Rep. Lofgren Gives USTR A Simple 3-Point Plan For Real TPP Transparency

from the let's-try-that-out dept

Wed, Sep 26th 2012 2:14pm — Mike Masnick

We've discussed, repeatedly, the incredible lack of transparency from the USTR regarding the TPP negotiations. Back in June, we noted that 130 Congressional Representatives all got together to send USTR Ron Kirk a letter, noting their concerns. At the end of August, Kirk replied (pdf) with his standard talking points. He insists that meeting with people is "transparency," even if they can't see the document. He insists that Congress has access to the TPP, even though the USTR locks out key staffers, and doesn't let the elected officials take notes or make copies. He insists that the document needs to be classified because it's the way things have always been done (which is generally a sign of someone not having much of a real argument).

Either way, Rep. Zoe Lofgren is unimpressed. She's now sent Kirk a letter, responding to Kirk's request for "suggestions" on how to improve transparency with some rather simple and straightforward ideas (pdf and embedded below), meaning that it's unlikely the USTR will pay much attention to them. You can read the full version at that link, but here's my summarized version, with commentary:

USTR should make the US positions (not those of other countries) open to the public. She doesn't even say the full text needs to be open, but merely summaries of the US's position. It's hard to see any reasonable argument against this. Since the USTR is negotiating on behalf of the American public (in theory, though the reality often seems so different), it seems ridiculous that the USTR would ever not put out at least summaries of its positions on what it's negotiating. Contrary to Kirk's claims, this does not weaken the US's negotiating ability at all. Quite the opposite, it strengthens it by making it subject to public scrutiny and input, while also highlighting to the world our resolve in coming up with a proposal that the public will accept.
Any IP section within TPP must have strong support for flexible "limitations and exceptions" for things like fair use and the public domain. While the USTR has shown a willingness to include some text on limitations and exceptions, the most recent leak raises questions since it appears to be rather inflexible and goes much further than is reasonable.
USTR should create more representative "trade advisory committees," which it consults on these issues. As it stands, the ITACs (International Trade Advisory Committee) is heavily, heavily biased in favor of older legacy industries, rather than innovators or the public. Lofgren reasonably suggests that a lot more thought and effort should go into fixing how unbalanced these committees are, since they have tremendous influence over the text.

These three basic changes won't fix all the problems -- not by a long shot -- but they would, at the very least, provide a bit more transparency and involvement, while also guaranteeing that we don't push a solely maximalist agenda in other countries. And, because of that, I fully expect the USTR to ignore all of these suggestions.

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: copyright, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr, zoe lofgren

80 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 2:27pm

Did you start LofgrenPAC too?

Or is it that Lofgren was one of the few willing to receive your visits to Washington?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 2:30pm
  
  Re:
  way to keep it classy AC... way to keep it classy...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 2:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It just makes me wonder when everything here is either Wyden or Lofgren. Lofgren is a miniority member in the house, mostly known for recently working with the anti-SOPA forces. I am assuming she is one of the few to receive Mike in Washington.
    
    Welcome to the world of scratching backs, I guess. It's the way politics work, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 2:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I like Mike's tweet from a while back:
      
      "At the Rep. Zoe Lofgren roundtable for #sotn. Talking about the importance of what happened in the #sopa/#pipa fight."
      
      Yup, it's pretty clear now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 8:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am assuming she is one of the few to receive Mike in Washington.
        
        In the last year... I've met with probably 40 to 50 Congressional Reps, about a dozen Senators and multiple federal staffers (White House, State Dept, DHS).
        
        Just today, I had a call with the White House.
        
        Try again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 9:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and just to add to this, I realized *I've never actually met with Lofgren*. I've never been to her office in DC or in California. I did go to that public roundtable, which I tweeted about, along with about 20 other folks, and I asked her a question and shook her hand on the way out. But that's about the extent of my personal contact with her.
        
        But, keep trying to say things to try to diminish me when you know absolutely nothing about, well, everything.
        
        But, we all know that's just how you like it. There's no fun in trolling if you actually have to live with the facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 12:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, since you are evasive with the facts, you leave the rest of us nothing to do but fill in the blanks.
        
        Oh, and a call with the White House? Ba himself, or just a college buddy that works in the research area? Do tell. It would be wonderful if you actually disclosed where your efforts are politically, because it would explain a lot more of your thrashing about, and perhaps why you use this blog as a bit of a bully pulpit.
        
        On payroll yet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 12:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and a call with the White House? Ba himself, or just a college buddy that works in the research area? Do tell.
        
        Wouldn't you like to know. :)
        
        Trust me, it wasn't a college buddy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 1:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ahh,okay, so you are working for the government now? Or the Democratic party?
        
        Please do tell - I think that getting this out in the open is a good way to explain much of what is in your blog now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lurk-a-lot (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 1:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please explain how you jumped from 'a phone call' to 'employed by the government'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 2:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, they won't. They don't actually read the site, or they would know that most of their questions are answered just by actually taking the time to understand Mike's posts. That's why he doesn't answer their questions, as well. Gives them something to snark about in their ignorance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 3:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it's more than a college buddy, then the question is what is up? On the payroll? Working for someone? On a committee? Getting paid?
        
        The getting paid part is important, it could change the content of this site and could filter stories - important in the middle of the election cycle.
        
        I am starting to think it might be something about the "internet vote" Mike has started to prattle on about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 3:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Give us a break troll. You're the one posting anonymous, dumb fuck. 'nuff said.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 4:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why?
        
        The silliness of Masnick's replies in this thread alone are grounds for his wife's impending divorce request.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 5:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have no legitimate business here. You're just here to harass the guy. You're just a pathetic psychotic maniac.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tunnen (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 3:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's possible that those are the only two sensible people in government that are actually daring to question the USTR or other issues that are in line with this blog.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 5:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It just makes me wonder when everything here is either Wyden or Lofgren. Lofgren is a miniority member in the house, mostly known for recently working with the anti-SOPA forces. I am assuming she is one of the few to receive Mike in Washington.
      
      If this is the best you can offer - an appeal to the authority of the status quo - then you are beneath contempt.
      
      Got any actual arguments, data or logic?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 2:47pm
  
  Re:
  Ron Kirk was to busy trying to find another source for his desires given that Jerry Sandusky's little boy ring has hit a rough spot
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re:
  Did you start LofgrenPAC too?
  
  Doesn't seem likely, as Masnick appears to be a cheapskate. I couldn't find anything other than a miserly $250 to Obama five years ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 3:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey AC, who pays you ? how do you make a living ?
    
    If your interest in smearing Mike is only personal, you are one scary harrasser.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 4:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We know Google pays Mike.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 4:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No we don't. Try again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey AC, who pays you ? how do you make a living ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Crazy Freetard (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 3:54pm
  
  Re:
  What a constructive and informative comment. I'm sure your mother is proud of what you've become.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 2:47pm

Lofgren obviously doesn't understand the Congressional role in trade agreements. It's also clear that she expresses no concerns that the current leaked IP chapter will change US domestic IP law. Interestingly, she bemoans the "three-step test" as burdensome even though it's found in TRIPS and (I believe) KORUS and other trade agreements. Finally, she seeks to undermine the confidentiality agreement that all negotiators sign. Despite her claim, it does not provide a license for the sort of disclosure she demands. The USTR should ignore her for a host of legitimate reasons- with "It's none of your god damn business at the top of the chart".

This is all about her setting the stage to erode existing IP protection at some point in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- terry (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 3:03pm
  
  Re:
  Any trade agreement being made in the name of the American people, that we are going to be expected to obide by is ALL of our business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh please, all you care about is weakening the IP chapter. I doubt you could even name another chapter without Googling TPP. And btw, there's a ratification vote. Encourage your rep to vote no.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - terry (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your a little bit off regarding me, I don't want to see draconian measures that were already rejected by the populace back-door legislated via a trade agreement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even Zoe Lofgren, the repugnant High Priestess of Piracy Apologists doesn't even suggest a concern over ...draconian measures that were already rejected by the populace.... This is not an issue beyond professional FUD-packers and the dopes they've sucked in with their lies. TRIPS is the model.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        terry (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some transparency would show the truth. Whatever it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        terry (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some transparency would show the truth. Whatever it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 3:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Reading your people hatred-filled posts could make "Piracy Apology" sound like the right thing to do against the dirty backdoor politics you are a coggle-wheel of.
        
        And people are very legitimate to care about absurd IP Chapter they don't want, if so was the case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - arcan, 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      lol, ratification vote. remember acta?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re:
  I'm not going to speak for Mike or the other writers here, but here's something I don't think you understand about me, or even the public at large. When someone says the USTR ought to be more transparent, they don't care about what the law states they ought. They just want the USTR to do what they ought.
  
  You seem to be looking at things through this legalistic view. It's almost like you think societal morals/ethics/norms are shaped by what's codified in law. That is completely wrong.
  
  I don't know if Rep Lofgren is telling the jerkwad known as Ron Kirk that he ought to be more transparent from a legalistic point of view or from a common point of view. I do know that when I say the USTR ought to be more transparent I mean that I don't care what the law allows him to get away with. If he's hiding behind the law like a cowardly dog, then the law ought to change and he should be forcefully, publicly, and shamefully removed from office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Fair enough. Change the law. Until then, stop crying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because the law changes when you remain quiet?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, the law changes when you work on changing the law, not on grandstanding and making meaningless noises.
        
        The first rule about getting somewhere is taking steps in the right direction. What the Lofgren is doing here is just adding more smoke and more confusion into the situation, and not doing anything that actually moves the process forward.
        
        It's like your neighbor's mom telling you to stop playing ball near their flowers. It's a meaningless thing. If she talked to your Mom, and your Mom told you, then you would change. It's all about process, and it's shocking that a house member with 15+ years experience doesn't seem to understand anything other than meaningless attempts at public shaming.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 6:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not shocked. Look who bankrolls her.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 4:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        True, but still too much reality for a piracy apologist blog, bruh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 2:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Want to hear something shocking? By talking about the issues here we're informing the public at large about the issues. This actually is the first step to accomplishing something, because the more people that know, the more chances that people will call their congress critters and push to have things done. Amazing how you just reject this vital step as 'whining.'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re:
  What side are you on senator? First you blast Lofgren for not expressing concern over a change of US domestic IP law. Then you blast her for actually engaging in a "discussion" with the USTR on how to get "better" results.
  
  This is actually her setting the stage for making a transition from a ridiculously bad ITAC-composition, to a much more diverse opinion.
  If that is setting up for an erosion of IP rights, then it is not her you need to blast...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re:
  with "It's none of your god damn business at the top of the chart"
  
  Actually, it's very much all of our business. That these things are negotiated in secret represents the highest degree of corruption and toadyism. It should be criminal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    But it's not. Neither are meeting of the Fed's Open Market committee or those of the Joint Chiefs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The FOMC is 80% jews... not very representative of the population
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What are you babbling about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mentioned the FOMC so I stated a fact. Further to my point:
        
        Jews are only 2.1% of US population. But 80% of FOMC members are Jews, and 90% of TBTF Wall Street bank CEOs are Jews. 3/4 of last FOMC chairmen were/are Jews and all 3 implemented disastrous for the country policies (but extremely lucrative for Wall Street banks).
        
        Arthur Burns (Jew), disastrous money printing policies that culminated in 15% hyperinflation, stagflation and severe 11% unemployment recession.
        
        Paul Volker (goy), cleaned up the Arthur Burns mess, Wall Street banks feared him
        
        Alan Greenspan (Jew), bubble blowing economics, The Great Depression II
        
        Ben Bernanke (Jew), continuation of Greenspan policies, Arthur Burns-like money printing insanity, to be continued
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes yes, all these problems are because they were /Jewish/, not because they were corrupt assholes...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 4:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess this blog made the A+ L00ny list somewhere.
        
        Apparently zealots feel they have to stick together...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 6:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well Adolph, I don't know what you think their religion has to do with their economic beliefs. But then I'm not a narrow-minded, bigoted, salad-tosser like you so it is different to know how you think. Though, I suspect that your extra chromosome is the root cause of your problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 6:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry Adolf, auto-speller malfunction That should be *difficult* not *different*
        Anyway, Happy Yom Kippur you bag of dogshit. Keep watching for those black helicopters landing behind your doublewide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 8:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Adolph, I have more bad news for you. About 82% of all NBA players are black. So are 67% of all NFL players. Yet suspiciously, black people account for only 13% of the US population. And if you eliminate women from the mix- the disparity grows.
        
        You are a world-class douchenozzle. Elite level douchenozzles comprise only .01% of the English speaking world, yet 100% of all bigots. Suspicious? I'd say so. Thank you for your thought-provoking contribution. It's nice to know you have a purposeful life after your defining and perfectly cast role as Cletus in the riverbank scene in "Deliverance".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 9:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So we agree, Bibi. You correctly point out that a majority of NBA and NFL players are black because they are good at it and I say that the majority of those involved at the highest levels of banking, financialization, debt-manipulation, usury, and Ponzi-scheming are Jews.
        
        I have nothing against religion as I do not care what silly stories people believe in. However, I do care about facts and truth.
        
        This blog post is about finding out the truth in the TPP. You commented on the FOMC so I made a snide remark containing facts. You really think those cock suckers at the FOMC would be transparent? They rule the world and are not even elected by the people.
        
        And back to the meaning of your original post. Are you saying that since we don�t know what goes on at the FOMC meetings, or comically the Joint Chiefs, that we have no right to ask what goes into trade agreements?
        
        May Allah be with you this holiday!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 9:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, we disagree on this point. What they are doing is writing legislation that affects us all behind closed doors, in secret. Even worse, they're actively including a tiny, powerful segment of the public (the content companies). If any stakeholders get to be involved in the process, then all stakeholders should be. Especially the citizens.
      
      I find this despicable and abhorrent.
      
      That the legislation is voted on in public after its formed means nothing. By that time, barring exceptional circumstances, it's a done deal.
      
      This is worse than taxation without representation, this is legislation without representation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, we disagree on this point. What they are doing is writing legislation that affects us all behind closed doors, in secret. Even worse, they're actively including a tiny, powerful segment of the public (the content companies). If any stakeholders get to be involved in the process, then all stakeholders should be. Especially the citizens.
        
        Even Lofgren hasn't registered a concern that TPP will necessitate changes in US copyright law. And why you think trade agreements need to crowd sourced is beyond me.
        
        I find this despicable and abhorrent.
        
        Then you may consider directing your efforts in a direction that leads to procedural changes, as simply moaning about it doesn't do any good.
        
        That the legislation is voted on in public after its formed means nothing. By that time, barring exceptional circumstances, it's a done deal.
        
        That is simply untrue. It wasn't with KORUS, it wasn't with ACTA in Europe and it won't be with TPP if the overall package is viewed as not in the best interests of the US. Your problem is that you want copyright provisions to be considered independently of all of the other provisions of TPP. Well there are hundreds of other special interests who want the same thing and the reason that won't happen is that there'd never be a deal. Copyright, nor any other special interest is never going to be allowed to be the tail wagging the dog.
        
        This is worse than taxation without representation, this is legislation without representation.
        
        Bullshit. There's a ratification process for the overall treaty. Any domestic laws that may need to be changed to conform to treaty obligations also have to be voted on by your representative. Not everyone's existence revolves around piracy and eroding IP law. Your rep will look at the whole package and vote accordingly. Even big time piracy promoters Issa and Polis voted in favor of KORUS, so you better get to work on your representative because most represent ALL of their constituents, not just the interests of the few.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even Lofgren hasn't registered a concern that TPP will necessitate changes in US copyright law. And why you think trade agreements need to crowd sourced is beyond me.
        
        I really don't care what Lofgren has registered a concern about or not, and I never said that I think trade agreements need to be crowdsourced. I only said that the process shouldn't be done secretly.
        
        it won't be with TPP if the overall package is viewed as not in the best interests of the US.
        
        Viewed as not in the best interests of the US by who? Legislators? That makes it a done deal without some kind of exceptional public reaction (such as was seen with ACTA).
        
        Your problem is that you want copyright provisions to be considered independently of all of the other provisions of TPP.
        
        Nope, that's not at all my problem.
        
        There's a ratification process for the overall treaty. Any domestic laws that may need to be changed to conform to treaty obligations also have to be voted on by your representative.
        
        You say that like it means something, but it doesn't. We've seen how this plays out 99% of the time. The changes in the law will be rubberstamped because to do otherwise would be to "renege on our international obligations."
        
        BTW, I don't care about piracy and my concern over IP laws has nothing to do with their impact on it. My concern is about the collateral damage current IP laws are causing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    John, I note with a bit of satisfaction that Lofgren didn't engage in a public discussion of the internet bill that she's proposed. She has deposited a finished product. Like the TPP, it is subject to a vote. But I don't see her affording any opportunity for comment on her work in process. Funny thing this transparency.
    
    I know, I know... but, but, but this is different.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They are. Completely different. Of course you know that, don't you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 9:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm less familiar with the circumstances around that bill than TPP, so I can't comment on how applicable your comparison is. For the sake of argument I'll take what you say as true.
      
      My response is "so what"? Whether or not Lofgren is a hypocrite doesn't relate to the basic issue here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 8:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That these things are negotiated in secret represents the highest degree of corruption and toadyism
    
    You should consult with the resident expert on toadyism; Marcus, before making such mischaracterized assertions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:41pm
  
  Re:
  This is all about her setting the stage to repair overly broad IP protection at some point in the future.
  
  FTFY
  
  IMHO the USTR is in comtempt of congress and needs to be removed!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 6:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    IMHO the USTR is in comtempt of congress and needs to be removed!
    
    IMHO you have no idea how your own government functions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 8:53pm
  
  Re:
  "It's none of your god damn business at the top of the chart".
  
  Trade agreements that have a massive impact on the public are none of Congress' or the public's "god damn business"?
  
  Really now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 12:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yup. Because Congress isn't a corporation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 4:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    What massive impact?
    
    Post proof of such supposed "massive impact".
    
    Post it right here:
    
    Since that won't be happening, I look forward to more L00ny FUD from you, Masnick lol
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 5:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're such a l33t psych0 harasser.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    It is none of Lofgren's god damn business. When a final version is concluded, there's a ratification procedure. At that point, the treaty is accepted or rejected. She seeks to create some sort of line item veto for trade agreements.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 7:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because that track worked out great with ACTA right?
      
      Speaking of FUD, looking at the agreement or just looking at what the USTR is trying to bargain for at the negotiations is hardly a 'line item veto.'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Speaking of FUD, looking at the agreement or just looking at what the USTR is trying to bargain for at the negotiations is hardly a 'line item veto.'
        
        Lofgren's sole concern is the IP chapter. Even Stevie Wonder can see that. Lofgren attacks the process as a surrogate for attacking the IP chapter proposals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're talking about what the rules are, and in those terms, you're correct.
      
      We're talking about what is right, though, which is a different thing from what the prescribed procedure is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We're talking about what is right, though, which is a different thing from what the prescribed procedure is.
        
        Then why waste your time? There's all of this hue and cry over what is "right" but no activity directed toward making an actual change.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    It doesn't appear that Lofgren raised any particular concern over TPP altering existing US IP laws. So what is this massive impact on the public that you speak of?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 5:41am
  
  Re:
  This is all about her setting the stage to erode existing IP protection at some point in the future.
  
  So you now accept that the dismantling of IP is a real threat!
  
  Great! That means we're on the way to winning!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    It just expresses that his fears that his belived (more-)IP Chapter will be again killed off, considering the same eastern eggs that he's aware of. His job is probably on the line about it. I'd be very surprise his positions and anti-Mike obsession have the greater good of society and people in mind.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2012 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    It just expresses his fears that his beloved (more-)IP Chapter will be again killed off, considering the same eastern eggs that he's aware of. His job is probably on the line about it. I'd be very surprised his positions and anti-Mike obsession have the greater good of society and people in mind and not just his direct personal interests.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tunnen (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 2:59pm

Step 1. Write a letter to the USTR, which they will ignore for the sake of transparency.
Step 2. ...
Step 3. Profit!

=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:09pm

Doesn't the USTR have to answer to Congress? If so, I don't get why these senators are asking for transparency rather than demanding it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2012 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re:
  No, the USTR does not answer to Congress.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tunnen (profile), 26 Sep 2012 @ 5:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not answering, I think is part of the root cause of their transparency problem. =P
    
    (To expand on the AC's comment, the USTR is part of the Executive Office of the President)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - saulgoode (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 2:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    
    No, the USTR does not answer to Congress.
    Just so long as the USTR isn't worried about funding*.
    
    * The USTR is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which operates under a discretionary budget that must be approved by Congress each year.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - saulgoode (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 2:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Correction, the USTR is not under the the Department of Commerce, but under the Financial Services and General Government category of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
      
      Nontheless, the Executive Office of the President of the United States likewise operates under a discretionary budget which requires annual approval by Congress.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]