACTA. Eighth, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was concerned about the jurisdiction of the ACTA Committee, and the treaty’s protean nature. Finally, the chapter raises fundamental issues about the relationship between the executive and the Australian Parliament with respect to treaty-making. There is a need to reconsider the efficacy of the Trick or Treaty reforms passed by the Australian Parliament in the 1990s.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Infrastructure Disputes Shape Future of Streaming Media

In November 2010, tension between Internet infrastructure companies boiled over in a dispute between content distribution network (CDN) Level 3 and Internet service provider (ISP) Comcast. Level 3, a distribution partner of Netflix, accused Comcast of violating the principles of net neutrality when the ISP increased distribution fees for carrying high bandwidth services. Comcast justified its actions by stating that the price increase was standard practice and argued Level 3 was trying to avoid paying its fair share. The dispute exemplifies the growing concern over the rising costs of streaming media services. The companies facing these inflated infrastructure costs are CDNs (Level 3, Equinix, Limelight, Akamai, and Voxel), companies that host streaming media content on server farms and distribute the content to a variety of carriers, and ISPs (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and AT&T), the cable and phone companies that provide “last mile” service to paying customers. Both CDNs and ISPs are lobbying government regulators to keep their costs at a minimum. The outcome of these disputes will influence the cost, quality, and legal status of streaming media.