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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    nasch (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 4:17pm

    Troubling

    If you read through TechDirt, you get the idea that Mike is a very troubled individual. ;-)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:19pm

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:20pm

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:31pm

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:37pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 5:40pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            using wikipedia? we have already shown that wikipedia is less accurate than a 100 year old dictionary. please.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 5:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Tell me how inaccurate this entry is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

              I'll wait.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 6:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                you make the point. who knows? so using wiki to define anything is meaningless.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 6:05pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  That's adorable!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Niall (profile), 13 May 2010 @ 4:41am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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' :)

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 6:37pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 6:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              zbeeblebrox, 12 May 2010 @ 5:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              LOL @ anonymous coward fight

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Isn't counterfeiting a violation of a trademark?

          Trademark != Copyright last time I checked

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            DocMenach (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 5:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Nope. Counterfeiting is typically neither a violation of copyright or trademark laws. Counterfeiting is a violation of counterfeiting laws.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Karl (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 6:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Karl (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 6:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 5:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          TAM: Getting basic definitions wrong 24/7.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:48pm

      Re:

      China has a huge firewall around it, and that doesn't affect me in the slightest. Should I not worry about it?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        The Sarcastic-Mike, 12 May 2010 @ 5:15pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      abc gum, 12 May 2010 @ 5:19pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 9:37pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    packrat (profile), 13 May 2010 @ 5:19am

    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Joel (profile), 13 May 2010 @ 9:05am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 13 May 2010 @ 2:40pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Polo Outlet, 6 Aug 2011 @ 1:34am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


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
Special Affiliate Offer

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.