If You Don't Want People To Know About Stuff, Maybe Don't Put A Press Release On Your Website With The Info

from the just-a-tip dept

Reader jprlk alerts us to the amusing news that Carleton University apparently put a press release on its website with all of the details concerning an upcoming visit by the Emperor and Empress of Japan... and opened it up by saying:

The Government of Japan respectfully requests that media outlets do not report on specific details, including exact times, prior to the events. Thank you for your cooperation.

Someone, apparently, isn't quite aware of the way the web works. When you put that info on the web yourself, Carleton University, you've already "reported on the specific details, including exact times, prior to the event." The University has since pulled the press release, but it's too late, as it's been picked up by the local press. As you can see, the blog post above summarizes the situation nicely:

So I guess the message from Carleton is that they'll put stuff on their website, but SHHHHHH! nobody else is to say anything.

Welcome to the internet, Carleton University.

Filed Under: press release, secrecy
Companies: careleton university

Consumer Group Wants ACTA Discussions Stopped Until Consumer Rights Are Represented In Negotiations

from the would-be-nice,-but-seems-unlikely dept

We've discussed in great detail how the current ACTA treaty has been mostly driven by corporate interests as a way to sneak in more draconian copyright laws through international treaty, rather than through legislative means. When consumer groups have requested a seat at the table, they've been rejected, even as industry lobbyists have had no problem being active participants in the process.

Now, a group called the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue has demanded ACTA negotiations be put on hold until consumer groups have a real seat at the table, or at least are given access to documents being negotiated. TACD raises a number of important issues, such as respecting privacy rights and the rights of developing nations, who are often trampled over when it comes to IP protectionism from developed countries. But best of all, it points out one of the most annoying things in all efforts by copyright holders to extend copyright protection: they never, ever present any evidence for why it's necessary. It's an evidence-free zone. TACD specifically requests that real evidence be used:

Public policy on the enforcement of intellectual property rights should be informed by creditable evidence, transparent and realistic assumptions and objective peer reviewed analysis. Multiple approaches to addressing the legitimate concerns of right owners and consumers should be considered.

• Statistics on counterfeiting and or infringement must be objective, accurate, and presented in the appropriate context.
• Statistics on counterfeit and substandard medicines should not be combined when this misleads policy makers about the extent of either problem. The solutions to counterfeit and substandard products are often quite different.
• Estimates of losses from infringements of intellectual property rights should be based upon realistic demand and usage parameters.
• Governments should collect and analyze statistics on the relationship between infringement and affordability of products.

Here's TACD's full proposal:

Filed Under: acta, consumer rights, copyright, counterfeiting, evidence, lobbyists, privacy, secrecy
Companies: tacd

Obama Administration Reiterates Its Support Of Secretive, Industry Written ACTA

from the this-is-a-problem dept

We've been bothered by the incredibly secretive (except if you happen to be in the entertainment industry) ACTA Treaty negotiations for quite some time now. This is the industry-led effort to get a bunch of nations to agree to draconian and damaging new copyright laws by sneaking them through as a secretive "international treaty," such that countries are then compelled to change their copyright laws to "be in compliance with international agreements." It's a really sneaky trick that Hollywood has used for years. And then it acts all innocent when people accuse it of pushing draconian laws on consumers, claiming "it wasn't us... we needed to be in compliance with our international agreements." They just leave out the part where they're the ones who write those agreements for the various trade representatives. The early drafts of ACTA are no different. They were clearly written by industry lobbyists, and are now being pushed by various trade representatives, and then our elected officials will have "no choice" but to change copyright laws to be in compliance.

Perhaps the most troubling part of all of this is that the negotiations are happening in secret, and when consumers rights organizations ask to be given a seat at the table, they're denied. When those same consumer rights organizations ask to at least be told what's being negotiated, they're told it's forbidden because of "state secrets." However, for all that national security, the administration has absolutely no problem giving industry lobbyists access to the process. Funny how that works.

Either way, it should come as no surprise that Michael Geist alerts us to the news that the US Trade Rep, Ron Kirk, is eager to get ACTA moving forward again. In response to all that secrecy, he claims:

As we proceed with these negotiations, we will ensure that the public is kept well informed and has further opportunities to give input.

Of course, the next meeting will take place in Morocco. How many consumer representatives will be there?

In the meantime, Kirk claims:

"The ACTA negotiations provide an opportunity to toughen international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, making it harder for counterfeit and pirated products to enter our country, and making the world safer for the innovation and creativity that are so critical to the U.S. economy."

But... wait. Is it really true that this is a big problem? Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have taken a close look at the numbers thrown around about the "problem" of counterfeiting, and found them to be wildly overblown by lobbyists -- the same lobbyists writing ACTA, not surprisingly. So why is the US Trade Rep agreeing to let this go forward? It's not about "making the world safer for the innovation and creativity." It's about granting special protection to a few powerful US industries with lobbyists.

Isn't that a problem?

Filed Under: acta, copyright, counterfeiting, lobbyists, secrecy

Since When Did We Give Lobbyists From The Tech, Entertainment And Pharma Industries Security Clearance?

from the the-RIAA-gets-national-security-clearance? dept

With the new administration sticking by the old one in declaring negotiations over the ACTA treaty somehow a matter of national security as a way of avoiding revealing any info about the proposed treaty or its ongoing negotiations, the folks over at KEI have pointed out the long list of corporate lobbyists who have been involved in the negotiations, including those from the RIAA, MPAA, ESA and a long list of tech, telco and pharma companies. So... can anyone let us know if these folks have security clearance? After all, if they're a part of such sensitive matters concerning national security that are so touchy the public can't know about them, then, surely, the administration is being careful about who it provides that info, right? Or is the national security issue the fact that these folks don't want anyone to know they're writing the rules that will bind Congress (and legislatures in dozens of other countries) to adjust copyright law without any real leeway. And, just watch, these will be the same lobbyists who will spout off about how we have to make these changes to meet our treaty obligations. leaving out the fact that they wrote the treaties themselves to force through exactly this type of legislation.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, secrecy, sunlight, trade agreements

Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?

from the openness,-transparency dept

Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information. So far, the response from the government had been "sorry, we always negotiate these things in secret, so we'll keep doing so." At one point, even the ACTA negotiators held a closed-door meeting and then released a press release saying they discussed being more transparent, but haven't actually followed through.

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This is transparency? This is openness?

As Declan McCullagh points out at News.com, Executive Order 12958 only allows material to be classified if revealing it would do "damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage." Can the US Trade Representative please describe the damage to national security if the public gets to see what's being proposed that would require governments around the country to enact significantly more draconian intellectual property laws?

Filed Under: acta, copyright, national security, secrecy, state secrets, sunlight, trade agreements

ACTA Proposal Would Criminalize Substantial Non-Commercial Infringement

from the consumers-have-no-seat-at-the-table dept

With various governments still insisting that ACTA negotiations must be done in near total secrecy, various folks are working hard to at least shine some sunlight on the details. Michael Geist discusses what he's been able to piece through, and it's not pretty. The only good news is that everything is still in the early stages, and there's some disagreement among the participating trade reps concerning how certain things should work. However, that's about the only good news. The bad news is that many of the provisions are clearly being submitted with significant "input" from industries who stand to benefit from greater IP protectionism -- and no effort has been made to see what impact the resulting output would have on everyone else.

Even more troubling are the specific details supplied by KEI, who includes some draft text, including a proposal pushed by the US and Japan to use ACTA to make certain forms of personal, non-commercial infringement a criminal offense as a "deterrent." Yes, this would include potential jailtime, even if the infringer had no intent to profit. Notice that this is happening in backrooms among trade representatives, rather than in public among elected officials -- especially as various countries have been increasingly open to the idea of exempting personal, non-commercial infringement from being subject to legal punishment. This "treaty" would force countries to put a halt to that, and then we'd hear all sorts of big-time IP defenders insist that we absolutely had to make these changes to the law to "live up to international treaties" which they helped write.

KEI also points out another downside to all of this being negotiated in secret. It appears that many of the trade representatives are ignorant of certain laws already in place in their own countries, as well as other legislation that is currently under consideration. For example, KEI notes the current debates over copyright laws concerning "orphaned works" which is a big issue in Congressional copyright discussions. Some of what's being pushed in ACTA would mess up those discussions -- but who cares, apparently, trade representatives, pushed on by industry representatives, seem to have no problem determining for themselves what copyright law should be all about.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, criminal, non-commercial use, secrecy, sunlight, trade agreements

US Using Bogus Excuses For Denying Access To ACTA Documents

from the transparency? dept

And here's another bit of "transparency" that's just as lacking in the new administration as the last. For months, those of us concerned about backroom deals on intellectual property treaties bypassing an open legislative process have been demanding more sunlight on negotiations around ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. To date, the various folks negotiating the agreement -- which includes both entertainment industry representatives and government trade representatives from around the world -- have been averse to any sort of transparency, using the rather weak excuse that such treaties are always negotiated in secret. Amusingly, they even recently held a secret meeting where they promised to be more transparent. That's comforting.

In order to push this transparency issue forward, plenty of folks have been filing freedom of information requests to get documents related to the agreement and the negotiations. Up in Canada, these requests have revealed that the government may have publicly lied or misled people about its negotiations in ACTA. In the US, though, things are even more ridiculous. Apparently the US Trade Representative is refusing to release most of the documents requested under the FOIA claiming (I kid you not) that to release such documents could "implicate national security or expose the USTR's deliberative processes."

But, of course, the USTR had no problem at all sharing all this info with entertainment industry lobbyists. In the few documents that were released, it turns out that the USTR met privately with representatives of various "anti-piracy" lobbying groups multiple times in 2008 -- without bothering to consult with the folks who these laws would actually impact. In other words, they're getting one side of the story. Even worse, those lobbyists have been called out, repeatedly -- by the US government, no less -- for outright fabrications concerning the impact of piracy and counterfeiting. So why is the USTR only relying on them for determining how this trade agreement will work? And why is there no effort to make these negotiations more public so that all stakeholders have a say?

Filed Under: acta, copyright, secrecy, sunlight, trade agreements

ACTA Negotiators Hold Closed Door Meeting To Say They Need To Be More Transparent

from the irony dept

One of our biggest complaints with ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that was initially written by the entertainment industry, and is being used to effectively sneak through new copyright law requirements around the world (every time you hear an industry supporter claim that copyright laws must be changed to live up to "international obligations" you know they're leaving out the part where it was the same industry that wrote those international treaties), is that the whole thing is being negotiated in secret. So, it seems rather amusing that the latest (secret) negotiations resulted in a press release saying that they discussed how they need to be more transparent (found via Michael Geist). So, after holding a closed door meeting, they let everyone know that they discussed how it really sucks that they hold these closed door meetings? Here's a suggestion: instead of issuing a press release afterwards next time, why not open up the meetings?

Filed Under: acta, copyright, secrecy, sunlight, trade agreements

BT Bans Talking About Phorm, Erases Earlier Discussions

from the we-were-always-at-war-with-Eurasia dept

You may recall that BT was one of the bigger supporters of Phorm, the controversial clickstream tracking system that would allow ISPs like BT to insert their own behaviorally targeted ads into your web surfing. The company held extensive trials with the system, without letting users know that their clickstream data was being sold to advertisers in order to do more targeted advertising. Now that UK officials have decided that Phorm is legal, if clearly explained to consumers, BT has chosen a funny way to make sure there's clarity around the system. Slashdot points out that BT has apparently banned discussion of Phorm on its forums and erased earlier forum discussions about the technology. How's that for openness?

Is it really so hard to allow open discussion on such a topic? If BT believes that it's reasonable to use the technology, then why not explain why clearly, responding to the critics? The only reason to erase these discussions is if BT knows that what's it's doing is highly questionable, and BT would rather not have to explain itself.

Filed Under: bans, clickstream tracking, secrecy
Companies: bt, phorm

Judge Keeps Restraining Order On RealDVD

from the not-ready-to-give-in dept

Earlier this week we noted that the judge in the lawsuit over the RealDVD software had placed a secret temporary injunction against RealNetworks selling the software. The original promise was that a more permanent injunction -- or a lifting of the injunction -- would come Tuesday. But Tuesday has come and gone and the judge has decided she needs more time to decide on an injunction, and may want to consult some "experts" on the subject.

I can understand the desire to better understand the situation, but it's hard to see how preventing the sale of the software in the meantime does any less harm to the movie industry. In fact, you could easily make the argument that it does more harm to the industry, based on the way the industry defines harm. That is, right now, if someone wants to make a backup copy of a DVD, they're going to look online and find a variety of free ripping options, that offer no additional DRM and make totally free and clear rips. If Real's software was out there, they might discover that option and pay to get additional DRM (why, I don't know -- but some might feel comfortable with the Real brand, for example). Thus, it's difficult to see how the movie industry is any worse off if Real's software is on the market. In that scenario, at least some might end up with ripped DVDs with DRM. Without Real on the market, those who want to rip DVDs will have their rips with no DRM at all.

Filed Under: dvd ripping, injunction, realdvd, restraining order, secrecy
Companies: mpaa, realnetworks