Slashdot Mirror

I went to an ACTA public information meeting that was organized by the Swiss delegation ten days ago. They couldn't openly talk about the positions of the different countries, but from what they said, I concluded that we don't have to fear as much as the internet rumors suggest. For example, they wouldn't sign the treaty if it contained a three-strikes-provision as this would be against Swiss law. They also publish quite some information on their website, including a transparency paper that roughly describes the content of ACTA:
https://www.ige.ch/en/legal-info/legal-areas/counterfeiting-piracy/acta.html

Overall, they made a good and competent impression and it also seems to me that they are open to input from the public. I'm quite proud that the Swiss government seems to handle this much more democratically and transparently than others.

I went to an ACTA public information meeting this week that was organized by the Swiss delegation. They couldn't openly talk about the positions of the different countries, but from what they said, I concluded that we don't have to fear as much as the internet rumors suggest. For example, they wouldn't sign the treaty if it contained a three-strikes-provision as this would be against Swiss law. They also publish quite some information on their website, including a transparency paper that roughly describes the content of ACTA:
https://www.ige.ch/en/legal-info/legal-areas/counterfeiting-piracy/acta.html

Overall, they made a good and competent impression and it also seems to me that they are open to input from the public. I'm quite proud that the Swiss government seems to handle this much more democratically and transparently than others.

I would call this a victory, considering that all of the DMCA-like provisions that had been proposed have been stripped out in the end.

Here's the originally proposed diff, in French and German, against the existing Swiss Copyright Law of 1992. Some of the notable changes would have been:

• Reverse engineering is allowed only for creating interoperable software (Article 21)
• Outlawing circumvention of copy protection (Article 70a), even for the purpose of sharing the content with friends/family (Article 19, Paragraph 4)
• Legitimately acquired software can be translated, bugfixed, or adapted (Article 13a)
• Extending length of software copyright from 50 years after the last author's death to 70 years (Article 29)

Compare that with the enacted diff, in French and German. None of the provisions above remains. Some of the notable features of the new law are:

• Provision for using orphaned works (Article 22b)
• Explicit allowance for transitory copies (Article 24a)
• Allowance for making works accessible to disabled persons (Article 24c)

From my cursory reading of the law, I would say that it's all upside and no downside for content consumers.

I would call this a victory, considering that all of the DMCA-like provisions that had been proposed have been stripped out in the end.

Here's the originally proposed diff, in French and German, against the existing Swiss Copyright Law of 1992. Some of the notable changes would have been:

• Reverse engineering is allowed only for creating interoperable software (Article 21)
• Outlawing circumvention of copy protection (Article 70a), even for the purpose of sharing the content with friends/family (Article 19, Paragraph 4)
• Legitimately acquired software can be translated, bugfixed, or adapted (Article 13a)
• Extending length of software copyright from 50 years after the last author's death to 70 years (Article 29)

Compare that with the enacted diff, in French and German. None of the provisions above remains. Some of the notable features of the new law are:

• Provision for using orphaned works (Article 22b)
• Explicit allowance for transitory copies (Article 24a)
• Allowance for making works accessible to disabled persons (Article 24c)

From my cursory reading of the law, I would say that it's all upside and no downside for content consumers.

>Member states may impose more draconian laws than are required by it.

With the movie industry apparently lobbying for exactly those draconian laws, I see a bleak future ahead for the rights of the customers in the EU.

The Swiss weren't forced to introduce the new law since de jure they're not part of the EU (de facto - because of the geographical location and the need to do business with EU countries - they must harmonize their laws to a large extent).

We used to have a rather level-headed stance on IP issues in Switzerland until recently (no DMCA-like law, copies for private use are allowed), and all of a sudden, boom: without big fanfare, without public discussion, the rights of the consumer are restricted in favor of the movie industry. I don't have any evidence to back this up, but my suspicion is that there's been some quiet undercover lobbying to sneak the relevant paragraphs into a law which, at its heart, was supposed to promote local movie production but ends up restricting the rights of the consumers and violating the hallowed principles of free trade.

A quick Google on IP issues in Switzerland revealed the shocking (to me) proposed new Article 70a of the URG (the IP law), which prohibits circumvention of technical measures intended to protect intellectual property or related rights. Can you say DMCA?

My bet is that similar restrictions as those currently in effect in Switzerland and Germany will be commonplace in the EU soon, and that other countries will follow.

They don't give much historical information, apparently. But I'm not very good at German...

Doesn't seem to be in the IBM Patent Server -- maybe it's a Swiss patent, in which case it might be somewhere in here. How's your German/French?

========

Well, now you've come to the fundamental problem with the intersection of trademark law and comain policy. In traditional trademark law, there would not necessarily be a conflict-- however, given a flat namespace that does not differentiate (very well) based on geography or purpose, the conflict occurs. ICANN's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) governs the conflicting claims and is pretty clearly on the side of the trademark holder. Since a trademark exists for "Coke", the Coca-Cola company seems to have a pretty strong case.

Someone asked if the term coke is a trademark in Switzerland. If you can read German, go to The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property and see if there is a searchable database.