The Daily Swarm

The Senators’ letter, via Knowledge Ecology International:

ACTA involves dozens if not hundreds of substantive aspects of intellectual property law and its enforcement, including those that have nothing to do with counterfeiting. . . . There are concerns about the impact of ACTA on the privacy and civil rights of individuals, on the supply of products under the first sale doctrine, on the markets for legitimate generic medicines, and on consumers and innovation in general.”

We are surprised and unpersuaded by assertions that disclosures of basic information about the negotiation would present a risk to the national security of the United States, particularly as regards documents that are shared with all countries in the negotiations, and with dozens of representatives of large corporations. We are concerned that the secrecy of such information reflects a desire to avoid potential criticism of substantive provisions in ACTA by the public, the group who will be most affected by the agreement. Such secrecy has already undermined public confidence in the ACTA process, a point made recently by Dan Glickman, the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) – a group highly supportive of the ACTA negotiation, as well as by the members of the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue—a group more critical of the negotiations.

We firmly believe that the public has a right to know the contents of the proposals being considered under ACTA, just as they have the right to read the text of bills pending before Congress.

ZeroPaid:

The MPAA, in an effort to codify its interest, sent a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with several other powerful members of the Senator, urging him to support the goals of the ACTA.

It says that the ACTA is important to secure “both the legal and practical tools necessary to protect intellectual property rights online” which, in other words, certainly means agreement of the four big tools already being considered.

To reiterate:

1. ISPs would have to proactively filter copyrighted material from their networks and hand over the names of those accused of illegal file-sharing

2. ISPs, in order to benefit from safe harbor provisions, would have to disconnect the Internet connections of illegal file-sharers for up to a year. Copyright holders would be able to sue those ISPS that fail to stop customers from illegal file-sharing.

3. Will force countries to prohibit circumventing DRM or the manufacture of traffic of devices that allow people to do so.

4. Would create a “broad” global notice-and-takedown regime where ISPs will be forced to remove copyrighted material without first weighing evidence to the contrary.

Being that each of these things have such dramatic repercussions for Internet users the public has been demanding transparency during the negotiations. The need for public input is great, especially since the MPAA and other entertainment organizations have been privy to the discussions every step of the way.

In the letter the MPAA dismisses these calls for transparency as a “distraction” from the “substance and ambition of the ACTA.”

Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group working to defend citizens’ rights in the emerging digital culture, blasts the “non-sequitor” comment, asking “what, pray tell, is so important in the substance of ACTA that it trumps the fundamentals of open government?”

It adds: “Let me see: an international agreement, which could have binding or massively influential effects on how everyone transmits culture and knowledge, deserves to be hidden from the public because…why? Because its intentions are so good that it cannot even be seen?”

TechDirt:

Sherwin Siy (one of the few people who actually was allowed to glance briefly at parts of the proposed ACTA treaty, though under strict NDA) has written about yet another letter sent by the entertainment industry to the government in support of ACTA. This letter includes pretty much everyone who benefits from abusing copyright laws and is afraid of the internet:

Advertising Photographers of America
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI)
Commercial Photographers International
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Evidence Photographers International Council
Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)
NBC Universal
News Corporation
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Professional Photographers of America (PPA)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Stock Artists Alliance
Student Photographic Society
The Advertising Photographers of America
The Walt Disney Company
Time Warner, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Viacom Inc.
Warner Music Group

Funny… isn’t it, that all these companies and industry groups are supporting a deal that no one’s seen yet? Oh wait… that’s because many of them have seen it and actually have had a hand in creating it. But what’s really damning is that no where in the letter do they explain why this is actually needed or how it will do anything valuable. Instead, it’s a pure faith-based letter saying “if you pass this secret treaty, good things will happen.” I don’t know about you, but generally, I prefer there to be actual proof and evidence that restricting consumer rights around the world actually leads to some sort of real benefit.