Even WIPO Realizing That Copyright Law May Have Gone Too Far
NYTimes: When We Do It, It's Journalism, When HuffPo Does It, It's 'Piracy'

Double Standard On The Special 301 Report: Industry Is Allowed Vague, Unsupported Statements; Consumer Advocates Are Not

Politics

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Thu, Mar 10th 2011 2:53pm — Mike Masnick
We've already pointed out the general ridiculousness associated with the USTR's "Special 301" report, which is widely regarded as a joke. The report, which allows the administration to name which countries have been "naughty" when it comes to intellectual property enforcement, has no methodology. It has no objective measures. It has no accountability. Basically, industry groups submit their own reports on what countries are bad, and the USTR rewrites them as its own report, doing nothing to actually fact check the claims or to even quantify anything. In the past couple of years, the USTR has been more open about having consumer rights organizations -- and even consumers themselves -- submit their own reports, but there's been little indication that anyone at the USTR has actually listened to any of those reports.

And, in a rather striking demonstration of how this all works, Stan McCoy, from the USTR (and apparently a top candidate to take over the Copyright Office, despite not being an expert in copyright law), presided over hearings concerning the Special 301 report recently, in which both industry groups and consumer groups appeared. Yet, as one observer noted, McCoy appeared to have a total double-standard concerning how he viewed the comments of each:
The burden of proof was very obviously on the public interest, civil society groups. Stan McCoy of the USTR, who was presiding over the hearing, joked about the two-phonebook-sized submission by the International Intellectual Property Alliance. (Lol?) Sadly, there is no independent verification of these industry reports and there were no tough questions for industry regarding their testimony. Several times, McCoy interrupted civil society groups’ testimony to chide them on speaking too generally about IP policy, but refrained when industry witnesses did the same.

Testimony from groups like Global Health Organization, the Forum on Democracy and Trade, Oxfam, Public Knowledge, and others were met with aggressive push back and questioning on how criticism on the Special 301 process was at all relevant to the committee’s ability to render judgments on individual countries.

But that’s exactly the problem. The report is written so vaguely, and industry complaints taken at such face value, that specific criticism of the report is near impossible. I was surprised to learn that the report doesn’t include a list of criteria used to evaluate countries or even clear explanations on why specific countries are placed on the watch list, nor does it say which industry-submitted comments were the basis for citation.
So if you're from industry, it's absolutely fine to make vague, totally unsubstantiated statements -- even if they've been widely debunked by actual experts and researchers. Yet, if you're representing consumers, you need to have specific points to make or you get chided. And, of course, you can't make any actual specific points because the USTR doesn't have any specific criteria on which it bases the overall report. Brilliant.

Also, it appears that McCoy is somewhat uninformed about his own organization's report (which he is closely connected with):
The best moment of the hearing, to me, was during Sean Flynn's testimony on behalf of the Forum on Democracy and Trade. Flynn argued (for the second year in a row, I might add) that citing countries like Finland, France, Italy, and Japan for "unfair [pharmaceutical] reimbursement policies" was incredibly vague, hypocritical (because the US has similar reimbursement policies), and--most importantly--outside the statutory mandate of the Special 301 process. McCoy retorted that no such citation was in the 2010 report [pdf].

Flynn’s response? "It's right here on page 14..."
And people wonder why foreign governments, and many of us who pay attention to these issues, consider the Special 301 process to make a mockery of the US government on intellectual property issues.
Hide this

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: consumer rights, copyright, industry, politics, special 301, stan mccoy, ustr

20 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2011 @ 3:05pm

    Of course they will control it the way they want, otherwise they won't have anything to threaten the "bad" countries with. It's the US Govt after all.......

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2011 @ 3:15pm

    The only place allowed to be vague and misleading is Techdirt! It's a rule!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2011 @ 3:18pm

    My favorite part is when they say other countries should break the law, like they do: The United States encourages Canada to provide its border officials with the authority to seize suspected infringing materials without the need for a court order.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2011 @ 3:20pm

      Re:

      If the US is trying to abolish due process, why wouldn`t they want others to as well?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 4:20pm

      Re:

      Wow. No court order, eh?

      They must really view themselves as avenging angels on par with Elliott Ness or Dirty Harry. Just kick the door down and start hauling people away. Start swinging that axe and busting up those virtual stills. Due process is too good for (suspected) "criminals."

      And to what end? Does shutting down an "infringing" site really put more money in their pockets or the much smaller pockets of the artists they claim to represent?

      Or is it just more imaginary math where every linking site taken down equals X millions of dollars? If so, the 84,000 sites taken down recently ought to have resulted in hundreds of jobs and a windfall of cash.

      Oh. It didn't?

      Then I guess this is just vindictive action at the behest of their employers (yes, exactly what I said) that leaves them all with a smug sense of self-righteousness and little else. As their artists should know by now, you can't ready feed a family on self-satisfaction. Especially second-hand self-satisfaction.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2011 @ 6:57pm

        Re: Re:

        Excellent explanation. I tip my hat to you. I think it serves to fuel their propaganda campaign, to help fulfill their agenda.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Jose_X, 10 Mar 2011 @ 11:32pm

        Re: Re:

        They must really view themselves as avenging angels on par with Elliott Ness or Dirty Harry... or at least Elmer Fudd.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          The eejit (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Elmer Fudd is an avenging angle. I mean, look at that honker he has! It's just a pinata of money, just waiting to be popped!

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shon Gale (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:26am

    The USTR sounds like they do business like Google. Lot's of info and no validity. Lot's of empty links and no substance.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:18am

    301 Report as Evidence

    I almost like the 301 Report. It is a constant reminder by our government how much they have sold out to special interests and are completely anti-american. I can only hope that other countries see it for what it is and take us much less seriously on IP issues. It shows how ignorant some in our government are, and very clearly points out who not to listen to.

    As another commenter said somewhere, we need to get Greed declared a religion since so many people seem to worship it. Then congress can't pass any more laws that cater to it.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Even WIPO Realizing That Copyright Law May Have Gone Too Far
NYTimes: When We Do It, It's Journalism, When HuffPo Does It, It's 'Piracy'
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.