USTR requests that interested persons identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.

Written comments should include a description of the problems that the submitter has experienced and the effect of the acts, policies, and practices on U.S. industry.

The burden of proof was very obviously on the public interest, civil society groups. Stan McCoy of the USTR, who was presiding over the hearing, joked about the two-phonebook-sized submission by the International Intellectual Property Alliance. (Lol?) Sadly, there is no independent verification of these industry reports and there were no tough questions for industry regarding their testimony. Several times, McCoy interrupted civil society groups’ testimony to chide them on speaking too generally about IP policy, but refrained when industry witnesses did the same.

Testimony from groups like Global Health Organization, the Forum on Democracy and Trade, Oxfam, Public Knowledge, and others were met with aggressive push back and questioning on how criticism on the Special 301 process was at all relevant to the committee’s ability to render judgments on individual countries.

But that’s exactly the problem. The report is written so vaguely, and industry complaints taken at such face value, that specific criticism of the report is near impossible. I was surprised to learn that the report doesn’t include a list of criteria used to evaluate countries or even clear explanations on why specific countries are placed on the watch list, nor does it say which industry-submitted comments were the basis for citation.

The best moment of the hearing, to me, was during Sean Flynn's testimony on behalf of the Forum on Democracy and Trade. Flynn argued (for the second year in a row, I might add) that citing countries like Finland, France, Italy, and Japan for "unfair [pharmaceutical] reimbursement policies" was incredibly vague, hypocritical (because the US has similar reimbursement policies), and--most importantly--outside the statutory mandate of the Special 301 process. McCoy retorted that no such citation was in the 2010 report [pdf].

Flynn’s response? "It's right here on page 14..."

Record companies cannot look into problems from a fresh, artist based angle. Problems are often solved but not in the way they were intended...

Shawn Fanning created Napster firstly for his own purpose. The new music models embrace as much technology and revolution as they can contain in a chaotic attempt to find a new and better path. Revolutionaries are prepared to make mistakes on the way; labels do not have this luxury. Many battles win a war, likewise through constant chaotic growth, development will come. Developing a new model for a major label is fuelled with risk so it is more likely they will continue to look for ways of containing technological advancement rather than embracing it as a new way of income....

The labels by being at war with the revolutionaries set themselves up as "The Bad Guy." Major label fat cats aren't going to convince a 9 yr old kid that sharing a song is wrong just because it affects their jobs.

People LOVE free music. Free music is always going to win.

By continuing with their argument instead of reaching out to new technology they push themselves even further behind in public opinion.

Unfortunately it isn't as simple as the "home taping will kill music" argument they thought it might be because the advancement of technology has overtaken even the revolutionaries' expectations. For a new generation of people music is now free. You CAN'T fight that.

"I'm not even slightly interested in saving the industry."