Big tech accountability? Read how we got here in  The Closing of the Net 

The European Parliament has today established its position on the EU-US Trade agreement. In the post-ACTA environment,  its stance on copyright is  waivering, as is the issue of transparency in the negotiations. But, unlike ACTA, TTIP is a broadly-scoped agreement, and the copyright industries  are the subject of a quite different controversy – the so-called cultural exception.  Moreover, another telecoms issue appears to have been entirely ignored.

 The EU-US TRade Agreement has unfortunately been christened TTIP – suggesting many a journalistic pun to come. Negotiations between the USTR and the EU are expected to begin at the next G8 talks, that will be hosted by the UK and held in Northern Ireland in July.

 The Parliament today adopted  a non-legislative Resolution in a plenary vote.  The Resolution  expresses a formal  opinion on behalf of the Parliament, but has no other function in the EU political process. The  Commission’s mandate will be endorcsed  by the Council of Ministers.

 However, the Resolution is a document that will be held out by other stakeholders where it is favourable to their position and  used in various ways to underpin lobbying campaigns. That is its practical importance.

 The Resolution does make a positive statement regarding the controversial protection of the cultural indstries.  It seeks to keep cultural and audiovisual services out of the TTIP, including online services. This is usually taken to mean the issue of quotas for European content on mainstream broadcasting. However, the including of ‘online’ in the wording, does leave it open to interpretation. If audiovisual services are left out, then that one interpretation is arguably that it should also exclude enforcement of audiovisual online copyright:

 Considers it essential for the EU and its Member States to maintain the possibility of  preserving and developing their cultural and audiovisual policies, and to do so in the context of their existing laws, standards and agreements; calls, therefore, for the exclusion  of cultural and audiovisual services, including those provided online, to be clearly stated  in the negotiating mandate;

 This is no doubt the result of lobbying pressure by European cultural industries, and they can go away comforted with the thought that their cause has  won political support.

 The worrying aspect is that  European Parliament did not have the courage to  take a positive stand on copyright and IPR, and made  this very woolly statement: .

 Stresses that intellectual property is one of the driving forces of innovation and creation  and a pillar of the knowledge-based economy, and that the agreement should include  strong protection of precisely and clearly defined areas of intellectual property rights   (IPRs), including geographical indications, and should be consistent with existing   international agreements; believes that other areas of divergence relating to IPRs should  be resolved in line with international standards of protection             

There are views circulating that this is another attempt at an ACTA. I’m not so sure.  ACTA clearly set out to target Internet downloading  and was was intended to set a ‘gold standard’ for global  IPR enforcement. I suspect the TTIP will faciliate an attempt at  some kind of rapprochement of  EU and US copyright enforcement law, but anything more ambitious on IPR, such as new measures for intermediaries,  would be politically foolish.

 The TTIP language does mimick ACTA’s vagueness. For example,  ‘precisely and clearly defined areas of intellectual property rights’  -  what does this mean? What are ‘areas of rights’? And what are ‘international standards of protection’? I do not know of any other ‘international standards’ for copyright enforcement, which usually goes via the civil courts.

 The European Parliament Resolution on TTIP  has also introduced a new concept of ‘fundamental rights standards’ – once again, a right is a positive thing, I have never heard of a ‘rights standard':

 Considers that the agreement should guarantee full respect for EU fundamental rights standards; reiterates its support for a high level of protection of personal data, which should benefit consumers on both sides of the Atlantic; considers that the agreement   should take account of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provisions on the protection of personal data

  On transparency, the Parliament has clearly back-tracked. Where we would expect it to call for full transparency in the negotiations, it only calls for ‘engagement’, which can mean  interpreted very broadly. 

  Recalls the need for proactive outreach and continuous and transparent engagement by the  Commission with a wide range of stakeholders, including business, environmental, agricultural, consumer, labour and other representatives, throughout the negotiation   process, in order to ensure fact-based discussions, build trust in the negotiations, obtain proportionate input from various sides, and foster public support by taking stakeholders’ concerns into consideration; encourages all stakeholders to actively participate and to put  forward initiatives and information relevant to the negotiations;

This statement is  probably  intended to pacify industry, who did  complain about not being  briefed on ACTA (see my forthcoming book  A Copyright Masquerade) . It gives the Commission a get-out for not informing the public or revealing negotiating texts:

  Something that has been completely left out is the issue of access to telecoms networks. European business users have complained that  whilst American network operators are free to set up business in Europe, their European counterparts have no similar access to set up telecoms services in the US. This is certainly  an area where the EU should try to TTIP the balance.  (Oh dear!).


For further comment see

FFII  EP trade committee rejects meaningful TTIP amendments

La Quadrature du Net  TAFTA: First Step Towards a Super-ACTA

  This is an original article from and reflects research that I have carried out. If you refer to it or to its content,  please cite my name as the  author, and provide a link back to  Media and Academics – please cite as Monica Horten, 2013, EU-US trade talks:  Parliament  TTIP-toes around IPR & culture  in 23 May 2013.  Commercial users - please contact me.

Iptegrity in brief is the website of Dr Monica Horten. I’ve been analysing analysing digital policy since 2008. Way back then, I identified how issues around rights can influence Internet policy, and that has been a thread throughout all of my research. I hold a PhD in EU Communications Policy from the University of Westminster (2010), and a Post-graduate diploma in marketing.   I’ve served as an independent expert on the Council of Europe  Committee on Internet Freedoms, and was involved in a capacity building project in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. I am currently (from June 2022)  Policy Manager - Freedom of Expression, with the Open Rights Group. For more, see About Iptegrity is made available free of charge for  non-commercial use, Please link-back & attribute Monica Horten. Thank you for respecting this.

Contact  me to use  iptegrity content for commercial purposes


States v the 'Net? 

Read The Closing of the Net, by me, Monica Horten.

"original and valuable"  Times higher Education

" essential read for anyone interested in understanding the forces at play behind the web."

Find out more about the book here  The Closing of the Net


FROM £15.99

Copyright Enforcement Enigma launch, March 2012

In 2012, I presented my PhD research in the European Parliament.

The politics of copyright

A Copyright Masquerade - How corporate lobbying threatens online freedoms

'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review


Don't miss Iptegrity!  RSS/ Bookmark