Mandatory filtering by ISPs would go beyond existing U.S. law, as would a mandatory "three strikes" approach to termination of repeat infringers. The U.S. Government is not seeking these or any other obligations that would go beyond U.S. law in the ACTA.Siy laments "that the lack of transparency in the ACTA process is allowing rumor and speculation to rule the debate, rather than an intelligently informed discussion of the issues." I have much sympathy for that view, and would only hope that ACTA's opponents would absorb the facts he has presented, rather than engaging in the wild and inaccurate speculation that has so far dominated the debate. It would have been helpful for USTR to have put out such a clear statement months ago, but I guess better late than never.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
USTR: No mandatory 'three strikes' or filtering in ACTA
Via Public Knowledge comes further confirmation of what I've been saying for months: the hysterical claims by opponents of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ("ACTA") that the still-under-negotiation pact would impose a mandatory, French-style "three strikes" policy on ISPs are simply false. Public Knowledge's Sherwin Siy asked Stanford McCoy, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation, "whether or not ACTA would require mandatory filtering or cutting off Internet connections." Siy quotes McCoy's clear and unambiguous response: