Isn't It Time To Drop The Laughable 'Special 301' Report?
from the dump-it dept
We've written about the USTR's "Special 301" report many times. It's a report that the USTR puts out each year which names which countries have been "naughty" when it comes to intellectual property laws -- and then tries to shame/coerce them into putting in place much stricter copyright and patent laws. In the recent State Department cable leaks about copyright laws in other countries, what quickly became clear is that diplomats frequently use this list to put pressure on countries that have perfectly reasonable copyright laws to create copyright laws that will almost certainly harm citizens and local culture. The "process" for putting together the report involves nothing objective at all. Instead, the USTR basically asks a bunch of lobbyists to name the countries they hate the most, and voila, there's the basis for the list. Last year, I filed my own comments, pointing to various research and evidence that suggested the entire 301 process was flawed. It didn't make a difference, of course. The report still came out and it was more of the same: a lobbyist's wishlist.This year, I didn't even bother, because it's pretty clear that the USTR has no interest in actually doing its job in improving overall trade, but is clearly going to continue to carry out its role as a lobbyist mouthpiece. Still, some groups, including Public Knowledge and Knowledge Ecology International made filings this year, pointing out how screwed up the whole Special 301 process is, and suggesting it's about time the USTR changed the overall process.
What I want to know is why we bother at all any more? Isn't it time to just drop the whole thing? It's widely considered to be a joke among those who understand how the list works. Each year Canada is named, and Canadian officials laugh and repeat the same claim about how they don't recognize a list like the Special 301 that is clearly nothing more than an attempt by US companies to influence Canadian policy in their own favor. Even people at the Copyright Office -- who normally are closely aligned with the USTR -- have spoken out in public about how the Special 301 is a joke, not to be taken seriously.
When so many people consider the list to be a total joke, isn't it reasonable to question why we still have it at all? The list has nothing to do with improving trade or improving economic conditions. It's a simple protectionism process that allows a small group of big companies to get the US government to act as their mouthpiece. It's an embarrassment, and it's time to dump it.
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: diplomacy, intellectual property, lobbying, special 301, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They go through the motions, and unless there is many many people filling those same reports every year to contest those lobbies things won't change.
Everybody should have a standard filling to file each year automatically.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is ridiculous
You can't spell "Trust" without "USTR" (and you have to re-order the letters, I guess).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
That is, of course, unless this is another example of something you have completely exaggerated and/or fabricated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is ridiculous
re-ordered that spells RUST doesn't it? as in oxidized and falling apart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://law.copyrightdata.com/
Copyrights once where weak things, oh the good ol' days.
Source: Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://jessefeder.com/copyright/copyright_laws.aspx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you two related?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong. In early 2010 a notice was published in the Federal Register soliciting public input. A search of the USTR website reveals that over 700 comments from the public were received, including comments from foreign governments (Italy and Spain are two that come to mind).
Is the system perfect? No. Is it as "corrupt" as your above commentary suggests? No, it is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
Those relaying the message appear to have chosen to keep names out of it to avoid exposing those making the comments to retaliation from their superiors.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me - it's pretty common for people "in the trenches" to think the official policies of their organisations are nonsensical given the realities of a situation. Certainly far more likely than Mike make things up (since there's so much other evidence for the Special 301 reports being a silly waste of time, why would he bother?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It could have simply refused. It chose not to, because the lobbyists said not to. Both the European and the U.S. lobbyists, either way, the system is every bit as corrupt as MM says and even moreso.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
To be honest, it sounds like you're going pretty far out of your way to make an excuse for Mike. Saying something was said in public carries a specific connotation. If something was said "off the record" it was inherently not a public statement. Mike's use of the phrase "spoken out in public" is clearly a lot stronger than saying something was merely said in a public place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/17552212428/once-again-more-state-dept-cables -show-swedish-copyright-enforcement-behest-us.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.[8]
Proponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the life expectancy of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790,[9] that a difference in copyright terms between the United States and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the entertainment industry,[9][10] and that some works would be created under a longer copyright that would never be created under the existing copyright. They also claim that copyrighted works are an important source of income to the US[10][11] and that media such as VHS, DVD, Cable and Satellite have increased the value and commercial life of movies and television series.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Again, U.S. corporations are the reason why copy'right' lasts so long, and it lasts so long exactly because the system is at least every bit as corrupt as MM claims it to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It seems that we have a Button for Insightful, and Funny.. can we also have a button for "Troll Alert"
Also a button for "The stupid it burns" could be handy too ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It seems that we have a Button for Insightful, and Funny.. can we also have a button for "Troll Alert"
Also a button for "The stupid it burns" could be handy too ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
It was two separate comments made publicly at a conference on the 100th anniversary of the 1909 Copyright Act held at Santa Clara University. One comment was, in fact, made by MaryBeth Peters, at the time the director of the Copyright Office. I don't remember the *exact* phrasing, but the general gist of it was she was talking about efforts to deal with infringement in foreign countries, and someone called out "yeah, but what about the Special 301 report" or "not according to the Special 301 report!" or something like that, causing Peters to very clearly roll her eyes, and then make a dismissive comment about how no one took the 301 report seriously.
The second comment came later in the day, when the Special 301 report was brought up again, and someone else in attendance from the Copyright Office (and I don't know who) pointed out, sarcastically, that the USTR had a history of going a bit "off the ranch" with it.
That is, of course, unless this is another example of something you have completely exaggerated and/or fabricated.
I would appreciate you not making such assertions towards me in the future. It's unbecoming, though, I guess it explains your anonymity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Has skynet taken over Techdirt? Or have the ads made like bunnies and replicated exponentially?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
I would appreciate you not making such assertions towards me in the future. It's unbecoming, though, I guess it explains your anonymity.
My assertion that your claim was either a major exaggeration or a complete lie is entirely accurate. You have just demonstrated that to be the case. In typical Masnick fashion, you have spun your own reality based on (less than) half-truths and ignorance. Your claim is all the more absurd given the fact that the Copyright Office is integrally involved in the 301 process -- last year a member of the Copyright Office led interagency taskforce that developed the report.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
Sounds to me like /they/ don't take it seriously. Don't see how you don't. Except that it's an obvious means of taking a stab at Mike. A weak one, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pot? Is that you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
Mike's suggestion simply makes no sense. I have no doubt that MB probably did roll her eyes about 301. If you've ever met her in person or seen her speak on panels you would know she does this all the time. I do not for a minute believe Mike's suggestion that she called the entire process a joke. Such a comment would make no sense given her substantive role in the process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Mike doesn't believe in censorship, but I generally leave a room when I hear a fart(toothless one speaking).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
Because LAWYERS CAN DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OR TRUTH OF SOMETHING. Everyone else is a miserable, untrustworthy prole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5643/125/
What have they got against OSS that it warrants including a Country on the list for using/encouraging it? Sounds like a joke list to me.
Spoiled child who wants it all their way. Not even happy when piracy is reduced. You must purchase our product! Hence, MS comes pre-installed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
but when its a drive by commentary that consists entirely of "YOURE A BUNCH OF SHEEPLE KOOLAID DRINKERS" and nothing more? how the hell does that even remotely contribute? all i know about the thoughts of that person is that they have no qualms about proving how juvenile they are, there is no humor in it and usually it smacks of a 12 year old /b/ troll.
i welcome reading opposing viewpoints. i dont welcome shouts of "youre a poopyhead"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Who from the Copyright Office has spoken out in public about 301?
I agree that the 301 process is laughable, and it was good to see the Copyright Office agree. If you are saying my assertions are laughable, obviously that is your opinion, though I assure you that your opinion is based on incorrect assumptions. It was made clear that many in the Copyright Office do not think much of the Special 301 report.
That someone might be acknowledge weaknesses within the process does not amount to a claim that the entire thing is a "joke not to be taken seriously." Not even close.
No, it was pretty clear from the statements that they were not fans of the entire thing.
My assertion that your claim was either a major exaggeration or a complete lie is entirely accurate. You have just demonstrated that to be the case. In typical Masnick fashion, you have spun your own reality based on (less than) half-truths and ignorance.
This is simply not true, and once again, I would ask that you refrain from making false claims about me. Or, if you must, be a man and sign your name.
our claim is all the more absurd given the fact that the Copyright Office is integrally involved in the 301 process -- last year a member of the Copyright Office led interagency taskforce that developed the report.
You mean your buddy who then went to work for the industry immediately afterwards? Yeah, now *that's* convincing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Back button?
Another browser (window)?
Google Techdirt?
United States Terrorist Regime
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]