Danish Politicians Questioning Why Denmark Is So Against ACTA Transparency

from the where-are-the-politicians dept

One of the really amazing things in witnessing the reactions among various politicians to the ACTA negotiations is realizing how out of the loop they are as well. They're often just as angry that things are being done in the name of their country that they have no visibility into. Of course, this adds to the impression that this whole process is not about figuring out what's best for the people of each country, but an end run around the democratic lawmaking process, pushed mainly by big industries (led by the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries).

So, with last week's leak showing that Denmark was one of the countries that was most against transparency for ACTA negotiations, Danish free culture activists like Henrik Moltke have been speaking up, going on TV and questioning why Denmark is being the transparency roadblock. And it appears to be working.

Danish politicians are questioning why Denmark is so against ACTA transparency:

"It is news to me that Denmark is so close to the negotiations. And it's pretty shocking that Denmark should have taken the position that you actually want to give priority to secrecy," said Morten Messerschmidt, a member of the European Parliament

Messerschmidt has gone on to say that he's going to demand that Denmark support a more transparent ACTA process, and it appears that some other Danish politicians are agreeing as well.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, denmark, politics, secrecy, transparency

Growing Concern From European Officials Over ACTA

from the policy-laundering dept

It looks like a growing number of European politicians are fed up with the secrecy of ACTA, and don't like what they're hearing from the leaked documents, and they're starting to speak up, asking questions and airing their concerns. They're demanding the publication of the details of the negotiations, while worrying about anything that might push ISPs to kick people off the internet at a time when it's a key European goal to increase broadband access. There's also tremendous concern that ACTA is really a way for US companies to sneak desired legislation into Europe outside of the parliamentary process:

"ACTA is legislation laundering on an international scale, trying to covertly push through what could never be passed in most national parliaments"

The same statement pointed out that all of the lobbyists who had signed NDAs to see ACTA came from US companies and organizations -- and none from the EU. It makes you wonder why any other country would agree to ACTA at all...

Filed Under: acta, copyright, europe, policy laundering, transparency

U.S., Korea, Singapore, Denmark, Germany, Belgium And Portugal: Against ACTA Transparency

from the and-why? dept

One of the biggest issues in discussing ACTA is the rampant secrecy behind the negotiations. We've heard calls from many different politicians to get rid of the secrecy and be more transparent, but we hadn't heard who was against the transparency (other than some industry lobbyists who, in theory, shouldn't have much say in this). The only statement came from the USTR, who claimed that countries would leave the negotiating table if the text were made public -- but wouldn't say who or why.

Well, now we know who. A leaked document highlights which countries are against transparency and the list includes Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, South Korea and Singapore. Many other countries -- headed by the UK -- have been in support of opening up the process and being more transarent. Among those in favor of transparency are the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Austria, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And then there's the US, who simply claims it's being transparent, but apparently refuses to take a stand on transparency in the negotiations (why should it -- when those negotiations themselves are secret). Apparently the real stickler for secrecy is Denmark, which perhaps isn't that surprising. While there are many Danish people who are fighting the copyfight, Denmark's "anti-piracy" organization has been among the most aggressive in suing pretty much anyone, and demanding all sorts of sites be shut down or blocked. Unfortunately, it sounds like they're now the main blockers in keeping the ACTA process secret.

But, of course, for all that attempted secrecy, the documents keep leaking, and they're definitely problematic. It seems like it's time for the supporters of transparency to stand up to Denmark and the others and tell them that if they don't want the process to be transparent, then they should walk away from the agreement. And, in the meantime, it's time for the USTR to stop pretending it's being transparent and to actually support real transparency in these negotiations.

Update: And another report points out that "Italy and France fear retaliation" from the US if they vote for transparency...

Filed Under: acta, denmark, secrecy, transparency

USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything

from the um...-why-not? dept

Via Michael Geist, we're pointed to a short interview with a representative from the US Trade Reps office, where the issue over ACTA concerns is raised, and the response is almost comically ridiculous. Stan McCoy, the assistant US Trade Representative for intellectual property and innovation, responds to complaints by saying that there has been a lot of misrepresentation about ACTA and that it really has a lot about counterfeiting and isn't just about copyright. And....? Well, that's it.

You see, this is the point where Stan McCoy or Ron Kirk or anyone in the USTR's office should explain what those misperceptions are, by telling us what's actually being negotiated. But, of course, they don't. The USTR keeps insisting that it's going to be more transparent, but hasn't actually done anything. If anything, over the last couple months, the USTR has become even more secretive about ACTA. Saying that people aren't accurately describing what's in the document, and then not saying what's actually in the document, doesn't help matters. It just makes us wonder who the USTR is representing, because it certainly does not appear to be the American people.

Furthermore, McCoy is being willfully disingenuous, in saying that the "misperception" is that "this agreement will focus mostly or exclusively on copyright infringement in the digital environment." No one has been suggesting that at all. Everyone knows that it covers real counterfeiting as well -- but the part people are concerned about is the intellectual property part, because it's being shoved into ACTA as if copyright infringement and counterfeiting are the same thing (or at least very similar) when they're not. So his next statement is meaningless:

"The threat of physical goods bearing counterfeit trademarks is a real one and it is a priority for ACTA. Americans do not want to brush their teeth with counterfeit toothpaste or drive a car with knockoff brakes."

That implies people are arguing otherwise, but no one is. Of course, we don't want dangerous counterfeits, but that's not the issue. The issue is using ACTA as a back door to changing IP laws in a way that does not reflect what's best for the country.

Filed Under: acta, secrecy, transparency, ustr

ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored

from the getting-closer dept

Despite widespread demands from politicians around the globe, combined with promises from the USTR to be more open and transparent (despite unsubstantiated and totally ridiculous claims that countries would leave the negotiations if details were made public) and even entertainment industry lobbyists admitting that the process could be more transparent, ACTA negotiations are continuing in a veil of total secrecy to the public (unless you're a big industry lobbyist -- then it's open). The latest meetings in Mexico were again held in total secrecy, where public concerns were mocked, but appear to have continued to move the negotiations forward with claims coming out that the document is in "final drafting stages."

Yes, without any transparency or participation allowed from those who it would impact most: the public.

How is it that any government is willing to participate in such a process? It's a massive travesty. The details that have been revealed suggest that this is a sneaky way to significantly impact copyright laws around the world, greatly in favor of a few industries that have been unwilling to adapt to a changing marketplace. This is protectionism at its worst. At the same time that US politicians are slamming China for its internet restrictions, ACTA seeks to place the same type of limitations on ISPs around the world that the Chinese government places on its ISPs, all done through a secret process with no public input -- even from many elected officials who are greatly concerned about both the content of the agreement as well as the way in which it has been drafted.

That the US government is orchestrating the whole thing at the behest of the MPAA and the RIAA, among others, is a disgusting display of industry influence in government policy. The administration should be massively ashamed of itself for not just participating in such a travesty, but in many ways leading the way and providing cover for the bogus claims of industry representatives and lobbyists that this is a minor trade harmonization issue, rather than a significant change in policy and an attempt to route around existing venues (that are willing to listen to the public and consumer concerns) in order to push through these changes on a widespread level.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, mexico, transparency

Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom

from the aren't-the-courts-public? dept

In something of a repeat of the judicial system barring the videotaping and live broadcast of Joel Tenenbaum's trial, the Supreme Court voted to bar video streaming of a controversial court case in California. The 5 - 4 ruling was supported mainly on procedural grounds -- about how the courts couldn't make such a "change" without giving more notice. It's difficult to comprehend how that makes any sense. This is not a massive "change" in procedures or anything that affects how the judicial system works. It's merely an attempt to provide more transparency to what goes on in the court rooms, which seems like an extremely laudable goal, no matter where you stand on the various cases where this issue has come up.

Of course, while officially the ruling was about procedural issues, the majority did also claim a fear that broadcasting the trial would put a chill on witnesses. This seems backwards. This is the public court system, and reporters are allowed to report on (most) cases, so anyone who testifies is going to be known to the public anyway and what they say will be reported on, too. How is that any different than if the video is recorded and broadcast in some manner? If there are special cases where video might create a real chilling effect, deal with those special cases, rather than pushing a blanket "no video rule." As Justin Silverman wrote before the ruling came out, the idea that videos in the courtroom would lead to attacks on witnesses made no sense, since it was already illegal to attack witnesses and we have a legal system to deal with that:

What good is giving the press freedom if it is not allowed to use the tool of its trade? In this case, that tool is a video camera. Similarly, law enforcement has many tools of its trade, the most important being the law. In California, the law includes prohibiting the very acts Prop 8 supporters and--apparently--the Justices are so concerned about. Perhaps it's too much to ask, but can we just let both journalists and police do their jobs?

By staying the broadcast of this trial--and impliedly finding that Prop 8 supporters will suffer "irreparable harm" absent a stay--the Supreme Court seems to be advocating curtailment of the press as a means of law enforcement. In a sense, there's a backwards Heckler's Veto at play: the Court is protecting the right of witnesses to speak by limiting the ways in which they will be heard and preventing retaliation by those who will not have heard them. Instead, those witnesses should take the stand knowing they will be given the largest forum possible in which to speak and the strongest protection against those who may retaliate when they do so.

And that retaliation is a big may. Among their reasons for requesting a stay, the petitioners say that "public broadcast can intimidate witnesses who might refuse to testify or alter their stories when they do testify if they fear retribution by someone who may be watching the broadcast." Further, "all of the petitioners' witnesses have expressed concern over the potential public broadcast of trial proceedings and some have stated that they will refuse to testify if the district court goes forward with its plan."

In a controversial case such as this one, no doubt the unpopular speaker is a nervous one. But I'm skeptical that witnesses already committed to testifying will suddenly shy away because of the prospect of video dissemination. Do they not realize that, without a single camera, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting live accounts that include the names of those taking the stand? That special interest groups will be Twittering their testimony as they speak? That there are already websites identifying Prop 8 supporters and where they live? Banning a broadcast, I believe, will not change this. But to allow a broadcast, I'm certain, will further enlighten the debate....

Filed Under: courtroom, judicial system, supreme court, transparency, video

USTR Will Listen To The Public On Creating Its 'IP Axis Of Evil' List?

from the let's-wait-and-see... dept

Among copyright experts and copyright policy folks, it seems widely recognized that the US Trade Rep's "Special 301" review process has been a massive joke. Last year, at an event discussing copyright, even folks from the US Copyright Office laughed off the Special 301 report. Historically, what it's been is the entertainment industry putting together a list of countries that don't have draconian enough copyright laws, and it gets the USTR to complain about them and put them on a "watch list" of sorts. Pretty much everyone who understands these issues knows it's a complete joke, but unfortunately there are lots of people who don't understand these issues, and it lets diplomats and politicians make laughable claims like saying that Canada is a hub for piracy -- and the press almost never questions where that information came from because it sounds all official.

So it's nice to hear that apparently the USTR is opening up the Special 301 review process to the public (slightly) in not just asking for written input, but also holding a public hearing for the first time ever (via Michael Geist). That said, I'm not convinced this will really make a huge difference. Since this is a discussion about what foreign countries are doing with their copyright laws that doesn't directly affect most of the American public directly (though we can be concerned about the fallout). So who's going to take part? The usual suspects form the industry will, asking for increased protectionism designed entirely to prop up their business models, rather than actually looking at a country's copyright laws. But will others really have enough to say? KEI plans to submit something, and does a good job cautiously praising the slightly more open process, but worrying about whether it will actually make a difference.

Filed Under: 301 report, copyright, public hearings, special interests, transparency, ustr

Senator Wyden Demands ACTA Details Be Revealed

from the good-for-him dept

Late last year, we noted that Senator Bernie Sanders had questioned why ACTA negotiations were being kept secret well beyond normal -- even to the point of being classified as a state secret. The USTR gave the usual non-answer in response, and it appears that other Senators are beginning to worry about this as well. Senator Ron Wyden is now demanding that the USTR confirm or deny the various leaks about ACTA that have raised so many concerns.

Wyden also pointed out that "objectives behind the negotiations still remain inadequately clear to the American public." I actually don't know that this is true. The objectives seem abundantly clear from what's been leaked: to put up artificial barriers to help prop up an industry unwilling to adapt to changing times. The letter itself (pdf) includes 11 questions for the USTR including asking for assurances that ACTA would neither force changes on US IP laws nor would it constrain Congress from adjusting such laws in the future.

Update: Looks like politicians around the world are starting to wake up and question all this ACTA secrecy.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, secrecy, senator ron wyden, transparency

New Lobbying Organization Tries To Skirt The Rules So It's Not Called A Lobbying Organization

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

The term "lobbyist" has certainly become a dirty word in many circles -- for a very valid reason in many cases. I've noticed that many more people have been trying to make sure they're not referred to as lobbyists, even if the activity they do is very much lobbying (accepting money from a specific set of companies for the express purpose of pushing a policy agenda that supports what those companies want). Now Copycense alerts us to a new operation that has sprung up that apparently is trying to contort itself around the rules so as not to be called lobbyists, even though they're engaged in typical lobbyist behavior. It makes you wonder... who lobbied for the rules on how you define what a lobbyist is?

Filed Under: lobbying, transparency

Still Waiting For The First Real Particpatory Presidential Administration

from the this-ain't-it dept

Like many folks, I was certainly intrigued by the way President Obama ran his campaign in 2008, using various online tools to actually empower his supporters to be proactive and play a real role in the campaign. Many suggested that this was a facade, and that it would be politics as usual once he took office. While it's still early, there does appear to be some evidence that this is, in fact, the case. This isn't surprising, but that doesn't mean it's not disappointing. Last year, we saw this with the various stimulus proposals, where the plans were worked on in backrooms with the usual political insiders and then presented to the public afterwards. There was no real participation from the public. And since then, we've see the same pattern repeated over and over again. On healthcare, certainly, and (of course) on the secret negotiations on ACTA. This is not participatory democracy.

Micah Sifry has a great article at TechPresident exploring this "disconnect," and suggesting that while it was true that the campaign really did enable thousands upon thousands of volunteers to step up and contribute, it may have been more of an accident of the techies who were involved, rather than an explicit plan by the Obama team. And, as a result, after the election, the team really didn't know what to do with the mass of supporters it had built up, and they did (of course) the same old political thing: believing that it was a broadcast list, rather than a group of committed folks who wanted to actually participate. It's hard to argue with this. The campaign still sends out emails, but they're never about asking for input or participating in a larger discussion. They're almost always about supporting the President.

I know that there are still many folks involved with the administration who are trying to build up the tools that can enable the public to be more involved, but it really looks like the administration totally dropped the ball on using the giant community it had already built up.

Filed Under: participation, president obama, social media, transparency