Politician All For Transparency Until It Might Make Him Look Bad In A Campaign Commercial

from the hello-streisand dept

Apparently, California broadcasts many key state legislature hearings, just like many legislative bodies these days. However, right before a hearing on some key ballot initiatives, apparently California Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg ordered that the feed be turned off for the meeting. Critics noted that Steinberg was vigorously supporting one of the ballot measures, which involves sales and income tax issues. After complaining about cutting off the feed, Steinberg and his staff basically admitted that they did it because they don't want footage to be used against them in campaign commercials by opponents:

Steinberg spokesman, Rhys Williams justified the disruption of CalChannel service this way: 'It was inappropriate to provide legislative resources to promote the ballot measure campaigns of either side, and in particular to make those public-funded resources easily available for exploitation in political TV commercials.'"

In other words, because the public debate on these issues might lead others to make campaign commercials, it should not be transparent or shared at all.

The committee's own chairperson, Lois Wolk, was apparently horrified that the video was cut off, noting that "she had begun the hearing with a statement expressing hope that it would help voters reach a reasoned decision on the four measures." Oops.

Steinberg, to his credit has now apologized and admitted that: "It wasn't a good reason... When you mess up, you mess up. I'm sorry and it won't happen again." At least he recognizes that, but the initial move was still pretty blatant and raises significant questions about his motivations in cutting off this most basic form of governmental transparency.

Filed Under: california, darrell steinberg, live feed, politics, taxes, transparency

Yes, The IPAA Is A Serious Problem: Both In Process & Substance

from the but-doesn't dept

Last week, we were among the first to call attention to the fact that Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee were seeking to rush through an IP-related bill which was similar to a small part of SOPA. We noted at the time that this was a much smaller issue than the key points in SOPA that everyone objected to, but our main concern was the failure in process. The fight over SOPA was as much a complaint about the process by which IP bills get passed as it was about the substance -- and this is a point that Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee clearly still have not realized.

In the wake of this, BNA's Tamlin Bason correctly noted a few factual errors in what a few of us had originally published about the bill. For example, I flipped the setup of the bill, saying that the attaches would be moving from USPTO to Commerce, rather than the other way around, as is the actual case (though, confusingly, the bill also elevates a role from the USPTO into Commerce). I admit that this was a mistake in the writeup, though one that had little bearing on the actual issues raised by the bill and the process by which it was being rushed through. In fact, the process itself was partly to blame. We were told about the existence of this bill and the fact that there would be a markup with less than 24 hours notice last Monday, giving us little time process all the fine print.

While supporters of the Judiciary Committee are now using these minor mistakes to claim that there's nothing at all wrong with the IPAA, that's simply incorrect. Gigi Sohn's careful analysis of the bill shows where there are serious concerns in the substance, mainly in the fact that the role of the IP attache continues to be to only push one side of the equation (enforcement) and completely ignore important limitations and exceptions. On top of that, it leaves the door open to massive expansion of the program. This is exactly how we described it in our original post: a way to expand this program, and a questionable way to get US diplomats doing what's in Hollywood's best interest, not the public's:

Remember when everyone thought the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) only had authority to act with regard to “enforcement” as opposed to other IP policy matters? That limitation is nowhere to be found in the 2008 legislation that created the position or in its legislative history, and there is nothing in this bill that limits the Assistant Secretary's powers either.

In addition, the Secretary of Commerce is given carte blanche to hire as many Deputy Assistant Secretaries to help as the USPTO can afford. This means that overnight, the USPTO would become the home of yet another office dedicated wholly to the protection of intellectual property.

Have we told you that the USPTO already has personnel dedicated to Intellectual Property Enforcement? It should come as no shock to anyone that these new positions, as well as the attache positions, are likely to be filled by those who believe that more IP enforcement is always better.

In fact, as Gigi points out, the role that will be elevated is the Administrator for Policy and External Affairs, which will become the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Policy and External Affairs -- a much more high profile position. It's worth noting that the job is currently held by Shira Perlmutter, an infamous copyright maximalist, former executive VP of the IFPI as well as IP Policy boss at Time Warner. Think she's going to push for more exceptions and limitations? Yeah, right.

But, honestly, the bigger complaint here is still the process itself. People complained about SOPA being negotiated in back rooms without a chance for real public input. Just because Smith and the HJC chose a seemingly "boring" piece of SOPA to try to rush through without people noticing, don't think this wasn't a deliberate decision. Of course they chose a boring piece of SOPA. It was a test to see if people were really that concerned about the process, and to see if they could sneak through this bit of SOPA without anyone noticing. The fact that people spoke up stopped that temporarily, but these attacks on minor errors in the initial rushed writeups shows that the HJC is now trying to minimize the criticism -- though it still hasn't actually released the draft of the bill for public review. While Reddit has been saying that there's a vote on the IPAA on Wednesday, it doesn't appear to be on the schedule yet, though we have heard rumors of Friday or early next week from different people.

Smith and the HJC could have avoided this whole mess by doing something simple: being open and releasing the bill and letting the public react to it before rushing it through markup. Nancy Scola, over at ReadWriteWeb has a really good writeup on Lamar Smith's failings with this bill, which focus on the process failures, and the fact that Smith clearly tried to rush this through:

Fifty days.

That's the median time it took for eight legislative bills - on economic espionage, identity theft, abortion in the District of Columbia - to circulate in the House of Representatives before they were put on the agenda for Tuesday's markup session by the House Judiciary Committee.

Zero days.

That's how long the ninth bill on the agenda, a measure submitted by Judiciary chair Lamar Smith, existed before it was submitted for Tuesday's markup. Unlike the other eight (H.R. 6029, H.R. 4362, H.R. 3803... ), Smith's Intellectual Property Attaché Act didn't even have a number. It had yet to be introduced into the House legislative system.

That's legislating the future of copyright, the Internet and creative content, Lamar Smith-style.

As Scola points out, it's clear that IPAA was a "trial balloon" to see if they could sneak IP stuff through in a post-SOPA era: pick something that is good for his Hollywood backers, but which is "maybe just dry enough" that it can fly below the radar and get passed.

We apologize for making a small error in our initial post -- though, we likely wouldn't have done so if Smith had done as he supposedly promised other members of Congress and released the draft long before it went through the markup process. Instead, by trying to sneak stuff through and see if anyone was paying attention, we missed one minor detail in the bill, but not the larger concern nor the serious process issues. If the HJC and Lamar Smith don't want to see these kinds of reactions, they should be a hell of a lot more open about what they are trying to do. But, of course, that might make it more difficult to get Hollywood's agenda to move forward. I guess that's the dilemma they face.

* The initial report also stated that Darrell Issa was a co-sponsor of the bill. Scola's report quotes his office saying that it's simply untrue and that Issa is not a co-sponsor. We've heard similar things as well, and a few others named in the original report have since said they, too, were not co-sponsors.

Filed Under: copyright, diplomats, house judiciary committee, ipaa, lamar smith, process, transparency

Dear Lamar Smith & House Judiciary: Have You Learned Nothing From SOPA?

from the ridiculous dept

I've been hearing for a few months now that the staffers on the House Judiciary Committee, who were the main supporters of SOPA, haven't been able to let go of what happened (or even understand it). That's been pretty obvious from the few public statements they've made since SOPA failed. And now it's been made doubly clear. On Monday, we wrote about how Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee that he chairs were looking to rush through a piece of SOPA embedded in another bill. It wasn't one of the most controversial bits, but it was an issue we had raised with SOPA, even if it took a back seat to some of the bigger problems.

What was stunning was that the SOPA protests were largely about process -- backroom deals, without public input or scrutiny -- and in this case, with this new bill (officially dubbed the Intellectual Property Attache Act) they not only did the same thing, but were trying to rush it through on a fast track significantly more extreme than SOPA. That is, they only shared the draft on Saturday and announced that there would be a markup on the bill (which they never even introduced) on Tuesday morning. That's rare. Normally, you officially introduce the bill, hold various hearings that involve experts, make some adjustments, and then hold a markup hearing to allow for additional amendments. In this case, they jumped right to that last step -- completely skipping over some rather major steps that would allow for public input and scrutiny.

In other words, they did the exact opposite of what the SOPA experience told them they should do.

However, because we and a few other sites pointed out the issues here, some of the original supporters of the bill began expressing doubts. Some others on the HJC offered up amendments -- including one that would say that the IP attaches couldn't just focus on enforcement, but also on limitations and exceptions like fair use (you know, actually focusing on what US law is, rather than what Hollywood wishes it would be). But apparently there is resistance to those amendments. However, because lots of people did speak up and let the HJC and Lamar Smith know that they would not accept them rushing through a piece of SOPA without public discussion, the bill has been (temporarily) delayed.

Of course, still not getting it, the HJC issued a petulant statement, effectively blaming us for this turn of events:

"This week, the House Judiciary Committee released a discussion draft of a bill that streamlines the IP attache program to help safeguard American intellectual property abroad. Unfortunately, some groups and blogs have misreported that this is a follow up to the Stop Online Piracy Act. That is not the case. The bill that the Committee currently is working on is a narrow piece of legislation to ensure better use of Patent and Trademark Office funds. The current draft increases organizational efficiency at the PTO and moves the IP attache program squarely within the PTO to ensure direct accountability of the IP attaches.

"Since releasing that draft, for which there is bipartisan and industry support, we are making some changes based on feedback from outside groups and Members. We plan to circulate a new draft based off those changes to ensure that the development of this bill continues to be an open and transparent process."

The statement is partially misleading and partially false. First of all, the language is quite similar to a portion of SOPA -- so claiming that it's not a "followup" to SOPA is clearly false. This was a part of SOPA, and now it's a part of a new bill -- but ignoring the fact that it was in SOPA is simply wrong. Second, the statement is incredibly misleading, in that they suggest that they were always seeking feedback. That's not true at all. It was on the markup schedule for Tuesday morning -- and that was published on the HJC website for anyone to see (though it's since been taken down). Finally, no one else saw a draft until Saturday and no one in the press got it until Monday morning -- about 24 hours before the markup (despite HJC staffers promising some members that it would release the draft at least a week before any effort to move it forward). Basically, the HJC staffers who put out this statement are creating a misinformation campaign, claiming (incorrectly) that we and a few other blogs who wrote about this were the ones spreading the misinformation.

They can't even own up to their own attempt to rush this bill through. It's shameful.

As Ernesto Falcon at Public Knowledge has written, if you want to "shake the ghost of SOPA," perhaps try to not rush through a bill that you kept secret without allowing the normal process of public comment and feedback.

The latest controversy with the Intellectual Property Attache Act, formerly a provision within the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), is entirely self-inflicted by its lead sponsors.

You do not have to be a political strategist to figure out that trying to pass a piece of SOPA might in fact inflame the wide array of opposition to SOPA. You also can not cry foul when you secretly develop the legislation, hold no legislative hearing on its merits, and attempt (and thankfully fail) to move the legislation through the Committee almost 24 hours after it was leaked to the press. Each of these steps flies in the face of the request made by opponents to SOPA for more openness, inclusion, and transparency for intellectual property policy decisions. It is as if the some believe that the business of copyright legislating can proceed as usual and that the Internet Black Out never occurred.

If the House Judiciary Committee wants to shake off the ghost of SOPA and avoid having legislation blow up in their collective faces, they need to rethink how they move intellectual property bills. The Committee must proactively work at justifying to the public why a bill is necessary and win their support for its passage before voting it out. It should stop trying to move bills first and put the burden on the public to stop them from blindly moving forward.

At this point, we've heard that some Judiciary Committee staffers view sites like Techdirt as "the enemy." That's completely wrong. We'd just like them to not try to sneak bad bills through -- and to actually do their job and let the public weigh in on things. Is that so difficult to comprehend? This isn't political. We have nothing against the House Judiciary Committee as a whole. We'd just like them to actually acknowledge the public's role in the process. If they did so, perhaps people wouldn't complain and speak out. If they really are being "open" about this, then there wouldn't the this sudden surprise. There wouldn't be this attempt to rush things through... and there wouldn't be a public outcry. So it's in their own best interests to actually admit that the public exists and should be a part of the process, rather than snubbing them.

Filed Under: house judiciary committee, intellectual property attache act, lamar smith, sopa, transparency

CETA Is Now Slightly Less Like ACTA (But Still Similar, And Still Secret)

from the i-suppose-it's-progress dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the revelation (via a leaked text) that the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, which is nearing completion, contains provisions in the IP chapter that are extremely similar to ACTA. It's a pretty clear attempt to reboot the ACTA process via a back door, and Michael Geist's coverage drew a lot of attention to the issue in Europe. Now, it looks like damage control is already underway: Geist reports that the European Commission has made a weak attempt to assuage concerns by announcing that two of the ACTA-like provisions in CETA have been dropped. Unfortunately, those provisions only represent a small fraction of CETA's similarities to ACTA:

The European Commission, which initially indicated that it would not respond to the posting of the leaked CETA IP chapter, has now responded by saying that the two ACTA provisions involving Internet providers have been dropped from CETA. When asked whether those were the only changes, EU Trade spokesperson John Clancy said there may be other changes but that this was the biggest one.

While the removal of the Internet provider provisions is a good step, the European Parliament's overwhelming rejection of ACTA was the result of far more than just the Internet provider provisions. Indeed, there has been concern about digital locks, damages, criminal provisions, and border measures. All of those provisions also appeared in the February 2012 CETA draft and Clancy's response suggest that most, if not all, remain there.

So... some of the bad stuff has been removed from the leaked draft that we weren't supposed to see in the first place. Also there may be other changes—who knows? Certainly not the public, and apparently not the EU Trade spokesperson either. You probably see the real issue here: even if they removed all of the controversial provisions from CETA, there would still be the little matter of how they were trying to quietly push through all the exact same stuff that citizens and politicians across Europe rose up and rejected mere weeks ago. The public still had to learn about it via a leaked document. New information comes in the form of vague descriptions, not new public drafts. This is not how you negotiate an international agreement in the 21st century, and that's what people are reacting to.

I suspect the people behind CETA are really, really annoyed: they were so close to slipping this one through, and now they might have another ACTA on their hands. How many times does this have to happen before politicians, diplomats, and the special interest groups that drive these agreements realize they no longer get to operate without public scrutiny?

Filed Under: acta, canada, ceta, europe, transparency

How Not To Build A 21st Century Trade Agreement: In Secret

from the government-failures dept

The USTR continues to pitch the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement as a "21st Century" trade agreement. However, as the folks at EFF point out, the defining aspect of the 21st century is the fact that the internet has enabled unrivaled transparency. A trade agreement created in secret -- though with special access for special interests -- is not a 21st-century agreement at all. It's the opposite. It's a last-century viewpoint on how the world works.

We're still not convinced it’s an agreement adequate for 21^st century society--especially in an environment where the public, Congress, and civil rights organizations are denied access to the treaty’s official text, while corporate representatives have full access to it. In a world where you can access the complete state code of Utah in Github to engage citizens in legislative drafting, secrecy and backroom deals are not exactly a 21^st century way to build the 21^st century society.

It's still never been adequately explained why the USTR feels the need for such secrecy and backroom deals. At best, the answer has been "this is how we always negotiate trade agreements." That's not an answer, that's an excuse. If the USTR is serious about building a trade agreement for the 21st century, it would recognize that it needs to be open and transparent.

Filed Under: tpp, transparency, ustr
Companies: eff

Petition With 90,000 Signatures Of People Worried About TPP Hand Delivered To USTR Negotiators

from the will-it-matter dept

USTR negotiators have basically acted as if they represent the interests of big businesses in their negotiations on various trade proposals. That's why we get things like ACTA, TPP and various "free trade agreements" (FTAs) that all seem to focus on carving out protections for specific special interests who just happen to sit on the USTR's "advisory committees." What they often forget is that they're supposed to be representing the public. But, at times, they're so disconnected from the public that what's best for the actual country rarely seems to enter into the thought process. Of course, with the uprising against ACTA, perhaps some people at the USTR are beginning to wake up to the fact that their roles aren't just about making special interests happy. The recent admission that limitations and exceptions are important in copyright is a sign that this kind of thinking may be filtering through.

Last week, a group of public interests organizations also hand delivered an online petition that was signed by over 90,000 people raising concerns about TPP. I generally don't think much of online petitions like this, but in this situation, where's it's incredibly important for the USTR to recognize that the public and internet users are watching -- and are concerned -- something like this seems like it could be helpful in at least making the USTR negotiators recognize that the public matters.

Of course, for them to prove that they really understand that, they'd need to start being a hell of a lot more transparent, such as by releasing the US recommendations that are being negotiated. Until that happens, it's difficult to trust the USTR to really be looking out for the public's best interests.

Filed Under: acta, fta, petition, tpp, transparency, ustr

Can't We All Get Along: Principles Over Policy; Ideas Over Ideology

from the the-declaration-is-a-process dept

It's been really fantastic to see what's happened in the last week, since the Declaration of Internet Freedom was announced, leading to widespread discussion online (and lots of individuals and organizations signing on to support it). There was a ton of press coverage, and plenty of valuable feedback and thoughts.

I did want to respond to one of the most common criticisms I've been seeing: some are complaining that the principles are "too vague" and an awful lot of people seem upset that their specific policy goal isn't there. For example, the Declaration makes no mention of copyright or patent reform, and this has some people upset. Others are upset in the other direction, claiming that a lack of mention of copyright means that this document is really just a nefarious "specter" seeking to do away with copyright entirely. Meanwhile, others have looked at some of the groups involved, and because those groups have espoused a different political ideology in the past, assumed that this document is really a "secret" plan to put in place a preferred system of government.

So I want to clarify what some of the thinking was here, and why these criticisms are misguided. Those of us who put out the document should certainly take the blame for not necessarily explaining all of this upfront, but there's only so much explaining you can do.

Principles, Not Policy

Pretty early on in the discussion over this document, it was decided that we needed to focus on higher level principles, and not policy. This is the part that I think is confusing people the most. They think that this document is a policy document or that it's supposed to directly lead us to a specific policy. It is not. The document is the starting point in a process that we hope will bring more people together. This is a discussion. And rather than start at the end, we sought to put together some broad principles, and see if we could get most people to agree to them. If we focus on the principles first, and have a common understanding, we can move towards a more practical discussion. Too often, the fights over policy have little to do with principle, but rather are focused on "who benefits the most" or "why is this good for me." Part of the goal of this document was to get people to stop, take a step back and say "let's look at the fundamental principles."

Some have complained that the principles are too broad -- or even that nobody could possibly disagree with them (amusingly, those messages seem to come in at the same time as ones that do vehemently disagree with them). Indeed, the principles are broad, but that's on purpose. Again, the idea was to set forth the basic principles that we can get the majority of the world to agree on, because that opens up the possibility of moving forward based on principle, rather than on pet-project ambition or direct personal gain. So, yes, they're broad, and yes many people will agree with them. That's the point. The goal is to frame the discussion in a useful manner, and you don't do that by demanding something that most people don't agree with.

Ideas, Not Ideology:

The people who put this document together represent a very, very broad coalition, with many different viewpoints, political persuasions, geographic worldviews, etc. This was by design. The idea was to transcend silly and wasteful partisan bickering, and focus on these core principles to which the ideas matter, not the ideology. One of the most disappointing responses to this was that some people (including some who I consider friends) have tried to shift this into an ideological dispute, suggesting incorrectly that these principles were really all about one political ideology dominating, just because a small fraction of the coalition has, in the past, been associated with that ideology.

Unfortunately, all this is doing is taking a non-ideological, non-partisan (or even post-partisan) effort to get beyond silly partisan bickering... and trying to drag it back down into such a useless muck. This is a shame.

We have a chance here to move forward, together, as a wider internet community, and discuss a variety of ideas based on their merits, not based on "your team" winning. This isn't about any particular team, which is why we built such a broad coalition. This was about what is best for this thing that we all rely on: the internet.

Can't We All Get Along?

I know that this won't satisfy everyone. And others will complain that the principles still are too broad and too vague and don't mention their pet policy issue. But this is a process, not an end product. No one involved in the coalition that put this document together thinks that we (individually, or as a group) can speak for the world. What we wanted was a starting point for a wider discussion -- one that wasn't based on ideology or partisan bickering. We wanted something that started a discussion about actual ideas and principles and the question of what is really best for the internet and all its citizens.

And, from there, a discussion should ensue, with more milestones down the road. Many of us are already talking about the next steps in this process -- and, no, it's not about policy recommendations or specific political parties or ideology. It's about getting more people thinking and engaging and discussing.

To me, personally, that seems like a laudable goal. And I hope others think so too.

Filed Under: declaration of internet freedom, internet policy, transparency

Still Plenty To Be Concerned About With TPP

from the being-more-public-would-be-good dept

While we are encouraged by the USTR's supposed recognition of the importance of limitations and exceptions in copyright law in their latest TPP draft proposal, there are still significant concerns about the TPP agreement, as a whole, including with the very specifics of the language around exceptions and limitations. Already, a few folks who have been burned before by the USTR are worried that the language being used is so narrow as to only allow fair use-like exceptions in a very narrow set of circumstances. Furthermore, as Sean Flynn lays out, there are many other key issues at stake in the specifics of the text around the IP provisions, way beyond just the limitations and exceptions. These include questions about the copyright status of "temporary copies" (think cached copies), parallel importation ("gray market"), copyright term extension, digital locks and a few other things as well.

You know what would make it so that people weren't so damned concerned about all of this? Opening up the proposed text so that the public can comment on it and give feedback. The fact that the USTR was willing to reveal that it's included a section on limitations and exceptions was nice... but, in part, helped to show the problem: that the USTR only gets to reveal little bits of info it wants to reveal, rather than presenting the document in an open fashion for public comment. That's not transparent at all. We're encouraged to hear that the USTR did share the "exceptions and limitations" language with some who weren't part of the formal "advisory committee" process, but we're still not talking about an open and transparent process -- and without that there are all sorts of opportunities for problems to arise.

Filed Under: ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr

USTR's Surprise Turnaround: Now Advocating Limitations & Exceptions To Copyright

from the who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-ron-kirk? dept

One of the big complaints about ACTA and SOPA and the like was the extreme maximalist positions that they entailed, without recognizing the very important exceptions and limitations that can often be even more important in encouraging culture and creativity. The version of the US's recommendations on the IP chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that leaked last year, suggested a similar maximalist approach: all enforcement, all the time, no concern about limitations or exceptions.

In a somewhat surprising turnaround, the USTR has now admitted that it is actively embracing limitations and exceptions in its latest proposal around IP for TPP:

For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the United States is proposing a new provision, consistent with the internationally-recognized “3-step test," that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence. The balance sought by the U.S. TPP proposal recognizes and promotes respect for the important interests of individuals, businesses, and institutions who rely on appropriate exceptions and limitations in the TPP region.

Given the USTR's general lack of transparency and intellectually insulting attitude towards anyone who questions TPP and ACTA transparency, I don't trust the USTR on its commitment to this... but I have been hearing from multiple sources that the protests against SOPA and ACTA have had a big impact on the administration's thinking on intellectual property issues... and that the MPAA/RIAA folks are not at all happy about the latest version of the USTR's IP chapter. There have also been multiple assurances that the USTR will fight strongly to make sure that this language on exceptions remains in the agreement, even if some of its "advisers" from the legacy content industry don't like it. That suggests that maybe, just maybe, some voices of reason have gotten through to the USTR.

All that said, this requires very close scrutiny. And, of course, there's all sorts of things that can be hidden in the language -- which, of course, the USTR still has not revealed. In the interest of openness and making sure that these provisions actually are in the best interest of the public, it would be nice to actually have the USTR live up to its transparency commitments and publish the specific text that relates to these limitations and exceptions. On top of that, the so-called "3-step test" that the USTR mentions is somewhat limited (and a bit antiquated) in these modern times with an internet where things like mashups and remixing occur on a daily basis. It would obviously be a lot nicer if we actually moved forward with our limitations and exceptions to copyright law to bring them into the 21st century -- but having the USTR actually acknowledge such limitations and exceptions as an important part of the IP chapter on TPP is a huge (almost monumental) step forward.

Either way -- and I know that some people will never trust anything from the USTR considering how many bridges it has burned -- the USTR deserves at least some kudos for taking this surprising step, and hopefully it continues to recognize that this is an important issue. With further exploration, and further acknowledgement that the MPAA/RIAA's view of thew world is not the only one, perhaps the USTR can recognize that setting up a maximalist/protectionist plan does not help the US, the economy or creativity. Enabling a more functional system, including knocking down the barriers that copyright sometimes sets up, is a much more effective path.

Filed Under: acta, fair use, sopa, tpp, transparency, ustr
Companies: mpaa, riaa

USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations

from the sorry,-we-can't-have-that-kind-of-transparency dept

So much for "transparency." While the USTR continues to talk up its faux transparency as if it's real transparency, the truth is always going to come out. Earlier this week, we wrote about how Rep. Darrell Issa had asked the USTR if he could come and observe the next round of TPP negotiations, taking place next week in San Diego. The USTR took all of two days to reject such a request, showing that it's not at all interested in any sort of actual transparency with the Congress who is supposed to oversee issues of international commerce. The USTR told Issa he could only attend the "public" portions, like anyone else. In response, Issa put out the following statement:

“The U.S. Trade Representative has once again chosen to block Congress from observing negotiations for this vital trade agreement over which the House and Senate have fundamental constitutional responsibility.

“The TPP process should be transparent and open to oversight, not a secretive backroom negotiation. TPP agreements impact multiple sectors of the American economy--especially our ability to innovate and create new intellectual property, as well as preserve an open Internet.

“Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee trade negotiations and not simply act as a rubber stamp to deals about which they were kept in the dark. While I had hoped the TPP would permit me to observe this round of the negotiation process firsthand, our efforts to open TPP negotiations up to transparency will continue.”

Filed Under: darrell issa, negotiations, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr