ACTA Draft Release Was Apparently A One Time Deal: Now We're Back To Secrecy

from the transparency-shmancparency dept

Wed, May 12th 2010 3:30pm — Mike Masnick

After about a year or so of very public questions over the incredible level of secrecy of ACTA (including the patently ridiculous claim that details couldn't be revealed for national security reasons), including a complete smackdown by the EU Parliament concerning the whole ACTA process, the negotiators finally (and very reluctantly) released the latest draft in April. Of course, by then, the full document had already leaked. Still, the officially released document left out some of the key parts that were in the leaked draft. Funny how that works.

But, of course, the negotiators pushing for ACTA pretended that the only concerns people had with ACTA were over the transparency issue, and now that a draft has been released, apparently they think that there should be no more complaints about ACTA. Uh huh. Except, of course, those who actually understand these issues, have pointed out some serious problems in the way ACTA is written, in that it locks in certain parts of copyright law that are very much in flux, and seems to export only the limits of copyright law, with none of the very important exceptions.

And, now it's coming out that this new "transparency" may have been a one-time deal. The head negotiator from the EU, Luc Devigne (the guy who planned to ignore the rebuke from the EU Parliament), has apparently told people that the April release is all that they planned on releasing. So, after the next round of negotiations happens (next month), the latest document will not be released again.

However, the rest of Devigne's comments reinforce some of the earlier reports from the field that we've heard, suggesting that large parts of the negotiation are still in dispute:

There is still no agreement on the ISP safe harbour provisions.
Major disagreements in the criminal chapter include the definition of "commercial scale" (the U.S. wants it defined, the EU wants it left to national judges) and the inclusion of an anti-camcording provision.
Disagreements on the civil enforcement chapter includes damages and scope.

Of course, those are some very key points that will determine just how bad ACTA may be. The fact that the negotiators won't be releasing updated drafts when these points are still very much in flux is quite troubling.

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, luc devigne, negotiations, transparency

33 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

nasch (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 4:17pm

Troubling
If you read through TechDirt, you get the idea that Mike is a very troubled individual. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re: Troubling
  Obvious troll is obvious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Troubling
    that too is troubling.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Troubling
    WTH? I'm no troll. Go read through a bunch of TD posts and see how often you can find the word "troubling", often with a modifier such "extremely" or "immensely". Now consider the mood of someone who uses that word that often. Now realize I was making a joke. I admit it wasn't that funny, but still.
    
    Oh while I'm on the topic, the funny-how-that-works department could probably use a break, they seem a little overworked.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 5:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Troubling
      Oh while I'm on the topic, the funny-how-that-works department could probably use a break, they seem a little overworked.
      
      Heh. Good point. Thanks for keeping me honest...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 6:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Troubling
        Oh also, great blog Mike, keep up the good work. :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 5:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Troubling
      Oh... Just observant.
      My apologies, obviously I spoke in error.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:19pm

troubling? how can it be troubling for you? you pay to rent movies, you dont download copyright material, so none of this affects you in the slightest. why are you troubled about something that wont change your life at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:20pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, I don't counterfeit anything so I won't be affected by an Anti-Couterfeiting Trade Agreement.
  
  Why is there so much about copyright in an agreement about counterfeiting?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    umm, because violating copyright is sort of part of it, no? people who offer you a download are offering you a product which you might think is legit, but really isnt. what is a counterfeit but an unlicensed copy, often of poorer quality?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      These links might help you out a lot:
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_consumer_goods
      
      Good luck on your search for the truth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        using wikipedia? we have already shown that wikipedia is less accurate than a 100 year old dictionary. please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tell me how inaccurate this entry is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
        
        I'll wait.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 6:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you make the point. who knows? so using wiki to define anything is meaningless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's adorable!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 13 May 2010 @ 4:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It seems that this argument is the last resort of those who fail to win an argument. And how about sources please? Personally, I find it acceptably accurate for anything that isn't upsetting to a Holocaust/evolution/global warming denier. Of course, you are always free to go read Conservapedia to get your Faux definitions...
        
        Plus, many old dictionaries are still accurate. They just don't cover modern things (I still get a lot of traction from my 1979 Collins). Wikipedia does cover modern things, which makes it a particularly *useful* '100-year-old dictionary' :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 6:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The boson article you linked sources two Stanford articles and works by two different respected particle physicists. Since I am not a physicist, I can only assume that either a) the article is inaccurate because someone transcribed the information wrong and for some reason, after several years of discussion, nobody's noticed or b) the article is inaccurate because you believe it is inaccurate.
        
        Occam's Razor says (b) is more likely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I actually don't beleive it is inaccurate. That was my point. Just because something is on wikipedia does not mean it is automatically inaccurate.
        
        Thank you for checking the sources. You could also check the discussion or edit pages to determine whether an article is inaccurate.
        
        This is more directed at our little ac who feels using wikipedia is meaningless, which, in the boson case, it clearly is not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        zbeeblebrox, 12 May 2010 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL @ anonymous coward fight
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2010 @ 2:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm siding with anonymous coward. That other guy's got nothing on him!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Isn't counterfeiting a violation of a trademark?
      
      Trademark != Copyright last time I checked
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DocMenach (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 5:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope. Counterfeiting is typically neither a violation of copyright or trademark laws. Counterfeiting is a violation of counterfeiting laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 6:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Counterfeit goods are guilty of both trademark infringement (logos etc.) and copyright infringement.
        
        But a lot of ACTA is about "internet piracy," i.e. filesharing, which has nothing at all to do with counterfeit goods. Copyright yes, counterfeiting no.
        
        And a treaty which (illegally) changes copyright law in the U.S., makes criminals out of most citizens, allows the government to seize computers and wiretap internet traffic, and penalize legitimate uses of content and filesharing - all in the name of private entities?
        
        Yeah... If you're concerned about that, you must be a criminal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 6:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, reading that back, some of it was hyperbole.
        
        The law allowing the government to seize computers with "infringing" content isn't part of ACTA. It's already on the books.
        
        And ACTA doesn't say the government can tap your broadband... it says that OCP's must monitor your 'net traffic for "infringement," and take a "graduated response," e.g. cut off your internet connection.
        
        I put "infringement" in quotes, since it's almost impossible to tell if content is actually infringing or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 5:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      TAM: Getting basic definitions wrong 24/7.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re:
  China has a huge firewall around it, and that doesn't affect me in the slightest. Should I not worry about it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Sarcastic-Mike, 12 May 2010 @ 5:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Terror groups are trying to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction but I'm not an American so it won't affect me in the slightest.
    
    Ah. Copyright infringement and terrorism. There's that feel good link.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 12 May 2010 @ 5:19pm
  
  Re:
  I know it is difficult to grasp, but there are those who have a world view which includes more than just themselves. You should try it sometime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2010 @ 9:37pm
  
  Re:
  "you pay to rent movies, you dont download copyright material, so none of this affects you in the slightest."
  
  A: Even if it won't change his life, it would change the lives of others for the worse.
  
  B: He follows the law, but he wants to follow a reasonable set of laws. The current set of laws is absurd.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
packrat (profile), 13 May 2010 @ 5:19am

actra
web 2.0 -> web 3.0 (there's a reward for that)

you BOUGHT that? hello, renters! All your dvd players belong to us! (we changed the def of property when you weren't looking.)

AND your e-book, dynamic editing versions are mine too.. (freedom of speech took a low blow and it didn't get ref'd)

PLUS presumtion of guilt, (that mp3 is a copy of a pop-tart song. So We'll just bust you for porn, child molesting, smuggling, counterfeiting ... just to be sure, eh?)

hey, you also have an alligator on that shirt pocket...

packrat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel (profile), 13 May 2010 @ 9:05am

Who has the Combination?
ACTA is back in the safe, I wonder how long it will take someone to get the "new" details out. It's ludicrous that they are stooping that low as to hide and take away any idea of transparency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 13 May 2010 @ 2:40pm

Better hope that the finished ACTA isn't as bad as we all think it will be, because there's no way in hell they're going to spend all this time and money on it and not get it passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Polo Outlet, 6 Aug 2011 @ 1:34am

Polo Outlet
Your article swept me away with its vast information and great writing. Thank you for sharing your views with such passion. I like your views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]