[A2k] ACTA Internet chapter leaks read Michael Geist The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together

[Gwen Hinze]

Paul Meller at IDG has more here:

<http://www.pcworld.com/article/181312/trade_talks_hone_in_on_internet_abuse_and_isp_liability.html
 >

Note the specific reference to requiring ISPs to adopt Graduated
Response policies in this excerpt:

The U.S. wants ACTA to force ISPs to "put in place policies to deter
unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content (for
example clauses in customers' contracts allowing a graduated
response)," according to the Commission memo.

The term "graduated response" is used to describe the recently passed
French law otherwise known as the "three strikes and you are out law."
People found guilty under the code get two warnings and are then
banned from the Internet for up to two years for illegally sharing
music or movies online.

On Nov 3, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Manon Ress wrote:

> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/
>
> The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together
>
> Tuesday November 03, 2009
>
> The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotations continue in a few
> hours as Seoul, Korea plays host to the latest round of talks.  The
> governments have posted the meeting agenda, which unsurprisingly
> focuses on the issue of Internet enforcement.  The United States has
> drafted the chapter under enormous secrecy, with selected groups
> granted access under strict non-disclosure agreements and other
> countries (including Canada) given physical, watermarked copies
> designed to guard against leaks.
>
> Despite the efforts to combat leaks, information on the Internet
> chapter has begun to emerge (just as they did with the other elements
> of the treaty).  Sources say that the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-
> South Korea free trade agreement, focuses on following five issues:
>
> 1.   Baseline obligations inspired by Article 41 of the TRIPs which
> focuses on the enforcement of intellectual property.
>
> 2.   A requirement to establish third-party liability for copyright
> infringement.
>
> 3.   Restrictions on limitations to 3rd party liability (ie. limited
> safe harbour rules for ISPs).  For example, in order for ISPs to
> qualify for a safe harbour, they would be required establish policies
> to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing
> content.  Provisions are modeled under the U.S.-Korea Free Trade
> Agreement, namely Article 18.10.30.  They include policies to
> terminate subscribers in appropriate circumstances.  Notice-and-
> takedown, which is not currently the law in Canada nor a requirement
> under WIPO, would also be an ACTA requirement.
>
> 4.   Anti-circumvention legislation that establishes a WIPO+ model by
> adopting both the WIPO Internet Treaties and the language currently
> found in U.S. free trade agreements that go beyond the WIPO treaty
> requirements.  For example, the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement
> specifies the permitted exceptions to anti-circumvention rules.  These
> follow the DMCA model (reverse engineering, computer testing, privacy,
> etc.) and do not include a fair use/fair dealing exception.  Moreover,
> the free trade agreement clauses also include a requirement to ban the
> distribution of circumvention devices.  The current draft does not
> include any obligation to ensure interoperability of DRM.
>
> 5.   Rights Management provisions, also modeled on U.S. free trade
> treaty language.
>
> If accurate (and these provisions are consistent with the U.S.
> approach for the past few years in bilateral trade negotations) the
> combined effect of these provisions would to be to dramatically
> reshape Canadian copyright law and to eliminate sovereign choice on
> domestic copyright policy.  Having just concluded a national copyright
> consultation, these issues were at the heart of thousands of
> submissions.  If Canada agrees to these ACTA terms, flexibility in
> WIPO implementation (as envisioned by the treaty) would be lost and
> Canada would be forced to implement a host of new reforms (this is
> precisely what U.S. lobbyists have said they would like to see
> happen).  In other words, the very notion of a made-in-Canada approach
> to copyright would be gone.
>
> 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.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> Manon Ress
> manon.ress@keionline.org
> Knowledge Ecology International
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
> Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k



--
Gwen Hinze
International Policy Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
email:gwen@eff.org
Tel.: + 1 415 436 9333 x110

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
freedom of speech since 1990