Delusional EU ACTA negotiator claims that three strikes has never been proposed at ACTA

Michael Geist sez,
The European Commission hosted a fascinating consultation on ACTA [ed: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret, far-reaching copyright treaty] today. Luc Devigne, the lead European negotiator, opened with a brief presentation and proceeded to field questions for over an hour.

One of the big issues of the day was three strikes [ed: The idea that your whole family would have its internet connection severed if one person in your household was accused of copyright infringement] with Devigne repeatedly stating that the EU was bound by EU law and that it was not supporting any inclusion of three strikes in ACTA. In fact, Devigne went further in claiming that no one had even proposed the possibility of three strikes. This despite the fact that a memo produced by his own department stated: "EU understands that footnote 6 provides for an example of a reasonable policy to address the unauthorized storage or transmission of protected materials. However, the issue of termination of subscriptions and accounts has been subject to much debate in several Member States. Furthermore, the issue of whether a subscription or an account may be terminated without prior court decision is still subject to negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of Telecoms Ministers regarding the Telecoms Package."

This refers to the footnote in the ACTA text proposed by the U.S. which states "an example of such a policy [ISP policy] is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and/or accounts on the service provider's system or network of repeat infringers."

The EU ACTA Consultation: European Commission vs. European Parliament (Thanks, Michael!)


  1. Sufficiently evasive and indirect wording gives plausible deniability. Standard tactic in these situations. “It’s only an example.” “I didn’t read the footnotes.”

    If this were to work the way the MAFIAA wants, there would be no more internet, never mind ISPs. After all, permanent disconnections would eventually affect everybody.

    This isn’t going to happen. Sane countries may or may not sign this garbage, but when it comes to losing jobs and businesses of their own for the sake of a few Hollywood lawyers, they’ll put their money where the votes are.

  2. Can’t we refer to this as the Kim Jong Ill rule instead?.
    If you are convicted of an anti state crime in North Korea, three generations of your family must suffer in prison with you.

  3. Thank you, Michael and Cory and everyone else who is tracking this. I have sent my letters, and I have tried talking to friends about this, but it’s just not on the radar for many.

    I appreciate everyone who is keeping after these bastards. They want to just shove this through without anyone noticing; only your efforts are preventing that from happening. So yeah, thanks…

  4. You don’t understand; nobody actually said the ‘three strikes’ magic phrase, therefore he is not lying. Simple!

    And slightly off-topic, just how did the record industry and movie industry get to take over the entire process anyway? Are politicians for sale *that* cheaply?

  5. @ #4, tim: Politicians are not available for cheap. WHich is why the massive entertainment is the one taking over the entire decision making process. The population that will be afflicted by ACTA has nowhere near the funds or singular to compete with BPI, the MCAA or their component corporations. It’s not the cheapness of politicians but deep pockets of the industry that’s co-opting the entire process.

Comments are closed.