ACTA Draft Release Was Apparently A One Time Deal: Now We're Back To Secrecy
from the transparency-shmancparency dept
After about a year or so of very public questions over the incredible level of secrecy of ACTA (including the patently ridiculous claim that details couldn’t be revealed for national security reasons), including a complete smackdown by the EU Parliament concerning the whole ACTA process, the negotiators finally (and very reluctantly) released the latest draft in April. Of course, by then, the full document had already leaked. Still, the officially released document left out some of the key parts that were in the leaked draft. Funny how that works.
But, of course, the negotiators pushing for ACTA pretended that the only concerns people had with ACTA were over the transparency issue, and now that a draft has been released, apparently they think that there should be no more complaints about ACTA. Uh huh. Except, of course, those who actually understand these issues, have pointed out some serious problems in the way ACTA is written, in that it locks in certain parts of copyright law that are very much in flux, and seems to export only the limits of copyright law, with none of the very important exceptions.
And, now it’s coming out that this new “transparency” may have been a one-time deal. The head negotiator from the EU, Luc Devigne (the guy who planned to ignore the rebuke from the EU Parliament), has apparently told people that the April release is all that they planned on releasing. So, after the next round of negotiations happens (next month), the latest document will not be released again.
However, the rest of Devigne’s comments reinforce some of the earlier reports from the field that we’ve heard, suggesting that large parts of the negotiation are still in dispute:
- There is still no agreement on the ISP safe harbour provisions.
- Major disagreements in the criminal chapter include the definition of “commercial scale” (the U.S. wants it defined, the EU wants it left to national judges) and the inclusion of an anti-camcording provision.
- Disagreements on the civil enforcement chapter includes damages and scope.
Of course, those are some very key points that will determine just how bad ACTA may be. The fact that the negotiators won’t be releasing updated drafts when these points are still very much in flux is quite troubling.
Filed Under: acta, luc devigne, negotiations, transparency
Comments on “ACTA Draft Release Was Apparently A One Time Deal: Now We're Back To Secrecy”
Troubling
If you read through TechDirt, you get the idea that Mike is a very troubled individual. 😉
Re: Troubling
Obvious troll is obvious.
Re: Re: Troubling
that too is troubling.
Re: Re: Troubling
WTH? I’m no troll. Go read through a bunch of TD posts and see how often you can find the word “troubling”, often with a modifier such “extremely” or “immensely”. Now consider the mood of someone who uses that word that often. Now realize I was making a joke. I admit it wasn’t that funny, but still.
Oh while I’m on the topic, the funny-how-that-works department could probably use a break, they seem a little overworked.
Re: Re: Re: Troubling
Oh while I’m on the topic, the funny-how-that-works department could probably use a break, they seem a little overworked.
Heh. Good point. Thanks for keeping me honest…
Re: Re: Re:2 Troubling
Oh also, great blog Mike, keep up the good work. 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Troubling
Oh… Just observant.
My apologies, obviously I spoke in error.
troubling? how can it be troubling for you? you pay to rent movies, you dont download copyright material, so none of this affects you in the slightest. why are you troubled about something that wont change your life at all?
Re: Re:
Yeah, I don’t counterfeit anything so I won’t be affected by an Anti-Couterfeiting Trade Agreement.
Why is there so much about copyright in an agreement about counterfeiting?
Re: Re: Re:
umm, because violating copyright is sort of part of it, no? people who offer you a download are offering you a product which you might think is legit, but really isnt. what is a counterfeit but an unlicensed copy, often of poorer quality?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
These links might help you out a lot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_consumer_goods
Good luck on your search for the truth.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
using wikipedia? we have already shown that wikipedia is less accurate than a 100 year old dictionary. please.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Tell me how inaccurate this entry is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
you make the point. who knows? so using wiki to define anything is meaningless.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That’s adorable!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It seems that this argument is the last resort of those who fail to win an argument. And how about sources please? Personally, I find it acceptably accurate for anything that isn’t upsetting to a Holocaust/evolution/global warming denier. Of course, you are always free to go read Conservapedia to get your Faux definitions…
Plus, many old dictionaries are still accurate. They just don’t cover modern things (I still get a lot of traction from my 1979 Collins). Wikipedia does cover modern things, which makes it a particularly *useful* ‘100-year-old dictionary’ 🙂
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The boson article you linked sources two Stanford articles and works by two different respected particle physicists. Since I am not a physicist, I can only assume that either a) the article is inaccurate because someone transcribed the information wrong and for some reason, after several years of discussion, nobody’s noticed or b) the article is inaccurate because you believe it is inaccurate.
Occam’s Razor says (b) is more likely.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I actually don’t beleive it is inaccurate. That was my point. Just because something is on wikipedia does not mean it is automatically inaccurate.
Thank you for checking the sources. You could also check the discussion or edit pages to determine whether an article is inaccurate.
This is more directed at our little ac who feels using wikipedia is meaningless, which, in the boson case, it clearly is not.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
LOL @ anonymous coward fight
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I’m siding with anonymous coward. That other guy’s got nothing on him!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Isn’t counterfeiting a violation of a trademark?
Trademark != Copyright last time I checked
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Nope. Counterfeiting is typically neither a violation of copyright or trademark laws. Counterfeiting is a violation of counterfeiting laws.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Counterfeit goods are guilty of both trademark infringement (logos etc.) and copyright infringement.
But a lot of ACTA is about “internet piracy,” i.e. filesharing, which has nothing at all to do with counterfeit goods. Copyright yes, counterfeiting no.
And a treaty which (illegally) changes copyright law in the U.S., makes criminals out of most citizens, allows the government to seize computers and wiretap internet traffic, and penalize legitimate uses of content and filesharing – all in the name of private entities?
Yeah… If you’re concerned about that, you must be a criminal.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually, reading that back, some of it was hyperbole.
The law allowing the government to seize computers with “infringing” content isn’t part of ACTA. It’s already on the books.
And ACTA doesn’t say the government can tap your broadband… it says that OCP’s must monitor your ‘net traffic for “infringement,” and take a “graduated response,” e.g. cut off your internet connection.
I put “infringement” in quotes, since it’s almost impossible to tell if content is actually infringing or not.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TAM: Getting basic definitions wrong 24/7.
Re: Re:
China has a huge firewall around it, and that doesn’t affect me in the slightest. Should I not worry about it?
Re: Re: Re:
Terror groups are trying to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction but I’m not an American so it won’t affect me in the slightest.
Ah. Copyright infringement and terrorism. There’s that feel good link.
Re: Re:
I know it is difficult to grasp, but there are those who have a world view which includes more than just themselves. You should try it sometime.
Re: Re:
“you pay to rent movies, you dont download copyright material, so none of this affects you in the slightest.”
A: Even if it won’t change his life, it would change the lives of others for the worse.
B: He follows the law, but he wants to follow a reasonable set of laws. The current set of laws is absurd.
actra
web 2.0 -> web 3.0 (there’s a reward for that)
you BOUGHT that? hello, renters! All your dvd players belong to us! (we changed the def of property when you weren’t looking.)
AND your e-book, dynamic editing versions are mine too.. (freedom of speech took a low blow and it didn’t get ref’d)
PLUS presumtion of guilt, (that mp3 is a copy of a pop-tart song. So We’ll just bust you for porn, child molesting, smuggling, counterfeiting … just to be sure, eh?)
hey, you also have an alligator on that shirt pocket…
packrat
Who has the Combination?
ACTA is back in the safe, I wonder how long it will take someone to get the “new” details out. It’s ludicrous that they are stooping that low as to hide and take away any idea of transparency.
Better hope that the finished ACTA isn’t as bad as we all think it will be, because there’s no way in hell they’re going to spend all this time and money on it and not get it passed.
Polo Outlet
Your article swept me away with its vast information and great writing. Thank you for sharing your views with such passion. I like your views.