I believe it is fair to say that most who provide comments to articles pertaining to ACTA are taking at face value what the author’s of such articles are presenting concerning the so-called “leaked documents”. The “best evidence” of a document is the document itself, and how one can denounce a document without even having read it is, to use your term, “intellectual dishonesty”.

You are confusing two different points in an effort to mislead people, and that’s incredibly intellectually dishonest.

There is the secrecy aspect and there is the contents of the document. The leaked documents do suggest attempts to push US law beyond what it currently is, often by removing safe harbors and consumer protections. We agree that the documents may change over time, but the initial leaked drafts were certainly worrisome.

But the bigger issue is the secrecy, which shows what the INTENT of these negotiations are, which is to hide what is being put into the content.

No one doubts that at the end the documents may be different, but think that the public should be a PART of those discussions to make sure what comes out at the end is reasonable and does not impact US law.

That’s why we and others have raised serious questions about what HAS leaked — because it IS of such great concern.

Your response is, frankly, disgusting. You say that no one should comment on the document until it’s too late?

Sorry, that’s now how democracy works.

Unlike most commenters, I actually read documents before expressing my views. In the case of ACTA, I have read all of what has been “leaked” to see for myself what all the fuss is about. The information I have gleaned from these documents has at best been underwhelming.

That is an opinion and we disagree. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how these processes usually work (most likely, from your explanation here), but the word choices and what’s NOT included is quite telling. This is a carefully orchestrated attempt to push certain elements directly into US law that are NOT here now, often by REMOVING protections. So, of course they worded the document so that folks like yourself, unsophisticated in how these things work, might say “but that’s no different than current law,” but what it actually does is set up the mechanism to require changes to US law that remove consumer protections and safe harbors.

My goodness, the documents reflect a desire by at least the US to consider secondary liability. I guess this means we here in the US will have to add this to our laws should secondary liability be incorporated into what may result from these discussions. Oh, wait, we already have secondary liability per Grokster. Seems a shame this little tidbit of information is not being passed along by all these article writers to those in the US who may be led to believe this would result in a change to substantive US law.

Um, now you’re just outright lying, which is really slimey. We have discussed secondary liability, at great length, including how it has entered into US law via Grokster. But what is included in ACTA drafts goes beyond what is currently the standard under US law.

Oh my gawd, they talk about ISP liability. Perhaps just as bad, they talk about anti-circumvention. What are we to do if these get into the final document? Ooops, we already have that in place in the US under the DMCA.

Again, this is blatantly misleading. We do have ASPECTS of that in the DMCA, but the DMCA has built in consumer protections (not enough, mind you), where what is proposed in ACTA DOES NOT.

And that’s on purpose.

Wow, “three strikes” is looming on the horizon and may very well become a legislative mandate. Oh no, why we might have to actually write the Fifth Amendment’s requirement for due process right out of the Constitution.

Ha! If only that were true. And yet, as you say this, the MPAA and RIAA have been lobbying for a non-due process three strikes effort around the world, including in the US. I just spoke last week to some folks on Capitol Hill who had a proposal FROM THE MPAA to push for three strikes.

Due process? Sounds good, but there are plans underfoot to remove it.

Hopefully the courts will block it, but ACTA is a part of the process to get it done. The RIAA and the MPAA are both quite certain that with ACTA’s help, they will have a wedge to push for three strikes laws in the US. I’ve heard this from people involved directly, that the RIAA looks to ACTA as the lever to push through 3 strikes.

Pretending otherwise is being willfully ignorant.

Let’s cut to the chase. Of course content industries in the US are concerned that outside the US certain foreign countries pay lip service to certain obligations specified in long ago negotiated formal treaties. How dare they think that other countries should stop paying lip service and get with the program? How dare they think that foreign citizens are enabled to secure within the US the very same rights under US law provided to US citizens? How dare they think that reciprocity should even be a part of any discussions under a trade agreement?

Wow, spoken like a true lobbyist. Have you really signed up for their program? That’s a really nice positioning statement and if it had any basis in reality, it might be nice.

See, but even you are proving my point. Once you have “international obligations” you get lobbyists who twist them into protectionism.

Perhpas it is wishful thinking, but how nice it would be for just one of these article writing “chicken littles” to actually focus their hue and cry arguments to explain why they believe US law will have to be changed to incorporate legal concepts that are already incorporated into US law. Or is it, perhaps, that they it easier to toss their ramblings against a wall and hope that one of their “the sky is falling” arguments sticks and strikes a responsive chord with commenters to their articles. This is fear mongering at its worst, and for this they should be ashamed.

No, we’ve explained in great detail why this is of concern. That you appear to be willfully ignorant of how this process works, well, that’s really not our problem.

If they have a valid, substantive point then they should raise it

We did, and you said to shut up until the document is done.

That’s not how this works.

demonstrate by reference to federal statutes and judicial interpretations of those statutes why their point truly conflicts with US law. Thus far they have failed miserably in this regard, with their “this is terrible” rants being little more than internet gossip.

*Sigh* This has been done repeatedly. But bringing up specific statutes misses the point, again, which is the ability to use this as a wedge to make existing law worse by removing protections and safe harbors.

I recognize that perhaps in your role as a patent attorney, you aren’t familiar with how these things work, but taking their side through ignorance is just a shame.

But