CRS Report Withheld By USTR Confirms That ACTA Language Is Quite Questionable
from the revealed dept
We're happy to announce that we've been able to get our hands on the -- until now -- secret Congressional Research Service analysis of ACTA. You can see it embedded below, and it shows that the language used by the USTR in ACTA has lots of weasel words that let them claim it doesn't impact US law, but the interpretations of the language could very much impact US law. First some background.A few weeks back, we mentioned that KEI was appealing the fact that the USTR was refusing to release a Congressional Research Service report on the legality of ACTA, claiming that it couldn't release the report because it was controlled by Congress. However, there is little evidence to support that. Not surprisingly, the USTR's response to KEI's appeal was to again deny the FOIA request to release the report, claiming:
The [USTR FOIA Appeals] Committee undertook a comprehensive review of the circumstance of the creation of the document at issue and the conditions under which it was sent to USTR, including through statements provided by members of USTR's Office and Congressional Affairs and Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation. The Committee concludes that Congress intended to retain control over this document and that it is not an agency record subject to FOIA.What struck us as odd about the whole thing was why KEI was focused on the USTR, rather than Senator Wyden. So we asked Senator Wyden to release the report, and about an hour ago, his office sent us the CRS memo, in slightly redacted form. The redactions are around a specific issue relating to ongoing negotiations over the degree to which patents are covered by ACTA -- the one key sticking point in the remaining negations. The US wants to include a footnote that effectively lets it ignore a key point about patent injunctions, because US law has certain prohibitions on injunctions, and the current ACTA text suggests that all signatories would have to offer up injunctions as a possibility in those cases.
As you read through the document, however, what becomes clear is that nothing is very clear in ACTA, and there are all sorts of weasel words and poorly-defined aspects to the drafting. What that means is that it all depends on the interpretation. If certain sections are interpreted one way, then ACTA clearly conflicts with US law. If they're interpreted in a more permissive fashion, then the US can walk the tightrope and comply with ACTA without having to change US law. But the problem is that it's not at all clear. This leads ACTA supporters to be in a position to say, "well, it doesn't require changes to US law," and then not have to deal with the issue that, down the road, lobbyists (and other countries) will inevitably point to language in ACTA and push the US to change its laws in order to comply. That's the really nefarious part about all of this.
The memo also notes that while technically Congress is not supposed to be restrained by ACTA, the practical realities may be different:
Congress may not feel compelled to take into account the requirements of an agreement that it had no formal role in approving. On the other hand, it may well be that Members of Congress might be reluctant to consider legislative approaches that would alter federal law in a manner that might make the United States in default of its ACTA obligations. The seriousness of such a concern may turn on the extent to which the United States may be held accountable for ignoring its ACTA obligations, or how successful the United States is in convincing other ACTA Parties of its compliance with the ACTA commitments even with such legislation.In other words, if the US can weasel its way around complaints from other countries and industry lobbyists, it might still be able to fix broken parts of copyright, trademark and patent law... but most folks in Congress probably don't want to bother with that fight. More simply: technically, ACTA probably doesn't constrain Congress, but the political reality is that it absolutely does constrain Congress. But we knew that already.
Most of the other concerns are specific to the language choices used in ACTA. For example, in this section, the CRS researchers note how the drafters try to distinguish rights from enforcement in ways that might not be reasonable or even possible:
Another initial provision in the draft tax declares: "This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights contained in a Party's law." Note that this language refers to intellectual property rights (as opposed to remedies for violation of those rights). Thus, this provision allows a Party to have domestic laws that contain exceptions, limitations, and conditions concerning the "availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance" of IPR. It does not, however, appear to apply to a Party's domestic laws that provide exceptions to the remedies that are available to intellectual property holders that seek to enforce their IPR. Yet it may be difficult in certain circumstances to draw a distinction between a Party's domestic laws that establish rights and those that provide remedies for violation of those rights; if the domestic law clearly concerns the latter, then this provision does not appear to be relevant. For example, a law that specifies that "injunctive relief is not available..." for certain acts of infringement, appears more clearly to be a limitation on available remedies. However, a law that specifies that "it is not an act of infringement to" perform a specific action could be considered a limitation on remedies, or it could also be regarded as an exception, limitation, or condition regarding the availability and scope of IPR.Really, what becomes clear in all of this is just what a dreadful document ACTA is. It's vague in all sorts of important places, in order to give the USTR and ACTA supporters wiggle room to claim that it is in line with US law, but allow folks in other countries to claim that the US is not in line with ACTA. Agreeing to ACTA is a disaster in waiting. Even if it doesn't technically constrain Congress, it's going to tie us up in a series of ridiculous fights over compliance, and the pressure will clearly be on the US to interpret the provisions in ACTA in the most stringent ways (necessitating changes to US law) to avoid fights over whether or not we've lived up to our "international obligations."
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, congress, crs, restrictions, ron wyden, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Or better yet "Welcome to America, Home of the Bribe for your rights"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's a thought for another Beasty Boys single: "You gotta bribe... for your right... to parlay!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having read this report some time ago (there are other avenues besides FOIA to secure copies), terms such as "might", "perhaps", "could", "depending upon", etc. do not equate very easily with "does", "do", "unquestionably", etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The part i think USTR and Bollywood miss is at some point some administration will come to be that swings the other way and decides to interpret the "agreement" another way, and the pendulum will swing far away from what they want... Or the final one is everyone says this is trash and piss on the document and all who pushed it through - most people do not understand the issues today, turn off their interwebs, or netflicks or Youtubes... yea they will tear it and everything down to get it back...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically this is worthless as an agreement. Yes the countries can sign it and agree to it but if the population just ignores it is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Such as?
terms such as "might", "perhaps", "could", "depending upon", etc. do not equate very easily with "does", "do", "unquestionably", etc.
It's quite telling that you ignore the substance of the complaint in favor or responding to a fake strawman of your own creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To me the far more important point to be addressed is whether or not the CRS document articulated specific sections of ACTA and US law that are actually in conflict. My reading back when I originally received a copy, and my re-reading it once more as a result of this article, failed to identify any provisions of ACTA in direct conflict with US law. As I noted above, "might", "could", "maybe", etc. are hardly the equivalent of "does", etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That it's all weasel language so hardcore ACTA supporters such as yourself can claim -- as you do right here -- that it is in line with US laws... even as the plain language appears to be in conflict based on quite reasonable interpretations.
My reading back when I originally received a copy
From whom did you receive a copy?
and my re-reading it once more as a result of this article, failed to identify any provisions of ACTA in direct conflict with US law. As I noted above, "might", "could", "maybe", etc. are hardly the equivalent of "does", etc.
That's the whole point, isn't it? It lets you pretend there's no issue NOW, but two years from now, when some random country complains and/or some industry lobbyist says we can't pass orphan works legislation because it'll conflict with our ACTA obligations, you'll be the first person here insisting that they're right and we have to comply.
That's the point. That's always been the point. You can read the language to conflict with US law, and you know darn well based on your own background, that it will be used in that manner. Yet, you insist that it's fine now because you support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you claiming that all US statutes are consistent with this provision in the ACTA on injunctions?
Are you claiming that both provisions are consistent with the proposed orphan works legislation?
Or, do you prefer to make vague assertions without getting into the specifics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
ACTA is simply bad; no if's, and's, or but...but's about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The CRS report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]