Post Tagged with: "acta"

U.S. Caves on Anti-Circumvention Rules in ACTA

One of the biggest stories coming out of the latest ACTA leak is how the U.S. has gradually caved on its digital lock demands. While the U.S. initially proposed an aggressive draft chapter it hoped would export U.S. law to all ACTA partners, it has now caved on many key issues with the European language carrying the day. The implications for anti-circumvention rules are significant, since the language is closer (though not identical) to the more flexible WIPO approach and confirms that Canada’s Bill C-32 actually goes beyond would be needed to comply with ACTA, were it to conclude in its current form.

Before examining the changes, it should be noted that there remain doubts about whether this chapter even belongs in ACTA. Both Canada and Mexico have reserved the right to revisit all elements of this chapter at a later date, suggesting that both countries have concerns about the digital enforcement chapter. Moreover, there are still disputes over the scope of the Internet chapter, with the U.S., Australia, NZ, Canada, Singapore and Mexico seeking to limit the chapter to trademark and copyright, while Japan, the EU, and Switzerland want to extend it to all IP rights. Without resolving this issue, there is no digital enforcement in ACTA.

The Anti-Circumention Provision

July 19, 2010 — 12 comments — News

Canada at the ACTA Negotiations: Canadian Proposals in the Current Draft

The leaked version of the latest ACTA draft helpfully includes country positions, information that was scrubbed from the official release last April. As I noted yesterday, much of the debate boils down to U.S. and European proposals with the remaining ACTA countries picking sides. Jonathan O’Hara, one of my research students this summer, has helped compile a list of the Canadian positions where negotiators have failed to reach consensus. It is notable that most Canadian positions seek to limit the scope of ACTA or incorporate some balancing provisions.

July 16, 2010 — 10 comments — News

Weatherall on the Key Developments in Latest ACTA Draft

Kim Weatherall has a must-read post that identifies the key changes in the latest ACTA draft that was leaked earlier this week.

July 16, 2010 — Comments are Disabled — News

How Will ACTA Affect UK Law

Andres Guadamuz examines how ACTA would affect UK law. His conclusion: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

July 16, 2010 — Comments are Disabled — News

ACTA Coming Down to Fight Between U.S. and Europe

With yesterday’s leak of the full ACTA text (updated to include the recent round of talks in Lucerne) the simmering fight between the U.S. and the E.U. on ACTA is now being played out in the open. During the first two years of negotations, both sides were at pains to indicate that there was no consensus on transparency and the treaty would not change their domestic rules. Over the past four months, the dynamic on both transparency and substance has changed.

The turning point on transparency came as a result of two events in February and March. First, a Dutch government document leak that identified which specific countries were barriers to transparency. Once identified, the named European countries quickly came onside to support release of the text, leaving the U.S. as the obvious source of the problem. Second, the European Parliament became actively engaged in the ACTA process and demanded greater transparency. As the New Zealand round approached, it was clear that the Europeans needed a resolution on transparency. The U.S. delegation used the transparency issue as a bargaining chip, issuing a release at the start of the talks that it hoped that enough progress could be made to allow for consensus on sharing the text. The U.S. ultimately agreed to release the text, but subsequent events indicate that it still views transparency as a bargaining chip, rather than as a commitment.

At the conclusion of the latest round of negotiations in Lucerne, the U.S. did not achieve its goals for the talks and refused to agree to the release of an updated text. The disagreement between the U.S. and E.U. has played out in the open this week, with the USTR’s Stan McCoy acknowledging that the talks did not achieve as much as the U.S. hoped and EU Commissioner Karel de Gucht plainly blaming the U.S. for blocking release of the text, indicating that he did not expect much progress in the next round on talks in Washington, and calling out the U.S. for its “hypocrisy” on key issues. The fact the text was leaked within hours of de Gucht’s comments highlight Europe’s frustration with the U.S. position on transparency.

July 15, 2010 — 9 comments — News