USTR Statement On ACTA Makes No Mention Of Releasing Latest Draft

from the one-time-deal? dept

Thu, Jul 1st 2010 4:34pm — Mike Masnick

Well, the latest round of ACTA negotiations have concluded and the USTR has released one of its patented content-free statements about what happened. Most notable, of course, is what is absent: there is no indication that negotiators plan on releasing the latest draft. Remember, that it was in the USTR's statement following the last round that it announced plans to release the draft. This was what many folks had feared. Negotiators released the one draft so that they could claim they were being transparent, and then went right back to secrecy. On top of that, the USTR seems to imply that it was "transparent" this time around because it met with some civil societies who have concerns about ACTA. Of course, it leaves out how negotiators dodged most of the questions. That's not transparency. It's just sad.

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, transparency, ustr

25 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 4:48pm

"it leaves out how negotiators dodged most of the questions. That's not transparency. It's just sad." - no, it is just proof that even as a guru, you still do not wag the dog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUTUER ACTA ENFORCER, 1 Jul 2010 @ 4:53pm

Re:
You'll all pay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keven Sutton, 1 Jul 2010 @ 5:05pm

And Thus....
...France becomes a totalitarian state, a Dictatorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gooberly, 1 Jul 2010 @ 5:47pm

This all seems so outlandish, it's surreal actually. The economy is headed to the toilet once again, and the Obama administration seems hell bent on pushing this agenda, on top of the other agendas he inherited. It's not that I care so much about the facade that they put up in an effort to make this look like something for the people.. it's absolutely 100% against the people. It's something that NO NATION could pass without corruption. We really are in uncharted waters here, unlike the hyperbole of what the mainstream news reports.

The seizure of our liberties at the behest of one industry is exactly what the founders of nations fear. It's not that different really, than what other nations, throughout history have suffered just prior to their darkest hour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 5:51pm

Re:
"The seizure of our liberties at the behest of one industry is exactly what the founders of nations fear." - the founders would not support the widespread piracy of privately created goods.

you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. you have no rights to anyone elses materials. it is a priviledge they can grant you, under the terms of the laws of the land. there is no liberty being seized, only liberties taken on the rights of content producers and copyright holders.

sorry, but you so fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Jul 2010 @ 6:37pm

heres what you do
bomb the boats and feed the fucking flesh to the fish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 1 Jul 2010 @ 6:38pm

@2
i see your payment and fart twice in your momma's face
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gooberly, 1 Jul 2010 @ 6:42pm

Re: Re:
Are you high?

Look, this is really simple.. I know you don't want to (or are paid not to) believe that, but it is. You keep pointing to piracy and everyone says yeah it's a bad thing, lets do something about it. Then you and your ilk say: "great lets draw and quarter everyone that we suspect of infringement. While were at it, lets just make every website liable for infringement if they dont do the hoke-pokey on command and to cover the international contingency, we'll force other governments to comply with those standards. If they cant comply we impose sanctions...

The room falls silent... we uhhh we didn't mean all that. Then you have the grapes to claim that the men who were VERY aware of the tyranny that overbearing IP caused in England, would have overridden the democracy that they established for some elitist with entitlement issues, who thinks the world owes him money every time anyone accidentally hears a song that he secured the rights to by screwing some kids with fine print! AND WORST OF ALL he uses the word "fail" at the age of 46???

You, sir, are a creep...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 6:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
the only thing creepy is how many strawmen you made in a single post. get the hook and sinker out of your mouth and try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 6:53pm

Re: Re:
Content producers and copyright holders have rights? On the internet? Since when?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Modplan (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 7:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the one who has explicitly stated that Google should be held responsible for infringing content that even Viacom can't tell whether it's from themselves, tried to justify making it possible to force sites to not link to TPB, and railed against Spain on the basis that it doesn't have US style copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 8:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
you just got strawman served
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 8:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he should be liable to everyone including AT&T and other backbone carriers for putting that content out there and inducing the illegal usage of their networks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 8:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
STRAWMANIA!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 8:15pm

Re: Re:
If you don't want people copying/borrowing your ideas, then keep them private.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 8:16pm

Re: Re:
You'll pay if you try to enter my house!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 8:55pm

Re: Re:
"the founders would not support the widespread piracy of privately created goods."

The founding fathers were considering specifically forbidding copyright and patents to begin with. They eventually settled on allowing it to exist provided its use was very very limited, for a limited time. They would have never dreamed of allowing retroactive copyright extensions. You already knew that but honesty is not something IP maximists really care about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 8:56pm

Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, no one is owed a monopoly on anything and if you don't like it you can better contribute to the economy by finding another job and not getting in the way of others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
google should be responsible, sorry you dont agree. they have a business model on you tube that does not jive with being responsible. it is really too bad, and likely more draconian laws will be written to address this massive black hole in the copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jul 2010 @ 10:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
The founding fathers were considering specifically forbidding copyright and patents to begin with. They eventually settled on allowing it to exist provided its use was very very limited, for a limited time. They would have never dreamed of allowing retroactive copyright extensions. You already knew that but honesty is not something IP maximists really care about.

It's also worth pointing out that the founders actually *supported* "piracy" in that they specifically chose not to honor foreign copyrights, so that Americans could copy those works. The founders clearly recognized the "benefits" that could be associated with ignoring copyright law for the sake of spreading content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2010 @ 11:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right thick, you are?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:16am

Re: Re:
"the founders would not support the widespread piracy of privately created goods."

The founders believed that copyright was an evil monopoly that should only be allowed for the public good. the founders would never have approved of it taking priority over the right to privacy or free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Modplan (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 12:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I forgot, you have no sense of context, reasoning nor any ability to deal with the facts of a situation. You merely repeat something you want to be true, or a meme that allows you to not have to deal with the truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IronM@sk, 2 Jul 2010 @ 5:29am

Re: Re:
As a psychic and self confessed anal retentive I can only see what happens in the future if it is spelled correctly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 2 Jul 2010 @ 7:39am

Re: Re:
"the founders would not support the widespread piracy of privately created goods."

You really have no concept of history at all do you. The founders basically ignored patents and copyrights from other countries. They refused to patent things they thought were important to society. They believed that copyrights and patents were a feeder for the public domain. They never would have allowed retroactively extending copyright.

Here is the important one ...

They believed in the rights of the individual over the rights of the government or any organization.

To use your own words, copyright " is a priviledge they can grant you" its not a right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]