Post Tagged with: "anti-counterfeiting trade agreement"

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 […]

Read more ›

February 11, 2010 9 comments News

European Commission Responds To ACTA Questions

The European Commission has posted a response to one of the many questions raised by members of the European Parliament about ACTA.  The EC seeks to pacify the ACTA concerns by arguing that the treaty will be limited in scope and is targeted at commercial activities: The Commission can inform […]

Read more ›

February 8, 2010 13 comments News

NY Times on ACTA

The New York Times has a feature story on ACTA today that includes comments from an EU official rejecting a single solution to Internet issues as well as comments from a Swedish official calling for the release of the draft text.

Read more ›

February 8, 2010 2 comments News

Another MEP Raises ACTA Concerns

Finnish Member of the European Parliament Heidi Hautala has added her voice to the concerns over ACTA, calling for greater transparency.

Read more ›

February 8, 2010 Comments are Disabled News

US, EU Defend ACTA Secrecy, UK Supports Transparency

Faced with mounting criticism over ACTA secrecy, officials from both the U.S. and the EU are speaking out.  In a letter to the editor at the Financial Times, the USTR's Stanford McCoy rejects the transparency concerns, claiming:

"Far from keeping them secret, governments participating in these negotiations have sought public comments, released a summary of issues under discussion, and enhanced public engagement."

Meanwhile, an EU official told EurActiv.com that media reports have oversimplified ACTA and that information has been provided to the European Parliament "whenever possible."  The EU official declined to be named due to a non-disclosure agreement.

Read more ›

February 5, 2010 8 comments News