would do away with an understanding we have in the U.S. about the Internet: that, generally speaking, the networks and platforms that make up the online world (whether that's TimeWarner Cable or YouTube) have some protections against being held liable for what people post onto their services, like swapping songs they don't have the rights to......
The agreement that seems to be on the table in Seoul would give Internet services a safe harbor that protects them against what's called intermediary liability. That's arguably a positive step -- only to get there, the Internet services would be required to enact a mandatory zero-tolerance policy against copyright infringement. They have to agree to filter copyrighted material and strip infringing content from their networks. And more than that, Internet service providers would have to set up their services in a way that allows them to cut off copyright-infringing customers, a step they've fought against. (That tactic even goes by the name "three strikes and you're out.") That's a drastic, speech-limiting step that even Congress has shied away from.
Comment: In the United States, legislation to accomplish such purposes would be conducted in the legislature and there would undoubtedly be a chance for civil society to weigh in on the options. It is not clear that there is comparable opportunity for civil society to protect our (those of us who use the Internet) interests in the international negotiation.
If the negotiation achieves an international agreement it would not have the force of law in the United States without Congressional ratification (assuming that the administration would not sign an agreement with which it did not accept as the best that could be achieved). However, the alternatives of passing something that is not very good versus leaving the United States outside a global agreement are not those I would choose.
How, I wonder, can we open up the international negotiation process more fully to the participation of civil society? The problem is not simple. It is increasingly important and always difficult to get international agreements negotiated. Opening the process might make it more difficult to get needed treaties in force without resulting in better content. Not to mention the problem that most governments would appear to prefer to negotiate in secret rather than in public view.
If the negotiation achieves an international agreement it would not have the force of law in the United States without Congressional ratification (assuming that the administration would not sign an agreement with which it did not accept as the best that could be achieved). However, the alternatives of passing something that is not very good versus leaving the United States outside a global agreement are not those I would choose.
How, I wonder, can we open up the international negotiation process more fully to the participation of civil society? The problem is not simple. It is increasingly important and always difficult to get international agreements negotiated. Opening the process might make it more difficult to get needed treaties in force without resulting in better content. Not to mention the problem that most governments would appear to prefer to negotiate in secret rather than in public view.
No comments:
Post a Comment