Darrell Issa Posts Text Of 'Unconstitutional' ACTA For Open Feedback; Something USTR Never Did
from the well-look-at-that dept
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.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.
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.”
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
why couldn't it have done something like this before ACTA was "finalized"?
Shine a light on the cockaroches and they run away. Same principle.
December 23, 1913 is a perfect example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why couldn't it have done something like this before ACTA was "finalized"?
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 chronology ]
Huh?
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 chronology ]
Re: Huh?
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why couldn't it have done something like this before ACTA was "finalized"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh? It never "passed." It never went before Congress.
Congress was never involved in the process at all. So I'm not sure what you're asking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't need the text to know these bills need to be stopped!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
Which is normally reserved for Thursdays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: state of emergency
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Funny that Issa has to do with Sandra Fluke Testimony and here he is talking about being against ACTA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Save the Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worried
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worried
I suppose if no other countries sign up, it becomes a dead letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Worried
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the law being made by ACTA is...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that ACTA "doesn't change anything" argues against a straw man, and you fell for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rep. Issa shows his true colors
"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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]