# Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

"When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This is transparency? This is openness?"
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1456154113.shtml


----------



## daniel_b2380 (Jan 31, 2003)

some, to me anyway, of the biggest 'buzz-words' in obama's campaign:
- government transparency
- close guantanamo
- bring the troops 'home-in-16-months'
- curb government spending
.
reckon if anyone has been watching / listening to the news,
we can see where this is all going...........
just more of the same...............
but with 'the one' .............
it's going to change.........
.
at least my vote wasn't there
.
hey rootbear,
you manage to find some really 'neat' topics,
that set off a whole chain of conversation


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

daniel_b2380 said:


> hey rootbear,
> you manage to find some really 'neat' topics,
> that set off a whole chain of conversation


Thanks, I try.

At least I have always been told I am very trying.


----------



## daniel_b2380 (Jan 31, 2003)

quote:
......I am very trying....
.
i'm NOT going to touch that in ANY way..............


----------



## MikeSwim07 (Apr 28, 2007)

Go Obama!


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

MikeSwim07 said:


> Go Obama!


Anywhere?

Or some place in particular.


----------



## MikeSwim07 (Apr 28, 2007)

Yeah, to the White House


----------



## daniel_b2380 (Jan 31, 2003)

i could think of: "Or some place in particular"


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

MikeSwim07 said:


> Yeah, to the White House


Your kidding right?


----------



## MikeSwim07 (Apr 28, 2007)

I was being sarcastic because the other guy was trying to be funny by saying "to where"


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

MikeSwim07 said:


> I was being sarcastic because the other guy was trying to be funny by saying "to where"


I wasn't trying to be funny.

I was looking to see what you meant by:



MikeSwim07 said:


> Go Obama!


and how it relates to "Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?"

Sounds like you are rooting for him in regards to that.

I see no reason for that unless you are a member of the **AA.


----------



## slurpee55 (Oct 20, 2004)

C'mon. The ACTA is a collaboration of several nations, The negotiations for the ACTA treaty are conducted in secrecy and are not part of any international organization. The European Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other government agencies have acknowledged participating in ACTA negotiations, but they have refused to release drafts of the treaty or to discuss specific terms under discussion in the negotiations.
If you would actually read Executive Order 12958, instead of relying on some blog for your opinions, you would see that section 1.5(b) classifies what is called "foreign government information" which is defined in section 1.1(d) as 
(1) information provided to the United States Government by a foreign government or governments, an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, with the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence;

(2) information produced by the United States pursuant to or as a result of a joint arrangement with a foreign government or governments, or an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, requiring that the information, the arrangement, or both, are to be held in confidence; or

(3) information received and treated as "Foreign Government Information" under the terms of a predecessor order.

ACTA obviously falls under part (2) of 1.1(b). The US - whether Obama's administration or not - can't release the information without the permission of all the parties involved. A quick look at information about ACTA shows that many other countries - Canada, the EU, etc. have refused to release the information as well.

Do I think it makes sense? No, personally, I don't. But I do believe the US should now keep treaties and agreements, unlike the previous administration.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

Hi slurpee55! Rare to see you away from the office (Business apps that is).



slurpee55 said:


> Do I think it makes sense? No, personally, I don't. But I do believe the US should now keep treaties and agreements, unlike the previous administration.


"Since When Did We Give Lobbyists From The Tech, Entertainment And Pharma Industries Security Clearance?

...the folks over at KEI have pointed out the long list of corporate lobbyists who have been involved in the negotiations, including those from the RIAA, MPAA, ESA and a long list of tech, telco and pharma companies. So... can anyone let us know if these folks have security clearance?....

...And, just watch, these will be the same lobbyists who will spout off about how we have to make these changes to meet our treaty obligations. leaving out the fact that they wrote the treaties themselves to force through exactly this type of legislation."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090317/0144084145.shtml

I think it is time to quit breaking the agreement of the copyright.

See post #11 here:
http://forums.techguy.org/random-discussion/804891-cd-dvd-audio-video-discs.html


----------



## slurpee55 (Oct 20, 2004)

slurpee55 said:


> Do I think it makes sense? No, personally, I don't. But I do believe the US should now keep treaties and agreements, unlike the previous administration.


If you follow your links, you will find that the complaint is that
"The texts are available to the Japanese government. They are available to the 27 member states of the European Union. They are available to the governments of Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia. They are available to Morocco, and many other countries. They are available to "cleared" advisers (mostly well connected lobbyists) for the pharmaceutical, software, entertainment and publishing industries. But they are a secret from you, the public."

As I said before, I don't agree. But the nations listed are participants. Specialists in the industry - call them lobbyists if you want as the above does, but if you were addressing an international body about the fate of the computer industry or any other thing you had a lot to do with, you would be called that too, even if you didn't think you were pushing an agenda - are involved in the talks for various reasons, so they reasonably have access to at least some of the documentation. To attempt to answer questions without knowing what had been talked about would be inane. Those people have been called by the ACTA group, not the US alone.
And Executive Order 12958 still holds. See my earlier post.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

"Details of the supposedly secret ACTA [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] deal between Hollywood-friendly countries and the studios are all over the Net, and have been for some time.

Now the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) has released "new" details.

The latest full version published by scribd and cited by Michael Geist last week, was obtained through the ATIP (Access to Information and Privacy) Act.

"If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close."

Thats how David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, summed it up."
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/19885


----------

