2011Marquette law reviewOpen access

ACTA Fool Or: How Rights Holders Learned to Stop Worrying and Love 512's Subpoena Provisions

Colin E. Shanahan

Open full text 2 citations

Abstract

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.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
ACTA Fool Or: How Rights Holders Learned to Stop Worrying and Love 512's Subpoena Provisions — Research Paper | ScholarLens