Full ACTA Draft Leaked... EU Wants Injunctions Against The Possibility You Might Infringe
from the well,-look-at-that dept
As a whole bunch of folks have been submitting, the text of a recent draft of ACTA has been leaked (pdf). It didn't take long for some to convert the entire document to text, so that it can be analyzed and discussed more easily. Lots of folks are digging through the details, and turning up various gems. Michael Geist explores the different proposals concerning border searches of your iPod or other electronic devices. One of our readers, Robin, highlighted some specifically troubling points in the document. For example, on page 4, option 2 (submitted by the EU) includes:The Parties shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injuction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right.Talk about a massive increase in secondary liability -- something that negotiators have insisted was not in ACTA and that we were all crazy to suggest it. Note that there are no caveats here. No limitation if there are substantial non-infringing uses. And, it even goes beyond direct liability to allowing an injunction against third parties. This clause would outlaw Google. Thankfully, New Zealand specifically has come out against this proposal and Canada questions the statutory limitations.
Then on page 7, in Article 2.5 (Provisional Measures), we've got a whopper of a suggestion from the EU:
Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority, at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right.Yup, you got that right. They want to let anyone block the possibility of future infringement. That goes way beyond the law today, and reaches into "pre-crime" scenarios out of Minority Report.
And yes, both of those proposals came from the EU, whose chief negotiator just this week insisted that no such things were in the document, and that it was all exaggeration by people on the internet. He also claimed that the EU had nothing to hide, but now that the document is out, we can see why they were very much hiding it. Anyway, I'm sure additional troubling parts of the document will be highlighted pretty quickly.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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, eu, imminent infringement, infringement, leaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The light just came on ....
I need a list of e-mail addresses for the people doing the negotiations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This clause would outlaw Google"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
The phrasing is broad enough: saying that judges could issue an injunction against the overall service itself -- not just the links to the underlying infringing content...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
Again...I do not doubt that there are reasons to be concerned about ACTA, but it just seems that most of the assertions made about how outlandish it is ring pretty hollow upon inspection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
"Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority, at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
I don't know if that qualifies as being outlawed, but it does effectively ban Google and just about everything else with a hint of user-created content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
If Viacom employees ... I mean ... users stopped uploading infringing content, then we wouldn't have this problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
So, if there was a lawsuit against Google for having been a gateway to infringement, then because their service can be used that way, there can also be an injunction to shut them down completely so that no future possible infringements can occur until the legal dust settles... Basically, if there's even ONE single way that a new technology or something can be used for infringement, regardless of how useful it might be, rights holders can (and WILL) shut it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
Interlocutory injunctions are generally even harder to get as they can in many scenarios decide a case before its arguments are heard. So most courts only hand them out when on the balance of the evidence presented the plaintiff has a very strong case and is likely to win. In some cases they are granted Ex Parte but those have even higher standards.
So you combine the Quia Timet and Interlocutory together and I imagine its going to be a mountainous task to get one granted for anything other than a serious and very, very well proven case. (as far as I am aware most countries already allow these injunctions so its nothing new, its just that they are so hard to get no one even bothers trying).
The other thing you need to remember is the maxim relating to injunctions (which are part of traditional equitable law) that a decision is made on the balance of convenience. This roughly means that by granting an injunction you cause more harm to the defendant than is 'reasonable' then an injunction would not be granted.
So given an understanding of how injunctions work and are applied I am less concerned about this. I think the remedies it proposes actually already exist in most places, just they aren't as easy to get as some people here think. I cannot see how it would be possible under the jurisdictions I am familiar with for a court to "shut down google" because they "might be somewhere in the chain of offending". The law in this area just isnt as black and white as Boston Legal led us all to believe :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
what concerns us outside the gates is the law of unintended consequence to your "...cannot see how it would be possible...".
loosening the quotidien restrictions you've seen, at an international level, is playing with fire, again to those of us outside the bar (who do believe that when presented with an additional opportunity to increase billable hours, lawyers will not hesitate to do so).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: \"This clause would outlaw Google\"
I'm really just saying that all those provisions suggested already exist in the laws in most (western) countries. So unintended consequences are really irrelevent (because nothing new is being proposed).
BUT!!!! What I really fear is that some bribed up politician would then take the covenants in the treaty and decide to turn them into draconian law, something that Chariman Mao would be proud of. And use that law to screw up the internet. Thats a very real fear and pressure needs to go on the politico's so they know thats not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
Yeah, and people are going to use knives as weapons, it's GOING to happen, but that's no reason to outlaw knives. The post office is going to be used to deliver illegal goods including infringing material, but we don't shut the post office down as a result. Same thing with Google. I think it's impossible to ensure that zero infringement occurs but perhaps we can put in place a system that removes most infringing material in a timely manner.
Then again, Google shouldn't have to face such an unnecessary burden in the first place, no one's privilege to an unowed monopoly should require that anyone put in place an expensive system to stop infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: \"This clause would outlaw Google\"
As for the post office, you couldnt injunct the post office to stop serving all mail. You'd have to specify which piece of mail they had to stop delivering. Injunctions are not as broad as you assume, they are quite specific. As it stands the law can force the bank to freeze an account and could (I believe) stop the post office from delivering a piece of mail (although maybe not in the US where you have certain entrenched constitutional rights which would override such an injunction).
I agree that Google shouldnt be forced to spend squillions of dollars stopping other people from doing illegal things. Thats not their job. I'm just pointing out that the argument in the article that these clauses would place that burden on Google are incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
We already have some corporations misusing the existing laws. Introducing something vague enough that the interpretations we have seen in the comments here alone can come up seems too risky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: \"This clause would outlaw Google\"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "This clause would outlaw Google"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
but it seems more like 'corporations bypassing the government' than anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow
There corrected that for you.
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wow
Fixed That For You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, the UK Govt's DE Bill has both of these in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This one bill could define what the next 10 to 20 years of the internet will be like...will it grow and thrive as a free communications platform, or will be shackled and chained down by those who don't (want) understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guess not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is it
I think it's about time people who propose such laws get prosecuted.
I think a new law should be made that any one proposing laws that limit the internet and the free flow of information between citizens around the world should be cut off from their corporate sponsors and sent to Guantamo indefinitely - without any internet access.
And just to make sure - anyone even thinking about proposing such a law, or anyone suspected of thinking about proposing such laws or anyone suspected of knowing anyone who may be suspected of thinking about proposing such laws should also be imprisoned indefinitely.
Really, that's the only way the internet, our freedom and democracy (what's left of it) will be safe from these maniacs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is it
In practice most courts do take into account agreed international obligations when considering a case. But you couldnt initiate litigation against someone based on an international treaty, there would have to be something in the existing states laws or codes to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I use Time Warner cable to connect to the internet and upload infringing content to You-Tube, then Time Warner becomes the intermediary, and the IP rights holder apply for an injunction against them.
If I use my Verizon cell phone service to call a friend and ask them to send me some infringing content, then Verizon is the intermediary facilitating and could have an injunction filed against them.
Where is the limitation that this only applies to Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's what the world needs! Less safety. More control!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's right! It isn't.
What about radar detectors? Also a part of the real world. Does this mean we set up a system that enables the police to install cameras in every vehicle? To make sure they don't speed?
Less safety, more control!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Welcome to the real world. By the way, the offline world is nothing like the online world.
But you already know all of this, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> something that negotiators have insisted was not in ACTA
There's only one way to reconcile the two:
NEGOTIATORS CAN'T READ!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ThinkSpeak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
---------------------------
Dear member of the Tea party
Let me introduce you to ACTA the Anti Counterfeit Trade Agreement. An agreement being negotiated in secret on behalf of Intellectual property holder in the united states. Not only will ACTA trample the rights of the american people but the people of the world also.
List off how it violates the us constitution and US law.
- due process
- wire tap laws
- etc
- etc
List off how it will violate EU law
-
-
List off who is saying what
-USTR says it wont alter the law
-USTR says consumers and privacy advocates should have limited say in the new global agency
-French guy says it wont alter the law (not that I have much hope for the french standing up for this when the light gets shined on them, they always surrender)
-List all the trade reps that say that this wont alter the law in their respective countries
List how they are skirting the truth.
- US law will be altered in this way
- Canadian law will be altered in this way
- EU law will be altered in this way
ACTA text goes here.
List of representatives and contact info goes here.
Thank you for your time please feel free to forward this to any of your members ONLY after you do research to determine its validity.
Scincerely
----------------------------------
The line
"ONLY after you do research to determine its validity"
would be the kicker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
two party systems are inherently made of fail
Any party system isn't much better.
the very function of a political party is to subvert or remove democratic elements of the system it is within. (note that function is different from goals)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
Then again, Beck is insane. Or craven. Same shit, different pile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
Agreed but on the off chance ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ... and the finishing touch
Personally I do not believe that is going to happen.
Email all the heads of the Tea Party and CC every RNC and elected republican with the above letter. Talk about lighting a fire under the Republicans asses.
Just a thought ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ... and the finishing touch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again Thinking Outside The Box ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But is it legal?
Pretty sure this power is granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.
As for the text,
Page 4 says that "lost profits at market price" can be recovered by the rights holders. Based on the fuzzy and bloated math we've all seen from rights holders, and existing case law such as the Jammie Thomas case, it only invites lawsuits as a way for these companies to meet or exceed market analysts expectations for many of these publicly traded companies.
Page 5 talks about establishing a system for determining "pre-established damages". How are these "pre-established damages" determined? Who sets them? Do they vary from fiscal quarter-to-quarter? Month-to-month?
Page 5 also requires each country to delegate (or more likely, create) an authority to oversee and investigate ACTA specific issues. This will probably mean creation of a new International Copyright Enforcement team for each Country. The wording is inconclusive, but for the US, it could be like creating a new DHS or FBI. This will probably in turn require additional legal-based headcount at your ISP resulting in higher ISP costs.
In continuing skimming of the article, did I not see any mention of Consumer Rights being protected. It seems to It seems to escalate the current Supply-Side Economic approach without considering potential opportunities if these companies took a Demand-Side (or more Keynesian) approach. This is a big issue.
In conclusion, should this pass in the dead of night, I anticipate the market taking a dynamic move away from the current commercial-copyright marketplace in favor for alternatives such as Lessig's Creative Commons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But is it legal?
I agree with you analysis. Its one of the big unintended consequences of an agreement of this sort. It will come back to bite the media companies and the intelligence community in the ass. The media companies as people start following the australians example and find alternatives under CC, Orphan, and OOC for music, as people start creating high end movies using low cost tools, as college and high school radio stations stop playing big media music and start playing CC and this slowly moves main stream.
The intelligence community as will begin having problems as more and more internet traffic becomes encrypted and it does nothing to curb infringement. When the entire internet is encrypted and anonomyzed the intelligence community will be at a disadvantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But is it legal?
Oh wow. On Page 5, it says "Each Party shall provide that it's judicial [competent] authorities except in exceptional circumstances, shall have the authority to order. at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings...
What is an exceptional circumstance? How is it applied? What happens in an exceptional circumstance? Could a multi-national company request the case be heard outside of the juristiction which the supposed infringement took place? Could a Rights-Holder get a PO Box in East Texas and then request to move the case from Stockholm to East Texas?
What is an "Exceptional Circumstance"?
This is getting laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what are you going to do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what are you going to do about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think chaos would ensue. Also, kill all negotiators of ACTA, for crimes against humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell are you speaking of? You're way too easily excitable. I could hold a marshmallow in front of my dog and it seems you'd have the same response.
And especially you, who eejit who wants to "kil all negotiators of the ACTA"
Good Lord! Take a breather!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
goodbye due process, it was fun
section 4, Para 29(Option 3ter) wherein the u.s. states that any service provider of any sort's safe harbor is conditioned upon:
and
section 2, para 28(option1):
goodbye due process, guilty until proven innocent.
Section 4, Para 28-III wherein the u.s. states it's belief that rogue service providers are those who:
which as mike mentioned, is outlawing google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Rich Guys Will Never Stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]