A spokesperson for the European Commission Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has sought to address concerns about three strikes within ACTA. According to De Gucht's spokesperson: "ee are not supporting and will not accept that an eventual ACTA agreement creates an obligation to disconnect people from the internet because of illegal downloads."
EU Says No To Mandatory ACTA Three Strikes
5 Comments
Recent Posts
The Sound of Silence: On Being Jewish in Canada in 2025 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 241: Scott Benzie on How Government Policy Has Eroded Big Tech Support for Canadian Culture 
What Is the Canadian Government Doing With Its Incoherent Approach to TikTok? 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 240: Dean Beeby on Why Canada’s Language Laws May Stop Government From Posting Access to Information Records Online 
Risky Business: The Legal and Privacy Concerns of Mandatory Age Verification Technologies
weasel words
But as we’ve seen, there doensn’t need to be such an “obligation”, it’s enough to impose liability unless ISPs disconnect people.
coercion to three strikes… not obligation to three strikes
The leaked digital chapter aims at pushing ISPs into three strikes and other anti-consumer measures. Strictly speaking, therefore, the Commissioner’s statement means nothing at all.
Fred Bloggs, you are correct, the Commissioner’s statement appears to be nothing more than presenting the current bargaining position. In the same manner, the leaked digital chapter presents a proposal, nothing more, nothing less. The only thing that can be said about it is what it would require if adopted as it exists.
What people keep forgetting is that these are negotiations; nothing is set even in wet Jello until such time as the proposed treaty is signed. Most of the leaks represent simply proposed texts on the table. Look at it this way. If you are negotiating the purchase of a new house, during the negotiations, what are your obligations? Are you obligated to the last offered price of the seller? Or your last offered price? In fact, it is neither; you can walk away from the negotiations on a whim.
Anon-K
“In the same manner, the leaked digital chapter presents a proposal, nothing more, nothing less. The only thing that can be said about it is what it would require if adopted as it exists.”
The proposal was coercion, the statement from the Commission deliberately did not address this. This is a bad sign.
If ISP liability is in the agreement in any form, then this coercion will remain – and the Commission’s reassurances continue to mean nothing.
The Commission also says that only commercial scale counterfeiting (not individual end users) is targeted – how on earth would an ISP carry out enough surveillance for commercial scale counterfeiting without infringing on the rights of individual end users?
I would be happier to hear nothing from the Commission than these misleading half-truths.
@Fred bloggs
Are you referring to coercion as toward the negotiators, or towards the public IF this is accepted? The latter I could accept, but the former, unless it was accompanied by threats of retaliation for not accepting it, I wouldn’t consider coercion. Perhaps I am just not quite following your reasoning as you intended.
In the case of “commercial scale”; this may be simpler than you think. Most ISPs that I’ve seen have business vs personal or home services. Generally the differences are in the throughput and the caps, as well as static IP addresses. To target “commercial scale” would imply that it targets only the business accounts.