Blog Archive

Blog Archive

Friday, March 29, 2013

postheadericon The Power Of International Trade Agreements To Prevent You From Owning What You've Bought, And Why This Must Be Fixed

The time when the United States was negotiating the ACTA, which were among those who have sounded the alarm about how disturbing this trade agreement was - negotiated in the back of the USTR whose details will be kept secret until they are locked in. In response, many of our Critics argue that we have been exaggerated, since ACTA was merely a "general agreement" that (1) could not Congress to force anything and (2) does not require changes to U.S. law, so "no big deal." In fact, we were told directly that Congress would not feel bound by such things, then it must be silent with our own arguments "tired", which are simply a "Chicken Little mentality" based on "what if ".



course, part of our concern very specific about ACTA is required even if no direct modification of the law, although locked in laws problematic, which makes it much more difficult to solve these problems. And although technically not "bind" the Congress, the second that no Congress has proposed a law that goes against the international agreement, we heard screams usual crew stakeholders copyright on how Congress make the most horrible of horrors "that violate our international agreements." Of course, this would ignore the fact that they have written or heavily influenced these agreements as a direct route through Congress.

For all inquiries Chicken Littles And if the past few weeks, the "scenarios" we talked became very, very real, and noted that what is so problematic that the USTR is particularly copyrights and patents in international trade agreements. First, as we noted a few weeks ago on the subject of phone unlocking some existing U.S. trade agreements have made it difficult for me to solve the problem. In particular, we call KORUS, the free trade agreement signed with South Korea there is a half-decade, which included a number of provisions of the copyright law, pushed by the entertainment industry (which had won because South Korea was one of the first countries in broadband coverage). The end result, however, is that this would go against the agreement actually solve the problem (as the White House says he wants) Unlocking be illegal.
Now Shirwin Siy rightly notes, Congress is not technically bound by these agreements and Can />
replace:


First, trade agreements do not dictate laws that Congress can and can not occur. If you are executive agreements can not override laws passed by Congress in the past, even if they are executed as treaties may be replaced by subsequent acts of Congress. While Congress can pass a law that cancels a previous law can pass a law that prevails over an earlier treaty. This is technically true, but the reality is not so easy. Shortly after my post went, I began to listen to the people around DC on the subject. In recent weeks, speaking to many people at the Capitol, and a variety of other people involved in the discussions, one thing has become clear: while some members of Congress really wanted to do a complete overhaul of release, the realization that international agreements on the road may have scuttled plan altogether. Recognize that Siy is correct, and that Congress is not technically necessary, but it is clear that
political reality is, in fact, very different. A bill that goes against an international agreement is considered a non-combat and non-policy that should be adopted for the project to make something really probably not worth it.


So we have a very concrete and tangible example of an agreement that is not technically "change" our laws ourselves in a bad situation.

AND ... could be worse. For all the talk about how Congress is not really the USTR negotiated, it seems that someone forgot to say that certain members of the Supreme Court. When the case was last week Kirtsaeng, dissent, written by Justice Ginsburg, repeatedly cited
international agreements
to play

right

, although these agreements are not intended to define the law or by force. John Bergmayer note how

bad

is as follows:
It is therefore appropriate that Judge Ginsburg wrote in dissent from the majority opinion that "[u] nlike the Court held my position is consistent with the position United States has had in international trade negotiations. "But the negotiators are not able to decide what is the law: Congress passes laws and the courts interpret them. USTR is not part of the workflow. If trade negotiators have taken positions that are incompatible with Kirtsaeng then these positions are now, and I've always been contrary to U.S. law. I would make a similar argument turned against Kirtsaeng whether: trade negotiators should not try to predict how contentious legal battles will turn. they should stay away from these areas completely and let the system do its job. Thus, even if the law is clear that the secret negotiations of the USTR ( often fueled by the copyright industry) can not really make the law, including at least three judges of the Supreme Court seem confused at this point.

Find best price for : --Flynn----Sean----Ginsburg----USTR----Littles----Chicken----ACTA--

0 comments:

About Me