Senator Wyden Demands ACTA Details Be Revealed

from the good-for-him dept

Fri, Jan 8th 2010 5:16am — Mike Masnick

Late last year, we noted that Senator Bernie Sanders had questioned why ACTA negotiations were being kept secret well beyond normal -- even to the point of being classified as a state secret. The USTR gave the usual non-answer in response, and it appears that other Senators are beginning to worry about this as well. Senator Ron Wyden is now demanding that the USTR confirm or deny the various leaks about ACTA that have raised so many concerns.

Wyden also pointed out that "objectives behind the negotiations still remain inadequately clear to the American public." I actually don't know that this is true. The objectives seem abundantly clear from what's been leaked: to put up artificial barriers to help prop up an industry unwilling to adapt to changing times. The letter itself (pdf) includes 11 questions for the USTR including asking for assurances that ACTA would neither force changes on US IP laws nor would it constrain Congress from adjusting such laws in the future.

Update: Looks like politicians around the world are starting to wake up and question all this ACTA secrecy.

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, secrecy, senator ron wyden, transparency

31 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 5:32am

"Senator Wyden Demands ACTA Details Be Revealed"

Eh, he's just trying to get the copyright industry to put some money in his re-election campaign fund. Once that happens he'll keep quiet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 6:26am

Ah, you can see them begin to get it...
Finally, it appears that a combination of factors is FINALLY starting to put the fear of God into some of our "representatives". The factors as I see them are:

1. Nat'l attention in new media is highlighting the pros and cons of current and speculative IP laws as never before. This combined with the new and genuine interest of the younger generations has created an interest in what many previously considered the "dry" topic of IP law.

2. Combined with the above is the widespread reach of internet, people of voting age are more informed than ever about the things their government and industry are doing.

3. For some reason I have yet to be able to identify, young people are more involved in the voting process than perhaps any time since the Vietnam War era.

What this all culminates in is the very real possibility that an interested public will vote out their local and congressional reps if they're in office when something harmful is done. This doesn't appear to apply to the Presidency so much (likely because the eventual candidates for that job are choreographed by some higher powers so that neither choice ever really serves the people), but at the local level we still have a voice.

Some of the members of that political body are finally starting to understand that we can take away their jobs, and it looks like some of them are starting to get scared....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: Ah, you can see them begin to get it...
  For some reason I have yet to be able to identify, young people are more involved in the voting process than perhaps any time since the Vietnam War era.
  
  My guess would be because of section 2, which references section 1, of your post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2010 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: Ah, you can see them begin to get it...
  "Finally, it appears that a combination of factors is FINALLY starting to put the fear of God into some of our "representatives"."
  
  I think you're hallucinating.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2010 @ 9:54am
  
  Re: Ah, you can see them begin to get it...
  "Some of the members of that political body are finally starting to understand that we can take away their jobs, and it looks like some of them are starting to get scared...."
  
  More hallucinations I see.
  
  As they say, don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Onnala (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 7:12am

Oregon
Wyden has been an oregon senator for a very long time. No term limits here, and has been doing a good job. So he probable feels very safe in going after the ATCA treaty as even if some of the content industry doesn't like it, there is little that they can do.

Most people in Oregon are impressed that he supported our states assisted suicide law even though he didn't personally support it. Most of the reason we still have it is because of his opposition to both of the previous administrations attempts to destroy Oregon law.

Long story short, the guy has a lot of political capital to spend in his home state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti-Mike (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 7:24am
  
  Re: Oregon
  I would wonder how big the film and music production business is in Oregon. How much is actually at risk for this senator? Will thousands of jobs be lost?
  
  I am thinking the answer is no.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re: Oregon
    Please tell me how letting the public see a treaty (that could very well impact our freedoms) during the negotiation process will in any way cost jobs. Please, please, please explain it, I really can't wait to read it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ima Fish (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oregon
      "Please, please, please explain it, I really can't wait to read it."
      
      He'll probably pull something from Wikipedia's butt.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        "He'll probably pull something from Wikipedia's butt."
        
        But there really shouldn't be anything to pull. He and anyone else can argue up and down that enacting ACTA will save jobs and not enacting it will cost them, but there is no conscionable (sp?) reason to deprive the public from being able to see what is essentially a commerce treaty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ima Fish (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        I completely agree. I was just making fun of the Anti-Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        I've actually refrained from that lately. TAM still comes off as completely biased, but at least lately he's commented in a way that is somewhat reasonable and at least marginally thought provoking.
        
        Not that I would ever try to minimize humorous comments of course....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ima Fish (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 8:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        "he's commented in a way that is somewhat reasonable and at least marginally thought provoking."
        
        He's the most articulate troll I've ever experienced. But, he's still a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        The sad part is, the only difference between an articulate troll and someone looking for a meaningful debate is the ability for said troll to concede that they are wrong when confronted with a superior argument. I don't recall TAM ever doing so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        Sigh, now I feel stupid. How the hell has TAM derailed a thread he hasn't even commented in?
        
        ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 4:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        he's Very good at what he does, it seems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Anti-Mike (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 9:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Oregon
      Look, it's a missed point:
      
      It's a question of risk / reward. You don't see the Junior Senator from California or the like asking about it, because for them there is more of the table. For the Senator from Oregon, he risks what, pissing off the one movie product that comes to the state each year?
      
      Basically, he can ask the question because he has nothing to lose by people being upset about him asking the question. It isn't about the RESULTS of the treaty, it's about stepping on people's toes.
      
      It's politics, and the question from the wrong person would be very impolitic indeed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Infamous Joe (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        I'm still not sold on how this will cost the loss of a single, solitary job in *any* state. He's not asking to change *anything* on the trade agreement, he just thinks we should see the damn thing.
        
        What *if* the senator from California asked this question? Will the movie studios move out of Hollywood, to Nevada?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2010 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        Ah, so the only politicians that can have an unbiased viewpoint on ACTA are those that aren't being bribed...I'm sorry, "lobbied".
        
        Thank you for that fascinating insight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DH's love child, 8 Jan 2010 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        "Ah, so the only politicians that can have an unbiased viewpoint on ACTA are those that aren't being bribed...I'm sorry, "lobbied"."
        
        Um.. YES!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2010 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oregon
        First time you've ever discussed politics, I see.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2010 @ 9:48pm
    
    Re: Re: Oregon
    Not too much big film going on in California, either. Try going further north than Oregon, like Vancouver, British Columbia CANADA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew F (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: Oregon
  I love Oregonians.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
garbagedick, 8 Jan 2010 @ 7:29am

His name made me think of Counselman Les Whinin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haapi, 8 Jan 2010 @ 8:40am

It's a TREATY
... so the Senate will have to ratify it. Surely, everyone will have to see it by then. I can see things having a "smoke-filled-room" phase, but the ACTA stuff has gone on absurdly long.

Somebody big isn't quite getting what they want, or is finding that they are barely holding onto what they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew F (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: It's a TREATY
  Two-thirds to ratify too -- it might just be possible to build up enough support to shoot this down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 8 Jan 2010 @ 6:25pm
  
  Re: It's a TREATY
  It's a TREATY... so the Senate will have to ratify it.
  
  Sadly, no, this will apparently not require any involvement from Congress, according to the EFF:
  
  "The Office of the USTR has chosen to negotiate ACTA as a sole executive agreement. Because of a loophole in democratic accountability on sole executive agreements, the Office of the USTR can sign off on an IP Enforcement agenda without any formal congressional involvement at all."
  
  More information at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/stopping-acta-juggernaut
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2010 @ 9:07am

I like his 1st question
"I understand that [...] no agreement [...] would require a [...] change to US law. However, are you also reviewing negotiating proposals to ensure that no agreement would constrain the ability of the Congress to reform our domestic IPR laws?"

That's a key point for me. I don't want our trade representatives going around the globe locking us into agreements that include controversial parts of our IP law (e.g. anti-circumvention, inducement liability, eternal [minus a day] copyright, etc). That only makes it that much harder for congress to one day fix those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2010 @ 8:34pm

Looks as if the EFF is generating more internet spam by now writing letters for Senators who want political exposure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2010 @ 5:12pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah! The EFF sucks! They're like the ACLU! They suck! Senators suck! Politics suck! Look at me! I suck!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2010 @ 11:32am

To clarify, ACTA is not a "treaty" but an "Executive Agreement". As a consequence it does not require Congressional approval.

HOWEVER, as an Executive Agreement is does not carry the force and effect of law as would be the case with a treaty ratified by the Senate. Treaties and statutes do carry the full force and effect of law, but only as long as both conform to the strictures of the US Constitution.

For those who may believe that Congress can have its hands tied by this type of agreement, their belief is wrong as a matter of law. Even Congress does not have the constitutional power to enact legislation forbidding future Congresses from changing it however they please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]