[LINK] itNews: 'Aust Govt defends against attacks on ACTA'

[Richard Chirgwin]

Roger,

I watched the hearing, but for the life of me couldn't bear to write 
about it, on the basis that nothing unexpected was said by anyone, and 
nothing new emerged.

The main thrust of DFAT's argument was that in its opinion, ACTA 
requires no new laws. If that is true, I suppose he's right: if (say) 
there's no change to the Copyright Act then what's to worry about?

Actually, I think there may be a small error in John Hilvert's report. 
I'll have to wait for the transcript, but I thought George Mina's 
reference to treaties went beyond copyright and IP treaties - I think he 
was trying to reassure the committee that even treaties covering stuff 
like human rights did not lose any force as a result of ACTA. But I may 
be wrong; the hearing was excessively dull, and badly in need of a 
questioner like John Faulkner. Senator Ludlam, I'm afraid, is nowhere 
near as good!

RC

On 20/03/12 9:08 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> [According to the usually reliable reporter below, DFAT says ACTA
> would not infringe people's civil liberties, the freedom of the
> Internet or require ISPs to monitor activities of individuals.
>
> [I've not done the hard yards of analysing the long series of drafts,
> let alone whatever the current iteration is.  But my impression was
> the *opposite* of what DFAT says.
>
> [Have I suckered for anti-ACTA propaganda, or do we have public
> servants who lie through their teeth?]
>
>
> Government defends against ACTA attacks
> John Hilvert
> Mar 19, 2012 4:02 PM (16 hours ago)
> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/294195,government-defends-against-acta-attacks.aspx
>
> The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has espoused the
> positive benefits of Australia ratifying the
> proposed Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) to a parliamentary
> committee.
>
> DFAT trade policy assistant secretary George Mina told the committee
> that the ACTA did not overstep existing treaties and laws on
> copyright and intellectual property, and would in fact provide a
> higher level of certainty for Australians that do business in
> overseas markets.
>
> "Activities that were legal before ACTA is ratified will be legal
> after ACTA is ratified," he said.
>
> Mina said ACTA would not infringe people's civil liberties, the
> freedom of the Internet or require ISPs to monitor activities of
> individuals.
>
> "There will be no censorship on the Internet or require ISPs to
> prevent copyright infringement or terminate their internet
> connections," he added.
>
> Mena argued that Australian negotiators took note of concerns raised
> around ISP liabilities.
>
> "There was a great deal of concern in our ISP community as to the
> potential impact of this on the safe harbour regime under our
> Copyright Act," Mina said.
>
> "We spent a great deal of time with members of the Internet Industry
> and representatives of users concerned about the impact of this
> agreement on our legislative setup.
>
> "I can also attest to the fact that there was a degree of
> satisfaction expressed by representatives of the Internet Industry as
> a result."
>
> Mina said that 30 of the 37 countries negotating the ACTA agreed with
> the draft text of the treaty. At least six countries are required to
> ratify ACTA for it come into force, he said.
>
> He played down reported accounts of concerns in some European
> countries about ACTA's impact on local laws.
>
> "No country in the EU has made a definitive decision not to ratify
> ACTA," he said. "Some countries are pausing while they reflect
> further, is our understanding of the situation."
>
> He said that the Australian Government worked hard to achieve a
> process that was transparent, inclusive and open, and that it
> involved more than 150 stakeholders.
>
> Open to change
>
> The Australian Digital Alliance (ADA) raised concerns before the
> committee that the ACTA assumed the current state of intellectual
> property laws was ideal and would only entrench them.
>
> In response, Mina said the ACTA was written in broad and flexible
> terms and could accommodate IP reforms that Australians may wish to
> pursue.
>
> He pointed to ACTA's Article 2 which states that each party to the
> treaty is free to determine the appropriate method of implementing
> the provisions of the agreement within its own legal system and
> practise.
>
> A second round of hearings before the Joint Select Committee on
> Treaties is scheduled for Friday March 23.
>
> Disclosure: John Hilvert was employed by the Internet Industry
> Association at the time of ACTA deliberations."
>
>