US shares ACTA secrets with RIAA, Sony Pictures
p2pnet news view P2P | Politics:- In now widely quoted observation, If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.
So said David Fewer of ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a dark secret until a version was posted by Wikileaks in May this year.
Fewer is acting director of the University of Ottawa`s Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.
ACTA remains shrouded — at least as far as the people it will affect, are concerned.
But in the US, the Obama administration has shared it with 42 Washington ‘insiders,’ says Knowledge Ecology International (KEI).
Among them are:
- Three people from Google
- Three eBay reps
- An Intel lawyer
- The entertainment cartel’s International Intellectual Property Alliance
- Sony Pictures
- Rupert Murdoch’s News Corpse, and
- Two Business Software Alliance staffers.
Below are the names of people who, says KEI, “received the documents under the NDA, or as members of a USTR advisory board, beginning with the names of the persons who were given the opportunity, and used the opportunity, to view the text under an NDA.”
Table 1: USTR [US Trade Rep] says these people signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to see the U.S. proposed Internet text for ACTA
| Name | Firm | Date |
| Emery Simon | Business Software Alliance (BSA) | 08/11/09` |
| Jesse Feder | Business Software Alliance (BSA) | 08/11/09 |
| Bill Patry | 08/11/09 | |
| Daphne Keller | 08/11/09 | |
| Johanna Shelton | 08/11/09 | |
| Lisa Pearlman | Wilmer Hale | 08/11/09 |
| Robert Novick | Wilmer Hale | 08/11/09 |
| Bob Kruger | Consultant to eBay | 08/13/09 |
| Brian Bieron | eBay | 08/13/09 |
| Hillary Brill | eBay | 08/13/09 |
| Sarah Deutch | Verizon | 08/17/09 |
| David Weller | Wilmer Hale | 08/17/09 |
| Steve Metalitz | International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 08/20/09 |
| Veronica O’Connell | Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) | 08/25/09 |
| Jim Burger | Dow Lohnes, Counsel to Intel | 08/27/09 |
| Jonathan Band | Jonathan Band PLLC | 09/01/09 |
| Gigi Sohn | Public Knowledge | 09/01/09 |
| Rashmi Rangnath | Public Knowledge | 09/01/09 |
| Sherwin Siy | Public Knowledge | 09/01/09 |
| Maritza Castro | Dell | 09/02/09 |
| Jeff Lawrence | Intel | 09/07/09 |
| Mathew Schruers | CCIA | 09/09/09 |
| David Sohn | Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) | 09/22/09 |
| Michael Pericone | Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) | 09/22/09 |
| Ryan Triplette | Intel | 09/22/09 |
| Janet O’Callaghan | News Corporation | 09/23/09 |
| Chris Israel | PCT Government Relations | 09/23/09 |
| Alicia Smith | Sony Pictures Entertainment | 09/23/09 |
| Cameron Gilreath | Time Warner | 09/23/09 |
| Seth Greensten | Constantine Cannon LLP, for Consumer Electronics Association(CEA) | 09/24/09 |
| Daniel Dougherty | eBay | 09/29/09 |
| David Fares | News Corporation | 09/30/09 |
The additional 10 persons who received the Internet ACTA text as a member of one of the USTR Advisory Boards included the following seven persons from ITAC 15 and three persons from ITAC 8:
Table 2: Persons who received the ACTA Internet text who are members of ITAC 15 – the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights
| Name | Affiliation |
| Anissa S. Whitten | Vice President, International Affairs and Trade Policy, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. |
| Eric Smith | President, International Intellectual Property Alliance |
| Neil I. Turkewitz | Executive Vice President, International, Recording Industry Association of America |
| Sandra M. Aistars | Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Time Warner Inc. |
| Stevan D. Mitchell | Vice President, Intellectual Property Policy, Entertainment Software Association |
| Thomas J. Thomson | Executive Director, Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights |
| Timothy P. Trainer | President, Global Intellectual Property Strategy Center, P.C., Zippo Manufacturing Company |
Table 3: Persons who received the ACTA Internet text who are members of ITAC 8 – the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Information and Communications Technologies, Services, and Electronic Commerce
| Name | Affiliation |
| Jacquelynn Ruff | Vice President, International Public Policy, and Regulatory Affairs Verizon Communications Inc. |
| John P. Goyer | Vice President, International Trade,Negotiations and Investment, U.S. Coalition of Service Industries |
| Mark F. Bohannon | General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Public Policy, Software and Information Industry Association |
The day the USTR sent KEI the FOIA with the names of persons signing the NDA, the following memo was also sent to selected news organizations.
USTR NEWSUNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
www.ustr.gov Washington, D.C. 20508 202-395-3230
MEMORANDUM
TO: Reporters and Editors
FROM: Carol Guthrie, Assistant USTR for Public and Media Affairs
DATE: October 9, 2009
RE: Update on USTR Preparation for Upcoming ACTA RoundThe next round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations will be held in Korea in the first week of November 2009. Today USTR is releasing the draft agenda for that meeting, which will cover enforcement procedures in the digital environment, criminal procedures to deal with counterfeiting and piracy, and transparency issues. The draft agenda can be found on the ACTA page of the USTR website here.
In preparing for this upcoming round of ACTA negotiations, USTR has broadened its consultations to include a diverse range of views including not only the cleared advisors who give input to USTR on a regular basis on intellectual property matters, but also to interested domestic stakeholders representing a broad range of views and expertise on internet and digital issues, including representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and industry leaders in intellectual property and technology.
The input of these additional domestic stakeholders has been crucial for USTR in preparing for the complex nature of these upcoming discussions, where USTR will be pressing for provisions that strengthen the ability of governments to deal with the serious issue of internet piracy, while at the same time ensuring that the balance of rights and limitations and exceptions found in US law is also reflected. In order to increase transparency while still maintaining confidentiality, these individuals were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements before viewing the current ACTA text or giving input to USTR. USTR strives to be as open and transparent as possible to the American public while also maintaining the ability of ACTA negotiating partners to engage in the frank exchange of views necessary to reach agreement on complex issues.
BACKGROUND
Negotiations on the ACTA began in June 2008. The objective of the ACTA negotiations is to create a new, state-of-the art agreement to combat counterfeiting and piracy. The United States has been working with several trading partners, including Australia, Canada, the European Union and its 27 member states, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Switzerland, to negotiate the agreement. When it is finalized, the ACTA is intended to assist in the efforts of governments around the world to combat more effectively the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods, which undermines legitimate trade and the sustainable development of the world economy, and in some cases contributes to organized crime and exposes American consumers to dangerous fake products.
The U.S. approach to the legal framework provisions of ACTA has been to view the IPR enforcement provisions of recent U.S. free trade agreements as a model. Members of the public with questions about the status of the negotiations should contact Kira Alvarez, Chief Negotiator and Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property Enforcement at
(202) 395-4510
.
###
The following is an October 13, 2009 statement by Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, a group that received copies of the text:
Our first exposure to any text was on fairly short notice. We were allowed to view a draft of one proposed section as we sat in a room at USTR with some of its negotiators and counsel. We were not allowed to take any copies of the text with us when we left the meeting about an hour later.We were urged to keep any notes we took secure, and not to discuss the substance of what we saw unless USTR confirmed that the other party had also seen the text. The meeting proceeded with USTR discussing each point of the text in turn as we viewed it for the first time and compared the text to existing statutes, trade agreements, and treaties.
We were invited to set up additional meetings or call USTR to confirm our recollections if we wanted to verify what we remembered from the meeting, as we were not allowed to photograph, scan, or (presumably) transcribe the documents. We were told that some edits might be made in the near future to account for various concerns.
A meeting a few weeks later convened a range of people who had been cleared to see the text, and functioned as a roundtable, at this meeting, a slightly altered version was shown, which in some areas was slightly better, in some slightly worse, but without some of the most troubling aspects resolved.
While we appreciate USTR’s recognition that increased participation is important, and its efforts in that regard, this process is still miles away from anything approaching real, public transparency. In terms of openness, a lot of the tension between what USTR says it wants to do and what has been done so far seems to come from the characterization of ACTA as a trade agreement, when its aims seem considerably broader than that. If we’re going to be seeing a new kind of trade agreement that more broadly affects policy and legal interpretation, we’re going to need a new, more open kind of process that lets the public see what agenda its government is pushing.
Analysis
USTR told KEI the new policy of giving access to documents to a selected group of people meets the promise by the President to be transparent. We were told that everyone who needed to see the documents has seen them. Outside of Public Knowledge and CDT, everyone who received the documents was representing a large corporate entity, including several foreign owned publishers. USTR does not think that KEI needs to see the documents. USTR certainly does not think the broader public should see the documents. The handful of people who did see the documents cannot say what they saw.
The following is a statement on USTR NDA policy by Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen:
There is a strong presumption in US law favoring openness of government documents for a reason: People have a right to know what their government is doing, not just some people, not even government-chosen representatives of the people. It is self-evident that ad hoc processes to choose a few public interest representatives to comment on material, to counterbalance the broad sharing of the material with a wide swath of self-interested corporations is a deeply flawed process. Public interest groups have different interests, orientations, conflicts and areas of expertise. Worst of all in this process is the conceit that USTR should be selecting who sees policy proposals that will have far-reaching and long-lasting effect on how information and knowledge is shared (or enclosed and monopolized) around the world. This should be part of an open and public debate, full stop.
The following is the KEI statement on the USTR policy:
USTR has decided that the views of the public are unimportant. The use of non-disclosure agreements to this hand picked group is an insult to any pretense of openness. Apparently everyone representing a giant corporation, including foreign owned publishers, could see the text through an NDA. No academic experts were consulted. Among the many civil society groups that pressed USTR to disclose the text, only Public Knowledge and CDT were given access, and both groups are bound by the NDA to not discuss the contents.
“KEI was not offered access to the text under an NDA, and we would not have signed an NDA if we had had the chance,” it says, adding:
“The White House needs to make the ACTA texts public, so that everyone can read them, and speak freely about them.
(Cheers, SteelWolf)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
pretty close – ACTA, the Hollywood dream: CIPPIC, May 27, 2009
KEI – White House shares the ACTA Internet text with 42 Washington insiders, under non disclosure agreements, October 13, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
So William Patry and three people at Public Knowledge have seen the text. They are on our side. What are they doing and what can they do with this knowledge?
October 16th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
The biggest secret revealed to them is probably that file sharing can only be stopped through nuclear holocaust… along with their own annihilation as well.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Actually guys – I disagree. I am convinced that file sharing, blogging and open information exchange can be stopped through the use of Root Servers and DNS control.
So on that basis, I urge everyone to consider alternative DNS models, WIFI community solutions and Linus operating systems.
Not enough people are commenting on ACTA to their elected representatives. So the Government is not considering an issue of interest to the voting public.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:30 am
” Not enough people are commenting on ACTA to their elected representatives. So the Government is not considering an issue of interest to the voting public. ”
On what do you base this ?
From what I see, a LOT of people are commenting, mailing, e-mailing etc …
We’re just being ignored.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:31 am
As far back as the bush-kerry election, anyone asking any questions about
Wipo we’re banned from the boards. It was eerie.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
The Canadian Government has effectively and repeatedly demonstrated they’re not interested in what The People have to say on any of these matters we’ve been beating around for the last few decades. Everything the entire Canadian Government does revolves around the lobbies.
Those lobbies exist merely to do the bidding for a faceless, global Corporate Collective, that only need answer to their shareholders, and are not affected by the various individual country laws and governments. The people behind this veneer of lobbyists limit and control their public exposure (as they also control the MSM) in order to obscure public knowledge of their collective agenda.
The writing’s been on the wall on this stuff for quite some time now. Theoretically, nobody should really be surprised by the Canadian Government’s behanviour at this point, considering they’ve long been using the back side of our Constitution as scratch paper for things like SPP, NAU talks, Bilderburg meetings and all the other NWO activities they claim are just figments of our imagination.
And, when you think about, why should they care about those who elected them?! Since they’re all gung-ho about having the continent run by an appointed (unelected) adminstrative body from the Corporate Elite, what purpose would there be in asking us what we think??
People keep ignoring this stuff, probably because they don’t hear a whole lot about it (the MSM certainly has a complete black-out on it), and with that kind of limited knowledge, it more likely looks like some kind of “conspiracy theory”. But, if you look at all that has been going on over the last few decades…
- The secret “trade talks” (NAFTA, SPP)
- Other secret meetings between The Elite, our government and corporate interests (Bilderburg, ACTA)
- Armed American soldiers not only on American civilian land (which, in itself is a Constitutional violation), but on CANADIAN soil (Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Montebello, Montreal)
- Our “automatic” involvement in a war, in which our Government didn’t even request the justification or exit strategy projections for. (Was the little matter of 9/11 ever properly resolved?!)
With shit like this going on behind the curtain, and considering the people involved, what chance do you have of being heard over the “available channels” on issues were corporate interests are pulling the opposite way from where the People feel they should go?
When you’re being ignored, there usually IS a concrete explanation for that, and it’s often because that someone “has a different agenda” than the one you’re presenting. In any other life context, being persistently ignored immediately causes you to find out WHY that’s happening. But, for some inexplicable reason, when Government ignores The People, everyone keeps trying to find ways to “make them listen”, rather than address the fact they are simply DEMONSTRATING a different agenda than the one you want.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Here is what Public Knowledge has to say about ACTA: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/acta