Every year, the US Trade Representative (USTR) prepares a Special 301
Report that cites specific countries for insufficient enforcement of
intellectual property and inadequate IP laws. Over the years, these reports have turned into an annual exercise of
naming countries whose domestic IP policies do not meet the unrealistic
expectations of IP rights holders.
Public Knowledge’s Position
Typically, the Report places blind reliance on rights holder assertions; it ignores the need for balanced copyright; it cites countries based on vague
criteria; and it pressures countries to sign international agreements
that don’t currently bind them and that these countries possibly
consider detrimental to their national interest.
Public Knowledge calls for transparency and accountability in the process, as well as a more balanced perspective on copyright in the Report.
What you can do to help
Subscribe to our email list for updates on hot issues and events.
Donate to Public Knowledge to help us keep our doors open.
Every year, the US Trade Representative (USTR) prepares a Special 301
Report that cites specific countries for insufficient enforcement of
intellectual property and inadequate IP laws. Over the years, these reports have turned into an annual exercise of
naming countries whose domestic IP policies do not meet the unrealistic
expectations of IP rights holders.
Public Knowledge’s Position
Typically, the Report places blind reliance on rights holder assertions; it ignores the need for balanced copyright; it cites countries based on vague
criteria; and it pressures countries to sign international agreements
that don’t currently bind them and that these countries possibly
consider detrimental to their national interest.
Public Knowledge calls for transparency and accountability in the process, as well as a more balanced perspective on copyright in the Report.
What you can do to help
Subscribe to our email list for updates on hot issues and events.
Donate to Public Knowledge to help us keep our doors open.
[log] =>
[revision_timestamp] => 1327420093
[format] => 2
[name] => admin
[picture] => files/pictures/picture-1.jpg
[data] => a:7:{s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:0;}s:7:"contact";i:0;s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:13:"form_build_id";s:37:"form-7305fc15609b6291d5b44eb2e6d9475a";s:9:"nodewords";a:9:{s:8:"abstract";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:9:"canonical";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:9:"copyright";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:11:"description";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:8:"keywords";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:13:"revisit-after";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:1:"1";}s:6:"robots";a:2:{s:5:"value";a:6:{s:9:"noarchive";i:0;s:8:"nofollow";i:0;s:7:"noindex";i:0;s:5:"noodp";i:0;s:9:"nosnippet";i:0;s:6:"noydir";i:0;}s:11:"use_default";i:0;}s:8:"dc.title";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:8:"location";a:2:{s:8:"latitude";s:0:"";s:9:"longitude";s:0:"";}}s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}}
[path] => issues/special-301
[print_display] => 1
[print_display_comment] => 0
[print_display_urllist] => 1
[print_mail_display] => 1
[print_mail_display_comment] => 0
[print_mail_display_urllist] => 1
[print_pdf_display] => 1
[print_pdf_display_comment] => 0
[print_pdf_display_urllist] => 1
[last_comment_timestamp] => 1318371400
[last_comment_name] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[209] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 209
[vid] => 5
[name] => Special 301
[description] => The “Special 301” process being conducted by the US Trade Representative (USTR) used to shape copyright, trademark, and patent policy abroad. Under this process, the USTR seeks input from US intellectual property owners about whether IP protection is strong enough in other countries. The process has generally been used by big media companies to bolster IP enforcement overseas. This time around, PK and others want to make sure the importance of limitations and exceptions — like fair use — that are beneficial to libraries, to education, to innovation, and to the public interest generally, are a healthy part of the Special 301 discussion.
[weight] => 0
)
[149] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 149
[vid] => 5
[name] => USTR
[description] => United States Trade Representative
[weight] => 0
)
)
[files] => Array
(
)
[iids] => Array
(
)
[page_title] =>
[nodewords] => Array
(
[abstract] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[canonical] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[copyright] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.contributor] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.creator] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.date] => Array
(
[value] => Array
(
[month] => 10
[day] => 11
[year] => 2011
)
)
[dc.title] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[description] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[keywords] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[location] => Array
(
[latitude] =>
[longitude] =>
)
[pics-label] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[revisit-after] => Array
(
[value] => 1
)
[robots] => Array
(
[value] => Array
(
[noarchive] => 0
[nofollow] => 0
[noindex] => 0
[noodp] => 0
[nosnippet] => 0
[noydir] => 0
)
[use_default] => 0
)
)
[build_mode] => 0
[readmore] => 1
[content] => Array
(
[print_links] => Array
(
[#weight] => -101
[#suffix] =>
[#value] =>
[#prefix] =>
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#content_extra_fields] => Array
(
[title] => Array
(
[label] => Title
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => -5
)
[body_field] => Array
(
[label] => Body
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 0
[view] => body
)
[revision_information] => Array
(
[label] => Revision information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[author] => Array
(
[label] => Authoring information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[options] => Array
(
[label] => Publishing options
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 25
)
[comment_settings] => Array
(
[label] => Comment settings
[description] => Comment module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[menu] => Array
(
[label] => Menu settings
[description] => Menu module form.
[weight] => -2
)
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[label] => Taxonomy
[description] => Taxonomy module form.
[weight] => -3
)
[path] => Array
(
[label] => Path settings
[description] => Path module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[attachments] => Array
(
[label] => File attachments
[description] => Upload module form.
[weight] => 30
[view] => files
)
[image_attach] => Array
(
[label] => Attached images
[description] => Image Attach module form.
[weight] => 0
)
[itunes] => Array
(
[label] => iTunes feed information
[description] => iTunes specific information.
[weight] => 0
)
[page_title] => Array
(
[label] => Page Title
[description] => Page Title form.
[weight] => -4
)
[path_redirect] => Array
(
[label] => URL redirects
[description] => Path redirect module listing
[weight] => 30
)
[print] => Array
(
[label] => Printer, e-mail and PDF versions
[description] => Print module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[xmlsitemap] => Array
(
[label] => XML sitemap
[description] => XML sitemap module form
[weight] => 30
)
[nodewords] => Array
(
[label] => Meta tags
[description] => Meta tags fieldset.
[weight] => 10
)
)
[#pre_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_alter_extra_weights
)
[body] => Array
(
[#weight] => 0
[#value] =>
Every year, the US Trade Representative (USTR) prepares a Special 301
Report that cites specific countries for insufficient enforcement of
intellectual property and inadequate IP laws. Over the years, these reports have turned into an annual exercise of
naming countries whose domestic IP policies do not meet the unrealistic
expectations of IP rights holders.
Public Knowledge’s Position
Typically, the Report places blind reliance on rights holder assertions; it ignores the need for balanced copyright; it cites countries based on vague
criteria; and it pressures countries to sign international agreements
that don’t currently bind them and that these countries possibly
consider detrimental to their national interest.
Public Knowledge calls for transparency and accountability in the process, as well as a more balanced perspective on copyright in the Report.
What you can do to help
Subscribe to our email list for updates on hot issues and events.
Donate to Public Knowledge to help us keep our doors open.
Every year, the US Trade Representative (USTR) prepares a Special 301
Report that cites specific countries for insufficient enforcement of
intellectual property and inadequate IP laws. Over the years, these reports have turned into an annual exercise of
naming countries whose domestic IP policies do not meet the unrealistic
expectations of IP rights holders.
Public Knowledge’s Position
Typically, the Report places blind reliance on rights holder assertions; it ignores the need for balanced copyright; it cites countries based on vague
criteria; and it pressures countries to sign international agreements
that don’t currently bind them and that these countries possibly
consider detrimental to their national interest.
Public Knowledge calls for transparency and accountability in the process, as well as a more balanced perspective on copyright in the Report.
What you can do to help
Subscribe to our email list for updates on hot issues and events.
Donate to Public Knowledge to help us keep our doors open.
preserves the openness of the Internet and the public's access to knowledge, promotes creativity through balanced copyright, and upholds and protects the rights of consumers to use innovative technology lawfully.
