The ink on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement has not yet dried and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is already negotiating another trade agreement. This one, called the Transpacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), would cover trade in goods and services and also include a proposed chapter on intellectual property (IP). Countries negotiating the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, U.S, and Vietnam.

Among the thousands of documents revealed to the press through WikiLeaks are apparently a number that deal with copyright issues. The Spanish newspaper El País has published a number of cables from the U.S. embassy in Madrid regarding U.S. efforts on IP enforcement in Spain.

One of the most interesting is this one from February 2008, which recommended that the U.S. threatened to put Spain on the Special 301 “naughty list” unless the Spanish government announced it would adopt a three-strikes style copyright enforcement law that would cut users off from the Internet after allegations of copyright infringement.

The U.S. portrays itself as a bastion of free speech. Yet when it comes to copyright policy, both domestic and international, the government too often puts on blinders and refuses to see how copyright policies adversely impact free speech. It views stronger, longer copyrights as goals to aspire for and harsher enforcement measures as means to accomplish these goals. Domestically, this has resulted in copyright being used as a pretext to stifle political speech by taking down political campaign videos. Internationally, it has resulted in copyright being used as a pretext to crack down on dissidents. For instance, Russian authorities seized computers belonging to an environmental group critical of the government under the pretext that they housed unauthorized Microsoft software.

Today the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released the finalized text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), claiming to smooth out disagreements among the negotiating parties. However, our concerns with respect to some provisions remain. I had outlined these concerns in my previous post.

Changes in the new text

On today’s podcast, we talk about the impact of Tuesday’s election on Public Knowledge issues.  Then we have an interview with Jason Scott of the Archive Team about their massive torrent archive of GeoCities.

You can download the audio directly by clicking here (MP3) or stream it using the player below:

Want to subscribe to our podcast? Click here for the MP3 feed and here for the mixed audio/video feed.

Seventy Five law professors including, Prof. Yochai Benkler, Prof. Susan Crawford, Prof. Lawrence Lessig, and Prof. Pamela Samuelson, have written a letter to the President expressing their concerns with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and calling upon the administration to seek public input and Congresssional approval for the agreement.

Here is a copy of the letter:

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) and its negotiating partners today released the near-final draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). This text, while similar to the last draft leaked in August, has a few notable changes, most of which make the text far less problematic.

First, the provision requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose the identity of alleged infringers now contains a balancing provision. It states that procedures to disclose such information “shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with each Party’s law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.”

There is a cop on the beat when it comes to “mystery charges” on your cell phone: the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Yes, the same FCC that after a year of dithering can’t bring itself to use its lawful authority over broadband, has decided to stick up for consumers who are tired of being nickel and dimed on their cell phone bills.

The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) describes itself as “a trade association for owners of patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets.” As such, it seems like it’s an ostensible beneficiary of the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) being negotiated right now. After all, the stated purpose of the agreement is to facilitate “fighting counterfeiting and piracy, and to negotiate an agreement that enhances international co-operation and contains effective international standards for enforcing intellectual property rights”–in other words, making life easier for intellectual property owners. So why is IPO opposed to ACTA in its current state?