Is The US Caving On ACTA? Or Is It Just A Trick?
from the could-it-be? dept
While we all wait patiently for the latest ACTA draft to leak (and, really, it makes no sense that it's not being released officially, since it will be leaked shortly anyway), there are reports spreading that the US has caved on some of the more controversial copyright sections it had supported, including both DMCA-like anti-circumvention and secondary liability for copyright infringement (i.e., a potential forcing of three strikes laws). Unfortunately, others are suggesting that this is not necessarily the case, as the US may have agreed to remove some language, but that the changes may not be as much of a capitulation as the earlier reports stated. That is, the US may have changed the language around to look like they were ditching secondary liability, but left in language that will still probably lead to the same thing:
So one real possibility here is that the U.S. agrees to strip out section 3's notice and take down requirement only to later interpret such a requirement to the be only logical way to meet what is left in section 1 and 3 quarter. All members will be expected to, and through the Special 301 process, sanctioned if they don't, adopt notice and take down -like requirements.