More ACTA Leaks; Reveal Different Positions Taken By Different Countries

from the it's-all-coming-out-in-the-sunlight dept

Despite the best efforts by certain participants in ACTA negotiations to keep everything a secret, that's not really working. We've already seen leaks of the documents in progress, but now comes a leak of a document highlighting the actual wordsmithing of some sections, including the specific positions taken by different countries. You can download the pdf directly or see the embedded version here (most of the document should be read in landscape mode, and I don't see any easy way to make that possible in Scribd, so downloading may be preferred):
A lot of what is happening in the document is inside baseball negotiations, but it does highlight which countries are questioning which elements of ACTA. It's interesting (and a bit troubling) that some countries (including the US) seem to want to make sure that certain parts of ACTA don't just cover copyright/trademark but all "intellectual property" (meaning patents as well -- something that had been rumored, but not confirmed). Not surprisingly, the US is using ACTA not as just a counterfeiting enforcement tool, but to wedge in a variety of intellectual property issues into other countries. As you dig into the document, though, you see how much little changes to the wording can impact huge differences. For example, in discussing damages, the US keeps wanting to insert the word "shall" while the EU, Canada and New Zealand want "may" with regards to whether or not there should be statutory damages on infringement, or if it can be limited to actual damages. Basically, it looks like the US is looking to force other countries to set up an equivalent of (much higher than actual) statutory damages, rather than having courts ask rights holders to show actual damages.

Michael Geist has a list of some other interesting tidbits, and Jamie Love has worries about how the damages section 2.2 is much stricter than existing laws, and seems to conflict with existing US laws (but ACTA can't change US law, right? Right?). Love also notes the oddity of the EU crossing out language (inserted by the US, mind you) that would protect "fair use, fair, dealing, or their equivalents."

All in all, documents like these show why these discussions need to be public. Very very minor word choices can have a major impact. And hiding all of that behind closed doors is a huge problem.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), 2 Mar 2010 @ 5:13pm

    the point

    ACTA seeks to enroll the entire world in the 20th century.

    As NAMELESS.ONE says, the US is pushing ACTA under an executive order, and so doesn't require congressional ratification. Most Americans have no idea this is happening. And the ones that do, think that congress will be able to stop it if it really is so terrible.

    So tell people. Sure, it doesn't have to be ratified by congress. But if there is enough of a noise about it it could still be stopped. With American citizens just getting their first idea of life in a world with DMCA takedowns the copyright issues are bound to start getting more traction.

    If the entire world climbs aboard 1984 will be reality.

    Tell people.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.