Why Was The Restraining Order On RealDVD Kept Secret?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

Monday morning, we wrote about how a judge had issued a temporary restraining order against RealDVD until he had time to review the details and rule one way or the other on a pre-trial injunction. In our comments, one of our readers suggested this story was incorrect, as there didn't appear to be an actual restraining order on file -- suggesting that Real Networks may have pulled the software on its own. Yet, it turns out that, yes, in fact there was a temporary restraining order, but the judge ordered both sides to keep it secret. This is quite odd, as almost everyone immediately figured it out from Real pulling the software, and then it was confirmed by Real in a filing responding to the court. But all this does is raise a simple question: what could possibly be the rationale for keeping the temporary injunction secret?

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

Groups Demanding That ACTA Negotiations Be Made Public

from the it's-about-time dept

We've been asking for months why the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) treaty is being negotiated in near total secrecy, allowing the entertainment industry to effectively rewrite international copyright law in substantial ways with almost no legislative review. Basically, various trade representatives, together with industry insiders, have been crafting ACTA to their own liking, with a plan to push it through for approval, claiming it's a trade agreement that shouldn't involve any legislative overview. It's an incredibly one-sided affair, from what's been leaked so far, and would substantially change copyright law around the globe in favor of protecting the entertainment industry's business model.

The entertainment industry had hoped to keep the whole process secret, and trade representatives have basically ignored all calls to open up the process, claiming that such trade agreements are always negotiated in secret. Of course, that doesn't make it right -- especially when this trade agreement isn't so much a trade agreement as it is a chance to sneak through legislation around the globe that is designed solely to protect a particular business model -- without any input from those who recognize that legislating business models harms both the competition and consumers. Now, over 100 public interest groups have teamed up to demand that the process be opened and that questions get answered about ACTA

While those involved in negotiating the document will continue to do what they've done all along (i.e., ignore the requests), hopefully some politicians will start to notice the complaints and begin asking questions. It's one thing for the entertainment industry to lobby politicians directly or pre-write their laws for them, but it's another to sneak widespread, sweeping -- and totally unnecessary -- changes to copyright law through without significant legislative review.

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

Canada Takes ACTA Secrecy To New Levels

from the this-isn't-a-treaty,-it's-protectionism dept

We've covered the disturbing levels of secrecy surrounding the ACTA treaty -- which is basically a way for various industries to push through new copyright laws without having to actually go through the legislative process. The most annoying part is how secretive various governments have been in crafting the treaty -- basically allowing various industry groups to tell government trade representatives what they want, and then letting the governments negotiate amongst each other. This process leaves out many parties impacted by these rules (and the public!). Michael Geist has some details on how Canada has taken this process to new levels of secrecy beyond even that in the US.

Apparently, the Canadian government has created an "insider" group to work with the government on the treaty. What's disturbing is that this insider group seems to involve mostly lobbyists who have a one-sided take on this issue. Not included are any lobbyists from industries who are opposed to ACTA or any sort of representative of consumer rights or privacy issues (which is a big concern, considering that ACTA may allow border searches of laptops and iPods). Given that the Canadian government is already getting beaten up for writing its newly proposed copyright laws in secret with help only from industry representatives, you'd think that maybe (just maybe) it would try to be a bit more open and inclusive with ACTA. Apparently not.

Filed Under: acta, canada, lobbyists, secrecy

Why Is ACTA Being Negotiated In Secret?

from the and-why-isn't-the-press-asking-about-it? dept

We've already talked about the ACTA treaty, which is being used by the entertainment industry to basically do an endrun around the legislation process for intellectual property, and getting all its wishes encoded into an international treaty, so it can start running around claiming that every country absolutely needs to change its IP laws to "live up to" international treaties. William Patry has been asking why the mainstream press isn't covering this, and it's an excellent question.

His latest post on the topic covers the fact that the entire process is happening in secret behind closed doors and the folks negotiating the treaty seem to think this is fine:

"A spokesperson of the European Commission confirmed that consultation with different stakeholders had been on the agenda and would happen over the coming month at the domestic level. Draft text proposals still have not been published, the source said. Several parties contacted pointed to confidentiality agreed on by the negotiating partners."

Patry translates that paragraph accurately as really saying:

"Countries also discussed whether they should actually talk to those who would be affected by the agreement, and agreed that sometime they will, but everything we have done is super-secret because we agreed it would be super-secret."

So why aren't stakeholders invited into the process? Why is the whole thing being negotiated in secret, using notes in discussion with entertainment industry lobbyists but no consumer groups or other business groups who aren't necessarily supporters of more restrictive copyright regimes? And why isn't the press asking these questions?

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

Domestic Wiretapping Programs Should Not Be Secret

from the oversight-needed dept

A whistle-blower reports that an unnamed wireless carrier has provided a government facility in Quantico, VA, with unfiltered access to its core network. The whistle-blower says this gives the government direct access to private information such as text messaging and call records. He doesn't name either the company or the government agency involved. But a 2006 lawsuit featuring similar allegations named Verizon Wireless as the culprit. And Threat Level says that Quantico, VA, just happens to be "the center of the FBI's electronic surveillance operations." When asked about this, a Verizon Wireless spokesman wrote "What you're talking about sounds as if it would be classified and involving national security, so I wouldn't be able to find out the facts."

The idea that ordinary domestic surveillance activities are a matter of national security, and therefore immune from public scrutiny, is both wrong-headed and malicious. I guess the idea is that we don't want to tip off the terrorists about our surveillance programs. And obviously, information about specific targets needs to be kept secret. But the terrorists have to already know that most communications channels can be intercepted. Moreover, it's just not reasonable to expect that the broad details of our government's domestic surveillance activities will remain a secret indefinitely. Despite the secrecy, we're gradually learning about the scope of these programs. If terrorists didn't know their calls were being tapped five years ago, they certainly do now.

The problem is that because details about these programs (and information about abuses) dribble out slowly over several years, Congress never has the opportunity to conduct meaningful oversight of them. For example, this week we also found out that abuse of national security letters, which was previously only reported to have occurred from 2003 to 2005, continued into 2006. Of course, the administration says they've fixed the problem and that no more NSL abuses will occur. But that's what they always say when privacy abuses are uncovered, yet new examples keep popping up. The only way the abuses will stop is if Congress rejects the idea that domestic surveillance is immune from judicial and Congressional surveillance. The Bush administration needs to disclose the exact scope of its domestic surveillance activities so that Congress can have an open, public debate about the proper scope of government spying powers.

Filed Under: federal government, oversight, secrecy, wiretaps