TPP Too Secretive, Damaging to Digital Rights, Public Interest Groups Say
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is being crafted in secret and in a way that could hurt consumers’ digital rights, public interest groups said Wednesday during a telephone briefing hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Based on U.S. Trade Representative proposals that were leaked earlier this year, the TPP is being considered too broadly, said Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Global Access to Medicines Program. “We're looking at a lot more than what’s traditionally perceived of as ’trade,'” he said, calling the “very aggressive” agreement, “NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] with Asia on steroids."
The current U.S. proposals do “not reflect the importance of the balance between rights of owners and rights of users,” said Rashmi Rangnath, director of Public Knowledge’s Global Knowledge Initiative. Rangnath took issue with the “three-step test,” which a leaked TPP draft proposes as a way to determine limitations and exceptions of intellectual property (IP) rules. “There’s a lot of confusion around how much flexibility the three-step test allows,” she said, encouraging the U.S. to clarify and “actually spell out in greater detail what the limitations and exceptions should be."
The TPP could establish “Internet intermediaries,” who could enforce their interpretations of intellectual property laws, said Carolina Rossini, international IP director at EFF. This could threaten Internet access for individuals who have not necessarily broken laws, she continued, especially in countries with limited political speech rights. A system of these intermediaries would establish “private enforcement that’s very dangerous,” she said.
There’s not much room for other countries to negotiate with the USTR’s proposals, Maybarduk said. “Several of the U.S. proposals are simply non-starters,” he said, suggesting that the USTR “go back to the drawing board.” The USTR should abandon “these dinosaur provisions” if it intends to create a model trade agreement for the 21st century, he said. “New models are emerging that allow for more openness. … We would really like to see a new approach."
The negotiation process has taken place behind closed doors, the groups agreed. USTR is “shutting out voices of public interest representatives,” Rangnath said. “They have the power to open this up,” she said of the USTR, “but they refuse to do it."
Other TPP participants, especially developing nations, may be more receptive to these messages at the Leesburg, Va., negotiations that start Thursday, Rossini said. “Many countries are really open and willing to hear our voices,” she said.