Public Interest Groups Speak Out About Next Week's Secret Meeting In Hollywood To Negotiate TPP (Think International SOPA)
from the speak-up dept
We've been pointing out all week that the anti-SOPA folks who just discovered ACTA shouldn't stop there, but should pay close attention to what's happening with the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). That's the agreement that the entertainment industry is betting on to get SOPA-like laws introduced around the globe. And, if you thought that ACTA was negotiated in secret, you haven't seen anything. Rather than learn their lesson from the excessive and damaging secrecy around ACTA, it appears that the USTR has decided that the lesson to learn is "we can be as secret as we want... and we still win." Of course, this seriously underestimates the mood of the public towards backroom deals on IP laws that will benefit a few large industries at the expense of the public (in a big, big way).To show just how ridiculous this is, it has been leaked out that next week there will be a negotiation over TPP. Unlike ACTA, where at least the negotiators would admit where and when negotiations were happening (though, not always with much time for others to get there in time), the TPP negotiations are kept entirely in the dark from the public. However, it has leaked out that the next negotiation is happening from January 31st through February 4th... in West Hollywood (where else?). A bunch of public interest groups are speaking out against this super secret process, and will be hosting an event in LA the day before these negotiations, to educate people on just how bad TPP is. If you're in the area, it'll be worth attending (details at the link above).
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, copyright, hollywood, secrecy, sopa, tpp, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Keep on Wailin' on 'em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DAMN THE INTERNET!@!!!#!@#!$
We can't get anything done in secret anymore!!!!
Ban the INTERNET!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OT: MEP quits ACTA 'charade' in protest at EU signing
Kader Arif, rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament quit his role as rapporteur saying:
�I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly.�
�As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OT: MEP quits ACTA 'charade' in protest at EU signing
Rapporteur (derived from French) is used in international and European legal and political contexts to refer to a person appointed by a deliberative body to investigate an issue or a situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OT: MEP quits ACTA 'charade' in protest at EU signing
That is what I always thought it meant, now I will go take a look at the dictionary to see what it really means LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OT: MEP quits ACTA 'charade' in protest at EU signing
Yep is a reporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I don't get
So what I don't get is why all the secrecy? I mean if I'm doing , and I truly believe that it's in the best interest of those I represent, I'm not going to be all that secretive about the process. Sure I may be a little under-handed about not getting everyone at the table because I'd like to keep the discussions one-sided, but straight-up cloak-and-dagger secrecy?
That implies to me that the sponsors of this type of thing are either 1) clinically mentally unstable (of the paranoid schizophrenia type) or 2) they are completely aware that what they are doing is morally wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I don't get
I mean, if I'm doing [insert activity here], ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I don't get
Hexadecimal notation:
< = < (Less than sign)
Decimal notation:
< = < (Less than sign)
By name:
< = < (Less-then sign)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I don't get
I believe you are correct, but the question is who are these constituents they represent? It has been shown time and time again that those they claim to represent (content creators) are not the ones that benefit from their ever expanding purchase of legislation. The true constituents that benefit from these things are the legacy gatekeepers who are obsessed with controlling distribution to keep from having to change a dead business model. It's only a conspiracy theory if it doesn't represent reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I don't get
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I don't get
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
International SOPA? That must be terrible. I hate it! And I don't need to know anything else about it! Rabble! Rabble!
Way to motivate the troops, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rabble, rabble, rabble.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/11/us_tpp_proposal_leaked/
http://tppdigest.org/i ndex.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=291%3Abig-pharma-lobbying-intensifies-as-ustr-si gnals-ip-proposal-deadline&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=1
http://keionline.org/node/1091
But wait, those are anti-copyright propagandist links!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a) It comes from a deceptive bunch.
b) Is about a monopoly control system(i.e. copyright and patents).
c) It is being hidden from the public.
d) Access to it is being denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like that first whiff of coffee in the morning...
That pretty girl standing next to you...
A cool breeze in autumn...
I can positivity say it doesn't smell like some prick trying to shove his junk in your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would'nt be to bad, if we the people had the power to retract said law after the fact, nope, that would make to much sense and alot of companies just a little less rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing new here. The difference is that with the internet it is just getting harder for them to hide it.
Which is why there is more and more attention on cracking down on the internet. Of course in the name of stopping all kinds of bad things from happening like they always do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they really in the public's interest?
The EFF is funded by Google's charity. I'm sure many of these so called "public interest" groups are also heavily funded by copyright haters.
The fact is that the public is filled with people who are glad that copyright protects their creations. They may be indifferent about actually paying for other people's works, but they love the fact that the law is on their side when they create something.
The CC license or any open source license get their strength
from copyright.
That's why I say people like me are really working in the public's interest. And this is why reputable newspapers look for neutral descriptions to avoid loaded phrases like 'public interest.'
The folks who hate copyright and pay for this astroturfing are the ones who hate to give any more to creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
Even if everything you say is true, do you really want to live in a world where laws are decided on in secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
These people lost the ability to think about questions like that a long time ago though I'm afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
-paywall bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
You say you are working in the public interest, but your definition of public and my definition are quite dissimilar. Following a meme from an above thread, I do not think it means what you think it means. I, for one, go back to this pesky document that you and your ilk absolutely hate. It is called the US Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
At what point does Big Content say "Enough, we have plenty of incentive to create and profit from our work." My guess is that will never happen.
And there's no such thing as Big Search or Big Piracy, and I'm not sure what Big Hardware is or what it has to do with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
from copyright.
They are only needed because of copyright!
Plus, as it says in the Bible, men only do things in secrecy because they know their deeds are evil.
If the copyright lobby really believed that their case had morality behind it they woukd not feel the need for secrecy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
There are a broad spectrum of opinions about IP laws: however, the MAFIAA and the IFPI have done more to harm that in the public eye than Google and TPB could in decades.
When people fell entitled to money they shouldn't and take it, that's theft. That's happened in Canada for sure, and is winding its way through a number of other countries (through a "you must be a criminal" tax on blank media).
Moreover, the EFF gets some money from Google, but it also gets money from the Bill Gates' Foundation, some from Apple and some from a lot of other companies. I'm pretty sure that all of Silicon Valley isn't the hive of scum and villainy you assume it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
I'm supposed to be getting paid for debunking you? WTF... MIKE WHERE'S MY MONEY!!!!!!!
The interests of the public can not and will not be served when the machinations to meddle with them are done behind closed doors with no input from the public subject to the decisions.
1/10 Paywall Bob gets points for spelling, now go play... in traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
That's why I'm voting for "Little Content"...
Maybe jerboa content...
Or content that involves the intricacies or why I can't find my keys in the morning...
Or Green Lantern 2...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
For the last thirty years Hollywood has made its money by asking the government to protect and enforce its business model. They have no confidence in their product to they use force to get people to buy it. They gave up on the market and demanded a government enforced (and, therefore, artificial) monopoly.
The public decided that Google was in the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
The EFF predates Google by nearly a decade. The EFF was founded in 1990, Google in 1998.
Furthermore, the EFF's Annual Report (PDF) lists a number of companies and foundations that gave them money (on page 15). Google is not among them. In fact, not a single search engine is, as far as I can tell.
Their funding sources, from greatest to least, are: membership income; foundation grants; individual major donations; corporate contributions; and litigation. (There are more, but these are the only sources that gave the EFF more than $100,000.) Total corporate contributions account for less than 15% of the EFF's funding.
The idea that the EFF is a "front" for Google (or any other "Big Search" company) is an outright, bald-faced lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6243/125/
Thankfully!
Let's hope enough up here rally to stop our representatives? from caving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The industy's assertion isn't wrong...unfortunately
This is true. Obama signed the thing, after all. Looks like they were right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The industy's assertion isn't wrong...unfortunately
"This is true. Obama signed the thing, after all. Looks like they were right."
What "thing" was that, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The industy's assertion isn't wrong...unfortunately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The industy's assertion isn't wrong...unfortunately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USTR Out Of Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for having some idea what it might say?
Oh, I dunno.
DCMA
Pro IP
SOPA
PIPA
ACTA
Maybe, because, you know, they've established a precedent?
Thank you for playing, but you earn a FAIL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damaging secrecy? Damaging to whom? Not to them, since they got Obama to sign ACTA, and that's really all that matters to them. The last part of the line is absolutely correct. What they learned is that if you keep the details as secret as possible, you head off much of the public outcry and it's much easier to get governments to illegally sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's your under 35 voters call to arms - "don't mess with my anime". This is a perfect example how these laws intend to control all creative content by not allowing "just anyone" to take part in creation. They want us to be couch potatoes.
You Tube's biggest threat is it allows anyone to be creators. If I were given a choice between 100,000 videos that people voluntarly make to share vs. Hollywood's 10 block busters - I'll take You Tube. I doubt if I'm alone in that decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if THIS is really it?
Sure IP protection is part of it... but maybe it's really about creation. The Internet has become the distribution channel that anyone can utilize for virtually pennies. (probably 100% free if you tried hard enough).
It may not be a truly concerted effort, but listen to how media "controllers" have tried to stem their "members" from using Twitter and keeping reporters from "blogging" (See MLB, NFL, Reuters, AP, etc).
The democratization of publication is the real threat. Performers making (real) money without the need for record contracts or multi-million dollar tours / ad campaigns - wow - if that's not a threat to the recording industry.....
Plus honest reviews, people getting what they want, when they want it - wow again. The media strong hold is really losing control. They can't control the message, the merchandise, nor the content. What is their reason for being? No wonder they are freaked out.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret dealings:
If you feel that you can't do it in the full view of the public, then you are feeling shame. Either because society thinks what you are doing is wierd...
or what you are doing is wrong. I think I know which this qualifies as.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secret dealings:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Secret dealings:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Secret dealings:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secret dealings:
The entertainment industry doesn't feel shame. They hide these agreements because they feel that the public is made up of filthy thieves who would object to their absolute right to demand new laws that benefit only themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we should do
Simply ensure that the main protested point is the lack of transparency, and see if that weighs on their minds enough to get one of them to leak the proceedings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we should do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What we should do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What we should do
*free with purchase of 14 Congresscritters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
While I don't believe UFOs and aliens are studied in Area 51.
While I don't believe international banking corporations are behind a massive push for universal communism
While I don't believe vaccines give people autism/allow governments to control your thoughts/whatever.
While I don't believe chemtrails contain chemicals/biological agents purposely sprayed on the population by governments or other authorities.
While I don't believe President Obama isn't a US citizen.
While I don't believe the Moon Landing was done in a Hollywood studio.
While I don't believe HIV/AIDS was created by the CIA in a laboratory
I do believe that, if by "constituents" you mean the artists themselves, you couldn't be more wrong. The MPAA and the RIAA and their never ending expansion of copyright laws have not benefited artists in the slightest. Instead, they have only benefited themselves and an elite few big-wigs in Hollywood and the Recording Industry, not only through extra profits and bonuses to high ranking members such as Chris Dodd, but also by not having to update their redundant business models. In fact, the MPAA at least has been guilty of failing to protect the artists by sitting by silently and allowing dodgy Hollywood accounting to continue unchallenged.
The **AA's are only in it for themselves. They are legalized protection rackets, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's another conspiracy theory for you...
And, no, they are NOT protecting creators. After Ruppert Murdoch made his infamous tweets, someone replied asking if Mr. Murdoch would send artists, directors, and screen writers some of those jobs and money their way.
I'm seeing more and more creators turn to the internet to make the money Big Media are not paying them. Louis CK is one. James Altucher on Techcrunch just posted how he self-published his second book, selling on Amazon. So, if you think of it that way, I could see how they might be worried.
Except that they are making sooooo much money without these laws, despite people using the internet, that it DOESN'T make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]