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
Related Stories
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").
The text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement was released by TPP Parties on 5 November 2015 and can be accessed by chapter. The text will continue to undergo legal review and will be translated into French and Spanish language versions prior to signature.
All 30 Chapters and all Annexes are available for download as a single .zip file.
Note: Subsequent to this story being submitted, Ars Technica published an article Obama praises Trans-Pacific Partnership accord as full text is released which notes:
The President Barack Obama administration and other countries released the entire 2,000-page Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement on Thursday—a proposed 12-nation pact dealing with everything from intellectual property to human rights. It took five years of secret negotiations to finalize but only a moment for Obama to praise the pact publicly.
[...] The nations in the accord include the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei. They represent about 40 percent of the global economy.
The article goes on to list some of the benefits (tariffs lowered or removed) and controversies (exports US copyright law regarding how long a copyright lasts to be life of author plus 70 years after death.)
So, now that the full text is out and available for review, what say you Soylentils? Does it provide a good balance for all parties involved? What are the upsides and downsides? Who are the winners and losers?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @08:57PM
Or is it all just, this could lead to multinational corporations exercising more power over poor little governments that don't know any better, etc.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:06PM
Numerous specifics have been floating through just this site, in the articles and discussions. I'm sure with a little typing you can find which issues are most contentious. Your tone sounds mocking, are you just small minded or are you having an emotional reaction to people coming together to help each other?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:11PM
When I lived in Washington, DC, there were protest marches every weekend, like clockwork. Very loud and energetic ones by different groups, against all different perpetrators too (foreign governments for example, not just the US).
These people are professional protestors. That's what they live to do, that's what gets them up in the morning. They don't have to read TPP to protest against it, just the fact that it's long and probably has things that aren't going to turn out well (like any agreement that complicated) is enough to send them on the march.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:13PM
"... could lead to multinational corporations exercising more power ..."
That isn't enough?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:42PM
Or is it all just, this could lead to multinational corporations exercising more power over poor little governments that don't know any better, etc.
Multinational corporations have a long and unsavoury history of exercising whatever power they can get, so the "could lead to..." should really be replaced by "would lead to...".
Given that some corporations' budgets are comparable to many nations', and the apparent ease with which they can simply purchase whatever US legislation is convenient to them, it's not so much "poor little governments that don't know any better" as little nations being bullied by large organisations wielding the ability to give them more democracy if they don't do as they're told.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:23PM
FTFY
It won't take long until corporates or conglomerates will take over the "management of a country".
Some (almost) meaningless numbers:
* NZ GDP - $190B [tradingeconomics.com].
* Chile's GDP - $258B [worldbank.org]
* Apple market capitalisation - $700B [economist.com], cash reserves: somewhere around $170B [appleinsider.com] to $200B+ [cnbc.com]
* total cash reserves of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Cisco Systems, Oracle - $400B+ [cnn.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @02:53PM
Maybe I'm inferring something you didn't mean imply, but I'm noticing a value judgement in your quoting how Apple is worth over 3x as much as New Zealand.
If this value judgement was in fact intentionally implied, then which do you think would have a bigger impact on the world. Not which "should" have a bigger impact on the world, but which would have a bigger impact.
1) New Zealand functionally disappears. All imports, exports, resources, people, etc are lost to the rest of the world.
2) Microsoft functionally disappears. All their software and hardware stops working, and all their employees and the people trained in Windows forget everything about it. (I'm intentionally choosing Microsoft as I think their affects on business and personal usage are more obvious.)
Assume for this thought experiment that there is no (well justified) hysteria, major tidal waves from geological reconfiguration, changes to the energy consumption from vanished XBoxes, etc. Everything is "just gone" with no secondary effects.
(Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Monday November 09 2015, @03:27PM
Maybe I'm inferring something you didn't mean imply, but I'm noticing a value judgement in your quoting how Apple is worth over 3x as much as New Zealand.
You misunderstand. GDP is not the nett worth of a country like that of a company. It is the amount of money that exchanged hands in various transactions inside the country, per year. Very roughly speaking, you may think of it as analogous to revenue—although that has more in common with exports than GDP.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:55AM
You did
Nope. The numbers are an attempt to show somehow the buying power of a corporation vs the "economic might" of a country.
Using GDP is a bit tricky (this is one reason I used "almost meaningless" in the preamble) because:
* it's per annum (while a corp cash reserves are absolute)
* doesn't represent the "sale value of the country"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:44PM
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp [eff.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Touché) by nitehawk214 on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:16PM
I am against any secret treaty. This is as much about the corporations and governments exercising power over their own citizens than ones of other countries.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:36PM
Since you've apparently been living under an even bigger rock than I often do, you can read about the many specific criticisms here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Criticism [wikipedia.org]
Bernie Sanders gave a decent summary that's quoted there: "outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system."
That is, unless you're just trolling, in which case you should see a specialist about your rectal-cranial inversion disorder [tripod.com].
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:20PM
I like how geeks like to talk about how Linux and free software draw developers and users from all over the world, proving it's much better than anything from MS, Oracle, etc. But when it comes to the idea of free trade, people want to build a big virtual wall across the US Pacific Coast, just like the real wall that Donald Trump is proposing for Mexico.
The US has to continue to work and expand our business relationships with the countries of the Pacific Rim. If we don't do it, China will. It would be a strategic mistake of historic proportions, like the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:33PM
The TPP has nothing to do with trade; it's a corporate supremacy treaty that implements additional draconian copyright and patent rules that will create more censorship and stifle competition. Economic benefits, even if they exist, are a secondary issue; without freedom, we are nothing. We must reject anything that will infringe upon our fundamental liberties. If infringing upon our fundamental liberties and corporate supremacy is your idea of "free trade", then keep that nonsense away from me.
Of course, I highly suspect you're trolling. I can't believe someone here would legitimately think it's just a trade treaty and nothing else.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:52PM
It's hard to have a serious discussion when one side keeps resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Trade boosts wealth. This treaty in particular brings us closer to a number of strategically important countries in Southeast Asia, as well as Peru and Chile, who are also in TPP.
Who loses? Putin. I'm sure he hates TPP. When the USA strengthens its alliances, Putin loses.
The Chinese Government. They don't like it because they intend to dominate the whole region, for starters.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 09 2015, @12:03AM
It's hard to have a serious discussion when one side keeps resorting to ad hominem attacks.
If I make my point and then call you an idiot, that does not at all make it difficult for you to respond. I have no ability to make it difficult for you to respond to me here. Merely insulting someone isn't a fallacy, either.
Trade boosts wealth.
Did you see *anything* I said, you fool? Have you read this [eff.org] and/or similar pages? So our fundamental liberties are at stake, and what you're concerned about is petty economic gain? Would you trade away everyone's right to vote if you thought it would boost the economy? You have no principles. I don't care one bit about how much this would supposedly anger Putin or China; I care about freedom, not petty dick-waving contests.
I for one am opposed to government censorship and government-enforced monopolies over ideas. Therefore, I am opposed to the TPP. Any economic gain would never be worth trading our freedoms for. And I am assuming that this would even result in economic gain to show that I stand firmly for freedom, when in reality this will just result in more corporate power over the rest of us; it's a corporate supremacy treaty, not a trade treaty. When are you going to understand that?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @12:16AM
I personally don't care all that much about what the EFF is saying because I don't pirate music, movies, books or other IP. I don't consider it "my fundamental right" to download or upload whatever or whoever's digital file I damn please, just as I certainly don't think that malware authors or distributors have the right to invade my phone, PC, or financial records in some corporation's cloud on the basis of some theory about information wanting to be free.
Or that spammers have the right to send millions of unsolicited and unwanted emails because of arguments that they didn't hurt anybody, nobody is forced to even read any of it, let alone buy, etc.
Now, let's suppose that every time there's a story about spam on SN or Slashdot, posters come out 20-to-1 in favor of the rights of spammers to disseminate information. Would that change your mind? Would that be a compelling argument?
I wish the Internet had been designed as pay-as-you-go instead of ad-supported and browser tracking, but that ship has sailed.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 09 2015, @12:37AM
I personally don't care all that much about what the EFF is saying because I don't pirate music, movies, books or other IP.
It makes sense that you're just a corporate drone spreading their propaganda [gnu.org]. The EFF is an organization that works to preserve and expand our rights, so when they lay out in detail many of the problems with the TPP, I tend to believe them. It is also unsurprising when someone who has said they do not care about freedom is not a fan of what the EFF is saying here.
Do you not see the threat of reducing our privacy and liberties in the name of corporate monopolies? If some law said that corporations could simply *accuse* you of infringing their upon their copyrights and you would be punished, would that be alright with you simply because you claim not to do such things? Do you honestly not see that the rich and governments have abused their powers all throughout history, and that they don't care one bit about your rights? You might want to fix your ignorance, if so. Countless innocent people have been screwed over by the copyright regime, and countless more will be. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is a completely bogus argument that has been proven wrong many hundreds of thousands of times.
I don't consider it "my fundamental right" to download or upload whatever or whoever's digital file I damn please
Well, freedom of speech exists, so you're simply ignoring reality.
And you ignored most of the page I linked to, because this isn't simply about file sharing. It increases our already draconian copyright lengths, endangers whistleblowers, and the treaty was negotiated in secret instead of in front of The People, indicating it's not one bit good for us. Furthermore, it includes restrictions similar to the ones in the DMCA that infringe upon our privacy property rights. I don't know why I need to lay this out for you. Where did you get the idea that this was *just* about unauthorized copying?
To be in favor of the TPP means being opposed to freedom of speech, being opposed to the public domain, being opposed to private property rights, and being in favor of crony capitalism. The notion that these giant corporations who participated in the secret meetings have your best interests at heart is so laughable that you must be trolling, and especially more so when the text has now been released and organizations like the EFF are warning about it and creating summaries about what's in it.
just as I certainly don't think that malware authors or distributors have the right to invade my phone, PC, or financial records in some corporation's cloud on the basis of some theory about information wanting to be free.
You say "just as", but malware authors modify your property without permission, whereas file sharing doesn't; it doesn't even violate anyone's privacy, because the information is not secret. There is no comparison to make here.
Now, let's suppose that every time there's a story about spam on SN or Slashdot, posters come out 20-to-1 in favor of the rights of spammers to disseminate information. Would that change your mind? Would that be a compelling argument?
Appeals to popularity don't convince me, so no. I would not accept that particular line of reasoning, but I would accept my own.
I wish the Internet had been designed as pay-as-you-go instead of ad-supported and browser tracking, but that ship has sailed.
I have no clue how this is even relevant, but there are plenty of extensions to block ads and tracking. Make use of them.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @03:57AM
Q. about mods - I thought there was a "Disagree" mod? What makes parent a "Troll"?
One way to make sure there's no dissent is to outlaw it. Then you have very pleasant threads where everyone agrees with one another on controversial issues. I don't think that was the original goal for SN though.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @04:42AM
The EFF has said that the TPP extends the length of copyrights, so that creative works don't become part of the public domain for a long time. To comment "I personally don't care, because I pirate whatever I want" would be worthy of disagreement. To say instead "I don't care, because I don't pirate" just doesn't make sense. It looks like trolling to me.
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday November 09 2015, @05:47AM
Q. about mods - I thought there was a "Disagree" mod? What makes parent a "Troll"?
Let me help you out here. The parent is a troll. Thus it gets modded "Troll". See? Perfectly sensible. Oh, are you saying that the position of a TPP fanbois actually could be the opinion of a real flesh-and-blood boy, rather than a bloodless living-dead corporation? You're not fooling anyone, you know. We also know, to a 99.998% degree of certainly, that the AC complaining about the modding here is actually the parent troll. Again, you are not fooling anyone. In fact, once your employers see how egregiously you have mucked up this bit of internet astroturfing, I would be surprised if they fire your ass, and you should not be surprised, either. Have a nice day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @02:06PM
We also know, to a 99.998% degree of certainly, that the AC complaining about the modding here is actually the parent troll.
You are correct. I was still asking the question, however. I do not consider my posts on this thread to be trolls, they were actually my opinions.
It seems that anyone who supports the TPP and blogs about it here, is automatically considered a troll and/or shill, so their posts must be quickly ushered out of sight. That is just stupid. Your slogan ought to be "Free speech is posting something confirming what the regs here believe."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @07:20PM
Due to Poe's law, it is difficult to distinguish between ill-informed opinion and deliberate trolling.
A normal troll test is to check if the poster's argument is self-consistent.
If an argument ignores known facts, that may be because the writer is uninformed, or deliberately spreading FUD. It is hard to tell. If does not help that the "powers that be" are known to use socks to steer discussion or suppress discussion they don't like.
Of course, that last test can get awkward when people from different reference frames meet. What if the "known facts" in an echo-chamber of a community are actually wrong? If you follow the principle of assuming good faith, both parties should try to find a impartial third party they can agree on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @08:55PM
Someone may have modded those ignorant comments down, but they were not deleted. I browse at -1 and so can anyone else, so I'm not sure how this is a free speech issue.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday November 10 2015, @12:31AM
1. Introduction
Ok, fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, only because I have a mighty rant that's bent pent up. Heh, maybe you could say I'm a nerd who's rantily frustrated!
First of all, it sure the hell is your natural right (given by a sky wizard if you want) to upload and download anything you damned please. Listen up.
Copyright and patent are not natural rights. They are not real property or personal property. This is why we call them imaginary property. Like imaginary numbers, imaginary property may only exist in our imaginations, but nevertheless it can come in handy. They're something that is part of the law because we allow Congress to create a framework [archives.gov]
…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;…
Emphasis mine. Were copyright still limited, I would have a great deal more respect for it. However, I'm not going to go into details and try to negotiate what I think is a limited time and what I think is reasonable for copyrights. The point is, copyrights (and patents) are imaginary property. Any time I see the letters IP I read either “internet protocol” or ”imaginary property,” never “intellectual property.”
I will however say that I believe that current copyright law has pushed the bounds of constitutionality to the breaking point, and TPP and TTIP promise to give a new legal theory for why we should accept ridiculous copyright laws and enforcement.
2. Copyright
Am I beating this drum because I'm one of those people who says herp derr it's in the Constitution, the Word of God Himself as Channeled by the Founding Fathers? No, because then I would be making the same mistake you are making. You're not thinking about the position you claim to have taken critically. Instead you're making a fundamentally authoritarian argument.
Throughout history, people have told each other folklore perhaps around a campfire or by the fireplace. Many stories we know and love such as Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc, began not in the hive mind of some living-dead corporation (to borrow from Aristarchus up there) as an attempt to create a popular franchise. See what I did there? I saw something I thought was good, then I copied it and changed it slightly. The Little Mermaid and The Snow Queen (see Frozen for the animated movie adaptation) are a slightly different case, since, while I am no folklorist myself so I may be wrong, these are mostly original stories. Even there, behold the power of folklore and archetype. It is without a doubt that Andersen was greatly influenced by folklore and archetype. He didn't just make those stories up out of whole cloth; one can trace the hero story back through thousands of years of history and it includes some smash hits of all time such as stories of heroes like Jesus, Gilgamesh, and Buddha, etc and also classics like Journey to the West (see Dragonball for a modern retelling).
My personal favorite kind of folklore is “creepypasta.” Just look how people have taken to the digital campfire that is internet forums to create entirely an entirely new mythos, including fan favorites like the Slenderman, tales of certain stretches of road where one may encounter supernatural dangers on certain nights, the Holder series, influences from urban legends, etc. These all go even further back to spooky tales people would tell around a campfire. If you're up to it, get a copy of Alvin Schwarz's The Scary Stories Treasury, then flip to the section at the end of each of what was originally 3 different books. Schwarz is an actual folklorist. Observe the different variations and retellings for each story he encountered and considered before penning his own versions.
Here's the point I'm trying to come around to. Our culture, our folklore, the traditional characters we know and love, are called the public domain. The imaginary property lobby wants us to believe that when we torrent a movie, we're stealing from content creators. There is so much wrong with that. First of all, the word stealing is completely incorrect. Nobody has a right to get paid (sidenote: basic income could only ever be something like copyright—a compromise, not a natural right). Additionally, the content creator still has their copy. No content creator is being deprived of anything except in an imaginary, and according to research, dubious sense.¹
So, ok, at this point you're probably looking for practical examples. I have two.
Maybe you liked the Star Trek reboot and Star Trek into Darkness, so hey. Many of us disliked the reboot movie (I liked it for one), but Star Trek into Darkness was so utterly bad… that's a rant for another time. However, a bunch of fans and amateur producers, directors, and actors got together and said, “We want moar Star Trek; we want proper Star Trek!” So now we have a variety of fan productions, some of them quite good, that were entirely crowdfunded. However, these fan productions, the best of which have attracted people who actually played the characters they play (Icheb, Chekov, Sulu, [Yeoman/Lieutenant] Rand, Apollo et al to name a few off the top of my head), only exist with the blessings of Paramount and CBS. In a sane system, ST:TOS would have become part of the public domain by now, not because I want free shit, but because it's become a part of our culture. We can't even talk about Alcubierre drives without evoking the Enterprise's warp drive. The particle zoo of newer Trek (chronotons to name the worst offender) along with reversing the polarity of something consistently get mentioned when razzing made-up sci-fi physics.
My other example is not as strong, but let's return to Schwartz. On Youtube, two productions have taken it upon themselves to create series where they interpret the scary stories that Schwartz collected. I can only assume that Schwartz's estate understood that as a folklorist, he would have understood that telling and retelling stories is how culture happens. In particular, look up both interpretations of the story High Beams to see what I mean. One is fairly close to the story as collected by Schwartz. The other adds new elements and perhaps an even more modern spin with the added scary element of a police officer that we can never be sure isn't trigger happy who completely misjudges the situation.
3. Corporations
Hookay. I hope I've established that obscene copyright laws steal from the public domain. Obscene copyright laws steal, in a very real and non-imaginary sense, from we the people and from our culture. Disney has what, two retellings of Cinderella and two of Sleeping Beauty? Each time they retell the story, they steal from us one retelling of Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty and lock it in the Vault. That is criminal in my view.
Moving on. Here's the other thing that the trifecta of TPP, TTIP, and TISA threaten to do: usurp our constitutional government and replace it with corporate oligarchy. To put it simply: corporations are meant to be legal fictions that exist for the public good. However, this is an incredibly dangerous goal of that trifecta.
Again, incorporation is not a natural right. I have the natural right to engage in the free trade of goods and services as an individual. I might even band together with some LGBT types I know to offer a service or product for trans folks. The option we have the natural right to use is the partnership. But, not so quick there, Tsubasa! Say one of the partners does something untoward. Well, now, all of the partners' heads are on the chopping block. That's how natural rights work. So, we have invented a compromise, a legal fiction: the corporation.
As you look back through history, you will see that governments have granted various forms of corporate charters sparingly, at least before the 19th century. In the 19th century, it was decided that as a practical matter for resolving contract disputes (entering into a contract or covenant being one of those natural rights) that a corporation should be considered a person. For the purposes of contract disputes. Because it's just practical to do that. No argument here. However, we quickly slipped down the slippery slope. (Well, in an historical sense of quickly.)
Over 150 years later, the corporation has emerged as a full albeit bloodless, living-dead person. Corporations cannot be put in jail and they cannot be sentenced to death, no matter how many individuals they kill or maim through lack of safety culture, pollution, or you name it. Yet, in the Citizens United decision, corporations were granted the full natural rights of a person. This is a gross perversion of natural rights. Only men (#include <women.h>—I am an Amazon after all) should be eligible for natural rights, because a community may put a man in prison or if his transgressions are egregious enough, a community may sentence him to death. Instead, we have “too big to fail.”
Corporations are only allowed to exist, and must only be allowed to exist, to serve the government. Any legitimate government must serve the ultimate source of its power, the people. However, things become corrupt over time. Perhaps it's just a giant coincidence and tragedy of the commons. I will say this however. Open your eyes. I have been using the phrase “Masters of the Universe” to describe TPTB (the powers that be), but Occam's razor has left me with no choice but to throw in with Phoenix's example of legitimate usage of the term Illuminati.
The Illuminati wish to make multinational—I would argue for the term transnational—corporations the masters of government. No so fast, Tsubasa!, you say. Aren't corporations just a bunch of people?
Well, this gets to the core of the problem. This is the question you must answer sufficiently if you want to throw in with the notion that corporations are just a bunch of people: how much say does the janitor have?
4. Conclusion
This has all happened before, and I pray that this does not end in tears. There will be tears along the way. It will get worse before it gets better. There was once a series of legislation that got rammed through. Let's call them the SA, DA, and TA. Then came the MGA and finally the IA. Afterwards was the Battle of Bunker Hill, and the rest is history.
Let's see where we stand. We've made improvements to our system of government and expanded the number of boxes available for use. Please use these in the order listed for best happiness of all:
☑ Soap box
☑ Ballot box
☐ Jury box
☐ Ammo box
Special provision: please check off the item labeled “Jury box” should the general public fail to understand the natural right of jury nullification while they still have it. Were I to indulge my cynical nature, I would have checked it off.
¹ I'm going to ignore the complexities of the reality of how the corporations steal from the creatives in the end.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday November 10 2015, @12:44AM
Ugh, my apologies for the typos. I suppose something of that minimal length is something that one should print out to paper, wait until the next day, then proofread with a red pen handy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:31AM
Copyright law is very mature, and it doesn't forbid works that are merely inspired by others. Case in point: Dynasty [imdb.com], an award-winning TV show about a warring family in the oild business, which was more than a little like Dallas [imdb.com]. Here's another: Microsoft's .NET and C#, which bears more than a little resemblance to Sun's Java and JVM. Copyright does not prevent anyone from "standing on the shoulders of giants". What it does do is set laws against lazy, greedy people thinking they have the right to the fruits of other people's labor, w/o doing any work themselves beyond google searches and the like, just because some hordes of shitheads camped out in Slashdot posting their theories about information wanting to be free.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 11 2015, @03:27AM
What it does do is set laws against lazy, greedy people thinking they have the right to the fruits of other people's labor
What it does is allow government thugs to censor information and stifle competition by giving people government-enforced monopolies over implementations of ideas (enforced by censorship). Someone copying some data that someone else released to the public in some way can't do any harm because no one has lost anything. There may have been an initial investment of time and money that some person took to assemble the data, but the people who later copy the result had no part in that decision; it was not forced upon you, so you cannot say that that initial investment is a 'loss' that people create when they make unauthorized copies of some work. You have created a victimless crime, and to make matters worse, you infringe upon people's fundamental right to free speech while doing so. Copyright should not exist in any form.
Of course, it's just as easy to characterize you as a freedom-hating monopolist scumbag. I notice that there are countless attacks on people who care more about freedom than they do about your ability to make money by having a government-enforced monopoly over ideas that infringes upon privacy property and free speech rights. Making money is not wrong in and of itself, but certain methods of making money can be wrong. Censorship is not the right way, even if it did work (which it doesn't).
just because some hordes of shitheads camped out in Slashdot posting their theories about information wanting to be free.
Information doesn't want and can't want anything because it is not a living being.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 10 2015, @09:42AM
OMG!
I do not consider my posts on this thread to be trolls, they were actually my opinions.
I seriously do not know which is more regrettable, that you did not know you were trolling, or that what you were trolling with were your actual opinions. You do realize, of course, that just because something is your actual opinion, that does not mean it is still not trolling. Let me pose yet another example. "Microsoft has finally liberated us from the endless upgrade regime buy forcing Windows Ten Upgrades." What do you reckon the odds are that such a post is from an actual Soylentil, instead of a Micro$oft shill?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday November 09 2015, @12:03AM
Which will have no benefit for 99% of US citizens. It may actually cause a loss of wealth for the majority of working US citizens.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @02:12AM
Stop calling Australia little, thanks :-)
And yes, our government possibly does not know any better. Time for a better system ... one where The People have more input to laws.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:25PM
The first four replies to this story are all ACs either cynical about protesting in the modern democratic "free" world or cynical about the reasons people may have for opposing TPP.
Note to self: it's only the internet and we shouldn't take it too seriously.
Life is bad enough without letting it get worse unopposed.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:46PM
Yes. I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from doing something which might stop the TPP. But I'm not very optimistic. I think it's already been bought, paid for, and the bribes spent.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by inertnet on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:45PM
The same goes for TTIP, the European version of TPP. All negotiations are done in secret and both these agreements are going to result in the USA dominating the world economy again.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:57PM
Maybe the US government and its favorite corporate buddies will dominate the world economy, but none of this will be good for US citizens.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by inertnet on Monday November 09 2015, @12:32AM
Well it's the same for us Europeans, the general sentiment is that it won't benefit us either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @12:46AM
TTIP is actually just a decoy for an even more secret trade agreement. From what I've gathered, the participants are only allowed to negotiate that agreement with proprietary sign language.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday November 09 2015, @02:41PM
You jest, but TISA [eff.org] is the capstone.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Monday November 09 2015, @07:44AM
the 'USA' is not going to dominate or win anything.
certain very very rich people who are american citizens will benefit.
but I won't benefit and neither will anyone I personally know; and I would guess even their friends won't be in the connected-few that will win.
the one-percenters are the winners. citizens of all countries who are not in the top will lose.
this is NOT about america or any one country, but its about all the rich folks who stand to benefit and simply flaunt it in our faces, essentially telling us we can't do a thing about it.
in a way, they are right. they know the system and they control it. for now, at least.
I'm old enough to remember when protests actually had an effect. but now, those in charge truly don't listen and don't care and they have everyone in their pocket would -could- do something about it. I am very sorry to say, peaceful protest is not going to solve this. we have talked and talked and they KNOW we are mad, but they don't believe we will take things to the next level. and even if we did, again, they have planned ahead for it all.
I truly don't know what the solution is. but talk is getting us nowhere.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 09 2015, @12:46PM
Fortunately, "they" don't have the skills to carry their plans into action, not even remotely. They depend very much on people like those in this community to shut up and follow orders. They rely on these to figure out the "how" of their "what."
We've all seen with Snowden what a tremendous difference it makes when even one of us determines not to play along anymore. Imagine what could happen if a thousand Snowdens stood up and said flat out that TPP is not going to happen. Even if they did nothing more than straight out leak the secret conversations and emails of those foisting this secret treaty on us, it might be enough.
But imagine further if they actually began throwing spanners in the works. What would happen if all the secret bank accounts in the Caymans suddenly became "unavailable?" What if all the lights were to go off in Wall Street, Westchester, and DC? What if the travel plans of every one of the Illuminati (or Masters of the Universe, or Powers that Be) suddenly were to be published online for interested parties to buttonhole them for a chat about their support for this catastrophe?
If the Illuminati feel menaced enough they'll retreat to their bunkers from whence they'll mean to order martial law. That's when the rest of the world they mean to shaft with the TPP back up the cement mixers and seal them in, dig into & sever the fiber connecting them, and we all sit down for a polite and productive conversation about fixing what they have broken.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Monday November 09 2015, @03:26PM
Yeah they didn't like it when those we the 99% people did things in secret but protested in public.
They kept trying to find someone to arrest and had difficulty identifying leading rule breakers to apprehend in their pursuit of justice. Instead, they ended up citing that oh you can't protest here because its inconvenient. Go over there, where no one cares (and cannot hear your message). Any complaints, send us your leader to talk.
It took a while, but fizzled out as hoped. However, they must have learned that by hiding the discussions, it is harder to pinpoint who to blame in specific. We blame corporations but do we have names of specific ones that intend to do something really shitty? If we can't vote for change (or it it doesnt work), who or what is on the list of corporations demanding things, and from that list, what services do we need to boycott or decide to not shop at?
Thanks to the people with a different code of ethics than the people wanting this, some people interesting in sharing the news are releasing information that wasn't supposed to get a peer review or public review.
Now us ignorant masses are likely to do another 99% thing again, starting with this. At least there is a specific cause to rally behind.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Monday November 09 2015, @03:56PM
Don't expect any significant changes. The people that should protest won't, because they have too much to lose. They're all slaves of the banks and tax system. They will lose their house, car, children's education et cetera if they man the barricades for more than a week. Only the people who have nothing to lose sometimes start a riot, but that won't change a thing on this level.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Monday November 09 2015, @08:14PM
I believe this is why change is oft driven by the youth.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday November 10 2015, @01:37AM
However, if they do lose their house, car, children's education, etc, that will be the catalyst for revolution.
The Illuminati have a fine balancing act to perform. Can they pull it off? Most people will accept any loss of liberty as long as the bread and circuses continue. I get the impression that the bread might be in short supply soon. The rich evacuate to their luxury bunkers, then we back up the cement trucks and backhoes as Phoenix suggested and move on. Hopefully.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:36PM
Look at how much we have been able to stop over the last twenty years. Nothing. We have stopped nothing. All we have managed to do with millions of man-hours in protest is slow down the march of the inevitable.
My views have completely changed. I don't own a gun, never wanted one, but now I do. It is rather clear the next move is to impose required registration quickly followed by an outright ban utilizing the records for lawful compliance. Add to that the constant fearmongering and woes of the middle class, external threats being trumpeted, and privatization/private control of public resources gets you a perfect tried-and-true formula for fascism. A similar setup was done in every fascist nation that ever was. This time around it will have more of an oligopoly slant and with far better living conditions, but fascism none the less. There is no grand conspiracy but more just a natural evolution with specific conditions. That is where we are headed and I don't know if we can stop it now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:47PM
I just love it when things have come to this! Obligatory and annoying XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1022/ [xkcd.com]
My views have completely changed. I don't own a gun, never wanted one, but now I do. It is rather clear
No, it is not. It has come to this where some AC doesn't own a gun, and now does? Or it has come to this that some AC never wanted one, but now does? Was there something about import restrictions on guns in the TPP? Where's the cat food?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:57PM
Look at how much we have been able to stop over the last twenty years. Nothing. We have stopped nothing.
SOPA? Oh, wait, it's only good enough if we stop it and then similar things never appear against for the rest of eternity. Sorry for not meeting your impossible standard; let's all just give up and let it happen without even the slightest fight.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @01:16AM
Yeah, we have to keep fighting and keep winning for eternity. All they have to do is win once. Losing with or without a fight is still losing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @01:24AM
Yes, freedom requires external vigilance. That's how reality works.
Also, no, they don't just have to win once. Bad laws can be repealed and bad treaties can be gotten rid of. It's difficult, but not impossible.
Losing with or without a fight is still losing.
But losing without putting up a fight is disgraceful. And putting up a fight can decrease your chances of losing.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:55PM
The SJWs are out in force. Business is for the treaty, so "the people" should mobilize against it.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:22PM
The SJWs hate it for reasons that are often silly. But I hate it too and I'm one of the official Koch Bros stooges according to the SJWs here. I won't be out protesting with the Occupy retards but I will be giving and voting based on opposition to this thing.
It is a crap sandwich buried in tons of additional crap so that no person could possibly read the thing and remain sane. That by itself is reason to oppose it. You want free trade? Fine, in general I do too. So a five page treaty saying we are all going to freely trade and the first and last page is flowery diplomat speak and signatures. Propose that and I'm in. This horror is almost exactly the opposite of free trade, this is crony capitalism defined.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @12:11AM
I will be [...] voting based on opposition to this thing
...and, rather than being reactive after the fact, be proactive and let your Congresscritters know how you feel before the vote.
Know what gets a politician's attention?
A flood of telephone calls to his office.
(DO NOT email.)
The Capitol switchboard is 1(866)220-0044 toll-free.
In DC it's (202)224-3121.
If you don't know your guy's name, just give your zip code and you'll be put through to his office.
Tell his folks what you think.
Have everybody you know do likewise.
Make him aware that you are all watching him closely on this make-or-break issue (with the implication that, if he muffs it, the lot of you will actively work for his defeat|recall).
This is where neighborhood groups, community groups, clubs, bowling leagues, etc. can be useful.
If the group hasn't met recently|won't meet soon, use a cascading notification tree with fall-through and redundancy to make sure -everybody- knows what's happening.
This advice comes from Ralph Nader who knows a thing or 2 about how to get stuff done WRT gov't.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @05:53AM
jmorris! Calm down! Right now! Chill pill! Eat it!
But I hate it too and I'm one of the official Koch Bros stooges according to the SJWs here.
There are no SJWs here at SoylentNews. There are only people who agree with you. It is OK! I know this is a new experience, but relax and go with it. After a while, it will feel just as normal as your old self.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Common Joe on Monday November 09 2015, @05:54AM
We've heard stories about three letter agencies and places like the RIAA trying to influence opinion in forums. "Cynical about reasons people have for opposing TPP" sounds like they found their way here. Reminder: Don't feed the trolls.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @03:09PM
Have an even more cynical AC. There are a shitload of paid shills working every major internet community, another shitload of people working for free hoping to get paid in the future, and yet another shitload of gullible idiots going along with the "popular" "consensus". Their tactics include:
* Accuse their debate opponents of an evil agenda ("racist" and "right-wing" are common accusations)
* Say that everything is going to fail and you might as well give up.
* Have another shill politely agree with the first.
* Have another shill ridicule whoever disagreed with the first.
* Cause a shitstorm whenever someone disputes their narrative until admins ban the entire argument to get rid of the shitstorm.
Soylent News is probably on the radar of some of these groups for covering Gamergate and related [soylentnews.org] issues [soylentnews.org].
It is no coincidence that many of the organizations that protested against CISPA and CDA have been silent on TPP.
It is no coincidence that Reddit now denies ever claiming to be for free speech and that the moderators aligned with SRS remove posts about the TPP.
It is no coincidence that the EFF has no statement on its website about the judicial order banning Aaron Walker from writing about the past of Brett Kimberlin.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Gaaark on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:39PM
I went to:
https://secure.canadians.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1899&ea.campaign.id=44210 [canadians.org]
to blow off some steam up here in Canada.
Gonna let Trudeau know whas what.
In the words of his father, "Just watch me!"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---