Why is an intellectual property treaty being negotiated in the name of the US public kept quiet?

[n2doc]

A Google-hosted event this week tried to make sense of the secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), but came up empty. If the whole future of our economy depends on protecting the creative industries, as is argued, why are the negotiations to do that treated as a "shameful secret?"

By Nate Anderson | Last updated January 15, 2010 8:23 AM


Why is an intellectual property treaty being negotiated in the name of the US public kept quiet as a matter of national security and treated as "some shameful secret"?

Solid information on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been hard to come by, but Google on Monday hosted a panel discussion on ACTA at its DC offices. Much of the discussion focused on transparency, and why there's so little of it on ACTA, even from an administration that has made transparency one of its key goals.

The reason for that was obvious: there's little of substance that's known about the treaty, and those lawyers in the room and on the panel who had seen one small part of it were under a nondisclosure agreement.

In most contexts, the lack of any hard information might lead to a discussion of mindnumbing generality and irrelevance, but this transparency talk was quite fascinating—in large part because one of the most influential copyright lobbyists in Washington was on the panel attempting to make his case.

more

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/actas-shameful-secret.ars

[JDPriestly]

1. My guess: Anti-Counterfeiting means electronic surveillance.

That's why. Under the cloak of preventing theft of intellectual property, governments listen in on telephone conversations and other electronic communications. So, that is why the negotiations are secret. Watch this one carefully.

[starroute]

5. No, this one's about the entertainment companies

They want the big bucks they foresee by putting stuff online -- but they're also terrified of their movies and music escaping into the wild if they do that. So they're trying to lock the system down by law before it all slides away from them.

This means pulling together every sleazy proposal that has ever been seen for putting technological copyright protections onto everything -- and for slapping your ass in jail if you so much as even thing about violating any of those protections.

Not only would these sort of provisions take away any kind of freedom in dealing with media that you have purchased legally -- including making backup copies or playing them on more than one device, so that you could lose an entire library if you have to reformat your hard drive -- but they would turn the government into an enforcer for the media companies. Copyright violations would become crimes, rather than something they have to sue you over in civil court -- and the laws would be so broad that every one of us would be criminals.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have close ties with music and film industries, so they're mostly not going to stand up against this -- the Republicans have often been better on the issue. Our only hope at this point may be to convince the tea baggers that government enforcement of copyright laws is socialism and they need to marshal their forces against it.

[Joanne98]

2. Fuckers!

Criticism
Secrecy of negotiations
The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes ACTA, calling for more public spotlight on the proposed treaty.<34> Since May 2008 discussion papers and other documents relating to the negotiation of ACTA have been uploaded to Wikileaks,<15> and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.<10><11><35>

In June 2008 Michael Geist from Copyright News argued that "Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy" noting before documents leaked on the internet ACTA was shrouded in secrecy. Coverage of the documents by the Toronto Star "sparked widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade deal that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities." Geist argues that public disclosure of the draft ACTA treaty "might put an end to fears about iPod searching border guards" and that it "could focus attention on other key concerns including greater Internet service provider filtering of content, heightened liability for websites that link to allegedly infringing content, and diminished privacy for Internet users." Geist also argues that greater transparency would lead to a more inclusive process, highlighting that the ACTA negotiations have excluded both civil society groups as well as developing countries. Geist reports that "reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty's provisions leaking to the public." He argues that there is a need for "cooperation from all stakeholders to battle counterfeiting concerns" and that "an effective strategy requires broader participation and regular mechanisms for feedback".<36>

In November 2008 the European Commission responded to these allegations as follows:

"It is alleged that the negotiations are undertaken under a veil of secrecy. This is not correct. For reasons of efficiency, it is only natural that intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact, do not take place in public and that negotiators are bound by a certain level of discretion. However, there has never been any intention to hide the fact that negotiations took place, or to conceal the ultimate objectives of the negotiations, the positions taken in European Commission Trade 5/6 the negotiations or even details on when and where these negotiations are taking place. The EU and other partners (US, Japan, Canada, etc.) announced their intention to start negotiations of ACTA on 23 October 2007, in well publicised press releases. Since then we have talked about ACTA on dozens of occasions, including at the European Parliament (INTA committee meetings), and in numerous well attended seminars. Commission organised a stakeholders' consultation meeting on 23 June in Brussels, open to all – industry and citizens and attended by more than 100 participants. US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other ACTA partners did the same. Civil society input will continue to be taken into consideration during the negotiations and further stakeholder meetings will be organised."<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

[leftstreet]

4. Thanks for posting that n/t

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[slipslidingaway]

6. knr nt