UPDATE: TAKE ACTION! Tell USTR balanced copyright is important

Rashmi:

I am a big fan of this site and I think what your doing is inspiring, but can we make the process of getting our government’s attention easier. I like the format of offering an alert where that we can forward our feedback with a click of a button in a standardized custom email regarding the issue.

John Doe

I’m a Canadian and I wish the US would also listen to citizens of other countries. Its a global economy and what the US decides affects all of us.

I agree..I’d love to participate but am plugged into too many work issues to put this puzzle together..can someone generate a standardized email for this? I don’t feel I can forward it with so many hoops to jump through. thanks.

Actually I did it in under 5 minutes. Just search for USTR-2010-0003 and click on the comment button. after that it’s just filling out a form. While not as easy as a clickable form they are less likely to disregard comments.

this text is from EFF, from their acta page. it is designed to be used as a letter to your congressional reps, so the language needs to be fixed.

http://www.eff.org/issues/acta/

should get your mind movin’!

I am a constituent and I’m very concerned about the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that is currently being negotiated by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. As an avid supporter of technology and the Internet, I’m concerned about reports that the trade agreement being negotiated behind closed doors may contain provisions that could harm my civil liberties and privacy rights, and damage the environment for innovation and technological development within the United States.

I am particularly disturbed that such a wide-reaching treaty is being rushed through negotiations by the end of this year, with no Congressional debate or oversight and no opportunity for meaningful public consultation.

I urge you to:

(1) request more information about the content of ACTA from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and colleagues on the United States Senate Committees on Finance; on Foreign Relations; and on the Judiciary,
(2) furnish your constituents with more information as soon as possible, and (3) call for Senate hearings on this matter before negotiation of the agreement is finalized by the United States Trade Representative

Thank you for your consideration.

Sorry - it is. The Internet is now part of the 4th Estate, and constitutes for a lot of people the ONLY way they can get realistic, balanced, accurate information… that they need to meaningfully participate in the democratic process.

I am personally of the opinion that anybody attempting to subvert the democratic process via secret trade deals, negotiated at the behest of corporations (many of them foreign) in deals that attack one of the pillars of democracy…

… probably constitutes treason.

In any country, not just the US.

I have been dismayed by the contents of the leaked draft version of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that is currently being negotiated by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTA’s ill-conceived proposals are too numerous to elaborate upon here, but a few common theme emerge.

First, all indications are that ATCA massively expands the scope of powers granted to the holders of intellectual property rights, completely ignoring due process and even basic human rights. Intellectual property should remain fundamentally a matter for civil courts, not a criminal matter, and definitely not an administrative procedure.

Second, ACTA has apparently been formulated without consideration of the consequences for either future technological development or American soft power. The largest copyright holders have opposed virtually every invention with significant cultural potential since the phonograph. An expansion of their privileges will suppress innovation in signatories and aid foreign companies. You do not want to create a world where the next google, youtube, or facebook begins in China.

Third, I am particularly disturbed that such a wide-reaching treaty is being rushed through negotiations by the end of this year, with no Congressional debate or oversight and no opportunity for meaningful public consultation.

This comment is being entered pursuant to the request for comments relating to the 2010 Special 301 Review noticed in the Federal Register: January 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 10) on pages 2578-2580.

I believe that many countries, including the United States and many EU countries, deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection and also violate the spirit of the current laws and regulations.

However it is difficult to be precise about these issues without knowing the scope and content of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that is currently being negotiated by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. I am concerned about reports that the trade agreement being negotiated behind closed doors may contain provisions that could deny adequate and effective protection of my intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access. Reports also imply that it may also harm my civil liberties and privacy rights, and damage the environment for innovation and technological development within the United States.

I am particularly disturbed that such a wide-reaching treaty is being rushed through negotiations by the end of this year, with no Congressional debate or oversight and no opportunity for meaningful public consultation. I respectively request that you immediately publish the details of these negotiations and a current draft of the ACTA so that meaningful input can be given on the 301 Review and other issues affecting US authors, including both myself and my software development company.

This comment is being entered pursuant to the request for comments relating to the 2010 Special 301 Review noticed in the Federal Register: January 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 10) on pages 2578-2580.

I believe that many countries, including the United States and many EU countries, deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection and also violate the spirit of the current laws and regulations.

However it is difficult to be precise about these issues without knowing the scope and content of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that is currently being negotiated by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. I am concerned about reports that the trade agreement being negotiated behind closed doors may contain provisions that could deny adequate and effective protection of my intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access. Reports also imply that it may also harm my civil liberties and privacy rights, and damage the environment for innovation and technological development within the United States.

I am particularly disturbed that such a wide-reaching treaty is being rushed through negotiations by the end of this year, with no Congressional debate or oversight and no opportunity for meaningful public consultation. I respectively request that you immediately publish the details of these negotiations and a current draft of the ACTA so that meaningful input can be given on the 301 Review and other issues affecting US authors, including both myself and my software development company.

Pretending to care.

After careful consideration and review, they’ll finally decide to do whatever the hell the oligarchy thinks is most profitable, as planned.

I could see how an individual like Rashmi couldn’t do what you ask. It would probably be better to contact the EFF (eff.org), who already have an action alert site set up for this kind of thing.

This seems like the sort of thing that would interest them….

Here’s the comment I posted if anyone needs help/suggestions:

2010 Special 301 Review

Congress needs to do something to stem the tide against the abhorrent abuses of our existing copyright scheme. The system, as it stands today, is an unbalanced perversion of what the law was truly meant to achieve. Copyright, first and foremost, was created to provide works of art, literature, and film to the public for the benefit of society. In exchange for the dissemination of those works, content providers would receive a limited monopoly preventing others from infringing upon their hard work. That ideal has been lost and the abuses perpetrated by the content industry, as well as the absolute lack of discussion and transparency on the ACTA treaty, are proof of that. Copyright law is no longer concerned with providing for the well-being of society; rather, its sole purpose has become one of punishment and enforcement to the benefit of the content industry and detriment of the people.

Congress needs to take a hard look at the Copyright Act and re-balance it. The Constitution clearly lays out Congress’ role here. Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 states Congress shall have the power: to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. It’s time Congress fulfilled its constitutional mandate.

I submitted a comment and got the error

There has been a problem with your comment submission on No document id number was given

your spam filter is ridiculous, by the way

I submitted a comment and got the error

There has been a problem with your comment submission on No document id number was given

Here’s a different take on protecting IP while achieving the stated objectives of IP protection without its downsides. The objective of IP protection is to promote research, more specifically directed research, as ideas, creations or designs that do not come as the result of directed research didn’t need any “protection” to come to existance, by definition. Also, some ideas are obvious and do not warrant any sort of protection, but the definition of obvious can vary from one person to another, with only one objective test possible: see if someone comes up with the idea after seeing the problem the solution is supposed to solve. So the proposal is to grant IP protection to ideas or solutions that come up as the result of directed research. This sounds difficult to do but actually isn’t. What you need to do is to open a registry for solutions under research. Companies register (for a nominal fee to prevent them spamming the system) their research efforts. They specify the problem they are trying to solve, in about the same level of specificity they would seek for their patents. Then they go on with the research. The records are made public, so everyone can know what others are researching. Companies can’t patent anything until three months (or some other pre-specified period, possibly varying by field) has passed from filing. If someone else comes up with a solution to the problem before they can file, then it can be deduced that the solution was obvious, so it doesn’t warrant protection. If no one comes up with a solution in that period, the company can patent the solution they find whenever they have it, but not before the three months have passed. Companies can choose when to register thir research. That can be at the beginning of their research process (giving them more immediate patentability when they have an idea) or after they have the solution defined (in which case they will have to wait three months and risk someone coming with the same solution, or another one, first). The system solves basically all the problems with IP protection (other than the claim that IP protection shouldn’t exist, something that’s outside of this discussion since it is assumed here that without IP protection research investment would be hindered): it prevents obvious patents by assigning an objective, practical and easily testable criteria for obviouness. It elliminates protection for ideas that didn’t require any investment on the part of the inventor. It promotes research investment. It promotes competition in the resolution of known problems. It also reduces litigation, since many patents litigation revolve around the worthiness of a patent and its obviousness. Obviously the proposal itself can be refined, but I don’t see any aspect of this proposal in which it is inferior to the current implementation.

Akagi,

You may want to give it another try, some folks had trouble, but others have had success. Here’s a link to our alert with some help through the process.

I want to thank everyone who commented on this post and expressed an interest in filing comments in the Special 301 proceeding. Based on your suggestions, we have created an action alert to help you file comments with the USTR. Also, please note that the deadline for filing comments has been extended to February 18, 5 p.m.

Some of you have commented on the secretive nature of ACTA and the harms it may cause. We, at PK, could not agree more with those who have called for more openness in ACTA. However, I would like to clarify that the Special 301 comments are not about ACTA per se. The process is meant to solicit information about practices abroad that deny effective intellectual property protection to U.S. persons. But, it is possible that if ACTA is finalized, the Special 301 process will be used as a lever to exert pressure on countries who are not parties to ACTA to sign on to it. Right now, the USTR uses the Special 301 process to pressure countries to sign-on to the WIPO Internet treaties and adopt provisions similar to the DMCA’s provisions.

Rashmi

“The carefully balanced regime that has existed in the U.S. for the past 200 years has allowed libraries to lend books”

Before that when the printing press was invented, those who produced reading materials by writing them in hand one by one, tried to have it banished it on grounds that it threatened their property rights to produce and distribute written materials. If they had succeeded, there wouldn’t be any libraries.

“I’m a Canadian and I wish the US would also listen to citizens of other countries.”

As if the US Government listens to citizens of the US.

The supreme court has upheld the “right” of local governments to take private property and hand it over to development companies. It just approved the corporate purchasing of an elected official - not new, but now they can do it and not fear prosecution.

They’ll listen to other countries citizens if you have a couple hundred million to throw their way — otherwise, you don’t exist.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/24/ip-alliance-says-tha.html

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4818/125/

Sad.

Thanks for the pointer, Laurel. Some of their specific language is:

Rather than fostering a system that will allow users to benefit from the best solution available in the market, irrespective of the development model, it encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations. As such, it fails to build respect for intellectual property rights and also limits the ability of government or public-sector customers (e.g., State-owned enterprise) to choose the best solutions to meet the needs of their organizations and the Indonesian people. It also amounts to a significant market access barrier for the software industry. The “Principles for Technology Choice Pathfinder,” adopted by APEC in 2006 (furthering the 2002 “Statement to Implement APEC Policies on Trade and the Digital Economy,” to which Indonesia was a participant), recognize that procurement preferences can close markets and stifle innovation and economic development. By implementing this government procurement preference policy, the Indonesian government is not adopting an effective approach to drive down piracy rates, but rather, is creating an additional trade barrier and denying fair and equitable market access to software companies worldwide, which is inconsistent with the APEC Principles.

This is found in their comments about Indonesia.

Obviously, they do not give “due consideration” to the right of software authors to use the IP models of their choosing, or the interest of local governments in avoiding vendor lock-in and keeping costs low.