Michael Geist's blog
Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. He has been commenting on the ongoing ACTA negotiations on his blog.
In his latest entry he provides a summary of a leaked EU document on ACTA :
The document contains detailed comments on the U.S. proposal, confirming the U.S. desire to promote a three-strikes and you’re out policy, a Global DMCA, harmonized contributory copyright infringement rules, and the establishment of an international notice-and-takedown policy.
Read the summary by Michael Geist and the leaked EU document.
I am quite disgusted by the contents of this document. The US position contains more or less everything that you can think of when it comes to restricting freedom and civil liberties in the information society. If you want something that is the very opposite of an Internet Bill of Rights, you can find it in the US position. ”Land of the Free” — yeah, right.
I am also quite concerned by the attitude of the Commission, as it comes across in this document. Instead of just saying no to these outrageous proposals, the Commission seems focused on nitpicking and clarifying details. Maybe I am reading too much into the tone of what is after all a technical analysis paper, but it still has me concerned.
For example: When the Americans want to introduce liability for linking to material that is in breach of copyright, the Commission does not reject the idea outright, as it should. Instead it goes into a complicated discussion about whether you should make a distinction between ”commercial” and ”non-commercial” hyperlinks, and how these two cases should be treated (page 4).
But in any case, the leaked document from the Commission is a very interesting read, and it underlines our basic demand:
Put all papers on the table, NOW!
It is not acceptable that new legislation that restricts both our fundamental rights and the free and open internet is being drafted in secret negotiations by non-elected officials together with representatives of a foreign power.
This simply not how laws should be made in a democratic society. It’s embarrassing to have to point out something so obvious.
…………
Andra som skriver om ACTA: Karl Sigfrid (M), Stand up diggers all, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Andra bloggar om: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik
Christian Engström, former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for Piratpartiet, Sweden
Christian Engström, Pirat 
Det är en skymf mot demokratin när Hollywoods lobbyister får tillstånd att läsa handlingarna samtidigt som världens medborgare får nöja sig med rykten och påstådda läckor. Hur ska vi kunna veta? Mindre diplomati, mer demokrati. Tack!
Kommentar av Dr.Diktator — 2 december 2009 @ 13:35
Vill USA få hela världen emot sig.
Man kan ju undra.
Kommentar av Mikael Magnusson — 2 december 2009 @ 13:42
Detta är verkligen ett stort problem med öppenheten och demokratin. Att särintressen får ta del av avtalet och komma med synpunkter, men inte folket, är ju helt förskräckligt. Hur kan saker fungera på detta sätt när vi närmar oss 2010? Pinsamt är ordet. Operatörer måste ha ansvarsfrihet, annars fungerar inte internet överhuvudtaget. Om de ändå inför så att operatörerna blir ansvariga för allt som sker på internet, så kan de lika gärna ge de ansvar för allt som sägs per telefon, för principen är ju exakt densamma. Posten borde också då i så fall bli ansvariga för precis allt som skickas via dom. Jag hoppas de svenska politikerna nu håller vad de lovat, att nämligen skrota hela avtalet om dessa punkter införs.
Kommentar av Erik Flo — 2 december 2009 @ 14:09
I think it’s encouraging anyway that it on top of page 2 says that ”EU may wish to review the potential implications, if any, with the recently adopted Consumers Rights Directive which is part of revised Regulatory Framwork for Electronic Communications (Telecom Package).”
In defense of the Commission I would say that this may be a document intended for nitpicking, while the general principles are discussed in another document or in some other form. We cannot say, because we cannot review the entire negotiation process.
However, since yesterday, the Parliament is entitled to much more information concerning the negotiation because the Lisbon treaty is now in effect.
Furthermore, in the Swedish parliament there is a rule allowing the speaker to call for a debate in plenary regarding any important subject, regardless if there is a connection to any open matter before the Parliament. If such a rule exists, maybe you should insist on such a debate concerning ACTA.
Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 2 december 2009 @ 14:47
I know Swedish politicians has said we will not sign the ACTA agreement if this is included in it. If we for the sake of argument say that the politicians will stand by this, is it even possible for us to say no? Can the Swedish parliament say no if the EU parliament say yes, without Sweden getting huge fines?
Kommentar av Stefan Trolle — 2 december 2009 @ 14:57
Expect to see more legislation written by companies from the USA, requested to be signed by people-elected governments globally. And prepare to resist.
The reason that most countries does not have DMCA regulation in place is that it is neither needed or desired. It’s the old maid of copyright regulations.
The USA would better join the world in scrapping their own DMCA than enforcing this lousy idea onto other countries, in absence of understanding better. As a compromise between USA scrapping DMCA and the world adopting it, the USA can be allowed to retain it’s DMCA while the rest of the world is spared from it. Time will tell who’s better off.
It should be realized by the USA that it has lost it’s role as a world leader, where other countries most often serve a better example. Should it want to gain a leading role, it better join forces than alienates itself with a better part of the world.
Governments are elected by people to represent people and people is a global phenomenon. Consequently, governments globally must never be distracted to repress people on a global scale to satisfy a few companies within the USA.
Scrap ACTA today. It’s written by MAFIAA representatives. Most democratic countries demand the established order of government regulation designed by people representatives.
The uglier this gets, the stronger become the arguments of PP and the sooner we’ll have governments that let dying companies rest in peace.
Kommentar av Jakob — 2 december 2009 @ 15:22
The reasoning behind DMCA was that if you can’t stop information from being distributed, at least you can make it unusable by technical measures. Therefore these technical measures must be protected by law.
What they fail to recognize was that circumventing technical measures has been really easy. And information on how to do it was as easily spread as the original content itself.
The market is also moving away from protected formats because of interoperability issues, causing competition concern.
The DMCA is useless, and the sooner one comes to realize that, the sooner one can get to working on the future content industry. Unfortunately the current U.S. administration have other priorities.
We don’t know that much about the ACTA to say it should be rejected. ACTA is supposed to enforce other types of intellectual property rights, such as trademarks and patterns. We cannot change copyright law with ACTA, we can only choose not to enforce it with new tools.
Pirate policy does in fact support copyright but at a reasonable protection level. So by this leak we can at least try to structure what enforcement methods that may be reasonable in that context.
Paragraph 2 concerns third party liability. Here the agreement should reflect that no copyright enforcement method is valid against non-commercial sharing. But it is reasonable for a content provider to challenge a commercial content deliverer and enlist the justice system for criminal charges.
Paragraph 3 concerns limitations on third party liability. This section should clearly define that no liability should be pursuable towards third parties identifying non commercial file sharing, either by linking or other information on how to access content. Also no liability should be pursuable where mere conduit apply. Furthermore, it should be added that it is not sufficient to determine the legality of a file transfer merely to inspect the data. The intent of the sender must be established, and no liability should be pursuable towards operators of file sharing systems, because of those system’s inability to register the intent of the user.
Paragraph 4 concerns anti-circumvention provisions. Technical measures to prevent infringements may be legal as long as they are not anti-competitive. In this section the agreement should reflect the consumers right to be informed of any anti-circumvention measures before ordering. The consumer should be entitled to a full refund if such anti-circumvention measures makes the product unusable with the consumer’s own devices following the relevant technical standards. I.e. proprietary formats may be viewed as anti-competitive. It should also reflect that circumvention methods used are legal when used to access content which is in the public domain, even if they also can be used to access protected work. Such things as installing spy software on your PC should be outlawed.
Paragraph 5 concerns civil and criminal enforcement of anti-circumvention. No liability should be pursuable. Any technical measure employed should be good enough to stand without legal protection.
Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 2 december 2009 @ 17:24
Hello ! Digged on: http://digg.com/political_opinion/New_ACTA_document_leaked_Christian_Engstrom_Pirate_MEP
My Digg history: http://digg.com/users/sunurb01/history
Regards, Urban
Kommentar av Urban Sundström — 2 december 2009 @ 20:26
‘I know Swedish politicians has [sic] said we will not sign the ACTA agreement if this is included in it.’
Yeah and you can take them at their word, right?
Kommentar av Rick — 2 december 2009 @ 21:58
”When the United States has a problem, it doesn’t try to correct this problem. Instead it tries to impose the problem on the rest of the world.” – Richard Stallman
Kommentar av Björn Persson — 2 december 2009 @ 22:59
Computer says NO
Kommentar av Ingvar — 3 december 2009 @ 8:27
Christian, will you submit the leaked documents to the Swedish government and ask it to swear that the contents of them is not true.
Kommentar av Anonym — 3 december 2009 @ 8:43
@Johan Tjäder (#7)
I agree with full refunds for products crippled by DRM. But I’d rather see DRM completely outlawed for public domain works and a requirement of prior author’s consent with use of DRM. Back in 2002, there was a big dispute between EMI and Czech band Tři sestry about release of their CD with DRM which prevented many customers from playing the CD. The band strongly objected against it and even petitioned the Commercial Inspection. When the CD was released, the band published instructions how to circumvent the DRM on their website. A link to those instructions was printed on CD cover but EMI put a sticker warning about DRM over it (blaming Commercial Inspection for requiring it).
Here’s a full press release from the band (in Czech): http://www.freemusic.cz/clanky/1250-tri-sestry-nechteji-ochranu-proti-kopirovani.html
Kommentar av next_ghost — 3 december 2009 @ 21:37
@next_ghost (#13)
I think DRM is on decline anyway. Watermarking seems to be the new black.
The United States can have whatever laws they want. ACTA is about making it possible to pursue liability.
Within the scope of ACTA it is important to note that legal protection of technical measures should not be necessary. It should be the responsibility of the content providers to protect their work the best they can. It shouldn’t need legal protection.
Even if we acknowledge a need for legal protection for technical measures for preventing unauthorized copying, liability for developing or using such cirumvention-methods as outlined should not be pursuable with the help of ACTA unless the technical measures fulfill the principles I outlined above.
Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 3 december 2009 @ 22:23
I hope that you will block concensus on this matter
thank you very much for your sharing of information and being the Pirate MEP!
Kommentar av Jonas Sunshine — 6 december 2009 @ 23:19
[quote]If you want something that is the very opposite of an Internet Bill of Rights, you can find it in the US position. ”Land of the Free” — yeah, right.[/quote]
indeed, indeed!
piratenpartij.nl
Kommentar av Jasper — 10 december 2009 @ 13:54
[…] more information please visit Michael Geist, Christian Engström, Karl Sigfrid (in Swedish), Henrik Alexanderson x II (in Swedish) and Frapedia (in […]
Pingback av Cause for paranoia pt. II: ACTA « Carlstrom — 10 januari 2010 @ 17:02
[…] het verdrag nooit in werking kunnen treden, maar ondertussen wordt onze eis van openheid genegeerd. Put all papers on the table, now! roept dan ook mijn fractiegenoot, de Zweedse Piraat Christian Engström. Zo niet, dan moeten de […]
Pingback av Geen downloadverbod langs de achterdeur van ACTA at DOWNLOADEN JA DAT MAG! — 7 mars 2010 @ 19:55