ENFORCEMENT

Recommendations

Info

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Advertising Best Practices § which have continued to evolve over the past few years, strive to protect the integrity of the digital advertising system as well as third-party content and brands by preventing the flow of advertising dollars to websites that are engaged in illicit activity, including content theft and counterfeiting. Building on pledges made by the advertising community in recent years, a new voluntary initiative has been launched to further reduce advertising revenue from illicit sites. ** Through this and other industry-led initiatives, many of the world’s largest brand advertisers and agencies have committed to taking aggressive steps to keep their digital ads off infringing sites and to better ensure that their brands will not be associated with illicit activity. †† These and other collaborations and initiatives operate with a sense of purpose to promote a marketplace that provides an enhanced level of protection to consumers and legitimate businesses. One advantage of voluntary initiatives is their ability to adapt quickly to changes in the rapidly-evolving marketplace and craft agreements and initiatives that are responsive to marketplace developments. By making it more difficult for illicit actors to operate without consequence, these and other initiatives are improving the marketplace. § Id. Since the issuance of the Joint Strategic Plan, leading ad networks announced in July 2013 certain “Best Practices Guidelines for Ad Networks to Address Piracy and Counterfeiting,” and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) updated its “Network and Exchange Quality Assurance Guidelines” to include a ban on selling ad inventory on “copyright infringement” sites. In June 2014, the IAB also announced its Trustworthy Digital Supply Chain Initiative, identifying fighting online piracy as one of its five objectives, along with eliminating fraudulent traffic, combatting malware, and promoting brand safety. See IAB, “Winning the War on Crime in the Supply Chain,” available at http://www.iab.net/iablog/2014/06/Trustworthy-Digital-Supply-Chain.html. ** The Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG) was created by the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s), Association of National Advertisers (ANA), and Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) to work collaboratively with companies throughout the digital ad supply chain, and combat ad-supported Internet piracy. See TAG, http://www.tagtoday.net/aboutus/. †† See TAG, “Largest Brands And Agencies Take TAG Pledge To Fight Ad- Supported Piracy For All Digital Ads,” (December 2015), accessed from https://www.tagtoday.net/largest-brands-and-agencies-take-tag-pledge-tofight-ad-supported-piracy-for-all-digital-ads/ (noting that many of the world’s largest brand advertisers and agencies have pledged to require their ad partners “to take aggressive steps to help fight the $2.4 billion lost to pirate sites each year”). * To learn more about evidence-based approaches, see The White House, “2017 Budget of the United States Government: Analytical Perspectives, Chapter 7: Building the Capacity to Produce and Use Evidence,” accessed at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/ fy2017/assets/ap_7_evidence.pdf. How Will Solutions be Evaluated and Success Measured? The Federal Government must strive to implement results-oriented strategies that measure success by documenting progress. The Federal Government must improve agency efficiencies and resource allocations, employ administrative and policy levers to drive more effective evidence-based IP enforcement practices, and enhance public understanding of the dimensions of the issues. Good government programs use a broad range of analytical and management tools, which collectively comprise an “evidence infrastructure,” to learn what works (and what does not), for whom and under what circumstances it works (or does not), as well as to improve results. Evidence can be quantitative or qualitative and may come from a variety of sources, including performance measurement, evaluations, statistical studies, retrospective reviews, and other data analytics and research. * In the IP enforcement environment, there are a number of challenges to measuring progress in minimizing illicit trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, large-scale commercial infringement of copyrights, trade secret misappropriation, and other acts of IP infringement. Attempts to approach the appraisal from a quantitative fashion—that is, by statistics or mathematical techniques—remain important, but can be limiting. For example, IP misappropriation and other illicit activities are dynamic in nature, rapidly changing and taking different forms, resulting in measurement data that is often of no prospective use by the time it can be collected. With respect to the data itself, there is a need to make more data from the government and private sectors available in order to enhance analysis of the state of the marketplace. Additionally, the multidimensional nature of illicit IPR-based activities complicates marketplace assessments. For example, is an increase in product seizure numbers indicative of higher performance in targeting and interdiction of counterfeit goods; or the result of a higher volume of illicit trade in counterfeit goods; or due to the ineffectiveness of other “upstream” initiatives to reduce illicit trade in the first instance; or all of the above? 12
To address these and other challenges, the U.S. Interagency Strategic Planning Committees on IP Enforcement have issued calls for research both as part of the development process for the Joint Strategic Plan and in the Strategic Plan itself, while encouraging appropriate public disclosure of more data to support evidence-based IP enforcement efforts (see below). EXCERPT OF FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE property enforcement. Furthermore, the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator will monitor progress made under the Joint Strategic Plan by way of an Annual Report on Intellectual Property Enforcement, to be submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives, pursuant to Section 304 of the PRO-IP Act of 2008, 15 U.S.C. § 8814. Request for Public Comments: Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement “[I]n an effort to aid the development and implementation of well-defined policy decisions, to advance scholarly inquiry, and to bolster transparency and accountability on intellectual property enforcement efforts, IPEC encourages enhanced public access to appropriately generalized information, trend analyses, and case studies related to IP-infringing activities. Both governmental and private entities may be in possession of a wide range of data and other information that would enable researchers, rights holders, industry-at-large, public interests groups, policy makers and others to better gauge the specific nature of the challenges; develop recommendations for well-balanced strategies to effectively and efficiently address those challenges; and measure the effectiveness of strategies that have been or will be adopted and implemented. To further the objective of supporting transparency, accountability, and datadriven governance, IPEC requests identification of possible areas for enhanced information sharing and access, including the identification of relevant data sets, and how best to improve open access to such data.” Source: Federal Register, 80 FR 52800; Doc. No. 2015-21289. These calls for research and enhanced public availability of data represent a key element of this Joint Strategic Plan, and of the long-term success of an effective IP enforcement regime. The IPEC, along with the U.S. Interagency Strategic Planning Committees on IP Enforcement, will continue to develop appropriate performance measures to evaluate the impact of Federal initiatives on intellectual EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13
Page 1: U.S. JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN ON INTELL
Page 6 and 7: B. In Furtherance of a Healthy Doma
Page 9: PREAMBLE A Reflection on Creativity
Page 12 and 13: Senior Advisory Committee Establish
Page 14 and 15: INTRODUCTION IP-intensive industrie
Page 16 and 17: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Services, the Dep
Page 18 and 19: While seeking to be thorough, the S
Page 23 and 24: 1 THE GLOBAL SCALE OF INTELLECTUAL
Page 25 and 26: INTRODUCTION The story of intellect
Page 27 and 28: Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 31 and 32: « Office of the Intellectual Prope
Page 65: Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 68 and 69: SECTION 2 CONTENTS HELPING TO PROMO
Page 70 and 71:
Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectua
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 99 and 100:
3 SECURE AND FACILITATE LEGITIMATE
Page 101 and 102:
INTRODUCTION U.S. and international
Page 103 and 104:
Office of the Intellectual Property
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
ENDNOTES Office of the Intellectual
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125:
Page 128 and 129:
SECTION 4 CONTENTS PROMOTE FRAMEWOR
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to, an
show all

ENFORCEMENT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?