|
Lawyer Jonathan Band has written up an execllent analysis for why what happened with SOPA/PIPA (pdf) demonstrates why the Obama administration and the USTR in particular must be significantly more transparent when it comes to TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. TPP, of course, is the evil stepchild of ACTA. Rather than learning that excessive secrecy in ACTA was the wrong approach, it appears that the USTR simply determined that since it got away with being so secret with ACTA, it might as well double down and be even more secret with TPP. Not only that, but early reports and leaks from the ultra-secret TPP negotiations suggest that the USTR -- once again acting as the MPAA and US Chamber of Commerce's personal waterboys -- was trying to shove in every bad idea that it failed to get into ACTA.
However, as Band notes in his paper, the problems with excessive copyright legislation that impacts the internet is becoming a big issue with the public, and that shouldn't be taken lightly. Most of the paper goes through the specific problems of SOPA and PIPA, as well as the public's response to the attempts by the MPAA and US Chamber of Commerce to push through such a ridiculously bad bill that would impact internet sites worldwide. It then uses that to explain why the USTR simply needs to be more transparent:
The transparency surrounding TPP must increase. If the public feels that the
provisions included in TPP jeopardize the openness of the Internet, it will strongly
oppose the adoption of TPP. To prevent this from happening, the negotiations
concerning the IP chapter must become more transparent. Drafts must be made
available online for public comment. The fact that in the past some trade
negotiations have had little transparency is irrelevant. The SOPA experience
demonstrates that a new era of public engagement in IP policy has begun
Furthermore, Band makes the point that the USTR (and any government, really) can no longer pretend that copyright laws are obscure laws that do not impact the public. The public has hopefully now clearly established itself as a very important -- if not the most important -- stakeholder in any debates around copyright issues going forward.
Internet users care deeply about its vitality. The overwhelming public
opposition to SOPA and PIPA generated by just one day of online protests
indicates that the members of the public will take strong and immediate political
action to protect this medium which has become a central part of their lives at
home, school, and work. IP, at least to the extent it intersects with the Internet, is
no longer an issue of only narrow technical interest.
Finally, the paper makes it clear that, no matter how many times the lobbyists backing these bills and trade agreements like to pretend that they don't impact US sites, that's simply laughable, and the public knows it:
IP rules can have a significant impact on legitimate websites. The Internet
democratizes commerce and communications. Platforms such as eBay or
YouTube allow individuals and businesses of all sizes to reach large audiences
and markets. But IP rules that place too heavy a legal burden on the platforms
for user activities, as do SOPA and PIPA, will constrain the growth of this
Twenty-First Century medium of trade and discourse.
IP rules can affect international trade. The Internet does not recognize
national boundaries. IP rules in one country can affect the operation of websites
in another country. SOPA and PIPA would not only impose liability in the United
States on non-U.S. websites that may be legal in their host countries; they also
would interfere with the operation of these websites in their host countries.
Provisions like SOPA and PIPA would allow countries – and indeed, individual
companies – to erect trade barriers without following multilaterally agreed
procedures with notice and due process.
These points seem obvious to many of us. The real question is whether or not the administration and the USTR recognize it yet. The fact that it's still been negotating the TPP agreement in secrecy suggests not. That it thinks it can get away with such blatant rent seeking for Hollywood interests, in the face of a public that is now paying attention to these issues shows an incredible disrespect for the public's best interests. It's a shameful statement on whose interests the USTR is really representing -- and the nature of crony capitalism in the US government these days.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at....
|
