Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy

from the this-ain't-the-transparency-we-were-promised dept

Despite some sweet talk from Hollywood about how important ACTA and its secret negotiations are to America (and, once again, no, the secrecy is not at all "normal," as some industry lawyers would have you believe), it looks like some Senators are finally beginning to question how ACTA is being handled. Senators Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown have sent a letter to US Trade Rep Ron Kirk asking for ACTA documents to be made public. The letter points out that "the public has a right to monitor and express informed views on proposals of such magnitude" especially considering that "there are concerns about the impact of ACTA on the privacy and civil rights of individuals, on the supply of products under the first sale doctrine, on the markets for legitimate generic medicines, and on consumers and innovation in general." The letter also takes on the bogus claims of state secrets in protecting ACTA documents:

We are surprised and unpersuaded by assertions that disclosures of basic information about the negotiation would present a risk to the national security of the United States, particularly as regards documents that are shared with all countries in the negotiations, and with dozens of representatives of large corporations. We are concerned that the secrecy of such information reflects a desire to avoid potential criticism of substantive provisions in ACTA by the public, the group who will be most affected by the agreement. Such secrecy has already undermined public confidence in the ACTA process.... We firmly believe that the public has a right to know the contents of the proposals being considered under ACTA, just as they have the right to read the text of bills pending before Congress."

Unfortunately, these are just two Senators. Supporters of ACTA likely have many more who will blindly fight to keep ACTA secret and get it approved with little or no substantive input from those it will impact most.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Entertainment Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses

from the yeah,-that's-convincing dept

Sherwin Siy (one of the few people who actually was allowed to glance briefly at parts of the proposed ACTA treaty, though under strict NDA) has written about yet another letter sent by the entertainment industry to the government in support of ACTA. This letter includes pretty much everyone who benefits from abusing copyright laws and is afraid of the internet:

Advertising Photographers of America
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI)
Commercial Photographers International
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Evidence Photographers International Council
Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)
NBC Universal
News Corporation
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Professional Photographers of America (PPA)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Stock Artists Alliance
Student Photographic Society
The Advertising Photographers of America
The Walt Disney Company
Time Warner, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Viacom Inc.
Warner Music Group

Funny... isn't it, that all these companies and industry groups are supporting a deal that no one's seen yet? Oh wait... that's because many of them have seen it and actually have had a hand in creating it. But what's really damning is that no where in the letter do they explain why this is actually needed or how it will do anything valuable. Instead, it's a pure faith-based letter saying "if you pass this secret treaty, good things will happen." I don't know about you, but generally, I prefer there to be actual proof and evidence that restricting consumer rights around the world actually leads to some sort of real benefit.

Tellingly, they don't respond to any of the points we raised earlier. This is not a treaty to help people or the economy. It's a deal to try to sneak through a system for propping up an obsolete business model by companies who don't want to adapt.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' -- Nor Is It A 'Distraction'

from the don't-make-us-laugh dept

Over the last few weeks people who are actually concerned about individual rights have done a decent job sounding the alarm about the problems with what little we've seen of the ACTA negotiations. In the last week or so, those who work for the entertainment industry have suddenly started scrambling to respond, after realizing that more and more people are starting to pay attention and to worry about ACTA. However, it's been pretty funny to watch the desperate attempts by industry lawyers to try to paint this all as much ado about nothing (with gratuitous swipes at those of us who have called attention to what's going on).

One of the points they make is to say that the "secrecy" is no big deal, because it's "normal" for such negotiations to happen this way. This was what the USTR stated earlier this year when the question was raised, but unfortunately, the facts (and common sense) simply don't support that claim at all. If you look at the transparency level on many other international agreements, including well known ones concerning WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, UNCTAD, OECD, Hague Conference on Private International Law and many others, you see that they are significantly more transparent and/or have clear procedures in place for concerned parties to take part in the discussions. That is not the case with ACTA.

A second point they make is that if the end result is really bad, countries can simply decide not to sign it and not to participate. Yes, stop laughing. It's as if they think that we're all idiots who haven't seen how lobbyists have historically relied on the line "but we must live up to our international obligations" to push through all sorts of laws the public does not support.

A third point raised is that this isn't a "treaty" but a "sole executive agreement," so we shouldn't worry since it can't change the law. Except, by categorizing it as such, it's actually a loophole that could potentially take Congress out of the process of reviewing or approving anything that's in the agreement, and then just wait for the "but we must live up to our international obligations" to start pouring out of lobbyists and industry lawyers' mouths.

A fourth point of attack is that some of the descriptions of what's being discussed are inaccurate. Well that's funny since a big part of the problem is that we're not even being shown what's being discussed. So, yes, as we've been clear, this is an ongoing negotiation, and the final results may differ from what bits and pieces have been leaked. But, what is leaked has suggested that some very, very bad things are at least on the table, and making that clear and opening up the discussion is important, no matter how much the lawyers don't want anyone interfering. Separately, as you would expect, some of the language used to date in the leaked reports suggests the usual legal games are being played, so that when people point to something and say that opens us up to a bad thing, the lawyers can say "oh, that's no different than what we have already." Just like the RIAA did back when they wiped out musicians rights to reclaim their music (thankfully, only temporarily). But if you actually understand the details, you know that the subtle language choices are all chosen very carefully to drive future legislation. You can see this by simply monitoring what's happening in South Korea now, since that's what the new agreement is supposedly "modeled" on. And, it's not pretty. Various user-generated content sites are severely limiting what users can do, to the point that they're barely recognizable as UGC sites any more. Liability pointed at service providers are scaring them into massive limitations. That's not the sort of world most of us want to live in.

Finally, the ACTA supporters claim that because the administration showed a very small group of consumer rights folks, such as Public Knowledge, a draft of the document, that consumer groups are "a part of the process." That doesn't take into account the level of access. Whereby industry lobbyists had a large hand in drafting ideas and suggestions for parts of the legislation, a Public Knowledge representative was involved on "very short notice" in an initial hour-long meeting whereby they were allowed to look at the text, but not copy it, and then a further short discussion about a revised copy -- but the process included NDAs that prevent much discussion about what was seen. That's not serious involvement.

Finally, as I was writing this, Jamie Love pointed out that the MPAA has sent a letter in favor of ACTA, which is chock full of laughter inducing falsehoods (such as claiming the entire motion picture industry is at risk, even as it's having its best year ever). But the most ridiculous is this:

"Outcries on the lack of transparency in the ACTA negotiations are distraction."

Yes, that's right, making sure that the public knows what the hell its government is signing up for is a "distraction." Could the MPAA's lawyers be any more obvious in brushing off the concerns of the public than by calling it "a distraction." To the MPAA this is all about propping up its business model and stopping competition from online sources. The public doesn't matter. As Jamie Love notes, "transparency isn't a 'distraction.' it is an obligation of governments, to those it wants to govern."

So, yes, perhaps some of the discussion has suggested things that will go beyond what's actually in the document, but it's hilarious to see industry lawyers suggest that those concerned about our rights are "creating a moral panic" when the only reason there's concern at all is because the public is not even allowed to see what's being discussed. Want to end the rampant speculation? Release the documents and let the public take part in the process. The MPAA's letter and the sudden whining from industry lawyers shows what this really is: yet another attempt by one particular industry that refuses to adapt to a changing marketplace, looking to governments to prop up their existing business model at the expense of innovation, consumer rights and upstart competitors.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More ACTA Details Leak: It's An Entertainment Industry Wishlist

from the no-wonder-they-kept-it-secret dept

The latest round of "negotiations" over the ACTA treaty continue in secret due to as yet unexplained national security reasons (despite the fact that the entertainment industry lobbyists have had full access to the document) are kicking off in Korea. Once again is becoming clear that the claims by US trade reps that ACTA did not represent any kind of major change in copyright law, and thus didn't require public scrutiny, are nothing more than a myth. Despite ridiculous efforts to keep the document secret (some countries were given only physical, watermarked, copies of the latest drafts), some of the details are leaking out and it's not pretty at all.

The plan is modeled on the ridiculously misnamed "free trade agreement" between the US and South Korea from a few years back. It's misnamed because it wasn't about free trade at all, but massive protectionism for the American entertainment industry. The end results haven't been pretty. The treaty pushed South Korea to implement new copyright laws that are perhaps the most draconian around, getting the country to be the first to kick people off the internet based on accusations of file sharing, and putting so much liability on third parties that various user-generated content services have had to turn off the ability to upload all sorts of content (no videos on YouTube, no music on blogs) and has resulted in ISPs even banning any kind of advertising that might make them liable for copyright infringement.

It's Hollywood's dream. It would require signing countries to implement a more draconian version of the DMCA, including incredibly restrictive anti-circumvention wording that has no exception for fair use. It would put liability on third parties for the actions of their users (in other words, it wouldn't include current DMCA-style safe harbors). It would create incentives to kick people off of the internet for file sharing. This is not about free trade at all. This is an entertainment industry-written bill designed to recreate the internet in its image -- as a broadcasting platform, rather than one used for user-generated content and communication.

This isn't about free trade. This isn't about "anti-counterfeiting." This is the "Protect the American Entertainment Industry" treaty.

And, of course, it's not even close to necessary. As happy as the entertainment industry is about what's been happening in South Korea lately, before these laws passed, the industry there (though, not the local subsidiaries of stodgy American entertainment firms) were adapting in amazing and fascinating ways, that didn't require new laws, but embraced what was actually happening. Yet, because the American record labels and movie studios don't want to change with the times, they're pushing through these laws, outside the judiciary process, sneaking it through via a secretive international treaty they had a hand in writing.

There is simply no reason for ACTA, at all. It is nothing but an attempt by the entertainment industry to put massive restrictions on the internet, place liability on lots of third parties, and do nothing to push themselves to adapt to a changing marketplace with new business models.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ACTA Negotiations Back On... White House Shows Small Group Proposed Text Under NDA

from the but-what-about-the-public dept

With the next round of negotiations on the ACTA treaty -- which may require the US and other countries to make significant changes to copyright law that favor the entertainment industry -- set to get underway, the White House still refuses to release details to the public, but did show the text to 42 Washington "insiders" under NDA. The good news is that the list includes a fair number of folks who recognize the problems with copyright law and the ACTA proposal -- including people like Gigi Sohn, William Patry, Sherwin Siy, David Sohn and Michael Petricone. Many of those people will push for the public's best interests. But, still, it's a bit troubling that the whole conversation remains secret for "national security" reasons. If we're talking about changing copyright laws that effect everyone, why not let everyone know? Sherwin Siy, from Public Knowledge, told KEI (in the link above) about his experience viewing the document, which sounded greatly limited, and notes that while the document has been adjusted, "the most troubling aspects" have not been "resolved."

In the meantime, it's worth asking why this is necessary again. First of all, in a world where trade agreements are supposed to be about breaking down trade barriers, ACTA seems designed to be putting up protectionist policies. Protectionism doesn't work and only creates more harm. But, much more importantly, much of the push for ACTA is based on lobbyists' claims of the "harm" done by counterfeiting. Except both the GAO and the OECD have put out independent reports showing that counterfeiting isn't that big a problem, and that whatever problems there are seem to be significantly exaggerated by lobbyists. Yes, those same lobbyists who were given much earlier access to the document and, records suggest, had a hand in shaping the document itself. So why do we need ACTA again? And why are we allowing those who the government has already found to have exaggerated the problem drive the negotiations?

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

USTR: We Can't Be Open About ACTA Because We Promised We Wouldn't Be (*Lobbyists Not Included)

from the missing-the-point dept

The US Trade Rep apparently has a thing on their website called "ask the ambassador" and Robin alerts us that recently a "James from Virginia" asked a rather important question:

"If the United States government gives all other governments in the ACTA negotiation a copy of a text, what is the rationale for keeping this a secret from the American public? Why would a negotiation at ACTA be less transparent than negotiations at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the World Trade Organization (WTO)?"

The USTR's answer is really a convenient non-answer. It basically says that it can't reveal the details because everybody promised not to do so. Of course, that doesn't explain why so many lobbyists have such detailed access to the info, and why other countries have revealed the details of the negotiations. The answer that "this is how we do things" isn't particularly reassuring when corporations and diplomats are basically negotiating basic civil rights.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Once Again, Entertainment Industry Looks To Force Massive Copyright Changes Via Int'l Treaties

from the how-the-game-is-played dept

By now you should know that one of the entertainment industry's favorite tools for forcing ever more draconian copyright laws around the world is to use international treaties. Such treaties are not put together by elected officials, but appointed diplomats, often with tremendous input (to the point of allowing them to write the details) from industries that are protected. Then, once those treaties are in place, copyright maximalists just get to sit back and say "but we must make our copyright laws stronger if we ever expect to live up to our international obligations..." The latest such attempt is the infamous ACTA bill, which the entertainment industry has had a heavy hand in crafting -- but the public is told that the treaty negotiations are matters of national security and cannot be revealed. Uh huh.

Apparently, in a recent "Working Group" on intellectual property issues in Washington DC, one area of "concern" is Canadian copyright law -- because Canada appears to be one country where (thank you Michael Geist!) the public has been galvanized to speak up and explain that copyight law is a deal between the public and content creators, and the public shouldn't be ignored in the process. But, no worries. Apparently, one lobbyist said that perhaps the best way to deal with those rebellious Canadians thinking for themselves is just to use ACTA to force Canada to implement its own DMCA-like law, something that Canada has (thankfully) rejected in the past few years. So here we go again...

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Consumer Group Wants ACTA Discussions Stopped Until Consumer Rights Are Represented In Negotiations

from the would-be-nice,-but-seems-unlikely dept

We've discussed in great detail how the current ACTA treaty has been mostly driven by corporate interests as a way to sneak in more draconian copyright laws through international treaty, rather than through legislative means. When consumer groups have requested a seat at the table, they've been rejected, even as industry lobbyists have had no problem being active participants in the process.

Now, a group called the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue has demanded ACTA negotiations be put on hold until consumer groups have a real seat at the table, or at least are given access to documents being negotiated. TACD raises a number of important issues, such as respecting privacy rights and the rights of developing nations, who are often trampled over when it comes to IP protectionism from developed countries. But best of all, it points out one of the most annoying things in all efforts by copyright holders to extend copyright protection: they never, ever present any evidence for why it's necessary. It's an evidence-free zone. TACD specifically requests that real evidence be used:

Public policy on the enforcement of intellectual property rights should be informed by creditable evidence, transparent and realistic assumptions and objective peer reviewed analysis. Multiple approaches to addressing the legitimate concerns of right owners and consumers should be considered.

• Statistics on counterfeiting and or infringement must be objective, accurate, and presented in the appropriate context.
• Statistics on counterfeit and substandard medicines should not be combined when this misleads policy makers about the extent of either problem. The solutions to counterfeit and substandard products are often quite different.
• Estimates of losses from infringements of intellectual property rights should be based upon realistic demand and usage parameters.
• Governments should collect and analyze statistics on the relationship between infringement and affordability of products.

Here's TACD's full proposal:

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EFF, Public Knowledge Drop ACTA Lawsuit, Realizing 'National Secrets' Claim Will Block Them

from the really-unfortunate dept

With the Obama administration bizarrely claiming that documents pertaining to negotiations over ACTA, the industry-written treaty that will push countries to change their copyright laws, are somehow a state secret, EFF and Public Knowledge have reluctantly decided to drop their lawsuit to try to open up the proceedings and get access to the documents (freely shared with industry lobbyists, but kept secret from consumers or consumer watchdogs). Basically, they realized that by claiming it's a national secret, there was no way the lawsuit would get anywhere. The whole situation is really unfortunate. What a shame that the administration would be covering up for an entertainment industry's attempt to increase protectionism for its own broken business model, by claiming it was a "national secret."

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Obama Administration Reiterates Its Support Of Secretive, Industry Written ACTA

from the this-is-a-problem dept

We've been bothered by the incredibly secretive (except if you happen to be in the entertainment industry) ACTA Treaty negotiations for quite some time now. This is the industry-led effort to get a bunch of nations to agree to draconian and damaging new copyright laws by sneaking them through as a secretive "international treaty," such that countries are then compelled to change their copyright laws to "be in compliance with international agreements." It's a really sneaky trick that Hollywood has used for years. And then it acts all innocent when people accuse it of pushing draconian laws on consumers, claiming "it wasn't us... we needed to be in compliance with our international agreements." They just leave out the part where they're the ones who write those agreements for the various trade representatives. The early drafts of ACTA are no different. They were clearly written by industry lobbyists, and are now being pushed by various trade representatives, and then our elected officials will have "no choice" but to change copyright laws to be in compliance.

Perhaps the most troubling part of all of this is that the negotiations are happening in secret, and when consumers rights organizations ask to be given a seat at the table, they're denied. When those same consumer rights organizations ask to at least be told what's being negotiated, they're told it's forbidden because of "state secrets." However, for all that national security, the administration has absolutely no problem giving industry lobbyists access to the process. Funny how that works.

Either way, it should come as no surprise that Michael Geist alerts us to the news that the US Trade Rep, Ron Kirk, is eager to get ACTA moving forward again. In response to all that secrecy, he claims:

As we proceed with these negotiations, we will ensure that the public is kept well informed and has further opportunities to give input.

Of course, the next meeting will take place in Morocco. How many consumer representatives will be there?

In the meantime, Kirk claims:

"The ACTA negotiations provide an opportunity to toughen international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, making it harder for counterfeit and pirated products to enter our country, and making the world safer for the innovation and creativity that are so critical to the U.S. economy."

But... wait. Is it really true that this is a big problem? Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have taken a close look at the numbers thrown around about the "problem" of counterfeiting, and found them to be wildly overblown by lobbyists -- the same lobbyists writing ACTA, not surprisingly. So why is the US Trade Rep agreeing to let this go forward? It's not about "making the world safer for the innovation and creativity." It's about granting special protection to a few powerful US industries with lobbyists.

Isn't that a problem?

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Remember How ACTA Wasn't Supposed To Be A 'Major' Change To Copyright Laws?

from the yeah...-not-so-much dept

One of the excuses given by the various trade representatives negotiating the ACTA treaty for the fact that they were keeping it quite secret, was that it wouldn't represent any significant change to copyright laws, and thus it was no big deal. Yet, the various drafts of the proposed treaty have suggested otherwise. TorrentFreak examines one of the latest leaked drafts and notes that it would require agreeing nations to change copyright laws concerning damages, pushing judges to consider every unauthorized file to be considered as a lost sale for the calculation of damages. This is a key point that plenty of folks have made clear over the years: assuming that every shared file would have been a lost sale is absolutely false. Putting that into the law and suggesting judges use that false concept as a basis for calculating damages is quite troubling. In the meantime, we're still trying to figure out why ACTA is even necessary? And... on top of that, no one has yet explained why industry lobbyists have been integral to the negotiations, but the public and public interest groups are being blocked from any information based on bogus national security claims.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

US Trade Rep Promises To Review Transparency Policies

from the well,-that's-a-start dept

After the highly questionable claim that the US Trade Representative couldn't release details over the secretive negotiations concerning the ACTA proposal because it somehow involved state secrets (though plenty of industry lobbyists were given access), it looks like the USTR has agreed to review its policies on transparency. It's definitely a good thing, but the USTR also says that the process will take a few months. It's unclear how that may impact ACTA, but it seems like the USTR could easily review just that particular decision before reviewing the entire process.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Since When Did We Give Lobbyists From The Tech, Entertainment And Pharma Industries Security Clearance?

from the the-RIAA-gets-national-security-clearance? dept

With the new administration sticking by the old one in declaring negotiations over the ACTA treaty somehow a matter of national security as a way of avoiding revealing any info about the proposed treaty or its ongoing negotiations, the folks over at KEI have pointed out the long list of corporate lobbyists who have been involved in the negotiations, including those from the RIAA, MPAA, ESA and a long list of tech, telco and pharma companies. So... can anyone let us know if these folks have security clearance? After all, if they're a part of such sensitive matters concerning national security that are so touchy the public can't know about them, then, surely, the administration is being careful about who it provides that info, right? Or is the national security issue the fact that these folks don't want anyone to know they're writing the rules that will bind Congress (and legislatures in dozens of other countries) to adjust copyright law without any real leeway. And, just watch, these will be the same lobbyists who will spout off about how we have to make these changes to meet our treaty obligations. leaving out the fact that they wrote the treaties themselves to force through exactly this type of legislation.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?

from the openness,-transparency dept

Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information. So far, the response from the government had been "sorry, we always negotiate these things in secret, so we'll keep doing so." At one point, even the ACTA negotiators held a closed-door meeting and then released a press release saying they discussed being more transparent, but haven't actually followed through.

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This is transparency? This is openness?

As Declan McCullagh points out at News.com, Executive Order 12958 only allows material to be classified if revealing it would do "damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage." Can the US Trade Representative please describe the damage to national security if the public gets to see what's being proposed that would require governments around the country to enact significantly more draconian intellectual property laws?

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ACTA Proposal Would Criminalize Substantial Non-Commercial Infringement

from the consumers-have-no-seat-at-the-table dept

With various governments still insisting that ACTA negotiations must be done in near total secrecy, various folks are working hard to at least shine some sunlight on the details. Michael Geist discusses what he's been able to piece through, and it's not pretty. The only good news is that everything is still in the early stages, and there's some disagreement among the participating trade reps concerning how certain things should work. However, that's about the only good news. The bad news is that many of the provisions are clearly being submitted with significant "input" from industries who stand to benefit from greater IP protectionism -- and no effort has been made to see what impact the resulting output would have on everyone else.

Even more troubling are the specific details supplied by KEI, who includes some draft text, including a proposal pushed by the US and Japan to use ACTA to make certain forms of personal, non-commercial infringement a criminal offense as a "deterrent." Yes, this would include potential jailtime, even if the infringer had no intent to profit. Notice that this is happening in backrooms among trade representatives, rather than in public among elected officials -- especially as various countries have been increasingly open to the idea of exempting personal, non-commercial infringement from being subject to legal punishment. This "treaty" would force countries to put a halt to that, and then we'd hear all sorts of big-time IP defenders insist that we absolutely had to make these changes to the law to "live up to international treaties" which they helped write.

KEI also points out another downside to all of this being negotiated in secret. It appears that many of the trade representatives are ignorant of certain laws already in place in their own countries, as well as other legislation that is currently under consideration. For example, KEI notes the current debates over copyright laws concerning "orphaned works" which is a big issue in Congressional copyright discussions. Some of what's being pushed in ACTA would mess up those discussions -- but who cares, apparently, trade representatives, pushed on by industry representatives, seem to have no problem determining for themselves what copyright law should be all about.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

US Using Bogus Excuses For Denying Access To ACTA Documents

from the transparency? dept

And here's another bit of "transparency" that's just as lacking in the new administration as the last. For months, those of us concerned about backroom deals on intellectual property treaties bypassing an open legislative process have been demanding more sunlight on negotiations around ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. To date, the various folks negotiating the agreement -- which includes both entertainment industry representatives and government trade representatives from around the world -- have been averse to any sort of transparency, using the rather weak excuse that such treaties are always negotiated in secret. Amusingly, they even recently held a secret meeting where they promised to be more transparent. That's comforting.

In order to push this transparency issue forward, plenty of folks have been filing freedom of information requests to get documents related to the agreement and the negotiations. Up in Canada, these requests have revealed that the government may have publicly lied or misled people about its negotiations in ACTA. In the US, though, things are even more ridiculous. Apparently the US Trade Representative is refusing to release most of the documents requested under the FOIA claiming (I kid you not) that to release such documents could "implicate national security or expose the USTR's deliberative processes."

But, of course, the USTR had no problem at all sharing all this info with entertainment industry lobbyists. In the few documents that were released, it turns out that the USTR met privately with representatives of various "anti-piracy" lobbying groups multiple times in 2008 -- without bothering to consult with the folks who these laws would actually impact. In other words, they're getting one side of the story. Even worse, those lobbyists have been called out, repeatedly -- by the US government, no less -- for outright fabrications concerning the impact of piracy and counterfeiting. So why is the USTR only relying on them for determining how this trade agreement will work? And why is there no effort to make these negotiations more public so that all stakeholders have a say?

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does ACTA Secrecy Violate European Law?

from the too-much-secrecy dept

One of the most problematic aspects of the negotiations around ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is how the entire process has been shrouded in secrecy. Those involved in the process try to brush off this complaint by saying something along the lines of "but we always negotiate treaties this way!" but that's hardly a good reason to do so -- especially when the impact of ACTA could be wide ranging. Some of the documents that have leaked out from the process suggest a pretty massive shift in copyright law could be pushed through via ACTA. You would think that it would make sense for such a process to be done in public. In fact, according to some, this level of secrecy it may be illegal in Europe. The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) has filed a complaint in Europe, noting that the secrecy goes against EU regulations. The group is demanding either that the documents involved in the negotiations be made public... or that the EU withdraw from the negotiations (which, of course, won't happen).

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ACTA Negotiators Hold Closed Door Meeting To Say They Need To Be More Transparent

from the irony dept

One of our biggest complaints with ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that was initially written by the entertainment industry, and is being used to effectively sneak through new copyright law requirements around the world (every time you hear an industry supporter claim that copyright laws must be changed to live up to "international obligations" you know they're leaving out the part where it was the same industry that wrote those international treaties), is that the whole thing is being negotiated in secret. So, it seems rather amusing that the latest (secret) negotiations resulted in a press release saying that they discussed how they need to be more transparent (found via Michael Geist). So, after holding a closed door meeting, they let everyone know that they discussed how it really sucks that they hold these closed door meetings? Here's a suggestion: instead of issuing a press release afterwards next time, why not open up the meetings?

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EU Continues To Give Bogus Reasons For Keeping ACTA Secret

from the transparency-please dept

One of the most disgusting displays of an industry crafting laws to benefit their industry in backrooms is the secret negotiations over the ACTA treaty. This is the international agreement on copyright that's basically been written by entertainment industry insiders, and will effectively force governments around the world to change copyright laws in favor of the entertainment industry. Yet, the actual negotiations are being held in secret. When confronted about it, various government negotiators have basically said it has to be secret because that's the way things are done. A few months ago, in defending the secrecy, one of the negotiators noted that it was being kept secret because negotiators had agreed to keep it secret. That's not a defense; that's a cop out.

Plenty of organizations around the world are pushing for more transparency and (*gasp!*) the actual inclusion of others who would be impacted by ACTA, but they're not finding it easy. Slashdot points us a press release from The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure. FFII had filed a request to the EU Council to release some of the secret documents related to the ACTA negotiation, and the EU Council flat-out refused to do so. It would appear that when the government seeks to put in place an industry's preferred legislation, it doesn't like being called out on it.

However, the more that individuals and organizations around the world speak up and demand that the details behind ACTA be made public, hopefully the more politicians will realize that they can't sell out society's overall best interest in favor of a few industries who are abusing the treaty process for their own interests.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

American Citizen Detained At Border Due To Drawing Of An SUV

from the think-how-much-worse-it-could-be dept

If you want to understand why we're so troubled by the ACTA treaty that many nations are working on in secret, we just need to look at a story highlighted recently at Boing Boing about an American woman who was detained for a while at the US-Canadian border because she had a drawing of an SUV. The customs officials accused her of being an industrial spy and copyright infringer. In actuality, she's a professor and artist, who was doing an art project involving an SUV.

Of course, what the ACTA treaty would do is give customs officials and border guards even broader authority and a mandate to try to "stop copyright infringement" at the border. It would open people up to inspections for all sorts of things, from computers to personal devices -- and if you thought a random drawing could get someone detained before, just imagine what happens after ACTA is put in place.

The most ridiculous part, of course, is that this really has nothing to do with what the border patrol should be focused on: which is keeping dangerous people or things out of the country. Copyright infringement is meaningless at the border. Infringement happens across borders all the time online. Stopping it physically at the border makes no sense. If someone wants infringement to cross the border, they'll just send it online, rather than carry it on their body. And, until customs and border patrol starts scanning every IP packet at the border, it's a total waste of time and effort to ask border patrol officials to search for copyright infringement. It takes their energy and attention away from the real task at hand of keeping dangerous people out.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..