Homeland Security Complains To USTR That ACTA Is A Threat To National Security

from the oops dept

Well, this is surprising. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, KEI happened to get its hands on a Homeland Security "position" letter about ACTA written all the way back in 2008. The policy letter surprisingly warned that DHS felt ACTA was a potential threat to national security, in that it could restrict DHS and ICE specifically from putting in place their own policies to deal with infringement. Now, having seen ICE's idea of fighting infringement being seizing domains without much research, due process or concerns for the First Amendment... perhaps that's a good thing. But it's still interesting to see DHS warn that ACTA represents a threat to national security. The cover letter to the USTR warns:

"I am concerned that some possible outcome of the ACTA negotiations may harm national security and the ability of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to exercise managerial discretion in setting priorities for intellectual property right (IPR) enforcement."

Then it includes the short position paper, which highlights numerous concerns with ACTA, some of which were dealt with in later drafts of ACTA, but not all of them. In particular, it's interesting to see DHS explicitly note that it wants to make sure that ACTA doesn't lead other countries to "devote resources to IPR enforcement at the expense of more important anti-terrorism efforts."

DHS also makes it clear that, contrary to claims from tons of ACTA supporters, the original intent of the proposal was to bind Congress -- something that DHS is quite worried about:

the proposed language on the "Border Measures" section of ACTA could codify in international law, certain provisions that would be unfavorable to CBP and, once adopted as an international agreement, even Congress would be unable to alter the rules to make them more economically justifiable. .

DHS also questions why the government should be the one to enforce intellectual property issues, rather than the rights holder directly (apparently, the new folks in charge at DHS have no such qualms):

. . . The cost of enforcing private rights, such as trademarks, can reasonably be placed on the beneficiary. That is particularly true in a context such as this; rights holders often have a choice whether to bring enforcement actions on their own or through border measures. That choice should not be influenced by the consideration that using governmental enforcement resources will save the rights holder the cost of storing and destroying the infringing goods. For these reasons, if CBP concludes that waiving storage or destruction fees has created an unhealthy incentive to shift enforcement from the private sector to government, it should have authority to recommend that fees for storage and deconstruction be charged to the beneficiary of the enforcement action.

This section of ACTA could be interpreted as taking away that authority and protecting rights holders from measures to recover costs incurred for their benefit. This is imprudent and difficult to justify on fiscal or policy grounds.

The report also worries that ACTA will harm "international goodwill," and that ACTA could come back to haunt the US by letting other countries punish US companies under ACTA rules. That was certainly prescient, though it appears the USTR ignored that part:

ACTA would expend international goodwill by requiring other governments to change organizational and legal structures. . . .

In essence, this language would encourage foreign customs authorities to bar imports and exports if the authorities concluded on their own intiative that the goods might violate copyright or be confusing similar to trademarked goods. These are sweeping powers to act against suspected IP violators, and the powers can easily be misused either intentionally or unintentionally. Misuse could even harm small U.S. exporters competing with foreign companies favored by local governments. Generally speaking, the customs agencies of the other participating countries do not possess the same level of authority as CBP -- many of them are not designated competent authorities to make determinations on IPR infringements. This substantially increases the risk that the sweeping powers wiill be misused. . .

Many of these concerns were dead on, though it appears that the USTR only took a few superficial concerns into account. Also, it appears that DHS's more recent obsession with aggressively acting as Hollywood's private police force means that the current management isn't as aware of the negative impact of these actions.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, homeland security, national security, trademark

EU's ACTA Champion Rejects European Parliament Member's Request For ACTA Documents

from the more-secrecy dept

Even with ACTA supposedly in a "final" state, it appears that the negotiators just can't resist keeping up their level of stifling secrecy. Glyn Moody points us to the news that the EU's main backer of ACTA, Commissioner Karel De Gucht, has refused to turn over some "preparatory documents" concerning ACTA that were requested by European Parliament Member Francoise Castex. As the article notes, the European Commission is required to turn over such documents, as per the Vienna Convention, but De Gucht apparently has a different interpretation of all of that, saying that as long as he answers questions by MEPs, he has no obligation to turn over the documents.

It's really quite stunning how tone deaf ACTA supporters are on these issues. People have been asking for a modicum of transparency on this highly questionable agreement, and the response has been to be even more secretive. Of course, all this does is highlight that they know they're pushing an industry agenda, and they're ashamed of it. If you actually were putting together a proposal that benefited everyday citizens, they wouldn't be hiding all the details.

Filed Under: acta, karel de gucht, secrecy, transparency

USTR Says Congress Won't Be Restricted By ACTA

from the yeah,-right dept

Responding to a series of questions that Senator Ron Wyden asked, Ron Kirk, the US Trade Representative, and the Obama administration apparently believe that Congress and the courts will not be constrained in any way by ACTA. This is a bit odd, since the last draft of the agreement conflicts with US law in some places, and most certainly appears to state that countries agreeing to ACTA need to follow certain laws that would block Congress' ability to change copyright laws in various ways. Of course, what's really going on here is a sneaky political game. Since the administration wants to call this an "executive agreement," rather than a treaty (so that it doesn't need Senate approval), they have to claim that it won't really impact US laws. Yet... you can be absolutely positive that if Congress moved to change a law in any way that conflicted with ACTA, we'd be hearing speeches and reading stories about how we're not living up to our "international obligations," such as those found in ACTA. It's a really cynical political move by the administration.

Filed Under: acta, congress, ustr

'Death Of ACTA' Song Taken Down In Copyright Claim

from the irony-much? dept

You may recall last fall we wrote about one of Dan Bull's excellent tracks commenting on copyright issues, called Death Of ACTA. You can see the video for the song here: Dan Bull has embraced file sharing -- not surprisingly, given the subject matter of many of his songs -- and placed the song on various sharing networks and sites, including the cyberlocker Mediafire. Obviously, he did so on purpose, with the desire that more people hear the song. However, he noted with a bit of irony recently that the song on Mediafire was taken down due to a copyright claim. Considering the whole song is about the overreaching efforts of copyright as censorship, this seems pretty ironic.

Dan was kind enough to forward on the takedown message... and it's a total mess. There's simply no useful info in it other than that a French company called TF1 wants the file (and a bunch of others) off of Mediafire as quickly as possible. Now, it's not clear what the issue is here, but it's not difficult to take a guess. "Death of ACTA" is obviously a play on Jay-Z's "Death of Autotune" Jay-Z's song features prominently a sample of the song "In the Space" by French film composers Janko Nilovic and Dave Sarkys. It's quite likely that Jay-Z licensed the sample. Not surprisingly, Dan Bull did not, but that's the nature of creating a parody song.

Also, since all of this is happening in Europe, there aren't fair use laws. Dan would probably have a stronger argument in the US. In Europe, it's a bit more of a crap shoot. Of course, the whole thing is pretty silly if you think about it. Is there any less demand for "In the Space," due to Dan's song? Anyone who suggests that's the case is not in touch with reality.

In the end, though, how ridiculous is it that a song that's all about the excessive nature of copyright law ends up being subject to a takedown notice itself? It seems to encapsulate everything that the song is talking about as being ridiculous concerning copyright law. The song is, of course, still available in lots of other places, though it will be interesting to see if TF1 starts going after it elsewhere as well. I'm guessing that each takedown will only draw that much more attention to Dan's song and the ridiculousness of copyright law today, if it creates a situation where a clear commentary about copyright law gets taken down... by copyright law.

Filed Under: acta, commentary, copyright, dan bull, death of acta, jay-z, parody, takedown
Companies: tf1

USTR Refuses To Release Congressional Research Service Study On Legality Of ACTA

from the why-is-this-kept-secret? dept

We've talked about how ridiculous it is that the government keeps Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports secret. The organization, which is widely respected and tends to do thorough, objective and useful research, technically produces reports that are in the public domain. However, the recipients of those reports (usually members of Congress or other government employees) often don't want to let those documents out for that very reason. If you're pushing for a certain law, and CRS research proves that there are problems with it, you don't want that info to get out. Of course, if we had intellectually honest politicians (stop laughing!), they would not just publish the research, but would actually use it to guide some of their policy making decisions.

Back in October, you may recall that Senator Ron Wyden, one of the very few elected officials to actually understand and to worry about the implications of ACTA, asked the CRS to study ACTA to see how it would impact US law. That report has been delivered to the USTR, and KEI filed a FOIA request to see the document. However, the USTR has refused to provide the document. The USTR really seems to take a "secrecy first, transparency never" view on all things ACTA, doesn't it? It certainly makes you wonder what's in that report, doesn't it?

KEI is now appealing the rejection, claiming that the USTR's explanation for denying the request is simply not supported by the law. The USTR claims that it can't hand out the document, because it belongs to CRS. This is simply incorrect, as KEI noted in its reply. Of course, it's also unclear why Senator Wyden's office doesn't release the document itself, but the feeling there is that he doesn't want to upset the USTR either.

Filed Under: acta, crs, transparency, ustr

Why Is A Treaty For Letting The Blind Have Access To Books Too Difficult, But ACTA Is Fine?

from the questions,-questions dept

We've pointed out the hypocrisy of the industry folks who are eagerly supporting the expansion of copyright via ACTA, but who are against a few very limited simple exceptions to copyright for the blind in a new WIPO treaty. However, in defending this position, a European Union Commissioner, Michel Barnier, has explained to the European Blind Union, that doing a treaty is just too hard, and it's much easier to just do a much more limited "joint recommendation," which would be a lot weaker. As KEI's Jamie Love points out in the link above, it seems odd here that the EU is admitting that it's too difficult to bother creating new treaties around copyright... at the same time it's heavily involved in ACTA and a number of other copyright treaties. Apparently it's only worth undertaking that kind of effort when it ratchets copyright up in favor of industry. The blind? Eh. Not worth the effort...

Filed Under: acta, blind, copyright, eu, treaties

EU: ACTA Is A Binding Treaty; US: ACTA Is Neither Binding, Nor A Treaty

from the funny-how-that-works dept

We've noted in the past how the US government (mainly via the USTR) has worked hard to try to play down the importance of ACTA to its critics (while, simultaneously, playing up how important it is to various lobbyists). For example, after years of promising that ACTA wouldn't change any US laws, the fact that the US does not actually comply with everything in ACTA represents a problem. The USTR gets around this by saying that we can just ignore the parts that don't match up with US law. Also, there's the whole lie about how ACTA is not a treaty. Oh no no no. According to US officials, ACTA is merely an "executive agreement." Of course, if you talk to legal experts, they'll point out that the only real difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is whether or not the Senate has any say in approving it. Making it an executive agreement is just a ploy to avoid Senate hearings. It also raises serious constitutional questions, since the Executive branch of the US government has no mandate to approve such things.

But, to summarize: according to the US, ACTA is not binding in that it can ignore the parts it doesn't like, and it's not a treaty. Got it? Not binding. Not a treaty.

Okay, let's jump over to Europe. A few months back, we had noted that the EU's Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, who, more or less, was in charge of the EU's position on ACTA, insisted that it was a treaty. And the latest news is that, in response to a question from the EU Parliament's Francoise Castex, De Gucht has also said that ACTA is binding:

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a binding international agreement on all its parties, as defined and subject to the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).

Apparently, MEP Castex sent the question about this way back at the beginning of November. The delay in response is allegedly due to De Gucht begging Castex to withdraw the question, perhaps knowing that the answer was going to get him in trouble.

So, if you're playing along with the home game, the EU says that ACTA is a binding treaty. The US says it's neither binding, nor a treaty.

Kinda makes you wonder what they spent so much time negotiating in secret, doesn't it, when they can't even agree on what the document is about.

Filed Under: acta, executive agreement, karel de gucht, treaty, us, ustr

'War' On Fake Drugs Really An Excuse To Boost Big Pharma; Putting The Poor At Risk

from the realities-of-patents dept

We've pointed out similar things before, but Oxfam has come out with a new report, claiming that the claims from developed nations about the need to fight "fake drugs," is quite frequently really just an excuse to protect big pharma firms from generic competition. No one is denying that actual fake drugs can potentially be harmful. But, the problem is that the various efforts, including ACTA, to deal with the issue often lump together actual dangerous fake pharmaceuticals with drugs that are simply cheaper but perfectly safe. Oxfam would like to see a legitimate strategy for getting the real fake drugs out of the market, but says the current strategies are all about boosting patent protections, increasing prices for the poor and developing nations and better protecting big pharma against upstart competitors.

The European Union and the United States continue to focus almost exclusively on eliminating counterfeit medicines which form only a small part of this public health problem -- but which are a serious concern for their multinational companies. They have used the crisis in medicine quality in developing countries as an excuse to push for new intellectual property rules that will boost the profits of pharmaceutical giants at the expense of affordable medicines for the poor.

Of course, this becomes important when you realize that ACTA was specifically designed to pressure developing nations into adopting these types of new, more stringent patent and copyright laws. Oxfam is hoping that those countries won't be bullied:

At a time when poor countries struggle to ensure that their populations can get affordable, quality medicines it is outrageous that rich countries and drug companies are pushing 'solutions' that will do more harm than good to patients and public health. It is critical that poor countries ignore rich-country pressure, and focus instead on solutions that will ensure both quality and affordability of medicines.

Filed Under: acta, counterfeits, drugs, generics, health
Companies: oxfam

Leaked State Department Cables Confirm That ACTA Was Designed To Pressure Developing Nations

from the no-surprise-there dept

The site La Quadrature Du Net has a rather comprehensive look at a series of leaked State Department cables that confirm what many people said from the beginning about ACTA: that it was designed by US special interests as an "end run" around existing international intellectual property groups, since those groups had actually started listening to the concerns of many other nations about how overly strict intellectual property laws were stifling innovation, economic growth and were, at times, a threat to human safety. This point had been made by ACTA critics for quite some time, but now the leaked State Department cables effectively confirm it:

One of the core objectives is to circumvent international organizations in charge of "intellectual property", where maximalist countries such as the US and the EU have been facing growing opposition from developing countries. Not just WIPO and WTO, but also the OECD: Initially, the Japanese proposed to ask the OECD for some help in drafting the agreement, but US officials suggest a different process, stressing that that they have sufficient in-house expertise, and insist on avoiding any collaboration with international organizations

The full cable on this matter makes it clear that the US had a big plan and that plan involved bringing together only "like-minded" countries, and Japan was gleeful about this, but had originally expected the OECD would help.

From there, the plans become even clearer. The idea is to first do all of this with those "like-minded" (i.e., protectionist) countries, and then use the agreement to try to pressure those developing nations and other nations concerned about the expansive problems of intellectual property law into "joining." In other words, stack the deck first with those who benefit most, and then use international pressure to force the agreement on those who aren't comfortable with the end result of such laws.

The cables show that ACTA -- although negotiated between "like-minded countries" -- is ultimately meant to be imposed on developing countries. Early on, the US and Japan deem necessary to recruit developing countries so as to ensure the "legitimacy" of the agreement. Jordan and Morocco are the first to be mentioned, given their acceptance of tough copyright, trademark and patents provisions in bilateral free trade agreements recently concluded with the US.

However, one key concern for the negotiators is that ACTA might appear for what it is -- that is to say an agreement drafted by rich countries to be imposed on the developing world. Mexican officials are especially keen on helping out on this front. During a meeting with US counterparts, Mexicans stress "their willingness to join the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations and push-back against Brazilian efforts to undermine IPR in international health organizations," according to the US account of the meeting. Brazil's push for progressive policies on the international arena is denounced by Mexican officials, who offer to play the "good cops" by acting alongside the US to push for maximal patent and copyright standards at the global level.

Mexico selling out to US interests over its own people -- how nice. In fact, in one of the cables, Japan explicitly states that the purpose of ACTA is to impose rules on China, Russia and Brazil.

Oh yeah, remember all those claims from US officials about how ACTA was just an agreement to align "enforcement" techniques and really had nothing (nothing!) to do with changing laws? Yeah, turns out they were lying. In discussing the early plans for ACTA, US officials indicated to Japanese officials that the US was perfectly happy to change its laws to greater protectionism around copyright and patents:

He added that Congress has welcomed the opportunity to engage on these issues, changing laws where necessary. Moore stressed that the United States is keen to move forward quickly, but with an effective, high-standard agreement. As we work together to reach out to other like-minded countries, he said, it will be essential for Japan to consider seriously improvements to its enforcement regime.

Again, almost nothing in these cables is new or a surprise. But it does confirm what many ACTA critics had said early on, and prove that US official statements on ACTA were clearly inaccurate at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, japan, mexico, us

European Commission Sued By European Parliament Member Because Of ACTA Secrecy

from the political-lawsuits dept

It's no secret that the European Parliament and European Commission have been at odds over ACTA, and specifically over the secrecy around ACTA. However, it's now come out that a member of the European Parliament is actually suing the European Commission over the issue, though details are scarce. A lawsuit seems like a pretty extreme response, but it would be nice to see the details.

Filed Under: acta, eu parliament, europe, european commission, politics