Darrell Issa Posts Text Of 'Unconstitutional' ACTA For Open Feedback; Something USTR Never Did

from the well-look-at-that dept

Tue, Mar 6th 2012 2:30pm — Mike Masnick

We've been really impressed (though we can see where it needs improvements in its next version) with the "Madison" platform that Rep. Darrell Issa put up to allow for open feedback and comments concerning the OPEN Act. And it appears he's not done using that platform, either. He's now posted the text of ACTA to the same platform to ask for feedback and comments. It comes with an initial statement showing that he's very concerned about the nature of ACTA (I believe this is the first time Issa has spoken out against ACTA:

Stopping SOPA and PIPA was a historic victory for digital citizens, but ACTA potentially poses a similar threat to the global Internet community. While the agreement’s stated goal of strengthening intellectual property rights is one all should support, it does so by undermining individual privacy rights and by empowering an unaccountable enforcement bureaucracy. And just like SOPA and PIPA, ACTA was crafted without input from citizens and key stakeholders in a secretive, closed-door process.

Worse, ACTA appears to be an unconstitutional power grab started by President George W. Bush and completed by President Barack Obama - despite the White House’s January 14 criticism of legislative solutions that harm the Internet and erode individual rights. The Constitution gives Congress the power to pass intellectual property legislation - like SOPA and PIPA - and gives the Senate the power to ratify treaties. But the Obama Administration maintains that ACTA is not even a treaty, justifying the exclusion of both American citizens and their elected representatives. It is a practice Vice President Joe Biden decried as a U.S. Senator.

Closed doesn’t cut it. We opened up ACTA in Madison so you can sign up, speak out and collaborate to build a better “treaty.”

For all of the USTR's ridiculous claims of unprecedented transparency, why couldn't it have done something like this before ACTA was "finalized"? The answer is that there's no reason at all. Instead, the USTR released the "final" draft of ACTA as a done deal, and any public comment was meaningless, because the document was not open for any additional changes.

Which raises another unfortunate point. The Obama administration has already signed ACTA. Hopefully this means that Congress is actually going to get serious about challenging the administration on its claimed authority to sign and ratify ACTA without Congress' approval. Until now, the only Congressional official who had questioned that right publicly was Senator Wyden -- though, we've heard of a few others who have sent pointed questions to the administration about its claims. With Issa going public and directly questioning this attempt to deny Congress the right to review ACTA -- despite the Executive branch not having the right to make copyright or patent law -- perhaps Congress will finally step up and make it clear that it won't let the President simply ignore Congress' mandate over both IP law and international treaties.

Also, when do we get the Madison'ed version of TPP?

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, darrell issa, discussion, madison, transparency, treaties, ustr

41 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

weneedhelp (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 2:40pm

why couldn't it have done something like this before ACTA was "finalized"?
Then it would never have passed. They know how they need to do this stuff.

Shine a light on the cockaroches and they run away. Same principle.

December 23, 1913 is a perfect example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 2:46pm

So transparent, you couldnt even see it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 2:47pm

Re: why couldn't it have done something like this before ACTA was "finalized"?
I don't know if Darrell Issa is to be "forgiven" by opening up the ACTA.

The problem that I see is that he's taken a few steps forward and about 20 steps back. But I'm very surprised that he decided to take this step. It's what the people have actually been wanting to do. All they want is a more dynamic government that actually listens to them. And yet, the government has been trying to ignore them while making legislation that affects their lives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 2:47pm

I can see right through you.

We don't need the text to know these bills need to be stopped!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 2:47pm

Hopefully this means that Congress is actually going to get serious about challenging the administration on its claimed authority to sign and ratify ACTA without Congress' approval.

State of Emergency, president can do whatever the heck he wants. I'm surprised he's bothering to run for reelection; why not just make up something about terrorists and skip it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 2:47pm

according to Karel De Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade, and i quote, "ACTA is an enforcement treaty"

that being the case, in exactly which countries is it a 'treaty' and in which countries is it 'an agreement'? i suppose the answer is when it suits to be a treaty, it will be a treaty, when it doesn't suit, it wont be. nothing like being open and definitive, and this is nothing like being open and definitive!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 3:08pm

Re:
I'm pretty sure that the first President to do that would find a mob of angry Americans right outside the white house...

Which is normally reserved for Thursdays.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 3:09pm

"Hopefully this means that Congress is actually going to get serious about challenging the administration on its claimed authority to sign and ratify ACTA without Congress' approval."

Why should they? Traditionally this would be considered a point too subtle to be safe; a member of Congress who fought this wouldn't win much favor with the voters, but would lose a lot with the backers, and one who kept silent would lose nothing and quietly gain a lot. And both parties seem to like to expand the power of the president. Just look at the president's power to wage war; we haven't actually declared a war since 1942. Congress doesn't mind letting that power slide into the hands of the president, because it lets them tailor speeches to the mood of the day without actually committing to anything.

If we can remember this until the next election, and vote for those who speak up over those who don't, that might just start to change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 3:30pm

I am without a doubt against ACTA and have for months been trying to get my fans, family, and friends aware of it.The same as TPP.I am against Censorship of the Internet.
Funny that Issa has to do with Sandra Fluke Testimony and here he is talking about being against ACTA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 3:37pm

"While the agreement�s stated goal of strengthening intellectual property rights is one all should support"
If you talk like that, then the terrorists (aka big media) have already won!

Would someone inform Rep. Darrell Issa that many people would disagree that intellectual property rights should be strengthened? There's been books written on the subject, and finding someone who believes this isn't that hard (and as a bonus, they often tell you why too!).

Saying that everyone should support something just because you do, is just dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 6 Mar 2012 @ 3:54pm

Re:
Although i read the whole thing, after I saw that, the only thing I remember now is blah, blah, blah, la la la.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 3:55pm

Which raises another unfortunate point. The Obama administration has already signed ACTA.

Everyone else in the world to sign it is calling it by what it is, which is a trade treaty. The only country not calling it a trade treaty is the US. The one and only reason to do that is to get around having the congress critters having a say in it, which might mean it won't pass unless the copyright industries get up off some money to bribe it's way through.

I do hope congress does call the POTUS on this little evasion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techies, 6 Mar 2012 @ 4:04pm

Save the Internet
These debates are so very important right now. The controversy over copyright law and censorship are going to become more intense and important in our everyday lives. Senator Orrin Hatch suggested over a decade ago that the Government be able to blow up computers without due process if you can imagine that. But they did it with the NDAA- why not with the Internet? http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jacob Blaustein, 6 Mar 2012 @ 4:24pm

Worried
ACTA will b stopped right, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 4:40pm

"...despite the Executive branch not having the right to make copyright or patent law..."

And the law being made by ACTA is...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 4:50pm

Re:
If, of course, all of the EU countries ratify the treaty/agreement which is looking kinda shaky.

Of course, the interests behind it will simply try another way to get what they want if ACTA and TPP fail.

That may sound pessimistic but it more than accurately portrays those interests and the ends they'll go to to get what they want -- civil society and the rights of citizens be damned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Travicane, 6 Mar 2012 @ 4:52pm

Re: Re:
He put up a web page where you can tell him that you disagree with that particular statement - so, go back, read the rest, then go to the site and do something useful instead of just idly bitching and posturing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:03pm

Quote:
While the agreement�s stated goal of strengthening intellectual property rights is one all should support

Count me out, I am part of the bandits on this one, IP laws are the most loathsome form ot thievery on the face of this earth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
But that site needs registration, and I'm an anonymous coward! If I could go register, I wouldn't be anonymous (and therefore not a coward). My very existence hangs in the balance!

Also, I'm not a US citizen so I'm not sure they'd even listen to me (even if their politics greatly affect me). I would be happy if someone else brought it up though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Thacker, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:40pm

Huh? It never "passed." It never went before Congress.
President Obama just signed it and said that it was an "executive agreement," not a treaty, so that it didn't need to go before Congress to become law. (The explanation is that it doesn't conflict with any existing US law nor require new law to give the Executive Branch the power to implement it-- however, it would effectively hamstring Congress from changing the law in a less IP-friendly way inconsistent with the agreement.)

Congress was never involved in the process at all. So I'm not sure what you're asking for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Thacker, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:42pm

Huh?
What are you talking about? Darrell Issa has had nothing to do with ACTA. (And he was at the forefront of stopping SOPA.) ACTA was started by George W. Bush and signed by Barack Obama without Issa being part of the process at all.

Where is this "about 20 steps back" you refer to? Are you talking about something entirely different of his that you dislike? (Such as the Research Works Act? I would understand disliking that.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Thacker, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:44pm

Re:
Basically "executive agreement" is a US term for "implementing this doesn't require Congress to pay any laws, as it doesn't violate new law or require new powers for the Presidency, so I don't need Congress."

In reality, signing up for an agreement makes it really hard for Congress to then change the laws in such a way as to no longer be consistent with the agreement, so it really should require Congressional approval.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Thacker, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:45pm

Re: Worried
Stopped? According to the Obama Administration, it's already US law. Congress's involvement isn't needed or wanted.

I suppose if no other countries sign up, it becomes a dead letter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Thacker, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:49pm

Re:
The USA no longer declares war after we renamed the War Department. But in some cases there have been clear votes authorizing military force, which is close enough (such as in Iraq both times). Other times, not so much (such as in Libya and Bosnia.)

Your basic point about the politics is correct, though. The big reason why a stink doesn't get made is that politicians assume that people don't really care about this; not enough to vote on the basis of it, anyway. Though the SOPA/PIPA protests definitely turned some heads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:58pm

Out of curiosity. What if the Senate decides to push back on this, what recourse do they have?

Can the Senate sue the President and have it decided by the Judicial branch? Would it be some sort of impeachment proceeding?

How would it play out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 6:25pm

Re: Huh?
To become partisan in this post, Issa was pretty big on women's issues and that's been an embarrassment. I know that this is particularly about technology so I would like to keep this point focused on the other problems I see in technology.

One aspect that I can't quite understand is why he supported the Research Works Act if he were so strongly opposed to SOPA and PIPA. It makes me more critical of his stances in regards to technology issues. While he may be trying to put out more information and bring the US government to the modern era, I just don't see him as particularly favorable besides the opposition to legislation on technology.

I still have a strong feeling he's pretty corrupt and I might be wrong, but it concerns me greatly that so many people believe he's a good guy when he's had some pretty interesting stances in other areas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 6:33pm

Re: state of emergency
YES, this:
i bet not 1 in 100 fat, stupid amerikans know that we are *still* under a formal 'state of emergency' since nine one one...
not only that, but *supposedly* it is *supposed* to be formally renewed sumpin' like every six months, *AND* they (the executive branch) are *supposed* to give a detailed list of *why* we are in a state of emergency...
they are not honoring even those minimal conditions, yet, here we are, in a 'state of emergency'...
i guess that means the fascist empire is still in the process of emerging...
like a caterpillar to a butterfly, our empire will be the most beautiful evil empire evah ! ! !
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 7:25pm

Re:
I find it interesting that for all the screaming the republicans in the senate have been doing about Obama, there hasn't been a peep from them about this. I guess both sides have been bought out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 7:30pm

Re:
I dunno, but we'd have to put both Obama and Bush on trial for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2012 @ 9:14pm

Re: Re: Huh?
He supported the RWA for the very simple reason that it had nothing at all to do with any of the issues associated with SOPA and PIPA. As between his proposal and that of another member of the House, his actually makes sense given its very limited scope; i.e., the USG would not be authorized to go around and interfere with existing private contracts. This is hardly an earth shattering proposition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lauriel (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 10:16pm

Re: Re: Worried
Australia signed, and didn't bat an eyelid doing it. :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 10:42pm

"While the agreement�s stated goal of strengthening intellectual property rights is one all should support..."

WRONG. Full stop.

Every statement following this quote is nothing but pure justification FOR ACTA.

IP=Imaginary Property, therefore not real. Call it Intellectual Property all you want, it is still IMAGINARY (constructed from ideas): i.e. constructed; not real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crazylilting (profile), 7 Mar 2012 @ 12:32am

I seen this on the internet, but it doesn't look like they published the supporting text did they? Just looking for public input after the fact on the final text?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2012 @ 3:45am

When even the government can't agree with itself, "it's time for a change". Haha, see what I did there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 7 Mar 2012 @ 4:39am

Re: Re: Re:
Dude, this is just smoke and mirrors, I am glad it makes you feel warm and fuzzy though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anonymous, 7 Mar 2012 @ 5:22am

Re:
An executive agreement may not contain any provisions that do not fall entirely under the scope of the President's authority. Since the agreement does contain provisions having to do with copyright and patent law and the Executive branch does not hold the right to make copyright or patent law, we instead have a treaty which requires the approval of Congress.

The fact that ACTA "doesn't change anything" argues against a straw man, and you fell for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Thacker, 7 Mar 2012 @ 7:50am

Re: Re:
You're not using "straw man" correctly. Arguing against a straw man" is arguing against an argument that your opponent is not actually making.

I was presenting the argument of the current and previous Administration. I agree 100% with what you say about the argument; it is bogus. I didn't at all fall for it. I disagree with a terrible argument, but a terrible argument that the Obama Administration is actually making. That's not arguing against a straw man.

You need to improve your reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2012 @ 8:22am

Re: Re:
I am afraid it is you who have fallen for the arguments of lay persons unfamiliar with Con Law who have been essentially positing that if something deals with "authors" then the Executive Branch is foreclosed from taking any action without the approval of the Congress.

Their arguments stand on even shakier grounds in that few, if any, have actually read and analyzed the provisions of the ACTA document. For example, how many have considered that any party who wishes to do so may withdraw at its election without recourse by the other parties? How many have considered that the agreement is devoid of any enforcement and sanction powers as against a signatory?

While there are some law professionals who may disagree, I view ACTA as little more than a "Gentlemen's Agreement", a Memorandum of Understanding if you will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frieda, 7 Mar 2012 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: why couldn't it have done something like this before ACTA was "finalized"?
Jay,The "government" you're talking about is congress contolled by the gop!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler, 7 Mar 2012 @ 1:42pm

Rep. Issa shows his true colors
This just shows what I've been saying all along: Darrell Issa is not our friend. His OPEN act may be a step back from SOPA, but it's still a step forward in the ever-advancing march of copyright abuse, and he admits it:

"the agreement�s stated goal of strengthening intellectual property rights is one all should support"

That shows us exactly where he stands, in his own words: he's for cranking the ratchet higher.

Yes, we need a new copyright law. But the new law we need needs to repeal and reverse the DMCA, doing away with no-due-process takedowns and criminalizing DRM technology, not building further on the DMCA's abusive foundation. And Issa clearly isn't even thinking in that direction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2012 @ 7:58am

Hey Mike, you have to coin the phrase "The Limbaugh effect" I know this is a little unrelated to the topic, but Rep. Issa was the board member who refused Fluke to testify before the congressional hearing on contraception by religious organization. The funny thing is, here was an issue were people were kinda� siding with the conservative view that maybe we were crossing the line on this �Obama Care�, so the Democrats let Fluke speak at their own hearing. No big deal, and fat mouth Rush calls her a slut and wants to see videos of her sexapades. What a douche, now people who were siding or were on the fence of this issue have suddenly picked a side all due to a totally irrelevant comment (Rush), by a really irrelevant person (Fluke). So there you have the �Limbaugh Effect� it�s all yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]