Comments on: How will ACTA affect UK copyright law?

By: How ACTA would affect you: FAQ | myfaq.co.uk

How ACTA would affect you: FAQ | myfaq.co.uk — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:10:30 +0000

[...] watered down, ACTA still pushes for statutory damages. ACTA will export the U.S.’ system of damages to jurisdictions that do not have statutory [...]

By: How ACTA would affect you: FAQ | ZDNet

How ACTA would affect you: FAQ | ZDNet — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:11:54 +0000

[...] watered down, ACTA still pushes for statutory damages. ACTA will export the U.S.’ system of damages to jurisdictions that do not have statutory [...]

By: ACTA: thought for FUD, Part 1 | Copyhype

ACTA: thought for FUD, Part 1 | Copyhype — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:44:58 +0000

[...] In short: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” [...]

By: Mike Holderness

Mike Holderness — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:22:50 +0000

More…

The US proposal for a limitation on remedies against governments (new IIRC: General obligaions 4) is interesting. Anyone have any idea what they have in mind?

It’s hard to comment realistically on the obligation to provide criminal remedies while the negotiators are so far apart. The EU proposal that they shall not apply to end users is interesting, to say the least…

By: Mike Holderness

Mike Holderness — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:39:01 +0000

I finally found time to read the negotiating draft, from the perspective of an individual creator with rights to enforce (mostly against corporations rather than individuals)…

1) I am not convinced that the current wording would lead to higher damages in the UK. Yes, 2.2.3 permits the US to continue its (unique) régime of statutory damages: the odds against these being introduced anywhere else are steep.

But 2.2.2 does not require parties to offer damages for flagrant abuse. This is rarely used in the UK: but from the perspective of me seeking redress from Moloch Media plc, rather than Moloch purusing a downloader, it’s important.

2) The current draft tends to dilute protection of individual creators worldwide, in that it does not require parties to provide penalties for use “prejudicial to their honour or reputation”. If a fascist party wants to lift these very words for its manifesto, I want to stop it, thank you.

Of course this is due to the US’s (practically unique) lack of protection for such “moral rights” and the odds against the US allowing them to be mentioned are steep.

By: Lilian Edwards

Lilian Edwards — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:57:34 +0000

I think 2.1.2 will (unfortunately) be covered by DEA s 17 when / if they make the regs for it.

By: Internetitas: Telecom & Lulz Vol.1 | Crítica Pura

Internetitas: Telecom & Lulz Vol.1 | Crítica Pura — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:28:13 +0000

[...] expertos ya publicaron sus comentarios acerca de los efectos de ACTA en sus respectivos países (Inglaterra, Australia) y por si fuera poco, el fin de semana James Love de Knowledge Ecology International, [...]

By: Numéro 14 – Semaine du 12 au 18 juillet 2010 — Valhalla Revue

Numéro 14 – Semaine du 12 au 18 juillet 2010 — Valhalla Revue — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:00:37 +0000

[...] prévu, au début des négociations, que de telles modifications ne seraient pas nécessaires. Un commentateur conclut qu’il faut être “effrayé, très effrayé”(en) des modifications que les dispositions civiles et pénales du traité pourraient apporter en [...]