SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars published a story about the effects the winner of Tuesday's presidential election could have on intellectional property issues:
The hot-button issues this election can be counted on one's fingers—and for most voters, things like copyright and patent policy don't make the list. Assigned to a wonkish zone far from the Sunday morning talk shows, intellectual property issues aren't near the heart of our deeply polarized political discourse.
Of the two major party candidates in 2016, only the Democratic candidate has a platform that even addresses copyright and patent policies. So today, let's look at what we know about Hillary Clinton's plan, and make some informed speculation about what could happen to these areas under a Donald Trump presidency.\
Given that the campaign is focused (as always) on a relatively small group of issues, tech policy watchers who spoke to Ars were surprised to see a presidential platform that mentions IP issues at all. Clinton's briefing paper on technology and innovation addresses both copyright and patent issues directly, and that in itself is something of a surprise. Trump's website has no such information, so the best clues to his approach lie in his public statements and the people he has surrounded himself with.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Monday November 07 2016, @10:07PM
And the reality is it's a mediocre arrangement that isn't particularly distinct from recent free trade agreements and doesn't represent a substantial change to US law.
I try not to discuss it with anyone, because if someone has an opinion on it it's liable to be rabid and fueled by inaccurate sources that are more at home in conspiracy-obsessed circles than reality.
What that has cost is any discussion of actual problems with the deal(of which there are plenty) instead substituting unhinged rants about sovereignty or totalitarianism that just aren't relevant. If there's one thing I think 2016 is missing, it's hinges. We're all unhinged.
International copyright, has, front and center, been a stated concern for US trade officials(be they department of state or commerce) because they represent a substantial amount of the trade deficit that that the US suffers from. And that ties into how centered our economy is on white collar, IP-centric jobs. And yeah, that's not you. You don't get that money. The department of commerce has a very GDP-centric view of the world, and if Indonesian pirates are cutting into US profits, they want a deal that reduces that. If that sounds calculated and manipulative, it is, but it's also not a conspiracy to undermine anyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @10:21PM
Not all of us are Americans. It imposes draconian U.S. copyright laws on the rest of us.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday November 08 2016, @01:49AM
and allowing corporations (with more money than some countries) sue countries for loss of revenue if that country decides to, say, SAVE THE FREAKING BEES FROM BEING POISONED.
Lets see:
1. Save the bees that help pollinate our food supply
2. Make one corporation a few more dollars.
I will screw that corporation up the Uranus several times before i will let them sue Canada for 'loss of revenue because we can no longer kill bees'.
Sheeit.
and i just have that gut feeling that Hillary will flip-flop and vote FOR the TPP etc, because it will help the people who paid her milllllllllllions and she owes BIG TIME.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday November 08 2016, @12:13AM
There is no need to even get rabid about the TPP, or argue about it at all. IT'S DEAD ON ARRIVAL. PERIOD.
Any legislation that is discussed in secret chambers and held from the public is automatically, permanently, and with extreme fucking prejudice annihilated from the legislators hands . Afterwards, they should be shot for treason, and I mean they should be put to death.
Now, if we want to *start* talking about the ideas and major elements of the TPP in round table discussions with experts, plenty of time for write-in letters from the public, community meetings, etc., then by all means let's do that :)
We're not even at the part yet where we can argue together, since it never involved democracy from its inception! :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.