The new Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is… problematic

by krisnelson

in copyright
government
intellectual property
international
law

6 Nov 2009
A short information film included on many DVDs...
Image via Wikipedia

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copy­right treaty whose text Obama’s admin­is­tra­tion refused to dis­close due to “national secu­rity” con­cerns, has leaked. It’s bad.

Secret copy­right treaty leaks. Its bad. Very bad. — Boing Boing.

Michael Geist has more:

Despite the efforts to combat leaks, infor­ma­tion on the Internet chapter has begun to emerge (just as they did with the other ele­ments of the treaty).

The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together.

He adds that the draft text is mod­eled on the U.S.-South Korea free trade agree­ment, and focuses on five issues:

1. Baseline oblig­a­tions inspired by Article 41 of the TRIPs which focuses on the enforce­ment of intel­lec­tual prop­erty.
2. A require­ment to estab­lish third-party lia­bility for copy­right infringe­ment.
3. Restrictions on lim­i­ta­tions to 3rd party lia­bility (ie. lim­ited safe har­bour rules for ISPs).
4. Anti-circumvention leg­is­la­tion that estab­lishes a WIPO+ model by adopting both the WIPO Internet Treaties and the lan­guage cur­rently found in U.S. free trade agree­ments that go beyond the WIPO treaty require­ments.
5. Rights Management pro­vi­sions, also mod­eled on U.S. free trade treaty language.

For me, one key problem area is that #4 in Geist’s list appar­ently elim­i­nates the fair use/fair dealing excep­tion to anti-circumvention pro­vi­sions (reverse engi­neering, com­puter testing, pri­vacy, etc.). Fair use is absolutely key to a proper bal­ance between allowing reuse that encour­ages new inno­va­tion and rewarding existing inno­va­tion through tem­po­rary monopolies.

Geist points out, too, that the treaty does not stop there. It con­tains addi­tional pro­vi­sions “that include statu­tory dam­ages, search and seizure powers for border guards, anti-camcording rules, and [require­ments for] manda­tory dis­clo­sure of per­sonal information.”

This is not a direc­tion that I sup­port, because I think it actu­ally limits inno­va­tion and devel­op­ment, rather than sup­porting them.

Related articles

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comment Form

About

I'm a PhD student in the history of science, focusing on intellectual property and other law & technology issues. I'm also a recent law school graduate and a former developer/sysadmin at a biotech non-profit.

Disclaimer

This is not legal advice. I am not your attorney. I am not licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. I am not soliciting your business.

My Latest

Follow @krisnelson (216 followers)

Page optimized by WP Minify