Talk:Wikilegal/ACTA

Unclear wording

I can't figure out what this means: "ACTA mandates that countries enact anti-circumvention provisions, but only permit countries to create exemptions. " Can someone with a clearer understanding please explain? --Slashme 04:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a clear understanding of any legal stuff, but my (wholly uninformed) interpretation is that means "countries MUST implement anti-circumvention laws [i.e. outlaw circumventing DRM - digital rights management]; this core-principle must exist in law, and each country is only allowed to implement specific exceptions to this law [an example of an exception: allow users to bypass DRM, to legally create a backup of a CD/DVD]" Arfed 15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ACTA Article 27.6 et seq. has sections that are similar to the U.S.'s DMCA rules against distributing or using tools to circumvent DRM. The DMCA has some important exemptions. ACTA would allow a country to enact similar exceptions, but it may not require exemptions. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"The final version[2] of ACTA contains substantive problems, but it is unclear how these will be implemented in U.S. law." - shouldn't that be "unclear how these will be resolved" or "unclear how it [i.e. ACTA] will be implemented"? --Slashme 04:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

One issue is whether ACTA's obligations are consistent with national law. Since ACTA was joined by an executive agreement in the U.S., it may not automatically change U.S. law. Ron Kirk from the USTR argues that ACTA is fully consistent with current U.S. law. The Congressional Research Service did a report for Senator Wyden in 2010 on a previous draft of ACTA concluding that it was inconsistent with U.S. law. In Australia, DFAT did a National Interest Analysis on ACTA concluding that it was consistent with existing Australian law. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

European Court of Justice decision C-360/10

Yesterday the European Court of Justice decided in its decision that preventive filtering systems hindering users in exchanging illegal download link might be a violation of European Union law. The court held that such filter systems are potentially infringing the fundamental rights of hosting service provider’s service users, namely the right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to some law analysts this decision could affect ACTA as well. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! Cheers, - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)