The newly leaked "Intellectual Property [Rights] Chapter" of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), presumed by WikiLeaks to be the finalized version, contains the same worrying provisions that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been warning against for years:
If you dig deeper, you'll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rights holders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.
[...] Perhaps the biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years (QQ.G.6), despite a broad consensus that this makes no economic sense, and simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from users to large, rights-holding corporations. The extension will make life more difficult for libraries and archives, for journalists, and for ordinary users seeking to make use of works from long-dead authors that rightfully belong in the public domain.
[...] The provisions in QQ.G.10 that prohibit the circumvention of DRM or the supply of devices for doing so are little changed from earlier drafts, other than that the opposition of some countries to the most onerous provisions of those drafts was evidently to no avail. For example, Chile earlier opposed the provision that the offense of DRM circumvention is to be "independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party's law on copyright and related rights," yet the final text includes just that requirement.
The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed. Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.
The analysis goes on to bash the TPP's provisions on criminal enforcement, civil damages, trade secrets, domain-name registrant contact information, and ISP liability. Public Citizen's analysis focuses on pharmaceutical monopoly rights and biologic drugs (in particular, "biosimilars").
Related Stories
Dissident Voice reports:
A mass mobilization in Washington, DC from November 14 to 18 has been announced to begin the next stage of the campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
[...] "At its root, the TPP is about modern colonialism. It is the way that Western governments and their transnational corporations, including Wall Street banks, can dominate the economies of developing nations", said Margaret Flowers, co-director of Popular Resistance. She continued "The reality is that without trade justice there cannot be climate justice, food justice; there cannot be health justice or wage justice. That is why people are mobilizing to stop the TPP."
[...] The groups will begin their protests [on Monday morning, November 16] at the US Trade Representative building on 17th Street with the message that the TPP betrays the people, planet, and democracy.
This will be followed that evening by a protest that begins at the US Chamber of Commerce and White House then marches along K Street and ends at the Reagan International Trade Center.
The next day, the groups will have an international focus protesting at multiple sites along Embassy Row to stand in solidarity with people around the world who are fighting to stop the TPP.
On the final day, the groups will focus on Congress.
Previously: Trans-Pacific Partnership Text Released
Trans-Pacific Partnership: "Intellectual Property" Fears Become Reality
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has highlighted two amendments to Fast Track (a bill which would authorize the President to enter into binding trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, without Congressional oversight). Senator Elizabeth Warren and 14 other senators are backing an amendment that would eliminate "Fast Track" for any trade bill containing an investor-state dispute settlement clause. That would include the TPP as well as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (between the U.S. and European Union).
A second amendment, from Sens. Blumenthal, Brown, Baldwin, and Udall, addresses the lack of transparency of the agreement, and would require "all formal proposals advanced by the United States in negotiations for a trade agreement" to be published on the Web within five days of those proposals being shared with other parties to the negotiations. This would bring the United States up to the same level as the European Commission, which has already begun publishing its own TTIP position papers and text proposals to the public.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has said that the White House will veto TPP if a bipartisan currency manipulation measure he called a "poison pill" is passed:
"If a trade agreement is required to come back with a currency discipline that is enforceable through trade mechanisms, I don't think there is another country in the world that would agree to that," Mr. Lew said at a Bretton Woods Committee conference in Washington. "It's a poison pill in terms of getting agreement on TPP."
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:29AM
More than ever. We need someone that in the presidency that wont stand for this.
Bernie maybe.
(Score: 4, Touché) by captain normal on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:32AM
I don't know...we all thought Obama would be different 7 years ago.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:34AM
I know where you are coming from..There are some differences. For example, Bernie has a long and consistent voting record. Obama talked a good talk...Bernie walked the fucking walk.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:37AM
Really? I thought Obama was a walking talking bag of shit 8 years ago. Seems I was right.
/ He may or may not have been better than Rmoney tho
// Community organizer for experience? Give me a break.
/// Hope and Change turned into Duck and Cover mighty quickly
Kingdoms have kings, empires have emperors, we're a country.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:40AM
Experience is overrated. Obama was a disappointment. Romney with a republican congress would have been a disaster
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 11 2015, @06:30AM
As a liberal, the writing was on the wall about Obama if anyone cared to read it. He was an Iraq war supporter in practice, if not in most of his public speaking engagements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @06:33PM
American politics are so skewed to the right that most of the "left" is still right of center. Pretty sad that "liberal" in the US mostly just means "slightly left of fascist".
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday October 12 2015, @12:18AM
Really? Drunken sarcasm gets modded +5 Insightful? Not that I'm complaining, just jeez.
Kingdoms have kings, empires have emperors, we're a country.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by linkdude64 on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:49AM
Actually I voted for Ron Paul twice in the Obama election years; please do not lump me in with those who vote by party rather than policy, I knew Obama was going to be a fraud because of who he was associating himself with financially.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Sunday October 11 2015, @07:53PM
Actually, anyone who didn't have their head shoved firmly up their "politics=kabuki-DvsR-spectator-sport" ass knew what Obama was going to get up to.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:39AM
I have a sinking feeling Bernie or Trump will turn out to be our best options. Of the two I'd prefer Bernie, but nobody else in the field offers any hope things will get better.
/ Give either Bernie or Trump winning less than 5% odds
// Elections are a year away.
/// Kiss HRC, Bernie, Trump, Bush, Carson, Fiorina goodbye just based on past history of elections.
Kingdoms have kings, empires have emperors, we're a country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:43AM
Look. I know that depending on political position that social programs are loved or despised...but I think most of us agree that the plutocracy is the imminent danger to our Republic. I don't think that Bernie is a friend of the plutocracy.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:50PM
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Francis on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:35AM
I'll be voting for Bernie in the primary. Hopefully he has the sense to drop out of the election if he doesn't gain the nomination. The last thing we need is another Ralph Nader fucking things up for us.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 11 2015, @06:43AM
Ralph Nader fucked up nothing.
1) 308k Democrats voted for Bush, 24k Democrats vote for Nader. You know who to blame? Democrats who voted for Bush at a rate 13x the rate they voted for Nader. 2) Democrats don't own the liberal vote -- they own the Democrat vote, but the DNC has decided to become the New GOP, so quit bitching about liberals jumping ship -- it's you who are unfaithful, and secondly, take that smug "you belong to me" attitude and shove it. You don't own us liberals, and we don't owe you fealty. Suck it.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:05PM
Are you seriously suggesting that most of those Nader voters would have voted for Bush? Because Bush would have had to have won at least half of those votes to carry the state. The actual gap in the official count in Florida was less than a thousand in favor of Bush.
In order for your argument to hold water, you'd have to assume that Nader voters weren't more likely to vote for Gore in absence of Nader than to vote for Bush. And that's rather unlikely.
The only way that Nader not fucking things up for us makes any sense is if you're a Bush supporter that continues to deny the degree of damage he did to the country and the war during his time in office.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:34PM
Yeah, and if Bush wasn't running, who would the 308,000 Democrats have voted for? Your argument just doesn't hold water. Bush spoiled Gore's election.
Secondly, you have to look at the fact that there is a large overlap between Libertarian and Green policy -- on social issues the two are basically indistinguishable. You assume that the handful of Democrats who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. You ignore the fact that they might not have voted at all, would have voted for other third parties, or would have voted for Bush. But that still doesn't change the fact that 13x as many voted for Bush as Nader. And you, know, if the difference in populous state like FL is 537 votes, well maybe the Democrats ran a milquetoast uninspiring candidate. Do you take the lesson? No. You bitch and whine about the people you think are your voting slaves, exercising their freedom to say "fuck you".
In the present day, if the DNC wants liberal votes, it has to actually walk a liberal line. Obama's administration has pretty much forced liberals to understand that the DNC sucks to an equal degree as the GOP. I've voted a straight neither DNC nor GOP ticket since 2008 -- that means ANY 3d party candidate on the ballot, or my cat. Even with Bernie, I have great hesitation voting for him because of the association with the DNC. If he had run as an independent not beholden in any fashion to the Democrats, I'd be 100% on board, but the fact that he is part of one of the most corrupt and despicable political machines in existence, taints him and makes it impossible for me to be totally comfortable with him, though considering his history of actually acting like a liberal, I'd probably take one last chance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @11:18PM
I take it you haven't heard the term "selection bias." The Democrats that voted for Bush and the Democrats that voted for Nader are not the same people politically. One group is conservative leaning and barely Democrats to begin with and the other is mostly from the party's more liberal wing that would never vote for Bush. Conflating the two is absolutely ridiculous.
With a sane election system Gore would have won because he won the most votes. Had Nader not won, he would have won Florida and the electoral college.
You're being obtuse about it if you can't acknowledge that fact.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 11 2015, @11:30PM
You are exercising selection bias by assuming that Green voters would otherwise vote Democrat. I don't think you comprehend the level of disgust Greens have for Democrats but instead, you just presume that they should get on board and vote for whatever neocon the DNC pushes. Really, the only difference now between the DNC and GOP is abortion and gay marriage -- everything else that matters, war, surveillance, police state, environment, social policy, wall street, personal liberty -- they're identical. All that stuff lands in the bipartisan consensus.
I don't know how to say it more clearly, but the DNC needs to earn the liberal vote. To just presume liberals owe the DNC their loyalty out of nostalgia for what the party was in the 70s, is extremely arrogant and offensive, not to mention short sighted. We hate the DNC and everything it stands for and we're totally content to say "fuck off".
The only reason I'm even considering voting DNC again is because Bernie has been walking the walk for decades. If he loses the primary, I don't care who the GOP candidate is -- he could be a combination of Pol Pot and Satan and I still won't vote DNC lesser evil, because if there is one thing the DNC has proven since the early 90s, it is that it is the more effective evil, and all that scare mongering LE crap has done, is turn the DNC into the other GOP party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @03:58AM
I'm not a Floridian, but I'm an example of a Nader vote that would have never gone for Gore/Lieberman. Gore firmly lost my vote when he chose Lieberman. So, yes, to assume that no Nader would have meant more votes for Gore is a stretch.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by srobert on Sunday October 11 2015, @06:28PM
I'll also vote for Bernie in the primary. But if Hillary becomes the candidate, I WILL NOT vote for her in the general election. (I'll vote for Jill Stein or perhaps "none of the above"). So if my vote is all that stands in the way of a Trump Presidency, and Hillary is the nominee, then Trump will become President. You could blame me for that. But the blame could just as logically fall on all those Democrats who ignore what people like me are saying right now.
Note that Bernie Sanders is seeking the Democratic nomination, Nader never did that. Bernie has already stated that he will not run as a spoiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @01:07AM
Perhaps the most Progressive|pro-worker candidate yet announced.
Jill Stein on the Issues (long form) [ontheissues.org]
N.B. Most links on that page are JavaScript-driven--but it's not difficult to decypher them to an HTML equivalent.
"a Green New Deal for America" [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [ontheissues.org]
N.B. That page has zero accessibility features, so I can't index the page down to what I -really- like; scroll down 80 percent or do a text search for "a job at a living wage for every American".
Jill Stein on the Issues (short form) [ballotpedia.org]
.
Bernie Sanders on the Issues (short form) [ballotpedia.org]
(OnTheIssues.org doesn't have a long-form page for him yet.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 11 2015, @06:33AM
Why is that a sinking feeling for you? I can't imagine a more interesting election season than a battle between Trump and Bernie -- Trump's "I bought you" line to his opponents in one of the debates is so classic, and Bernie seems to have lived up to his ethics throughout his life. I think a raw money vs. good heart battle would be fascinating, if for no other reason than the fact that the entrenched orthodoxy doesn't want it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:05AM
It's really pointless. We know who pulls the strings of all the puppets in the capital. TPP is going to be ratified by congress, no matter how much posturing takes place beforehand. About all we can do, is to ignore their unjust laws, wait to be prosecuted, and hope that we can challenge their laws at the Supreme Court level. Unless, of course, a substantial part of the population is ready to take up arms against the masters.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:50PM
I wonder if a new Anonymous or something will rise up. Considering that most of the influential leaders were rounded up and imprisoned, I have to think that anyone that doesn't like how things are going... will need to live in a place that isn't a part of this problem. And yet be motivated enough to be enough of a disturbance to make a difference.
No, what you have said is true. It will be up to the people to reject it, but it doesn't look like the people were asked of their opinion. I imagine many that break the new laws will not even know of the laws they are breaking. The real troublemakers will be the ones that do. They'll be easy enough to identify, unless resistance chooses to go back to the Anonymous (or similar) model.
A problem is that many people are directionless without a leader. And it is the leaders that get imprisoned first, if perhaps given 15 minutes of fame prior to their eventual disappearance from society.
I think not much will happen if the TPP is executed properly. Not much in the way of resistance, I mean. People won't notice if they are not dragged out from their fog and harmed.
Jello Biafra had said it the best, I think: Give me convenience or give me death
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday October 11 2015, @07:29AM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
English humorist & science fiction novelist (1952 - 2001)
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Sunday October 11 2015, @06:53AM
What an insane agreement. It was too obviously written by the corporations, who now expect their tame politicians to ratify it. Just a quick sampling from the Wikileaks analysis:
- Breaking DRM is illegal; Copyright is life + 70 years.
- Effective patent extension on pharmaceuticals; restrictions on generics.
- Medicines that cannot be patented (example: vaccines) are guaranteed an alternate form of exclusivity.
- IP protection of seed varieties for 20+ years; restrictions on seed sales and exchanges in general.
What do all of the Pacific Rim countries get out of this? It's going to cost them dearly, because most of this looks like money-flow to the US. Within the US, this is all anti-consumer. Seed exchanges are already absurdly regulation; now they will be practically illegal. Bye-bye generics. Plus lets see where we can pack in some trivial DRM - I know, let's wrap it around web content, so that it is illegal to block ads!
For the moment, we are safe in Europe, but only for the moment. Assuming the TPP is ratified by the US Congress, I'm sure that "negotiations" with Europe will be next.
Will you Americans please kill this thing?!?!
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @07:16AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Sunday October 11 2015, @10:16AM
Better - will you Americans, and the rest of the world, just ignore this thing. Do not pay the law any respect by following it.
Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) summarises quite succintly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFXivarypE4
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 11 2015, @07:36PM
No, killing it would be better. We can hope that the rest of the world will refuse to adopt it, or refuse to even give it lip service. If the government paid any attention to popular sentiment this thing would never have been even suggested. But the people who birbe congressfolk like it.
Personally I think that everyone who votes for this legislation should be executed for treason...but it doesn't quite fit the constitutional definition of treason, which is intentionally quite limited. (Not that the government pays any attention to the constitutional definition unless it wants to.)
The US government is a false front to an oligarchy, and it only follows the law when that suits the desires of the oligarchy. As such, citizens have no moral duty to follow the law. Unfortunately, they do have a practical need to follow it, as you are much more likely to be prosecuted if you don't. (Note that I omitted the word "successfully" before prosecuted. This was intentional. The success rate in prosecution appears to be more closely tied to the accused's wealth and political connections than to actual guilt. Race is also a factor, but that's not directly tied to guilt either. And I'm using the term "guilt" in it's normal sense, not in the sense of having been convicted (which would more properly be "officially declared guilty").
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday October 12 2015, @07:50AM
I guess the balanced view is to try to kill it but be prepared for the civil-disobedience fallback.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday October 11 2015, @11:53AM
Look, man, your analysis is right on. But kill it? That presumes that Americans have any power over our government whatsoever. We don't. The corporations wrote this pile of crap, and they own every part of our government and will get it passed.
The only way for Americans to kill the TPP is to literally kill every fucker that wrote it, and who votes for it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @01:21AM
...and every judge who doesn't find it unconstitutional.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Sunday October 11 2015, @04:08PM
If you Europeans actually agree to this thing, that's your own fault. If you don't like it, don't sign the damn treaty. You're responsible for your own governments. Don't blame us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @08:15AM
To me, as a European living in the part of Europe that was once part of Napoleons empire, there is only one logical reaction.
If your countries politicians have approved the TPP, take a page from the big book of revolutions and LYNCH THOSE POLITICIANS! If a politician is not moving heaven and earth to improve the life of his constituents the politician must be removed from office as soon, as public and with the strongest deterrent for others of their ilk as possible.
Only when politicians are held responsible for their actions, measured by the impact on their constituents, can humanity return to leadership by the people, FOR the people rather then for those bribing politicians.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 11 2015, @07:40PM
One of the 'benefits" of the two party system, which is enshrined into the system by plurality rules voting, is that there are only two plausible candidates. Eliminate one, and you're left with another who is either nearly as bad or worse. (I.e., when there are only two plausible candidates, then both can be bought off ahead of time.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @03:56AM
Every society deserves the rulers it tolerates.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday October 11 2015, @09:20AM
Maybe Wikipedia should go dark again. A big letter writing campaign does make an impression on politicians. Cornyn was one of the sponsors of those bills, and even he backed away, said the issue needed more study.
I fear the most likely course of events is TPP is ratified, and the people do nothing. Individuals will still pirate software, music, and movies, but larger organizations such as our public libraries will be hamstrung.
The powerful are constantly testing the people, seeing what robberies they can legitimize. It's wearisome having to fend this crap off all the time. Some day they will push too far, and end up executed in the ensuing revolution. Fear of that seems to be the only restraint on their greed. But TTP is sneaky and arcane enough not to seem important to most people, and even if it is voted down, these wealthy owners will try again. Almost certainly won't be a revolution over this matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @12:38PM
A method of storing information in analog and/or digital form. Therefore anything written either on paper or any digital storage device is automatically owned by me and any use or modification of said work infringes on my copyright and I can sue anyone and everyone. Clause 1... This includes stored memory systems, including analog, digital, magnetic, optical, print, and organic methods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @01:23PM
Public Citizen's analysis focuses on pharmaceutical monopoly rights and biologic drugs (in particular, "biosimilars")
Good thing we don't have a single payer system with its death panels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @06:44PM
Will be the eventual death of humanity. Total stagnation of society is the only outcome. Then slowly entropy takes over to finish us off. Should someone get credit for a *new* idea, sure, but we have gone way beyond that and are still barreling down the track to oblivion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @12:07AM
I recently came across the "Industrial Protectionism" substitute phrase.
It goes right to the heart of how all the disparate IP laws are actually similar (despite large differences).