International agreements prescribing what domestic intellectual property (IP) laws should look like have been around for a long time. However, the linkage between IP and trade is of more recent vintage. By recent I mean at least 16 old. And with this linkage comes the ability to enforce IP agreements with the threat of trade sanctions. For instance, recently the U.S. successfully brought an action against China before the World Trade Organization claiming that China’s IP policies violated the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). At the same time, IP aspects of trade agreements are increasingly affecting domestic policies.
International
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 3122
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 1558
[status] => 1
[created] => 1275181514
[changed] => 1275183270
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3317
[revision_uid] => 1558
[title] => IP in Trade Agreements: How the USTR Can Begin to End Industry Domination
[teaser] =>
International agreements prescribing what domestic intellectual property (IP) laws should look like have been around for a long time. However, the linkage between IP and trade is of more recent vintage. By recent I mean at least 16 old. And with this linkage comes the ability to enforce IP agreements with the threat of trade sanctions. For instance, recently the U.S. successfully brought an action against China before the World Trade Organization claiming that China’s IP policies violated the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). At the same time, IP aspects of trade agreements are increasingly affecting domestic policies.
[log] => [revision_timestamp] => 1275183270 [format] => 1 [name] => Rashmi Rangnath [picture] => files/pictures/picture-1558.png [data] => a:7:{s:6:"notify";i:1;s:6:"submit";s:18:"Create new account";s:7:"form_id";s:13:"user_register";s:7:"contact";i:0;s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";} [path] => blog/ip-trade-agreements-how-ustr-can-begin-end-in [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] => 1275182767 [last_comment_name] => [comment_count] => 0 [taxonomy] => Array ( [156] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 156 [vid] => 5 [name] => International [description] => [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( ) [iids] => Array ( ) [page_title] => [nodewords] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [#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] =>International agreements prescribing what domestic intellectual property (IP) laws should look like have been around for a long time. However, the linkage between IP and trade is of more recent vintage. By recent I mean at least 16 old. And with this linkage comes the ability to enforce IP agreements with the threat of trade sanctions. For instance, recently the U.S. successfully brought an action against China before the World Trade Organization claiming that China’s IP policies violated the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). At the same time, IP aspects of trade agreements are increasingly affecting domestic policies.
[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>International agreements prescribing what domestic intellectual property (IP) laws should look like have been around for a long time. However, the linkage between IP and trade is of more recent vintage. By recent I mean at least 16 old. And with this linkage comes the ability to enforce IP agreements with the threat of trade sanctions. For instance, recently the U.S. successfully brought an action against China before the World Trade Organization claiming that China’s IP policies violated the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). At the same time, IP aspects of trade agreements are increasingly affecting domestic policies.
[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/3122 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of IP in Trade Agreements: How the USTR Can Begin to End Industry Domination. ) ) ) )
Even as more and more voices are calling for the Anti Counterfeiting Trade agreement to be made public, the United States Trade Representative is insisting in maintaining a veneer of secrecy over the proceedings. While numerous advocates and other governments (including the European Parliament, and officials in the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands (pdf, in Dutch)) are actively calling for full openness and transparency, the U.S.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 3000
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 1713
[status] => 1
[created] => 1271271609
[changed] => 1271272139
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3195
[revision_uid] => 1713
[title] => Who Wants ACTA Transparency (and who doesn't)?
[teaser] =>
Even as more and more voices are calling for the Anti Counterfeiting Trade agreement to be made public, the United States Trade Representative is insisting in maintaining a veneer of secrecy over the proceedings. While numerous advocates and other governments (including the European Parliament, and officials in the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands (pdf, in Dutch)) are actively calling for full openness and transparency, the U.S.
[log] => [revision_timestamp] => 1271272139 [format] => 1 [name] => Sherwin Siy [picture] => files/pictures/picture-1713.png [data] => a:9:{s:6:"notify";i:1;s:6:"submit";s:18:"Create new account";s:7:"form_id";s:13:"user_register";s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"065f3fb71f73c4995f87d1c633469c4e";s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}} [path] => blog/who-wants-acta-transparency-and-who-doesnt [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] => 1271272139 [last_comment_name] => [comment_count] => 0 [taxonomy] => Array ( [120] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 120 [vid] => 5 [name] => ACTA [description] => Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement [weight] => 0 ) [155] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 155 [vid] => 5 [name] => Forum Shopping [description] => Searching for the most favorable venue to reach a legal or policy goal [weight] => 0 ) [156] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 156 [vid] => 5 [name] => International [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [147] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 147 [vid] => 5 [name] => Transparency [description] => [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( ) [iids] => Array ( ) [page_title] => [nodewords] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [#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] =>Even as more and more voices are calling for the Anti Counterfeiting Trade agreement to be made public, the United States Trade Representative is insisting in maintaining a veneer of secrecy over the proceedings. While numerous advocates and other governments (including the European Parliament, and officials in the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands (pdf, in Dutch)) are actively calling for full openness and transparency, the U.S.
[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>Even as more and more voices are calling for the Anti Counterfeiting Trade agreement to be made public, the United States Trade Representative is insisting in maintaining a veneer of secrecy over the proceedings. While numerous advocates and other governments (including the European Parliament, and officials in the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands (pdf, in Dutch)) are actively calling for full openness and transparency, the U.S.
[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/3000 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of Who Wants ACTA Transparency (and who doesn't)?. ) ) ) )
We've posted about the US Trade Representative's Special 301 process before. For a quick refresher, here's Harold's video explaining the process generally, and Rashmi's post with some more detail.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is heavily involved in the Special 301 process, filing submissions every year on behalf of its member organizations, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It's only natural that these trade associations would be concerned with intellectual property laws and their enforcement around the globe, since copyright is where their members make their livings. It's less understandable, though, when they seem to argue that their exclusive economic rights should have priority over others' basic human rights.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 2985
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 3620
[status] => 1
[created] => 1270487182
[changed] => 1270504119
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3180
[revision_uid] => 3620
[title] => Copyright industry: Copyrights trump human rights?
[teaser] =>
We've posted about the US Trade Representative's Special 301 process before. For a quick refresher, here's Harold's video explaining the process generally, and Rashmi's post with some more detail.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is heavily involved in the Special 301 process, filing submissions every year on behalf of its member organizations, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It's only natural that these trade associations would be concerned with intellectual property laws and their enforcement around the globe, since copyright is where their members make their livings. It's less understandable, though, when they seem to argue that their exclusive economic rights should have priority over others' basic human rights.
[log] => [revision_timestamp] => 1270504119 [format] => 4 [name] => Mart Kuhn [picture] => files/pictures/picture-3620.jpg [data] => a:4:{s:7:"contact";i:0;s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"picture_delete";s:0:"";s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";} [path] => blog/copyright-industry-copyrights-trump-human-rig [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] => 1271329653 [last_comment_name] => Anonymous [comment_count] => 1 [taxonomy] => Array ( [156] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 156 [vid] => 5 [name] => International [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [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 ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [#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] =>We've posted about the US Trade Representative's Special 301 process before. For a quick refresher, here's Harold's video explaining the process generally, and Rashmi's post with some more detail.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is heavily involved in the Special 301 process, filing submissions every year on behalf of its member organizations, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It's only natural that these trade associations would be concerned with intellectual property laws and their enforcement around the globe, since copyright is where their members make their livings. It's less understandable, though, when they seem to argue that their exclusive economic rights should have priority over others' basic human rights.
[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>We've posted about the US Trade Representative's Special 301 process before. For a quick refresher, here's Harold's video explaining the process generally, and Rashmi's post with some more detail.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is heavily involved in the Special 301 process, filing submissions every year on behalf of its member organizations, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It's only natural that these trade associations would be concerned with intellectual property laws and their enforcement around the globe, since copyright is where their members make their livings. It's less understandable, though, when they seem to argue that their exclusive economic rights should have priority over others' basic human rights.
[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/2985 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of Copyright industry: Copyrights trump human rights?. ) ) ) ) A little while ago, we asked you to respond to the IP Enforcement Coordinator's request for comments with your thoughts on the U.S.’s enforcement policy. Today, we’ve sent in our own comments (joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Medical Library Association, Special Libraries Association, and U.S. PIRG) to be considered as the IPEC puts together the Joint Strategic Plan—the recommended agenda for national IP enforcement.
In our filing, we wanted to make two larger points. First, any analysis of effective enforcement has to take into account not just the harms that result from infringement, but also what the costs and benefits of different enforcement mechanisms are.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 2970
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 1713
[status] => 1
[created] => 1269471633
[changed] => 1269611092
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3165
[revision_uid] => 2130
[title] => Our Comments to the IP Enforcement Coordinator
[teaser] =>
A little while ago, we asked you to respond to the IP Enforcement Coordinator's request for comments with your thoughts on the U.S.’s enforcement policy. Today, we’ve sent in our own comments (joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Medical Library Association, Special Libraries Association, and U.S. PIRG) to be considered as the IPEC puts together the Joint Strategic Plan—the recommended agenda for national IP enforcement.
In our filing, we wanted to make two larger points. First, any analysis of effective enforcement has to take into account not just the harms that result from infringement, but also what the costs and benefits of different enforcement mechanisms are.
[log] => [revision_timestamp] => 1269611092 [format] => 4 [name] => Sherwin Siy [picture] => files/pictures/picture-1713.png [data] => a:9:{s:6:"notify";i:1;s:6:"submit";s:18:"Create new account";s:7:"form_id";s:13:"user_register";s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"065f3fb71f73c4995f87d1c633469c4e";s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}} [path] => blog/our-comments-ip-enforcement-coordinator [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] => 1270503253 [last_comment_name] => [comment_count] => 2 [taxonomy] => Array ( [197] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 197 [vid] => 5 [name] => Enforcement [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [156] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 156 [vid] => 5 [name] => International [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [172] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 172 [vid] => 5 [name] => Limitations & Exceptions [description] => Copyright limitations and exceptions [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( ) [iids] => Array ( ) [page_title] => [nodewords] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [#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] =>A little while ago, we asked you to respond to the IP Enforcement Coordinator's request for comments with your thoughts on the U.S.’s enforcement policy. Today, we’ve sent in our own comments (joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Medical Library Association, Special Libraries Association, and U.S. PIRG) to be considered as the IPEC puts together the Joint Strategic Plan—the recommended agenda for national IP enforcement.
In our filing, we wanted to make two larger points. First, any analysis of effective enforcement has to take into account not just the harms that result from infringement, but also what the costs and benefits of different enforcement mechanisms are.
[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>A little while ago, we asked you to respond to the IP Enforcement Coordinator's request for comments with your thoughts on the U.S.’s enforcement policy. Today, we’ve sent in our own comments (joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Medical Library Association, Special Libraries Association, and U.S. PIRG) to be considered as the IPEC puts together the Joint Strategic Plan—the recommended agenda for national IP enforcement.
In our filing, we wanted to make two larger points. First, any analysis of effective enforcement has to take into account not just the harms that result from infringement, but also what the costs and benefits of different enforcement mechanisms are.
[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/2970 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of Our Comments to the IP Enforcement Coordinator. ) ) ) )
As PK legal eagle John Bergmayer noted in his blog post on attempts to "harmonize" copyright across national boundaries, the European Parliament decidedly rebuked the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in a decisive 663 to 13 vote yesterday. The approved joint resolution calls for the immediate release of ACTA texts and public access to the negotiations and prohibits the EU from continuing to engage in secret talks with the other ACTA parties. Moreover, the resolution forbids EU member states from implementing so-called "three strikes" regimes, which some have reported or interpreted ACTA as prescribing. Finally, the resolution, "stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives." Needless to say, this resolution holds the potential to deal a massive blow to the secretive ACTA treaty and to finally shine a light on a purposefully opaque process. Unfortunately, here in the United States, policymakers are singing a very different tune.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 2950
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 2587
[status] => 1
[created] => 1268338767
[changed] => 1268433623
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3145
[revision_uid] => 2587
[title] => European Parliament Rebukes ACTA, Three Strikes - Et tu, President Obama? (Updated)
[teaser] => As PK legal eagle John Bergmayer noted in his blog post on attempts to "harmonize" copyright across national boundaries, the European Parliament decidedly rebuked the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in a decisive 663 to 13 vote yesterday. The approved joint resolution calls for the immediate release of ACTA texts and public access to the negotiations and prohibits the EU from continuing to engage in secret talks with the other ACTA parties. Moreover, the resolution forbids EU member states from implementing so-called "three strikes" regimes, which some have reported or interpreted ACTA as prescribing. Finally, the resolution, "stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives." Needless to say, this resolution holds the potential to deal a massive blow to the secretive ACTA treaty and to finally shine a light on a purposefully opaque process. Unfortunately, here in the United States, policymakers are singing a very different tune.
[log] =>
[revision_timestamp] => 1268433623
[format] => 3
[name] => Mehan Jayasuriya
[picture] => files/pictures/picture-2587.png
[data] => a:4:{s:7:"contact";i:1;s:14:"picture_delete";s:0:"";s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}}
[path] => blog/european-parliament-rebukes-acta-three-strike
[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] => 1268338767
[last_comment_name] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[120] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 120
[vid] => 5
[name] => ACTA
[description] => Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement
[weight] => 0
)
[156] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 156
[vid] => 5
[name] => International
[description] =>
[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
(
)
[build_mode] => 0
[readmore] => 1
[content] => Array
(
[#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] => As PK legal eagle John Bergmayer noted in his blog post on attempts to "harmonize" copyright across national boundaries, the European Parliament decidedly rebuked the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in a decisive 663 to 13 vote yesterday. The approved joint resolution calls for the immediate release of ACTA texts and public access to the negotiations and prohibits the EU from continuing to engage in secret talks with the other ACTA parties. Moreover, the resolution forbids EU member states from implementing so-called "three strikes" regimes, which some have reported or interpreted ACTA as prescribing. Finally, the resolution, "stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives." Needless to say, this resolution holds the potential to deal a massive blow to the secretive ACTA treaty and to finally shine a light on a purposefully opaque process. Unfortunately, here in the United States, policymakers are singing a very different tune.
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] => As PK legal eagle John Bergmayer noted in his blog post on attempts to "harmonize" copyright across national boundaries, the European Parliament decidedly rebuked the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in a decisive 663 to 13 vote yesterday. The approved joint resolution calls for the immediate release of ACTA texts and public access to the negotiations and prohibits the EU from continuing to engage in secret talks with the other ACTA parties. Moreover, the resolution forbids EU member states from implementing so-called "three strikes" regimes, which some have reported or interpreted ACTA as prescribing. Finally, the resolution, "stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives." Needless to say, this resolution holds the potential to deal a massive blow to the secretive ACTA treaty and to finally shine a light on a purposefully opaque process. Unfortunately, here in the United States, policymakers are singing a very different tune.
[#printed] => 1
)
[links] => Array
(
[node_read_more] => Array
(
[title] => Read more
[href] => node/2950
[attributes] => Array
(
[title] => Read the rest of European Parliament Rebukes ACTA, Three Strikes - Et tu, President Obama? (Updated).
)
)
)
)
The leaked ACTA Internet chapter has a footnote that says an ISP can only hang on to its "safe harbor" by implementing certain policies designed to discourage the use of their networks for copyright infringement, and that "An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider's system or network of repeat infringers." Three strikes and you're out.
USTR's claim that ACTA wouldn't "change" US law is plausible (if not comforting). Similar language is already part of US law (17 U.S.C. 512 §(i)(1)(A))--as is the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, of course, which assures that no person can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One would hope that, like the existing statute, the ACTA language will be read in the context of the Constitution, which assures that mere accusations of copyright infringement are not enough to kick someone off the Internet. One would also hope that other countries, if they end up agreeing to a version of ACTA with this language, also understand that a "repeat infringer" must have been afforded due process.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 2915
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 2130
[status] => 1
[created] => 1266879008
[changed] => 1266881507
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3110
[revision_uid] => 2130
[title] => ACTA Makes ISPs An Offer They Can't Refuse
[teaser] =>
The leaked ACTA Internet chapter has a footnote that says an ISP can only hang on to its "safe harbor" by implementing certain policies designed to discourage the use of their networks for copyright infringement, and that "An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider's system or network of repeat infringers." Three strikes and you're out.
USTR's claim that ACTA wouldn't "change" US law is plausible (if not comforting). Similar language is already part of US law (17 U.S.C. 512 §(i)(1)(A))--as is the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, of course, which assures that no person can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One would hope that, like the existing statute, the ACTA language will be read in the context of the Constitution, which assures that mere accusations of copyright infringement are not enough to kick someone off the Internet. One would also hope that other countries, if they end up agreeing to a version of ACTA with this language, also understand that a "repeat infringer" must have been afforded due process.
[log] => [revision_timestamp] => 1266881507 [format] => 4 [name] => John Bergmayer [picture] => files/pictures/picture-2130.jpg [data] => a:5:{s:7:"contact";i:0;s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}} [path] => blog/acta-makes-isps-offer-they-cant-refuse [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] => 1266879008 [last_comment_name] => [comment_count] => 0 [taxonomy] => Array ( [115] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 115 [vid] => 5 [name] => DMCA [description] => Digital Millennium Copyright Act [weight] => 0 ) [103] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 103 [vid] => 5 [name] => Filtering [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [155] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 155 [vid] => 5 [name] => Forum Shopping [description] => Searching for the most favorable venue to reach a legal or policy goal [weight] => 0 ) [156] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 156 [vid] => 5 [name] => International [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [138] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 138 [vid] => 5 [name] => Non-Discrimination [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [162] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 162 [vid] => 5 [name] => Safe Harbor [description] => [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( ) [iids] => Array ( ) [page_title] => [nodewords] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [#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] =>The leaked ACTA Internet chapter has a footnote that says an ISP can only hang on to its "safe harbor" by implementing certain policies designed to discourage the use of their networks for copyright infringement, and that "An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider's system or network of repeat infringers." Three strikes and you're out.
USTR's claim that ACTA wouldn't "change" US law is plausible (if not comforting). Similar language is already part of US law (17 U.S.C. 512 §(i)(1)(A))--as is the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, of course, which assures that no person can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One would hope that, like the existing statute, the ACTA language will be read in the context of the Constitution, which assures that mere accusations of copyright infringement are not enough to kick someone off the Internet. One would also hope that other countries, if they end up agreeing to a version of ACTA with this language, also understand that a "repeat infringer" must have been afforded due process.
[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>The leaked ACTA Internet chapter has a footnote that says an ISP can only hang on to its "safe harbor" by implementing certain policies designed to discourage the use of their networks for copyright infringement, and that "An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider's system or network of repeat infringers." Three strikes and you're out.
USTR's claim that ACTA wouldn't "change" US law is plausible (if not comforting). Similar language is already part of US law (17 U.S.C. 512 §(i)(1)(A))--as is the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, of course, which assures that no person can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." One would hope that, like the existing statute, the ACTA language will be read in the context of the Constitution, which assures that mere accusations of copyright infringement are not enough to kick someone off the Internet. One would also hope that other countries, if they end up agreeing to a version of ACTA with this language, also understand that a "repeat infringer" must have been afforded due process.
[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/2915 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of ACTA Makes ISPs An Offer They Can't Refuse. ) ) ) ) Yesterday, PC World came out with the news that the much-discussed, but long-secret Internet chapter of the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was leaked to the public. The leak confirms a number of suspicions that had been raised by previously leaked European analysis papers. So with this revelation, what remains of calls for transparency?
Everything.
For instance, Michael Geist compares the text of this leak with the statement that Stan McCoy of the U.S. Trade Representative gave to us, noting that McCoy emphatically denied that the United States was asking for ACTA to include mandatory 3 strikes provisions. Of course, the key word there was mandatory.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 2914
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 1713
[status] => 1
[created] => 1266868704
[changed] => 1266868830
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3109
[revision_uid] => 1713
[title] => ACTA Internet Chapter Leaked, Transparency Still Absent
[teaser] =>
Yesterday, PC World came out with the news that the much-discussed, but long-secret Internet chapter of the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was leaked to the public. The leak confirms a number of suspicions that had been raised by previously leaked European analysis papers. So with this revelation, what remains of calls for transparency?
Everything.
For instance, Michael Geist compares the text of this leak with the statement that Stan McCoy of the U.S. Trade Representative gave to us, noting that McCoy emphatically denied that the United States was asking for ACTA to include mandatory 3 strikes provisions. Of course, the key word there was mandatory.
[log] => [revision_timestamp] => 1266868830 [format] => 4 [name] => Sherwin Siy [picture] => files/pictures/picture-1713.png [data] => a:9:{s:6:"notify";i:1;s:6:"submit";s:18:"Create new account";s:7:"form_id";s:13:"user_register";s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"065f3fb71f73c4995f87d1c633469c4e";s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}} [path] => blog/acta-internet-chapter-leaked-transparency-sti [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] => 1266868830 [last_comment_name] => [comment_count] => 0 [taxonomy] => Array ( [120] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 120 [vid] => 5 [name] => ACTA [description] => Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement [weight] => 0 ) [197] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 197 [vid] => 5 [name] => Enforcement [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [156] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 156 [vid] => 5 [name] => International [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [144] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 144 [vid] => 5 [name] => Three Strikes [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [147] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 147 [vid] => 5 [name] => Transparency [description] => [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 ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [#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] =>Yesterday, PC World came out with the news that the much-discussed, but long-secret Internet chapter of the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was leaked to the public. The leak confirms a number of suspicions that had been raised by previously leaked European analysis papers. So with this revelation, what remains of calls for transparency?
Everything.
For instance, Michael Geist compares the text of this leak with the statement that Stan McCoy of the U.S. Trade Representative gave to us, noting that McCoy emphatically denied that the United States was asking for ACTA to include mandatory 3 strikes provisions. Of course, the key word there was mandatory.
[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>Yesterday, PC World came out with the news that the much-discussed, but long-secret Internet chapter of the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was leaked to the public. The leak confirms a number of suspicions that had been raised by previously leaked European analysis papers. So with this revelation, what remains of calls for transparency?
Everything.
For instance, Michael Geist compares the text of this leak with the statement that Stan McCoy of the U.S. Trade Representative gave to us, noting that McCoy emphatically denied that the United States was asking for ACTA to include mandatory 3 strikes provisions. Of course, the key word there was mandatory.
[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/2914 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of ACTA Internet Chapter Leaked, Transparency Still Absent. ) ) ) ) PK and EFF: 2010 Special 301 Review Should Respect Copyright Balance and Increase Transparency
Follow @rrangnathToday, Public Knowledge, along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed comments in the 2010 Special 301 review process. We wrote about this issue last time calling upon you to file comments with the USTR. I want to thank everyone who responded to our call and filed comments. Here are our comments.
As we said before, the Special 301 process, which is supposed to ensure protection for US intellectual property, has morphed into an instrument used to exert pressure on foreign countries to curtail socially beneficial intellectual property limitations and exceptions, ratchet up penalties for infringement, and force countries to sign treaties that are not necessarily in their best interest.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 2911
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 1558
[status] => 1
[created] => 1266545217
[changed] => 1266545620
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3106
[revision_uid] => 1558
[title] => PK and EFF: 2010 Special 301 Review Should Respect Copyright Balance and Increase Transparency
[teaser] =>
Today, Public Knowledge, along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed comments in the 2010 Special 301 review process. We wrote about this issue last time calling upon you to file comments with the USTR. I want to thank everyone who responded to our call and filed comments. Here are our comments.
As we said before, the Special 301 process, which is supposed to ensure protection for US intellectual property, has morphed into an instrument used to exert pressure on foreign countries to curtail socially beneficial intellectual property limitations and exceptions, ratchet up penalties for infringement, and force countries to sign treaties that are not necessarily in their best interest.
[log] => [revision_timestamp] => 1266545620 [format] => 4 [name] => Rashmi Rangnath [picture] => files/pictures/picture-1558.png [data] => a:7:{s:6:"notify";i:1;s:6:"submit";s:18:"Create new account";s:7:"form_id";s:13:"user_register";s:7:"contact";i:0;s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";} [path] => blog/pk-and-eff-2010-special-301-review-should-res [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] => 1266545620 [last_comment_name] => [comment_count] => 0 [taxonomy] => Array ( [201] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 201 [vid] => 5 [name] => Deregulation [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [197] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 197 [vid] => 5 [name] => Enforcement [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [156] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 156 [vid] => 5 [name] => International [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [172] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 172 [vid] => 5 [name] => Limitations & Exceptions [description] => Copyright limitations and exceptions [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( ) [iids] => Array ( ) [page_title] => [nodewords] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [#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] =>Today, Public Knowledge, along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed comments in the 2010 Special 301 review process. We wrote about this issue last time calling upon you to file comments with the USTR. I want to thank everyone who responded to our call and filed comments. Here are our comments.
As we said before, the Special 301 process, which is supposed to ensure protection for US intellectual property, has morphed into an instrument used to exert pressure on foreign countries to curtail socially beneficial intellectual property limitations and exceptions, ratchet up penalties for infringement, and force countries to sign treaties that are not necessarily in their best interest.
[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>Today, Public Knowledge, along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed comments in the 2010 Special 301 review process. We wrote about this issue last time calling upon you to file comments with the USTR. I want to thank everyone who responded to our call and filed comments. Here are our comments.
As we said before, the Special 301 process, which is supposed to ensure protection for US intellectual property, has morphed into an instrument used to exert pressure on foreign countries to curtail socially beneficial intellectual property limitations and exceptions, ratchet up penalties for infringement, and force countries to sign treaties that are not necessarily in their best interest.
[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/2911 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of PK and EFF: 2010 Special 301 Review Should Respect Copyright Balance and Increase Transparency. ) ) ) ) U.S. Government Denies that ACTA Mandates Filtering or Three Strikes, But Questions On its Contents Remain
Follow @sherwinpkOn Monday, the New York Times added to the increasing media scrutiny of ACTA, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This proposed international agreement, which has the potential to drastically change the landscape of copyright law and policy, still remains hidden from the public eye.
Given this lack of transparency, it's no surprise that the substance of the agreement can only be discussed by way of leaks, speculation, and warring sound bites. Among the suppositions on ACTA's contents was the following:
<
blockquote> E.U. negotiators, for example, are said to have balked at a U.S.-backed proposal to require Internet service providers to take tough steps against digital piracy.
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 2893
[type] => blog
[language] =>
[uid] => 1713
[status] => 1
[created] => 1265810560
[changed] => 1265921394
[comment] => 1
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3088
[revision_uid] => 2130
[title] => U.S. Government Denies that ACTA Mandates Filtering or Three Strikes, But Questions On its Contents Remain
[teaser] =>
On Monday, the New York Times added to the increasing media scrutiny of ACTA, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This proposed international agreement, which has the potential to drastically change the landscape of copyright law and policy, still remains hidden from the public eye.
Given this lack of transparency, it's no surprise that the substance of the agreement can only be discussed by way of leaks, speculation, and warring sound bites. Among the suppositions on ACTA's contents was the following:
<
blockquote> E.U. negotiators, for example, are said to have balked at a U.S.-backed proposal to require Internet service providers to take tough steps against digital piracy.
[log] => [revision_timestamp] => 1265921394 [format] => 4 [name] => Sherwin Siy [picture] => files/pictures/picture-1713.png [data] => a:9:{s:6:"notify";i:1;s:6:"submit";s:18:"Create new account";s:7:"form_id";s:13:"user_register";s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"065f3fb71f73c4995f87d1c633469c4e";s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}} [path] => blog/us-government-denies-acta-mandates-filtering- [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] => 1265932211 [last_comment_name] => Hephaestus [comment_count] => 1 [taxonomy] => Array ( [120] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 120 [vid] => 5 [name] => ACTA [description] => Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement [weight] => 0 ) [197] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 197 [vid] => 5 [name] => Enforcement [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [103] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 103 [vid] => 5 [name] => Filtering [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [155] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 155 [vid] => 5 [name] => Forum Shopping [description] => Searching for the most favorable venue to reach a legal or policy goal [weight] => 0 ) [156] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 156 [vid] => 5 [name] => International [description] => [weight] => 0 ) [57] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 57 [vid] => 5 [name] => Piracy [description] => Copyright Infringement [weight] => 0 ) [144] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 144 [vid] => 5 [name] => Three Strikes [description] => [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 ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [#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] =>On Monday, the New York Times added to the increasing media scrutiny of ACTA, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This proposed international agreement, which has the potential to drastically change the landscape of copyright law and policy, still remains hidden from the public eye.
Given this lack of transparency, it's no surprise that the substance of the agreement can only be discussed by way of leaks, speculation, and warring sound bites. Among the suppositions on ACTA's contents was the following:
<
blockquote> E.U. negotiators, for example, are said to have balked at a U.S.-backed proposal to require Internet service providers to take tough steps against digital piracy.
[#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>On Monday, the New York Times added to the increasing media scrutiny of ACTA, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This proposed international agreement, which has the potential to drastically change the landscape of copyright law and policy, still remains hidden from the public eye.
Given this lack of transparency, it's no surprise that the substance of the agreement can only be discussed by way of leaks, speculation, and warring sound bites. Among the suppositions on ACTA's contents was the following:
<
blockquote> E.U. negotiators, for example, are said to have balked at a U.S.-backed proposal to require Internet service providers to take tough steps against digital piracy.
[#printed] => 1 ) [links] => Array ( [node_read_more] => Array ( [title] => Read more [href] => node/2893 [attributes] => Array ( [title] => Read the rest of U.S. Government Denies that ACTA Mandates Filtering or Three Strikes, But Questions On its Contents Remain. ) ) ) )
preservesthe 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.
| STAY CONNECTED, JOIN OUR MAILING LIST |
