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: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “ACTA Draft Release Was Apparently A One Time Deal: Now We're Back To Secrecy”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
nasch (profile) says:

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.

Niall (profile) says:

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’ 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Karl (profile) says:

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.

Karl (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

packrat (profile) says:


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…


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...