From Boing Boing:
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
- * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
- * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
- * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
Why shouldn't a US media company kick you off the internet with no right of appeal?
Do you remember voting for the government to force your ISP to spend your money sifting through your internet logs to check that you're not infringing a foreign corporation's potential copyright? No? That's weird
From Michael Geist:
The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together
The Internet chapter raises two additional issues. On the international front, it provides firm confirmation that the treaty is not a counterfeiting trade, but a copyright treaty. These provisions involve copyright policy as no reasonable definition of counterfeiting would include these kinds of provisions. On the domestic front, it raises serious questions about the Canadian negotiation mandate. Negotations from Foreign Affairs are typically constrained by either domestic law, a bill before the House of Commons, or the negotiation mandate letter. Since these provisions dramatically exceed current Canadian law and are not found in any bill presently before the House, Canadians should be asking whether the negotiation mandate letter has envisioned such dramatic changes to domestic copyright law. When combined with the other chapters that include statutory damages, search and seizure powers for border guards, anti-camcording rules, and mandatory disclosure of personal information requirements, it is clear that there is no bigger IP issue today than the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors this week in Korea.
From The Huffington Post:
Transparency of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Unlike nearly all other multilateral and plurilateral discussions about
intellectual property norms, the ACTA negotiations have been held in
deep secrecy. This has led to a chorus of criticism, and demands that
the ACTA process be opened up, and that documents in ACTA negotiations
be disclosed, as they are routinely in intellectual property
negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or
the World Trade Organization (WTO).
After a year of criticism over the secrecy of this negotiation, the
White House United States Trade Representative (USTR) recently began a
policy of offering some persons access to documents in this negotiation,
on the condition that they sign a non disclosure agreement (NDA) that
prevents any public discussion of the contents of those documents. The
opportunity to see the ACTA documents under the NDA was offered to a
large number of business interests, but very few public interest or
consumer groups, and there were no opportunities for academic experts or
the general public to review the documents.
USTR officials have indicated that this policy of access by invitation
and NDA fully addresses the legitimate demands for more transparency of
the negotiation, and it is being considered as a model for the future.
We are opposed to this approach because it creates a small special class
of citizens who have rights superior to the majority of the population,
and because it gives the government too much discretion in deciding who
can monitor and criticize its operations. We have no confidence in this
new approach.
And this pretence at transparency from the Australian Government's Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in which we're given a short one page general summary and the meeting agenda:
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Public information and consultations on the ACTA
The ACTA was first announced publicly by the US on 23 October 2007....
A detailed summary of all elements currently under discussion has been drafted by all ACTA negotiation participants, setting out the topics being addressed in ACTA discussions. This paper is intended to provide greater information to the public on the matters being negotiated, and guide stakeholders seeking to make submissions on ACTA negotiations...
As noted in Mr Crean's media release, Australia seeks an enhanced, practical international standard on IPR enforcement with broad international support, to compliment the existing international IP architecture. Australia regards the extent to which the ACTA can attract support from countries in our region as a critical issue in determining the real value of the ACTA for Australia. Taking part in the negotiations does not oblige Australia to join any resulting treaty.....
Australia will next participate in the sixth round of negotiations to be held in Seoul in November. The agenda for this meeting can be found here. We also intend to continue to promote enhancing the transparency of negotiations at this round, to ensure the Australian public is kept well informed and has further opportunities to give input. Australia expects negotiations to extend into 2010.
