The TPP is a trade agreement between nations; it is a type of international treaty. The executive powers of most nations are generally permitted by their constitutions to negotiate treaties and then submit them to the legislature for ratification and implementation. Ostensibly, the public interest can be taken into consideration at that time.
Since trade agreements are intended to boost trade, pumping money into each other's economies, the "stakeholders" involved in the negotiations are mainly corporations, along with government (executive branch) reps. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders, not the public.
Ideally, treaties require policy changes that the executive can undertake, and require few or no changes to domestic law, thus ensuring they get passed. However, in recent years, especially with some agreements stalling, negotiators have become ballsier, stepping far beyond tariff reductions and trade policy changes, and committing their nations to treaties that require substantial legislative changes in order to implement. In dire economic times, legislatures are quite receptive to anything designed to boost trade, so it's likely that they'll do whatever is demanded of them...
Since when has there been any requirement that any international treaty or trade agreement, or any proposed legislation to implement such an agreement, be subject to public input before it is introduced in Congress?
Like most other laws, the legislation to implement the TPP will become public only once it's drafted and submitted to Congress. Under Fast Track, which the TPP is expected to be concluded and implemented under, Congress can't change the text, but is as free as always to at least vote it up or down, and to take the public's concerns into account at that time. As long as the Fast Track procedure is followed, no court is going to second-guess Congress's intent in passing that law.
If Congress wants the public interest to be taken into account during negotiations, it will make that a requirement in its delegation of negotiating authority to the executive. But trade agreements generally aren't written with the public's direct interest in mind; the goal is to increase trade to boost the economies of all the parties to the agreement, not to protect your ability to make use of copyrighted works without license. So if the executive, acting as an agent of Congress, deems that the public's fair use claims are interfering with commerce, then it's reasonable to expect the trade agreement and its implementing legislation will reduce the ability of the public to make such claims.
As it may well result in unfair judgments against individuals, the courts can urge Congress to withdraw from the TPP and reinstate the original four prongs of fair use, but cannot in the meantime find the accused anything but guilty of copyright infringement if the fair use tests, as currently written, aren't met.
I'm not saying I like it, just that it's not realistic to expect "the public didn't have a say in the authorship of the treaty and its implementing law" to be persuasive in a courtroom. The public normally doesn't have a say in such matters.
Why would you admit what they were doing was illegal? They hosted torrent files, a message board, and a torrent tracker. None of those things are in and of themselves illegal.
So rather than just blogging in defense of a civil right, going a step further and encouraging actual democratic action, to the extent that the public can muster, is "sad"?
Besides being a rather unpatriotic position to hold, I suspect you're feeling threatened.
Anyway, it's not just the content of the comments that matters. It's the fact that you comment on certain kinds of videos, or videos which tend to be linked from certain blogs, for example. If 90% of your comments are posted to videos that are linked from whistleblower sites, your employer might be interested in that little tidbit.
I, too, thank you for coming here and for being so candid. After watching your pitch video, I became enthusiastic about the project, and I made a pledge to your Kickstarter campaign. The perks offered and my skeptical view of what you rightly characterize as "aggressive" licensing didn't really enter into it; I pledged just on the basis of the film being so worthwhile and something to which I personally relate. I hope others do the same.
Oh but they just need the phone number "to protect your account"!
Phone numbers are data-mining gold, one of the few snippets of info that ties together formerly unlinked profiles in a way many other clues don't. With a phone number, suddenly that person connecting from a Dallas Metro IP address who comments on the video heavily linked from pregnancy blogs is now known to be a 29-year-old female professional educator in a particular school district who lives on 8th Avenue and uses a loyalty card tied to that phone number every time she buys psych meds at the Walgreens on High Street...and her insurance company is very interested in this info, as are the kids who hacked into that company's servers. Paranoia? Perhaps, but the people collecting and using this info have precious-little incentive to be in any way forthcoming or ethical in what they do, and Google's privacy policy is cold comfort.
The choice of where and what kinds of things you comment on, not just the comments themselves, can be very revealing, and is often easily accessible just through ordinary web searches. Tie that to your real identity, be it a G+ account or whatever, and it may expose you and people you work and consort with to unnecessary risk and exposure. Work for a sensitive branch of law enforcement, the government or the military? You're security risk if you can't afford to be outed in some way. If your comment history reveals certain things about you, personally, it can be bad...really bad. Not only can you be blackmailed over "dirt" you want kept private, but it's a really short trail from your G+ account to e.g. your Facebook account, where you live and work and play, and who your friends and family are.
So when the Google employees who cooked up these reasons to chip away at privacy give me (1) their identifying and contact info, (2) full disclosure of exactly how my info is used and by whom, (3) permanent access to the same data-mining tools and personal info about them that they have regarding me, and (4) a legal obligation with stiff penalties for misuse of said info, then maybe I'll consider sacrificing my pretense of anonymity, delusional as it may be. But as it stands, revealing (or just confirming) our identities gives Google and other people more power over us and potentially exposes us to risk, and we get very little in exchange for that, other than access to things which we expect to be free and unfettered, such as the ability to leave inane comments on videos.
Mike is basically saying that this situation is a pretty good example of how exorbitant license fees impede or otherwise unnecessarily drive up the cost of the creation and distribution of other creative works, and that this is especially shameful when the works are, arguably, of obvious cultural value and public benefit, as this film appears to be.
And you are countering that no, it's not a good example of that, because it's possible that music licensing is only the biggest expense when compared to each of the other line items separately, rather than in aggregate. You also seem to feel that since there are multiple impediments to the film's completion and distribution, none of them can be said to be any more important than any other, even if some do cost more than others. You also toss in some desperate ad hominem, saying that Mike and the filmmaker are deliberately being misleading with their "weasel words".
As for the ad hominem, *shrug*; nice try.
As for the relative importance of the line items in the completion budget, when one expense is greater than another, it's completely normal and reasonable to characterize the one as a "bigger" obstacle to overcome than the other. The fact that the tasks must all be completed to achieve the goal doesn't diminish the fact that expense and difficulty make some tasks "bigger" impediments to completion than others, and makes the most costly requirement the "biggest". And it's perfectly natural to grumble loudly and bitterly if this expense is unnecessarily high, just some arbitrary, unjustifiable number cooked up to maximize the profit leeched from this filmmaker's work.
So tell us, exactly how big a chunk of the $50K would the music rights have to be before you agree that it's a good example of inflated license fees impeding culture, and how did you arrive at that amount? And if it turns out to be that much, are you going to eat crow and acknowledge that Mike is right?
Well, yeah, the filmmaker could swap in music that isn't being held for ridiculous ransoms, and maybe such a strategy works for some kinds of movies, but in this case I think it would severely sacrifice the integrity of his work. I mean, I can't get behind portraying the Alzheimer's sufferers reacting rapturously to some affordable, non-RIAA piece of music, even if it's good, when in fact they were listening to, say, John Coltrane.
Most of these copyright holders are not interested in wider use, per se. If they were, they would put their work in the public domain, or they'd charge nothing (or maybe a nominal fee) for licenses.
One factor at work here is that many copyright owners operate under the theory that their works are worth whatever price tag they put on them. If they offer this guy a $500 license instead of a $2500 one, they're declaring the work to be worth that much. To charge less is to "devalue" the work, as no one will then be willing to pay more. This belief is quite common among gatekeepers and creators alike.
Another factor is the hope that at any moment, someone who can afford the higher fee might come knocking. This is why Chuck Berry wants $20 million if you play 20 seconds of "Johnny B. Goode" on TV. He clearly is not interested in wider use of his work. He regards it as a lottery ticket.
Berry aside, most business-savvy copyright owners who want to exploit their works know they need to find a "sweet spot" in license pricing, where the cost is low enough that the work does get licensed on occasion, but not so low that the work has diminished perceived value or that the higher number of licenses doesn't compensate for the reduced price.
There's also the notion of a going rate: creators often feel they've somehow been cheated if their work doesn't go for roughly the same amount charged for comparable works. The big publishing houses and record labels tend to be more pragmatic and strategic in their pricing and will drop the price when it works to their advantage. But in the music world, the publishers are often corporate fronts for the musicians themselves, and expectations are skewed accordingly. They'll stubbornly insist on higher rates, simply because they feel they deserve the same treatment as their peers; they don't want to be regarded as being in the "budget" class.
Lastly, along those same lines, they especially don't want to accidentally license something for cheap and then find that the way the work gets used is not to their liking. They figure, probably correctly, that the lower price they charge, the more likely the work will be exploited in ways that qualitatively cheapen it. If the film turns out to be crap, they don't want their work to be associated with it. In their view, a higher fee helps to minimize this risk.
For most copyright owners, these factors all outweigh arguments about all the public good and wider use that would result from more-reasonable license fees and exceptions for clearly noble uses of their work, such as this film. I'm not saying I agree with it, or that it's in touch with reality, just that it's still the prevailing point of view.
Rejoice! At last, your dream of shutting down vast parts of the Internet can be made real. As you know, if the issue is copyright, then ISPs and UOC hosts aren't liable for their users' infringements. But with trademarks, it's gonna be a whole different ball game: since there's no trademark-infringement Safe Harbor or takedown notice procedure for those service providers, and with this judicial precedent, there's seemingly nothing stopping trademark owners from trolling and litigating those businesses who are "profiting from piracy" right out of existence, or at least to the point where they only offer and allow access to authorized, centralized services. A new day is dawning for the content gatekeepers...if all goes according to plan, 2013 is going to be the new 1993! Awesome!
Given that the stakeholders represent industry, that's probably exactly their position; there's at least that many people in the music and movie business. When these industries feel threatened, they routinely trot out figures showing their industry consists of hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihood depends on some form of cart blanche or other.
"What they often forget is that they're supposed to be representing the public."—Masnick
I think that's a false assumption. The USTR is an appointed, Cabinet-level position, and the USTR office's mission is to promote trade, i.e. boost international business for American companies. The USTR simply isn't tasked with "representing the public" other than by taking steps to ensure that U.S. trade goals can be realized. That is, the American public has an interest in American companies doing well (as related to business conducted with other nations), but any other concerns the public might have aren't relevant. Not saying I agree with it.
International trade agreements often involve making concessions that are certain to incense a sizable number of people across party lines, be it the public or companies and industries which benefit from the status quo. That's why these agreements get on the "Fast Track" and are negotiated, approved and implemented with as little public involvement and awareness as possible. Again, not saying I agree with it.
Petitioning the USTR and its negotiators not to undermine the public interest can't hurt, and as a step toward raising public awareness it's rather a good thing. But arguing that the USTR is "supposed to be representing the public" is surely unpersuasive to those who actually work there, since the office's structure and mission, and the fact that it's in the Executive branch, have long meant it is by design wholly oblivious and unaccountable to the public.
Ah, gotcha. I don't yet know enough about it to know to what extent the procedural secrecy and lack of representation of the public interest derives from the objectives portion of the renewal legislation. Regardless, I'm extremely skeptical that 1. anyone in Congress will stick their neck out and take the administration to task for straying from whatever mandates and objectives are laid out in Fast Track legislation; and 2. that in the next renewal, they'll impose any kind of objectives or procedures that would change the way the TPP is being negotiated.
The Reuters article I linked to suggests that Congress expects the administration to write the renewal legislation, and that the only part that might be reined in is its duration in order to prevent too many more trade agreements from sneaking in...but even then it would only be an issue taken up by a subset of Democrats, possibly not enough to matter. I'd say likely not enough to matter, because the moderates will give the president what he wants.
...An advisory-committee system was established to obtain private sector input on trade-agreement negotiations from presidentially appointed advisors. [Public Law 93-618 § 135.] This system is organized by sector and industry and included 700 advisors comprised mainly of industry representatives. Throughout trade talks, these individuals obtained special access to confidential negotiating documents to which most members of Congress and the public have no access. Additionally, they have regular access to executive-branch negotiators and must file reports on proposed trade agreements. The Fast Track legislation listed committees for numerous sectors, but not consumer, health, environmental or other public interests. ["Trade Advisory Committees: Privileged Access for Polluters," Public Citizen Report, December 1991. Labor was mentioned in the statute and a labor advisory committee was established. In the 1984 Fast Track (Public Law 98-573 § 306(c)(2)(A)), a new advisory committee was added for representatives of state and local governments and their associations. Lawsuits in the 1990s resulted in establishment of a Trade and Environment advisory committee, but it was comprised of equal numbers of industry- and environmental-group representatives, deadlocking its reports and eventually causing some of the environmental representatives to resign. See "White House Ordered to Hire Environmentalist," Miami Herald, Jan. 22, 2003.]...
The Obama administration plans to ask Congress this year to renew White House "trade promotion authority" so it can finish talks on an Asia Pacific trade pact and pursue other possible initiatives, the top U.S. trade official said... "We've got to have it," U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk told the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee...
Kirk declined to say when the White House would make a formal request, but said it could need the authority by the end of the year because of its goal of concluding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement... Republicans and business groups have pressed the White House to seek renewal of trade promotion authority, which traditionally requires Congress to vote on trade agreements within 90 days and without any amendments. Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, said it was "critical" the White House have trade promotion authority so other countries know any agreements they make with the United States will not unravel during debate in Congress. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell welcomed Kirk's comments and urged the White House to send up draft legislation and work with congressional leaders to schedule a vote on the measure...
Many Democrats have qualms about the legislation since it signals White House plans to negotiate more trade agreements. That is a divisive issue within the party because of opposition from labor groups. The legislation typically also contains detailed negotiating objectives the White House is expected to follow in trade talks. The Obama administration has been using the expired trade promotion authority as guidance for the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership talks...
Yes, it's a CEA, but it's being negotiated under the assumption that "Fast Track" trade promotion authority, which officially sanctions the lack of transparency and public input, is going to be reinstated before negotiations conclude. Ron Kirk has already publicly stated that the White House will be asking Congress to reinstate Fast Track before the end of the year, as it's (according to him) a "must-have".
These very same Congressmen who are asking "hey, what do you think you are doing?" all voted for Fast Track and the resulting trade agreements in the past. I can't say I'm optimistic about what will happen this time around.
Your definition of "well before" is no more than 90 days, because Ron Kirk already said a few months ago that the White House is going to ask Congress to reinstate "Fast Track" trade promotion authority. TPP negotiations are being undertaken under the assumption it's coming back, hence the secrecy, as it's supposedly a "must have" for negotiations to conclude.
If and when Fast Track is reinstated, the secrecy and lack of public input will be part of the official, Congressionally approved process. Negotiation will conclude in secret, and the implementing legislation will be written and submitted by the administration (not Congress) at its leisure. Once submitted, it will have only 45 days to go through committee and 15 days to get a floor vote in both chambers. It can't die in committee, it can't be debated more than 20 hours (so no filibuster), and the bill cannot be amended at any point in the process; it will only be put to an up or down vote. This system is designed to minimize public debate and to minimize the risk of failure of the U.S. to live up to its obligations under the agreement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of the agreements sought under this authority were approved by Congress. So although Fast Track has its critics on both sides of the aisle, they haven't got the nerve to rally a majority to go against the president. To do so would embarrass the U.S. and undermine his ability to negotiate future agreements—the assumption, probably correct, being that the public and Congress would never approve all of the concessions that were made in order to get other countries to sign on to the agreement. So when Congress re-grants Fast Track in 2013, subsequent approval of the TPP and its non-Congressionally-authored implementing legislation is essentially guaranteed.
Given that Fast Track, by design, completely excludes the public interest from consideration until the very last step of the process, and given that Congress, after granting Fast Track in order to get agreements negotiated, is highly unlikely to then decline to vote-through the "fruits" of that authority, it seems pointless to argue about exactly how much time is available to the public to scrutinize the final draft and register objections.
Wyden and Issa can raise a stink about the process being non-transparent and antithetical to democracy, but they both voted for the Fast Track extensions and all of the resulting trade agreements and implementing legislation, and you can bet they'll do it again. I see no reason to believe they're serious about defending the public interest, here.
I'm gonna go with -10 points, just for the labored analogy. When there are too many metaphors, the message get lost. You might as well be saying "It's like X, Y and Z, and all the As and Bs are C-ing and D-ing, but the Es and Fs are over here and all the Gs and Hs are over there, so they all just end up I-ing and J-ing all day long, at least until the K L M N O P! Hahaha! Get it?"
On the post: TPP Text On Fair Use Leaks; US Proposals Are Really About Limiting Fair Use, Not Expanding It
Re:
Since trade agreements are intended to boost trade, pumping money into each other's economies, the "stakeholders" involved in the negotiations are mainly corporations, along with government (executive branch) reps. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders, not the public.
Ideally, treaties require policy changes that the executive can undertake, and require few or no changes to domestic law, thus ensuring they get passed. However, in recent years, especially with some agreements stalling, negotiators have become ballsier, stepping far beyond tariff reductions and trade policy changes, and committing their nations to treaties that require substantial legislative changes in order to implement. In dire economic times, legislatures are quite receptive to anything designed to boost trade, so it's likely that they'll do whatever is demanded of them...
On the post: TPP Text On Fair Use Leaks; US Proposals Are Really About Limiting Fair Use, Not Expanding It
Re:
Like most other laws, the legislation to implement the TPP will become public only once it's drafted and submitted to Congress. Under Fast Track, which the TPP is expected to be concluded and implemented under, Congress can't change the text, but is as free as always to at least vote it up or down, and to take the public's concerns into account at that time. As long as the Fast Track procedure is followed, no court is going to second-guess Congress's intent in passing that law.
If Congress wants the public interest to be taken into account during negotiations, it will make that a requirement in its delegation of negotiating authority to the executive. But trade agreements generally aren't written with the public's direct interest in mind; the goal is to increase trade to boost the economies of all the parties to the agreement, not to protect your ability to make use of copyrighted works without license. So if the executive, acting as an agent of Congress, deems that the public's fair use claims are interfering with commerce, then it's reasonable to expect the trade agreement and its implementing legislation will reduce the ability of the public to make such claims.
As it may well result in unfair judgments against individuals, the courts can urge Congress to withdraw from the TPP and reinstate the original four prongs of fair use, but cannot in the meantime find the accused anything but guilty of copyright infringement if the fair use tests, as currently written, aren't met.
I'm not saying I like it, just that it's not realistic to expect "the public didn't have a say in the authorship of the treaty and its implementing law" to be persuasive in a courtroom. The public normally doesn't have a say in such matters.
On the post: Ukraine Takes Down Demonoid As A Gift To The US Government
Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
Re: Re: forgiveness & permission
On the post: Let Your Senator Know Right Now That You Are Watching If They'll Vote To Protect Privacy
Re: Re: Re:
Besides being a rather unpatriotic position to hold, I suspect you're feeling threatened.
On the post: YouTube Wants You To Comment Under Your Real Name
Re: Re:
Anyway, it's not just the content of the comments that matters. It's the fact that you comment on certain kinds of videos, or videos which tend to be linked from certain blogs, for example. If 90% of your comments are posted to videos that are linked from whistleblower sites, your employer might be interested in that little tidbit.
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Music Licensing for ALIVE INSIDE
On the post: YouTube Wants You To Comment Under Your Real Name
Re:
Phone numbers are data-mining gold, one of the few snippets of info that ties together formerly unlinked profiles in a way many other clues don't. With a phone number, suddenly that person connecting from a Dallas Metro IP address who comments on the video heavily linked from pregnancy blogs is now known to be a 29-year-old female professional educator in a particular school district who lives on 8th Avenue and uses a loyalty card tied to that phone number every time she buys psych meds at the Walgreens on High Street...and her insurance company is very interested in this info, as are the kids who hacked into that company's servers. Paranoia? Perhaps, but the people collecting and using this info have precious-little incentive to be in any way forthcoming or ethical in what they do, and Google's privacy policy is cold comfort.
The choice of where and what kinds of things you comment on, not just the comments themselves, can be very revealing, and is often easily accessible just through ordinary web searches. Tie that to your real identity, be it a G+ account or whatever, and it may expose you and people you work and consort with to unnecessary risk and exposure. Work for a sensitive branch of law enforcement, the government or the military? You're security risk if you can't afford to be outed in some way. If your comment history reveals certain things about you, personally, it can be bad...really bad. Not only can you be blackmailed over "dirt" you want kept private, but it's a really short trail from your G+ account to e.g. your Facebook account, where you live and work and play, and who your friends and family are.
So when the Google employees who cooked up these reasons to chip away at privacy give me (1) their identifying and contact info, (2) full disclosure of exactly how my info is used and by whom, (3) permanent access to the same data-mining tools and personal info about them that they have regarding me, and (4) a legal obligation with stiff penalties for misuse of said info, then maybe I'll consider sacrificing my pretense of anonymity, delusional as it may be. But as it stands, revealing (or just confirming) our identities gives Google and other people more power over us and potentially exposes us to risk, and we get very little in exchange for that, other than access to things which we expect to be free and unfettered, such as the ability to leave inane comments on videos.
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re:
Mike is basically saying that this situation is a pretty good example of how exorbitant license fees impede or otherwise unnecessarily drive up the cost of the creation and distribution of other creative works, and that this is especially shameful when the works are, arguably, of obvious cultural value and public benefit, as this film appears to be.
And you are countering that no, it's not a good example of that, because it's possible that music licensing is only the biggest expense when compared to each of the other line items separately, rather than in aggregate. You also seem to feel that since there are multiple impediments to the film's completion and distribution, none of them can be said to be any more important than any other, even if some do cost more than others. You also toss in some desperate ad hominem, saying that Mike and the filmmaker are deliberately being misleading with their "weasel words".
As for the ad hominem, *shrug*; nice try.
As for the relative importance of the line items in the completion budget, when one expense is greater than another, it's completely normal and reasonable to characterize the one as a "bigger" obstacle to overcome than the other. The fact that the tasks must all be completed to achieve the goal doesn't diminish the fact that expense and difficulty make some tasks "bigger" impediments to completion than others, and makes the most costly requirement the "biggest". And it's perfectly natural to grumble loudly and bitterly if this expense is unnecessarily high, just some arbitrary, unjustifiable number cooked up to maximize the profit leeched from this filmmaker's work.
So tell us, exactly how big a chunk of the $50K would the music rights have to be before you agree that it's a good example of inflated license fees impeding culture, and how did you arrive at that amount? And if it turns out to be that much, are you going to eat crow and acknowledge that Mike is right?
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One factor at work here is that many copyright owners operate under the theory that their works are worth whatever price tag they put on them. If they offer this guy a $500 license instead of a $2500 one, they're declaring the work to be worth that much. To charge less is to "devalue" the work, as no one will then be willing to pay more. This belief is quite common among gatekeepers and creators alike.
Another factor is the hope that at any moment, someone who can afford the higher fee might come knocking. This is why Chuck Berry wants $20 million if you play 20 seconds of "Johnny B. Goode" on TV. He clearly is not interested in wider use of his work. He regards it as a lottery ticket.
Berry aside, most business-savvy copyright owners who want to exploit their works know they need to find a "sweet spot" in license pricing, where the cost is low enough that the work does get licensed on occasion, but not so low that the work has diminished perceived value or that the higher number of licenses doesn't compensate for the reduced price.
There's also the notion of a going rate: creators often feel they've somehow been cheated if their work doesn't go for roughly the same amount charged for comparable works. The big publishing houses and record labels tend to be more pragmatic and strategic in their pricing and will drop the price when it works to their advantage. But in the music world, the publishers are often corporate fronts for the musicians themselves, and expectations are skewed accordingly. They'll stubbornly insist on higher rates, simply because they feel they deserve the same treatment as their peers; they don't want to be regarded as being in the "budget" class.
Lastly, along those same lines, they especially don't want to accidentally license something for cheap and then find that the way the work gets used is not to their liking. They figure, probably correctly, that the lower price they charge, the more likely the work will be exploited in ways that qualitatively cheapen it. If the film turns out to be crap, they don't want their work to be associated with it. In their view, a higher fee helps to minimize this risk.
For most copyright owners, these factors all outweigh arguments about all the public good and wider use that would result from more-reasonable license fees and exceptions for clearly noble uses of their work, such as this film. I'm not saying I agree with it, or that it's in touch with reality, just that it's still the prevailing point of view.
On the post: What Happens If File Sharing Can Also Be Prosecuted As Trademark Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Petition With 90,000 Signatures Of People Worried About TPP Hand Delivered To USTR Negotiators
Re:
"What they often forget is that they're supposed to be representing the public."—Masnick
I think that's a false assumption. The USTR is an appointed, Cabinet-level position, and the USTR office's mission is to promote trade, i.e. boost international business for American companies. The USTR simply isn't tasked with "representing the public" other than by taking steps to ensure that U.S. trade goals can be realized. That is, the American public has an interest in American companies doing well (as related to business conducted with other nations), but any other concerns the public might have aren't relevant. Not saying I agree with it.
International trade agreements often involve making concessions that are certain to incense a sizable number of people across party lines, be it the public or companies and industries which benefit from the status quo. That's why these agreements get on the "Fast Track" and are negotiated, approved and implemented with as little public involvement and awareness as possible. Again, not saying I agree with it.
Petitioning the USTR and its negotiators not to undermine the public interest can't hurt, and as a step toward raising public awareness it's rather a good thing. But arguing that the USTR is "supposed to be representing the public" is surely unpersuasive to those who actually work there, since the office's structure and mission, and the fact that it's in the Executive branch, have long meant it is by design wholly oblivious and unaccountable to the public.
On the post: USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
I don't even know what to say about Ron Kirk...
On the post: USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
The Reuters article I linked to suggests that Congress expects the administration to write the renewal legislation, and that the only part that might be reined in is its duration in order to prevent too many more trade agreements from sneaking in...but even then it would only be an issue taken up by a subset of Democrats, possibly not enough to matter. I'd say likely not enough to matter, because the moderates will give the president what he wants.
On the post: USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations
Re: Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
Weak Congressional oversight is weak. The record on what actually happens when TPA is granted stands for itself.
While we're quoting...
Core Aspects of Fast Track Trade-Authority Delegation
...An advisory-committee system was established to obtain private sector input on trade-agreement negotiations from presidentially appointed advisors. [Public Law 93-618 § 135.] This system is organized by sector and industry and included 700 advisors comprised mainly of industry representatives. Throughout trade talks, these individuals obtained special access to confidential negotiating documents to which most members of Congress and the public have no access. Additionally, they have regular access to executive-branch negotiators and must file reports on proposed trade agreements. The Fast Track legislation listed committees for numerous sectors, but not consumer, health, environmental or other public interests. ["Trade Advisory Committees: Privileged Access for Polluters," Public Citizen Report, December 1991. Labor was mentioned in the statute and a labor advisory committee was established. In the 1984 Fast Track (Public Law 98-573 § 306(c)(2)(A)), a new advisory committee was added for representatives of state and local governments and their associations. Lawsuits in the 1990s resulted in establishment of a Trade and Environment advisory committee, but it was comprised of equal numbers of industry- and environmental-group representatives, deadlocking its reports and eventually causing some of the environmental representatives to resign. See "White House Ordered to Hire Environmentalist," Miami Herald, Jan. 22, 2003.]...
White House wants trade promotion authority: Kirk
The Obama administration plans to ask Congress this year to renew White House "trade promotion authority" so it can finish talks on an Asia Pacific trade pact and pursue other possible initiatives, the top U.S. trade official said... "We've got to have it," U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk told the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee...
Kirk declined to say when the White House would make a formal request, but said it could need the authority by the end of the year because of its goal of concluding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement... Republicans and business groups have pressed the White House to seek renewal of trade promotion authority, which traditionally requires Congress to vote on trade agreements within 90 days and without any amendments. Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, said it was "critical" the White House have trade promotion authority so other countries know any agreements they make with the United States will not unravel during debate in Congress. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell welcomed Kirk's comments and urged the White House to send up draft legislation and work with congressional leaders to schedule a vote on the measure...
Many Democrats have qualms about the legislation since it signals White House plans to negotiate more trade agreements. That is a divisive issue within the party because of opposition from labor groups. The legislation typically also contains detailed negotiating objectives the White House is expected to follow in trade talks. The Obama administration has been using the expired trade promotion authority as guidance for the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership talks...
On the post: USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations
Re: Re:
These very same Congressmen who are asking "hey, what do you think you are doing?" all voted for Fast Track and the resulting trade agreements in the past. I can't say I'm optimistic about what will happen this time around.
On the post: USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations
Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
If and when Fast Track is reinstated, the secrecy and lack of public input will be part of the official, Congressionally approved process. Negotiation will conclude in secret, and the implementing legislation will be written and submitted by the administration (not Congress) at its leisure. Once submitted, it will have only 45 days to go through committee and 15 days to get a floor vote in both chambers. It can't die in committee, it can't be debated more than 20 hours (so no filibuster), and the bill cannot be amended at any point in the process; it will only be put to an up or down vote. This system is designed to minimize public debate and to minimize the risk of failure of the U.S. to live up to its obligations under the agreement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of the agreements sought under this authority were approved by Congress. So although Fast Track has its critics on both sides of the aisle, they haven't got the nerve to rally a majority to go against the president. To do so would embarrass the U.S. and undermine his ability to negotiate future agreements—the assumption, probably correct, being that the public and Congress would never approve all of the concessions that were made in order to get other countries to sign on to the agreement. So when Congress re-grants Fast Track in 2013, subsequent approval of the TPP and its non-Congressionally-authored implementing legislation is essentially guaranteed.
Given that Fast Track, by design, completely excludes the public interest from consideration until the very last step of the process, and given that Congress, after granting Fast Track in order to get agreements negotiated, is highly unlikely to then decline to vote-through the "fruits" of that authority, it seems pointless to argue about exactly how much time is available to the public to scrutinize the final draft and register objections.
Wyden and Issa can raise a stink about the process being non-transparent and antithetical to democracy, but they both voted for the Fast Track extensions and all of the resulting trade agreements and implementing legislation, and you can bet they'll do it again. I see no reason to believe they're serious about defending the public interest, here.
On the post: Free Culture Is The Response To The Ethical Failings Of The Old Entertainment Industry
Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood & The RIAA Won't Let Tech Save Them
Re:
Next >>