<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;madison&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:30:09 PST</pubDate>
<title>Darrell Issa Posts Text Of 'Unconstitutional' ACTA For Open Feedback; Something USTR Never Did</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120306/10253718001/darrell-issa-posts-text-unconstitutional-acta-open-feedback-something-ustr-never-did.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120306/10253718001/darrell-issa-posts-text-unconstitutional-acta-open-feedback-something-ustr-never-did.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been really impressed (though we can see where it needs improvements in its next version) with the "Madison" platform that Rep. Darrell Issa put up to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/10480317011/details-sopapipa-alternative-released-with-open-requests-feedback.shtml">allow for open feedback</a> and comments concerning the OPEN Act.  And it appears he's not done using that platform, either.  He's now <a href="http://keepthewebopen.com/acta" target="_blank">posted the text of ACTA</a> to the same platform to ask for feedback and comments.  It comes with an initial statement showing that he's very concerned about the nature of ACTA (I believe this is the first time Issa has spoken out against ACTA:
<blockquote><i>
Stopping <a href="http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa">SOPA</a> and <a href="http://keepthewebopen.com/pipa">PIPA</a> was a historic victory for digital citizens, but ACTA potentially poses a similar threat to the global Internet community.  While the agreement&#8217;s stated goal of strengthening intellectual property rights is one all should support, it does so by undermining individual privacy rights and by empowering an unaccountable enforcement bureaucracy.  And just like SOPA and PIPA, ACTA was crafted without input from citizens and key stakeholders in a secretive, closed-door process.
<br /><br />
        Worse, ACTA appears to be an unconstitutional power grab started by President George W. Bush and completed by President Barack Obama - despite the White House&#8217;s January 14 criticism of legislative solutions that harm the Internet and erode individual rights.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass intellectual property legislation - like SOPA and PIPA - and gives the Senate the power to ratify treaties.  But the Obama Administration maintains that ACTA is not even a treaty, justifying the exclusion of both American citizens and their elected representatives.  It is a practice Vice President Joe Biden <a href="http://nyti.ms/zOXd75">decried</a> as a U.S. Senator.
<br /><br />
        Closed doesn&#8217;t cut it.  We opened up ACTA in <a href="http://keepthewebopen.com/about">Madison</a> so you can <a href="http://keepthewebopen.com/signup">sign up</a>, speak out and collaborate to build a better &#8220;treaty.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
For all of the USTR's ridiculous claims of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120218/01452217800/ustr-claims-tpp-has-unprecedented-transparency-it-wont-reveal-details-unless-youre-big-industry-lobbyist.shtml">unprecedented transparency</a>, why couldn't <i>it</i> have done something like this <b>before</b> ACTA was "finalized"?  The answer is that there's no reason at all.  Instead, the USTR released the "final" draft of ACTA as a done deal, and any public comment was meaningless, because the document was not open for any additional changes.
<br /><br />
Which raises another unfortunate point.  The Obama administration has <i>already</i> signed ACTA.  Hopefully this means that Congress is actually going to get serious about challenging the administration on its claimed authority to sign and ratify ACTA without Congress' approval.  Until now, the only Congressional official who had questioned that right publicly was Senator Wyden -- though, we've heard of a few others who have sent pointed questions to the administration about its claims.  With Issa going public and directly questioning this attempt to deny Congress the right to review ACTA -- despite the Executive branch not having the right to make copyright or patent law -- perhaps Congress will finally step up and make it clear that it won't let the President simply ignore Congress' mandate over both IP law and international treaties.
<br /><br />
Also, when do we get the Madison'ed version of TPP?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120306/10253718001/darrell-issa-posts-text-unconstitutional-acta-open-feedback-something-ustr-never-did.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120306/10253718001/darrell-issa-posts-text-unconstitutional-acta-open-feedback-something-ustr-never-did.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120306/10253718001/darrell-issa-posts-text-unconstitutional-acta-open-feedback-something-ustr-never-did.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-look-at-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120306/10253718001</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:27:45 PST</pubDate>
<title>Can A Newspaper Survive By Only Printing Twice A Week?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/000422207.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/000422207.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&#038;aid=137300" target="_new">Romenesko</a> points out that the Madison Capital Times, in Wisconsin, is not just putting more emphasis on its internet operations, but it's also cutting back on the print paper to the point of only <a href="http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/271414">coming out with a printed paper twice a week</a>.  Reader <b>Joel</b> also sent this in, saying: "A newspaper's web site gets its credibility from the daily publication. Without that it's just another news web site, and anyone can put up a web site. I think they need a reputable daily publication, even if it sells poorly and loses a little money, to give the web site legitimacy."  I mostly agree, though, if you can successfully do news just online, paper could be a pretty big waste.  However, in this case, it's unclear what benefit the "twice-a-week" strategy really provides.  It will probably upset those who really liked reading the physical paper each day, and will do little to attract new readership.  If they wanted to really bet on the web, why not make the bet complete?  Going halfway by making the paper version less valuable doesn't seem all that compelling.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/000422207.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/000422207.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080208/000422207.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what's-the-goal-here?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080208/000422207</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>