Australia comes clean on ACTA role

 

No intention of changing Australian law.

The Australian Government has no intention of changing its domestic laws to harmonise with an international treaty on copyright, according to a spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

Questioned by iTnews on Australia's role in the ACTA (Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), the DFAT spokesman said Australian negotiators are only participating in the talks in the hope that other parties to the agreement will meet existing Australian standards.

Advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Australia's own Internet Industry Association (IIA) have long held fears that the ACTA will seek to introduce a global system of copyright protection that compels Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to take responsibility for the actions of their subscribers - to the extent of cutting them off after three warnings.

In the latest leak from the ACTA talks, several parties called for ISPs to be forced to hand over customer details at the request of a rights holder, without any mention of legal oversight from a court or police.

In its responses to iTnews, the Australian Government has acknowledged that "the aim of the internet provisions in the ACTA is to encourage ISPs to deter copyright piracy over the internet."

But that will not require legislative changes in Australia, the DFAT spokesman said.

Crucially, "Australia already has a high standard of IP protection (including a safe harbour scheme) that many others are yet to meet, and seeks an agreement capable of broad acceptance.  The Government does not seek to drive change in domestic law through ACTA."

Further, the Government is not compelled to sign the treaty should the 27 parties to it reach an agreement.

"A decision will be taken on whether to join the treaty when it is finalised and only after further public and Parliamentary scrutiny," the spokesman said.

Legislative change is being sought in particular by the film industry, after its trade group AFACT lost a key court case in the Federal Court in which it accused ISP iiNet of authorising copyright infringement on its network by not preventing it. This case is now the subject of an appeal.

"Australia's existing laws encourage ISPs and copyright owners to work together to deter copyright infringements, and provide a possible model for the ACTA," the DFAT spokesman said.  

"Under Australia's current laws, there is no requirement for ISPs to monitor the activities of internet users or to supply customer details without a court order."

No secrets here

DFAT also challenged the assertion that the ACTA discussions have been held under a veil of secrecy, telling iTnews that the Australian Government's hands were tied in terms of providing a running commentary. DFAT itself has attempted to be as transparent as possible under the limits of the agreement.

"The Australian Government is committed to transparency for ACTA negotiations, within the parameters of confidentiality usual in trade negotiations and established in ACTA by a confidentiality agreement," the spokesman said. "Release of the text by Australia is not possible under the terms of its participation in negotiation.

"We support continuing efforts to ensure transparency in consultation with negotiating partners."

The spokesman recommended concerned citizens keep watch on the DFAT website, several pages of which are used to "ensure that all Australian stakeholders have equal access to information about ACTA negotiations and contentious issues."

The spokesman also noted that DFAT has invited submissions on Australia's participation in ACTA negotiations since late 2007, and still has an open door to "any stakeholder requesting a briefing."


Australia comes clean on ACTA role
"And now for some actual facts from someone who was "briefed" by DFAT. They do intend for local and international changes, and it is evident that we are simply America's slave, but we already knew ..."
By BrendanM
 
 
Readers of this article also read...
 
Comments: 5
EMwyres
Mar 11, 2010 9:43 AM
There's a perfectly good reason why DFAT would say that they don't necessarily have to sign on to the treaty! The leaked ACTA draft explicity defines that no country that is a party to the treaty can mandate internet filtering. If Australia signed on, Senator Conroy's mandatory filter would not be possible under the terms of the treaty - so they'd end up looking like fools..........wait, hang on, they're already doing that!
longsword
Mar 11, 2010 10:33 AM
Sorry but if we have no intention of signing why are we even there at the discussions. Waste of tax payers money
ITrant
Mar 11, 2010 10:41 AM
We expect DFAT to hold the Australian line at these negotiations - this covers commercial piracy ONLY. That's why they are attending.

The best way to do that is to enlist public support, like New Zealand has done. DFAT's actions to date have more 'passive' and more indicative of an acquiescing partner to the negotiations.

Nice work IT News, keep the pressure on, for all our sakes. Sure we're not going to sign the treaty, really??

I guess it's possible to have public consultations without publishing details?? Maybe that's how these things work - if you can guess what we're talking about, we'll take your submissions?? It's almost as if DFAT forget who they work for - the Australian public, in case you were confused.

You'll notice that the 2007 call for submissions does not include
• CD and DVD disc piracy
• internet distribution and information technology
Perhaps this commercial piracy forum has been hijacked by powerful players.

You'll notice the strong commitment to personal privacy and application of the agreement only to commercial piracy. This is absolutely as it should be. AFACT seem to think otherwise. Making safe harbour in any way conditional is also inconsistent with this tenet.

Grey areas in implementation and practice aside, Australia does indeed have adequate laws and that's an admirable stance. It's a pity that's not the game AFACT and those advocating 3 strikes at these negotiations are playing. Head out of the sand DFAT. We've seen country after country introduce 3 strikes laws and powerful elements are pushing for it right here in Australia. 'Negotiations are private' just doesn't cut it in these circumstances.

We look forward to hearing from EFF and IIA after their 'stakeholder briefings'. Go for it people! Surely they will at least be shown the proceedings of the ACTA discussions 'in private'.
anonymous
Mar 11, 2010 11:55 AM

"No intent to change Australian law".
They don't need to, they can just declare that "we have to meet our obligations under the treaty".

"No secrets here".
But they can't give us the details, because it's all confidential.

Maybe we shouldn't be too hard on bodies like DFAT (& ACMA and DBCDE as applicable) since they are carrying out the orders of the govt. So it would be good if the politicians involved remembered they are answerable to us and not vice versa.
BrendanM
Mar 12, 2010 9:24 AM
And now for some actual facts from someone who was "briefed" by DFAT. They do intend for local and international changes, and it is evident that we are simply America's slave, but we already knew that.

http://blog.serkowski.net/2010/02/acta-dfat-and-foi/
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
Photos: Google I/O 2013
Evolution not revolution.
 
Photos: NextDC builds S1 data centre
Prepares for September launch.
 
QLD Govt contributed to payroll project 'death spiral'
Inquiry hears from independent expert.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
eftpos to trial "mobile wallet"
May 17, 2013
eftpos, the operator of Australia's most widely used debit card system will soon start a mobile ...
New iiNet 4G phone plans include free calls between phones on same account
May 16, 2013
iiNet's new 4G mobile business plans provide free calls between handsets on the same account as ...
Revealed: $1,000+ for Microsoft's Surface Pro in Australia, with keyboard
May 16, 2013
You'll pay more than $1,000 for Microsoft Surface Pro with a keyboard, Microsoft has officially ...
Is this the future of business laptops?
May 15, 2013
The Lenovo ThinkPad Helix is a fully-fledged business laptop running Windows 8 Pro, but detach ...
Federal Budget 2013: So what are you going to be required to pay?
May 15, 2013
Opinion: Want a handy summary of the 2013 federal budget? Here is one by Newcastle accountants ...
Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1602

Vote