Charles Arthur, Guardian; Acta didn't stand a chance in the age of the social internet:
"The dismissal of Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, by the European parliament has left the treaty's opponents delighted, and its supporters – who principally work in the industries that rely on copyright and trademarks, whether virtual or physical, for their living – downhearted.
Acta's creators had the poor luck – or lack of foresight – to create their baby in what feels like the Jurassic age of the social internet. They also made the bad decision to negotiate it in secret – the sort of thing that drives conspiracy theorists wild, but which is also sure to get anyone's antennae a bit twitchy. After all, if an agreement is for everyone's good, then why do its terms have to be kept secret?"
Showing posts with label Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Show all posts
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Friday, July 6, 2012
European Parliament Rejects Anti-Piracy Treaty; New York Times, 7/4/12
Eric Pfanner, New York Times; European Parliament Rejects Anti-Piracy Treaty:
"European legislators on Wednesday rejected an international treaty to crack down on digital piracy, a vote that Internet freedom groups hailed as a victory for democracy but that media companies lamented as a setback for the creative industries.
Foes of the treaty said the vote, by an overwhelming margin in the European Parliament at Strasbourg, would probably end the prospects of European involvement in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, which has been signed by the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea and a number of individual E.U. members."
"European legislators on Wednesday rejected an international treaty to crack down on digital piracy, a vote that Internet freedom groups hailed as a victory for democracy but that media companies lamented as a setback for the creative industries.
Foes of the treaty said the vote, by an overwhelming margin in the European Parliament at Strasbourg, would probably end the prospects of European involvement in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, which has been signed by the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea and a number of individual E.U. members."
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Unprecedented Vote: EU Parliament Trade Committee Rejects ACTA; Intellectual Property Watch, 6/21/12
Monika Ermert, Intellectual Property Watch; Unprecedented Vote: EU Parliament Trade Committee Rejects ACTA:
"In an unprecedented move, the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA) today in Brussels passed a report recommending the rejection of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Never before has INTA voted to reject a trade agreement negotiated by the Union.
With a vote of 19 to 12 (no abstentions) INTA members followed the recommendation of British MEP David Martin (S&D Party Group)."
"In an unprecedented move, the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA) today in Brussels passed a report recommending the rejection of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Never before has INTA voted to reject a trade agreement negotiated by the Union.
With a vote of 19 to 12 (no abstentions) INTA members followed the recommendation of British MEP David Martin (S&D Party Group)."
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Still A Long Way To Go For Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement; Intellectual Property Watch, 9/8/11
Monika Ermert, Intellectual Property Watch; Still A Long Way To Go For Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement:
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiated last year will be open for signature for two years, until the first of May 2013. But while this looks like a long time, it likely will be needed by the 37 negotiating governments (including the United States, Japan, South Korea and the 27 European Union members) to iron out problems on their way to implementing what some rights owners welcomed as a possible new “gold standard” for the enforcement of intellectual property rights."
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiated last year will be open for signature for two years, until the first of May 2013. But while this looks like a long time, it likely will be needed by the 37 negotiating governments (including the United States, Japan, South Korea and the 27 European Union members) to iron out problems on their way to implementing what some rights owners welcomed as a possible new “gold standard” for the enforcement of intellectual property rights."
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Top IP-Watch Stories Of 2010: Copyright Fights, ACTA, Medicines Access; Intellectual Property Watch, 12/30/10
William New and Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; Top IP-Watch Stories Of 2010: Copyright Fights, ACTA, Medicines Access:
"At Intellectual Property Watch, a list of the top 25 posts of 2010 reveals your – our readers’ – top interests of the past year.
The clear winner in terms of frequency on the list was the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), as about a third of the top stories dealt with that treaty in the headline and several more indirectly. But the top two on the list were articles about the ongoing struggle to balance the push by copyright holders for greater protection in the digital environment with the push to ensure that knowledge may be accessed by the maximum number of people. Given that stories about enforcement far outnumber stories about new ideas to spread open access or to generate revenue, one might conclude that enforcement may be the core business model for many."
"At Intellectual Property Watch, a list of the top 25 posts of 2010 reveals your – our readers’ – top interests of the past year.
The clear winner in terms of frequency on the list was the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), as about a third of the top stories dealt with that treaty in the headline and several more indirectly. But the top two on the list were articles about the ongoing struggle to balance the push by copyright holders for greater protection in the digital environment with the push to ensure that knowledge may be accessed by the maximum number of people. Given that stories about enforcement far outnumber stories about new ideas to spread open access or to generate revenue, one might conclude that enforcement may be the core business model for many."
Saturday, November 13, 2010
[Podcast] Backroom Dealing on ACTA; NPR's On the Media, 11/12/10
[Podcast] NPR's On the Media; Backroom Dealing on ACTA:
"For several years, dozens of countries – including the U.S. and members of the European Union – have been negotiating what’s called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It’s a kind of treaty involving copyright and intellectual property rights, matters of great public concern – only it’s been hammered out largely behind closed doors and subject to virtually no public input. Earlier this year an official draft of the treaty was finally released, allowing legal scholars to see what our trade reps have been up to. And many are not happy. Harvard Law School’s Jonathan Zittrain explains."
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/12/03
"For several years, dozens of countries – including the U.S. and members of the European Union – have been negotiating what’s called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It’s a kind of treaty involving copyright and intellectual property rights, matters of great public concern – only it’s been hammered out largely behind closed doors and subject to virtually no public input. Earlier this year an official draft of the treaty was finally released, allowing legal scholars to see what our trade reps have been up to. And many are not happy. Harvard Law School’s Jonathan Zittrain explains."
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/12/03
Saturday, September 25, 2010
ACTA Negotiators Still Aiming At Agreement By Year’s End; Intellectual Property Watch, 9/25/10
Kaitlin Mara, Intellectual Property Watch; ACTA Negotiators Still Aiming At Agreement By Year’s End:
"Countries negotiating a semi-secret trade agreement against piracy and counterfeiting this week in Tokyo are still aiming to reach agreement by the end of this year, a negotiator told Intellectual Property Watch today. The negotiator also did not reject outright the notion that patents might still be included in the draft treaty text, instead saying it is still a matter for discussion.
Negotiators for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are meeting from 23 September to 1 October in Tokyo for what some have said could be the final round of the negotiation."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/09/25/acta-negotiators-still-aiming-at-completion-by-year%e2%80%99s-end/
"Countries negotiating a semi-secret trade agreement against piracy and counterfeiting this week in Tokyo are still aiming to reach agreement by the end of this year, a negotiator told Intellectual Property Watch today. The negotiator also did not reject outright the notion that patents might still be included in the draft treaty text, instead saying it is still a matter for discussion.
Negotiators for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are meeting from 23 September to 1 October in Tokyo for what some have said could be the final round of the negotiation."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/09/25/acta-negotiators-still-aiming-at-completion-by-year%e2%80%99s-end/
Monday, July 5, 2010
ACTA slouches on, will be final within 6 months; ArsTechnica.com, 7/2/10
Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; ACTA slouches on, will be final within 6 months:
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement rolls on. Negotiators have just wrapped up another round of talks this week in Lucerne, Switzerland, and more than two years into the ACTA process, have actually started to meet with civil society groups to talk about the actual ACTA draft text. (Many governments have previously asked for comments on ACTA, but before releasing the full text.)
"On the first day of the negotiations, in the interest of transparency, the Swiss Government hosted meetings at which ACTA negotiators met with representatives of civil society who have expressed an interest in ACTA to exchange views," says the official announcement...
Stung by years of criticism over the lack of transparency and ACTA's clear emphasis on enforcement (without much interest in limits and exceptions), the negotiators stress that "ACTA is not intended to include new intellectual property rights or to enlarge or diminish existing intellectual property rights. ACTA will not interfere with a signatory’s ability to respect fundamental rights and liberties."
"ACTA will not oblige border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials."
ACTA's negotiations next come to the US, in what is meant as one of the final rounds on the agreement. The goal is to wrap ACTA up in 2010."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/acta-slouches-on-will-be-final-within-6-months.ars
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement rolls on. Negotiators have just wrapped up another round of talks this week in Lucerne, Switzerland, and more than two years into the ACTA process, have actually started to meet with civil society groups to talk about the actual ACTA draft text. (Many governments have previously asked for comments on ACTA, but before releasing the full text.)
"On the first day of the negotiations, in the interest of transparency, the Swiss Government hosted meetings at which ACTA negotiators met with representatives of civil society who have expressed an interest in ACTA to exchange views," says the official announcement...
Stung by years of criticism over the lack of transparency and ACTA's clear emphasis on enforcement (without much interest in limits and exceptions), the negotiators stress that "ACTA is not intended to include new intellectual property rights or to enlarge or diminish existing intellectual property rights. ACTA will not interfere with a signatory’s ability to respect fundamental rights and liberties."
"ACTA will not oblige border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials."
ACTA's negotiations next come to the US, in what is meant as one of the final rounds on the agreement. The goal is to wrap ACTA up in 2010."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/acta-slouches-on-will-be-final-within-6-months.ars
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Google attorney slams ACTA copyright treaty; CNet News, 5/7/10
Declan McCullagh, CNet News; Google attorney slams ACTA copyright treaty:
"An attorney for Google slammed a controversial intellectual property treaty on Friday, saying it has "metastasized" from a proposal to address border security and counterfeit goods to an international legal framework sweeping in copyright and the Internet.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, is "something that has grown in the shadows, Gollum-like," without public scrutiny, Daphne Keller, a senior policy counsel in Mountain View, Calif., said at a conference at Stanford University.
Both the Obama administration and the Bush administration had rejected requests from civil libertarians and technologists for the text of ACTA, with the White House last year even indicating that disclosure would do "damage to the national security." After pressure from the European Parliament, however, negotiators released the draft text two weeks ago.
The international adoption of ACTA could increase the liability for Internet intermediaries--such, perhaps, as search engines--Keller said. "You don't want to play Russian roulette with very high statutory damages."
One section of ACTA says that Internet providers "disabling access" to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized "transmission of materials protected by copyright" would be immune from lawsuits. If they choose not to do so, they could face legal liability. Fair use rights are not guaranteed.
"It looks a lot like cultural imperialism," Keller said at the Legal Frontiers in Digital Media conference. "It's something that really snuck up on a lot of people."
Jamie Love of the Knowledge Ecology International advocacy group, which has criticized the ACTA process, reported last year that Keller had signed a nondisclosure agreement that provided her with access to the early draft text. Other organizations whose representatives signed the confidentiality agreement, according to Love's Freedom of Information Act request, include Verizon, eBay, Public Knowledge, Intel, News Corp., and the Consumer Electronics Association.
Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, who signed the nondisclosure agreement, wrote at the time that it didn't provide much access: "We were allowed to view a draft of one proposed section as we sat in a (government office) with some of its negotiators and counsel. We were not allowed to take any copies of the text with us when we left the meeting about an hour later."
The U.S. Trade Representative said in a statement last month that recent ACTA negotiations in New Zealand were "constructive." The Motion Picture Association of America called ACTA an "important step forward" that deserves to be adopted.
The next ACTA meeting is in Switzerland in June."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004450-38.html
"An attorney for Google slammed a controversial intellectual property treaty on Friday, saying it has "metastasized" from a proposal to address border security and counterfeit goods to an international legal framework sweeping in copyright and the Internet.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, is "something that has grown in the shadows, Gollum-like," without public scrutiny, Daphne Keller, a senior policy counsel in Mountain View, Calif., said at a conference at Stanford University.
Both the Obama administration and the Bush administration had rejected requests from civil libertarians and technologists for the text of ACTA, with the White House last year even indicating that disclosure would do "damage to the national security." After pressure from the European Parliament, however, negotiators released the draft text two weeks ago.
The international adoption of ACTA could increase the liability for Internet intermediaries--such, perhaps, as search engines--Keller said. "You don't want to play Russian roulette with very high statutory damages."
One section of ACTA says that Internet providers "disabling access" to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized "transmission of materials protected by copyright" would be immune from lawsuits. If they choose not to do so, they could face legal liability. Fair use rights are not guaranteed.
"It looks a lot like cultural imperialism," Keller said at the Legal Frontiers in Digital Media conference. "It's something that really snuck up on a lot of people."
Jamie Love of the Knowledge Ecology International advocacy group, which has criticized the ACTA process, reported last year that Keller had signed a nondisclosure agreement that provided her with access to the early draft text. Other organizations whose representatives signed the confidentiality agreement, according to Love's Freedom of Information Act request, include Verizon, eBay, Public Knowledge, Intel, News Corp., and the Consumer Electronics Association.
Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, who signed the nondisclosure agreement, wrote at the time that it didn't provide much access: "We were allowed to view a draft of one proposed section as we sat in a (government office) with some of its negotiators and counsel. We were not allowed to take any copies of the text with us when we left the meeting about an hour later."
The U.S. Trade Representative said in a statement last month that recent ACTA negotiations in New Zealand were "constructive." The Motion Picture Association of America called ACTA an "important step forward" that deserves to be adopted.
The next ACTA meeting is in Switzerland in June."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004450-38.html
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Tech Companies Fear Implications of Trade Pact; New York Times, 4/20/10
Associated Press via New York Times; Tech Companies Fear Implications of Trade Pact:
"Companies across the technology industry -- from Internet access providers to social networking sites to video-sharing services -- are bracing for this week's release of a draft of a trade agreement that they fear could undermine all sorts of online activities.
The agreement, being negotiated by the United States and nearly a dozen trading partners, is intended to create an international framework to crack down on counterfeiting, copyright violations and other intellectual property theft. But skeptics warn that it could chill free speech and other online expression by making technology companies liable for the misdeeds of their users.
''If online platforms themselves are held liable in a way that is overly broad, the platforms themselves will start screening and censoring or scaling back how open to user participation they are,'' said David Sohn, senior policy counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, an interest group that advocates for civil liberties online. ''They will have to exercise really tight control.''
The Bush administration began negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, in the fall of 2007 in an effort to harmonize intellectual property protections across different nations. The far-reaching agreement would encompass everything from counterfeit pharmaceuticals to fake Prada bags to online piracy of music and movies. Once ratified, trade agreements take full effect and a country can face complaints for noncompliance.
Since early on, the talks have been mired in controversy. For one thing, countries that are considered the biggest sources of intellectual property theft -- such as China and Indonesia -- are not participating. Nations taking part include the European Union member states, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and Australia.
The negotiations have been held behind closed doors, with no opportunity for public comment or outside input. Earlier versions of the trade agreement have been leaked, but the first official draft won't be released until Wednesday -- even though last week's talks in New Zealand marked the eighth round of negotiations. The next round will take place in Switzerland in June.
Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Internet and electronic commerce issues, argues that because the agreement could reshape intellectual property laws in so many countries, the proper forum for such negotiations is the World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO negotiations are more open to public scrutiny and include countries where much of the counterfeiting takes place, he noted.
''Anyone in a democratic country should be uncomfortable when governments go behind closed doors to negotiate an agreement that will ultimately have a significant impact on domestic law,'' Geist said.
Many technology companies fear that ACTA could undermine existing legal precedent and intellectual property laws in the United States, including the landmark 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The current U.S. legal framework includes important protections for Internet service providers and other technology companies when their users are accused of copyright infringement. Although current law requires companies to remove infringing content, it limits their liability.
Most big technology companies are hesitant to comment on the record about ACTA until they see an official draft, but privately they say that immunity is critical not just for Internet service providers such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., but also for any online company that hosts user-generated content. That includes social networking sites such as Facebook, video-sharing sites such as Google Inc.'s YouTube and even the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The darkest fear of the technology companies is that ACTA contains provisions that would require them to cut off access to users who violate copyright protections and possibly would hold the companies liable for violations.
The dangers of such ''secondary liability'' were underscored by a recent court ruling in Italy, which held three Google executives criminally responsible for hosting an online video of an autistic teenager being bullied, said Sohn of the Center for Democracy & Technology.
Sohn also said he worries that the trade agreement will exclude another ''safeguard'' in U.S. law -- the ''fair use'' doctrine, which allows limited use of copyright-protected material for commentary, criticism, research, teaching and news reporting.
''While this is being characterized as an anti-counterfeiting agreement, it is really a copyright deal with rules that will affect the daily lives of millions of people both online and in the digital realm,'' Geist said.
ACTA skeptics aren't only worried that it will bring more-restrictive rules to the U.S. Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director for Public Knowledge, another public interest group, fears that ACTA could also export strict, punitive copyright enforcement measures that exist in U.S. law to other countries. That could include high statutory damage awards, he said.
To be sure, ACTA has plenty of defenders. In November, a long list of media companies and trade groups, including the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, sent a letter to Congress expressing support for the agreement.
ACTA, they wrote, has the potential to ''preserve high value American jobs, and create new ones'' and ''buttress our country's leading position in the creation, publishing and distribution of software, video games, films, music, books, television programs, journals, visual materials and other works protected by copyright.''
The office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is negotiating ACTA on behalf of the U.S., said in a statement that it is working to implement ''President Obama's commitment to aggressively protect American intellectual property overseas'' and is ''respecting the balance struck by the U.S. Congress on these issues.''
The trade representative added that secondary liability for copyright infringement already exists in U.S. and foreign laws. ACTA, it hopes, would ''protect Internet intermediaries from secondary liability if they play by the rules.''"
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/20/business/AP-US-TEC-Copyright-Trade-Agreement.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=acta&st=cse
"Companies across the technology industry -- from Internet access providers to social networking sites to video-sharing services -- are bracing for this week's release of a draft of a trade agreement that they fear could undermine all sorts of online activities.
The agreement, being negotiated by the United States and nearly a dozen trading partners, is intended to create an international framework to crack down on counterfeiting, copyright violations and other intellectual property theft. But skeptics warn that it could chill free speech and other online expression by making technology companies liable for the misdeeds of their users.
''If online platforms themselves are held liable in a way that is overly broad, the platforms themselves will start screening and censoring or scaling back how open to user participation they are,'' said David Sohn, senior policy counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, an interest group that advocates for civil liberties online. ''They will have to exercise really tight control.''
The Bush administration began negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, in the fall of 2007 in an effort to harmonize intellectual property protections across different nations. The far-reaching agreement would encompass everything from counterfeit pharmaceuticals to fake Prada bags to online piracy of music and movies. Once ratified, trade agreements take full effect and a country can face complaints for noncompliance.
Since early on, the talks have been mired in controversy. For one thing, countries that are considered the biggest sources of intellectual property theft -- such as China and Indonesia -- are not participating. Nations taking part include the European Union member states, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and Australia.
The negotiations have been held behind closed doors, with no opportunity for public comment or outside input. Earlier versions of the trade agreement have been leaked, but the first official draft won't be released until Wednesday -- even though last week's talks in New Zealand marked the eighth round of negotiations. The next round will take place in Switzerland in June.
Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Internet and electronic commerce issues, argues that because the agreement could reshape intellectual property laws in so many countries, the proper forum for such negotiations is the World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO negotiations are more open to public scrutiny and include countries where much of the counterfeiting takes place, he noted.
''Anyone in a democratic country should be uncomfortable when governments go behind closed doors to negotiate an agreement that will ultimately have a significant impact on domestic law,'' Geist said.
Many technology companies fear that ACTA could undermine existing legal precedent and intellectual property laws in the United States, including the landmark 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The current U.S. legal framework includes important protections for Internet service providers and other technology companies when their users are accused of copyright infringement. Although current law requires companies to remove infringing content, it limits their liability.
Most big technology companies are hesitant to comment on the record about ACTA until they see an official draft, but privately they say that immunity is critical not just for Internet service providers such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., but also for any online company that hosts user-generated content. That includes social networking sites such as Facebook, video-sharing sites such as Google Inc.'s YouTube and even the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The darkest fear of the technology companies is that ACTA contains provisions that would require them to cut off access to users who violate copyright protections and possibly would hold the companies liable for violations.
The dangers of such ''secondary liability'' were underscored by a recent court ruling in Italy, which held three Google executives criminally responsible for hosting an online video of an autistic teenager being bullied, said Sohn of the Center for Democracy & Technology.
Sohn also said he worries that the trade agreement will exclude another ''safeguard'' in U.S. law -- the ''fair use'' doctrine, which allows limited use of copyright-protected material for commentary, criticism, research, teaching and news reporting.
''While this is being characterized as an anti-counterfeiting agreement, it is really a copyright deal with rules that will affect the daily lives of millions of people both online and in the digital realm,'' Geist said.
ACTA skeptics aren't only worried that it will bring more-restrictive rules to the U.S. Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director for Public Knowledge, another public interest group, fears that ACTA could also export strict, punitive copyright enforcement measures that exist in U.S. law to other countries. That could include high statutory damage awards, he said.
To be sure, ACTA has plenty of defenders. In November, a long list of media companies and trade groups, including the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, sent a letter to Congress expressing support for the agreement.
ACTA, they wrote, has the potential to ''preserve high value American jobs, and create new ones'' and ''buttress our country's leading position in the creation, publishing and distribution of software, video games, films, music, books, television programs, journals, visual materials and other works protected by copyright.''
The office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is negotiating ACTA on behalf of the U.S., said in a statement that it is working to implement ''President Obama's commitment to aggressively protect American intellectual property overseas'' and is ''respecting the balance struck by the U.S. Congress on these issues.''
The trade representative added that secondary liability for copyright infringement already exists in U.S. and foreign laws. ACTA, it hopes, would ''protect Internet intermediaries from secondary liability if they play by the rules.''"
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/20/business/AP-US-TEC-Copyright-Trade-Agreement.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=acta&st=cse
Friday, April 16, 2010
Free at last! Official ACTA text coming next week; Ars Technica, 4/16/10
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Free at last! Official ACTA text coming next week:
"After more than a year of sustained pressure, the countries negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have decided that the time is right to release the draft text of their work.
The official announcement came today after the conclusion of negotiations in New Zealand. "There was a general sense from this session that negotiations have now advanced to a point where making a draft text available to the public will help the process of reaching a final agreement," says the official announcement.
"For that reason, and based on the specific momentum coming out of this meeting, participants have reached unanimous agreement that the time is right for making available to the public the consolidated text coming out of these discussions, which will reflect the substantial progress made at this round."
The draft text will be released this upcoming Wednesday, April 21.
The announcement also shows just how carefully the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the US, and others have been watching public opinion. It goes out of its way to say that the treaty will not oblige "participants to require border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials." This is a clear attempt to rebut the "but customs will start searching my iPod!" madness we've seen in relation to ACTA.
The announcement also says that "no participant is proposing to require governments to mandate a 'graduated response' or 'three strikes' approach to copyright infringement on the Internet." As we've reported before, the leaked draft text does demand that ISPs have some plan in place to deter infringers, and a footnote made it clear that booting them off the Internet would be a great way to handle this—but the language in the draft came straight from the existing DMCA in the US and does not mandate any specific approach.
The announcement is certainly good news for fans of transparency, but it's not all sunshine and unicorns. For one thing, the participants plan to strip out their "respective positions." In other words, we are going to get a consolidated draft text that provides no information about who has been arguing for what position.
Not that it really matters, since massive leaks have already revealed negotiating positions and a complete draft text from January. It's disappointing that the negotiating countries refused to release more information about the process along the way; their decision to do so now has limited meaning, since the complete text is already leaked.
Still, it should allow negotiators to start answering public questions about the treaty and responding to public criticism. That's a good thing, but it comes quite late in the process. After a couple years of negotiations, the existence of a "consolidated text" shows that most of the tough negotiating has already been done. Changes could still be made at this point, but it's late in the process and today's announcement reminds us that the aim is to wrap up this treaty "as soon as possible in 2010."
The next meeting takes place in Switzerland in June."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/free-at-last-official-acta-text-coming-next-week.ars
"After more than a year of sustained pressure, the countries negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have decided that the time is right to release the draft text of their work.
The official announcement came today after the conclusion of negotiations in New Zealand. "There was a general sense from this session that negotiations have now advanced to a point where making a draft text available to the public will help the process of reaching a final agreement," says the official announcement.
"For that reason, and based on the specific momentum coming out of this meeting, participants have reached unanimous agreement that the time is right for making available to the public the consolidated text coming out of these discussions, which will reflect the substantial progress made at this round."
The draft text will be released this upcoming Wednesday, April 21.
The announcement also shows just how carefully the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the US, and others have been watching public opinion. It goes out of its way to say that the treaty will not oblige "participants to require border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials." This is a clear attempt to rebut the "but customs will start searching my iPod!" madness we've seen in relation to ACTA.
The announcement also says that "no participant is proposing to require governments to mandate a 'graduated response' or 'three strikes' approach to copyright infringement on the Internet." As we've reported before, the leaked draft text does demand that ISPs have some plan in place to deter infringers, and a footnote made it clear that booting them off the Internet would be a great way to handle this—but the language in the draft came straight from the existing DMCA in the US and does not mandate any specific approach.
The announcement is certainly good news for fans of transparency, but it's not all sunshine and unicorns. For one thing, the participants plan to strip out their "respective positions." In other words, we are going to get a consolidated draft text that provides no information about who has been arguing for what position.
Not that it really matters, since massive leaks have already revealed negotiating positions and a complete draft text from January. It's disappointing that the negotiating countries refused to release more information about the process along the way; their decision to do so now has limited meaning, since the complete text is already leaked.
Still, it should allow negotiators to start answering public questions about the treaty and responding to public criticism. That's a good thing, but it comes quite late in the process. After a couple years of negotiations, the existence of a "consolidated text" shows that most of the tough negotiating has already been done. Changes could still be made at this point, but it's late in the process and today's announcement reminds us that the aim is to wrap up this treaty "as soon as possible in 2010."
The next meeting takes place in Switzerland in June."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/free-at-last-official-acta-text-coming-next-week.ars
Digital Economy Act: This means war; (London) Guardian, 4/16/10
Cory Doctorow, (London) Guardian; Digital Economy Act: This means war:
Baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell:
"With the rushed passage into law of the Digital Economy Act this month, the fight over copyright enters a new phase. Previous to this, most copyfighters operated under the rubric that a negotiated peace was possible between the thrashing entertainment giants and civil society.
But now that the BPI and its mates have won themselves the finest law that money can buy – a law that establishes an unprecedented realm of web censorship in Britain, a law that provides for the disconnection of entire families from the net on the say-so of an entertainment giant, a law that shuts down free Wi-Fi hotspots and makes it harder than ever to conduct your normal business on the grounds that you might be damaging theirs – the game has changed.
I came to the copyfight from a pretty parochial place. As a working artist, I wanted a set of just copyright rules that provided a sound framework for my negotiations with big publishers, film studios, and similar institutions. I worried that the expansion of copyright – in duration and scope – would harm my ability to freely create. After all, creators are the most active re-users of copyright, each one of us a remix factory and a one-person archive of inspirational and influential materials. I also worried that giving the incumbent giants control over the new online distribution system would artificially extend their stranglehold over creators. This stranglehold means that practically every media giant offers the same awful terms to all of us, and no kinder competitor can get our works into the hands of our audiences.
I still worry about that stuff, of course. I co-founded a successful business – Boing Boing, the widely-read website – that benefits enormously from not having to pay fealty to a distributor in order to reach its readers (by contrast, the old print edition of Boing Boing folded when its main distributor went bankrupt while owing it a modest fortune and holding onto thousands of dollars' worth of printed materials that we never got back). My novels find their way onto the bestseller list by being distributed for free from my website simultaneous with their mainstream bookstore sales through publishers like Macmillan and HarperCollins and Random House.
My whole life revolves around the digital economy: running entrepreneurial businesses that thrive on copying and that exploit the net's powerful efficiencies to realise a better return on investment.
Parliament has just given two fingers to me (and every other small/medium digital enterprise) by agreeing to cripple Britain's internet in order to give higher profits to the analogue economy represented by the labels and studios.
But today, my bank-balance is the least of my worries. The entertainment industry's willingness to use parliament todi impose censorship and arbitrary punishment in the course of chasing a few extra quid is so depraved and terrible that it has me in fear for the very underpinnings of democracy and civil society.
In the US, the MPAA and RIAA (American equivalents of the MPA and the BPI) just submitted comments to the American Intellectual Property Czar, Victoria Espinel, laying out their proposal for IP enforcement. They want us all to install spyware on our computers that deletes material that it identifies as infringing. They want our networks censored by national firewalls (U2's Bono also called for this in a New York Times editorial, averring that if the Chinese could control dissident information with censorware, our own governments could deploy similar technology to keep infringement at bay). They want border-searches of laptops, personal media players and thumb-drives.
They want poor countries bullied into diverting GDP from humanitarian causes to enforcing copyright. And they want their domestic copyright enforcement handled, free of charge, by the Department of Homeland Security.
Elements of this agenda are also on display (or rather, in hiding) in the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a treaty being drafted between a member's club of rich nations. They've turned their back on the United Nations to negotiate in private, without having to contend with journalists or public interest groups. By their own admission, they intend to impose this treaty on poor countries as a condition of ongoing trade, and in the US, the Obama administration has announced its intention to pass ACTA without Congressional debate.
I'm not such a techno-triumphalist that I believe that the free and open internet will solve all our socio-economic problems. But I am enough of a techno-pessimist to believe that baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell.
Chekhov wrote that a gun on the mantelpiece in act one is sure to go off by act three. The entertainment industry's blinkered pursuit of its own narrow goals has the potential to redesign our technology to be the perfect tools and excuses for oppression."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/16/digital-economy-act-cory-doctorow
Baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell:
"With the rushed passage into law of the Digital Economy Act this month, the fight over copyright enters a new phase. Previous to this, most copyfighters operated under the rubric that a negotiated peace was possible between the thrashing entertainment giants and civil society.
But now that the BPI and its mates have won themselves the finest law that money can buy – a law that establishes an unprecedented realm of web censorship in Britain, a law that provides for the disconnection of entire families from the net on the say-so of an entertainment giant, a law that shuts down free Wi-Fi hotspots and makes it harder than ever to conduct your normal business on the grounds that you might be damaging theirs – the game has changed.
I came to the copyfight from a pretty parochial place. As a working artist, I wanted a set of just copyright rules that provided a sound framework for my negotiations with big publishers, film studios, and similar institutions. I worried that the expansion of copyright – in duration and scope – would harm my ability to freely create. After all, creators are the most active re-users of copyright, each one of us a remix factory and a one-person archive of inspirational and influential materials. I also worried that giving the incumbent giants control over the new online distribution system would artificially extend their stranglehold over creators. This stranglehold means that practically every media giant offers the same awful terms to all of us, and no kinder competitor can get our works into the hands of our audiences.
I still worry about that stuff, of course. I co-founded a successful business – Boing Boing, the widely-read website – that benefits enormously from not having to pay fealty to a distributor in order to reach its readers (by contrast, the old print edition of Boing Boing folded when its main distributor went bankrupt while owing it a modest fortune and holding onto thousands of dollars' worth of printed materials that we never got back). My novels find their way onto the bestseller list by being distributed for free from my website simultaneous with their mainstream bookstore sales through publishers like Macmillan and HarperCollins and Random House.
My whole life revolves around the digital economy: running entrepreneurial businesses that thrive on copying and that exploit the net's powerful efficiencies to realise a better return on investment.
Parliament has just given two fingers to me (and every other small/medium digital enterprise) by agreeing to cripple Britain's internet in order to give higher profits to the analogue economy represented by the labels and studios.
But today, my bank-balance is the least of my worries. The entertainment industry's willingness to use parliament todi impose censorship and arbitrary punishment in the course of chasing a few extra quid is so depraved and terrible that it has me in fear for the very underpinnings of democracy and civil society.
In the US, the MPAA and RIAA (American equivalents of the MPA and the BPI) just submitted comments to the American Intellectual Property Czar, Victoria Espinel, laying out their proposal for IP enforcement. They want us all to install spyware on our computers that deletes material that it identifies as infringing. They want our networks censored by national firewalls (U2's Bono also called for this in a New York Times editorial, averring that if the Chinese could control dissident information with censorware, our own governments could deploy similar technology to keep infringement at bay). They want border-searches of laptops, personal media players and thumb-drives.
They want poor countries bullied into diverting GDP from humanitarian causes to enforcing copyright. And they want their domestic copyright enforcement handled, free of charge, by the Department of Homeland Security.
Elements of this agenda are also on display (or rather, in hiding) in the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a treaty being drafted between a member's club of rich nations. They've turned their back on the United Nations to negotiate in private, without having to contend with journalists or public interest groups. By their own admission, they intend to impose this treaty on poor countries as a condition of ongoing trade, and in the US, the Obama administration has announced its intention to pass ACTA without Congressional debate.
I'm not such a techno-triumphalist that I believe that the free and open internet will solve all our socio-economic problems. But I am enough of a techno-pessimist to believe that baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell.
Chekhov wrote that a gun on the mantelpiece in act one is sure to go off by act three. The entertainment industry's blinkered pursuit of its own narrow goals has the potential to redesign our technology to be the perfect tools and excuses for oppression."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/16/digital-economy-act-cory-doctorow
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Your life will some day end; ACTA will live on; Ars Technica, 3/19/10
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Your life will some day end; ACTA will live on:
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) isn't just another secret treaty—it's a way of life. If ACTA passes in anything like its current form, it will create an entirely new international secretariat to administer and extend the agreement.
Knowledge Ecology International got its hands on more of the leaked ACTA text this week, including a chapter on "Institutional Arrangements" that has not leaked before. The chapter makes clear that ACTA will be far more than a standard trade agreement; it appears to be nothing less than an attempt to make a new international institution that will handle some of the duties of groups like the WTO and WIPO.
Why bother? Well, from the perspective of countries like the US, the existing institutions have problems. For one, they feature a huge number of nations, some of whom have blocked some of the anti-counterfeiting provisions desired by the US and others. Call this the UN problem—getting much done with so many people in attendance can be tricky, and ACTA has become a "coalition of the willing" who have decided to go form their own club instead.
But WIPO, especially, has also opened up over the last decade, and now has robust rules for the participation of consumer groups and other non-governmental organizations. It also requires far more transparency, with the publication of proposals and draft texts throughout a negotiating process. As we have seen too clearly, ACTA has none of this.
Jamie Love of KEI claims that the US Trade Representative has already "told members of Congress it is their intention to marginalize the participation by consumer interest organizations in the new forum."
The new ACTA secretariat won't be a mere administrator. The leaked chapter makes clear that the new governing body will "make recommendations regarding the implementation of ACTA" and will itself "identify and monitor techniques of piracy and counterfeiting."
In other ACTA news, a separate chapter has also leaked, and in it the EU wants to make sure that criminal penalties exist for "cases of willful trademark counterfeiting and copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale." On a "commercial scale" doesn't mean that such infringement must be done for financial gain, however; it also includes "significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain."
Despite the public support of President Obama, ACTA is running into bad press throughout the world. The European Parliament last week even managed to pass a strong resolution of displeasure with the ACTA process, which passed 633-13."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/your-life-will-some-day-end-acta-will-live-on.ars
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) isn't just another secret treaty—it's a way of life. If ACTA passes in anything like its current form, it will create an entirely new international secretariat to administer and extend the agreement.
Knowledge Ecology International got its hands on more of the leaked ACTA text this week, including a chapter on "Institutional Arrangements" that has not leaked before. The chapter makes clear that ACTA will be far more than a standard trade agreement; it appears to be nothing less than an attempt to make a new international institution that will handle some of the duties of groups like the WTO and WIPO.
Why bother? Well, from the perspective of countries like the US, the existing institutions have problems. For one, they feature a huge number of nations, some of whom have blocked some of the anti-counterfeiting provisions desired by the US and others. Call this the UN problem—getting much done with so many people in attendance can be tricky, and ACTA has become a "coalition of the willing" who have decided to go form their own club instead.
But WIPO, especially, has also opened up over the last decade, and now has robust rules for the participation of consumer groups and other non-governmental organizations. It also requires far more transparency, with the publication of proposals and draft texts throughout a negotiating process. As we have seen too clearly, ACTA has none of this.
Jamie Love of KEI claims that the US Trade Representative has already "told members of Congress it is their intention to marginalize the participation by consumer interest organizations in the new forum."
The new ACTA secretariat won't be a mere administrator. The leaked chapter makes clear that the new governing body will "make recommendations regarding the implementation of ACTA" and will itself "identify and monitor techniques of piracy and counterfeiting."
In other ACTA news, a separate chapter has also leaked, and in it the EU wants to make sure that criminal penalties exist for "cases of willful trademark counterfeiting and copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale." On a "commercial scale" doesn't mean that such infringement must be done for financial gain, however; it also includes "significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain."
Despite the public support of President Obama, ACTA is running into bad press throughout the world. The European Parliament last week even managed to pass a strong resolution of displeasure with the ACTA process, which passed 633-13."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/your-life-will-some-day-end-acta-will-live-on.ars
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
What is Acta and what should I know about it?; Guardian, 11/11/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; What is Acta and what should I know about it?:
""Unlike other high-powered government meetings – which are often accompanied by protests and brouhaha – Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been progressing for two years without much fanfare.
Supporters say the treaty will help create a broad consensus on how to deal with counterfeit goods: the kind of legislation usually aimed at criminals who mass-manufacture and sell pirate DVDs, or flood the market with dangerous fake products such as batteries and electrical equipment. In truth, the treaty also contains suggestions for the control of internet content that some believe could radically alter the nature of copyright law worldwide.
According to information that leaked from a secret meeting in South Korea last week, officials are proposing new ways to deal with intellectual property infringement online, including a global three-strikes law that could effectively override any British laws, regardless of whether or not the controversial Mandelson plan goes through parliament...
On top of all this, say campaigners, Acta is being thrashed out in total secrecy – leaving everyone guessing at what laws might be on the way. Professor Michael Geist, a prominent legal expert at the University of Ottowa, says this cloak-and-dagger approach is part of a wider set of problems with the treaty.
"A copyright agreement is being treated akin to nuclear secrets, with virtually no transparency but for a few leaks that have emerged," he told CBC. "As a policy-making matter, it's enormously problematic – but then the provisions associated with the treaty are even more problematic."...
The US government appears to be pushing for three strikes – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European parliament," said Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adding that the leaks "confirmed everything that we feared"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
""Unlike other high-powered government meetings – which are often accompanied by protests and brouhaha – Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been progressing for two years without much fanfare.
Supporters say the treaty will help create a broad consensus on how to deal with counterfeit goods: the kind of legislation usually aimed at criminals who mass-manufacture and sell pirate DVDs, or flood the market with dangerous fake products such as batteries and electrical equipment. In truth, the treaty also contains suggestions for the control of internet content that some believe could radically alter the nature of copyright law worldwide.
According to information that leaked from a secret meeting in South Korea last week, officials are proposing new ways to deal with intellectual property infringement online, including a global three-strikes law that could effectively override any British laws, regardless of whether or not the controversial Mandelson plan goes through parliament...
On top of all this, say campaigners, Acta is being thrashed out in total secrecy – leaving everyone guessing at what laws might be on the way. Professor Michael Geist, a prominent legal expert at the University of Ottowa, says this cloak-and-dagger approach is part of a wider set of problems with the treaty.
"A copyright agreement is being treated akin to nuclear secrets, with virtually no transparency but for a few leaks that have emerged," he told CBC. "As a policy-making matter, it's enormously problematic – but then the provisions associated with the treaty are even more problematic."...
The US government appears to be pushing for three strikes – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European parliament," said Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adding that the leaks "confirmed everything that we feared"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The ACTA Internet provisions: DMCA goes worldwide; Ars Technica, 11/08/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; The ACTA Internet provisions: DMCA goes worldwide:
New details about the Internet section of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have leaked, and critics are already claiming that they mandate "three strikes" policies and will put an end to Flickr and YouTube. The reality is less sensational but just as important: ACTA is really about taking the DMCA global.
"The statements are strong, but the document they are based on is not. As the ACTA countries (Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, the US, etc.) meet in South Korea this week to hash out the provisions of the treaty dealing with the Internet, multiple reports began to circulate based on "sources" and a leaked document from the EU. Turns out, though, that all of these sources were actually the same one: the leaked EU document, which is now widely available for download (PDF)...
The real problem here is not for US residents, but for everyone else. ACTA is clearly an attempt to bring DMCA ideas like "notice and takedown" to other countries that don't currently use them. For instance, some other countries currently use and prefer a "notice and notice" scheme in which an ISP is not required to takedown allegedly infringing material after receiving a simple notice, but only to forward that notice on to the relevant subscriber.
Extending the anticircumvention language to the rest of the world will also be novel (in a bad way) for other countries, which could follow the US path of allowing DRM to trump copyright law and fair use rights. (Which is why it's pleasing to see that the US negotiators are open to fair use and to country-by-country exceptions to such rules.)...
ACTA is looking a good deal less scary than when it first appeared, but that's no reason for the public to back off its attempts to see what's being negotiated in its name."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/the-acta-internet-provisions-dmca-goes-worldwide.ars
New details about the Internet section of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have leaked, and critics are already claiming that they mandate "three strikes" policies and will put an end to Flickr and YouTube. The reality is less sensational but just as important: ACTA is really about taking the DMCA global.
"The statements are strong, but the document they are based on is not. As the ACTA countries (Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, the US, etc.) meet in South Korea this week to hash out the provisions of the treaty dealing with the Internet, multiple reports began to circulate based on "sources" and a leaked document from the EU. Turns out, though, that all of these sources were actually the same one: the leaked EU document, which is now widely available for download (PDF)...
The real problem here is not for US residents, but for everyone else. ACTA is clearly an attempt to bring DMCA ideas like "notice and takedown" to other countries that don't currently use them. For instance, some other countries currently use and prefer a "notice and notice" scheme in which an ISP is not required to takedown allegedly infringing material after receiving a simple notice, but only to forward that notice on to the relevant subscriber.
Extending the anticircumvention language to the rest of the world will also be novel (in a bad way) for other countries, which could follow the US path of allowing DRM to trump copyright law and fair use rights. (Which is why it's pleasing to see that the US negotiators are open to fair use and to country-by-country exceptions to such rules.)...
ACTA is looking a good deal less scary than when it first appeared, but that's no reason for the public to back off its attempts to see what's being negotiated in its name."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/the-acta-internet-provisions-dmca-goes-worldwide.ars
Monday, November 9, 2009
Fears copyright trade agreement could criminalise the internet; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/10/09
Ari Sharp, Sydney Morning Herald; Fears copyright trade agreement could criminalise the internet:
"INTERNET companies warn that a secretive trade agreement being negotiated could lead to new criminal charges as part of a global effort to protect copyright and thwart piracy.
Australia is among more than a dozen countries that for more than two years have been formulating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which seeks to put pressure on internet service providers to take greater responsibility for cracking down on copyright breaches.
There has been little information about the progress of negotiations - a sixth round concluded last week in South Korea - prompting speculation there would be sweeping changes introduced to protect copyright holders by imposing penalties on users and internet service providers...
While Australia already has some of the strongest copyright protection laws in the world, the Internet Industry Association's chief executive, Peter Coroneos, said he had concerns over the potential consequences.
''There are many internet users that might be in a very grey area in terms of their own behaviour for want of alternatives they would prefer to have,'' he said, referring in particular to people illegally downloading music and movies...
The next round of negotiations will be in Mexico in January."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fears-copyright-trade-agreement-could-criminalise-the-internet-20091109-i5gk.html
"INTERNET companies warn that a secretive trade agreement being negotiated could lead to new criminal charges as part of a global effort to protect copyright and thwart piracy.
Australia is among more than a dozen countries that for more than two years have been formulating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which seeks to put pressure on internet service providers to take greater responsibility for cracking down on copyright breaches.
There has been little information about the progress of negotiations - a sixth round concluded last week in South Korea - prompting speculation there would be sweeping changes introduced to protect copyright holders by imposing penalties on users and internet service providers...
While Australia already has some of the strongest copyright protection laws in the world, the Internet Industry Association's chief executive, Peter Coroneos, said he had concerns over the potential consequences.
''There are many internet users that might be in a very grey area in terms of their own behaviour for want of alternatives they would prefer to have,'' he said, referring in particular to people illegally downloading music and movies...
The next round of negotiations will be in Mexico in January."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fears-copyright-trade-agreement-could-criminalise-the-internet-20091109-i5gk.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)