EU Legal Review Agrees With US: ACTA Dreadfully Written; Wide Open To Interpretation
from the this-is-not-a-good-thing dept
Earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) did a legal review of ACTA to see if it conformed with existing US law. While the USTR tried to keep the report buried, it eventually came out -- and basically said that ACTA was drafted in a dreadfully confusing and opaque way. The issue? It's not even clear if US law conforms to ACTA, because ACTA can be interpreted in many different ways -- some of which suggest the US is in compliance, and some of which say we're not.The EU Parliament's legal service recently conducted a similar review and came to an identical conclusion: ACTA may or may not be legal... depending on how you interpret it.
This should be seen as a massive problem. When you're crafting a giant international agreement that is binding on various countries (and, yes, the US pretends it's not binding, but the other signers insist it is binding, meaning under international law, they likely can hold the US to a claim that it's binding), the fact that it's so vague that what is and what is not legal under it is totally wide open to interpretation means you've drafted a really bad agreement that shouldn't be approved. In the meantime, any country signing such a document should be ashamed of itself, because it doesn't even know what it's bound itself to.
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, interpretation, legal review, vague
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Politics and the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politics and the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Politics and the internet
Oh... wait... shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Politics and the internet
Yup. And in Australia. Our bureaucrats are either sleepwalking or there is some devious plan afoot. History suggests that they do not do devious at all well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Politics and the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carte Blanche
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does it say in English? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACTA uses Confusion....It's SUPER-Effective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, it shifts responsibility to judges, so if you're a politician who voted for the treaty, and judges do something that your voters don't like when ruling on ACTA then you can just attack the judges for being activists, and promise to replace them with strict constructionists when they retire. It works real well for raising money from the anti-abortion crowd in the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Worse than that, they'll interpret it one way to get it passed, and another way after it's law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they get ACTA
And all cases involving someone being accused of being a jerk must have a jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legality..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does that mean they should stop writing laws? Perhaps just stop trying? This is the conclusion you seem to suggest, and it just doesn't make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can look at the original COPA law, which was enjoined from enforcement in 1998, and found finally in 2007 to be "facially in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution" (thanks wikipedia).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act
There are tons of laws written that don't past the test of the courts. You can look at many of the immigration laws on the State level, handgun restrictions, and things like that.
The legality of almost any law depends on how it is read, and how it is interpreted by enforcement and then the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How you come to that conclusion without massive misinterpretation is beyond my understanding. Care to explain to the class where he intimated that we should stop writing laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
ACs logic does work, if you assume that all laws, or at least a big portion of them, can be interpreted as being illegal. That's the big hole in the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. A thousand times yes. I want all new laws to have sunset clauses so that they don't have time to write new laws because they'll always be debating the old ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it means that they should stop writing corrupt laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, they know!
You see it as binding us, a politician sees it as a way of making any laws they want afterwards, they can just say that we already promised.
Especially the EU-countries are very good at using EU as a shield against backlashes for the laws they make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another sign of big money corruption and Washington.
PROTEST CORRUPTION and do some OCCUPY !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm shocked and appalled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could you not say that about the Constitution of the US also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is that it didn't have an easy way to update it while banning changing some portions of it (such as the Bill of Rights) to take into account the exponential increase in technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]