Report From The Field: ACTA Negotiations Not Going Well

from the about-time dept

Thu, Mar 25th 2010 9:40am — Mike Masnick

Well, there's a bit of good news coming out concerning ACTA negotiations: apparently, all this public scrutiny is causing some problems for the negotiators. Jamie Love points us to an analysis by David Hammerstein, based on talking to a number of people involved in or close to the negotiations, and came up with some key points, including that "the negotiations are not going that well and many issues are still wide open. It is doubtful they could wrap up soon" and that "there is a significant problem in making US and EU legislation compatible on a number of issues." Apparently, because of the way the US defines fair use and "commercial scale," the EU negotiators are trying to leave in vague language that doesn't sit well with others. He also notes that there's some confusion about what the EU Parliament's recent vote against ACTA means for the negotiation.

Then there are three key points at the end:

They get very uncomfortable when asked about the possible use of the legitimacy of Acta in authoritarian countries.

As well they should. This is a point that we've raised repeatedly, noting not just the similarities between the methods used for censorship in authoritarian countries and ACTA, but also in the way that those countries will almost certainly use ACTA to justify their own censorship.

They have no answer to concrete questions on the "innovation chill" that could be caused in many businesses by introducing criminal sanctions and other enforcement measures.

This is what happens when you craft rules designed to benefit legacy companies within an industry, without understanding the broader impact on the market. That the negotiators "have no answer" to this question only confirms that these rules were not created with the goal of improving the overall welfare of citizens, but to protect certain companies. And that point is only highlighted even more by the final point:

No social or economic impact studies seem to be undertaken in the EU on Acta.

Of course not. That's because, as per usual with intellectual property rules, these ideas are faith-based, rather than evidence based.

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, evidence, negotiations

23 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Joel (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 9:54am

ACTA Conversation
Me: What's wrong ACTA?

ACTA: I'm not doing well.

Me: Why??

ACTA: I don't know what I'm doing here.

Me: Aren't you supposed to protect the people?

ACTA: I don't know.

Me: Oh that is bad.

ACTA: I know, I feel useless.

Me: Well you kinda are. Sowwy!!

ACTA: Don't be I know, hopefully I don't make it.

Me: I'll be sad to see you go, makes for interesting conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 10:07am

So they're having problems with the Anti-Citizen Trade Agreement?

Shocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 10:20am

Weird
Weird, the light is on, I would have expected more scurrying after the release of the ACTA text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Weird
  I think at this point it's more of a "deer in the headlights" kind of thing. Maybe if they don't move we won't notice them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 10:35am
    
    Re: Re: Weird
    Any day now I am expecting the line ... "well that is an unfinished draft it means nothing" from the negotiators
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trails (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 10:27am

To quote Princess Leia
"The harder you squeeze the more [internets] will slip through your fingers"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simon, 25 Mar 2010 @ 10:53am

They have no answer to concrete questions on the "innovation chill" that could be caused in many businesses by introducing criminal sanctions and other enforcement measures.
They have the answer, they just don't want to say it: "That's the whole point of this!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 11:04am

I would certainly breath easier for a while if ACTA fell apart. In fact just hearing there is dissention makes me feel a little better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 11:25am

faith-based? Are you saying this is a catholic or jewish conspiracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Mixer, 25 Mar 2010 @ 11:27am

The shame of ACTA negotiators
Is there is no shame. Any thoughts that these people are afraid of or chastened by this leak are wishful at best. The only result of this leak will be higher security, more secrecy, and quicker resolution of the task at hand. The good news is that as of it's adoption it will be rendered moot by the same forces that strike fear into it's proponents. It will have the same effect as all the other laws that currently cover the same ground which of course is damn little. Trails is correct, there will always be some way for people to do what they want with what they want legal or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: The shame of ACTA negotiators
  One good thing may come of this ... copyright, patent, and IP reform. When governments over reach like this you tend to start rebellions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DrE, 25 Mar 2010 @ 11:41am

Faith v evidence or something else?
Is it that the ideas are faith-based instead of evidence-based or is it that most people do not know how (or want) to test ideas with evidence (e.g., they exhibit confirmatory bias: that is they search for "evidence" that supports their position and selectively ignore "evidence" that seems inconsistent with their position). That most people do this shouldn't be surprising. It is a useful way to debate. The problem is that the goal of debate (and influence) is not to seek the truth but to win the argument.

Legacy businesses are not interested in the truth of the claims that they make. Their goal is maintain the business model even if it means citing "evidence" that is of worst kind.

If public policy decisions were governed by a reasonable system, the first thing that policy makers would have to agree about is what they will measure to determine if the policy (whatever shape it takes) is successful. Think of the health care bill, crime control, or education reform. How can we know whether a new policy to improve health care or education or to decrease crime actually does improve anything without first agreeing what observable outcomes will actually constitute improvement. In the case of legacy business models, the businesses that support ACTA focus on different outcomes than those who oppose it (e.g., supposed lost income from downloading of music, video, and other content v innovation in technology and content). How can we evaluate a policy if we can't agree what outcomes to measure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 12:18pm

After all the "fix is in" wailing about ACTA it is interesting to see, as is the case with every negotiation such as this, that parties have divergent views that at some point will ultimately be reconciled via mutually satisfactory compromise.

No, the "sky is not falling" as some seem inclined to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re:
  It's not over until it's over. Besides, why all the secrecy? Why not go through WIPO or the WTO?
  
  Oh right, because WIPO and the WTO have public representatives representing the public.
  
  ACTA? Nope.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wallow-T, 25 Mar 2010 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "We had to destroy democracy in order to save it."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 8:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      wait, you had democracy? where on earth did you find that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seshan (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:12pm

"Governments are really great at getting together and holding meetings and conferences and glad-handing each other, but they never ever seem to accomplish anything."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrtian Lopez, 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:34pm

That the negotiators "have no answer" to this question only confirms that these rules were not created with the goal of improving the overall welfare of citizens, but to protect certain companies.

That's exactly right. ACTA caters to special interests at the public's expense, being grounded upon principles of entitlement rather than principles of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re:
  no it caters to everyone not just what the public wants. there is no expense to the public just that it will be harder to steal all the stuff you want online.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 5:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Encryption says what?
    
    It is nice to know that a balance must be struck. Strange way of going about it, you know, without any input from the general public.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 25 Mar 2010 @ 7:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "no it caters to everyone not just what the public wants"
    
    Encryption says what? said it, but I'll lay it out.
    
    If it caters to everyone, why doesn't it cater to anything that the public wants? So it doesn't cater to the public, so therefore it is purely a tool of the big-money players.
    
    You make it sound as if the only people who will have a problem are infringers, but this is plainly and clearly untrue. This is an agreement that profits major corporations at the public expense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2010 @ 5:48pm

I really like the way they spin countries that don't like ACTA as 'authoritarian'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fortnightly review, 8 Apr 2010 @ 7:32pm

ACTA
Hi Techdirt. We have Kim Weatherall's incisive comments on ACTA on our site. Would love to hear your comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]