Members Of Congress Demand USTR Open Up On TPP

from the about-time dept

We've been talking about the incredible and ridiculous level of secrecy that the USTR has kept with regards to the TPP negotiations. While industry lobbyists are free to look over the exact details of what the US is proposing, the public, and even key Congressional staffers are left out in the cold. While USTR Ron Kirk keeps insisting that any elected member of Congress is free to look at the negotiating text, he's being disingenuous. Elected members are allowed to go to the USTR and request the document, which they will be given -- but only for viewing in that room, and they're not allowed to bring staff members (such as those who understand the ins and outs of what's being negotiated, nor are they allowed to make copies or even take notes). At the same time, lobbyists who are members of the USTR's "advisory committees" can login via any computer with internet access, and see what the latest text is without any concern. That doesn't seem right.

It appears that more and more people in Congress are getting fed up with this. A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress (though, not surprisingly, spearheaded by Senator Wyden and Rep. Issa) demanding that this insanity stop, and that the USTR reveal what it's pushing for on behalf of Americans -- especially when it comes to the intellectual property sections.
Regrettably, the American people know very little about what the USTR is seeking in TPP generally, but specifically on IPR (Intellectual Property Rights). We believe that among all the areas of the TPP negotiations, the matters considered in the IPR chapter are ones in which there is particular public interest, therefore the USTR should be especially transparent and collaborative with the general public on these issues.

The American people deserve to know what the administration is purportedly seeking on its behalf.

We insist that, as expeditiously as possible, the USTR provide to the public detailed information about what obligations (and exceptions) the USTR is seeking in the IPR chapter. We call on the USTR to be particularly explicit with respect to what it aims to obtain as it relates to pharmaceutical drugs and enforcement of intellectual property rights online. Finally, it is important that the USTR convey to the American people whether the USTR is pursuing disciplines elsewhere in TPP that will promote an open and free Internet, given the Internet's increasing role in facilitating American exports of traditional goods and services as well as digital goods and services.
It seems likely that the USTR will simply ignore this letter, showing what kind of respect it has for Congress.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Alana (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 6:31pm

    We don't need transparency to know that, by the mere fact of this being negotiated in secret, that this is not in the best interests of the citizens.

    If it was, they would have revealed it already.

    This is all the information we need to know that this needs to be stopped. None of the signs point to this being anything good. For ANYONE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 8:08pm

    Re:

    Sadly, this is very good for the industries that are relentlessly pushing it forward.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 8:28pm

    Take away their toys.

    Who provides their budget?
    Maybe it is time to cut funding to a rogue agency running amok. If you won't give us answers, we won't fund you.

    It really shouldn't have to go this far, but it is high time someone actually puts some teeth into the demands.

    They shut down then entire Government in a pissing match to see who would blink first, your going to tell me defunding 1 agency is hard to do?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 8:35pm

    A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress (though, not surprisingly, spearheaded by Senator Wyden and Rep. Issa) demanding that this insanity stop

    On behalf of Congress?? What does that mean? The entire Congress? Who signed it and why do you claim it's on behalf of Congress when you know that is simply untrue?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 8:42pm

    A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress (though, not surprisingly, spearheaded by Senator Wyden and Rep. Issa) demanding that this insanity stop

    On behalf of Congress?? What does that mean? The entire Congress? Who signed it and why do you claim it's on behalf of Congress when you know that is simply untrue?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 8:55pm

    Re:

    Yeah, there's two of them, Wyden and Issa. And Mike's magically turned two people into "Congress."

    And the bit at the end is hilarious: "It seems likely that the USTR will simply ignore this letter, showing what kind of respect it has for Congress."

    ROFLMAO. Kirk obviously doesn't have a duty to answer these questions. So if he chooses not to answer, it's not a "respect thing." All this article does is show the complete lack of respect Mike has for "the process." What a whiner.

    Nobody hates IP rights more than Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    sehlat (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 8:57pm

    Does anybody *really* believe the USTR works for the United States?

    It's crystal clear that they work for the MPAA, the RIAA, and just about every other major business entity that has a vested interest in destroying the threat freedom of communication poses to their pet business models.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 8:59pm

    Re: Take away their toys.

    Probably takes more than two Congress-whiners. Keep dreaming.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:09pm

    Re: Re:

    So the usual mandated undercover "let's smear Mike" propagandists never sleep ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:10pm

    "...therefore the USTR should be especially transparent and collaborative"

    What a laugh riot. As if the USTR gives a shit about the American people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    A Member of the Public, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:13pm

    Re: Re:

    Oh really now?

    And who do you suppose gives content creators IP rights, hm?

    That's right, it's us, the public. We as a society ALLOW them to have those rights for a limited time, as incentive to create cultural works for us.

    So, obviously, the USTR has an obligation to share laws and agreements that alter the rights that WE as a society give to content creators.

    Attempting to argue otherwise is disingenuous, and totally goes against the original intent of copyright. It was never meant to be brought up to this scale, and you damn well know that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:15pm

    Re:

    Because a letter prepared by a person unknown and signed by no one does not admit to a catchy title.

    I used to believe that the EFF was a civil society group, but as of late it seems to be transforming into an advocacy organization like all other lobbying groups.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:15pm

    Re:

    While we're at it, it's the corporate interests you are mandated by are the minority sticking up to the people's best insterests. It'll take a lot more undercover efforts from you to make it even remotely look as being the opposite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:21pm

    For all of those dupes who believe that the game is fixed, here's the list of stakeholders who will be bringing issues to negotiators in this round of the TPP:

    Stakeholder Organizations Participating in TPP Round 14, Leesburg, VA
    AARP
    Abbott
    Access Partnership
    ACE Group
    Action on Smoking and Health
    AdvaMed
    AdvocacyWorks
    AFL-CIO
    American Apparel & Footwear Association
    American Association of Exporters and Importers
    American Automotive Policy Council
    American Chemistry Council
    American Civil Liberties Union
    American Farm Bureau Federation
    American Fiber Manufacturers Association
    American Forest & Paper Association
    American Institute for International Steel
    American Jobs Alliance
    American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition
    American Medical Student Association
    American Nurses Association
    American Sugar Alliance
    Americans for Democratic Action
    Amgen
    AMTAC
    Ann Inc
    Archer Daniels Midland Company
    Association of American Publishers
    Association of Flight Attendants
    Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network
    AWI
    Baker & McKenzie
    Biotechnology Industry Organization
    Blank Rome LLP
    Branson360
    Business Software Alliance
    C&M International
    Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
    CAMTEX/NCTO
    Cargill, Incorporated
    Caterpillar
    Cato Institute
    Cattle Council of Australia
    Central America – Dominican Republic Apparel and Textile Council
    Center for American Progress
    Center for Democracy & Technology
    Center for Economic and Policy Research
    Citizens Trade Campaign
    Coalition for a Prosperous America
    Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
    Columbia Sportswear Co.
    Communication Workers of America
    Communications Daily
    Computer & Communications Industry Association
    Consumers International
    Copyright Alliance
    CropLife International
    CS Group
    Communications Workers of America
    Dental Assisting National Board
    Dietel Partners
    Doctors Without Borders
    DTB Associates, LLP
    Dulles Regional Chamber of Commerce
    eBay Inc.
    Electronic Frontier Foundation
    Elon University School of Law
    Emergency Committee for American Trade
    Environmental Investigation Agency Executive Intelligence Review
    Express Association of America
    Fair Trade Resource Network
    Finston Consulting LLC
    Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited
    Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America
    Formula Governance
    Friends of the Earth
    Fulton Bank
    General Electric Co.
    Generic Pharmaceutical Association
    George Washington University
    Georgetown University
    Georgetown University Law Center
    GlaxoSmithKline
    Global Exchange
    Global Justice for Animals and the Environment
    Global Public Policy
    Global Trade Watch
    Google
    Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce
    Grocery Manufacturers Association
    HanesBrands, Inc.
    Health GAP
    Health Global Access Project
    Honda
    Humane Society International
    IBM
    Institute of Popular Education of Southern California
    Information Society Project at Yale Law School
    Information Technology Industry Council
    Innovarte Universidad Mayor
    Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
    Institute for Policy Innovation
    Institute for Policy Studies
    Institute for Public Accuracy
    InterMune
    International Public Policy & Regulatory Affairs
    International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
    International Dairy Foods Association
    International Intellectual Property Alliance
    International Labor Rights Forum
    International Public Policy & Regulatory Affairs
    JCPenney
    Johnson & Johnson
    Just Foreign Policy
    Knowledge Ecology International
    Kraft Foods
    Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick
    Levi Strauss & Co.
    Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce
    Manufacturing Policy Project
    Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
    McDonough School of Business
    Meat & Livestock Australia
    Medecins Sans Frontieres
    MFJ International LLC
    MILLIKEN & COMPANY
    Motion Picture Association of America Mountainview Home Improvement
    Mylan Inc.
    National Association of Manufacturers
    National Council of Textile Organizations
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association
    National Family Farm Coalition
    National Marine Manufacturers Association
    National Milk Producers
    National Oilseed Processors Association
    National Pork Producers Council
    National Resources Defense Council
    National Textile Association
    Navistar
    NBCUniversal
    New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
    New Rules for Global Finance
    New Zealand Nurses Organization
    News Corporation
    NIKE, Inc.
    Northeastern University School of Law
    Northern Virginia Labor Federation
    NY4Whales.org
    Oakland Institute
    Oceana
    ODECU
    ONG Derechos Digitales
    Oregon Fair Trade Campaign
    Outdoor Industry Association
    Oxfam America
    PA Fair Trade Coalition
    Patton Boggs LLP
    Peruvians in Action New York
    PhRMA
    Precision Tune Auto Care
    Presbyterian Hunger Program
    Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
    Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
    Public Citizen/ Global Trade Watch
    Public Knowledge
    Public Services International
    QUALCOMM
    Ramatex Group
    Retail Industry Leaders Association
    Robert Branand International
    Rockefeller Brothers Fund
    Roosevelt Institute
    RootsAction
    Rubber and Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Association
    Screen Actors Guild &-American Federation of Television Radio Artists
    Sanape LLC
    Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg
    Semiconductor Industry Association
    Sierra Club
    Software & Information Industry Association
    Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.
    Sorini, Samet & Associates LLC
    Steel Manufacturers Association
    Student Global AIDS Campaign
    Surf Dog Computer Services
    Target
    TechAmerica
    TF Communications
    The Coca-Cola Company
    The Hosiery Association
    The Maine House of Representatives
    The McGraw-Hill Companies
    The Recording Academy
    The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace
    The Walt Disney Company
    Third Way
    Third World Network
    Thomsen & Burke LLP
    Time Warner
    TPP Apparel Coalition
    TPP Coalition
    TradeJustice NY Metro
    U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    U.S. Council for International Business
    U.S. Dairy Export Council
    U.S. Lumber Coalition
    UL LLC
    United Steelworkers
    United Students for Fair Trade
    Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
    UPS
    US Export Assistance Center
    US-ASEAN Business Council
    Viacom
    Vietnam Textile and Apparel Association
    Voice of Vietnamese Americans
    Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
    Wiley Rein LLP
    World Information Technology & Services Alliance
    WKM Global Consulting
    World Health Advocacy
    World Society for the Protection of Animals
    World Wildlife Fund

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I believe you will find that the proper term is not "allow", but "secure".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:14pm

    Re: Does anybody *really* believe the USTR works for the United States?

    Indeed. the major media companies somehow managed to make the government believe that granting them laws and criminalizing people is good for the american economy.

    People should be worried to have governements so out of touch with the present's reality that they support economic agents with deprecated business models believing that it's possible at all to prevent circulation & sharing of media files on the internet and else. It's sad to see nations obliterating their own future by listening to the wrong people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Ed (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:50pm

    Whatever law enforcement powers that Congress has needs to be invoked on this a**wipe. March into Kirk's office and perp-walk him out in chains. Enough is enough and it is time that we, the people, show "our government" who is the boss. Kirk and his kind are worse than terrorists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:08pm

    Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    I call bullshit, bullshit i say.

    The game plan here is FOCUS!

    The art of conversation requires 5 things.

    1. Listen more than you talk
    2. Come to an occasion armed with topics at the ready
    3. Tailor the conversation to the listener
    4. Take your turn
    5. Think before you speak

    Number five is particularly relevant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:13pm

    Re: Re:

    I call bullshit, bullshit i say.

    The game plan here is FOCUS!

    The art of conversation requires 5 things.

    1. Listen more than you talk
    2. Come to an occasion armed with topics at the ready
    3. Tailor the conversation to the listener
    4. Take your turn
    5. Think before you speak

    Number five is particularly relevant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:15pm

    I don't see the signatories on this letter, just "members of congress". Since I don't remember the congress passing a motion to this effect, I would say that Mr Wyden appears to be taking liberties in talking for others.

    WTG!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Prisoner 201, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:35pm

    Wow, the trolls are out in force. They must be worried.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:49pm

    Re:

    Worried about what?

    What I am worried about is someone like Wyden who appears to have the balls to think he speaks for all of congress. That is worrying. I guess the other 500+ elected members can go home now, Wyden's got it covered.

    You should be worried, that is the sort of bullshit that Mike would call out all day long if the letter was in support of copyright. Don't you think it's a little two faced of him not to mention the obvious?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:19am

    Re: Re:

    That's one of your most recurring comment spam tactics to systematically try and frame views as coming from an irrelevant minority and/or evil people and/or bought out people, etc...

    How any member of Congress speaking up seems like sane democracy in action. They are perfectly entitled to do this, however a minority you'd want them to be. The fact that it worries you can only because you are in the undercover opinion-containment and disruption business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:20am

    Re: Re:

    Not even that. Because there will become a point where the industries actually evolve, and the laws they wrote will not let them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:21am

    Re: Re:

    I'd consider it one of the occupational hazards of working within the American political framework, personally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:25am

    Re: Re:

    You accuse Wyden oftg hat, yet leave out Issa, who also signed this. Moreimportantly, perhaps there are people who do not want to sign in order to extort more "donations" for their campaigns. There's this funny thing called an election going on in about two months time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:35am

    Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    It took 1 paid off staffer to put the MPAA's wet dream into law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:55am

    Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    Are you suggesting that 128 of the 130 Representatives who signed a similar letter two months ago (PDF) have changed their minds and no longer desire TPP transparency?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:03am

    Re:

    For all of those dupes who believe that the game is fixed, here's the list of stakeholders who will be bringing issues to negotiators in this round of the TPP:

    "bringing issues to negotiators" for many of those on the list = 8 minute presentation at lunch time, in competition with four other such presentations, and which the negotiators are unlikely to see.

    Not so impressive is it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Beech, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:06am

    Re:

    I'm sure they sleep at night telling themselves that it actually IS what's best for us, but we're too stupid to know it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:07am

    Re: Re:

    Nobody hates IP rights more than Mike.

    Nobody hates the public more than the special interest groups and their shills.

    FTFY.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Beech, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:12am

    Re: Re:

    Just look at the companies on there. US Chamber of Commerce is there. All the delegates are probably in their pockets already, so how are the other 3 presentations in that 8 minute span supposed to compete for attention?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:22am

    Re:

    For all of those dupes who believe that the game is not fixed:
    At the same time, lobbyists who are members of the USTR's "advisory committees" can login via any computer with internet access, and see what the latest text is without any concern.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:23am

    Re: Re:

    Don't you think it's a little two faced of him not to mention the obvious?

    You mean that special interest groups got online access to the material? But Mike does mention this!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:33am

    Re:

    And who is speaking for regular everyday americans who haven't written large donation checks?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:35am

    Re: Re:

    You mean the 500+ others who shut down the Government in a pissing contest to prove who had the biggest balls?

    I think he is actually doing something rather than screaming rhetoric and refusing to actually deal with the real problems of real people, instead of sucking on the corporate teat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Umm, No, I didn't ignore Issa (they appear to be joined at the hip), but I would say that you are ignoring 500+ others who didn't sign it - at least not that anyone can see.

    Don't you have a problem with Wyden having the balls to try to talk for everyone else?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not really. But then, I'm used to people trying to talk for the public and actually not doing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 3:45am

    Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    So to clarify your point of view, these two are just "whiners" in your opinion, and there really is no need for transparency in negotiating this treaty. Is that really what you think?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 3:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So why aren't you as upset about this as you would be if someone came out supporting copyright in the same manner? I am sure you would be tossing your toys out of the pram if one of the copyright supporting Senators wrote a letter of support and had the nuts to sign it for the whole of congress.

    Let's be fair here. Why do you think Mike ignored that very basic point?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 3:54am

    Re:

    It's pretty hard to bring substantive issues to the negotiators if you have little idea of what's actually being negotiated. That's the whole point of the criticism here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 3:59am

    Re: Re:

    All oyur criticism is aimed at Mike, with zero comment on the actually topic of the port. So you're happy with this all being negotiated in secret? Don't like the spotlight being shone on it? Sounds like you've got some skin in the game...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 4:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, typo explosion...

    All your criticism is aimed at Mike, with zero comment on the actual topic of the post.

    Better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 4:30am

    the thing that this shows more than anything is that

    1) USTR has nothing but contempt for Congress

    2) that Hollywood in particular and the entertainment industries in general are the real forces in government, not the senators etc

    this has come about because of the extent politicians have been allowed to be 'encouraged' (read that as bribed!) to do as those industries have demanded instead of standing up to them and the people!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 5:34am

    Re:

    Ron Kirk & The USTR are not releasing the information on their super secret BS TPP to Congress & to Us The American Citizens.And they keep stonewalling the Senate who has asked numerous times for details.
    Now this is what you call "Washington Transparency" .
    Fuck Off Ron Kirk & USTR.Go wipe your dirty butts with your Toilet Paper Pact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Mega1987 (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 5:42am

    Knowing those nutheads, They'll just limit what the congress will know once they "open" up the TPP negotiation...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Michael, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 5:47am

    "It seems likely that the USTR will simply ignore this letter, showing what kind of respect it has for Congress."

    Just like I'll ignore whatever phony rules & regulations these corporations come up with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Ed (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 5:50am

    I like the idea of cutting off their funding. And I see the trolls keep spewing the misinformation that anyone who doesn't like their treasonous methods must be "against copyright". No, dipsh*t, your mendacity is what we're against. If there wasn't something nefarious in the works, why would you be so intent upon keeping it secret, even from Congress? I really do hope you people get what's coming to you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 6:08am

    Why does Congress not just pass a resolution reaffirming that all trade based agreements MUST be ratified by Congress and Congress has oversight?

    Much of this game of the executive agreements and these "treaties" being signed without explicit ratification Congress comes from a "poorly" worded section saying that the executive has taken as meaning that Congress has passed its power to ratify trade treaties over to the executive rather than that they may be negotiated on its behalf.

    That would eliminate much of this circus as the USTR (or at least the lobbyists) would need to get Congressional buy in. It also forces it to open up and ensures more stakeholder involvement. I'm not sure it'd really change the outcome of the negotiations, but at least it'd be a little less shady.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 6:12am

    Time uber hackers gained access to the text and released it on the net

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Mike Martinet (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 7:19am

    The Man from Congress

    With diplomatic immunity, couldn't a member of Congress just take a copy of the agreement after requesting it?

    If he/she was forcefully prevented from doing so, wouldn't a smoke-bomb and box-of-mice diversion provide enough cover to slide the original into an inside pocket, leave a duplicate and exit rapidly during the ensuing confusion?

    Summer's over I guess. This blockbuster will have to wait until 2013.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 7:33am

    Re: Re:

    As you doubtlessly know, many of the stakeholders on that list also have individual meetings with the delegates. Not all of those groups are giving presentations, but rest assured many of your fellow piracy apologists are presenting, including:

    1.Consumers International
    Consumer Protection and the IP Chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

    2.Electronic Frontier Foundation
    TPP within the International Intellectual Property System

    3.Knowledge Ecology International

    4. Public Knowledge
    Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the TPP

    5. ONG Derechos Digitales
    Copyright and Public Interest in the TPP

    6. Computer & Communications Industry Association
    The Proposals for Copyright Exceptions and Limitations

    7. Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
    Keeping Copyright Flexible

    8. Information Society Project at Yale Law School
    Criminal Liability for Copyright Infringement

    9. McDonough School of Business
    Intellectual Property and Economic Development

    10. Information Technology Industry Council
    Trans-Pacific Partnership: Promoting ICT and Internet Growth

    11. Elon University School of Law
    The Inefficiency of Secrecy

    12. Innovarte Universidad Mayor
    Exceptions and Limitations to copyright and other pro balance provisions

    So about 1/4 of all presentations are in opposition to strengthening IP provisions in TPP. This is far more heavily weighted than any other point of view on any subject represented by other presentations. It's more than double the number of pro-IP presentations. So seriously, quit whining and pretending your side is locked out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    This has been going on for years. 8 minutes at one of the final negotiations doens't sound like so much when you consider that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Because it's far easier to ignore something negative when it's coming from "my side" of the debate.*

    However, I can laud the Representatives' work in one area and decry it in another.

    *this is a humanity flaw, which will be erased in the next build.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 7:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The negotiations will go on for another year or two. There are ample opportunities for stakeholders to be heard. This session is so crazy because it's in the backyard of crazy- Washington DC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re:

    "Nobody hates IP rights more than Mike."

    Actually, you're incorrect. That would be me. Mike has publicly stated he attempts to play by the rules every chance he gets.
    Me? I fucking LOATHE IP. I will violate it every chance I get.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    Are you suggesting that 128 of the 130 Representatives who signed a similar letter two months ago (PDF) have changed their minds and no longer desire TPP transparency?

    No. I'm suggesting Masnick's trumpeting that, "A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress...." is a lie and total distortion. Moreover your suggestion the letter represents those Representatives from a previous letter is utter bullshit as well. The letter was NOT from "Congress"; it was NOT from 130 Representatives either. As near as I can tell is was from two disaffected, whiny malcontents- Wyden and Issa. That's a little different, don't you think?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re:

    EFF, like Masnick was outed on the infamous Google shill list. They've never been much more than a Google stooge- even allowing for the occasional meaningless criticism of Google they offer to maintain an appearance of impartiality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Heard? How are they able to give intelligent feedback, when they can't even see the document their giving feedback about?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not surprising, that's a common trait among failed artists and other economically marginal, entitled losers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So save us the time and out yourself.
    Your a stooge, and shilling for someone...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Having one's point of view heard and negotiating the text of the agreement are two different things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Define failed artist for me please? I don't consider myself a failed artist, probably because I don't want to monetise my work, therefore I don't see a failure there when I don't bring in money for it.
    I create art for the love of it.
    As for economically marginal...gotta love the cognitive dissonance here. If I'm economically marginal (a.ka. poor), there's no benefit to be had whatsoever through chasing me with copyright laws. Whereas, if I'm rich...then somehow I'm pro-copyright?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Okay, let me rephase that for you:

    Are these advocates going to see the curreent text of the agreement? If not, then these things are goignt o be about as useful as inedible chocolate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The Google shill list was empty. You've mixed up their six degrees of separation list with a shill list. The only shill 'outed' in Oracle v. Google was Florian Müller.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You mean like this guy?

    Or were you more thinking of a group like this?

    Perhaps you were referring to this guy or this guy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    I know, right! Since when does the minority get to involve itself in the process of government?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:46am

    Re: Re:

    I'm curious how you thought they could be a 'civil society group' without advocating for said civil society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is a false dichotomy, we have a right to secure those rights or not secure them, hence: allow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re:

    The letter isn't even about copyright it's about not knowing what's being negotiated because we can't see the text. It's neutral on copyright unless you assume transparency is bad for the 'supporting copyright position' which is telling in and of itself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re:

    Why should we respect a process when the people running it are unwilling to show it in action?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:58am

    Re:

    On behalf of explicitly means that it's not congress itself speaking. Why do you claim it means something else when you know that is simply untrue? Or are you just ignorant of what the phrase means?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It seems like you haven't read the letter. It doesn't say 'we demand less copyright' it say 'we'd like to see the negotiating text.' The letter is completely neutral on copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're not honestly arguing against transparency because not enough people are asking for it are you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:15am

    They need to stop asking for transparency and start demanding it. Their letter makes them sound like an army private standing off to the side asking a four-star general to reconsider his attack plans.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The letter is an attack on the process as a means to attack the IP provisions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    No. I'm suggesting Masnick's trumpeting that, "A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress...." is a lie and total distortion.

    I don't have enough information to make that call. Mr Wyden and Mr Issa sent out a request to both houses for signatures to the letter. Were there so few signatures that the EFF chose not to publish? Or were there so many that they decide to only publish the missive itself? Or perhaps the EFF only had a "pre-signed" copy and published that rather than wait for the signed copy.


    Moreover your suggestion the letter represents those Representatives from a previous letter is utter bullshit as well. The letter was NOT from "Congress"; it was NOT from 130 Representatives either.

    I never suggested it was. What I would infer from the fact that previously 130 members of the House of Representatives deemed to send a formal request to the USTR to provide more information, and two months later members from both the House and the Senate decide to re-iterate that request, is that the original 130 Representatives have been joined by some number of Senators.

    As near as I can tell is was from two disaffected, whiny malcontents- Wyden and Issa. That's a little different, don't you think?

    Well, one of those "malcontents" is the Chairman of the House committee responsible for International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, while the other is Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Neither of these positions are minor and both are charged with administering conduct of international trade agreements.

    If you wish to withhold judgment as to how many other congressman concur with the contents of the submitted letter, I can certainly understand; nonetheless, my opinion is that it is not an insignificant proportion of Congress, nor should their complaint be so readily dismissed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re:

    On behalf of explicitly means that it's not congress itself speaking. Why do you claim it means something else when you know that is simply untrue? Or are you just ignorant of what the phrase means?

    Seriously?

    be·half/biˈhaf/
    Noun:
    In the interests of a person, group, or principle.

    They are attempting to speak as representatives of a larger group: Congress. It is bullshit, they have no explicit or implied justification to speak on behalf of Congress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    Chris-Mouse (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re:

    I think a much more impressive list would be the one of which stakeholders have access outside of those 8 minute presentations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do you really need to see the umpteenth intermediate draft language in order to convey the message that you oppose any and all copyright? And your country isn't even party to the agreement, so piss off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Google and their shills EFF and PK are in meetings today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Gregg, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Everyone. Just stop spending your money. Don't by that app, don't by that movie, don't by that song, don't by that car, don't by that phone, don't sign up for satellite, cable or HBO. Just stop spending money and then things will turn around.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re:

    Post 52 lists those making presentations favoring your position. The list in Post 14 lists many more piracy apologist groups attending.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:59am

    Re:

    Everyone. Just stop spending your money. Don't by that app, don't by that movie, don't by that song, don't by that car, don't by that phone, don't sign up for satellite, cable or HBO. Just stop spending money and then things will turn around.

    Too late, the freeloading parasites have been doing that for years with no effect. Any regular folks don't give a shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    "No. I'm suggesting Masnick's trumpeting that, "A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress...." is a lie and total distortion."

    I don't have enough information to make that call. Mr Wyden and Mr Issa sent out a request to both houses for signatures to the letter. Were there so few signatures that the EFF chose not to publish? Or were there so many that they decide to only publish the missive itself? Or perhaps the EFF only had a "pre-signed" copy and published that rather than wait for the signed copy.

    You don't have enough information to make that call but you somehow accept that Masnick has enough information to suggest that this letter represents the entire Congress?

    Do you know what Oversight and Government Reform does?

    http://oversight.house.gov/issues-legislation/

    Wyden's committee is part of the finance committee. I don't know much about their mission except it's not exactly power committee

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 11:53am

    "A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress (though, not surprisingly, spearheaded by Senator Wyden and Rep. Issa) demanding that this insanity stop"

    On behalf of Congress?? What does that mean? The entire Congress? Who signed it and why do you claim it's on behalf of Congress when you know that is simply untrue?

    Repeated for truth. Those who seek to shut down a valid opinion with the report button should be ashamed of themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do you think that Wyden would be standing up screaming if the rumor mill had TPP reducing copyright to 10 years?

    I didn't think so either. It makes me wonder who his donors are (google, perhaps?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And Congress are supposed to be representatives of a larger group, the general public...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Congress has no role in negotiating treaties.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Again, this is all about attacking the process to get at the substance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:18pm

    Re:

    You do have a point there.

    I also have a point in that this is the ONLY point in the article where you can validly criticise it.
    You don't criticise the industry groups being able to see the text, while elected government officials can't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Re:

    And just in case you try and tar me as a censor...I never click on report, unless its spam. Trolls like you, I prefer to have your comments there plain as day, so everyone can see what an idiot you are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes it is an attack on the process, its an attack on a process that is seeking as hard as it can to bypass democratic principles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you're a negotiator for something, anything at all, being able to see the current text helps. Its how you define, narrow and focus your arguments, so instead of stupidly barging in saying "We oppose/support copyright", you can say "I support Section XYZ, but Section ABCD we may want to talk about a bit".
    Having negotiations where you can't even see what you're supposed to be negotiating over...isn't a negotiation at all!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The USTR are supposed to be reporting to Congress on TPP.

    They're not.

    Try again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re:

    The process, whether you like it or not, is that industry stakeholders who have been vetted and approved act in an advisory capacity in negotiations. Congress has no role in the actual negotiations. This is not unique to TPP and this is not anything new. This is only an issue now because of the IP chapter of TPP; otherwise no one would care. IP opponents know it will be easier to impose their views of IP enforcement in the negotiation process than in the place where it properly belongs- the approval process. So Wyden and fellow grandstanders attack a process that has been around for years as a surrogate for attacking the IP chapter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    You don't have enough information to make that call but you somehow accept that Masnick has enough information to suggest that this letter represents the entire Congress?
    I accepted no such thing. I rejected, as it is not supported by evidence, that this letter represents solely the view of "two Congress-whiners".

    I do not see any statement by Mr Masnick suggesting that the letter represents the entire Congress. The closest he comes is to claim the letter was sent "on behalf of Congress", which is not the same thing.

    The letter itself does not lay claim to having been sent on "behalf of Congress", but instead "on behalf of the American people". Does that mean that every person in American agrees with the contents of the letter? I don't think so. Does it mean the signatories of the letter are lying? Not if they feel TPP transparency is in the interest of the American people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Democratic principles do not have Congress involved in negotiating treaties. Wyden and Issa seek to inject themselves into a process where they have no standing whatsoever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    If someone claims to speak on behalf of a group of more than 500, what do you think the standard should be? Two representatives? 130, like the number of signatures on a previous letter? A simple majority? A two-thirds majority?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So if TPP is signed into law...why exactly should a US citizen follow it? He or she would have had no input at all, no say in it, yet are somehow expected to obey it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Go here
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

    In case you don't want to click through, I'll copy and paste

    "Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
    "

    Also this
    "Effect

    The clause actually confers two distinct powers: the power to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings is the basis for U.S. copyright law, and the power to secure for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries is the basis for U.S. patent law. "

    Notice how that mentions Congress. Congress is given the powers to promote the progress of science and arts, and one of the ways it does this is through copyright/patent laws. Congress and Congress ALONE is given mandate to enact or reject IP laws. Barack Obama is under heat for having signed off on ACTA, despite the fact that with ACTA being a copyright text, he has no powers as head of the Executive Branch to alter copyright or IP.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What on earth does that have to do with the Congressional role in international trade agreements?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    For the last time...
    When somebody wants to change Intellectual Property law in the United States, they have to go through Congress to do it. The Constitution is explicit in that only Congress has the powers to alter IP law.
    TPP has an IP section. That section is well, Intellectual Property. Which is part of Congress's turf.
    Simply saying that its now part of an international treaty is an end-run around democratically elected officials.

    It's called the Separation of Powers, dumbass. Otherwise, you'd have a dictatorial president running rampant signing decrees that contain sections that are not part of his office into law, by saying they're treaties (oops...has already happened).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    First of all, there's the ratification process. Next is conforming existing domestic law to reflect international agreements. Those are the proper roles of Congress- not negotiating the fucking treaty. It's like you are slow or something. And guess what? Based on what I've seen; NO CHANGE IN US LAW WILL BE NEEDED. So now what? Maybe you can write to these two professional malcontents and explain the doctrine of separation of powers and the limit of Congressional authority so they'll get back on their side of the lake.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    Well, from what I'm reading this letter is only up asking for signatories at present, so your usual boohoo'ing about it is premature.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You've just said two completely opposite things here.
    " Next is conforming existing domestic law to reflect international agreements"
    "NO CHANGE IN US LAW WILL BE NEEDED."

    Which is it? Will laws be changed (conformed) or will they not be?

    By the way, why is it that it doesn't ring alarm bells that laws can somehow be changed this way, by saying the bill is a treaty that doesn't need ratification from those elected by the people? If I were a US citizen, and I was told that a treaty has been signed and now I'm expected to obey a new law, I'd want to have had some say in it first.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, I'll type more slowly in the desperate hope you can follow along.

    If domestic law needs to be changed to reflect the terms of a treaty (already ratified) then that is done by Congress. Ratification is also a Congressional function. Negotiating is not. In the case of TPP, based on what I know- no US law will be needed to bring existing law into compliance with the (current) IP chapter. If you are still unable to understand, please ask your helper to explain it again or draw you a picture. It is honestly hard to believe that you are so stupid, but seemingly can operate a computer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nice to know you aren't a US citizen- we have enough idiots already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And you ignore that you can't shut out Congress when dealing with IP. You can't write up an IP bill, negotiate it amongst yourselves, then say to Congress to ratify it without letting them in first.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And who are you working for? What's your interests, and who is backing you? Come on, man up! Show a little backbone and transparency!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wait, isn't Wyden the Chairman of the House committee responsible for International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness? Wouldn't that give him some standing right there, since this is a 'trade agreement'?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That is already killing the record labels, and will kill the Movie and TV studios.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And you ignore that you can't shut out Congress when dealing with IP. You can't write up an IP bill, negotiate it amongst yourselves, then say to Congress to ratify it without letting them in first.

    You can ignore Congress entirely if the treaty doesn't require changes to existing law. For that matter, you can ignore Congress even if it does require changes to laws as they can then choose to not ratify the agreement. But nothing implies a duty or requirement to inject Congress into the negotiations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 4:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When you build a chair, does society secure your possessory right to that chair, or does society grant you such a possessory right?

    The point to be made is that "secure" versus "allow/grant" is not as simple a matter as many seem inclined to believe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    saulgoode (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 5:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    Let me respond to your questions with one of my own.

    When the Audubon Society petitioned the government on behalf of the Spotted Owl, how many owls do you think participated in the drafting of that petition?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 5:52pm

    Hey, if industry lobbyists can access the negotiation from anywhere on a computer with an internet connection, perhaps it could be hacked? Maybe some Anons could work on that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 7:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How shocking that somebody representing members of the public should want to know what's being negotiated in a deal that would massively effect the public (and not just in relation to IP)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How shocking that somebody representing members of the public should want to know what's being negotiated in a deal that would massively effect the public (and not just in relation to IP)?

    The government of the United States represents its citizens. That function isn't limited to Congress. Maybe Wyden should demand to sit in on Supreme Court deliberations. Perhaps Issa should insist on being included in meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.

    When the Audubon Society petitioned the government on behalf of the Spotted Owl, how many owls do you think participated in the drafting of that petition?

    Just when I thought that Rikuo was the biggest imbecile in this conversation, you come up with this gem and wrest the title away. Congratulations!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Sep 9th, 2012 @ 8:34pm

    Re: Re:

    Nice to see after being absent most of the summer that some things never change. And no it won't do copyright maximalists and those still fighting the pro-SOPA/PIPA battle one bit of good except bring forward the day of copyright's demise and theirs by their continued abuse of the privileges they get with so-called "intellectual property" laws.

    More like intellectual suicide.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Sep 9th, 2012 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The chair argument, as you're well aware isn't applicable to so called Intellectual Property. If you aren`t then look here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessory_interest

    As for the right you claim on the chair a reminder is in order that your claimed right only goes as far as to your sale of the chair and it is delivered to the buyer at which point your claimed right is the buyer`s right until the chair is sold again. That, and you have zero control over what the original buyer does with that chair or on what terms they can sell it. Unless, that is, voluntarily agreed to by seller and buyer prior to the sale being finalized (on delivery).

    "Intellectual Property" is a privilege extended by the body politic to, in the United States promote the "useful arts and sciences" or, in the British Empire and Commonwealth to promote education, trade and free information flow. It`s not property as defined in the free market it has always been a legislative or constitutional privilege and/or directive to the market to promote a broad, laudable goal in the market. What "IP" is not is a right. Nor, at least in Canada as of this past summer, is it license-able for the purpose of fair dealing/fair use though, under Canadian Law and the Canadian Constitution fair dealing/fair use are protected rights.
    IP extremists such as yourself try to recast a temporary privilege as a right which they are clearly not. Nor are they property in any sense of real property from a chair to a mansion to an aircraft carrier. Trying to recast it as something it isn't doesn't mean you've miraculaously changed it into something you want it to be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Sep 9th, 2012 @ 10:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You must, of course, be referring to a talentless collection of multimillionaires who freely stole everything from riffs to entire songs, uncredited, and got away with it while tying to sue the butts off of anyone who tried something even remotely like that on them.

    Hint: one of the barf bag songs of the past century given the number of times it has, uninvited and increasingly unwanted invaded our ear canals.

    If you guessed Led Zeppelin after the hints you have just won yourself a three month long cruise through every distillery around the world that the Bronfman family owns and produces beverages at from exclusively stolen recipes. (As do most distilleries.) Enjoy!

    Now, what was that you were saying about failed artists and the economically marginal, entitled losers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Sep 9th, 2012 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Awwwwwwwww, you mean groups and organizations opposed to your maximalists view of the fantasy of "IP"?

    I wonder how the Supreme Court of Canada didn't make the list? ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Sep 9th, 2012 @ 11:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    10 years without renewal sounds about right. Damned near perfect actually.

    It's a pipe dream, of course,but far more in line with what the creators of things like copyright and patent law were looking for and, in fact, created as opposed to the corrupt corpus of law and precedent we have now.

    Yeah, you know, 10 years sounds wonderful!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Sep 9th, 2012 @ 11:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When in doubt blame Google. If in more doubt toss in the entire GPL/Open Source movement.

    You've fired a shot at Google now I'm waiting for the GPL/Open Source attack and, by Wednesday at the latest Creative Commons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    icon
    Seegras (profile), Sep 11th, 2012 @ 5:57am

    Can't they just arrest the responsible USTR staff

    Really, I'd consider what the USTR does treason. The USTR is an administrative body under congress, and withholding vital information from your directly responsible superior (remember, those two senators are in the immediate commitee tasked with supervising the USTR) sure sounds like treason.

    So I'd call upon the attorney general to have the responsible people within the USTR arrested for treason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This