RSS
Newly Revealed Negotiating Documents Show How US Companies Had Excessive Input On ACTA
from the eu-commission-failure dept
The folks at EDRI and Access were able to get their hands on four "meeting notes" from the European Commission ACTA negotiators, concerning what happened at various meetings. This is especially important as the EU gets closer to an actual vote on ACTA. There are a number of issues raised by these documents, and the folks at TorrentFreak have covered many of the issues from an EU perspective. However, one thing that struck me about the documents was how much input US companies got in the process, compared to stakeholders elsewhere. We already know that the USTR spends an inordinate amount of time listening to Hollywood and taking its word as gospel, but as these documents reveal, the EU and other negotiating partners were unable to balance that by sharing the documents with other stakeholders.
Specifically, the US repeatedly told negotiators that it was sharing ACTA documents with industry representatives using non-disclosure agreements -- while the EU negotiators repeatedly complained that there was no legal way for it to share the documents with anyone. In the end, the EU meekly appears to have given up on this point. What this means, of course, is that the US -- and its close connections with entertainment industry special interests -- were able to have significantly more say in matters concerning ACTA. While there was no guarantee that the EU would have briefed public interest stakeholders, there definitely appeared to be at least some concern that such folks were not heard from -- but no real effort to fight for such.
Also, while it's not a surprise that the US wrote "the internet chapter" of ACTA, it is rather enlightening to have it confirmed that it was also the US who pushed so strong for a three strikes disconnection policy (something that negotiators had, at one point, denied was being discussed -- only to be revealed they were lying when various texts were leaked). This, despite the fact that the US requires no such three strikes regime. So all the talk of how there was no intention to use ACTA to change US law? Yeah, that's a lie.
Separately, there's a discussion about how the US's initial text for the internet/digital section was so "confusing" that "several ACTA parties off-the-record said that they would wait for a EU text to "balance" the US one." This is not a surprise again. Entertainment industry lobbyists -- who, again, had full access to the texts and the ready ear of USTR negotiators (go ahead, connect the dots) -- know quite well how to write completely confounding legislation, where the real purposes are hidden in the complex and confusing language. That initial "confusing and complex" draft from the USTR wasn't because they don't know how to be clear. It's a way to hide little time bombs that the entertainment industry plans to explode at later dates -- just as they did with the ProIP bill, and the bizarrely ridiculous interpretation that the clause on seizing CD and DVD burners really meant seizing websites as well...
Specifically, the US repeatedly told negotiators that it was sharing ACTA documents with industry representatives using non-disclosure agreements -- while the EU negotiators repeatedly complained that there was no legal way for it to share the documents with anyone. In the end, the EU meekly appears to have given up on this point. What this means, of course, is that the US -- and its close connections with entertainment industry special interests -- were able to have significantly more say in matters concerning ACTA. While there was no guarantee that the EU would have briefed public interest stakeholders, there definitely appeared to be at least some concern that such folks were not heard from -- but no real effort to fight for such.
Also, while it's not a surprise that the US wrote "the internet chapter" of ACTA, it is rather enlightening to have it confirmed that it was also the US who pushed so strong for a three strikes disconnection policy (something that negotiators had, at one point, denied was being discussed -- only to be revealed they were lying when various texts were leaked). This, despite the fact that the US requires no such three strikes regime. So all the talk of how there was no intention to use ACTA to change US law? Yeah, that's a lie.
Separately, there's a discussion about how the US's initial text for the internet/digital section was so "confusing" that "several ACTA parties off-the-record said that they would wait for a EU text to "balance" the US one." This is not a surprise again. Entertainment industry lobbyists -- who, again, had full access to the texts and the ready ear of USTR negotiators (go ahead, connect the dots) -- know quite well how to write completely confounding legislation, where the real purposes are hidden in the complex and confusing language. That initial "confusing and complex" draft from the USTR wasn't because they don't know how to be clear. It's a way to hide little time bombs that the entertainment industry plans to explode at later dates -- just as they did with the ProIP bill, and the bizarrely ridiculous interpretation that the clause on seizing CD and DVD burners really meant seizing websites as well...
I have an idea...
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
I have a business...
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just Who Is Minding The Store Here?
It's a question I can't answer anymore.
It certainly seems that the inmates have taken control of the asylum judging from SOPA/PIPA and now ACTA/TPP.
It seems the USTR needs to be renamed HollywoodTR. Either that or there is truly no point in taking part in the American elections this fall as it doesn't matter who wins because we have now discovered who is really in charge.
I pray I'm proved wrong.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You say that like you're surprised...
How do you know if a politician (or lobbyist) is lying?
Their lips are moving.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just Who Is Minding The Store Here?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Especially with the repeated mentioning of the US having their own "stakeholders" help draft the starting-point.
There are 3 fundamental problems for EU with ACTA:
1) The wording is incredibly unprecise all over the place, leaving a lot of the legal situation uncertain before the courts set a precedent. That is not exactly easy to defend and even thinking about fast-tracking ACTA through the parliament was a death-sin for that reason. A "wait for the court"-argument died the moment ACTA got fast-tracked.
2) Damages, as described in ACTA, will change a lot of european laws even though it is claimed otherwise. Sweden is the only place where they have actually looked at it and they found it necessary to change the law. ACTA is definately specifically opposed to a recent high court ruling in Denmark... Denmark has only agreed to ACTA if it did not even get close to touch the laws. Even if ACTA passed the parliament it would be almost impossible to defend the damages demands given the premise of no law-changes.
3) 3rd part liability and sharing of information between private parties and law enforcement is more than problematic to begin with.
No safeguards means that they have not sufficiently considered the specific implications of what they agreed on!
This can be covered by lies or halftrueths to a certain extend, but it would not exactly be a good argument for other countries considering joining when the trueth will surface. That is killing the long term plan for ACTA since it is virtually impossible to change anything in the agreement after it has been signed because of a weak commitee and all agree or nothing from the negotiating parties.
ACTA is getting completely nuked in Netherlands where a unanimous parliament has condemned the signing AND agreed that they will never aree on any future agreement with issues relating to free speach ao.
ACTA should be completely dead and anyone uttering a positive word about what went on should look at themself and think about moving to Morroco.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment