Congress Finally Releases Fast Track Trade Bill, And It's A Mess
from the why-do-republicans-want-to-do-this? dept
For the past few months there have been rumors every few weeks that Congress was finally going to push out a "fast track" or "trade promotion authority" bill. As we've explained, these bills are Congress giving up their Constitutional right to regulate international trade, and handing the power over the USTR, a part of the executive branch. While some supporters of this argue that it actually gives Congress more power, by laying out the conditions of a trade deal it will approve, that's ridiculous. That might be true if fast track authority were granted prior to a deal being done, but with the TPP and TTIP pretty far along, it's clearly not true. Either way, despite massive opposition from the President's own party, an agreement has been reached between Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden and a trade promotion bill has been released.Back in February, we presented a simple litmus test concerning whether or not any such effort would actually be reasonable on intellectual property issues: would the text of the bill concerning intellectual property be any different than the last fast track authority bill from 2002 (or an attempt to update it in 2014). Both of those bills had nearly verbatim text. And... as we feared, so does this new bill. Given just how much the internet has changed since 2002, it is simply inconceivable to suggest that the same intellectual property rules that made sense then would continue to make sense now. In other words, despite the involvement of Senator Wyden, it appears that little has been done here to make it clear to the USTR that bad IP rules in the TPP or TTIP agreement are unacceptable. That's a disappointment. Here are the key provisions on intellectual property. Note that they are basically all about enforcement (i.e., protectionism) rather than the free flow of information (which is what you'd expect a trade deal to be about).
providing strong protection for new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing products embodying intellectual property, including in a manner that facilitates legitimate digital trade;These are basically word for word the same from 2002. In other words, despite over a decade of seeing how the USTR has used trade deals to browbeat other countries into bad intellectual property laws, this new trade promotion authority is saying "go ahead and continue doing just that, no matter what harm it may do to the internet and all of the economic growth it creates."
preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights;
ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensuring that rightholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to prevent the unauthorized use of their works;
providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms; and
preventing or eliminating government involvement in the violation of intellectual property rights, including cyber theft and piracy;
Unlike some who are totally against any trade deals, I believe there are ways in which increasing actual free trade can be helpful. I had held out hope that the new trade promotion agreement would be more reasonable than what we'd seen in the past. But just looking at the intellectual property section alone, and the fact that it has remained unchanged since the 2002 version -- despite over a decade of seeing how bad IP policy can hurt internet innovation and economic growth -- suggests that this TPA agreement continues the mistakes of the past, rather than fixes them. That's unfortunate.
And so, now comes a very, very weird fight in Congress. With nearly all Democrats opposed to this bill even including the surprise change in position by Senator Chuck Schumer, we'll have a situation where Congressional Republicans try and convince their colleagues to give President Obama more power, by removing the Constitutional authority from Congress, while Congressional Democrats push back against giving their own President that power. It's a really weird fight in oh so many ways.
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: chuck schumer, fast track, fast track authority, intellectual property, orrin hatch, ron wyden, tafta, trade, trade agreements, trade promotion, trade promotion authority, ttip, ttp, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well that's disappointing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well that's disappointing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well that's disappointing
He's the latest in my growing list of "traitors to online freedom," and he is definitely not going to be the last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewzNARUkIAc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the point of press if no-one reads it?
I can't imagine having such ignorant friends. Much of the press has been outside the US - oh, enough said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny that this should come on the same day as the piece about ALEC. They also happen to be one of the key proponents of the TPP. I'd also be willing to bet they, or one of the other "think tanks" aligned with them, provided the initial framework for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yep
i have an old saying on that: its always the ones you least expect to stab you in the back that push the knife deeper then anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's no way to run a democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So continues..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPA will also be used to ram through a draconian "climate change" agreement that will be distastrous all around, one version rumored to implement a "one child" policy worldwide, among other things.
TPA is much more a disaster that just TPP or TAFTA, which why it must never be passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's more than enough to criticize the 'trade' agreements with, even with how secret they've been, without tossing out wild speculation that just makes those critical of the agreements look nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cant entirely find a current Climate change Treaty, suggesting that your now just throwing out a boogy man to pile on the FUD.
TPA is bad. no need to Straw Man it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
TPP, TAFTA, the UN arms control treaty, and nearly every other bad agreement out there to shred the constitution will be rammed through using TPA, which is why Alex Jones opposes TPA, and why you should, too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He happens to be right this time, for entirely the wrong reasons. Which doesn't really count as right because his reasoning is entirely unsupported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then it must be true! /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights;
ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensuring that rightholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to prevent the unauthorized use of their works;
providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms; and
preventing or eliminating government involvement in the violation of intellectual property rights, including cyber theft and piracy;
So even Wyden came out against freeloading and grifting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
class action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: class action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(even) Short(er) version: CESSPOOL! CESSPOOL! CESSPOOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly. Every time I read some economist spouting support for one of these deals it's clear that they don't understand the real purpose is not free trade of goods and services but good old fashioned protectionism against the free exchange of ideas and information.
Just as protectionism weakened rather than protected manufacturers' ability to compete on a global stage so will this new protectionism weaken those not able to compete on a level intellectual field. The implications are profound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A better test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]