Leaked State Department Cables Confirm That ACTA Was Designed To Pressure Developing Nations
from the no-surprise-there dept
The site La Quadrature Du Net has a rather comprehensive look at a series of leaked State Department cables that confirm what many people said from the beginning about ACTA: that it was designed by US special interests as an "end run" around existing international intellectual property groups, since those groups had actually started listening to the concerns of many other nations about how overly strict intellectual property laws were stifling innovation, economic growth and were, at times, a threat to human safety. This point had been made by ACTA critics for quite some time, but now the leaked State Department cables effectively confirm it:One of the core objectives is to circumvent international organizations in charge of "intellectual property", where maximalist countries such as the US and the EU have been facing growing opposition from developing countries. Not just WIPO and WTO, but also the OECD: Initially, the Japanese proposed to ask the OECD for some help in drafting the agreement, but US officials suggest a different process, stressing that that they have sufficient in-house expertise, and insist on avoiding any collaboration with international organizationsThe full cable on this matter makes it clear that the US had a big plan and that plan involved bringing together only "like-minded" countries, and Japan was gleeful about this, but had originally expected the OECD would help.
From there, the plans become even clearer. The idea is to first do all of this with those "like-minded" (i.e., protectionist) countries, and then use the agreement to try to pressure those developing nations and other nations concerned about the expansive problems of intellectual property law into "joining." In other words, stack the deck first with those who benefit most, and then use international pressure to force the agreement on those who aren't comfortable with the end result of such laws.
The cables show that ACTA -- although negotiated between "like-minded countries" -- is ultimately meant to be imposed on developing countries. Early on, the US and Japan deem necessary to recruit developing countries so as to ensure the "legitimacy" of the agreement. Jordan and Morocco are the first to be mentioned, given their acceptance of tough copyright, trademark and patents provisions in bilateral free trade agreements recently concluded with the US.Mexico selling out to US interests over its own people -- how nice. In fact, in one of the cables, Japan explicitly states that the purpose of ACTA is to impose rules on China, Russia and Brazil.
However, one key concern for the negotiators is that ACTA might appear for what it is -- that is to say an agreement drafted by rich countries to be imposed on the developing world. Mexican officials are especially keen on helping out on this front. During a meeting with US counterparts, Mexicans stress "their willingness to join the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations and push-back against Brazilian efforts to undermine IPR in international health organizations," according to the US account of the meeting. Brazil's push for progressive policies on the international arena is denounced by Mexican officials, who offer to play the "good cops" by acting alongside the US to push for maximal patent and copyright standards at the global level.
Oh yeah, remember all those claims from US officials about how ACTA was just an agreement to align "enforcement" techniques and really had nothing (nothing!) to do with changing laws? Yeah, turns out they were lying. In discussing the early plans for ACTA, US officials indicated to Japanese officials that the US was perfectly happy to change its laws to greater protectionism around copyright and patents:
He added that Congress has welcomed the opportunity to engage on these issues, changing laws where necessary. Moore stressed that the United States is keen to move forward quickly, but with an effective, high-standard agreement. As we work together to reach out to other like-minded countries, he said, it will be essential for Japan to consider seriously improvements to its enforcement regime.Again, almost nothing in these cables is new or a surprise. But it does confirm what many ACTA critics had said early on, and prove that US official statements on ACTA were clearly inaccurate at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have no intention on doing the right thing ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, you never know. The next president might not toe the line like Dubya and Obama. A lot of things can happen in four years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would complaining help ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would complaining help ??
maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would complaining help ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is key is the shift in China. They are already seeing that they have gone through their adolescence and have moved on to being young adults, not only cloning the work of others cheaply, but now also putting money into research and development. China is very much a world leader in alternate fuels and energy systems, such as solar and roof top water heaters, more and more common in China these days. They are no longer just producing other people's products, they are developing their own. They now realize the value of protecting that development work.
The idea that small nations are being "pressured" is sort of obvious, as those are the nations most likely to abuse IP and hurt economies worldwide. The whole China issue over the last 10 - 15 years is very much a key part of the trouble in the US, as the trade gap has been huge. Billions of dollars out outflow which drains the US economy like a leaky swimming pool.
Mike, would you care to address the issue of trade imbalance? I am sure you studied it in school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's plenty of research saying that stronger IP laws (yes, I'm bundling it together for convenience) does nothing but hinder actual innovation. You should read American history more closely. We were a part of that phenomenon around the time of Mark Twain.
"They now realize the value of protecting that development work."
Protecting an idea rarely gives the results you desire.
"The idea that small nations are being "pressured" is sort of obvious, as those are the nations most likely to abuse IP and hurt economies worldwide."
[citation needed]
Further, economies aren't "hurt". The money goes elsewhere. If I spend money on milk, that's one area of the economy. But if I change my mind and spend it on chicken, it goes to another area.
The problem you're having is that you're not seeing the money go to monopolistic entities (ie lawyers) who sue for the litigation fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
China would be leery of following the US method of innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
China, as you said, has the habit of "borrowing" ideas that are protected, while ignoring those protections itself. Now, after securing their leadership in a variety of fields, they want to start enforcing those protections on others (while keeping up with the violations).
If the patent systems did not exist, the pool of inventions would be open to everyone, without extra forbidding costs, eliminating the risk of the strong (and greedy) nations blocking out the smaller and less able nations from competing. And, in this case, China has become a far stronger nation that the US. Therefore, by supporting strong IP laws, you are actually shooting yourself in the foot (you have nothing to gain, but everything to lose).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
China isn't a "far stronger nation", rather they are a nation that was so far behind everyone else that their progress is entirely amazing. But just like Japan before them, they are working a serious bubble economy as people step up from dirt farmers to a new middle class. As that happens, just like Japan, the authorities are realizes that providing only the sweat labor for the rest of the world doesn't cut it, that true innovation comes when you can actually afford to do research and then use that research to move forward.
When all you have to offer is sweat, IP laws look bad. When you start to actually produce IP, IP laws look good. Even China has figured that out. I wonder when Techdirt will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are many ways a company can differentiate itself and compete: good customer service, continual feature additions and improvements, branding as "made in the US," etc.
Trying to teach people to rely on ever-increasing IP laws only retards progress, and attempts to prevent the inevitable. The only people that gain in that scenario are lawyers, and even for them the benefits are short-term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
rying to teach people to rely on ever-increasing IP laws only retards progress
Yup, that is why we still use Motorola Brick cell phones. Because of patents in the cell phone and smart phone area, there is absolutely no innovation at all, no new products, and everyone is watching the countdown on the patents to be able to move forward.
Now that we have debunked that piece of logic... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are obviously a bloodsucking lawyer that would prefer this bullshit continue for selfish reasons. You are a liar, and a douche. In fact, I'm nominating you for Biggest Douche in the Universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do know that "retard" doesn't mean stop, right?
And do you also know that progress doesn't only mean make something better. It can also mean make the same thing cheaper. RIM paid over $600 million to NTP when they could have spent that money on research or reduced the cost of their phones. You'll note that NTP spent nowhere near $600 million on research nor will they now that they have that money. So there you go. Once again, patents "retard progress".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Almost as funny as it is warped that you don't even blink in light of being shown to be a complete shillboy, but just continue on lying and lying as if nobody will notice.
That's hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IP is not the sole nor even in the top 10 reasons why we have a trade imbalance with China or any other country. American companies openly decided that they would being producing their goods in other countries and then ship them back to the US because cost and political issues. Cost will always be a major factor and by importing their products to the US, companies can blame the government for the higher prices (over the cost of production) that consumers pay. The political issues, including union labor issues, are numerous but they are a cost of doing business. But as a company, if I can find a way to minimize the political issues, I will.
The biggest problem I see, both with most of the AC posts by "THE" AC, as well as posters that tend to reply to him, are that things have to be all or nothing. We have to begin to work to find the middle ground in our issues. People are going to have to start to be willing to give as much as take or we will keep wasting time and resources on topics such as IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't produce something people want to buy you don't get money, if you can't produce wealth, producing something you don't get money, is not China's problem or anyone else's, also an imbalance is a problem mostly when the jobs go elsewhere just like American industries are doing right now and securing the rights of productions through patents, so patents is the thing holding back America, big business don't care in which country they operate and they found ways to exclude all other without the means to produce and create their own things citizens are left with few choices.
Imbalances also auto regulate themselves in one way or another no amount of magical moves will change the end of it, which is balance, those who have more money expend more bringing the others who have less into the fray, they could both grow but only if cooperation exists, where everybody can produce things and create wealth, that depends on shared knowledge and that is exactly what IP laws are supposed to stop.
Also the U.S. was against economic reform that would put responsibility on trade on both ends the creditor and the debtor.
The last surplus America saw was in 1975, 35 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The current trade imbalance consists of the US exporting IP at a significantly lower rate than it's importing non-IP from places like China and India. What do you suppose will happen in the coming decades when China and India become exporters of IP rather than importers, with 8x the population of the US? Now the US' is going to be importing huge amounts of IP from them, grossly increasing the trade imbalance further, and pushing the US economy to the edge of bankruptcy.
I fear we (the US) will be the biggest losers in ACTA in the end, and China and India the biggest winners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
China is indeed mimicking Japan's entry into the world market. The "down the poverty scale" countries have no way to enter the world market except to sift through the detritus of the 1st world countries and sell the results to their poor neighbors.
How is a country supposed to gain traction against a corporation that refuses to offer its products at adjusted prices and also refuses to negotiate with countries who endeavor to create their own products?
this goes much further than your simple-minded 'copy-and-produce' scenario. There are sciences and technologies that save thousands of lives everyday in modernized countries but are kept out of the hands of third-world doctors because their government refuses to pay a "copyright tax." That is why many things are copied and ACTA (particularly in the Brazil/Mexico scenario,) would make it a crime to save lives with "copied" medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACTA defenders
How do we deal with these companies/ organizations here in the US? Just let them overrun our government with self-serving policies? Awareness may be the first step, but what are the second and third steps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACTA defenders
For the record labels, and TV studios, we wait. They have a limited time span due to competition from inside and outside their fields.
For Pharma a couple things could destroy them.
1) compete using a world wide consortium holding patents and selling everything as generic reducing their profit margins and allowing for the laws to be changed.
2) WikiLeak every document they have, from legal, to internal memos, to the actual studies on the effectiveness of the drugs they sell. It would bankrupt them with class action lawsuits and bring about change.
3) Immortality, as the majority of drugs are for conditions that occur when we age. Reversing the aging process would remove these conditions. This would kill their profits and allow for generics to take over in 15-20 years.
4) Buy them up, take them private, and change the way they do business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't believe everything you read
And that made me wonder. How do we know everything on Wikileaks is a real document?
Answer? We don't.
How do we know they weren't manipulated in order to further an agenda? It's not like anyone can just come out and say "No, no no that's not really what we said. I'll prove it by showing you what that 'cable' really said."
It seems to me that people's opinion of ACTA and other IP law are influencing what they believe about it (and not just regarding wikileaks docs but also the very premise that IP laws are bad in the first place).
The arguments are interesting and sometimes make valid points but I'm unconvinced that companies shouldn't be allowed so retain IP that they've developed.
IMO, too much of this attitude stems from the heavy-handedness of the RIAA and the vast pirating of music and movies. For some this seems to have spread to an attitude of 'screw any law protecting IP'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't believe everything you read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
Should they only be allowed to sell it in their own "poor" country? What if they try to export it back to the "rich" country and undercut the original developer who still holds patents/copyrights/trademarks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
and trademark is an entirely different thing Anyway, being not 'intellectual property' but 'consumer protection' when applied properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
The first movie my parents ever bought (for their first Betamax) cost $80 and the movie was nearly 10 years old at the time. (Today it's $14 on Blu Ray - seems high for a 40 year old movie but is it "insane price gouging"?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
OK, then how about DVD's initially costing up to 50% more for the equivalent title in the UK compared to the US? Does it cost that much to ship? Oh, no wait they press them in, um Germany I think. Still not price gouging?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
If their laws allow for it, then by all means yes.
If the laws of the country they are trying to sell it in allow it, then yes.
My guess is they'd be infringing. At least in the US. Other "rich" countries might feel differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
"
should a "poor" country be allowed to sell pirated movies or counterfeit knockoffs of merchandise developed in a "rich" country?
If their laws allow for it, then by all means yes.
Of course, which is exactly why the US and other countries are putting pressure on them to change their laws.
Same answer to your next query.
"
What if they try to export it back to the "rich" country and undercut the original developer who still holds patents/copyrights/trademarks?
My guess is they'd be infringing. At least in the US. Other "rich" countries might feel differently.
"
That's your guess? Really?
How did this hypothetical "poor country" get ahold of this pirated copy of something in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
Nice spin. Until the copy arrives in a country that has laws against its existence, it's not a "pirated copy".
It's easy for them to acquire. The USPTO is not only visible to citizens of the US upon proof of citizenship and the signing of an NDA. So that takes care of how they might acquire a patent or a trademark. As for copyrighted works, they might buy it off of Amazon or any other website or show up in the US and buy it from a store and take it back to their country. So no piracy had to occur for them to acquire it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't believe everything you read
And the US Government can refute these anytime they want. They just chose, instead, to bury their heads in the sand. ACTA is a terribad piece of agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
Instead I see a lot of people just talking about how evil it is and coming up with things like Mike's original post which links to an opinion piece which more or less says "See, I told you the 'rich countries' were just trying to keep the 'poor countries' down."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
You might have a point about the alternative lengths though. I can certainly remember 1 thread that discussed at length the merits of a 5 year term, but most threads that look like they might go that way usually get lost in the refutation of the "You bunch of freetards just want somethign for nothing it's the law so shut the f*ck up and get over yourselves you bunch of freeloading... (continue as long as desired)" rants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't believe everything you read
This is something that's been talked about here and elsewhere often. When you make ridiculous laws, people start to have contempt for the law. We see the ridiculousness of copyright/patent durations, we see the ridiculousness of penalties for infringing, we see through DMCA claims that are really about censorship, so we just start to say screw it to all of it. It's what happens. The farther the pendulum is pushed one way, the farther it swings back the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
For anyone who doesn't know, the "bad man" tradition is a part of black culture that glorifies lawlessness and brutality toward police. This arose in the south of the US, where, after the abolition of slavery and later of segregation, racists sought other means to suppress blacks. One common form of this was constant harassment by white police. As a result, blacks came to view the law as fundamentally unjust and police as the embodiment of that injustice, and fighting both as a righteous cause. Well, in the half century since the civil rights movement, the situation with racism has significantly improved, but the distrust of the law still hasn't completely faded.
That's right, we could be looking at decades of the current hate for IP laws, even after reforms begin (whenever the heck that will be). Think happy thoughts; bunnies and kittens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
I'd use stronger language but to be honest I have not read any TOS if there are any for this site.
But I will say you are racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't believe everything you read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End Game
"You want to export to us? Then let us control what you develop and produce. If not, stay home."
It worked in stripping privacy. It is working at tax equalization between nations. The mid game is over, tyranny is winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
www.internet-privacy.tk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]