Questions

PublicACTA Intermediaries section of declaration - second draft paragraph

I believe the wording needs to be sharpened to avoid the case of say a library being held responsible for something being created via its site.

Because as worded, a Library could be creating content as well as letting other enter content on its site.


Cherry Gordon

inf4nz@paradise.net.

What would you say about the 3 strikes rule to the 79% of people globally that think Internet access is a fundamental right?

According to a recent BBC study, nearly 4 out of 5 people across 26 countries think that Internet access is a fundamental right. Progressive countries like Finland have made rulings supporting this as a human right already.

Would ACTA be made public through an Official Information Act request?

What efforts are being made to consult with the New Zealand public on ACTA? And with New Zealand's creators and consumers of the arts in particular?

Given that this treaty has the potential to impact on a large number of New Zealanders, it's essential that the public are informed and their views taken into account. People involved with the arts in New Zealand also need to be widely consulted, rather than relying on commercial organisations that claim to represent them.

Is it fair to refer to the secrecy of the ACTA process as policy laundering?

If not, can you provide specific examples of other international 'intellectual property' related treaties negotiated with a similar level of secrecy?

Will you publish the current text of ACTA?

If not, will NZ withdraw from a clearly undemocratic and therefore illegitimate process?

How has MED formulated its negotiating position?

In particular, MED's advice during #s92a and regarding video format shifting in the copyright bill appears out-of-touch with significant community concerns and rapidly developing technology (esp. iPhone, Tivo). 

Aside from mandating changes in legislation, what actual trade incentives does ACTA offer to New Zealand and what are the actual economic benefits to individual New Zealanders?

ACTA is being negotiated in secrecy under the position that it is a Trade Agreement. However, as ACTA appears to be largely about mandating legislative changes of member states, why is it not being negotiated as an International Treaty? Given all the publicly available information, including leaked drafts, the content of ACTA appears to be an International Treaty masquerading as a Trade Agreement (mandatory legislative changes to civil and criminal law and no actual trade incentives).

If ACTA is implemented in its current (leaked) form, what steps are being taken to ensure legitimate internet use is not impeded?

There is a blistering pace of change in entertainment and the internet. New business models are emerging. Creators and artists are discovering and utilising new direct sales channels, and many have found value in allowing more open use of their content to generate ticket and merchandise sales.

What provisions does ACTA make for protection of personal privacy and freedom of speech?

Based on information to date, it is hard not to assume that the majority of ACTA provisions relating to copyright infringement are designed to protect large copyright holders. What (if any) counter provisions are in place to ensure that these terms do not result in degraded privacy (e.g. deep packet inspection) for individual internet users?

What about ACTA makes it such that it needs to be negotiated in secret, when similar treaties have been negotiated with a much greater degree of transparency?

Why can draft texts not be released to the public, or at least to representatives of affected industries, or at the very least to members of parliament?

What is the possible relationship between ACTA and a free trade agreement with the USA?

Is it likely we will have to make concessions which are opposite to the outcome of the recent public consultation on section 92A, in order to achieve an FTA with the US, as Prime Minister Key suggested in March of this year?

Syndicate content