Looking At ACTA..
Here are a couple of articles that I think take a very well deserved look at ACTA:
MPAA Dismisses Demand for Copyright Treaty Transparency as “Distraction”
Says Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations shouldn’t be derailed over public concerns that they’ll have no say in an international agreement that could force their ISPs to monitor their Internet traffic and disconnect those accused of illegal file-sharing.
I first discussed some of the emerging details of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) currently being negotiated in secret earlier this month.
Instead of focusing on customs procedures and enforcement to fight large scale commercial piracy it has delved into the area of noncommercial illegal file-sharing at the behest of international entertainment corporations as many have feared.
The MPAA, in an effort to codify its interest, sent a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with several other powerful members of the Senator, urging him to support the goals of the ACTA.
It says that the ACTA is important to secure “both the legal and practical tools necessary to protect intellectual property rights online” which, in other words, certainly means agreement of the four big tools already being considered.
To reiterate:
1. ISPs would have to proactively filter copyrighted material from their networks and hand over the names of those accused of illegal file-sharing
2. ISPs, in order to benefit from safe harbor provisions, would have to disconnect the Internet connections of illegal file-sharers for up to a year. Copyright holders would be able to sue those ISPS that fail to stop customers from illegal file-sharing.
3. Will force countries to prohibit circumventing DRM or the manufacture of traffic of devices that allow people to do so.
4. Would create a “broad” global notice-and-takedown regime where ISPs will be forced to remove copyrighted material without first weighing evidence to the contrary.Being that each of these things have such dramatic repercussions for Internet users the public has been demanding transparency during the negotiations. The need for public input is great, especially since the MPAA and other entertainment organizations have been privy to the discussions every step of the way.
In the letter the MPAA dismisses these calls for transparency as a “distraction” from the “substance and ambition of the ACTA.”
Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group working to defend citizens’ rights in the emerging digital culture, blasts the “non-sequitor” comment, asking “what, pray tell, is so important in the substance of ACTA that it trumps the fundamentals of open government?”
It adds: “Let me see: an international agreement, which could have binding or massively influential effects on how everyone transmits culture and knowledge, deserves to be hidden from the public because…why? Because its intentions are so good that it cannot even be seen?”
The MPAA goes on to mention how Internet piracy is so rampant that it affects its very survival, but again conveniently leaves out the fact that it’s enjoying another in a series of years with record breaking profits.
If Internet piracy was such a threat then why did the recently released vampire flic The Twilight Saga: New Moon shatter the single-day box office ticket sales record held by The Dark Knight since last July ($72.7 million vs $67.2 million)?
It’s not and the MPAA knows it. It just wants to…”
Read the rest of the article as well as commentary on ZeroPaid
And one of our favorite sources:
No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not ‘Normal’ — Nor Is It A ‘Distraction’
Over the last few weeks people who are actually concerned about individual rights have done a decent job sounding the alarm about the problems with what little we’ve seen of the ACTA negotiations. In the last week or so, those who work for the entertainment industry have suddenly started scrambling to respond, after realizing that more and more people are starting to pay attention and to worry about ACTA. However, it’s been pretty funny to watch the desperate attempts by industry lawyers to try to paint this all as much ado about nothing (with gratuitous swipes at those of us who have called attention to what’s going on).
One of the points they make is to say that the “secrecy” is no big deal, because it’s “normal” for such negotiations to happen this way. This was what the USTR stated earlier this year when the question was raised, but unfortunately, the facts (and common sense) simply don’t support that claim at all. If you look at the transparency level on many other international agreements, including well known ones concerning WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, UNCTAD, OECD, Hague Conference on Private International Law and many others, you see that they are significantly more transparent and/or have clear procedures in place for concerned parties to take part in the discussions. That is not the case with ACTA.
A second point they make is that if the end result is really bad, countries can simply decide not to sign it and not to participate. Yes, stop laughing. It’s as if they think that we’re all idiots who haven’t seen how lobbyists have historically relied on the line “but we must live up to our international obligations” to push through all sorts of laws the public does not support.
A third point raised is that this isn’t a “treaty” but a “sole executive agreement,” so we shouldn’t worry since it can’t change the law. Except, by categorizing it as such, it’s actually a loophole that could potentially take Congress out of the process of reviewing or approving anything that’s in the agreement, and then just wait for the “but we must live up to our international obligations” to start pouring out of lobbyists and industry lawyers’ mouths.
A fourth point of attack is that some of the descriptions of what’s being discussed are inaccurate. Well that’s funny since a big part of the problem is that we’re not even being shown what’s being discussed. So, yes, as we’ve been clear, this is an ongoing negotiation, and the final results may differ from what bits and pieces have been leaked. But, what is leaked has suggested that some very, very bad things are at least on the table, and making that clear and opening up the discussion is important, no matter how much the lawyers don’t want anyone interfering. Separately, as you would expect, some of the language used to date in the leaked reports suggests the usual legal games are being played, so that when people point to something and say that opens us up to a bad thing, the lawyers can say “oh, that’s no different than what we have already.” Just like the RIAA did back when they wiped out musicians rights to reclaim their music (thankfully, only temporarily). But if you actually understand the details, you know that the subtle language choices are all chosen very carefully to drive future legislation. You can see this by simply monitoring what’s happening in South Korea now, since that’s what the new agreement is supposedly “modeled” on. And, it’s not pretty. Various user-generated content sites are severely limiting what users can do, to the point that they’re barely recognizable as UGC sites any more. Liability pointed at service providers are scaring them into massive limitations. That’s not the sort of world most of us want to live in.
Finally, the ACTA supporters claim that because the administration showed a very small group of consumer rights folks, such as Public Knowledge, a draft of the document, that consumer groups are “a part of the process.” That doesn’t take into account the level of access. Whereby industry lobbyists had a large hand in drafting ideas and suggestions for parts of the legislation, a Public Knowledge representative was involved on “very short notice” in an initial hour-long meeting whereby they were allowed to look at the text, but not copy it, and then a further short discussion about a revised copy — but the process included NDAs that prevent much discussion about what was seen. That’s not serious involvement.
Finally, as I was writing this, Jamie Love pointed out that the MPAA has sent a letter in favor of ACTA, which is chock full of laughter inducing falsehoods (such as claiming the entire motion picture industry is at risk, even as it’s having its best year ever). But the most ridiculous is this:
“Outcries on the lack of transparency in the ACTA negotiations are distraction.”
Yes, that’s right, making sure that the …
Read the rest of the article as well as commentary on TechDirt
Related posts:
- EU and US clash over ACTA
- Two Disturbing Articles About Obama on ACTA
- EU Gives ACTA The Finger – In No Uncertain Terms (Updated!)
- Danish Politicians Open Their Eyes… And Mouths! (ACTA)
- ACTA – The Scumbag’s Savior
- ACTA Is Coming, Bend Over,Grit Your Teeth, Sorry – NO Lube
- The EFF Take On The Juggernut Thats ACTA!
