The latest round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations wrapped up yesterday in Seoul, South Korea and by all indications it has little to do with combating counterfeit goods and everything to do with forcing ISPs to become copyright cops.

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.

By all accounts it’s bad – very bad.

First, ISPs would have to proactively filter copyrighted material from their networks and hand over the names of those accused of illegal file-sharing.

Second, 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.

Third, it will force countries to prohibit circumventing DRM or the manufacture of traffic of devices that allow people to do so.

Fourth, it 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.

“Big music and movie interests, and other content producers, are conducting a global campaign to put their interests ahead of citizens’ rights to use the Internet and to not be subject to unreasonable and arbitrary penalties that do nothing for the public interest,” says Jordan carter, Deputy Executive Director of InternetNZ, a New Zealand-based group that promotes a free and open Internet.

He says that govt’s like his ought to focus on the real economic problems caused by commercial piracy rather trying to warp the Internet and turn into a business arm of the entertainment industry.

Worse still, it’s all being done in secret with only the entertainment industry having full access to the treaty.

It’s literally Hollywood’s dream come true.

“This is not about free trade at all,” writes Techdirt’s Michael Masnick. “This is an entertainment industry-written bill designed to recreate the internet in its image — as a broadcasting platform, rather than one used for user-generated content and communication.”

The ACTA, again, seems to have very little to do about “anti-counterfeiting” or trade and everything to do about protecting the deep-pocketed American entertainment industry. It does nothing to address the heart of the matter, which is it’s refusal to adapt to the realties of digital distribution world.

Also troubling is the secretive nature of a treaty with such broad legal implications being conducted in private under the pretext of trade negotiations.

In negotiating agreements focusing on traditional trade matters such as tariffs and trade barriers, confidentiality regarding some negotiating positions may be appropriate,” reads a letter addressed to President Obama and signed by a number of civil rights and public interest groups. “But ACTA aims to set international legal norms, potentially driving changes to substantive intellectual property legal regimes on an international basis. Attempts to force a multilateral intellectual property agreement through trade processes unsuited for it does a disservice to citizens, public policy, and the USTR alike.”

Precisely. Since when did we begin allowing laws to be debated behind closed doors?

Intellectual property laws need to maintain a careful balance between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of the public to access and use content they create. What the ACTA proposes would create a draconian regime that too heavily favors copyright holders, risking society’s very culture in the process.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

When it comes to the privacy and surveillance debates, which are in various stages in different countries right now, many say that for national security concerns, further surveillance measures should be taken in the law books. Many policy makers want to know every detail of day-to-day communications of millions of people including who you talk to, when, how, where, and, with a warrant, what the contents of those messages are. Unsurprisingly, consumer rights groups have a problem with that. Meanwhile, when it comes to the highly secretive negotiations happening with ACTA, many consumer rights organizations want a clear indication on how the new international standard is forming and the contents of the legislation and to have such things disclosed to the public. Ironically, policy makers seem to have a problem with that.

That hasn’t stopped several consumer rights organizations from issuing a resolution to halt the ACTA negotiations and getting a chance to look at ACTA themselves. That’s currently what has been reported by IP Watch:

The Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue on 18 June issued the resolution on the enforcement of copyright, trademarks, patents and other intellectual property rights. The TACD is a trade advisory body to the European Union and United States government, and brings together 80 member organisations from those regions, claiming a direct paid-up membership of some 20 million consumers.

The resolution calls for a halt to the plurilateral negotiation of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) led by the United States, until the negotiating texts are made available to consumer groups and other conditions are met.

TACD wants future negotiations to be respectful of civil liberties such as the right to privacy and also demands the inclusion of developing countries in ACTA negotiations as the stated intention is to extend and apply the treaty to them. The resolution offers recommendations to ensure IP enforcement policies and practises address issues such as transparency, evidence and process, competitiveness, consumer protection, human rights, access to knowledge, and digital rights.

The resolution reflects discussions TACD had with representatives from the EU and the US government on 9 June, during the TACD 10th annual meeting in Brussels (IPW, Enforcement, 11 June 2009). But the resolution was released for the first time on 18 June and forms part of a larger effort by TACD to push back on the IP rights enforcement issues, according to consumer representatives.

This seems to be a brand new push to get ACTA out in the open. Last year, over 100 consumer rights organizations demanded public disclosure of ACTA.

Up to this point, even legal measures to obtain information about ACTA has been blocked or heavily filtered by governments around the world. In the United States, the EFF tried to get information regarding ACTA out into the public, but were hampered by “national security” concerns.

We here at ZeroPaid tried to get similar information in Canada throughout 2008 via Access to Information Act requests. All of our attempts returned with a borderline denial that ACTA even existed from DFAIT (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada). One of our attempts returned with a four figure price tag, but on closer inspection, it returned with a typo in the request which said it was a request for “AFTA”, not “ACTA” (our copy was hand-written explicitly requesting “ACTA”) Still, we will continue our efforts this year as well and inform you if we get any different results this year.

It’s not clear what effect this will have on ACTA negotiations, but leaks from the negotiations have painted a startling picture about ACTA which included calls for seizing portable information devices at the border and copying the contents to search for possible pirated material (a provision that was later denied by officials saying that this was inaccurate) Then again, if ACTA is so innocent and something we shouldn’t be worried about, why is there so much secrecy in the first place?

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) roared into headlines earlier this year over several provisions that were leaked onto Wikileaks. A follow-up leak was also leaked on the same website. Currently, Michael Geist notes that the secret meetings that would affect many countries around the world in significant ways will continue into 2009 in Morocco. From the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade press release:

Discussion on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) continued in Paris, December 15-17, hosted by the European Union. Participants in the discussion included Australia, Canada, the European Union, represented by the European Commission and the EU Presidency (France), Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States (alphabetically ordered). EU Member States also attended the meeting.

The meeting was opened by French Trade Minister, Mrs. Anne-Marie Idrac, who reaffirmed the strong commitment of the EU in favour of intellectual property rights (IPR), against counterfeiting and piracy, and called for constructive and ambitious negotiations.

Participants reaffirmed their commitments to negotiate an agreement to combat global infringements of IPR, particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy, by increasing international cooperation, strengthening the framework of practises that contribute to effective enforcement, and strengthening relevant IPR enforcement measures themselves. This meeting was the fourth in a series of negotiations to discuss proposals concerning different aspects of the proposed agreement.

The discussion focused on international cooperation, enforcement practises and institutional issues. Participants also continued previous discussions on criminal enforcement of IPR. They also shared information on approaches to fighting IPR infringements on the Internet. Participants made steady progress in these discussions.

One look at the second paragraph might be enough to stir some alarm bells for some digital rights advocates because it was France that has been pushing for the ‘three-strikes’ policy and circumvented European democracy to prevent any barriers to implementing it in the future. One can very well imagine what was being talked about with an advocate of the three strikes policy. This goes over top of what the press release already mentions.

If one reads the third paragraph and gets a strong sense of De-Ja-Vu, it’s not a surprise since a refers back to the MPAA’s lobbying paper to Obama, they would find the following:

One of the MPAA’s top priorities is attacking Internet piracy, through vigorous investigation and enforcement worldwide, as well as working with governments to ensure that their laws provide adequate remedies to stop internet piracy and are in full compliance with the WIPO Treaties. Achieving inter-industry cooperation in the fight against online piracy, including through automated detection and removal of infringing content is imperative to curb theft of online content, and is a priority for MPAA and its member companies.

Again, the two paragraphs from the press release:

Participants reaffirmed their commitments to negotiate an agreement to combat global infringements of IPR, particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy, by increasing international cooperation, strengthening the framework of practices that contribute to effective enforcement, and strengthening relevant IPR enforcement measures themselves.

[...]

The discussion focused on international cooperation, enforcement practises and institutional issues. Participants also continued previous discussions on criminal enforcement of IPR. They also shared information on approaches to fighting IPR infringements on the Internet. Participants made steady progress in these discussions.

It’s not very mysterious who is involved in the negotiations.

What we already know

The initial leaks put the spotlight on ACTA in the first place. Among many controversial provisions, there was the provision that would make border patrol search people who have any ‘digital storage device’ (iPod’s, laptops, etc.) search the owners of the technology for copyright infringement. Another one was the ‘notice and takedown’ scheme being forced onto participating countries. While it would be nothing new to the United States, it would be a complete disaster for, say, Canada who merely has a voluntary notice-and-notice scheme. Courts ruled in Canada that one needs adequate evidence before obtaining confidential information that the copyright industry wants in order to sue alleged downloaders. This is just a small sample of things ACTA would bring in to numerous countries.

An Access to Information Act Request was filed in Canada to get a better understanding of what is going on. The response was that there was basically some surveying going on in general secrecy. It involved a fact sheet and a press release as the sole means of describing what ACTA was. After some careful research a copy of what the fact sheet might have contained can be found on the USTR website and it basically says that ACTA hopes to stop intellectual property infringement through multiple channels including the internet. For some, judging by what is on that paper, it could seem like a paper promising to bring in world peace but not saying that it involves destroying all life on Earth to some who are particularly sensitive to encroachment on their rights.

More recently, the European Union posted an updated fact sheet (PDF) which, in one section, set out to deny what was already known. Among other things, the fact sheet says, “A number of “texts”, wrongly presented as draft ACTA agreements have been circulated on the web. At a preliminary stage of the discussions about the idea of a future ACTA, some of the negotiating parties have submitted concept papers, to present their initial views of the project to other partners. Some of these concept papers have been circulated on the net or commented in the press and presented as “draft ACTA texts or negotiating guidelines”, which they are not.”

The fact sheet says earlier on, “EU customs, frequently confronted with traffics of drugs, weapons or people, do neither have the time nor the legal basis to look for a couple of pirated songs on an i-Pod music player or laptop computer, and there is no intention to change this.”

Then what does the fact sheet say that’s in ACTA? It says, among other things, “ACTA will also create a new international benchmark for legal frameworks on IPR enforcement, whilst fully respecting civil liberties and the rights of consumers, as is the case for the Community acquis. It is critical to have a strong and modern legal framework –as is the case in the EU- so that law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and private citizens have the most up-to-date tools necessary to effectively bring counterfeiters to justice. Areas for possible provisions include [...] Internet distribution and information technology – e.g. mechanisms available in EU E-commerce Directive of 2000, such as a definition of the responsibility of internet service providers regarding IP infringing content.”

With the combination of this point and what was contained in the recent press release, it seems as though it’s more of a case if making sure a three-strike policy (or something similar) is in place and forcing ISPs to do what has been proven technologically impossible – stopping all potential forms of so-called “piracy”.

Still, ACTA negotiations are still in the early stages and a lot can change between now and after 2009. It’s unlikely that even the parties controlling ACTA negotiations know what will be in the final ACTA paper. Either way, someone in the ACTA negotiations is paying attention to what’s going on outside of the locked doors.

Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter issued an open letter to Susan Schwab today regarding ACTA, a controversial international agreement that has, so far, remained secret to the general public.

“Protecting intellectual property through better international coordination and improved standards of enforcement abroad is a valuable pursuit. We have steadfastly supported funding in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to assist foreign countries in combating the piracy of U.S. intellectual property rights. A top priority of ours in this Congress is legislation to provide greater tools and resources for law enforcement to combat intellectual property theft,” the senators wrote, “and to improve coordination of such efforts within the Federal government. We are disappointed that the Administration has been resistant to this effort and has opposed additional enforcement authority, such as civil enforcement in copyright cases where the violation rises to the level of criminal activity.”

The letter (PDF) continues:

We are concerned, however, that the ACTA under consideration will prescribe rules for protection so specifically that it could impede Congress’s ability to make constructive policy changes in the future. Our concern that ACTA, if not drafted with sufficient flexibility, could limit Congress’s ability to make appropriate refinements to intellectual property law in the future is institutional and one that we raised when the United States Senate implemented the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement. It is compounded in this situation by the lack of transparency inherent in trade negotiations and the speed with which the process is moving.

Regarding the potential breadth of ACTA, we strongly urge you not to permit the agreement to address issues of liability for service providers or technological protection measures. The contours of the law and liability exposure in these areas continue to be debated in the courts and in Congress. As technology is not static, Congress must have the ability to tailor the law as developments warrant without concern that a change may run afoul of ACTA.

Documents about ACTA were leaked early on this year which sparked major criticism against the legislation – namely its contents. Just a few months ago, another ACTA leaked on Wikileaks, confirming (as good as a confirmation ever got so far) many of the suspicion around the treaty and what it would do to several countries legal system. Reports indicate that the controversy was sufficient to stall the legislation, though the plans were to have the talks completed by the end of the year still. Last month, over a hundred organizations called for ACTA to be made public. In the United States, calls were so strong to make ACTA public, it sparked a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the government from US advocacy organizations.

Hat tip: Public Knowledge

It may be an old story being repeated over and over again in Australia, but a report from the report from the Courier Mail in Australia reiterates an issue that has been going on for months. However, the report reveals something else that may be seen for anti-ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) organizations and activists as quite an achievement – insiders of ACTA are suggesting that ACTA has been delayed as a direct result of world-wide opposition.

It first details the tension between the Australian Internet Service Providers and the copyright industry. Australian ISPs openly refuse to just cave to demands of a separate industry that claims to be facing significant losses (contrary to numerous studies that suggest otherwise) due to file-sharing. ISPs have been saying for months that if abuse is being detected on their networks, it’s up to the copyright industry to show what is going on so that action can be taken place. Old news? Perhaps. Just a month and a half ago, we reported on a very similar report which points to two separate studies that backs up the Australian ISPs position.

So what is there to report this time that’s different? One would have to read further down the article to catch the following:

A “three strikes” proposal is understood to be part of talks on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, to which Australia is a party.

ACTA, with a third round of talks in Tokyo next month, has been slated by the G8 for conclusion by the end of the year.

But groups who have been briefed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade say talks have stalled amid international public outrage at the secrecy of negotiations, and the leaked draft proposals.

A DFAT spokesman said it was “not appropriate for the Government to speculate” whether a three strikes regime would be part of a final treaty.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement has been notoriously secretive. It’s been so secretive, it has sparked a lawsuit in the United States by several well-known activist organizations not just limited to internet related issues. So, any word on ACTA is quite significant. While the discussions are still slated to be wrapped up by the end of the year, it seems public outrage is actually having an impact on the discussions behind closed doors.

It may be easy for ACTA to merely be seen as a digital technology related issue, but ACTA goes well beyond file-sharing, p2p and even people being searched at the borders merely because they have a “digital storage” device. As we noted earlier this week, hundreds of organizations called for ACTA to be made public. A sample of a list of grievances towards the elusive agreement also includes the following:

+ Interfere with legitimate parallel trade in goods, including the resale of brand-name pharmaceutical products;

+ Impose liability on manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), if those APIs are used to make counterfeits — a liability system that may make API manufacturers reluctant to sell to legal generic drug makers, and thereby significantly damage the functioning of the legal generic pharmaceutical industry;

+ Improperly criminalize acts not done for commercial purpose and with no public health consequences; and

+ Improperly divert public resources into enforcement of private rights.

While issues related to pharmaceuticals is an issue, one of the major issue sparking public outrage is related to technology. Who can blame them when the chances of being affected by the technological restrictions are far more likely to affect them in the first place? How many are involved with the sale of generic drugs compared to the number of people owning a music player or a subscription to internet access?

Clearly, after reading this report, it seems that opposition to the secret agreement between countries is working. Whether or not this actually delays things beyond by the end of the year is another story. For now though, such news may be quite encouraging for the opposition to ACTA – and likely encourage the expansion of public outcry in the process.

There’s no shortage of criticism for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), but one of the biggest criticism is that it’s been kept out of the eyes of the public. While the amount of secrecy has been a concern for a large number of people, now the concern has moved from vocal opposition to legal opposition.

The press release contains the following:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge have filed suit against the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), demanding information about a secret intellectual property enforcement treaty that the government has put on a fast track to completion.

“ACTA raises serious concerns for citizens’ civil liberties and privacy rights,” said EFF International Policy Director Gwen Hinze. “This treaty could potentially change the way your computer is searched at the border or spark new invasive monitoring from your ISP. People need to see the full text of ACTA now, so that they can evaluate its impact on their lives and express that opinion to their political leaders. Instead, the USTR is keeping us in the dark while talks go on behind closed doors.”

Because of the questions raised by ACTA, EFF and Public Knowledge filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in June for records on the treaty and the negotiations surrounding the deal. EFF and Public Knowledge later clarified the scope of their request in July in response to concerns raised by the USTR. But the USTR still failed to provide any relevant documents.

“The lack of transparency in this process is incredibly alarming,” said Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Sherwin Siy. “Whatever form ACTA eventually takes, we can be sure it will be used to justify further international agreements and laws. The agreement text needs to be made public to ensure that it doesn’t encroach upon the rights of users, consumers, and citizens to access knowledge, information, and content.”

A copy of the legal documents have also been posted (PDF) Here’s a few samples rrom the legal documents:

16. On June 23, 2008, after receiving no written acknowledgement of plaintiffs’ FOIA request, counsel for plaintiffs spoke by telephone with USTR employees David Apol and Elizabeth Glacer. Mr. Apol and Ms. Glacer asked plaintiffs’ counsel to consider the possibility of narrowing the scope of plaintiffs’ FOIA request.

On August 22, 2008, plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to reach USTR’s employee, Mr. Apol, by telephone, but counsel’s call was directed to Mr. Apol’s voicemail system. Plaintiffs’ counsel left a voicemail message for Mr. Apol referencing plaintiffs’ FOIA request of June 11, 2008, and plaintiffs’ follow-up letter of July 24, 2008. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested information on the status of plaintiffs’ FOIA request.

22. To date, plaintiffs have received no communications from defendant USTR
concerning their FOIA request and request for expedited processing.

Defendant USTR’s failure to grant plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing violates the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E).

In short, there was a FOIA request back in June, but nothing really materialized other than a request to narrow the scope of what was being asked.

While it is taking this long to produce much sought after content related to ACTA, it’s not exactly stopping the negotiations that have been ongoing and rumored to have been pushed through at a rapid pace.

It was only a few days ago that over 100 public interest organizations called for ACTA to be made public.

Officially, it’s not known what is being negotiated for ACTA, but with an ever present interest to find out what is really on it, so to is the pressure to make ACTA public. All this leads one to wonder, if ACTA isn’t all that bad, why has there been such an effort to keep the negotiations so quiet in the first place? The leaks certainly say how it would criminalize file-sharing among other things.

Further reading:

EFF – New US Copyright Enforcement Proposal and ACTA Could be a Catastrophe

Another Critical ACTA Leak Surfaces

US Proposes ‘Pirate Bay Killer’ Trade Agreement

The EFF points to a very interesting news release which announces that several organizations from around the world are demanding that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement be made public. The release was made by big names. Australia’s Kimberlee Weatherall, USA’s Robert Weissman, and Canada’s Michael Geist were among the names included in the initial press release. More from the release:

More than 100 public interest organizations from around the world today called on officials from the countries negotiating Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) — the United States, the European Union, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand — to publish immediately the draft text of the agreement.

Secrecy around the treaty negotiation has fueled concerns that its terms will undermine vital consumer interests.

Organizations signing the letter include: Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), Australian Digital Alliance, The Canadian Library Association, Consumers Union of Japan, National Consumer Council (UK) and Doctors without Borders’ Campaign for Essential Medicines.

One of the major flash points in ACTA, based on leaked information, was that it would put pressure on governments from around the world to seize any electronic storage device (iPod’s, Laptops, USB sticks, DVDs, CDs, iPhone’s, etc.) at the borders without suspicion in an effort to block allegedly copyright infringing material from crossing the borders into other countries.

The documents were leaked early on this year. When we reported on the initial leaked document, there was also the issue of restricting privacy tools as well as extremely strict copyright laws being imposed onto the internet (dubbed “Pirate Bay Killer” treaty at the time)

Since then, another leak surfaced a month and a half ago. The leak, as we reported, clarified many of the controversial provisions being negotiated and noted how tax-payers would end up being the ones to foot any bills as the result of any ramped up security measures. Other controversial aspects are: that rights holders would be entitled to recoup any losses related to court fees and expenses related to copyright infringement cases, that damages and fines related to copyright infringement be increased, and that rights holders are entitled to any and all private information related to the infringer including who they come in contact with.

The letter (RTF) included in the press release details other controversial aspects of ACTA:

• Require Internet Service Providers to monitor all consumers’ Internet communications, terminate their customers’ Internet connections based on rights holders’ repeat allegation of copyright infringement, and divulge the identity of alleged copyright infringers possibly without judicial process, threatening Internet users’ due process and privacy rights; and potentially make ISPs liable for their end users’ alleged infringing activity
• Interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials
• Criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing
• Improperly criminalize acts not done for commercial purpose and with no public health consequences
• Improperly divert public resources into enforcement of private rights

In spite the many issues being raised by the mere glimpse into the ACTA negotiations, some governments, like Canada, have practically pretended that ACTA doesn’t even exist while other countries like Australia make brief mentions of it. We noted one such negotiations meeting two months ago. Further from the letter:

Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited.

Equally, because the treaty text and relevant discussion documents remain secret, treaty negotiators are denied the insights and perspectives that public interest organizations and individuals could offer. Public review of the texts and a meaningful ability to comment would, among other benefits, help prevent unanticipated pernicious problems arising from the treaty. Such unforeseen outcomes are not unlikely, given the complexity of the issues involved.

The lack of transparency in negotiations of an agreement that will affect the fundamental rights of citizens of the world is fundamentally undemocratic. It is made worse by the public perception that lobbyists from the music, film, software, video games, luxury goods and pharmaceutical industries have had ready access to the ACTA text and pre-text discussion documents through long-standing communication channels.

The G8’s recent Declaration on the World Economy implored negotiators to conclude ACTA negotiations this year. The speed of the negotiations makes it imperative that relevant text and documents be made available to the citizens of the world immediately.

There has been reactions from around the world – almost all of which have been unanimously negative for different aspects of it. One aspect that’s new for the US is the idea that public funds would be, by law, funneled to RIAA lawsuits. In Canada, the idea that one would have their iPod confiscated without suspicion raised a number of alarm bells (something that the minister responsible for the Canadian DMCA attempted to hide by saying that it wasn’t in Bill C-61 and therefore, not worth the worry)

Still, it’s no secret that many in the copyright industry are hoping to get this law in place in many nations from around the world. If it does, there may even be celebrations with champagne over it. Why not? That’s the same reception the DMCA got by rights holders in 2002.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of the treaty being released to the public for consultation is, at this point, slim to none. Not a surprise since it seems that only those who are going to benefit from this are the ones who can actually legally read it at this point.

Further Reading:

Press release including signatures

Wikipedia entry on ACTA

Yesterday, we reported on the new movement to restrict copyright in the United States. At the time, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said that the new proposal to restrict copyright laws in the United States further combined with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) would mean a catastrophe for American citizens.

There may be an untold amount of back-room dealing involved, but some of the back-room dealings have recently came to light. Wikileaks has a copy of what businesses are demanding in ACTA.

While it may only be three pages long, there are many revealing things about this leak. The leak confirms what is already known. For instance, the document says that businesses are demanding that border security should be significantly ramped up to keep a better eye on copyright infringement. The document also says that businesses want the power to suspend any trading going to and from the borders of countries if there is a suspicion of copyright infringement within free trade zones. While this isn’t exactly new, it confirms the original claim that businesses want the possibility of stopping someone at the border to see if they are carrying any unauthorized copies of songs on their iPod for instance (and have the ability to, among other things, destroy the content or any devices that could be used for copyright infringement – re: point 5 in first section)

So, are businesses willing to pay for added security? Clearly not in this excerpt:

3. Establish clear procedures for right holders to initiate suspension by customs authorities of import, export and trans-shipment of suspected IPR infringing goods, including (a)all relevant and reasonably available evidence that is in its control, which is needed to establish a prima facie case for the party’s claims or defenses; (b) reasonable security or equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the defendant and the competent authorities to prevent abuse. Bond requirements, however, should be eliminated as a condition to processing counterfeiting cases by customs. At the very least, the requirements should be established at a reasonable level so as to not deter the procedures. Governments should also take appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the burdens on trademark owners of suffering costs of storage and destruction of counterfeit goods.

In other words, ‘we demand that security be ramped up significantly to protect our business interests and let taxpayers foot the bill’.

Interestingly enough, the first point of the second section suggests that governments should calculate what damages should be. Seems like they have already done this in law, but when one reads to the end of the second line of the first sentence, one realizes that they are demanding that fines and other punishments be increased.

The second point of the second section reveals that businesses are demanding that rights holders should recoup costs of any investigation and court fees. So in other words, if things go wrong in the courts and they get sued, they shouldn’t have to actually pay anything for losing a court case.

The last demand:

4. Provide rights holders who are victims of counterfeiting and piracy the right to obtain information regarding the infringer, including their identities, means of production or distribution, and relevant third parties.

While this may seem like nothing new for Americans, for other countries like Canada, it would mean an overturning of a ruling back in 2005 when the Canadian Recording Industry Association couldn’t prove that copyright infringement took place on P2P thanks, in part, due to a higher standard of privacy laws when it comes to ISPs forfeiting private information to third parties. It seems that the burden of proof has proven too great for rights holders and they have to go through shady channels to get what they want. Then again, this wouldn’t be the first time the copyright industry wanted punish an alleged copyright infringer without evidence and very likely won’t be the last the way things are going.