USTR Announces What Countries Have Been Naughty When It Comes To Intellectual Property
from the look-in-the-mirror dept
Every year, the USTR puts out its "Special 301" report, which tries to name and shame countries whose intellectual property laws and enforcement don't live up to some mythical standard. The report is not objective. It's not based on data. It's basically based on the entertainment industry and the pharma industry telling the USTR which countries they don't like... and the USTR taking their words and putting them into a report. It's become something of a running joke to pretty much everyone outside of the USTR or the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries. Last year, at a conference on copyright issues, I even heard people from the US Copyright Office making fun of the USTR's Special 301 report. When even your own country's copyright office is mocking your report on copyright issues, you know you've gone too far. Hell, even ACTA supporters are mocking the Special 301 report as being "petty."What made the Special 301 report just slightly different this year, was that the USTR was just ever so slightly more open in listening to the public, rather than just industry, concerning who should be on the list. So lots of folks, including myself sent in comments. Apparently, they had little effect.
The USTR has released the list again (pdf) and it's basically the same deal as in previous years. No methodology. No real interest in hearing concerns of consumers or about the rights of individual countries to make their own laws. About the only thing that the public consultation did was allow the USTR to say in the report that it "enhanced its public engagement activities." It notes that there were 571 comments from interested parties, which is a lot more than in the past. But there doesn't seem to be much in the actual report that reflects the concerns raised by myself and many others.
About the only point that the USTR backed down on (and even so, it was marginal), was that it's willing to admit that there are concerns in public health circles that heavy handed enforcement of pharma patents in some countries creates significant harm. However, it still says it wants to "monitor" countries that do compulsory licensing of patents. Of course, as Jamie Love points out, these days, there's a fair bit of compulsory licensing in the US as well, which the USTR fails to mention. Oops.
While the Free Software Foundation notes that the industry's request to shame countries that advocate for open source software usage in government didn't make the list, that's not really a huge surprise. That was clearly an extreme position, which did a nice job highlighting how the industry was using the 301 report to be anticompetitive, not pro-copyright.
Finally, there's the Canadian situation. The punchline of the joke that is the Special 301 report is that Canada gets included every year, despite its strong enforcement of intellectual property laws (despite what the industry claims). Once again, the USTR report appears to ignore the reality in Canada, and simply make stuff up, entirely based on things the entertainment industry falsely claims about Canada. Of course, these days, Canadian politicians have returned the favor by telling the US that it "does not recognize the 301 watch list process" because it "lacks reliable and objective analysis." Of course, as Michael Geist notes, 4.3 billion people live in countries that the USTR finds problematic. Perhaps, he points out, the problem is with the US, rather than those other countries.
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: copyright, special 301, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Who'a thunk Canada could be considered "Naughty"
Since my government couldn't be bothered I made a submission as a private citizen from Canada, the land of snow and supposed piracy. And being a highly addicted blogger, I blogged it as well. And they still didn't listen.
Shame on the USTR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to mention I suspect that plenty of people in the U.S. are also appalled at our current IP laws, or would be had they been more informed about them (ie: copyright length), but far be it for governments to actually represent the population and their will. No, big corporations know best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who in the hell wrote this thing...
JMHO David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The eBay decision by no rational measure can even remotely be construed as a compulsory licensing mechanism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "special" 301 report... }:p
Half of the time, pirated media and software is better than the real thing. Less fluff, more substance, cheaper prices (the ones that aren't offered for free). The quality is getting better as well. Lots of people, including me, don't care about the original manufacturer anymore. They just want it. The US was all for a global market and sent our jobs overseas. Well.. Here it is! Piracy included. So, all ron kirk and his kronies are doing is pissing directly against the wind. };p ;D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh my oh my!
This does have a bright side to it, other than the obvious Streisand effect on this side of the border. It simply shows how petty and silly the whole thing is. A good laugh break from the NHL playoffs.
RE:Hephaestus. It's encouraging to see Europeans waking up to various quirks in the US Judicial System that make it a better cash cow than Goldman Sachs would ever have been. There's a well known list of US Federal District Courts that are just perfect for IP suits that almost always seem to award huge amounts for imaginary violations and toss in injunctions for free. Thing is that some of the complainers who contribute to this "report" are European companies so it's hard to say this is simply an extension of American corporate power by any other means. What's much more appalling is the idea that somehow the US is entitled to extraterritoriality apply its laws to other countries.
Just one thing. How did the BRIC countries not get on this list? Heaven forbid it might be politics!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh my oh my!
The biggest problem seems to be that the report is based or rumours or hearsay and little else. And a total misreading of the status of the Courts in Canada. Customs can seize whatever the heck it wants. After that it needs to convince a court that it can keep it and that a violation (real not imagined) of some Act of Parliament has occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Spain
There's nothing to amend! That circular clearly states that it is not illegal to share files in Spain. There's no misperception by the public at all. IP associations avoid talking about the circular, and the whole judiciary system abides that circular.
"In January 2010, the Commission proposed legislation that would allow a committee based in the Ministry of Culture"
A travesty that was rethought, as no "committee" can function as a judge and shut down publications. This "committee" is the proof that it is not illegal in Spain to share files; they tried to create a "committee" because every case brought to court so far has received but one response: "it is not illegal". So, since courts produce no verdict in their favor, they want to be able to decide themselves what websites/software to shut down.
This is far from being over in Spain, the execution of the amendment to the law that proposed the "committee" is still to be put in practice, and none knows what will happen next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]