Leaked Anti-Counterfeiting (Copyright) treaty info

Another document detailing the policy laundering of the super-secret ACTA council has been leaked via wikileaks.
Summary:
Released November 6, 2009

The paper presents what appears to be a short summary of the"Internet chapter" of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).The summary is supposed to inform member states about the part of ACTA that will deal with internet enforcement and will be discussed at the Seoul meeting of ACTA.

Notably, the "Internet chapter" is being drafted by USTR, a US lead ACTA negotiator group, and its creation process even within the ACTA working group itself, remains obscure. While the US has given a"detailed oral description" of the drafted internet chapter, the draft documents themselves are subject to "confidentiality clauses" between"government agencies" and a "number of private stakeholders". The presented summary is to give "advance-warning" and "preliminary indication of the content" of the upcoming US proposal.

The content of the summary reflect details that have appeared in the media recently, including rights management and especially related enforcement, as well as the US-centric development of enforcement on the Internet.

The Seoul meeting has just ended, having taken place from 4thto 6th of November 2009. The US proposal seems to have been debated there more widely.

The countries include Australia, Canada,European Union states, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand,Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. The countries are to meet again in January, Sweden announced.]

---

Quoted in full (minus coverpage) from here.
This is to inform MS about the state-of-play of the internet enforcement chapter that
should be discussed at the next ACTA negotiating round in Seoul, Korea.

 On  22-24 September, DG Trade  participated  in  the EU-US  IPR Working Group,
which  took  place  in Washington.  In  a  side  meeting  with  the  USTR  (US  lead
negotiators  on ACTA),  at  their  request,  the US  colleagues  informed  us  about  the
progress in the preparation of a draft text of the future Internet Chapter of ACTA.

US reported that they have been working on a draft text since the end of the 5th round
(end of July) and that this was basically finalised. However, they are still involved in
internal  consultations  with  other  government  agencies  and  a  number  of  private
stakeholders (bound to strict confidentiality clauses), therefore they were not willing
to share with COM (or even to show us) the text at this stage.

USTR indicated that these internal discussions were sensitive due to different points
of view regarding the internet chapter both within the Administration, with Congress
and  among  stakeholders  (content  providers  on  one  side,  supporters  of  internet
"freedom" on  the other). Consequently,  they have  to delay  the  release of  the  initial
text longer than initially expected. US expects the text to be circulated within the next
2 weeks. COM noted that if the text is received only 4 weeks before the next round,
this will not be sufficient to conclude internal EU discussions and therefore to present
written counterproposals (if any) in Seoul. US acknowledged the issue.

This being said, the US nevertheless provided a detailed oral description of the text.
Below is a report of such description. It is stressed that this report is provided as an
advance-warning and a preliminary indication of the content of US proposal, but since
it results from an oral presentation it may not fully reflect the final draft and should be
analysed accordingly.

The draft  internet  text  is around 3 pages  long and  it was generally modelled on  the
respective  section  of  the  recently  concluded  US-Korea  Free  Trade  Agreement
(KORUS) (Chapter 18), however, in a "simpler" and "shorter" manner. It consists of
the following sections:

Section 1: Baseline obligations inspired by article 41 TRIPs,  imposing adequate
and effective legal remedies, as  provided in relevant sections of ACTA (civil, penal),
for internet infringements.

Section 2: ACTA members have to provide for third-party liability.

Section 3: Safe-harbours for liability regarding ISPs, based on Section 512 of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), including a preamble about the balance

Info Available at
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/korus/asset_upload_file273_12717.pdf

The DMCA is the US domestic law implementing the WIPO internet treaties and regulating, inter alia, copyright issues on the internet. Available at: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:6:./temp/~c105fgUiNi::

between the interests of internet service providers (ISPs) and right-holders. See also
KORUS Chapter 18.10.30. According to US, the language proposed is somewhere in
the  "middle" between  the WIPO  internet  treaties, KORUS  and  the DMCA, which
probably means that it is more detailed than the first but not as specific as the latter.
ISPs are defined as in Section 512 (k) of DMCA3

On the limitations from 3rd party liability: to benefit from safe-harbours, ISPs need to
put in place policies to deter unauthorised storage and transmission of IP infringing
content  (ex:  clauses  in  customers'  contracts  allowing,  inter  alia,  a  graduated
response). From what we understood, the US will not propose that authorities need to
create such systems. Instead they require some self-regulation by ISPs.

This Section 3 should also contain "broad" provisions regarding notice-and-takedown
mechanisms.

Section  4: Will  focus  on  technical  protection  measures  (TPMs).  Language
inspired by US-Jordan Free-Trade Agreement (article 4.13), as well as by the WIPO
Internet Treaties (articles 11 WCT and 18 WPPT):
- Parties  to provide  adequate  civil  and  criminal  remedies  that  are  specific  to
TPM  infringements,  i.e.  treat  these  as  separate  offenses  form  "general"
copyright infringements.
- TPM  infringements  would  be:  (i)  prohibition  of  circumvention  of  access
controls and; (ii) prohibition of manufacture and trafficking of circumventing
DRM devices.
- There will be exceptions to these prohibitions available to ACTA members.
- "Fair use" will not be circumscribed.
- There  will  be  no  obligation  for  hardware  manufacturers  to  ensure
interoperability of TPMs.

Section 5: Will focus on Rights' Management. Language  inspired by US-Jordan
Free-Trade Agreement  (article  4.13),  as  well  as  by  the WIPO  Internet  Treaties
(articles 11 WCT and 18 WPPT):
- Parties to provide adequate civil and criminal remedies for rights' management
infringements.
- Right'  management  infringements  would  be  stripping  (works?)  of  rights'
management information
As agreed among ACTA participants, the negotiating papers are not public documents
and therefore should be treated with reserve.

See thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:6:./temp/~c105fgUiNi:e57376:
also: www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1041


What does this all mean to you? Didn't you catch my previous post on ACTA?

Posted by JibbaJabber at 11/16/2009 12:00 PM
Categories: Debate,Opinions,Secrets,Privacy,Freedom
Tags: waste power copyrights self-serving corruption freedom government bullshit foolishness DMCA
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this entry.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.