EU Parliament tells USA's USTR it will not participate in secret treaty negotiations and calls for public release of ACTA documents.

The EU voted 663:13 in favour of the following:

1. Reminds that the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all stages of international negotiations;

2. Expresses its concern over the lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations which contradicts the letter and the spirit of the TFEU; is deeply concerned that no legal base has been established before the start of the ACTA negotiations and that no parliamentary approval has been asked for the mandate;

3. Calls on the Commission and Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries in accordance with the Treaty and the Regulation 1049/2001 on Public Access to Documents;

4. Calls on the Commission and Council to pro-actively engage with ACTA partners to rule out any further negotiations of an a piori confidential nature and to timely and entirely inform Parliament about its initiatives in this regard; expects the Commission to make proposals already prior to the next negotiation round in New Zealand in April 2010 and to demand that the issue of transparency is put on the agenda of that meeting, and to refer to Parliament the outcome of this round immediately after its conclusion;

209.85.175.132Source: 209.85.175.132Ko te putanga html tēnei o te kōnae http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/ebc0a1f5-6c04-48e5-9215-ef96d06898c0.cmr. Ka mahia aunoanoatia e G o o g l e he putanga html o ngā tuhinga i te wā ngōki i te tukutuku.    From Google's submission on TCF code practise

Section 92A puts users’ procedural and fundamental rights at risk, by threatening to terminate users’ Internet access based on mere allegations and reverse the burden of proof onto a user to establish there was no infringement. …

Copyright law is often complex and context sensitive, and only a court is qualified to adjudicate allegations of copyright infringement. Indeed, in Google’s experience, there are serious issues regarding the improper use and inaccuracy of copyright notices by rights holders. In this context, the responsibility should not fall to ISPs to determine cases of infringement.    

New Zealand has a new Copyright Act, that goes into effect on 28th February 2009

In amongst the act is section 92a: ISPs are required to disconnect those accussed of copyright infringement. This was worrying, and during select committee discussion this was modified to have penalties when the accuser turns out to be wrong. (see Controversial copyright clause to be amended computerworld.co.nz)

At the last minute the penalties for wrong accusations was removed. So, the copyright act passed, with section 92a allowing copyright holders to accuse anyone of infringement, without requiring proof - and ISPs are forced to comply and disconnect service. You don't get a trial, you're just cut off and no more internet for you.

No more email, no booking airlines, no more buying books on the internet - you're cut off based only on an accusation. If they decided to accuse me, I would not be able to continue my occupation as an Open Source programmer / gadget wrangler. I'd have to give up and probably retrain as a barrista.

This is New Zealand law. You can't make this shit up!