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.
The Food and Drug Administration will be holding a public meeting on May 1, 2009 in College Park, MD pertaining to economically motivated adulteration (EMA). FDA is also accepting written comments on this issue by August 1, 2009.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has published in the Federal Register its notice of initiation of a Section 301 investigation and determinations therein, which imposes an additional 10% duty on imports of certain softwood lumber products of Canada, whose Region of Origin is Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, or Saskatchewan, in response to Canada's failure to cure its breach of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement between the U.S. and Canada (SLA 2006) or provide the monetary compensation determined by a SLA arbitral tribunal. The additional duty is effective for products that are entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after April 15, 2009. (See ITT's Online Archives or 04/08/09 news, 09040805, for previous BP summary.) (D/N USTR-2009-0011, FR Pub 04/10/09, available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-8232.pdf)
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued a proposed rule to amend its regulations to provide for the resumption of imports of certain wooden handicrafts from China under certain conditions.
U.S. Trade Representative Kirk has announced that the U.S. will impose an additional 10% duty on imports of certain softwood lumber products of Canada, whose Region of Origin is Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, or Saskatchewan, in response to Canada's failure to cure its breach of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement between the U.S. and Canada (SLA 2006) or provide the monetary compensation determined by a SLA arbitral tribunal.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued a notice seeking comments on how to revise the Voluntary Product Standard (PS) 20-05, "American Softwood Lumber Standard."
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a notice announcing the public roundtable it will hold on cribs1 and other sleeping environments for infants at its headquarters in Bethesda, MD on April 22, 2009.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued a final rule, effective April 29, 20091, which incrementally increases user fees in fiscal years 2009 through 2013 for import- and export-related services that APHIS provides for animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors.