Copyright treaty talks roll on at APEC

By Liam Tung on May 20, 2011 6:44 AM
Filed under Software

US under pressure to deliver.

Australia’s trade minister Craig Emerson on Thursday met with regional and North American trade officials as pressure mounted on the United States to strengthen intellectual property (IP) provisions in the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) copyright treaty.

Foreign affairs and trade representatives from nine countries "met on the margins" of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministers Responsible for Trade meeting held in the ski resort area of Big Sky, Montana.

The Ministers "expressed their goal of reaching the broad outlines of an agreement by November", according to a joint statement.

The sixth round of formal TPP negotiations were completed in Singapore last month.

TPP parties Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Brunei, Peru and Vietnam will convene three more times before the APEC Leader's Meeting in Hawaii in November.

The joint statement offered little detail about the treaty other than that each participant was “well into negotiations on each of these texts” and was working to finalise an agreement on “specific legal commitments”.

US trade officials, led by US ambassador Ron Kirk, were under pressure at APEC to ensure that tougher copyright protections for the US took centre stage.

On Tuesday 28 US senators called on US President Barack Obama to resist TPP participant efforts to weaken IP provisions, while ensuring they were “clear, specific, and enforceable” and applicable to every participant “without exception”.

“We urge you to reject efforts by other TPP participants to seek a weakening of intellectual property protection standards as compared with high-standard agreements such as the [Korea US] FTA,” said U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who spearheaded the letter to Obama.

“Put bluntly, intellectual property equals jobs,” the letter reads. “Our copyright industries are one of our most vibrant export sectors, they are under attack from rampant and massive online piracy."

Australian ISPs feared that the secret treaty would undermine current efforts to deal with piracy at a local industry level.

iTNews revealed in January that the Motion Picture Association of America had lobbied US trade officials to use TPP to provide ISPs “legal incentives” to combat piracy; and patch up perceived shortfalls of the Anti Counterfeit Trade Agreement reached last year.

In May a leaked draft of the TPP revealed that many of the lobbyists' demands had been incorporated, toughening required enforcement measures and placing new responsibilities on ISPs.

The provisions included:

A new legal regime of ISP liability
A right to ask ISPs to identify internet users
Established (statutory) damages for the rights holder
Criminal enforcement for technological measures beyond WIPO internet treaties, even when there is not copyright infringement
Outlawing parallel trade in any copyrighted good
A 95-year copyright minimum term for works for hire

Image credit: www.trademinister.gov.au

6 comments in this discussion

"All great posts above. It seems the US government, like another one that we know only too well, is highly susceptible to big political or personal 'donations'. They also have an attitude to ..."

By anonymous

Tags

apec, copyright, intellectual, property, ip, isp, law, us, craig, emerson, trade, acta

Feds tip ACTA analysis by year end

US fingers 'priority' IP abusing nations

Aussie ISPs still seeing users with Zeus infections

US six-strikes anti-filesharing system kicks in

Breaking Stories

Alacer Gold turns ERP refit project to Australia

NSW Govt bids for self-service analytics

NSW Police take aim at 3D-printable guns

Google faces new federal antitrust probe

US ISP to rip out Huawei equipment

Readers of this article also read...

Comments: 6

Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) May 20, 2011 10:11 AM	Of course it is in the US interest (alone) for further extension of the timeframe for copyright, and an ability to 'see-through' ISPs to their customers, and having a new legal ability to force a company to disclose its customers' information. And it is in Australia's interest to have an entirely level playing field with regards to all primary products. The US kept sugar out of the US-Australian FTA simply because the Florida sugar mafia were large financial contributors to President Bush. The hub of US foreign policy is unfortunately hypocrisy. I served as a Harvard Consultant to The White House, and it sickens me that the US has laws outlawing any foreign power seeking to have any influence (even donations) on US politics, yet the US has such a long history of intentionally meddling with the internal politics of other countries... to the point where the former President of Venezuela said to former Australian Deputy PM Tim Fisher that "The only reason the US has not had a revolution is that there is no US consulate there [to fund/organise the armed opposition]." The Australian negotiating team should now say, "We can't consider any of these outrageous further 'reach' requests, while the US wishes to retain unfair non-level-field provisions of the Australian-US FTA. If sugar is off the table, then copyright is off the table." I have no stake in sugar, but I have a position against hypocrisy. The problem with Mickey Mouse is that, as he has aged, the US has sought every decade to extend copyright by a further decade. It has nothing to do with rewarding the original authors, but instead simply seeking a monopoly rent, which runs contrary to good economic policy (except for the rent seeker). We all know that the major studios' big problems in electronic distribution is that the customers want electronic distribution, and the studios have persistently refused, insisting on physical media distribution. They need to produce a workable electronic distribution policy, rather than seeking to have special new laws enacted for them, allowing them to force ISPs etc to disclose confidential information. Let's be clear. The US hates turning up to truly open multinational talks - as they end up as one country in 190. The US prefers 'talks' with one or a small number of friendly countries. The US has a long history of seeking to 'ratchet' from very favourable deals struck with the closest of friends/dependants. Few countries are as dependent upon US support as South Korea, with US troops manning the no-mans-land for the continuing cease-fire with North Korea. So it behoves the US to do a really one-sided deal with South Korea, and then to claim to the rest of the world, that the only deals it will do is if they contain the same provisions as the South Korea one. What rubbish! The US proposal to prevent 'grey imports' of valid copyright licence-paid product is outrageous. This is simply to allow price-gouging in markets where possible. So if you want a DVD or CD, you (or retailers) will not be able to buy from the USA, but rather you will be forced to pay whatever is the price set for Australia? That measure MUST be of benefit to only the USA, and a financial penalty for Australians. There can be no positive outcome for Australia from any such 'talks' - and the more secret they are, the more we have to fear. The sycophantic Australians will cede too much, and what were we going to gain over the existing (one-sided) Australian-US FTA? This is simply the US seeking to have a second-bite, while refusing to redress the single-sidedness (eg sugar) of the original deal. The Australian 'negotiators' ought be withdrawn. If they were looking for trade advantages for Australia, they would be better sent into our own AGIMO to do a review for Foreign Affairs and Trade. They might demand a Business Plan as to how AGIMO is going to work through COAG to get all levels of Australian governments off paying the monopoly rent they so willingly sign-up for. They should have a plan to roll-out Open Source, and have whole-of-government contracts for purchasing any residual proprietary software bits still needed. That could save a few billion per annum - which on a capitalised basis would amount to more than the cost of the NBN. And without such a plan, individual state education departments will continue to sign-up our kids to remain in entirely-proprietary IT environments, whereas some of our international competitors are actively going Open Source, with lots of benefits and few issues in conversion. Please Australia, do not allow our government to come to ANY new 'understanding' on Copyright or other intellectual property rights. Australia needs to withdraw politely RIGHT NOW. Let the US come to a new arrangement with Brunei and Peru, but Australia and New Zealand should not have a bar of it. Let the US bring their ideas to the DOHA round etc of a worldwide agreement, and let's look after giving favourable trade aspects to the developing world, rather than pandering to the desires of Hollywood.
peterniss May 21, 2011 1:09 PM	This article wreaks of propaganda. Which country is the biggest driving force for copyright enforcement in the world? Answer: the USA. I can see no pressure on the US from outside and actually quite to the contrary. Given this it makes me wonder whats going on behind the scenes with these articles. After all, copyright only benefits big business and cripples individual rights. Its all wrong and corrupt and it looks like it is up to the Australian public to fight these dodgy buggers.
Mark D May 23, 2011 11:05 AM	@ Graeme Harrison If you need more ammo of new American taxes, take a look at the amount of Australian land the American company Cargill now owns in central NSW.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) May 23, 2011 1:52 PM	I agree that the article's sub-title is misleading. "US under pressure to deliver" should have been "US Negotiators under domestic pressure to deliver"... as the original text implies that it is external pressures on the US to get tougher IP provisions. The opening sentence "Australia’s trade minister Craig Emerson on Thursday met with regional and North American trade officials as pressure mounted on the United States to strengthen intellectual property (IP) provisions..." also makes it seem that the pressure is coming from OUTSIDE the USA. Whereas nothing could be further from the truth. It is the US which is (solely) seeking to have a far more restrictive environment for IP. However, I don't see it as propaganda, but merely sloppy journalism. The final paragraph of the article makes it clear from the types of changes sought, that the impetus for change can only be coming from the US.
Ace May 23, 2011 3:36 PM	It's funny the USA push very heavily on 'Free Trade', but are extremely anti 'Free IP'. The notion the IP = jobs is a strange argument, because it's illogical. How could stopping others from exploiting an idea I had, create jobs? Well OK, maybe jobs for lawyers. However, a great many Americans seem sold on this idea of 'locking up ideas and throwing away the key', and despite the whole process being a complete failure in their own country, they still want other countries to be a party to it. IP is simply a mechanism to allow people who have good ideas to be the first to make a living from the ideas. Because IP tends to crush innovation, there should probably be sunset clauses in the IP legislation. China is a big enough market for us. Australian negotiators should be able to say 'so sorry, we're off to China' if the Americans are getting pushy.
anonymous May 23, 2011 3:58 PM	All great posts above. It seems the US government, like another one that we know only too well, is highly susceptible to big political or personal 'donations'. They also have an attitude to free trade which reeks of hypocrisy as well as propaganda. For example, they righteously declaim that other countries should not attempt to tie aid programs to trade deals, while seeming to shamelessly do just that under-the-counter themselves.