Techdirt. Stories filed under "treaties"

Investor-State Dispute Resolution: The Monster Lurking Inside Free Trade Agreements

Glyn Moody — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:09:17 PDT

We wrote recently about how multilateral trade agreements have become a convenient way to circumvent democratic decision making. One of the important features of such treaties is the inclusion of an investor-state dispute resolution mechanism, which Techdirt discussed last year. The Huffington Post has a great article about how this measure is almost certain to be part of the imminent TAFTA negotiations, as it already is for TPP, and why that is deeply problematic:

Investor-state resolution has been a common component of U.S.-negotiated pacts with individual nations since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. But such resolution is not currently permitted in disputes with the U.S. and EU, which are governed by the WTO. All trade deals feature some kind of international resolution for disputes, but the direct empowerment of corporations to unilaterally bring trade cases against sovereign countries is not part of WTO treaties. Under WTO rules, a company must persuade a sovereign nation that it has been wronged, leaving the decision to bring a trade case before the WTO in the hands of elected governments.

Traditionally, this proposed political empowerment for corporations has been defended as a way to protect companies from arbitrary governments or weakened court systems in developing countries. But the expansion of the practice to first-world relations exposes that rationale as disingenuous. Rule of law in the U.S. and EU is considered strong; the court systems are among the most sophisticated and expert in the world. Most cases brought against the United States under NAFTA have been dismissed or abandoned before an international court issued a ruling.

As this rightly points out, investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms were brought in for agreements with countries where the rule of law could not be depended upon. That makes no sense in the case of the US and EU, both of whose legal systems are highly developed (some might say overly so.) The Huffington Post article quotes Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, who explains what she thinks is really going on here: "The dirty little secret about [the negotiation] is that it is not mainly about trade, but rather would target for elimination the strongest consumer, health, safety, privacy, environmental and other public interest policies on either side of the Atlantic," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "The starkest evidence ... is the plan for it to include the infamous investor-state system that empowers individual corporations and investors to skirt domestic courts and laws and drag signatory governments to foreign tribunals."
One recent example of the kind of thing that might become increasingly common if investor-state dispute resolution is included in TAFTA and TPP is provided by Eli Lilly and Company. As Techdirt reported earlier this year, the pharma giant is demanding $100 million as compensation for what it calls "expropriation" by Canada, simply because the latter's courts refused to grant Eli Lilly a drug patent on the grounds that it didn't satisfy the conditions set down in law for doing so.

A new report (pdf) from the UN Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), pointed out to us by IP Watch, reveals just how widespread the use of investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms has already become:

The Issues Note reveals that 62 new cases were initiated in 2012, which constitutes the highest number of known ISDS [investor-state dispute settlement] claims ever filed in one year and confirms that foreign investors are increasingly resorting to investor-State arbitration.

…

By the end of 2012, the total number of known cases reached 518, and the total number of countries that have responded to one or more ISDS claims increased to 95. The overall number of concluded cases reached 244. Out of these, approximately 42 per cent were decided in favour of the State and 31 per cent in favour of the investor. Approximately 27 per cent of the cases were settled.

Although that suggests that states are winning more often than investors, the cost of doing so is a drain on public finances, and ignores cases that never come to arbitration because governments simply give in. And when states lose, the fines can be enormous: the report notes that 2012 saw the highest monetary award in the history of investor-state dispute resolution: $1.77 billion to Occidental, in a dispute with Ecuador.

As an accompanying press release from UNCTAD points out, this growing recourse to international arbitration

amplif[ies] the need for public debate about the efficacy of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism and ways to reform it

Unfortunately, against a background of almost total lack of awareness by the public that supra-national structures are being put in place that allow their governments to be overruled, and their laws to be ignored, it is highly unlikely we will get that debate.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

US And Europe Move On To TAFTA: Yet Another Chance To Push Through ACTA/SOPA Style IP Maximalism

Mike Masnick — Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:40:56 PST

ACTA and SOPA may have flopped, but minor setbacks like that won't stop the onslaught of abuses from the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries looking to use the international treaty process to try to pressure everyone to keep ratcheting up protectionist laws concerning copyright, patents and trademarks. Obviously, we've been talking about the still worrisome TPP agreement involving a bunch of Pacific Rim countries, but it's not stopping there. Back in October, we warned that the US and EU were preparing a new trade agreement as well, and the preliminary plans noted that it would include a "high level of intellectual property protection, including enforcement."

More details are starting to come out as the main EU negotiator for ACTA, Karel de Gucht, came to DC to see about getting things kicked off, on an agreement that's being called TAFTA -- the Trans Atlantic "Free Trade" Agreement. Of course, instead of recognizing the lessons from previous failed efforts to push for broken maximalist policies, it appears that the plan is to try, try again. Some are already saying that this is "the opportunity to try to set the gold standard" in copyright, patent and trademark protection. The goal, as with ACTA and TPP is to ratchet up the laws, and then put tons of pressure on China and India to "respect" those laws. To put it mildly: this is stupid. Both of those countries recognize how protectionism works. We've already seen that China is becoming exceptionally good at using patent laws to basically punish foreign companies, while helping domestic Chinese companies. It seems downright idiotic to provide them with even more tools to do so.

Of course, the real questions are why do we keep letting our governments negotiate these kinds of deals, and why do we let them do so in secret?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

ITU Boss In Denial: Claims Success, Misrepresents Final Treaty, As US, UK, Canada And Many More Refuse To Sign

Mike Masnick — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:42:26 PST

The ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is now over... and it played out almost exactly as many had predicted. After going back on explicit promises that the treaty would (a) not be about the internet and (b) would only be completed by consensus, rather than by majority vote -- the US lived up to its promise not to support such a treaty by officially stating that it would not sign. A number of other countries quickly followed suit including: the UK, Canada, Denmark, Australia, Norway, Costa Rica, Serbia, Greece, Finland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Sweden, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Qatar (though some apparently said they could not sign because they first had to consult with their own governments -- so it's possible that some of these may change their mind, but many viewed such statements as a more diplomatic way of refusing to sign).

The US, on the other hand, was explicit in refusing to sign:

"It's with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the US must communicate that it's not able to sign the agreement in the current form," said US Ambassador to WCIT Terry Kramer. "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years. All without UN regulation. We candidly cannot support an ITU Treaty that is inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance," Kramer added.

The US delegation also laid out the specific reasons why it refused to sign, and they're the same issues we've been talking about all along: (1) the attempt to expand the definition of the types of entities covered by the treaty from the big telcos to just about everyone running network (2) the explicit inclusion of internet and internet governance in the treaty (3) the claim of a mandate over cybersecurity and (4) the official regulation of spam. That last one hasn't received as much attention, but the US found the rules put forth for dealing with spam going way too far, and putting in place rules that would violate the First Amendment.

Of course, with so many countries bailing out, the ITU's promise that this would all be about consensus look positively laughable in retrospect. But, perhaps even more laughable is the response from ITU boss Hamadoun Toure whose claims read like those of a bureaucrat in complete denial. First he claimed complete "surprise" that the US and other countries walked away:

I couldn’t imagine they wouldn’t sign it. I especially was surprised by the reasons that were put in place. I had made it clear from the opening that [Internet and content were not a part of the discussion]. I invited ICANN to show that we want to build bridges. The telecoms society and internet society need to work together. I made an appeal to please help us build bridges. The fighting will not help the consumer that we are trying to reach here.

He kept going on and on insisting that the internet and internet governance were not a part of the agreement, even though they are. Of course, he then effectively admits that part of the goal is to be the key player in the internet

I have been saying in the run up to this conference that this conference is not about governing the Internet. I repeat that the conference did NOT include provisions on the Internet in the treaty text. Annexed to the treaty is a non-binding Resolution which aims at fostering the development and growth of the internet – a task that ITU has contributed significantly to since the beginning of the Internet era, and a task that is central to the ITU’s mandate to connect the world, a world that today still has two thirds of its population without Internet access.

So it's not about the internet, but the internet is central to the ITU's mandate. Of course, this claim is also a lie. The ITU's mandate does not cover the internet, but telecom infrastructure. One of the more nefarious moves by Toure and the ITU in this whole process was to continually blur the lines between telecom infrastructure and the internet, as if they were one and the same.

The word “Internet” was repeated throughout this conference and I believe this is simply a recognition of the current reality – the two worlds of telecommunications and Internet are inextricably linked. I demonstrated that from the very beginning by inviting my friend Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, to address our conference at the beginning.

So... again, he's saying two different things. First, he claims that the treaty has nothing to do with the internet, and then insists that telecommunications and the internet are "inextricably linked," which explains why the treaty pretty clearly would impact internet governance -- which is why so many nations are refusing to sign.

Finally, there's this bit of self-aggrandizing bullshit:

History will show that this conference has achieved something extremely important. It has succeeded in bringing unprecedented public attention to the different and important perspectives that govern global communications. There is not one single world view but several, and these views need to be accommodated and engaged.

WCIT has shown us this truth and we have worked hard together to find a way that is acceptable to all. Let WCIT be the beginning of this dialogue. As our two worlds increasingly converge so must we increasingly converse and find a common way.

To be honest, this feels like a speech that was written before the events of the past two weeks, perhaps at that secret meeting to plan its media strategy. To sit there and claim that WCIT was about finding a way "acceptable to all" and one in which the focus was on "finding a common way" is especially laughable, given how the whole thing concluded. History may very well show that something extremely important was achieved, but it may just be that the achievement was demonstrating clearly what a charade the ITU is, and making it clear that it is not the right organization to have anything to do with internet issues. The ITU has been shown, once again, to be an out-of-date, out-of-touch, obsolete organization searching for relevance.

The simple fact is that the world does not need an ITU to "enable" the internet. The internet was built and expanded rapidly through other means, driven by demand and what it enabled people to do. The current system is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but it has been working, and shifting to a model driven by international bureaucrats was never in the cards.

The internet does not need the ITU. The ITU needed the internet to remain relevant. The internet, however, does not work that way, and any attempt to move it into such a system of bureaucratic oversight was doomed from the start.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The New Imperialism: Forcing Morality Shifts And Cultural Change Through Exported IP Laws

Tim Cushing — Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:46:33 PDT

As could probably be expected after its quick trip through the Congress, Panama's 510 Bill became law last Friday, granting its Copyright Office unprecedented power to pursue filesharers directly. But this is only one of several problems with the 510 Bill. The bill goes further than any US law, extending copyright protection to buffer copies and content stored in cache.

Transient copies, such as buffer copies on a computer’s random access memory (RAM), are necessary for a host of streaming services that carry content over the internet to end users. Recognizing a right to exclude such copies, in addition to the ultimate right to distribute the content itself, adds another layer of licensing requirements that can block innovative services (like Netflix or Pandora) from being offered. Many other trade agreements and national and regional laws contain explicit exceptions for “transient” or “incidental” copies necessary for technological or other communications. But the Panama Free Trade Agreement contains nothing of the kind, and neither does Panama’s law. By extending protection to temporary electronic storage, with no clear exception for transient electronic copies – the Panama bill fails to give internet service providers and other businesses the legal certainty they need to enter and maintain operations in Panama’s market.

The law also severely limits fair use, moving from an open-ended clause to a "closed list" system which narrowly defines fair use limitations and exceptions. The US has an open system, much to the chagrin of various content industries. Moving other nations to this more restrictive standard first will make it easier to bring ourselves in line with several other nations sometime down the road.

Users' rights are also being narrowly defined, erasing any trace of "balance" in Panama's copyright law. Between the severely limited fair use, the extension of protection to cover nearly every file that moves through a user's computer during normal internet usage and the government's ability to pursue filesharers with the burden of proof falling to the citizens, the public is left with nearly nothing.

Compare this legislation with Portugal's response to filesharing: a "hands off" approach to non-commercial infringement and the recognition that an IP address isn't necessarily a person. I would imagine that Panama's copyright office won't be interested in making that distinction, not when bonuses are at stake.

Is there a huge cultural difference in play here or is it just varying levels of pressure from content controllers (used to differentiate from content "creators," not all of whom espouse the same view as the industry "representatives")? Up until recently, Spain's view on filesharing was roughly the same as Portugal's, a viewpoint that seemed to draw extra attention (read: "pressure") from the US government and its associated trade organizations.

As the EFF notes, many Latin American countries used to have more progressive copyright laws, but recently passed legislation has changed much of that. The previous laws drew the attention of the US government, either landing these "non-conforming" countries on the infamous Special 301 list or threatening their participation in bilateral free trade agreements. Further pressure is being exerted by the highly secretive TPP whose negotiations seem to consist of shutting the public out and telling other nations how to run their own countries, IP-wise, while excluding them from negotiations.

Colombia pushed through incredibly extreme copyright legislation ahead of a visit from President Obama, ignoring an outraged public which had staged SOPA-style protests during the law's debut months earlier. Spain, like Portugal, also considered filesharing legal, until the US stepped in and rewrote its copyright laws after smacking it around with an appearance on the Special 301 report. Switzerland pushed back against outrageous Hollywood-backed claims about filesharing and is now on The List. Canada recently went through some copyright reform of its own, but apparently not to the liking of the entertainment industry, which has suggested it will simply overwrite the parts it doesn't like with the TPP.

The end result is the US government using protectionist policies to force cultural change on other countries, shifting legislative viewpoints to match up with corporate demands which routinely exceed the severity of our existing laws. In essence, "your culture is wrong." Should the US government be in the business (and it is very much a business) of applying "our" moral standard on other countries, especially when non-conformance is subject to threats implicit and explicit?

It's been stated here before that infringement is not a moral issue, but those pushing for harsher legislation and more enforcement abroad certainly believe it is. Making countries subject to compliance with an arbitrary moral standard (written by certain industries) as a prerequisite for entering an advantageous trade agreement doesn't create copyright converts. Instead, it creates the IP equivalent of "rice Christians" who allow the US to rewrite their IP laws in order to prevent being locked out of beneficial agreements by one of the most prosperous nations in the world. The end result is coerced compliance that runs roughshod over existing IP laws at the expense of their own constituents.

Applying a new moral standard via the institution of new laws that only benefit the industries being catered to sounds a lot like an advantaged group using its governmental patrons to conform the world to its preferred standards. The government of perhaps the most powerful nation in the world at your fingertips is the sort of thing that no industry, no matter how "beleaguered," should ever have at its disposal.

The end result is an entertainment industry occupation by proxy. The limitations enacted in order to enter a free trade agreement put these countries at a severe disadvantage by crippling local tech industries. Opening trade means very little when innovation is thwarted by legislative overreach.

Free trade agreements have great potential to unleash new competition in markets, producing better products and services at lower prices. This assumes, however, that these agreements actually lower barriers to trade.

Unfortunately, due to misaligned priorities and poor drafting, the U.S. Government’s framework for free trade agreements has neglected aspects of U.S. law that are instrumental to a flourishing Internet sector, and in doing so has erected new barriers to tech exports.

The trend of expanding liability and constraining the balancing provisions of copyright law also manifested recently in Colombia. Also responding to a recently enacted Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Colombia hurriedly passed a controversial copyright revision this spring which similarly left little flexibility for technology innovation. The upshot of the copyright law revisions in these countries is to erode certainty and discourage investment by online services, e-commerce platforms, device manufacturers, and ISPs. This is not lowering barriers to market access.

It would be a mistake to understand this as solely an issue affecting U.S. exports, however. In fact, it is a more serious issue for our trading partners, because while U.S. firms may look to more fertile export markets, Colombian and Panamanian firms must survive at home before they can reasonably expand abroad.

An economy stifled by restrictive additions to existing IP laws puts the continuing development in the hands of American special interests who don't actually care whether or not a country thrives as long as their own interests are protected. Sabotaging innovation to protect legacy business models is nothing more than imperialism redefined. The entertainment industry, speaking through the government, is now an occupation force, one that uses "free trade" as a cover for top down dominance of the native population by removing protections, erecting barriers and excluding the affected constituents from the legislative process.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Wyden Traps Feds In Their Own Words: ACTA Explanation Opens Up Big Hole In Cybersecurity Bill

Mike Masnick — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:16:57 PDT

Back in March, when the US State Department responded to Ron Wyden's questions about the feds' authority to negotiate and sign onto ACTA without Congressional approval (damn you, Constitution), it made an odd (and rather new) claim: that Congress had actually already approved the executive branch's ability to negotiate and approve international agreements on intellectual property issues. The claim was that the ProIP Act (of 2008) said the newly appointed IP Czar should create a joint strategic plan which, among other things, helps identify how the administration can deal with IP enforcement issues by "working with other countries to establish international standards and policies for the effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights."

Yes, because Congress said that the IP Czar should create a strategic plan in which the administration can work with other countries on IP enforcement, the administration now claims that Congress effectively abdicated its powers over international commerce on that issue, despite it never clearly stating that.

Given that strained interpretation, Wyden has noticed that the new cybersecurity bill that the Senate is considering could be broadly interpreted in the same manner to create all sorts of powers for the administration to ignore Congress in crafting international agreements concerning online security. He's now sent the State Department a letter asking for clarification. Here's the key part:

Do these provisions, or any others, in S. 3414 authorize the Executive Branch to enter into binding agreements with foreign governments for the purposes of establishing disciplines on cybersecurity? If so, under what circumstances would Congress need to consider such agreements and under what circumstances would you argue that Congress need not consider such agreements? If S. 3414 does not authorize the Executive Branch to enter into binding international agreements over cybersecurity without Congress' consideration of such an agreement, how do you square this view with your interpretation of the Pro IP Act of 2008?

In other words: Wyden is calling the State Department on its bullshit retroactive interpretation of Pro IP by noting that if they truly believe it, then the new cybersecurity bill would effectively mean Congress gives up its powers to have oversight on any international agreements about cybersecurity -- something the administration almost certainly does not want, since that would spark a debate that would likely hold up approval of the bill. The State Department, of course, wants it both ways. It wants to claim that the Pro IP gave the administration the power to ignore the Constitution with IP issues, but the same is not true of the cybersecurity bill. But that would involve ignoring that the same language is present in both bills.

I fully expect that the State Department will now seek to tapdance its way around this -- or (more likely) not answer until after the cybersecurity debate is over.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Obama Administration Stalls Treaty To Help The Blind In An Effort To Appease Big Publishers (AKA Campaign Donors)

Mike Masnick — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:42:03 PDT

Last week, we wrote about how the US was holding up a treaty to help visually impaired people be able to access more works, in large part because publishers are somehow offended that the public might want to take back some of their fair use rights (which the publishers unfortunately claim is "taking away" something from them). As more and more details come out, it's become clear that while most of the countries involved in the negotiations really want this treaty -- which has been in discussion for nearly 20 years -- to be put in place, there are two major stumbling blocks: the EU Commission and the US. Not surprisingly, these were the two biggest supporters of ACTA as well. As with ACTA, the EU Parliament is at odds with the EU Commission on this and is in support of a treaty, but the Commission is trying to put all sorts of "unreasonable restrictions" on the agreement, and the US is still fighting against the idea of calling this a "treaty."

The end result is that, rather than finalizing things at the WIPO gathering, the US's ability to drag the whole process out means that nothing will be decided until after the Presidential election. And that's by design:

This is really kicking the can down the road -- in this case, past Obama's first term in office. After four years, Obama can't overcome opposition from a handful of mostly foreign owned publishers to support a treaty for blind people. In many respects, this is a money in politics story. If blind people were financing his campaign, they would have had a treaty a year ago. The Obama administration wants the decision on the treaty delayed until the election so it will not interfere with its campaign fundraising from publishers, and so it will not suffer bad publicity for opposing the treaty, before the election.

The whole thing is pretty shameful, and yet another display of how money corrupts politics... and how copyright helps in that process.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Darrell Issa Posts Text Of 'Unconstitutional' ACTA For Open Feedback; Something USTR Never Did

Mike Masnick — Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:30:09 PST

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 allow for open feedback and comments concerning the OPEN Act. And it appears he's not done using that platform, either. He's now posted the text of ACTA 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:

Stopping SOPA and PIPA was a historic victory for digital citizens, but ACTA potentially poses a similar threat to the global Internet community. While the agreement’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.

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’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 decried as a U.S. Senator.

Closed doesn’t cut it. We opened up ACTA in Madison so you can sign up, speak out and collaborate to build a better “treaty.”

For all of the USTR's ridiculous claims of unprecedented transparency, why couldn't it have done something like this before 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.

Which raises another unfortunate point. The Obama administration has already 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.

Also, when do we get the Madison'ed version of TPP?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Australian Trade Minister Says That Releasing IP Enforcement TPP Treaty Text Would Be 'Problematic'

Mike Masnick — Thu, 7 Apr 2011 01:20:46 PDT

We've pointed out how the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is shaping up to be the son of ACTA, but worse. And one area where negotiators seem to be following the ACTA blueprint is on near total secrecy about the negotiations (even as some are leaking). This is really stunningly stupid. As many people pointed out when it came to ACTA, the excessive and unprecedented levels of secrecy really gave critics a key point to focus on that generated tremendous interest in what would otherwise have been seen as a boring trade agreement.

And yet, TPP negotiators are doing the exact same thing. A few years ago, you may recall, that US Trade Rep Ron Kirk dismissed calls for transparency in ACTA negotiations by claiming that it would be problematic in that some of the participants might walk away from the table if they had to tell the citizens they represented what they were actually negotiating. Of course, later in the negotiations, when some countries pushed for transparency and openness, it became clear that it was the US -- who really kicked off ACTA -- that was the driving force behind the unprecedented level of secrecy.

Now, with TPP, it appears they're making the same totally unsubstantiated claims. Glyn Moody points us to a letter sent by Australian Trade Minister Craig Emerson, which pays lip service to "transparency," but when it comes down to the key question of opening up what's being negotiated, says that's not really possible:

Your suggestion that draft negotiating text and position papers should be made public is understandable but problematic. First, this would only be possible if all parties agreed. Many negotiating parties would consider releasing the text as a breach of confidence. Second, negotiating text really has no status until it is agreed by all parties. I am not convinced that exposing contested text, potentially including ambit claims, would assist informed public debate on the issues.

Almost none of that makes sense. First, the claim that it would only be possible if all parties agree should not be a stumbling block. The simple response is that all parties should agree. This is a treaty that will likely have significant impact on people in all these countries. Why shouldn't it be discussed publicly? The "breach of confidence" claim is meaningless for the same reasons. These are about laws and enforcement that will impact citizens. There shouldn't be anything "in confidence" going on here. That the document has "no status" until it's agreed upon certainly sounds like "hey, please don't complain about the document until it's all done and we've agreed to what's in it." Talk about missing the point. The reason people want the negotiations to be open is to stop bad and damaging things from being in that "agreed" upon resolution.

Finally, the last claim is the most ridiculous. How can a more informed public not assist in informed public debate? Seriously. It takes amazing hubris to try to claim that keeping a document secret leads to greater "informed public debate" on the subject.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Is A Treaty For Letting The Blind Have Access To Books Too Difficult, But ACTA Is Fine?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 03:04:56 PST

We've pointed out the hypocrisy of the industry folks who are eagerly supporting the expansion of copyright via ACTA, but who are against a few very limited simple exceptions to copyright for the blind in a new WIPO treaty. However, in defending this position, a European Union Commissioner, Michel Barnier, has explained to the European Blind Union, that doing a treaty is just too hard, and it's much easier to just do a much more limited "joint recommendation," which would be a lot weaker. As KEI's Jamie Love points out in the link above, it seems odd here that the EU is admitting that it's too difficult to bother creating new treaties around copyright... at the same time it's heavily involved in ACTA and a number of other copyright treaties. Apparently it's only worth undertaking that kind of effort when it ratchets copyright up in favor of industry. The blind? Eh. Not worth the effort...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Wikileaks Reveals That The US Won't Comply With Treaty Obligations Concerning Investigations Into CIA Rendition

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:33:06 PST

This is hardly a surprise, but it's increasingly being confirmed by the various State Department cable leaks that the US Justice Department is failing to comply with its treaty obligations with other countries in their investigations into US (mainly CIA) "rendition" operations, where they take people captured elsewhere and find some place to torture them. Related to this, of course, is that US diplomats worked overtime to suppress any investigations, and put strong diplomatic pressure on countries not to investigate. And yet, some still did, and the US simply refused to cooperate, despite requirements under various treaties. This is, of course, nothing new. The US has a history of ignoring treaties when it doesn't like what they say. This is seriously going to come back to haunt the US. It's amazing how upset the US gets when others ignore treaty provisions, but it does the same all too often.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MPAA, Pharma Demanding US Push Other Countries To Have Significantly More Draconian IP Laws Than The US

Mike Masnick — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:11:38 PST

The constant push to expand government granted monopoly privileges for those who benefit most from them never ceases. It seems like every other day or so, we hear about US lobbyists for those industries pushing for greater legal support around the globe. The latest is with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement that the USTR is currently negotiating. The MPAA wrote a letter, which was co-signed by the major pharmaceutical trade group and the US Chamber of Commerce, pushing for the agreement to include rules that go well beyond current US copyright and patent laws. This, of course, is part of the standard game of leapfrog that the industry plays: get other countries to push stricter laws, then complain that the US is not living up to "international obligations," and get them to bump up their own laws and continue the cycle. In fact, the Obama administration has apparently made it clear that they will not even consider allowing intellectual property rules to be decreased as a part of this agreement and will only look to ratchet up protections. This is, as KEI points out, even though many of the participants in the negotiations are developing nations, who would be greatly helped with lower intellectual property standards, and previous US administration have been more than happy to agree to such agreements:

After being told the Obama Administration would not consider anything that lowered IPR norms in the TPP negotiations, and only measures that raised norms, KEI reminded USTR has the Clinton and Bush Administration both were willing to lower IPR norms, when they were persuaded it was appropriate. This included:

President Clinton's December 1, 1999 speech to the WTO endorsing new changes in U.S. trade policy to address concerns over access to medicines.

President Clinton's Executive Order 13155 of May 10, 2000, concerning Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals and Medical Technologies.

President Bush's decision to agree to the November 14, 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.

President Bush's decision to accept the waiver to 31.f of the TRIPS agreement on 30 August 2003.

President Bush's July 16, 2004 agreement between USTR and Canada to modify NAFTA to allow exports of medicines under compulsory licenses.

President Bush's May 10, 2007 agreement on the bipartisan New Trade Policy, which eliminated patent extensions, eliminated linkage of drug registration and patents, and relaxed test data protection for the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

For the Obama Administration to claim that it can only harmonize upwards is really disappointing, given the promises that Obama made during his presidential campaign.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

WIPO Worried About Why Countries Feel They Needed ACTA Process Outside Of WIPO

Mike Masnick — Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:23:35 PDT

Earlier this year, in discussing ACTA, some observers noted that it was quite telling that those involved in the ACTA negotiations were clearly routing around WIPO, the organization that was already in place to deal with those kinds of discussions. The explanation was that the negotiators were upset that the copyright holders no longer had full control over the WIPO agenda, and WIPO had dared to let consumer rights groups into the discussion. So the purpose of ACTA was to get around having to include such groups. It appears that WIPO, itself, is quite concerned about what's going on with ACTA, suggesting that he's worried that these countries no longer believe the WIPO process works.

"A number of countries feel [there is] an important area of public policy they are not able to address in a multilateral forum, and so have gone outside the multilateral framework to satisfy their desire for creating some form of 'international' cooperation," Gurry told Intellectual Property Watch in an interview last week. "That's the challenge, for us. And whether it concerns enforcement, ACTA, or any other area, that, on the whole, is a bad development for a multilateral agency, that member states start to do things outside."

I'd argue that he's being a bit too hard on himself. It's not that the WIPO process doesn't work (though, I do have some problems with the WIPO process as well), but that the copyright holders were upset that they no longer had near unilateral control over the process. It wasn't that they felt WIPO couldn't address the issues, but that it would be much harder to get them addressed in the way industry folks wanted.

As part of the discussion, he also pointed to the recent fight over helping the blind access more content through exceptions in copyright law -- an WIPO process that has been stymied by industry interests who don't like to see any new exceptions applied to copyright. To WIPO, that gridlock on such an obviously reasonable solution is worrying:

The frustration it has caused is a consequence of practical issues not being addressed, he said, citing recent difficult discussions in the Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights on increased access for visually impaired persons. "Can anyone not subscribe to that principle, as a general rule?" he asked, with visually impaired readers only obtaining access to about five percent of all published work in reasonable time.

"Can anyone stand up and say that they should not have more [access], that we should not do something about it?" It is such an obvious question, he said "but we are not getting an agreement" although the last meeting showed genuine involvement of member countries.

If anything, what this demonstrates is not any problems with the WIPO process, but a group of organizations so used to getting their way on copyright issues so totally and completely, that they're not used to facing people questioning the actual impact of the regulations and international agreements they push. When that happened, they decided to take their ball and go home to play with only their friends. That's what ACTA is really about.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

White House Actually Goes Against Hollywood, Supports Copyright Exemptions For Visually Impaired

Mike Masnick — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:20:00 PST

With the Obama White House appearing thoroughly convinced of the entertainment industry's views on "piracy," it's a bit surprising to hear that it has come out in favor of a proposed treaty to create copyright exceptions for the visually impaired. This is the WIPO treaty that we recently wrote about, noting that all those organizations pushing for ACTA were very much against this particular treaty. The Commerce Department even responded to the entertainment industry by saying that nothing about the treaty appears to "weaken" international copyright law, as they fear.

Unfortunately, the details suggest a bit of horse trading may be going on. The report suggests that the Commerce Department is saying that it will support this particular treaty, but it will seek to strengthen copyright law pretty much everywhere else (by which it means full support for ACTA). There's been a near universal alignment on these two treaties: those in favor of the WIPO one are against ACTA, and those in favor of ACTA are against this treaty. Reading a bit between the lines, it looks like the Obama White House is saying it will support both treaties. While the WIPO treaty is important, it's a much smaller deal than the ACTA treaty. So, even if the White House is supporting it, it looks like it may just be doing so to remove some complaints on ACTA, which is the big problem.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Funny How Those In Favor Of ACTA Are Against Treaty Providing More Access To Content For Vision Impaired

Mike Masnick — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:01:00 PST

It seems pretty bizarre that companies and industry organizations would be against helping those with reading disabilities or vision impairment -- but that's exactly what you get in the discussion over creating some loopholes in copyright law to make it easier to reformat content to help those who would have difficulties reading it otherwise. Their concern, of course, is anything that can be seen as weakening copyright law. As we've noted in the past, there's never really been any weakening of copyright law... ever. The only exception I can think of is when the US officially established that government documents could not be covered by copyright. But every other change has only strengthened it -- so perhaps it's no surprise that the usual suspects, including the MPAA and the RIAA are upset about this, claiming that this WIPO treaty on this subject would "begin to dismantle the existing global treaty structure of copyright law, through the adoption of an international instrument at odds with existing, longstanding and well-settled norms."

Now, that's funny, because you could pretty much say that ACTA is doing the same thing... and yet these same groups are strongly in favor of ACTA, which would also be at odds with existing, longstanding and well-settled norms." Funny how their view changes completely when discussing treaties that would beef up copyright law vs. those that would create important and useful loopholes in it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

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

Mike Masnick — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:50:00 PDT

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...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Disappointing: Obama Administration Won't Support Treaty For Helping Blind Get Digital Books

Mike Masnick — Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:18:00 PDT

JJ points us to an unfortunate story that the Obama administration appears to be siding against an intellectual property treaty agreement that would have helped blind and visually impaired individuals by allowing "the cross-border import and export of digital copies of books and other copyrighted works in formats that are accessible to persons who are blind, visually impaired, dyslexic or have other reading disabilities, using special devices that present text as refreshable braille, computer generated text to speech, or large type." As the article notes, exceptions to copyright law for the production of books for the blind is common, and effectively this would expand that to ebooks. Many had hoped that the administration would support it... but:

Assurances coming into the negotiations this week that things were going in the right direction have turned out to be false, as the United States delegation has basically read from a script written by lobbyists for publishers, extolling the virtues of market based solutions, ignoring mountains of evidence of a "book famine" and the insane legal barriers to share works.

It continues to be a massive disappointment that politicians keep bowing down to corporate pressure when it clearly goes against the very purpose of copyright law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Broadcasting Treaty Back From The Dead (Again)

Mike Masnick — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:19:21 PST

While the negotiations on the awful ACTA treaty are getting more attention these days, another awful treaty seems to be coming back from the dead. WIPO's Broadcasting Treaty has been out there for years. The idea is to add more new copyrights for content that's "broadcast," even though it's usually already covered by copyright. The end result would actually do significant harm to the public domain, because a broadcaster who broadcasts public domain content could then claim a "broadcast right" over that content -- basically reclaiming it from the public domain. The entire treaty is based on the faulty idea that ownership of content is somehow socially beneficial, when there's little evidence that this is true.

Some powerful entertainment industry folks have been trying to push this treaty through, as a way to force various governments to pass new laws that grant them these new copyrights, that will really be useful in keeping competitors from broadcasting certain content. So far, the treaty has repeatedly stalled out. Last year, we were encouraged when the Senate Judiciary Committee admitted that it was greatly troubled by the proposed treaty, noting that it would significantly harm consumers' rights. Soon after that, the treaty died, though we warned that certain interests would keep on pushing it.

And, indeed, that's exactly what's happening. At a recent WIPO meeting, it appears that the Broadcasting Treaty is back on the table, and doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. There are considerable disagreements over what it should include, so it might not move forward, but it's disheartening that it appears the US representatives at WIPO seem to have reversed their earlier position, and are now saying that webcast content should get this totally unnecessary and damaging "broadcast right" as well as content broadcast on other media. Hopefully the wrangling over terms will cause this treaty to die again -- but considering how much of an effort big media companies have put behind it, you can bet it won't go down without a fight.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

EU Continues To Give Bogus Reasons For Keeping ACTA Secret

Mike Masnick — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:38:26 PST

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.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Entertainment Industry Continues To Try To Sneak Copyright Expansion Through ACTA

Mike Masnick — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:54:47 PDT

We've been pointing out how there needs to be a lot more sunlight shone on the discussion surrounding the new "ACTA" treaty, which is basically a way for the entertainment industry to sneak through new copyright laws without getting Congressional approval. Basically, the entertainment industry writes this international treaty, and the US Trade Representative gets it approved. Then, suddenly you get stories from lobbyists for the industry about how we need to change our copyright laws to live up to international agreements. Sneaky, right?

Now, according to William Patry, the US Trade Rep is resisting calls to open up the process by which ACTA is written, by claiming that ACTA is really pretty minor and won't require any substantive changes in US law. Of course, that's turning out not to be true at all. At that link, Patry looks at the RIAA's suggestions for ACTA, many of which would substantially change copyright law, in rather astounding ways.

It's a laundry list of an ideal world for the RIAA. Basically, everyone else would be responsible for policing any form of unauthorized usage for the entertainment industry. Things that are now civil offenses would become criminal, and the RIAA would have much lower burdens of proof. ACTA is turning into an agreement designed to prop up the RIAA by forcing everyone else to try to force the market to pretend that technology doesn't do what it was designed to do, and to try to hold back the more efficient market innovations that impact the established industry's business model. And they want to do it all in secret and without letting Congress even have a say in the process. And, to make it even better, it's apparently now on the fast track for approval.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A Little Sunshine Brings Out Rapid And Well Deserved Anger Towards ACTA Treaty

Mike Masnick — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:28:58 PDT

Last week, I wrote a post highlighting the faulty premises behind a secretly negotiated treaty between the US and many other countries, the so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Since then a bunch of news articles have been written about ACTA, with most of the focus on how it will have border guards going through your iPod and computers to see if you have any infringing content. A bunch of folks have been submitting stories on this all week, despite the fact that we wrote about it last week. However, what's most interesting to me is how quickly this turned from a little story -- first posted to Wikileaks and a few blogs, into something that's been in major newspapers (oddly, mostly focused in Canada).

Even more interesting, however, is how this has so quickly turned into activism, with some newspapers already already calling for people to stand up against ACTA to protect our privacy rights. Think about that for a second. This was a treaty on the "boring" topic of copyright, that was basically pitched by the entertainment industry to politicians who wrote it up in secret. It leaked out to a single website, and within a week there were major newspaper editorials calling for people to stand up against it, and thousands, if not millions, of people informed about the potential harm this treaty could cause. So much for slipping it under the radar.

This is really the culmination of a few different factors, including the entertainment industry's misguided and rapidly backfiring battle against consumers, that has catapulted copyright from a boring "wonkish" issue into one that people recognize effects so many aspects of their daily lives. Combined with the wonderful communications ability of the internet, it makes it harder for the entertainment industry to simply pull one over on people like this. Of course, as we've noted, the industry keeps on trying, and they love sneaking through legislation and treaties before anyone recognizes it -- but the rapid response to ACTA (which is far from over, of course) suggests that some of the industry's advantages are slipping away. Hopefully, this issue will continue to receive the attention it deserves so that there's a real debate on whether or not such a treaty is needed (it's not).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Debunking The Faulty Premises Of The Pirate Bay-Criminalization Treaty

Mike Masnick — Fri, 23 May 2008 18:21:00 PDT

The entertainment industry's lobbying efforts for stronger intellectual property laws is incredibly sophisticated. The more you follow their efforts, the more impressive you realize they are. Every time one aspect is somehow blocked, another almost immediately pops up somewhere else that has been simmering below the surface for months. While many more are aware of efforts to directly lobby politicians to change copyright laws, what gets less attention is the work that's put into various "international trade" treaties. Two years ago we wrote about how this was a favorite tactic of the copyright lobby. They basically write up a treaty for the government, who then signs the treaty with a bunch of countries, without anyone realizing all of the details. Then the copyright lobby starts using the crutch that all of the countries involved have to strengthen their copyright laws in order to "comply with our international treaty obligations."

Kevin Stapp writes in to let us know about the latest such proposed treaty that has been leaked to Wikileaks. The document is (not surprisingly) a wishlist for the entertainment industry and, as Wikileaks notes, it was distributed only to pro-stronger-copyright lobbyists for comment, and not to any consumer rights groups or those who recognize that stronger copyright can be quite damaging. Slashdot talks about what Wikileaks calls the "Pirate Bay Killer" clause that would force countries to criminalize significant facilitation of infringement, even if it's not for profit. Why countries should be criminalizing what is, in actuality, a business model question is never explained.

However, there are many more problems with the paper, including the fact that many of its most basic assumptions are either untrue or unproven. When you base an entire international trade treaty on questionable (or outright incorrect) assumptions, bad things will result. It starts out by noting:

The proliferation of infringements of intellectual property rights ("IPR") particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy poises an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable development of the world economy

Except that two recent government studies have shown no such thing. Both the GAO and the OECD have noted that both the magnitude and the impact of counterfeiting is greatly exaggerated by lobbyists. The paper goes on:

The consequences of such IPR infringements includes (1) depriving legitimate businesses and their workers of income; (2) discouraging innovation and creativity; (3) threatens consumer health and safety; (4) providing an easy source of revenue for organized crime; and (5) loss of tax revenue.

Let's go through those one by one. On point (1), this is simply untrue. As we've pointed out in the past, there's no such thing as "depriving" someone else of income -- otherwise convincing someone to go to a pizza shop instead of a deli would be considered a crime (you've "deprived" the deli of income). Where money goes is a marketing issue, not a legal one. If companies are having trouble convincing people to pay them for their products, that's their business model problem. Nothing is being taken from them.

On point (2), this is also simply untrue. Study after study have shown no corresponding decrease in innovation or creativity when intellectual property laws are weakened (or even removed entirely). In this day and age when so much creativity takes place outside of traditional intellectual property realms, it seems ridiculous to even suggest that creativity is somehow impacted.

The closest the paper comes to having a reasonable point is on point (3), but that really only applies in very narrowly defined cases (specifically involving dangerous counterfeit products that may not be safe). Yet, that's an extremely narrow area, and can be dealt with via other means, including anti-fraud law. And, when dealing with international trade issue, it seems like the sort of thing that ought to be handled by customs, rather than with some big intellectual property treaty.

Point (4) is a favorite claim by the industry, but it's never been backed up with any significant evidence. I'm sure there are some organized crime groups that traffic in counterfeit products -- but again, that can and should be dealt with by other laws. Strengthening intellectual property laws to combat organized crime is a misuse of intellectual property laws.

The question of tax revenue (5) is also a favorite of the industry that relies on only counting the ripple effects in one direction. That is, it assumes that the lost tax dollars come from things like the sales tax on software products that would be bought, but fails to count the economic growth and additional tax from businesses who are able to more rapidly grow the economy through the use of cheaper software.

So the entire underpinning for the argument in favor of these "trade agreements" is a house of cards (if that much). But for those who aren't all that familiar with the space (or whose political campaigns are funded by the entertainment industry), these claims are all taken as a given. That should be seen as a serious problem.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story