EU ACTA Negotiator Removed From Negotiations [Updated]

from the what's-it-mean dept

Not much in the way of details, but a week after EU negotiators briefed the EU Parliament on ACTA, the head EU negotiator, Luc Devigne, is apparently out of that role. There's some speculation that perhaps (hopefully?) this means that the European Commission is finally losing its enthusiasm for ACTA, due to the growing opposition around the globe. Considering that the key debate points are between the US and the EU, it'll be interesting to see what this shakeup means for the next round of negotiations (to take place next month in DC). Update: Jamie Love is now clarifying his original report, saying he received a phone call saying that while Devigne has taken a new job, he'll continue negotiating ACTA for the time being.

Filed Under: acta, eu, luc devigne

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

from the transparency-shmancparency dept

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.

Filed Under: acta, luc devigne, negotiations, transparency

EU Negotiators Insist That ACTA Will Move Forward And There's Nothing To Worry About

from the uh-huh... dept

With the EU Parliament overwhelmingly voting against ACTA, you might wonder how the EU negotiators would react. Apparently, the answer is by brushing it off and going right back to negotiations. The EU's main negotiator, Luc Devigne, was involved in an event where he defended himself and ACTA saying that all of the complaints are misrepresenting what's in the agreement, and insisting that the EU has "nothing to hide." Um, is that why the documents are all top secret? He says that he'll request the release of the documents, but we've been hearing that for a while now -- and the recent (leaked, of course) agenda for the next meeting in New Zealand shows just a tiny bit of time devoted to discussing transparency. Furthermore, it appears that, like the US negotiators on this topic, Devigne was being disingenuous with his statements -- and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't being outright dishonest.

The talking points from ACTA negotiators seem clear. When accused of being secretive, deny it and insist that you're being open. If really pushed on the matter, blame mysterious, nameless "others" for keeping the documents secret. Then, when specific items in the text are brought up, insist that these are being misrepresented, and if only you could see the real text (which you can't, because it's a secret) you'd know that it was all blown out of proportion. Then, finally, insist that ACTA won't change any laws. Of course, if that were the case, there would be no need for ACTA at all. The negotiators insist that it's all about "enforcement," but that's (again) being disingenuous. Many of the items in the drafts are created in a way that would lock countries in to certain paths. While they might not definitively prescribe things like "three strikes," the draft makes it clear that three strikes is the only real option to avoid liability. Even for countries that won't have to change their laws, these rules will prevent them from fixing the many problems found in today's copyright laws. Also, what's amusing is we've now heard from the US, Canada and the EU insisting that ACTA won't change their laws. But the US insisted ACTA was needed to force other countries to change their laws. Which countries? The US negotiators have suggested Canada, but Canada has said it won't change its laws for ACTA. So what's the point?

This whole thing is incredibly sneaky. Despite disapproval of many politicians, negotiators seem willing to just keep moving forward with this, and covering themselves by insisting that it won't actually change laws. That way they don't even need approval from politicians. But... when those politicians actually try to reform or fix broken copyright laws, you can bet that those who supported ACTA will be the first to stand up screaming that they can't make those changes because they'll "violate international agreements!" even though those agreements were put in place in secrecy in a back room, written by industry lobbyists and designed solely to limit how countries could fix their copyright laws.

Filed Under: acta, eu, luc devigne