One position taken by our officials that I’m not as pleased with is NZ’s response to 2.5.3 (if I’m reading the numbering right). EU and Canada suggest in a new 2.5.4 a requirement that if a Court has awarded a “provisional measure” (e.g. an interim injunction) before a full hearing, then the defendant can request that that measure be revoked. Revocation will happen automatically if plaintiff IP owner does not initiate the full hearing on the merits within a specified or reasonable time.

That seems like a useful safeguard against abuse of the interim order procedures so I’m not sure why NZ objects to it. Perhaps they are trying to be consistent with their rejection of a similar DMCA style counter-notice procedure for website takedown notices under s92C of our Copyright Act (another section which needs to change).

Just saying.

@br3nda — I didn’t see anything anything explicitly addressing non-commercial infringement. That said, there was nothing I saw to limit the articles just to commercial infringement. They’ve been pretty good about keeping the text of the trade agreement to the original scope, which was quite explicit about focusing only on commercial infringement.

@juha — who can say. I’m very happy with NZ’s negotiators based on what I’ve seen, but I’m still very nervous that the other countries won’t be as sensible as our team has been. Another reason to make sure that the PublicACTA conference is a success. The other countries will be locking down language so it’s important to make our principles clear.

The question is, how much of the above will the US ignore? All or parts of NZ’s suggestions?

I recall leaks of criminal / prison time for non-commerical copyright infringment being mentioned in previous leaks. Has New Zealand’s team supported this?

I wonder if there is, or ever will be, any way to say how much of this leadership can be traced to the on-line protests of a few months ago, including the Twitter “blackout” organized by @br3nda.