USTR: No Mandatory Three Strikes in ACTA

Public Knowledge features a post describing a response from the USTR on its position on ACTA.  When asked about whether the U.S. was seeking mandatory filtering or three strikes, Stan McCoy of the USTR responded:

Mandatory filtering by ISPs would go beyond existing U.S. law, as would a mandatory “three strikes” approach to termination of repeat infringers. The U.S. Government is not seeking these or any other obligations that would go beyond U.S. law in the ACTA.

As the post rightly notes, this doesn't tell the whole story.  First, I do not recall any reports that ACTA contained mandatory filtering requirements, so that is not news.  Second, the discussion on three strikes in ACTA noted that the treaty opened the door to three strikes by ratching up third party liability.  That approach is still consistent with McCoy's assurance of no mandatory three strikes, yet may lead to the same place.  Third, from a Canadian perspective, the substantive concerns with ACTA have never been limited to three strikes – from anti-circumvention rules to notice-and-takedown, the treaty is filled with provisions that would require changes to Canadian law.


  1. He also never said that there wouldn’t be a three strikes policy, he just said THEY weren’t seeking it.

  2. strunk&white says:

    How does one “ratch” up third party liability?

  3. Captain Hook says:

    Now what was that again I heard in another thread about people saying monumentally dumb things?

  4. strunk&white says:

    then you tell me what the verb “to ratch” means.

    “Second, the discussion on three strikes in ACTA noted that the treaty opened the door to three strikes by ratching up third party liability.”

    I’m not called strunk&white for nothing. Got that ticket to Australia yet, or are you in your hidey-hole still?

  5. Captain Hook says:

    lol, I guess I’ll have to concede that one. My wife is a grammar Nazi too.

    Sorry no time for australia, to busy making my pipes bigger so I can download the Internet onto my harddrive.

  6. politics
    Somehow, I am still not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about ACTA.

  7. Captain Hook says:

    but… but…
    crade, how can that be? I mean “warm fuzzy feelings” is the sole focus of the message they are trying to deliver.

  8. ugh
    I don’t know, it is probably a mixture of my solid belief that the corporate lobyists’ agenda is not in anyone’s interest but theirs mixed with what their agenda has been doing to the countries who are piloting it jumbled with a sour taste from the illegitimate / corrupt (in my opinion of course) manner in which they have been propogating that agenda combined further with them having even more sway over the negotiations now since all the checks and balances (read: voice of reason) from their opposition have been shut out.

  9. “Yeah, we’re not seeking three strikes, but you know, I got all these wads of cash from the copyright industry and I guess we have to concede that three strikes have to be in there anyway because of, erm, expert opinion and international standards?”

    You cannot tell me for a second that three strikes was never discussed in ACTA. That’s like talking about parts of a sail boat without mentioning the mast. It was pretty obvious what the intent was when reading the leaks.