- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
The folks over at Wikileaks have been receiving a lot of press lately. The organization, which began with a small group of Chinese dissidents seeking to disclose secret information about abuses in their government, has grown exponentially, now hosting millions of documents in an attempt to become “an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.” Editors include many journalists who attempt to verify any information given to the site before posting.
In the past week, German police raided the home of the Wikileaks.de domain owner and shut down the Wikileaks.de domain. However, Wikileaks remains accessible because it has registered domains in many countries. Furthermore, the main page, Wikileaks.org, still loads in Germany.
Nevertheless, the leaks continue to flow. On April 11, 2009, the site released the most recent drafts of classified Japanese, European, and American proposals for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) , which is currently being negotiated. The treaty was classified on national security grounds. Previous leaked drafts of the treaty have been criticized for being “all wrong” and for turning the Internet into a “virtual police state.”
As each successive draft becomes closer to finalization, many citizens of Western democracies have questioned the fairness of a treaty where the people are not represented or even allowed to access the documents that may govern their lives. Rights groups remain particularly skeptical of the secrecy justification given by both the Bush and Obama administrations; it is difficult to see how an IP treaty relates to national security.
Particularly notable is that the treaty apparently allows any infringement to be declared infringement “on a commercial scale,” leaving no distinction between mass piracy for profit and home copying for personal use. In effect, a person who copies a song from one personal computer to another could face the same types of penalties as someone who copies millions of songs for commercial resale.
Furthermore, ACTA enforcement provisions call for additional cooperation between governments to seek out pirates. While it is not immediately clear what practical form such cooperation would take, many are concerned that such cooperation may be heavy-handed, such as border controls involving searches of any digital material without probable cause.
For more information about ACTA, please click here.
– Brian Van Wyk
Recent Blog Posts
- EPA Issues 2017 Renewable Fuel Targets Amid RINs Market’s Uncertain Future
- Cell Phone Firmware Avoids Anti-virus Scans, Sends Private Data to China
- The Consumer Review Fairness Act: Protecting Consumers Who Post Negative Reviews On The Internet
- Google Fiber Nashville Litigation
- Brexit and the Future of UK Sports
- The U.S. is Losing the Economic Drone War
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution