More ACTA Leaks; Reveal Different Positions Taken By Different Countries

from the it's-all-coming-out-in-the-sunlight dept

Mon, Mar 1st 2010 4:34pm — Mike Masnick

Despite the best efforts by certain participants in ACTA negotiations to keep everything a secret, that's not really working. We've already seen leaks of the documents in progress, but now comes a leak of a document highlighting the actual wordsmithing of some sections, including the specific positions taken by different countries. You can download the pdf directly or see the embedded version here (most of the document should be read in landscape mode, and I don't see any easy way to make that possible in Scribd, so downloading may be preferred):

A lot of what is happening in the document is inside baseball negotiations, but it does highlight which countries are questioning which elements of ACTA. It's interesting (and a bit troubling) that some countries (including the US) seem to want to make sure that certain parts of ACTA don't just cover copyright/trademark but all "intellectual property" (meaning patents as well -- something that had been rumored, but not confirmed). Not surprisingly, the US is using ACTA not as just a counterfeiting enforcement tool, but to wedge in a variety of intellectual property issues into other countries. As you dig into the document, though, you see how much little changes to the wording can impact huge differences. For example, in discussing damages, the US keeps wanting to insert the word "shall" while the EU, Canada and New Zealand want "may" with regards to whether or not there should be statutory damages on infringement, or if it can be limited to actual damages. Basically, it looks like the US is looking to force other countries to set up an equivalent of (much higher than actual) statutory damages, rather than having courts ask rights holders to show actual damages.

Michael Geist has a list of some other interesting tidbits, and Jamie Love has worries about how the damages section 2.2 is much stricter than existing laws, and seems to conflict with existing US laws (but ACTA can't change US law, right? Right?). Love also notes the oddity of the EU crossing out language (inserted by the US, mind you) that would protect "fair use, fair, dealing, or their equivalents."

All in all, documents like these show why these discussions need to be public. Very very minor word choices can have a major impact. And hiding all of that behind closed doors is a huge problem.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: acta, copyright, eu, intellectual property, negotiations, patents, us, word smithing

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Danny (profile), 1 Mar 2010 @ 4:19pm

ACTA remains underreported
I got pinged last December to suggest "the top underreported stories of 2009" to Bill Snyder at InfoWorld.

I contributed "secrecy of the ACTA process" as my main entry to his list. Alas, it didn't make his InforWorld Top Ten story: http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/top-underreported-tech-stories-2009-455

ACTA secrecy remains underreported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 4:52pm
  
  you uhh get the impression that maybe the media gets new powers as well?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 5:37pm
  
  Re: ACTA remains underreported
  Well, what did you expect from the guy who wrote this?
  
  http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/top-underreported-tech-stories-2009-455?p age=0,9
  
  "Maybe you'll never file a patent yourself, but patents equal innovation. An industry that can't protect its intellectual property by patenting it is less innovative, less dynamic, and less able to create capital and jobs."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 5:39pm
    
    Re: Re: ACTA remains underreported
    Oops, just noticed that he wrote the stories up for the "Top 10." For some reason I thought he was linking back to older stories.
    
    In that case...it changes from "what did you expect?" to "well, it isn't surprising."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Mar 2010 @ 5:18pm

Another ACTA leak
they do and as this document is ONLY classified as restricted it means that either some one boo booed OR a lot of people would have had access

knowing classifications having had a confidential access myself i know that regular soldiers even have restricted access clearance

getting into an office is confidential immediately ( that being military and while i can not say that govt is less classified i doubt it would be )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 7:25pm
  
  Re: Another ACTA leak
  Remember you still have a "need to know" to go with the clearance level. I have Top Secret for maintaining aircraft, that does not grant me mission specifics outside my responsibilities.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
your friendly meteorologist, 1 Mar 2010 @ 5:18pm

Rain Maker
Sounds like a lawyers convention discussing how to drum up future business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Mar 2010 @ 5:20pm

ALSO
the USA is doing it as an executive order which means that it doesnt have to have congress ratify it.
NOW YOU KNOW WHY biden is vice pres
"ya ya obama ya ya do it"

canada however has ot have parliament do any changes
and if we never see the doc they could hide bits and pieces into other legislations like this current govt has done so many times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 7:12pm

It's amazing, one of the historic hallmarks U.S. law is that damages must be actual. Now that long held trait has been destroyed by a bunch of selfish industry reps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 7:34pm

I am absolutely confused as to how this document even remotely relates to 28 USC 1498, as one of the persons you cite seems to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 7:56pm

The real question that should be asked is should Microsoft still have a monopoly on an operating system (ie: Windows XP) that it no longer creates new copies of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 7:56pm
  
  Re:
  oops, wrong thread.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2010 @ 8:02pm

America's acting like a pro-copyright bitch. Like the Us-Copyright law's aren't harsh already. Pheggots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 1 Mar 2010 @ 10:53pm

Way cool
I do have to say this is over the top and will be ignored by most people. It will lead to criminal charges being filed and no real reduction in infringement. If you look ar Korea after the IP changes there you see an increase in infringement even with the increase in criminal cases. The same thing happened in Sweden after IPRED>/a>.

I really dont see much hope for ACTA as a tool to combat infringement. I actually see it as a bigger game of whack-a-mole. Where encryption will become standard and only the stupid will get caught .... JMHO

... history .... doomed ... repeat ... nuff said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 1 Mar 2010 @ 10:56pm
  
  Re: Way cool
  Damn submitted it with out this quote ....
  
  "In this cat and mouse game, the cats have to spend millions of dollars and years of effort to achieve their aims of getting new legislation to protect their interests. However, in a crushing response, the mice spend just a few minutes in thought deciding how to spend a few dollars in order to instantly neutralize the threat."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 1 Mar 2010 @ 10:58pm
  
  Re: Way cool
  And the link did come through
  
  Sweden after IPRED
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), 2 Mar 2010 @ 5:13pm

the point
ACTA seeks to enroll the entire world in the 20th century.

As NAMELESS.ONE says, the US is pushing ACTA under an executive order, and so doesn't require congressional ratification. Most Americans have no idea this is happening. And the ones that do, think that congress will be able to stop it if it really is so terrible.

So tell people. Sure, it doesn't have to be ratified by congress. But if there is enough of a noise about it it could still be stopped. With American citizens just getting their first idea of life in a world with DMCA takedowns the copyright issues are bound to start getting more traction.

If the entire world climbs aboard 1984 will be reality.

Tell people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 3 Mar 2010 @ 11:51am

here is the pdf in Text mode as a wiki page
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf_as_text
[ link to this | view in chronology ]