ACTA - It's bad. Very bad

A draft of the ACTA treaty has been leaked just as government representatives of the world begin secret negotiations in Korea today. This treaty originates in the USA, and is being negotiated with many countries including New Zealand.

Boingboing have some analysis of the leaked draft::

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

Electronic Freedom Foundation release has further analysis of today's draft leak:

First, the US government appears to be pushing for Three Strikes to be part of the new global IP enforcement regime which ACTA is intended to create – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European Parliament and by national policymakers in several ACTA negotiating countries, and has never been proposed by US legislators.

Second, US negotiators are seeking policies that will harm the US technology industry and citizens across the globe. Three Strikes/ Graduated Response is the top priority of the entertainment industry. The content industry has sought this since the European office of the Motion Picture Association began touting Three Strikes as ISP “best practice” in 2005. Indeed, the MPAAand the RIAA expressly asked for ACTA to include obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes policies in their 2008 submissions to the USTR. The USTR apparently listened and agreed, disregarding the concerns raised by both the US’s major technology and telecom companies and industry associations (who dwarf the US entertainment industry), and public interest groups and libraries.

From NZ Computerworld today: ACTA update: A question of sovereignty, say law professor

A leaked chapter of the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) could "eliminate sovereign choice on domestic copyright policy", Canadian internet law specialist Michael Geist says.
Computerworld reported the leak and apparent contradictions between the new text and statements last year from New Zealand MED negotiator George Wardle. Last year, Wardle told Computerworld the treaty was aimed at piracy on a commercial scale.

Internet NZ's press release today: InternetNZ alarmed by latest ACTA leaks

"Because the ACTA process is secret, none of us can know the precise details of what is being discussed.

"New Zealand should take a stand against any attempt to hijack the negotiations.

"Big music and movie interests, and other content producers, are conducting a global campaign to put their interests ahead of citizens' rights to use the Internet and to not be subject to unreasonable and arbitrary penalties that do nothing for the public interest.

and the artists at Creative Freedom Foundation once again today say "NOT IN MY NAME!" - ACTA Treaty Draft Leaks, calls for Guilt Upon Accusation And More..

Michael Geist, Canadian Copyright law expert blogged today:

The Internet chapter raises two additional issues. On the international front, it provides firm confirmation that the treaty is not a counterfeiting trade, but a copyright treaty. These provisions involve copyright policy as no reasonable definition of counterfeiting would include these kinds of provisions. On the domestic front, it raises serious questions about the Canadian negotiation mandate. Negotations from Foreign Affairs are typically constrained by either domestic law, a bill before the House of Commons, or the negotiation mandate letter. Since these provisions dramatically exceed current Canadian law and are not found in any bill presently before the House, Canadians should be asking whether the negotiation mandate letter has envisioned such dramatic changes to domestic copyright law. When combined with the other chapters that include statutory damages, search and seizure powers for border guards, anti-camcording rules, and mandatory disclosure of personal information requirements, it is clear that there is no bigger IP issue today than the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors this week in Korea.