Romania vs ACTA

Romania signed the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on January 26, 2012, one of 22 countries to do so. The agreement prompted a wave of criticism across the world, especially in the virtual space.

People expressed their concern that the agreement, in their view, will bring nothing short of the end of the Internet as we know it today. Hundreds of Romanian journalists, bloggers and other opinion-formers joined in, releasing the entire wrath of the Internet upon the agreement and the Romanian government, which had decided to sign it without previously consulting the civil society.

Spurred on by messages from the Anonymous group, the protesters started to get organised and take to the streets. More than 100,000 people announced on Facebook that they would participate in street protests in Bucharest, Cluj, Brasov, Timisoara and other major cities (16 in total).

However, when it came to it, only 300 participants could be counted in Bucharest, with even fewer in the other cities, bringing the total to maybe 1500 or 2000 protesters across the country. This proves that it is a lot easier to hit a ‘Like’ button in the comfort of your home than actually to get out in the street and act.

However, this was not the end of the story, as the media picked up on the public interest and ACTA became ubiquitous on all major TV stations and in the national newspapers. Naturally, it did not take long for the politicians to get involved.

The opposition reacted promptly, declaring that they would suspend the application of ACTA as soon as they won the upcoming elections later this year. Upon further questioning from the media, they softened and stated that they would not ratify the agreement before a thorough public consultation.

Questioned for a response during a press conference, both the prime minister and the minister of communications were caught off-guard, refusing to comment on the subject. The government resigned a short while after that, because of unrelated matters.

During the procedure of naming a new government, the members of parliament addressed a number of questions to the future minister of communications about his opinion on ACTA. He declared that he had studied the agreement and considered its provisions quite vague and therefore open to abuse. Unfortunately, parliament reacted well to this and gave the minister its approval.

With all the changes in the government, the state authorities which were involved in the negotiation of the agreement, and which will be called upon to enforce its provisions, did not have a chance to state their position. As a result, for more than a month, the public has been bombarded with exclusively negative comments on the content and effects of the agreement.

Finally, in mid-February, some state authorities organised a press conference to address the concerns of the public over the signing of ACTA. Representatives from the Romanian Copyright Office and the Special Telecommunication Service declared that ACTA would not bring any changes to Romanian legislation, which is already harmonised with the provisions of the agreement.

These declarations were promptly contradicted by a representative of the Association of Internet Service Providers, who declared that ACTA could potentially transform ISPs into the ‘Internet police’.

At this point, given the available information, the Romanian public is decidedly against the ratification of ACTA. In this case, it is probably a good thing that the public’s attention span is generally measured in days and that by the time ACTA will have to be ratified by the European Parliament, all will be forgotten, especially since by then, the government will have been able to address any ambiguities.

In addition, the European Commission, through Commissioner Karel De Gucht, announced that the commission intends to refer to the Court of Justice of the EU the question of whether ACTA is incompatible—in any way—with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms. This might go a long way towards allowing the public to make an informed decision regarding the ratification of the agreement.