It appears as though confusion and mixed signals continue to plague the EU commission in more than one committee.

Schlyter also raised a very important point of order. He claims to have received information from the Commissioner, Karel de Grucht, which contradicts certain points made by the Commission representative today. He asked for the Commissioner to be present at future briefings. The Commission said that ACTA will not alter the framework of rights available. It would not alter substantive IP law, or go outside the acquis communitaire and "will not address fundamental rights". He also said "ACTA is not about imposing 3-strikes" (but I have a note on my pad that he was looking down as he said it). Later he also said " a generalisation of 3-strikes rules will certainly not be in the EU position" - whatever that means.

3. Each Party recognize that some persons use the services of third parties, including online service providers, for engaging in copyright or related rights infringement. Each Party also recognizes that legal uncertainty with respect to application of intellectual property rights, limitations, exceptions, and defenses in the digital environment may present barriers to the economic growth of, and opportunities in, electronic commerce. Accordingly, in order to facilitate the continued development of an industry engaged in providing information services online while also ensuring that measures take adequate and effective action against copyright or related rights infringement are available and reasonable, each Party shall: [...] (b) condition the applicantion of the provisions of subparagraph (a) on meeting the following requirements: (I) an online service provider adopting and reasonably implementing a policy ^6 to address the unauthorized storage or transmission of materials protected by copyright or related rights ^6 An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider’s system or network of repeat infringers.

“It doesn’t matter how wrong the USA may be about “Buy American” and countless other trade irritations.” Howard Knopf comments, describing the situation at hand. He continues, “Or even if the USA is the most flagrant scofflaw at the WTO in international copyright law.”

He adds how Canada actually have better provisions in its copyright law and has several other thoughts on why Maryscott Greenwood’s comments are “astonishing” which is definitely worth the read.

It’s easy to see from the American copyright lobby’s perspective that this would be the most effective way on getting their copyright laws in place in Canada. You take one trade issue that is hugely controversial and say that if you “fix” this issue of copyright, which barely registers as a blip on the political radar screen by comparison, then this big problem of “Buy American” would go away. An attempt at appearing to offer more and asking for less on the surface.

The problem is that it’s hard to see this as being conditional. What’s to say if Canada “fixes” (which, to many who are aware of the copyright issue, really means “breaks”) copyright law and then the US turns around and says, “Good start, we demand this, this and this before we’ll consider relaxing the “Buy American” provision”?

Furthermore, how much is the current governing party of Canada, the Conservatives, willing to risk over bending backwards for the copyright lobby in the first place? Simply appeasing the US lobby over copyright has already cost one minister her job back when Bill C-60 was the much despised copyright legislation. When protesters swarmed another minister over the new copyright legislation, Bill C-61, it should have been clear by then that merely appeasing the US copyright lobby means losing votes. The Conservatives did seem to get that message when it created the copyright consultation over the Summer. The last thing the party might want to do is admit that the whole consultation was a farce and just for show as it would further inflame the tension on the copyright file.

Added to this was the dramatic news of CRIA, an organization that mainly represents the big four foreign owned record labels, was sued for $6 Billion for, of all things, music bootlegging. Agreeing to whatever copyright laws the US entertainment lobby would mean giving Carte Blanche to these same entities over who sets the standards on the copyright file. A thought that would sit well with few Canadians at this point.

So while the US copyright lobby might be pulling their hair out over Canada’s copyright laws, there isn’t much they can really do about it immediately and the issues will simply continue to be pushed down the road for a later time – unless a party willing to lose an election over copyright that is.

[Hat tip: Michael Geist]

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.

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

Last year, for instance, the movie industry lobby suggested that Sweden change its laws to make it a crime to swap copyrighted movies and music for free over the Internet. Shortly after, the Swedish government complied. Last month, Swedish authorities briefly shut down an illegal file-sharing Web site after receiving a briefing on the site’s activities from U.S. officials in April in Washington. The raid incited political and popular backlash in the Scandinavian nation.

In Russia, the government’s inability, or reluctance, to shut down another unauthorized file-sharing site may prevent that nation’s entrance into the World Trade Organization, as effective action against intellectual property theft tops the U.S. government’s list of requirements for Russian WTO membership.