USTR's Surprise Turnaround: Now Advocating Limitations & Exceptions To Copyright
from the who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-ron-kirk? dept
One of the big complaints about ACTA and SOPA and the like was the extreme maximalist positions that they entailed, without recognizing the very important exceptions and limitations that can often be even more important in encouraging culture and creativity. The version of the US's recommendations on the IP chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that leaked last year, suggested a similar maximalist approach: all enforcement, all the time, no concern about limitations or exceptions.In a somewhat surprising turnaround, the USTR has now admitted that it is actively embracing limitations and exceptions in its latest proposal around IP for TPP:
For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the United States is proposing a new provision, consistent with the internationally-recognized “3-step test," that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence. The balance sought by the U.S. TPP proposal recognizes and promotes respect for the important interests of individuals, businesses, and institutions who rely on appropriate exceptions and limitations in the TPP region.Given the USTR's general lack of transparency and intellectually insulting attitude towards anyone who questions TPP and ACTA transparency, I don't trust the USTR on its commitment to this... but I have been hearing from multiple sources that the protests against SOPA and ACTA have had a big impact on the administration's thinking on intellectual property issues... and that the MPAA/RIAA folks are not at all happy about the latest version of the USTR's IP chapter. There have also been multiple assurances that the USTR will fight strongly to make sure that this language on exceptions remains in the agreement, even if some of its "advisers" from the legacy content industry don't like it. That suggests that maybe, just maybe, some voices of reason have gotten through to the USTR.
All that said, this requires very close scrutiny. And, of course, there's all sorts of things that can be hidden in the language -- which, of course, the USTR still has not revealed. In the interest of openness and making sure that these provisions actually are in the best interest of the public, it would be nice to actually have the USTR live up to its transparency commitments and publish the specific text that relates to these limitations and exceptions. On top of that, the so-called "3-step test" that the USTR mentions is somewhat limited (and a bit antiquated) in these modern times with an internet where things like mashups and remixing occur on a daily basis. It would obviously be a lot nicer if we actually moved forward with our limitations and exceptions to copyright law to bring them into the 21st century -- but having the USTR actually acknowledge such limitations and exceptions as an important part of the IP chapter on TPP is a huge (almost monumental) step forward.
Either way -- and I know that some people will never trust anything from the USTR considering how many bridges it has burned -- the USTR deserves at least some kudos for taking this surprising step, and hopefully it continues to recognize that this is an important issue. With further exploration, and further acknowledgement that the MPAA/RIAA's view of thew world is not the only one, perhaps the USTR can recognize that setting up a maximalist/protectionist plan does not help the US, the economy or creativity. Enabling a more functional system, including knocking down the barriers that copyright sometimes sets up, is a much more effective path.
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, fair use, sopa, tpp, transparency, ustr
Companies: mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Offer all these "fair use" clauses but then later have a clause stating that "digital locks" can block them.
I'm sure there is a way they could do the same with they. Offer you everything, including the unicorn that shoots rainbows out of it's ass, but then have something in the fineprint that states that the IP owner can decide to block all of the above mentioned statements. Of course they'd focus on mentioning the Unicorn in all their PR statements while skipping the "small" stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To obtain a list of non-protected content, please send US $1 Million cash and a self addressed stamped envelope to:
MAFIAA Headquarters
Suite 66b
Spider Skull Island, 86753-09
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their time has passed.
Every time I hear about the USTR and similar, I cannot help but think they should be replaced with something akin to reddit--a true discussion of those involved. Where the group can hammer out their decisions, where that which everybody finds important will find it's way to the top.
The USTR is past it's expiration date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Their time has passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Their time has passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Their time has passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Their time has passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If somehow they tricked us in believing this, then can't say I warn ya. Otherwise I'll proceed with caution... extreme caution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well then, there must be at least something in it that benefits the public. But more likely, they're not happy because it doesn't give them absolute control of the Internet which is what they would love.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BUT PIRACY IN THE 6th DIMENSION!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"BUTTAROO BANZAII IN THE 6TH DIMENSION".... He crossed crossed the 8th dimension (trademark) and now is back to save us in the 6th dimension (copyright)...
Nah, it would never fly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who, what how when why, I don't even know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who, what how when why, I don't even know...
Turnaround?
Techdirt, Fri, Jun 29th 2012, “Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'
Or trick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who, what how when why, I don't even know...
"these shall apply to Professional writers, directors, and publishers as defined in section 103.6.3"
with section 103.6.3 being defined as, a Professional employed by a corporation ... blah blah blah... owned an operated by people who meet our standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who, what how when why, I don't even know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techdirt, Thu, Jun 28th 2012, “US Copyright Office, MPAA Celebrate Handing Hollywood Stars Their Own Special Copyright Monopoly Powers”
Has the administration's position really changed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The USTR can say anything he wants without consequence in order to make the public happy. It's that simple.
Why should we trust a single word coming from Ron Kirk when he refuses to tell even the congress what he's doing?
This "Turnaround" is totally meaningless until such a time as the USTR both enacts transparency and shows they know what it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're right Mike. not trustworthy enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exceptions and limitations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exceptions and limitations
If, like in this example, you've got a group that's been working exclusively for the private interests, and all of a sudden they say that they're really interested in helping out the public, you'd have to be an utter fool to believe them without some solid proof.
After all, words mean nothing, without the matching actions to back them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exceptions and limitations
With all respect due Mr Kirk—I do not believe him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Exceptions and limitations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
strange
So long as we can't actually know the truth, being pacified by the words of a distrusted person seems to be a poor strategy. Hopefully the unique nature of this development will prompt further discussion in the near future.
It'd be awesome if anything did actually piss off the MPAA anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's that damn well again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT'S A TRAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To paraphrase the former pro-SOPA side...
What they state publicly and what's actually going on are two different entities. Just because they SAY its in there, doesn't mean that they don't have ways to get around it. They said they needed SOPA and PIPA to take down piracy, yet it wasn't necessary when they took down Megaupload or O'Dwyer.
In other words, is TPP even necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To paraphrase the former pro-SOPA side...
Is the Obama administration still pushing ACTA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To paraphrase the former pro-SOPA side...
It is necessary to maintain a strange hold on IP world wide, create courts run by corporations, and maintain the current monopolies. The problem is when a system like the one they seem to be headed toward fails it crashes everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We remember the Uruguay Round
Golan v Holder (2012)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sounds more like someone has read from the book to them that either they start acting like copyright is for something more than the vested interests or these trade treaties pushing IP protections comes to an end.
I can not help but think that given the past track record of this group of thieves, that there is anything to trust prior to seeing it in black and white.
It is likely that it isn't that SOPA and ATCA didn't pass but more likely they have been told that anything similar coming down the pipes has no chance of passing anywhere but the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still do not fucking trust them...........this is not something minor that they've been disscussing, untill they realise that, and untill the laws that need to come first before bills like these pass, then continue to expect the big old fuk-youuu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joint Statement of Civil Society Groups on U.S. TPP Copyright Proposal
(Emphasis in original. Hyperlinks omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any event, what happens if every tech company, website operator, ISP provider, et al. does not comply in protest of the TPP being pushed through without public consent? What can they do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USTR works for the Prez, it's Obama's call
We should pressure PRESIDENT OBAMA this election season, and have him direct the USTR to be more accomodating to the People (or at least their Representatives) when they ask what's going on. ASK Obama why he's being so, well, REPUBLICAN about this whole thing by his inaction. Make the President stand for Netizens' right to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until there is public drafts of the text, this is all just lies and misdirection designed to take heat off the negotiations from the public. It's about as honest as saying the sun rises in the west.
If anyone thinks people with this much money at stake can't and won't hire some dramatists to tell them how to put on a farce performance of pretending to take the public's concerns seriously, all the while still doing whatever they please behind closed doors at the public's expense, then that person is a fool and contributor to the problem. Hell, I don't even need to pay anyone to tell me that, just have some "sources" (people I pay to talk to the public) tell people like Tech Dirt that Hollywood is "SUPER MAD!!!" and hope they believe it and back down. It'd save me the trouble of hiring an actor trainer to coach Chris Dodd to pretend hes upset about this publicly, but if the cheap-and-easy plan of sources "close to the matter" talking to the public doesn't work out, then we can coach Dodd and the others in a little acting. Easy peesy, so long as the public and groups representing their rights have no access to the ACTUAL text of TPP and especially no input, we can tell them whatever we want, act however we want, do whatever we want, just so long as we put on a public performance that misdirects the attention away from the truth.
Not saying I didn't see how Masnick specifically says he doesn't trust these people, but that doesn't change the fact that this _WILL_ work on others that're more gullible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence."
This means a few things that especially come to mind when looking at what TPP actually is. It's a trade agreement which in reality is a treaty between different sovereign states.
This means that being a treaty the USA either has to change it's own laws to reflect the treaty or make the treaty ambiguous enough to be tied up in doublespeak or make the treaty conform to, as far as possible, the laws of the major nations it involves (or a common denominator of laws so to speak).
Due to the ACTA and SOPA outcry I think the ability to do the doublespeak has been pretty well diminished for all actors, not the USTR, but they need to save face with the other sovereign powers own citizens outcry (political fear is a wonderful thing).
Therefore they have the other two options. And since these 'exceptions' appear in both [the USA's] law and jurisprudence They basically have to Cover there legal bases in the USA or have all your courts and attorneys declare that those exceptions are mandatory no matter what.
I think the USTR is just clamouring to appear like a 'nice' organisation when in reality they are just Covering their won asses and being a bit pro-active on future potential legal disputes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright problems for Medical Device Repairers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
three-part test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]