Digital Copyright

By an overwhelming vote of 663 to 13, the European Parliament passed a resolution that would require the EU Commission to end the secrecy that has enveloped the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). 

The vote is a stinging rebuke of the "lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations," according to the resolution.  Writing on the story, the New Zealand Herald says:

EU Parliamentarians have long been incensed that 'no parliamentary approval has been asked for the mandate' (to negotiate an ACTA agreement). As such, the EU Parliament is demanding that they be 'fully informed at all stages of the negotiations.'

The resolution is blunt about the course of action it will take if the EU doesn't reverse course and open up the negotiation process:

Unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives.

As CDT has previously written, ACTA selectively exports U.S. law.  In that piece, CDT's Andrew McDairmid writes:

The revised Google Books settlement submitted for Court approval late on Friday still does very little to protect reader privacy. When the settlement was withdrawn for revisions last month, CDT and other advocates proposed that Google use the opportunity to more fully address the privacy risks we had identified in the original settlement—and effectively take privacy concerns off the table. While the amended settlement does include one positive revision on the privacy front, it appears Google for the most part did not take our advice. Reader privacy remains very much on the table.

CDT and other advocates sent a letter to President Obama today once again urging greater transparency as the US negotiates a new Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). While the administration has permitted some advocates (including my colleague David Sohn) to review the US-authored Internet portion of the current draft under strict non-disclosure rules, such limited access does not allow for full analyses of the agreement and its implications (even by other CDT staff members, much less the broader public interest community). Some leaks have surfaced which suggest that ACTA could require DMCA-style notice-and-takedown and anti-circumvention laws, or even graduated-response obligations on ISPs (see coverage here and here). The fact remains, though, that we don’t know what we don’t know, and a full discussion of whatever obligations ACTA would impose is impossible unless the Obama administration draws back the curtain on the drafting and negotiations. Any proposal that could lead to the denial of people’s Internet access—even if they have violated copyright law—would raise very serious constitutional problems under our First Amendment, and should not be even considered without a broad and open public discussion.

Earlier today, Judge Denny Chin approved an aggressive schedule for the parties in the Google Books lawsuit to submit an amended settlement agreement. Michael Boni, speaking for all parties, indicated that the parties have been hard at work since the Department of Justice raised concerns about the original settlement (arrived at after years of negotiation), and that a revised settlement will be ready in early November. Judge Chin consequently set a deadline of November 9. While no other court dates were set, the parties did indicate that the deadline for rightsholders to claim their copyright interest in works that Google has scanned would be extended from January 5, 2010 to June 5, 2010.

Boni argued that extensive additional notice to the class of rightsholders will not be necessary, as the amendments will all benefit the class. Based on this, he asserted the parties' desire to have a final fairness hearing-formerly scheduled for today-in late December or early January. It will be interesting to see if Judge Chin agrees upon seeing the revised settlement, especially since much of the commentary on the settlement, including that of the DOJ, has raised questions about the adequacy of the prior notice to the class members, given the sheer size of the class. <!--more-->

CDT, EFF, and other commenters on the Google Books settlement sent a letter to Google's lawyers yesterday asking the company to reconsider the privacy protections it will build into Google Books, taking advantage of the last-minute extension in the case. Google and the authors and publishers who sued the company are currently renegotiating the proposed settlement in order to resolve concerns raised by the Department of Justice last month [http://thepublicindex.org/docs/letters/usa.pdf]. CDT filed a brief on the original settlement, arguing that it should be approved, but recommending that strong, enforceable privacy safeguards be put in place. Yesterday's letter asks that Google reconsider our recommendations, and similar ones from other advocates, in light of the extension.

Recently, CDT Policy Analyst, Andrew McDiarmid spoke at the Washington Legal Foundation about privacy issues in the Google Books Settlement. The video of Andrew's discussion, as well as several other videos from the event, are available here.

CDT has released our analysis of the privacy implications of the settlement in the Google Book Search lawsuit, which includes a detailed set of privacy recommendations for Google to consider as the service is developed.

As David Sohn initially wrote in October, CDT believes the settlement has a lot to offer the reading public, namely dramatically expanding access to the millions of books Google has scanned and indexed. Such a shift, though, does not come without concerns, particularly with respect to traditional the library values of patron privacy and intellectual freedom. With the release of today's report, CDT joins our colleagues at the EFF, the ACLU, and UC-Berkeley's Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic, in calling for strong privacy protections in the expanded service.