ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Threat Level

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: Threat Level

The Heat Is On for Details of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

By Ryan Singel, Kevin Poulsen, Sarah Lai Stirland, Kim Zetter, and David Kravets

ADVERTISEMENTS

Knockoffs

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge are two public interest groups leaving no stone unturned when it comes to trying to uncover details about the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Details of the proposed multicountry accord are sketchy at best. Speculation is running rampant that, if ratified, the agreement might criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.

It may sound farfetched. That's why Public Knowledge and EFF sued (.pdf) the federal government on Thursday, seeking details of the proposed accord between the European Union, the United States, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand.

On Monday, the two groups along with dozens of others also sent letters (.pdf) to trade offices of member-treaty nations, politely asking for the goods.

The accord is expected to be finalized by year's end. The accord's scant details have come from a leaked document (.pdf) on the WikiLeaks site and from comments to the U.S. trade office from intellectual property rights holders.

But whether the EFF and Public Knowledge are legally entitled to the documents via the Freedom of Information Act is another story. The groups cite no case law showing that the Office of United States Trade Representative should cough up, for example, its communications with other nations before a treaty is completed.

That said, here is what is being sought:

1) Participant lists, agendas, presentations and documents distributed at, or received at,
meetings of United States Trade Representative staff with agents and representatives of the recorded music, motion picture, software, video games, electronics, fashion and luxury goods and pharmaceutical industries, concerning the ACTA;

2) Participant lists, agendas, presentations and documents distributed at, or received at,
meetings of USTR staff with agents, representatives and officials of international
entities dealing with the enforcement of intellectual property, including but not
limited to the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Customs
Organization, the World Trade Organization, Interpol, and the World Health
Organization, concerning the ACTA;

3) Participant lists, agendas, presentations and documents distributed at, or received at,
meetings of USTR staff with officials and representatives from governments other
than the United States, concerning the ACTA;

4) Participant lists, agendas, presentations and documents distributed at, or received at,
meetings of USTR staff with other U.S. government agencies, including but not
limited to, meetings with staff, agents and representatives of the Copyright Office of
the Library of Congress, concerning the ACTA;

5) Copies of all other agency memoranda, briefing notes, and analysis concerning the
ACTA.

6) Copies of emails exchanged between staff of the USTR and officials and
representatives of other U.S. government agencies in relation to substance of the
ACTA;

7) Copies of emails exchanged between staff of the USTR and officials and
representatives of governments other than the United States in relation to substance of
the ACTA;

8) Copies of emails exchanged between staff of the USTR and officials and
representatives of international entities engaged in intellectual property enforcement
(including those listed in paragraph 2 above) in relation to substance of the ACTA;
and

9) Copies of emails exchanged between staff of the USTR and representatives and
agents of the industries listed in paragraph 1 above, in relation to substance of the
ACTA.

Photo: Flyinace2000/Flickr

See Also:


Full post as published by Threat Level on September 18, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0032 secs (from cache 10/31/26 05:32:53)