[LINK] new copyright treaty secret
Tom Koltai
tomk at unwired.com.au
Mon Mar 16 04:09:52 AEDT 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Kim Holburn
> Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2009 8:59 PM
> To: Link List
> Subject: Re: [LINK] new copyright treaty secret
>
>
> But it is known who has access:
>
> Who are the cleared advisors that have access to secret ACTA
> documents?
> http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/03/13/who-are-cleared-advisors/
>
Interestingly enough -
Section 1.5 of The 1995
> <http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html>Executive Order
> > 12958 makes for interesting reading:
Sec. 1.5. Classification Categories.
Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including special activities),
intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States,
including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the
national security;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear
materials or facilities; or
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations,
projects or plans relating to the national security.
I guess then that File Sharing would come under sub-section (e).
However what happens if an Australian firm can prove that file sharing
actually aids Hollywood revenues ?
What would happen if Hollywood were offered a means to obtain a return
far in excess of their current revenue and they refused even to discuss
it?
Does that mean the President has overstepped the boundary and is
misusing his presidential authority?
The consumer push back on this one will be enormous. Possibly to the
point of impeachment. Lets hope Hilary has her Sunday best outfit all
pressed and ready to go.......
Julie Andrews singing... The Westwing is alive with the sound of
music.....
> > By James Love, on March 13th, 2009
> >
> > The negotiating text of ACTA and many other documents, including
> > even the lists of participants in the negotiations, are
> secret. The
> > White House claims the secrecy is required as a matter of national
> > security. But that does not mean the documents are off limits to
> > everyone outside of the government. Hundreds of advisors, many of
> > them corporate lobbyists, are considered "cleared advisors." They
> > have access to the ACTA documents.
> >
> > Who are these cleared advisors? They are the members of these 27
> > USTR advisory boards:
> >
> > http://www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/List_of_USTR_Advisory_Committees.html
> >
> > All members of the advisory boards can request access to classified
> > ACTA documents. Below are the members of just four of the advisory
> > boards, ITAC 15, 8, 10 and 3.
> >
> > .....
>
> On 2009/Mar/15, at 5:51 AM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>
> > March 12, 2009 5:45 PM PDT
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html
> >
> > Copyright treaty is classified for 'national security'
> >
> > by <http://www.cnet.com/profile/declan00/>Declan McCullagh
> >
> > Last September, the Bush administration
> > <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10047945-38.html>defended the
> > unusual secrecy over an anti-counterfeiting treaty being
> negotiated by
> > the U.S. government, which some liberal groups worry could
> criminalize
> > some peer-to-peer file sharing that infringes copyrights.
> >
> > Now President Obama's White House has tightened the cloak of
> > government secrecy still further, saying in a letter this
> week that a
> > discussion draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and
> > related materials are "classified in the interest of
> national security
> > pursuant to Executive Order 12958."
> >
> > The 1995
> <http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html>Executive Order
> > 12958 allows material to be classified only if disclosure would do
> > "damage to the national security and the original classification
> > authority is able to identify or describe the damage."
> >
> > Jamie Love, director of the nonprofit group
> > <http://www.keionline.org/>Knowledge Ecology International,
> filed the
> > Freedom of Information Act request that resulted in this
> week's denial
> > from the White House. The
> > <http://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/3/ustr_foia_denial.pdf>denial
> > letter (PDF) was sent to Love on Tuesday by
> > <http://www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Bios/Carmen_Suro-Bredie.html>Carmen
> > Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House's Office of the
> > U.S. Trade Representative.
> >
> > Love had written in his original request on January
> 31--submitted soon
> > after Obama's inauguration--that the documents "are being widely
> > circulated to corporate lobbyists in Europe, Japan, and the
> U.S. There
> > is no reason for them to be secret from the American public."
> >
> > The White House appears to be continuing the secretive
> policy of the
> > Bush administration, which
> >
> <http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/EFF_PK_v_USTR/foia-ustr-acta-respon
> > se2-doc1_0.pdf
> > >wrote
> > to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (PDF) on January 16
> that out of
> > 806 pages related to the treaty, all but 10 were "classified in the
> > interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958."
> >
> > In one of his first acts as president, Obama
> > <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10147514-38.html>signed a memo
> > saying FOIA "should be administered with a clear
> presumption: In the
> > face of doubt, openness prevails. The government should not keep
> > information confidential merely because public officials might be
> > embarrassed by disclosure."
> >
> > Love's group believes that the U.S. and Japan want the
> treaty to say
> > that willful trademark and copyright infringement on a commercial
> > scale must be subject to criminal sanctions, including infringement
> > that has "no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain."
> >
> > A June 2008
> >
> <http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASCAP/Pages/Business%20Paper%20-
> > %20ACTA%20negotiators.pdf
> > >memo
> > (PDF) from the International Chamber of Commerce, signed by
> > pro-copyright groups, says: "intellectual property theft is
> no less a
> > crime than physical property theft. An effective ACTA
> should therefore
> > establish clear and transparent standards for the calculation and
> > imposition of effective criminal penalties for IP theft
> that...apply
> > to both online and off-line IP transactions." Similarly, the U.S.
> > Chamber of Commerce has called for "criminal penalties for
> IP crimes,
> > including online infringements."
> >
> > Last fall, two senators--Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter
> > (R-Penn.)--known for their support of stringent
> intellectual property
> > laws, expressed concern that the ACTA could be too far-reaching.
> >
> >
> >
> > Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> > jwhit at janwhitaker.com
> > blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
> > business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
> >
> > Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to
> paint or
> > sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
> ~Madeline
> > L'Engle, writer
> >
> > _ __________________ _
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Link mailing list
> > Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
> --
> Kim Holburn
> IT Network & Security Consultant
> Ph: +39 06 855 4294 M: +39 3494957443
> mailto:kim at holburn.net aim://kimholburn
> skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/lin> k
>
More information about the Link
mailing list