FTAA Treaty Threatens Innovation

The Importance of writes "IP Justice has published a white paper on the intellectual property aspects of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) treaty, which is an attempt to create a single free trade agreement for the Western Hemisphere. Read the press release. The analysis is pretty devastating. The proposed language of the agreement has a number of serious flaws, including (but certainly not limited to) enhanced criminal penalties, a super-DMCA provision, reduced scope for fair use, and database protection elements. The proposed treaty is supposed to be complete by January 2005 and go into effect December 2005. Now is not too early to let your representatives and others know what a bad idea the intellectual property elements of the treaty are."

Comments

total information lockdown

[joeldg]

It will require all countries to change their domestic laws on a wide range of topics, including intellectual property rights.

All your mind are belong to us..

just great.. now we will have mexican's filing patents for velcro.

Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember: When you contact your representative, do NOT e-mail. Congressmen do not take e-mails seriously. E-mailing tells the congressman that you don't care enough about the issue to actually sit down and put effort into your contact.

There is only one way to actually get your congressman's attention: A good, old-fashioned letter, with $10,000 in hundred-dollar bills paper clipped to it. Please keep this in mind and act accordingly.

Wow, harsh...

[DrEldarion]

1. Expanded Criminal Penalties Would Send Non-Commercial Infringers to Prison

a) Threatens to Mandate Prison for P2P File-Sharing


Wow. Now, I'm not in the camp of people that says "FREE STUFF FOR EVERYONE, SCREW IP!" and I actually support (reasonable) penalties for the people who get caught (after all, they ARE breaking copyright law, whether they atually cost the company anything or not). This, though, is just crazy. Why should Joe Schmoe, who is sharing a bunch of Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit MP3s, spend time in PRISON for doing so?

It would be understandable if he were making copies of the CDs and selling thousands of them, but it says non-commercial infringers.

Scary.

-- Dr. Eldarion --

Re:Free Trade

[peddrenth]

"Oh, no. Anything but free trade."

The Free Trade Area of the Americas is about protectionism? That's worse than "fighting for peace".

Sugar

[FuzzyDaddy]

If they really want free trade, how about not subsidizing american farmers at the expense of thrid world farmers, who are, in economic terms, vastly more efficient?

The "free trade" agreements seem to support incumbent businesses at the expense of innovation, which is the opposite of their intended use.

I'm no free trade nut - I think there's plenty wrong with unfettered free trade - but in the scope of problems it can address, let's use it to address them, and not further protect entrenched ways of doing things.

I hate to be so pessimistic/cynical but...

[rhadamanthus]

"Now is not too early to let your representatives and others know what a bad idea the intellectual property elements of the treaty are."

Why bother? Honestly, what is the outcome here? I have written to my congresspeople probably on the order of 10-15 times each about an item specifically regarding the myth of intellectual property and its associated devestation. I have recived neat and grammatically precise responses each time, full of absolutely nothing of value or substance regarding the issues. Not even my representative's opinion on the matter. You don't get congress to go against measures like this (i.e., measures that assure corporate "donations") unless there is a *really* massive demonstration. The kind that the American public has not shown any sort of willingness or poise to do in oh-so-many years.

I will write my congressperson again this time, only with a heavy hand, and a large dose of bitterness in knowing that I don't have the pocketbook required to make a real impact.

Corporate politics is ruining what's left of the U.S., and is pulling a lot of other nations down with it.

--rhad

Representatives?

[Jeffrey Baker]

If you live in the USA, contacting your representative will be fruitless. The Senate ratifies treaties without consulting the House. Try contacting your Senator instead.

buh-bye Fair Use

[mabu]

Article 1 of the copyright section in the draft FTAA Treaty proposes the following new definition for "fair use":

"Use that does not interfere with the normal exploitation of the work or [unreasonably] [unjustifiably] prejudice the legitimate interests of the author [or right holder]".

FTAA's proposed definition is dramatically narrower than the current open-ended definition of fair use guaranteed by the US Constitution and codified in Section 107 of the US Copyright Act.[40] The US Supreme Court stated that fair use must be decided on a "case-by-case basis" and that there can be no "bright line rules" for deciding matters of fair use. Fair use is intended to permit unauthorized, but socially beneficial, copies of copyrighted works in cases such as personal use, research, and criticism.

In determining whether a particular use would be fair, traditional US copyright law focuses the question primarily on the use engaged it. In contrast, FTAA's definition for fair use focuses solely on the commercial interests of the copyright holder in determining whether a particular use would be ruled fair. No consideration is given to the social benefits of the use under the proposed FTAA Treaty.

FTAA's narrow definition of fair use also gives short shrift to Americans' freedom of expression rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. For example, copying something in order to criticize it can easily prejudice the rightsholders' interests (since it could discourage patronage); and traditional fair use, which accounts for free speech interests, would permit such copying. But under FTAA's definition, copying for critical purposes will count against the use being considered fair, chilling freedom of expression throughout the hemisphere.

If Fair Use is redefined in this manner, it seems like the FTAA could be interpreted to outlaw public libraries. If you check out a book as opposed to buying it, under the FTAA's new economic-based model of assessing Fair Use, a library would be liable for causing financial damage to the publisher.

Kudos to our corporate overlords for their foresight and wisdom.

NAFTA, MMT, UPS, & Canada Post

[temojen]

NAFTA threatens environmental protection will FTAA be any better? NAFTA threatens public services will FTAA be any better?

Lower barriers to trade is a good Idea, but the FTA, NAFTA, and FTAA has little to do with trade, and everything to do with making governments subservient to trans-national corporations.

"Free Trade" is not about free trade

[TPFH]

If these so called Free Trade agreements were really about free trade, they would be a lot less complicated. They would just be about reducing tarrifs. What these "Trade Agreements" are really about is granting special rights and privilages to corporations, sometimes even making them above the law, at the expense of our national sovereignty.

For example, with NAFTA Canada sued the United States saying that banning asbestos is an infringement of Free Trade.

A few years ago before the WTO became a household word (err Acronym) they were trying to pass the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which would have given coporations an explicit Right to Profit above and beyond a citizens rights and privilages.

And just look at the current example. In the name of Free Trade they are trying to make fair use of our own legally purchased IP illegal, such as bypassing DVD Region codes.

It is not a matter of U.S. vs. Mexico or whatever. NAFTA has been bad for the general population of all three countries, and now they want to extend it to the entire western hemisphere.

It is all about the special interests.