Still Plenty To Be Concerned About With TPP

from the being-more-public-would-be-good dept

While we are encouraged by the USTR's supposed recognition of the importance of limitations and exceptions in copyright law in their latest TPP draft proposal, there are still significant concerns about the TPP agreement, as a whole, including with the very specifics of the language around exceptions and limitations. Already, a few folks who have been burned before by the USTR are worried that the language being used is so narrow as to only allow fair use-like exceptions in a very narrow set of circumstances. Furthermore, as Sean Flynn lays out, there are many other key issues at stake in the specifics of the text around the IP provisions, way beyond just the limitations and exceptions. These include questions about the copyright status of "temporary copies" (think cached copies), parallel importation ("gray market"), copyright term extension, digital locks and a few other things as well.

You know what would make it so that people weren't so damned concerned about all of this? Opening up the proposed text so that the public can comment on it and give feedback. The fact that the USTR was willing to reveal that it's included a section on limitations and exceptions was nice... but, in part, helped to show the problem: that the USTR only gets to reveal little bits of info it wants to reveal, rather than presenting the document in an open fashion for public comment. That's not transparent at all. We're encouraged to hear that the USTR did share the "exceptions and limitations" language with some who weren't part of the formal "advisory committee" process, but we're still not talking about an open and transparent process -- and without that there are all sorts of opportunities for problems to arise.

Filed Under: ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2012 @ 10:20pm

    Re: Re:

    I have followed Mr. Flynn's work over the years, just as I have done for many within academia whose research and legal opinions span all sides of the aisle.

    I understand the basis for your comment that you have not seen Mr. Flynn overstate anything. I happen to have a different view based upon what what I have read in several of his academic articles and public presentations.

    Since I do not know what "text" your unidentified person has seen and to whom you attribute its being "spot on", I have no means by which to measure your comment.

    I am not surprised that you are not surprised, but then again this is an easy staement to make when you labor under a misunderstanding of law in general, and intellectual property (BTW, I too do not like this term, but for different reasons) law in particular.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.