Members Of Congress Demand USTR Open Up On TPP
from the about-time dept
We've been talking about the incredible and ridiculous level of secrecy that the USTR has kept with regards to the TPP negotiations. While industry lobbyists are free to look over the exact details of what the US is proposing, the public, and even key Congressional staffers are left out in the cold. While USTR Ron Kirk keeps insisting that any elected member of Congress is free to look at the negotiating text, he's being disingenuous. Elected members are allowed to go to the USTR and request the document, which they will be given -- but only for viewing in that room, and they're not allowed to bring staff members (such as those who understand the ins and outs of what's being negotiated, nor are they allowed to make copies or even take notes). At the same time, lobbyists who are members of the USTR's "advisory committees" can login via any computer with internet access, and see what the latest text is without any concern. That doesn't seem right.It appears that more and more people in Congress are getting fed up with this. A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress (though, not surprisingly, spearheaded by Senator Wyden and Rep. Issa) demanding that this insanity stop, and that the USTR reveal what it's pushing for on behalf of Americans -- especially when it comes to the intellectual property sections.
Regrettably, the American people know very little about what the USTR is seeking in TPP generally, but specifically on IPR (Intellectual Property Rights). We believe that among all the areas of the TPP negotiations, the matters considered in the IPR chapter are ones in which there is particular public interest, therefore the USTR should be especially transparent and collaborative with the general public on these issues.It seems likely that the USTR will simply ignore this letter, showing what kind of respect it has for Congress.
The American people deserve to know what the administration is purportedly seeking on its behalf.
We insist that, as expeditiously as possible, the USTR provide to the public detailed information about what obligations (and exceptions) the USTR is seeking in the IPR chapter. We call on the USTR to be particularly explicit with respect to what it aims to obtain as it relates to pharmaceutical drugs and enforcement of intellectual property rights online. Finally, it is important that the USTR convey to the American people whether the USTR is pursuing disciplines elsewhere in TPP that will promote an open and free Internet, given the Internet's increasing role in facilitating American exports of traditional goods and services as well as digital goods and services.
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: congress, darrell issa, ron wyden, tpp, transparency
Reader Comments
The First Word
“If it was, they would have revealed it already.
This is all the information we need to know that this needs to be stopped. None of the signs point to this being anything good. For ANYONE.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If it was, they would have revealed it already.
This is all the information we need to know that this needs to be stopped. None of the signs point to this being anything good. For ANYONE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More like intellectual suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now this is what you call "Washington Transparency" .
Fuck Off Ron Kirk & USTR.Go wipe your dirty butts with your Toilet Paper Pact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take away their toys.
Maybe it is time to cut funding to a rogue agency running amok. If you won't give us answers, we won't fund you.
It really shouldn't have to go this far, but it is high time someone actually puts some teeth into the demands.
They shut down then entire Government in a pissing match to see who would blink first, your going to tell me defunding 1 agency is hard to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take away their toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Take away their toys.
The game plan here is FOCUS!
The art of conversation requires 5 things.
1. Listen more than you talk
2. Come to an occasion armed with topics at the ready
3. Tailor the conversation to the listener
4. Take your turn
5. Think before you speak
Number five is particularly relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Take away their toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Take away their toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
No. I'm suggesting Masnick's trumpeting that, "A new letter has been sent to the USTR, on behalf of Congress...." is a lie and total distortion. Moreover your suggestion the letter represents those Representatives from a previous letter is utter bullshit as well. The letter was NOT from "Congress"; it was NOT from 130 Representatives either. As near as I can tell is was from two disaffected, whiny malcontents- Wyden and Issa. That's a little different, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
I don't have enough information to make that call. Mr Wyden and Mr Issa sent out a request to both houses for signatures to the letter. Were there so few signatures that the EFF chose not to publish? Or were there so many that they decide to only publish the missive itself? Or perhaps the EFF only had a "pre-signed" copy and published that rather than wait for the signed copy.
I never suggested it was. What I would infer from the fact that previously 130 members of the House of Representatives deemed to send a formal request to the USTR to provide more information, and two months later members from both the House and the Senate decide to re-iterate that request, is that the original 130 Representatives have been joined by some number of Senators.
Well, one of those "malcontents" is the Chairman of the House committee responsible for International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, while the other is Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Neither of these positions are minor and both are charged with administering conduct of international trade agreements.
If you wish to withhold judgment as to how many other congressman concur with the contents of the submitted letter, I can certainly understand; nonetheless, my opinion is that it is not an insignificant proportion of Congress, nor should their complaint be so readily dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
I don't have enough information to make that call. Mr Wyden and Mr Issa sent out a request to both houses for signatures to the letter. Were there so few signatures that the EFF chose not to publish? Or were there so many that they decide to only publish the missive itself? Or perhaps the EFF only had a "pre-signed" copy and published that rather than wait for the signed copy.
You don't have enough information to make that call but you somehow accept that Masnick has enough information to suggest that this letter represents the entire Congress?
Do you know what Oversight and Government Reform does?
http://oversight.house.gov/issues-legislation/
Wyden's committee is part of the finance committee. I don't know much about their mission except it's not exactly power committee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
I do not see any statement by Mr Masnick suggesting that the letter represents the entire Congress. The closest he comes is to claim the letter was sent "on behalf of Congress", which is not the same thing.
The letter itself does not lay claim to having been sent on "behalf of Congress", but instead "on behalf of the American people". Does that mean that every person in American agrees with the contents of the letter? I don't think so. Does it mean the signatories of the letter are lying? Not if they feel TPP transparency is in the interest of the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
When the Audubon Society petitioned the government on behalf of the Spotted Owl, how many owls do you think participated in the drafting of that petition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take away their toys.
Just when I thought that Rikuo was the biggest imbecile in this conversation, you come up with this gem and wrest the title away. Congratulations!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Take away their toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On behalf of Congress?? What does that mean? The entire Congress? Who signed it and why do you claim it's on behalf of Congress when you know that is simply untrue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I used to believe that the EFF was a civil society group, but as of late it seems to be transforming into an advocacy organization like all other lobbying groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your a stooge, and shilling for someone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On behalf of Congress?? What does that mean? The entire Congress? Who signed it and why do you claim it's on behalf of Congress when you know that is simply untrue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the bit at the end is hilarious: "It seems likely that the USTR will simply ignore this letter, showing what kind of respect it has for Congress."
ROFLMAO. Kirk obviously doesn't have a duty to answer these questions. So if he chooses not to answer, it's not a "respect thing." All this article does is show the complete lack of respect Mike has for "the process." What a whiner.
Nobody hates IP rights more than Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And who do you suppose gives content creators IP rights, hm?
That's right, it's us, the public. We as a society ALLOW them to have those rights for a limited time, as incentive to create cultural works for us.
So, obviously, the USTR has an obligation to share laws and agreements that alter the rights that WE as a society give to content creators.
Attempting to argue otherwise is disingenuous, and totally goes against the original intent of copyright. It was never meant to be brought up to this scale, and you damn well know that.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point to be made is that "secure" versus "allow/grant" is not as simple a matter as many seem inclined to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessory_interest
As for the right you claim on the chair a reminder is in order that your claimed right only goes as far as to your sale of the chair and it is delivered to the buyer at which point your claimed right is the buyer`s right until the chair is sold again. That, and you have zero control over what the original buyer does with that chair or on what terms they can sell it. Unless, that is, voluntarily agreed to by seller and buyer prior to the sale being finalized (on delivery).
"Intellectual Property" is a privilege extended by the body politic to, in the United States promote the "useful arts and sciences" or, in the British Empire and Commonwealth to promote education, trade and free information flow. It`s not property as defined in the free market it has always been a legislative or constitutional privilege and/or directive to the market to promote a broad, laudable goal in the market. What "IP" is not is a right. Nor, at least in Canada as of this past summer, is it license-able for the purpose of fair dealing/fair use though, under Canadian Law and the Canadian Constitution fair dealing/fair use are protected rights.
IP extremists such as yourself try to recast a temporary privilege as a right which they are clearly not. Nor are they property in any sense of real property from a chair to a mansion to an aircraft carrier. Trying to recast it as something it isn't doesn't mean you've miraculaously changed it into something you want it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The game plan here is FOCUS!
The art of conversation requires 5 things.
1. Listen more than you talk
2. Come to an occasion armed with topics at the ready
3. Tailor the conversation to the listener
4. Take your turn
5. Think before you speak
Number five is particularly relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody hates the public more than the special interest groups and their shills.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, you're incorrect. That would be me. Mike has publicly stated he attempts to play by the rules every chance he gets.
Me? I fucking LOATHE IP. I will violate it every chance I get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I create art for the love of it.
As for economically marginal...gotta love the cognitive dissonance here. If I'm economically marginal (a.ka. poor), there's no benefit to be had whatsoever through chasing me with copyright laws. Whereas, if I'm rich...then somehow I'm pro-copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or were you more thinking of a group like this?
Perhaps you were referring to this guy or this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hint: one of the barf bag songs of the past century given the number of times it has, uninvited and increasingly unwanted invaded our ear canals.
If you guessed Led Zeppelin after the hints you have just won yourself a three month long cruise through every distillery around the world that the Bronfman family owns and produces beverages at from exclusively stolen recipes. (As do most distilleries.) Enjoy!
Now, what was that you were saying about failed artists and the economically marginal, entitled losers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously?
be·half/biˈhaf/
Noun:
In the interests of a person, group, or principle.
They are attempting to speak as representatives of a larger group: Congress. It is bullshit, they have no explicit or implied justification to speak on behalf of Congress.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're not.
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anybody *really* believe the USTR works for the United States?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does anybody *really* believe the USTR works for the United States?
People should be worried to have governements so out of touch with the present's reality that they support economic agents with deprecated business models believing that it's possible at all to prevent circulation & sharing of media files on the internet and else. It's sad to see nations obliterating their own future by listening to the wrong people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a laugh riot. As if the USTR gives a shit about the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stakeholder Organizations Participating in TPP Round 14, Leesburg, VA
AARP
Abbott
Access Partnership
ACE Group
Action on Smoking and Health
AdvaMed
AdvocacyWorks
AFL-CIO
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Association of Exporters and Importers
American Automotive Policy Council
American Chemistry Council
American Civil Liberties Union
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Fiber Manufacturers Association
American Forest & Paper Association
American Institute for International Steel
American Jobs Alliance
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Sugar Alliance
Americans for Democratic Action
Amgen
AMTAC
Ann Inc
Archer Daniels Midland Company
Association of American Publishers
Association of Flight Attendants
Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network
AWI
Baker & McKenzie
Biotechnology Industry Organization
Blank Rome LLP
Branson360
Business Software Alliance
C&M International
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
CAMTEX/NCTO
Cargill, Incorporated
Caterpillar
Cato Institute
Cattle Council of Australia
Central America – Dominican Republic Apparel and Textile Council
Center for American Progress
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Citizens Trade Campaign
Coalition for a Prosperous America
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Columbia Sportswear Co.
Communication Workers of America
Communications Daily
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Consumers International
Copyright Alliance
CropLife International
CS Group
Communications Workers of America
Dental Assisting National Board
Dietel Partners
Doctors Without Borders
DTB Associates, LLP
Dulles Regional Chamber of Commerce
eBay Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Elon University School of Law
Emergency Committee for American Trade
Environmental Investigation Agency Executive Intelligence Review
Express Association of America
Fair Trade Resource Network
Finston Consulting LLC
Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited
Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America
Formula Governance
Friends of the Earth
Fulton Bank
General Electric Co.
Generic Pharmaceutical Association
George Washington University
Georgetown University
Georgetown University Law Center
GlaxoSmithKline
Global Exchange
Global Justice for Animals and the Environment
Global Public Policy
Global Trade Watch
Google
Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce
Grocery Manufacturers Association
HanesBrands, Inc.
Health GAP
Health Global Access Project
Honda
Humane Society International
IBM
Institute of Popular Education of Southern California
Information Society Project at Yale Law School
Information Technology Industry Council
Innovarte Universidad Mayor
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Institute for Policy Innovation
Institute for Policy Studies
Institute for Public Accuracy
InterMune
International Public Policy & Regulatory Affairs
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
International Dairy Foods Association
International Intellectual Property Alliance
International Labor Rights Forum
International Public Policy & Regulatory Affairs
JCPenney
Johnson & Johnson
Just Foreign Policy
Knowledge Ecology International
Kraft Foods
Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick
Levi Strauss & Co.
Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce
Manufacturing Policy Project
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
McDonough School of Business
Meat & Livestock Australia
Medecins Sans Frontieres
MFJ International LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY
Motion Picture Association of America Mountainview Home Improvement
Mylan Inc.
National Association of Manufacturers
National Council of Textile Organizations
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Family Farm Coalition
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Milk Producers
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Pork Producers Council
National Resources Defense Council
National Textile Association
Navistar
NBCUniversal
New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
New Rules for Global Finance
New Zealand Nurses Organization
News Corporation
NIKE, Inc.
Northeastern University School of Law
Northern Virginia Labor Federation
NY4Whales.org
Oakland Institute
Oceana
ODECU
ONG Derechos Digitales
Oregon Fair Trade Campaign
Outdoor Industry Association
Oxfam America
PA Fair Trade Coalition
Patton Boggs LLP
Peruvians in Action New York
PhRMA
Precision Tune Auto Care
Presbyterian Hunger Program
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
Public Citizen/ Global Trade Watch
Public Knowledge
Public Services International
QUALCOMM
Ramatex Group
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Robert Branand International
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Roosevelt Institute
RootsAction
Rubber and Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Association
Screen Actors Guild &-American Federation of Television Radio Artists
Sanape LLC
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg
Semiconductor Industry Association
Sierra Club
Software & Information Industry Association
Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.
Sorini, Samet & Associates LLC
Steel Manufacturers Association
Student Global AIDS Campaign
Surf Dog Computer Services
Target
TechAmerica
TF Communications
The Coca-Cola Company
The Hosiery Association
The Maine House of Representatives
The McGraw-Hill Companies
The Recording Academy
The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace
The Walt Disney Company
Third Way
Third World Network
Thomsen & Burke LLP
Time Warner
TPP Apparel Coalition
TPP Coalition
TradeJustice NY Metro
U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Council for International Business
U.S. Dairy Export Council
U.S. Lumber Coalition
UL LLC
United Steelworkers
United Students for Fair Trade
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
UPS
US Export Assistance Center
US-ASEAN Business Council
Viacom
Vietnam Textile and Apparel Association
Voice of Vietnamese Americans
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Wiley Rein LLP
World Information Technology & Services Alliance
WKM Global Consulting
World Health Advocacy
World Society for the Protection of Animals
World Wildlife Fund
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"bringing issues to negotiators" for many of those on the list = 8 minute presentation at lunch time, in competition with four other such presentations, and which the negotiators are unlikely to see.
Not so impressive is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1.Consumers International
Consumer Protection and the IP Chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement
2.Electronic Frontier Foundation
TPP within the International Intellectual Property System
3.Knowledge Ecology International
4. Public Knowledge
Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the TPP
5. ONG Derechos Digitales
Copyright and Public Interest in the TPP
6. Computer & Communications Industry Association
The Proposals for Copyright Exceptions and Limitations
7. Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
Keeping Copyright Flexible
8. Information Society Project at Yale Law School
Criminal Liability for Copyright Infringement
9. McDonough School of Business
Intellectual Property and Economic Development
10. Information Technology Industry Council
Trans-Pacific Partnership: Promoting ICT and Internet Growth
11. Elon University School of Law
The Inefficiency of Secrecy
12. Innovarte Universidad Mayor
Exceptions and Limitations to copyright and other pro balance provisions
So about 1/4 of all presentations are in opposition to strengthening IP provisions in TPP. This is far more heavily weighted than any other point of view on any subject represented by other presentations. It's more than double the number of pro-IP presentations. So seriously, quit whining and pretending your side is locked out.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are these advocates going to see the curreent text of the agreement? If not, then these things are goignt o be about as useful as inedible chocolate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having negotiations where you can't even see what you're supposed to be negotiating over...isn't a negotiation at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wonder how the Supreme Court of Canada didn't make the list? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I am worried about is someone like Wyden who appears to have the balls to think he speaks for all of congress. That is worrying. I guess the other 500+ elected members can go home now, Wyden's got it covered.
You should be worried, that is the sort of bullshit that Mike would call out all day long if the letter was in support of copyright. Don't you think it's a little two faced of him not to mention the obvious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How any member of Congress speaking up seems like sane democracy in action. They are perfectly entitled to do this, however a minority you'd want them to be. The fact that it worries you can only because you are in the undercover opinion-containment and disruption business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't you have a problem with Wyden having the balls to try to talk for everyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's be fair here. Why do you think Mike ignored that very basic point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, I can laud the Representatives' work in one area and decry it in another.
*this is a humanity flaw, which will be erased in the next build.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't think so either. It makes me wonder who his donors are (google, perhaps?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a pipe dream, of course,but far more in line with what the creators of things like copyright and patent law were looking for and, in fact, created as opposed to the corrupt corpus of law and precedent we have now.
Yeah, you know, 10 years sounds wonderful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've fired a shot at Google now I'm waiting for the GPL/Open Source attack and, by Wednesday at the latest Creative Commons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean that special interest groups got online access to the material? But Mike does mention this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think he is actually doing something rather than screaming rhetoric and refusing to actually deal with the real problems of real people, instead of sucking on the corporate teat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All your criticism is aimed at Mike, with zero comment on the actual topic of the post.
Better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government of the United States represents its citizens. That function isn't limited to Congress. Maybe Wyden should demand to sit in on Supreme Court deliberations. Perhaps Issa should insist on being included in meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) USTR has nothing but contempt for Congress
2) that Hollywood in particular and the entertainment industries in general are the real forces in government, not the senators etc
this has come about because of the extent politicians have been allowed to be 'encouraged' (read that as bribed!) to do as those industries have demanded instead of standing up to them and the people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like I'll ignore whatever phony rules & regulations these corporations come up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much of this game of the executive agreements and these "treaties" being signed without explicit ratification Congress comes from a "poorly" worded section saying that the executive has taken as meaning that Congress has passed its power to ratify trade treaties over to the executive rather than that they may be negotiated on its behalf.
That would eliminate much of this circus as the USTR (or at least the lobbyists) would need to get Congressional buy in. It also forces it to open up and ensures more stakeholder involvement. I'm not sure it'd really change the outcome of the negotiations, but at least it'd be a little less shady.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Man from Congress
If he/she was forcefully prevented from doing so, wouldn't a smoke-bomb and box-of-mice diversion provide enough cover to slide the original into an inside pocket, leave a duplicate and exit rapidly during the ensuing confusion?
Summer's over I guess. This blockbuster will have to wait until 2013.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too late, the freeloading parasites have been doing that for years with no effect. Any regular folks don't give a shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On behalf of Congress?? What does that mean? The entire Congress? Who signed it and why do you claim it's on behalf of Congress when you know that is simply untrue?
Repeated for truth. Those who seek to shut down a valid opinion with the report button should be ashamed of themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also have a point in that this is the ONLY point in the article where you can validly criticise it.
You don't criticise the industry groups being able to see the text, while elected government officials can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
In case you don't want to click through, I'll copy and paste
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
"
Also this
"Effect
The clause actually confers two distinct powers: the power to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings is the basis for U.S. copyright law, and the power to secure for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries is the basis for U.S. patent law. "
Notice how that mentions Congress. Congress is given the powers to promote the progress of science and arts, and one of the ways it does this is through copyright/patent laws. Congress and Congress ALONE is given mandate to enact or reject IP laws. Barack Obama is under heat for having signed off on ACTA, despite the fact that with ACTA being a copyright text, he has no powers as head of the Executive Branch to alter copyright or IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When somebody wants to change Intellectual Property law in the United States, they have to go through Congress to do it. The Constitution is explicit in that only Congress has the powers to alter IP law.
TPP has an IP section. That section is well, Intellectual Property. Which is part of Congress's turf.
Simply saying that its now part of an international treaty is an end-run around democratically elected officials.
It's called the Separation of Powers, dumbass. Otherwise, you'd have a dictatorial president running rampant signing decrees that contain sections that are not part of his office into law, by saying they're treaties (oops...has already happened).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" Next is conforming existing domestic law to reflect international agreements"
"NO CHANGE IN US LAW WILL BE NEEDED."
Which is it? Will laws be changed (conformed) or will they not be?
By the way, why is it that it doesn't ring alarm bells that laws can somehow be changed this way, by saying the bill is a treaty that doesn't need ratification from those elected by the people? If I were a US citizen, and I was told that a treaty has been signed and now I'm expected to obey a new law, I'd want to have had some say in it first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If domestic law needs to be changed to reflect the terms of a treaty (already ratified) then that is done by Congress. Ratification is also a Congressional function. Negotiating is not. In the case of TPP, based on what I know- no US law will be needed to bring existing law into compliance with the (current) IP chapter. If you are still unable to understand, please ask your helper to explain it again or draw you a picture. It is honestly hard to believe that you are so stupid, but seemingly can operate a computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can ignore Congress entirely if the treaty doesn't require changes to existing law. For that matter, you can ignore Congress even if it does require changes to laws as they can then choose to not ratify the agreement. But nothing implies a duty or requirement to inject Congress into the negotiations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't they just arrest the responsible USTR staff
So I'd call upon the attorney general to have the responsible people within the USTR arrested for treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]