Michael Geist reports on the leaked ACTA Internet Chaper that was previously available to Hollywood lobbyists but is now available to everyone. He says “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. [...] the treaty may not specifically require three-strikes, but it clearly encourages it as the model to qualify as a safe harbour from liability.”
According to people on Twitter (who are never wrong) the Judge has ruled that iiNet were not guilty in the landmark case about Guilt Upon Accusation in Australia. In 2008 AFACT, a cousin of NZFACT,accused iiNet of allowing infringement, saying they “had ignored requests from the companies to discipline its customers for breaking copyright laws” iiNet said that they “cannot disconnect a customer’s phone line based on an allegation. The alleged offence needs to be pursued by the police and proven in the courts” The Judge has been quoted saying that “I find that iiNet simply can’t be seen as approving infringement” and “the mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement”. AFACT has been ordered to pay iiNets court costs. The EFA say that this decision protects internet users whereas others simply say that Film industry’s case was torn to shreds.
Michael Geist reports : “The summary statement from the Mexico ACTA talks has been posted online. As predicted, it is a bland statement confirming discussions on civil enforcement, border measures, and Internet issues. It also includes the usual discussion around transparency and the desire to conclude ACTA in 2010.” The CFF have been told that New Zealand has called for more transparency, joining the UK Government, the EU Parliament, Australia, and Canada. However, while there’s a lot of talk about transparency, we have yet to see any serious moves to inform the public.