Big tech accountability? Read how we got here in  The Closing of the Net 

The ghostly spectre of the Telecoms Package that has stood behind ACTA, is becoming more clearly discernible. And a devious PR move by  the ACTA negotiators is bad news for Internet users.


Following the Washington meeting of the ACTA (Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement)  negotiators in August, it is now emerging that the requirement for secondary liability on ISPs could be dropped. Apparently, this is at the request of the US.


But is this just a  cynical public relations manoevre on the part of the ACTA negotiators? Analysis of the latest ACTA leak indicates that removal of the offending paragraph will not change a great deal in terms of the substance of ACTA  (see below). And a paragraph that is remarkably similar to one in the Telecoms Package remains in.

Reports from the US have suggested that the proposal is to  ‘remove controversial language [that would] impose secondary liability on Internet firms'.  However, we don't know exactly which provisions are implied, as the source of the information has not been so specific.


As is explained  in a blog posting on the American University Washington College of Law website, the obvious paragraphs that could go are 3b and 3c of  Article 2.18. These are the two paragraphs which set out clearly a liability for ISPs to remove or prevent access to content which is deemed to infringe copyright and other forms of intellectual property.


 But questions would still remain concerning two further paragraphs :  3 ter and 3 quarter.


3 ter is about disclosure of users' personal data to rights-holders - a necessary precursor for 3-strikes or and similar enforcement measures targetting Internet users and could contravene the E-privacy directive.


3 quarter is a blatant re-write of Article 33.3 in the Universal Services Directive. This is a key enabler of 3-strikes and similar measures.  ‘Promote the development of     mutually supportive relationships between online service providers  and right holders‘  is a euphemism for ISPs and rights-holders working together on enforcement measures, where 3-strikes will be top of the list (think of Eircomm).


 ‘Establishing guidelines for actions'  could mean putting in place a regulatory structure for a system of warnings and sanctions. Equally, it could relate to blocking measures, or,  to some form of Notice and Takedown procedure.  


The power of the provision lies in its vagueness and possible applicability to a range of different enforcement measures.


For the EU, the provision would have serious consequences. It goes a long way beyond the Telecoms Package, which, in this context, only applies to copyright. The ACTA provision brings in patents, industrial design and trademarks, and questions must asked as to whether these kinds of measures could therefore be applied to IP infringements other than copyright. Such interpretation  would be outside the scope of EU law as it stands today.


It raises the possibility of widescale sanctioning of users and  blocking measures for a range of purposes, and would appear to encompass the demands of the large luxury goods manufacturers who have  pursuing eBay in the courts.


Once again, it gives the lie to the continued assertions of DG Trade, that ACTA will not mean 3-strikes or similar enforcement measures. 


Moreover, the subtle use of ‘shall' would reverse an amendment made by the Council of Ministers, which makes the EU provision optional. Some EU Member States, such as Sweden and Germany, have taken decisions not to go the 3-strikes route.




ACTA:  Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Article 2.18

3 quarter:


"Each Party shall  endeavor to promote the development of

   mutually supportive relationships between online service providers

   and right holders to deal effectively with patent, industrial

   design, trademark and copyright or relater [sic] rights infringement which

   takes place by means of the Internet, including the encouragement of

   establishing guidelines for the actions which should be taken."

 For the full story of the Telecoms Package, see my book The Copyright Enforcement Enigma: Internet politics and the Telecoms Package

Flattr this


This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2010) ACTA & the Telecoms Package: a mutually supportive relationship? 28 August 2010

Iptegrity in brief is the website of Dr Monica Horten. I’ve been analysing analysing digital policy since 2008. Way back then, I identified how issues around rights can influence Internet policy, and that has been a thread throughout all of my research. I hold a PhD in EU Communications Policy from the University of Westminster (2010), and a Post-graduate diploma in marketing.   I’ve served as an independent expert on the Council of Europe  Committee on Internet Freedoms, and was involved in a capacity building project in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. I am currently (from June 2022)  Policy Manager - Freedom of Expression, with the Open Rights Group. For more, see About Iptegrity is made available free of charge for  non-commercial use, Please link-back & attribute Monica Horten. Thank you for respecting this.

Contact  me to use  iptegrity content for commercial purposes


States v the 'Net? 

Read The Closing of the Net, by me, Monica Horten.

"original and valuable"  Times higher Education

" essential read for anyone interested in understanding the forces at play behind the web."

Find out more about the book here  The Closing of the Net


FROM £15.99

Copyright Enforcement Enigma launch, March 2012

In 2012, I presented my PhD research in the European Parliament.

The politics of copyright

A Copyright Masquerade - How corporate lobbying threatens online freedoms

'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review


Don't miss Iptegrity!  RSS/ Bookmark