maxama10
09-18-2008, 09:02 PM
Now this is all one big copy and paste as I have nothing 'Original' to add to this
-
Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007)
From Wikileaks
(Redirected from G-8 plurilateral intellectual property trade agreement discussion paper)
Jump to: navigation, search
Unless otherwise specified the document described here:
* Was first publicly revealed by Wikileaks working with our source.
* At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.
* Is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance.
* Any questions about this document's veracity are noted.
* The summary is approved by the editorial board.
To sponsor reportage of this document by mainstream journalists submit a targeted donation.
For press enquiries, see our media kit.
If you have similar or updated material ACT NOW.
Thursday May 21, 2008
File
* acta-proposal-2007.pdf (click to view full file)
* acta-proposal-2007.pdf (alternative address)
Analysis
ACTA trade agreement negotiation lacks transparency, Intellectual Property Watch, Sydney Morning Herald, Globe and Mail, Calgary Herald, Jamie Shaw,Torrent Freak,Tech Dirt,Daily Tech,Webhosting Poland,Slashdot, TheNewFreedom, and many others.
Front page news in Canada, but has yet to hit the main stream daily's outside of Canada and Australia, likely due to early reports that looked at that angle, rather than a serious trade, transparency and developmental equity issue.
Summary
In 2007 a select handful of the wealthiest countries began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement, which was called, in a piece of brilliant marketing, the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (the agreement does not cover currency fraud).
ACTA is spearheaded by the United States along with the European Commission, Japan, and Switzerland — which have large intellectual property industries. Other countries invited to participate in ACTA’s negotiation process are Canada, Australia, Korea, Mexico and New Zealand. Noticeably absent from ACTA’s negotiations are leaders from developing countries who hold national policy priorities that differ from the international intellectual property industry.
A “Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” was reportedly provided to select lobbyists in the intellectual property industry, but not to public interest organizations concerned with the subject matter of the proposed treaty.[1]
Wikileaks has obtained the document.
The agreement covers the copying of information or ideas in a wide variety of contexts. For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet. This clause would also negatively affect transparency and primary source journalism sites such as Wikileaks.
The document reveals a proposal for a multi-lateral trade agreement of strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods hiding behind the issue of false trademarks. If adopted, a treaty of this form would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon internet service providers, including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. The proposal also bans "anti-circumvention" measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players.
The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime.
Trade representatives were hoping to formalize the agreement at the G-8 summit in July 2008.
The following summary of the trade agreement issue is from IP Justice, an international group based in San Francisco that campaigns for a just world intellectual property regime:
After the multi-lateral treaty’s scope and priorities are negotiated by the few countries invited to participate in the early discussions, ACTA’s text will be “locked” and other countries who are later “invited” to sign-on to the pact will not be able to re-negotiate its terms. It is claimed that signing-on to the trade agreement will be "voluntary", but few countries will have the muscle to refuse an “invitation” to join, once the rules have been set by the select few conducting the negotiations.
The US is negotiating ACTA through the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), an office within the Bush Administration that has concluded more than 10 “free trade” agreements in recent years, all of which require both the US and the other country to increase intellectual property rights enforcement measures beyond the international legal norms in the WTO-TRIPS Agreement. [2]
Talking points from the European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and others have published selected passages ostensibly from the document in response; refer to [3] for useful links.
The ACTA push was launched on October 23, 2007 by US Ambassador Susan C. Schwab and five U.S. members of Congress from the "Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property and Piracy Prevention". A copy of her opening remarks follow:
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
October 23, 2007
• Thank you all for being here. Today we are announcing a major new
initiative in the international fight against IPR counterfeiting and piracy.
• I want to begin by thanking our host today, the Congressional Caucus on
Intellectual Property and Piracy Prevention, and its co-chairs -
Representatives Bono, Feeney, Wexler, and Adam Smith of Washington.
• Thank you also to the Members present, who have done so much to advance
the cause of IP protection, including:
- Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)
- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
• I also want to acknowledge and thank the Ambassadors and representatives
of our trading partners who have joined us today.
[...]
• We are pleased to be working in this broader effort with a number of key
trading partners, large and small, including Canada, the European Union,
Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and Switzerland. We hope and believe
that others will join over time, marking an emerging consensus on stronger
IP enforcement. All who share our ambition and commitment to stronger
IPR enforcement are welcome.
[...]
• With that goal in mind, the U.S. Government is eager to move ahead as fast
as possible with the negotiation of this important new agreement.
• Thank you.
Who is really behind ACTA? Follow the money:
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)[4]
Top four campaign contributions for 2006:
Time Warner $21,000
News Corp $15,000
Sony Corp of America $14,000
Walt Disney Co $13,550
Top two Industries:
TV/Movies/Music $181,050
Lawyers/Law Firms $114,200
Other politicians listed also show significant contributions from IP industries.
Context
United States
Government (bureaucracy)
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Primary language
English
File size in bytes
378251
File type information
Zip archive data, at least v1.0 to extract
Cryptographic identity
SHA256 c339644a0e21ecdc1a8569ec6549850dd31cf811ea89606f07 4856f08b305221
Description (as provided by the original submitter)
1. Not to our knowledge.
2. This document details provisions of a proposed plurilateral trade agreement that would impose strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods. If adopted, a treaty of this form would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime imposing new cooperation requirements upon ISPs, including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, as well as measures restricting the use of online privacy tools. The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime. Talking points from the European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and others have published selected passages ostensibly from this document; refer to http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/acta/ for useful links.
3. Trade officials, copyright claimants.
4. Call Office of the United States Trade Representative, European Commission, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other trade officials including the corresponding offices in Canada, Japan, and Switzerland.
5. Not clear; suspect that one of the parties to the agreement may have had an interest in releasing details to the public.
6. Trade representatives intend to formalize the agreement at the G-8 summit in July 2008.
Know something about this material? Tell the world.
(see other comments first)
Retrieved from "https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282 007%29"
- http://wikileaks.org/wiki/G-8_plurilateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreeme nt_discussion_paper
ACTA is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated by the US, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. The stated goal of the agreement is the international enforcement of strong intellectual property rights through increased cooperation and coordination among international governmental agencies. ACTA does not yet exist, though its ongoing discussions are confirmed by all of the participating governments. What we know of ACTA derives from the following documents:
*
USTR’s Fact Sheet (October, 2007)
*
Notice for Public Comment and “fact sheet” posted by the USTR in February, 2008.
*
The succession of responsive comments filed by March 21, 2008; many of which are linked below.
*
A leaked “discussion paper” that was posted on Wikileaks in late May 2008.
ACTA has three major legs: International Cooperation, Enforcement Practices, and Legal Framework. International cooperation seems to generally encourage information sharing among the customs agencies of the various countries. It is considered one of the less controversial ACTA legs. The enforcement practices section is also nebulous but openly declares its belief in “strong intellectual property protection.” The Legal Framework has the potential to be the most expansive, and, therefore, most problematic, section.
The biggest concern with ACTA is that there has been very little transparency regarding its substance and the process that is putting it into place. Although the USTR invited the public to comment on the agreement, the public was given very little information to comment on. What is more disconcerting is that the leaked discussion paper seems to heavily reflect the wish lists provided in the comments from the industry groups. Also, ACTA is being negotiated outside forums such as WIPO were the negotiation would be more open.
A second major concern with ACTA’s very nature is that it is being designed as an “executive agreement,” rather than as a “treaty.” Executive agreements do not require Congressional approval before they may take effect. As a result, there is little to keep the signatories accountable to the public, especially in an election year that will see the departure of the current executive.
A third major concern with ACTA is that it will be used to “policy launder” its most contested provisions, whatever they may turn out to be. Policy laundering is the use of international treaties or other agreements to justify the passage of controversial legislation within one’s own country. The idea is that, once there is an international agreement committing the US to certain policies, there will be greater leverage applied on US legislators to make those policies a reality. This process was used in the passage of the DMCA in 1998 and is ably described in the ACTA context here.
Further concerns about ACTA are more speculative since they regard its content, which has not been officially released in any format. Nonetheless, some of these concerns include the vague, amorphous manner in which “counterfeit” is used in many of the public comments. These uses run the gamut from undisputedly illegal products to expressly legitimate generic products. The introduction of “piracy” to the discussion further widens ACTA’s potential scope and confuses the distinctions between private uses and commercial scale uses, especially regarding Internet use. It is difficult to discern the precise nature and purpose of ACTA when so many different concepts and definitions are held under the singular banner of “counterfeit.”
A healthy public debate informed by the actual provisions of ACTA will go a long way toward alleviating many of these concerns. To achieve this, it is imperative that the USTR make a draft text of the treaty available to the public. - http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/acta#comments
Details of the proposed multicountry accord are sketchy at best. Speculation is running rampant that, if ratified, the agreement might criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications. - http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/heat-is-on-for.html
So what does this all mean for us? More regulation and more DRM. Just thought you should all know.
-
Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007)
From Wikileaks
(Redirected from G-8 plurilateral intellectual property trade agreement discussion paper)
Jump to: navigation, search
Unless otherwise specified the document described here:
* Was first publicly revealed by Wikileaks working with our source.
* At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.
* Is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance.
* Any questions about this document's veracity are noted.
* The summary is approved by the editorial board.
To sponsor reportage of this document by mainstream journalists submit a targeted donation.
For press enquiries, see our media kit.
If you have similar or updated material ACT NOW.
Thursday May 21, 2008
File
* acta-proposal-2007.pdf (click to view full file)
* acta-proposal-2007.pdf (alternative address)
Analysis
ACTA trade agreement negotiation lacks transparency, Intellectual Property Watch, Sydney Morning Herald, Globe and Mail, Calgary Herald, Jamie Shaw,Torrent Freak,Tech Dirt,Daily Tech,Webhosting Poland,Slashdot, TheNewFreedom, and many others.
Front page news in Canada, but has yet to hit the main stream daily's outside of Canada and Australia, likely due to early reports that looked at that angle, rather than a serious trade, transparency and developmental equity issue.
Summary
In 2007 a select handful of the wealthiest countries began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement, which was called, in a piece of brilliant marketing, the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (the agreement does not cover currency fraud).
ACTA is spearheaded by the United States along with the European Commission, Japan, and Switzerland — which have large intellectual property industries. Other countries invited to participate in ACTA’s negotiation process are Canada, Australia, Korea, Mexico and New Zealand. Noticeably absent from ACTA’s negotiations are leaders from developing countries who hold national policy priorities that differ from the international intellectual property industry.
A “Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” was reportedly provided to select lobbyists in the intellectual property industry, but not to public interest organizations concerned with the subject matter of the proposed treaty.[1]
Wikileaks has obtained the document.
The agreement covers the copying of information or ideas in a wide variety of contexts. For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet. This clause would also negatively affect transparency and primary source journalism sites such as Wikileaks.
The document reveals a proposal for a multi-lateral trade agreement of strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods hiding behind the issue of false trademarks. If adopted, a treaty of this form would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon internet service providers, including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. The proposal also bans "anti-circumvention" measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players.
The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime.
Trade representatives were hoping to formalize the agreement at the G-8 summit in July 2008.
The following summary of the trade agreement issue is from IP Justice, an international group based in San Francisco that campaigns for a just world intellectual property regime:
After the multi-lateral treaty’s scope and priorities are negotiated by the few countries invited to participate in the early discussions, ACTA’s text will be “locked” and other countries who are later “invited” to sign-on to the pact will not be able to re-negotiate its terms. It is claimed that signing-on to the trade agreement will be "voluntary", but few countries will have the muscle to refuse an “invitation” to join, once the rules have been set by the select few conducting the negotiations.
The US is negotiating ACTA through the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), an office within the Bush Administration that has concluded more than 10 “free trade” agreements in recent years, all of which require both the US and the other country to increase intellectual property rights enforcement measures beyond the international legal norms in the WTO-TRIPS Agreement. [2]
Talking points from the European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and others have published selected passages ostensibly from the document in response; refer to [3] for useful links.
The ACTA push was launched on October 23, 2007 by US Ambassador Susan C. Schwab and five U.S. members of Congress from the "Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property and Piracy Prevention". A copy of her opening remarks follow:
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
October 23, 2007
• Thank you all for being here. Today we are announcing a major new
initiative in the international fight against IPR counterfeiting and piracy.
• I want to begin by thanking our host today, the Congressional Caucus on
Intellectual Property and Piracy Prevention, and its co-chairs -
Representatives Bono, Feeney, Wexler, and Adam Smith of Washington.
• Thank you also to the Members present, who have done so much to advance
the cause of IP protection, including:
- Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)
- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
• I also want to acknowledge and thank the Ambassadors and representatives
of our trading partners who have joined us today.
[...]
• We are pleased to be working in this broader effort with a number of key
trading partners, large and small, including Canada, the European Union,
Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and Switzerland. We hope and believe
that others will join over time, marking an emerging consensus on stronger
IP enforcement. All who share our ambition and commitment to stronger
IPR enforcement are welcome.
[...]
• With that goal in mind, the U.S. Government is eager to move ahead as fast
as possible with the negotiation of this important new agreement.
• Thank you.
Who is really behind ACTA? Follow the money:
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)[4]
Top four campaign contributions for 2006:
Time Warner $21,000
News Corp $15,000
Sony Corp of America $14,000
Walt Disney Co $13,550
Top two Industries:
TV/Movies/Music $181,050
Lawyers/Law Firms $114,200
Other politicians listed also show significant contributions from IP industries.
Context
United States
Government (bureaucracy)
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Primary language
English
File size in bytes
378251
File type information
Zip archive data, at least v1.0 to extract
Cryptographic identity
SHA256 c339644a0e21ecdc1a8569ec6549850dd31cf811ea89606f07 4856f08b305221
Description (as provided by the original submitter)
1. Not to our knowledge.
2. This document details provisions of a proposed plurilateral trade agreement that would impose strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods. If adopted, a treaty of this form would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime imposing new cooperation requirements upon ISPs, including perfunctory disclosure of customer information, as well as measures restricting the use of online privacy tools. The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime. Talking points from the European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and others have published selected passages ostensibly from this document; refer to http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/acta/ for useful links.
3. Trade officials, copyright claimants.
4. Call Office of the United States Trade Representative, European Commission, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other trade officials including the corresponding offices in Canada, Japan, and Switzerland.
5. Not clear; suspect that one of the parties to the agreement may have had an interest in releasing details to the public.
6. Trade representatives intend to formalize the agreement at the G-8 summit in July 2008.
Know something about this material? Tell the world.
(see other comments first)
Retrieved from "https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282 007%29"
- http://wikileaks.org/wiki/G-8_plurilateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreeme nt_discussion_paper
ACTA is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated by the US, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. The stated goal of the agreement is the international enforcement of strong intellectual property rights through increased cooperation and coordination among international governmental agencies. ACTA does not yet exist, though its ongoing discussions are confirmed by all of the participating governments. What we know of ACTA derives from the following documents:
*
USTR’s Fact Sheet (October, 2007)
*
Notice for Public Comment and “fact sheet” posted by the USTR in February, 2008.
*
The succession of responsive comments filed by March 21, 2008; many of which are linked below.
*
A leaked “discussion paper” that was posted on Wikileaks in late May 2008.
ACTA has three major legs: International Cooperation, Enforcement Practices, and Legal Framework. International cooperation seems to generally encourage information sharing among the customs agencies of the various countries. It is considered one of the less controversial ACTA legs. The enforcement practices section is also nebulous but openly declares its belief in “strong intellectual property protection.” The Legal Framework has the potential to be the most expansive, and, therefore, most problematic, section.
The biggest concern with ACTA is that there has been very little transparency regarding its substance and the process that is putting it into place. Although the USTR invited the public to comment on the agreement, the public was given very little information to comment on. What is more disconcerting is that the leaked discussion paper seems to heavily reflect the wish lists provided in the comments from the industry groups. Also, ACTA is being negotiated outside forums such as WIPO were the negotiation would be more open.
A second major concern with ACTA’s very nature is that it is being designed as an “executive agreement,” rather than as a “treaty.” Executive agreements do not require Congressional approval before they may take effect. As a result, there is little to keep the signatories accountable to the public, especially in an election year that will see the departure of the current executive.
A third major concern with ACTA is that it will be used to “policy launder” its most contested provisions, whatever they may turn out to be. Policy laundering is the use of international treaties or other agreements to justify the passage of controversial legislation within one’s own country. The idea is that, once there is an international agreement committing the US to certain policies, there will be greater leverage applied on US legislators to make those policies a reality. This process was used in the passage of the DMCA in 1998 and is ably described in the ACTA context here.
Further concerns about ACTA are more speculative since they regard its content, which has not been officially released in any format. Nonetheless, some of these concerns include the vague, amorphous manner in which “counterfeit” is used in many of the public comments. These uses run the gamut from undisputedly illegal products to expressly legitimate generic products. The introduction of “piracy” to the discussion further widens ACTA’s potential scope and confuses the distinctions between private uses and commercial scale uses, especially regarding Internet use. It is difficult to discern the precise nature and purpose of ACTA when so many different concepts and definitions are held under the singular banner of “counterfeit.”
A healthy public debate informed by the actual provisions of ACTA will go a long way toward alleviating many of these concerns. To achieve this, it is imperative that the USTR make a draft text of the treaty available to the public. - http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/acta#comments
Details of the proposed multicountry accord are sketchy at best. Speculation is running rampant that, if ratified, the agreement might criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications. - http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/heat-is-on-for.html
So what does this all mean for us? More regulation and more DRM. Just thought you should all know.