ACTA Fool Or: How Rights Holders Learned to Stop Worrying and Love 512's Subpoena Provisions
Colin E. Shanahan
Abstract
Open-access reader
Colin E. Shanahan
Abstract
Open-access reader
This comment argues against the adoption of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Specifically, that the ACTA provision establishing “[p]rocedures enabling right holders who have given effective notification of a claimed infringement to expeditiously obtain information identifying the alleged infringer” should not extend the current subpoena provisions of 17 USC § 512(h) to encompass p2p networks. The Comment discusses the current U.S. law and cases, why the rights holders want the ACTA Agreeement and argues why the ACTA agreement should not be adopted.
OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This comment argues against the adoption of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Specifically, that the ACTA provision establishing “[p]rocedures enabling right holders who have given effective notification of a claimed infringement to expeditiously obtain information identifying the alleged infringer” should not extend the current subpoena provisions of 17 USC § 512(h) to encompass p2p networks. The Comment discusses the current U.S. law and cases, why the rights holders want the ACTA Agreeement and argues why the ACTA agreement should not be adopted.
Key concepts: Subpoena, Law, The Internet, Advertising, Sociology, Political science, Business, Computer science