SOPA Should Have Ended Backroom Deals About Copyrights & Patents; So Why Is TPP Still Secret?
from the bring-it-in-the-open dept
There's a fantastic op ed in the NY Times, by Lori Wallach and Ben Beachy from Public Citizen, questioning why the TPP negotiating texts are still secret. As they note, this level of secrecy is unprecedented:Even the George W. Bush administration, hardly a paragon of transparency, published online the draft text of the last similarly sweeping agreement, called the Free Trade Area of the Americas, in 2001.But, of course, we all know the answer as to why. As they note, for all this secrecy, the administration has given tremendous access to "600 trade advisers" -- basically employees from big companies who get privileged access to the draft text and to negotiators that even Congress is denied. And it's pretty damn clear that the administration just doesn't want Congress to have much say in this, because Congress might actually do its job and represent the public's interest. In fact, the op-ed notes, former USTR Ron Kirk was pretty explicit about this:
So why keep it a secret? Because Mr. Obama wants the agreement to be given fast-track treatment on Capitol Hill. Under this extraordinary and rarely used procedure, he could sign the agreement before Congress voted on it. And Congress’s post-facto vote would be under rules limiting debate, banning all amendments and forcing a quick vote.But, you would think that the administration had learned something from the SOPA fight (and the ACTA fight in Europe) -- and it's that the public is not a fan of deals regarding copyright and patents that are negotiated by big business representatives in back rooms. Administration officials who think that TPP is different than SOPA because it let a few tech companies into the back room may find themselves mistaken.
Ron Kirk, until recently Mr. Obama’s top trade official, was remarkably candid about why he opposed making the text public: doing so, he suggested to Reuters, would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to sign.
Remember the debate in January 2012 over the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would have imposed harsh penalties for even the most minor and inadvertent infraction of a company’s copyright? The ensuing uproar derailed the proposal. But now, the very corporations behind SOPA are at it again, hoping to reincarnate its terms within the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s sweeping proposed copyright provisions.If the administration is betting that as long as they keep big business happy, that the public protests won't matter, they may be in for a surprise.
From another leak, we know the pact would also take aim at policies to control the cost of medicine. Pharmaceutical companies, which are among those enjoying access to negotiators as “advisers,” have long lobbied against government efforts to keep the cost of medicines down. Under the agreement, these companies could challenge such measures by claiming that they undermined their new rights granted by the deal.
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: backrooms, negotiations, secrecy, sopa, tpp, transparency, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No, to preempt the usual idiots who hate due process, this isn't in defence of SOPA, because the unremovable-block-on-accusation that SOPA touted defeats the whole purpose of ending backroom deals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The key to the secrecy provisions must be on the american side, No other party has the economic clout of the US, even with its lingering economic woes, to compel secrecy from the other parties to the negotiation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The tiny crash in 2008 is an isolated incident that had nothing to do with FEA.
The Fed is printing lots of money so that means America has more monies than we've ever had. So that means FEA is a huge success!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It wasn't a grassroots reaction, it was all paid for by Google"
"Only the pirates were complaining"
"People just didn't understand the bill because parts were leaked before they were corrected"
...and so on.
They simply don't understand that the major problems were the secrecy and lack of public input. Their lobbyists, of course, understand that without secrecy there's no way to have a chance of pushing through the crap they want that would fail to protect their industry while damaging every other, but since that's what they're paid to push they're not going to let on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, diverting the blame from grassroots to Google is a way to dispell the shock of the politicians about some voters they didn't understand. By saying Google is secretly inciting a revolt they are both smearing Google and making it impossible to proove that they are straight up lying.
Blaming pirates is a way to indirectly say that it was only a flashmob created by a lawbreaking minority. Again, to calm politicians. This one can be attacked by looking at numbers.
Blaming misunderstanding is the only piece that can actually backfire on its own. It is a way to legitimize the pirates claim. Since several legal experts were clear in their spit about SOPA, it is an incredible statement. The only way this lie holds is because lobbyists can crowd out independent professional opinions any day of the week.
Demagoguery is the name of the game. Lobbying is dirty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I...there is almost a zen like level of wrong right here. Basically what he seems to be saying that he doesn't want to reveal the TPP because they don't want the democratic process to occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They learned something - that in order to pass these "agreements" that only benefits the crony capitalists writing them, the actual text must be kept even more secret. The people that are to be fleeced might otherwise become very angry at the prospect of having another chunk of their paycheck transferred to corrupt plutocrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they did learn something...
They did learn something, they learned that if the public knows what they are up to, i.e. SOPA, NSA spying, the public won't like it and will try to stop it. The King cannot allow his subjects to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not down with TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think they're less concerned about the rest of the world knowing than they are about the American people knowing.
"The major function of secrecy in Washington is to keep the U.S. people ... from knowing what the nation�s leaders are doing." -- John Stockwell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you've got nothing to hide....
Used to always tell my new parents in scouts -- we behave in a manner that if it was filmed and on the 11 o'clock news - we wouldn't be worried if everyone saw it. Simple as that. No complicated rules.
Mike C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress may do it's job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Way
No way that would happen, so it can�t be the reason for secrecy. I don�t know what the reason is, but this premise isn�t it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is new is that there is now a readily accessible medium for discussion of same thus creating a lot of more informed within the 95% and the 5% do not like that and they see it as a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]