ACTA leak shows US Trade Rep lied about "3-strikes"

Michael Geist sez, "Your earlier post did a great job of highlighting the latest ACTA [ed: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret and unprecedented global copyright treaty] leak. I've just posted on the implications for the three key issues: notice-and-takedown, DMCA anti-circumvention, and three strikes.

"The three strikes is key – the draft chapter finally puts to rest the question of whether ACTA in its current form would establish a 'three strikes and you're' out model [ed: if someone in your house is accused of three acts of copyright infringement, your whole house loses internet access]. The USTR has recently emphatically stated that it does not establish a mandatory three strikes system. The draft reveals that this is correct, but the crucial word is mandatory. The draft U.S. chapter does require intermediaries to play a more aggressive role in policing their networks and the specific model cited is the three-strikes approach. In other words, the treaty may not specifically require three-strikes, but it clearly encourages it as the model to qualify as a safe harbour from liability.

"This leaks shows how deceptive the USTR has been on this issue – on the one hand seeking to assure the public that there is no three-strikes and on the other specifically citing three strikes as its proposed policy model. Given the past U.S. history with anti-circumvention – which started with general language and now graduates to very specific requirements – there is little doubt that the same dynamic is at play with respect to three strikes."

The ACTA Leak: Revealing Deceptive USTR Claims on Three Strikes

(Thanks, Michael!)