A new draft proposal for ACTA, the treaty that's being secrectly negotiated between a number of different countries with input from entertainment industry lobbyists, has been posted on the Wikileaks website.
Although still far from complete, this version of the proposal, being written jointly by representatives of the US and Japan, would require some significant changes to intellectual property law, and not for the better.
Perhaps the most disturbing part has to do with how damages are determined. In one section it suggests each copyrighted work distributed should count as a lost sale, with damages based on that assumption.
Even more disconcerting is the suggestion that the copyright holder should be responsible for determining the value, and simply present their figures to the court. Anyone who has spent any time examining the amount of money the entertainment industry claims to lose annually from infringement can see how problematic this is.
Ironically, the proposal suggests that non-governmental intellectual property experts should be consulted on the treaty's language. It recommends "seeking input from non-governmental persons or groups, particularly with respect to best practices in the field of intellectual property enforcement."
And yet it was just a couple of months ago that the office of the US Trade Representative was claiming the treaty's details were a matter of national security. It seems unlikely there are a lot of IP experts with the clearance to look at the treaty, unless of course it's just an excuse to keep it secret.
Perhaps the most disturbing part has to do with how damages are determined. In one section it suggests each copyrighted work distributed should count as a lost sale, with damages based on that assumption.
Even more disconcerting is the suggestion that the copyright holder should be responsible for determining the value, and simply present their figures to the court. Anyone who has spent any time examining the amount of money the entertainment industry claims to lose annually from infringement can see how problematic this is.
Ironically, the proposal suggests that non-governmental intellectual property experts should be consulted on the treaty's language. It recommends "seeking input from non-governmental persons or groups, particularly with respect to best practices in the field of intellectual property enforcement."
And yet it was just a couple of months ago that the office of the US Trade Representative was claiming the treaty's details were a matter of national security. It seems unlikely there are a lot of IP experts with the clearance to look at the treaty, unless of course it's just an excuse to keep it secret.
Topics
Lawsuits & Legislation
