Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?
from the openness,-transparency dept
Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information. So far, the response from the government had been "sorry, we always negotiate these things in secret, so we'll keep doing so." At one point, even the ACTA negotiators held a closed-door meeting and then released a press release saying they discussed being more transparent, but haven't actually followed through.When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.
But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This is transparency? This is openness?
As Declan McCullagh points out at News.com, Executive Order 12958 only allows material to be classified if revealing it would do "damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage." Can the US Trade Representative please describe the damage to national security if the public gets to see what's being proposed that would require governments around the country to enact significantly more draconian intellectual property laws?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, copyright, national security, secrecy, state secrets, sunlight, trade agreements
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State and Corporate security
Considering that we are heavily reliant on IP rights and litigating to make money is it any wonder that Uncle Sam is stepping in to protect one of his most important constituents?
They know that any public debate would quash their ridiculous ideas so they do it behind closed doors. The government then steps in to protect yet another failing business model at the detriment of our ability to create and innovate.
This is the same old story for any industry out there. Once a group of corporations attains the type of undeserved wealth as our entertainment industry has they quickly use their power to manipulate markets so they can continue to make their "cut".
If you really want to see who is pulling the strings just follow the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security Clearances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security Clearances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
then again.. I might get sued
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We have the best government money can buy!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
90% of the iceburg is below water
Mark my words: Actions such as this will eventually fully legitimize Creative Commons, GPL and GNU, and lead to further shunning of yester-years accepted models.
When knowledge of these atrocities and complete whoring out of the IP system come to light, it will result in wholesale rejection of the establishment that created the legislation. True Artists, Inventors, Guilds, and otherwise will go elsewhere. The creators themselves won't put up for it, and instead will move to Public Domain, Creative Commons, GPL or GNU-friendly licensing and outlets that follow the spirit these alternatives put forth and release their creative through 3rd avenues.
Valuing the creation over the creator won't work. Creating secret laws to take protect the Creation is stupid. Thinking that slapping a brand name will inflate a product's value 2000% is delusional.
As a country, we have had enough shell games, ponzi schemes, and blatant lies told to us to last several generations.
Either you have transparency to the real issue or you don't. You don't create wealth by fancy politics or taking advantage of people.
In America, you create wealth with hard work. This is just another paperwork scam to create false inflation of paper akin to CDOs and MBSs. A house of cards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The new Musuc business model
all you have to do is convince congress that your business is vital to national security and therefore must be supported by the taxpayers.
"The Commies are stealing our music! America will not stand for that"
The next step: bombing homes of Communist file sharers.
Clearly the guys at the RIAA and MMPAA have a great sense of humor.
The U.S. is fastly becoming a most unattractive place to live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The new Musuc business model
Really? Name another place you'd rather live - then move there and let us all know how it is in your utopia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The new Musuc business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The new Musuc business model
France
Australia
Spain
UK
Norway
Netherlands
I'd rather live in any of the above, and have done, than live in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The new Musuc business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The new Musuc business model
Of course, the US could be much improved by getting rid of Weird Harold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The new Musuc business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change.
Nothing is going to change until it is forced to. When corporations have raped the Earth enough to where the population can no longer be supported, that's when things will change. Anyone who knows anything knew that nothing significant would change when a corporate whore like Obama took office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ignoring the fact that this is a different situation than the topic at hand, there is no such thing as a government that passes out welfare derived from general taxation completely honestly and altruistically. Anytime the men in power are in charge of determining who gets what, the system will get gamed. Wish for a utopian dreamworld where a well-meaning government takes from the successful and gives to the needy and nobody takes advantage in one hand, take a shit in the other, and see which hand fills up first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Truth
Absolutely, completely and unequivocally worthless when the real truth comes out-
Merely special interests saying "Let's not innovate"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on a minute
I want more than self-affirmation to these claims before I start hooting cliches from my open window and writing even tireder ones. (see that old/new boss, adnauseum thing...God, that's older than Mithridates)
I thought this readership was the cynical type...I ought to have researched that one better, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on a minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on a minute
Masnick's always going to link to himself. It's just good business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
national security
Anyway, OF COURSE it's national security - this is the only card the US economy has left to play. If IP fails them, it's lights out. Why isn't this clear to everyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: national security
If this is the ace in the hole, better to fold now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
natsec
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trade Secrets/ National Secrets
How is cloaking trade rules a national secret? The law allowing for the classification of documents says the classifying agency has to state why the item is a secret does it not? So...
My concern quotient is going up with the President's administration...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trade Secrets/ National Secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello China my old friend, I've come sleep with you again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We allow it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-white-house-enforces-right-of.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask again.
I would suggest that "Knowledge Ecology International", put in another request and find out who the "someone" was, that denied their first request, before getting outraged and offended, (Like some of the posters, here).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Security?
I think they should just walk away from this. If they are that worried about damaging evidence being presented to the public, it sounds as though it's not good policy to begin with, why bother pursuing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bait & Switch
With his approval rating already dipping below where Bush was at the same point in his administration, the eye-opening "buyer's remorse" now being expressed by more and more libs is becoming too loud to be hidden any longer.
Rush Limbaugh and many others tried to warn you before the election (loudly and often) and you refused to listen.
So if you voted for the fool, quit your whining and lay in the bed you have made for yourselves. Perhaps you can form a new "angry drum circle" (or whatever other non-substantive, unproductive, emotion-driven waste of time makes you feel "empowered" against "the man").
The rest of us are going back to work to try and clean up your mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bait & Switch
No you aren't. You're going to sit there and be self-righteous and say things like "don't blame me," and "sleep in the bed you've made," completely missing the point that this isn't about who was wrong and who was right -- it's about where the country's going. And that affects all of us, no matter who we voted for. Still, I'd be surprised if you raise one finger to try to fix this mess than we've all been put in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bait & Switch
Yeah...I don't think listening to Rush Limbaugh is the best thing either:
http://mtblog.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/03/rush-limbaughs-10-dumbest-remarks.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how did that saying go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
documents on Wikileaks
There are plenty of documents available ranging on different topics in the ACTA agreement. Wikileaks is the shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU Response to document request
"The EU has turned down a request for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents filed by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII). In a letter to the group, the EU said simply that "the documents contain negotiating directives for the negotiation of the above mentioned agreement. These negotiations are still in progress. Disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations.""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU Response to document request
"Disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations."
What they really meant:
"Disclosure of this information could impede the improper conduct of the negotiations."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change
Secret laws are the same as no laws or I make the law and everything is against the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading Article
Guess what, Obama probably wasn't even aware of the request or its refusal, Peter Allgeier, the Deputy US Trade Rep, appointed by Former President Bush would have been the one to receive and act on the FOIA request, and that he acted totally in line with the Bush administration's policies is about as shocking as being told water is wet.
Obama has yet to shake up the USTO, so relax, and stop blaming a man for actions that staff appointed by the old boss made. Obama is not omniscient, unless there's evidence that Obama knew about this FOIA request and did nothing to stop it being blocked, you people need to stop tossing around red herrings.
Honestly kinda disappointed in the article, this information wasn't even difficult to locate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws rules and regulations
A consensus between all parties that something IS WRONG, or shouldnt be done.
It can NEVER be 1 party/1 sided..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why isn't this headline news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Executive Order 12958
[ link to this | view in chronology ]