In light of an "agreement in principle" recently reached with the European Union in the long-standing EU - beef hormones dispute, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has announced that it will delay certain sanction modifications that were due to take effect May 9, 20091, in order to allow time for the provisional agreement to be finalized.
The U.S. Trade Representative released the annual Special 301 report Thursday, a list of nations whose intellectual property rights enforcement isn’t considered up to par, and reaction spanned from praise from industry and intellectual property groups to condemnation of the review process. The inclusion of Canada on the priority watch list alongside China, Russia, Venezuela and others was particularly noted. Twelve nations were placed on the priority watch list and 33 on the watch list.
"Daily Update on Capitol Hill Trade Actions" is a regular feature of International Trade Today. The following are brief summaries of recent Capitol Hill actions.
CBP has issued a CSMS message stating that it has come to its attention that some surety companies and some customs brokers, acting as agents for sureties, are using CBP 301 (customs bond) forms which include extraneous information such as "Power of Attorney Limited to [dollar amount]." All sureties and brokers are instructed to discontinue, effective immediately, use of any CBP 301 form which has such extraneous information. (See ITT's Online Archives or 02/05/08 news, 08020505, for BP summary announcing that CBP would reject CBP 301 bond forms or bond riders submitted with extraneous liability limitation language effective February 11, 2008.) (CSMS 09-000209, dated 04/29/09, available at http://apps.cbp.gov/csms/viewmssg.asp?Recid=17599&page=&srch_argv=09-000209&srchtype=all&btype=&sortby=&sby)
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has issued a two-page progress report for the first 100 days since the Administration change, highlighting their successes in this time period as follows:
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has released its 2009 "Special 301" annual report on the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection by U.S. trading partners.
On April 22, 2009, Senator Sherrod Brown1 addressed the Washington International Trade Association (WITA) to discuss U.S. trade policy. Highlights of his written remarks include the following:
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued an "Importer/Broker" letter on upcoming changes to its import permit process for food products containing meat and/or poultry ingredients from an animal disease country1, that are exempt from Food Safety and Inspection Service regulation as they contain only small amounts (less than 2%) of such ingredients.
The U.K.’s copyright law is the most unfavorable to consumers of 16 countries reviewed, Consumers International said Wednesday. It also looked at IP legislation and enforcement practices in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Spain, Thailand and the U.S. Britain was “the worst, by far” on balancing the interests of consumers and copyright owners, outdoing the emerging economies of Thailand and Argentina to last place, the group said. Topping the list were India, South Korea and China, in “odd company” with the U.S. at fourth place, it said. The U.S. regularly criticizes those three Asian countries as failing to protect IP but applies a double standard to its own copyright system, the organization said. It said it rated as the worst national systems those that don’t take advantage of pro-consumer flexibilities in international law. No country surveyed took enough account of consumer interests concerning freedom of access to and use of content through blogs, online video-sharing, wiki entries and other avenues; freedom to share and transfer information and entertainment through public domain and freely licensed materials; and enforcement, the group said. But “best practices” are emerging, it said. Spain requires holders of works covered by technical protection measures to give consumers a way to enjoy them for legal purposes, the group said. The U.S. supports consumer interests through its broad “fair use” exception to copyright, and Australia has legalized shifting across time, space and format, it said. Consumers International called its survey a response to the USTR Special 301 report, which it said grades countries on how closely they follow U.S. standards of IP protection and enforcement regardless of the interests of consumers or of national circumstances. The group said it hopes the research will balance the “contention of multinational rightsholders” that “anything less than the highest levels of copyright protection is to be associated with piracy and criminality.” The U.K.’s dismal standing is ironic for the country that developed copyright law, said Consumer Focus and the Open Rights Group. Millions of Britons are “needlessly criminalized” by outdated IP laws that, for instance, forbid ripping a CD onto a personal computer or iPod, they said. The groups asked the government to introduce a broad fair-use exception that could adapt to new technology. They said they don’t condone piracy, but file-sharing is the “inevitable consequence” of the digital market’s failing to meet consumer demand and needs. A fair-use exception would also cover user-generated content where material is reworked for new, noncommercial purposes, they said. The content has an increasingly high social value for the “YouTube generation,” they added.
The U.K.’s copyright law is the most unfavorable to consumers of 16 countries reviewed, Consumers International said Wednesday. It also looked at IP legislation and enforcement practices in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Spain, Thailand and the U.S. Britain was “the worst, by far” on balancing the interests of consumers and copyright owners, outdoing the emerging economies of Thailand and Argentina to last place, the group said. Topping the list were India, South Korea and China, in “odd company” with the U.S. at fourth place, it said. The U.S. regularly criticizes those three Asian countries as failing to protect IP but applies a double standard to its own copyright system, the organization said. It said it rated as the worst national systems those that don’t take advantage of pro-consumer flexibilities in international law. No country surveyed took enough account of consumer interests concerning freedom of access to and use of content through blogs, online video-sharing, wiki entries and other avenues; freedom to share and transfer information and entertainment through public domain and freely licensed materials; and enforcement, the group said. But “best practices” are emerging, it said. Spain requires holders of works covered by technical protection measures to give consumers a way to enjoy them for legal purposes, the group said. The U.S. supports consumer interests through its broad “fair use” exception to copyright, and Australia has legalized shifting across time, space and format, it said. Consumers International called its survey a response to the USTR Special 301 report, which it said grades countries on how closely they follow U.S. standards of IP protection and enforcement regardless of the interests of consumers or of national circumstances. The group said it hopes the research will balance the “contention of multinational rightsholders” that “anything less than the highest levels of copyright protection is to be associated with piracy and criminality.” The U.K.’s dismal standing is ironic for the country that developed copyright law, said Consumer Focus and the Open Rights Group. Millions of Britons are “needlessly criminalized” by outdated IP laws that, for instance, forbid ripping a CD onto a personal computer or iPod, they said. The groups asked the government to introduce a broad fair-use exception that could adapt to new technology. They said they don’t condone piracy, but file-sharing is the “inevitable consequence” of the digital market’s failing to meet consumer demand and needs. A fair-use exception would also cover user-generated content where material is reworked for new, noncommercial purposes, they said. The content has an increasingly high social value for the “YouTube generation,” they added.