TechDirt reports
In early November, the "final text" of the [Trans-Pacific Partnership] was finally released. The [United States Trade Representative] even posted the thing to Medium, pretending that after years of secrecy it was now being transparent. As we've been told time and time again, the final document is not open to any changes. The only thing left to do was a "legal scrub" which is a final process in which the lawyers comb through the document word by word, basically to make sure there are no typos or out-and-out errors. The legal scrub is NOT when any substantial changes can be made.
...yet the eagle-eyed Jeremy Malcolm over at [the Electronic Freedom Frontier] has spotted an apparent change in the "legal scrub" of the Intellectual Property chapter that will massively expand criminal penalties for copyright infringing activities that have no impact on the actual market. Technically, the scrub just changed the word "paragraph" to "subparagraph" in the following sentence:
With regard to copyright and related rights piracy provided for under paragraph 1, a Party may limit application of this subparagraph to the cases in which there is an impact on the right holder's ability to exploit the work, performance or phonogram in the market.
[...] It's obviously a significant change that could end up criminalizing plenty of activity that is infringing, but which is totally not for profit and which may have plenty of legitimate uses. There's been a long push by the legacy copyright players to use the TPP to ratchet up criminal penalties, and many of the worst proposals were stripped from the agreement--but, with this "legal scrub", things have moved massively towards criminalization.
Related Stories
Trump Proposes Rejoining Trans-Pacific Partnership
President Trump, in a surprising reversal, told a gathering of farm state lawmakers and governors on Thursday morning that he was directing his advisers to look into rejoining the multicountry trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal he pulled out of within days of assuming the presidency.
Rejoining the 11-country pact could be a sharp reversal of fortune for many American industries that stood to benefit from the trade agreement's favorable terms and Republican lawmakers who supported the pact. The deal, which was initiated by the Obama administration, was largely viewed as a tool to prod China into making the type of economic reforms that the United States and others have long wanted.
Both Democrats and Republicans attacked the deal during the president campaign, but many business leaders were disappointed when Mr. Trump withdrew from agreement, arguing that the United States would end up with less favorable terms attempting to broker an array of individual trade pacts and that scrapping the deal would empower China.
Republicans in Congress have also been skeptical of Mr. Trump's tendencies on trade, and 25 Republican senators sent a letter to Mr. Trump urging him to re-engage with the pact "so that the American people can prosper from the tremendous opportunities that these trading partners bring."
Previously: Donald Trump to Withdraw US from Trans-Pacific Partnership
Renamed TPP Signed, Without the IP Rules, Without the USA
Related: "Legal Scrub" of TPP Makes Massive Change to Penalties for Copyright Infringement
US Government's Own Report Shows Toxic TPP "Not Worth Passing"
Australia Leads Charge to Revive TPP While Canada Abstains
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Friday February 19 2016, @01:35PM
Secret economic treaty continues to be a case study... in deception. Color me shocked.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared [eff.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday February 19 2016, @02:28PM
And you can be absolutely certain that Obama wants to shove the TPP down our throats before his successor gets into office. Especially if that successor is Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders, all of whom have voiced their opposition to it and in Sanders and Cruz' case voted against it.
On the other hand, if you oppose this stuff, the fact that those are the 3 candidates currently left in the race opposed to the TPP should help guide your vote.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RedGreen on Friday February 19 2016, @06:47PM
Right like it would the first time a lying scumbag politician said one thing while getting elected then does the opposite while in office. The corporate parasite masters have spoken that thing is done deal whether the people want it or not. The older I get having watched this shit happen decade after decade the more I am convinced the French had it right couple of centuries ago time for a return of heads rolling in the streets...
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 19 2016, @07:16PM
No lies necessary, Obama campaigned on this issue in 2012. [salon.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @02:14AM
I'm not sure where it says on that link that he campaigned for that issue in 2012.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20 2016, @02:21AM
The fact that politicians running for office oppose the treaty as part of their campaign should tell you that the treaty is not publicly favorable and politicians know this. Yet why is the government, that's supposed to represent the public, pushing forth a treaty that they know is not publicly favorable? Even Hillary Clinton changed her position when she decided to run for president to opposing the treaty. She knows, and knew from before while she was pushing for the treaty, that it's not publicly favorable.
If politicians in office are willing to push a treaty that they know is not publicly favorable why should you believe that the ones running for office wouldn't do the same thing? Knowing a treaty is not publicly favorable will automatically make them campaign against it while running just to get elected but the fact that politicians in office who know the treaty is unfavorable are pushing for it should indicate that the ones campaigning against it might be campaigning against it just to get elected and might change their minds afterwards.
Or, another possible scenario, is they will drop the TPP just to 'keep their promise' and start a 'new' treaty that's just as bad and claim that the new treaty 'fixes' what was wrong with the TPP when it really doesn't.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Friday February 19 2016, @01:59PM
Well that's all we need to hear.
If this is true, then the vote must be 'no.'
Write your congresscritter now, and let him know you're ready to vote for anyone that will run against him if he votes for this shit.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 19 2016, @03:13PM
Wait wait wait...they released the text of the thing--to the public!--before the vote?
What the hell
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday February 19 2016, @03:23PM
Either way it is 'No'. There is nothing they could change oe remove from this document to make it acceptable to the public.
And we all know if they change it at all, it will be to make it more hostile to us.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Touché) by Capt. Obvious on Friday February 19 2016, @04:14PM
You have competitive congressional elections?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:37PM
In the Virginia primary of 2014, Republican House Majority Leader(!) Eric Cantor was beaten.
Bernie Sanders went into Iowa 30 points down and came out with a virtual tie (despite apparent mischief by Demoncrat party operatives' on behalf of the establishment's candidate of choice).
It's all about the message and the organization.
Find a great person; get him|her to run; help spread the message; recruit more volunteers as you go.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Capt. Obvious on Friday February 19 2016, @11:17PM
You're talking about the primaries. And sure, there can be some change there. But any candidate needs to appeal to the base of that party. Which means that there is no way to get more than a Moderate X (and today, really an Extreme X).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:57AM
In the US its a choice between "fascist" and "less fascist". "Less fascist" is obviously the better choice between the two options, but instead people keep pushing for "even more fascist".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Dunbal on Friday February 19 2016, @02:00PM
"I see that those countries which possess protection are prospering, and that those countries which possess free trade are decaying." -- Otto von Bismarck
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @02:48PM
The Trump voters want to bring back the protectionist legislation of the 1920s [economist.com].
Those were a big help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @02:51PM
No, they just want Trump to not make stupid (for the people) trade deals like TPP and roll back crap like NAFTA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @03:01PM
Yup, Trump is the master of the Art of the Deal [nydailynews.com].
Like all Republican politicians, he's an advocate of limited government. [nationalreview.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @03:11PM
Limited government... as long as they can use their power and connections to stack the deck in their favor, commandeer public resources and zoning approvals for their own projects and shit all over middle income citizens.
But, as long as they don't talk about copyright enforcement that's cool, OK? Gotta have priorities on this site.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @04:06PM
Limited government... as long as they can use their power and connections to stack the deck in their favor, commandeer public resources and zoning approvals for their own projects and shit all over middle income citizens.
Not limited government.
But, as long as they don't talk about copyright enforcement that's cool, OK?
Government-enforced monopolies over the distribution of particular data aren't exactly a sign of limited government, seeing as how they conflict with free speech and private property rights. But even if you aren't opposed to copyright, surely you are capable of seeing that not every method of enforcing copyright is going to be ethical or constitutional? Bypassing due process (like the DMCA does, with its censor-first-ask-questions-later notices), giving someone a 'strike' based on mere accusations, accepting flimsy evidence of copyright infringement in court, allowing copyright thugs to sue thousands of people at once to prevent individuals from making any meaningful defense, trying to ban technologies merely because they could be used to infringe upon copyrights, etc. are all unethical and/or unconstitutional methods of enforcing copyright. The ends simply don't justify the means, unless you're a batshit insane copyright maximalist.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday February 20 2016, @02:05AM
Limited government... as long as they can use their power and connections to stack the deck in their favor, commandeer public resources and zoning approvals for their own projects and shit all over middle income citizens.
Not limited government.
But it is the government you will have under Trump or Cruz.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @09:40PM
Trump is a nitwit and a wimp.
He shows up unprepared. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [alternet.org]
He makes up "facts" and, when called out on his bogosity, he doubles down on the stupid.
Just imagine this pompous idiot being president during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
...and, as also mentioned in the linked article, when a girl stands up to his bullying, he runs away whining.
If he hadn't had a rich (slumlord) daddy and the inheritance that came with that, none of us would be aware of The Donald's existence.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Friday February 19 2016, @04:27PM
Otto von Bismarck
So your opposition to trade agreements is quotes from 1800s?
It's no longer a good idea to have wars over resources. Trade agreements allow people to trade resources without military conquests.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Friday February 19 2016, @07:03PM
Do you agree that stealing is wrong? Wait so you base this decision on laws that are 4000 years old [wikipedia.org]? The problem with the "Appeal to Tradition/Antiquity" fallacy. It is irrelevant. If it was true in the 1800s it is probably still true today. Humans haven't changed that much.
Trade agreements allow governments to steal resources without military conquests, you mean. I wonder if the owner of the rice plantation you suddenly decided could compete with Superpower X is happy you just put him out of business. I don't see his signature on the trade agreement. I do notice, however, that your cousin's cement factory will get a break in tariffs with Superpower X in exchange for them being allowed to dump all that rice on your local market for below market cost though. What a sweet deal free trade is. For some.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 19 2016, @07:36PM
Or, you could, you know, just lose the entitlement attitude and not use military force to steal resources. Just because someone else has something you want, and is unwilling to give or sell it to you at the price you want (or at all), doesn't mean you have the right to use violence to take it from them. Most of us learn this in kindergarten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @08:31PM
The right way to set tariffs is for maximum tax revenue. That prevents both protectionist extremes (high tariff * zero volume = zero revenue) and free trade exposure (zero tariff * highest volume = zero revenue). Free trade is not a good thing, because it makes domestic production compete with imports that do not have to adhere to domestic regulations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 20 2016, @05:29AM
The right way to set tariffs is for maximum tax revenue.
Maximum tax revenue is not the right way.
That prevents both protectionist extremes (high tariff * zero volume = zero revenue) and free trade exposure (zero tariff * highest volume = zero revenue).
What's so wrong with your country that free trade exposure is a serious problem? Maybe you should fix that first?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday February 19 2016, @02:22PM
If you know anyone who believes all the bullshit propaganda put out by the copyright lobby (and given that they are even pushing that propaganda in schools now, it's likely that you do) and they refuse to accept the usual lofty counterarguments about the value of the public domain, about preservation of culture and the impossibility of 'owning' an idea, ask them this question:
If the copyright lobby are so damned noble and heroic, why do they have to resort to sneaky, underhanded bullshit like this?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @02:24PM
Did they seriously write "piracy" in a text about copyright?
The legal term piracy means robbery on the high seas. The legal term for "piracy" is copyright infringement.
If they have really started to put slang in legal texts, how long until we see "PMITA prison" in a legal text?
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday February 19 2016, @03:39PM
Slightly before they start printing $10,000,000 bills with the motto “Haulin' Ass Gettin' Paid.”
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:43PM
Words change new meanings over time, more news at 11. And yes, it is less precise than calling it intellectual property infringement, but on the other hand, it's much more shorter, easier to use and widely understood. If somebody told You that they had been engaged in piracy over the summer, in all seriousness You wouldn't ask them how was the weather in Somalia.
Also, you are a faggot. Decide for Yourself, whether I had called You a homosexual, a useless person or a bundle of sticks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @07:06PM
Not everyone is a descriptivist, jackass.
News at 11
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @05:49PM
Newspeak baby. It's important that drones understand that copyright infringement is just as serious as murder and robbery on the high seas. Your simile perfectly reflects this. Getting anally raped in part and parcel of the US prison culture and the sentences handed.
Absolutely sickening.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @02:45PM
The summary including the quote doesn't make it "obvious" why the change from "paragraph" to "subparagraph" is significant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday February 19 2016, @03:18PM
Narrowing the scope of a statement in no way cries out "more dangerous" to me...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by Capt. Obvious on Friday February 19 2016, @04:22PM
The statement from the summary says that a party to the TTP (a Country) does not have to apply all the punishments in this paragraph to copyright infringement, unless that effects the marketability of the material. So the draconian punishments for non-market affecting infringement are not required.
Each punishment is enumerated in a separate subparagraph. Tightening the language tightens the exemption for non-market affecting infringement to only one resultant action, instead of all the punishments in the entire paragraph.
Although technically this section isn't even about punishment, but if the government can sue you without the rights holder even noticing or caring.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gravis on Friday February 19 2016, @02:57PM
my face won't change back! ༼;´༎ຶ ༎ຶ༽
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Friday February 19 2016, @04:06PM
When you are desperate to be deprived of your well-earned "freedom", then I'd suggest that you start to whistle the current top 100 list tunes. Surely, such public and obvious display of performing copyrighted music is the root of all evil. Please be advised, humming will be punished more harshly because it disguises the obvious infringement and makes it much more heinous and criminally premeditated. All those whistles deprive the children's children of the authors of well-deserved income!
We demand that you, the government, use the surveillance of all daily activities to the maximum possible potential. Don't care about the terrorists, don't care about the shootings, don't care about the pollution, don't care about the mafia! We need every man woman and child to listen for, watch out for and report every instance of public performance using any known or unknown method. No exceptions to the rule! You blow a note and have to pay the price.
We also want all of you to report copyrighted visuals of anything you encounter. Every color and combination has been used before and is therefore already intellectual property of one or another corporate consortium. The infringement of all you bastards out there going about your business must be stopped by all means. It cannot be true that every person in the world can get away with displaying clothing with copyrighted color combination. It has to stop and it has to stop now. Report your neighbor! Report your family! Report yourself! You must pay the price of copyright infringement!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Demose on Friday February 19 2016, @05:07PM
If this gets ratified I'm never touching content without one or both of those types of licenses.
(Score: 2) by joshuajon on Friday February 19 2016, @05:20PM
[the Electronic Freedom Frontier] ? Do you mean the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] or is this a reference to something else entirely?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @10:05PM
Yeah. (They say that the memory is the second thing to go.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @08:53PM
Japan's Top Economist Debunks the TPP! [youtube.com]
(seriously, he really is a serious economist even though he cosplays sometimes. He's doing good work dispelling propaganda and explaining complex issues to the ignorant masses)
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday February 19 2016, @10:03PM
He raises some really interesting points I haven't anywhere else.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @10:13PM
Not sure why this was modded flamebait, I found it quite an informative video.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 19 2016, @10:26PM
My guess: The incorrect use of the word "Communism" (an egalitarian system).
TPP is more winner-take-all.
"Libertarianism" would be a more apt description.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 20 2016, @05:40AM
TPP is more winner-take-all. "Libertarianism" would be a more apt description.
Sure, it is. There are a number of communist governments of the 20th Century that were winner-take-all. They won, they took everything. And while there are pro-copyright libertarians, the ideology has never been about using government power to enforce ludicrous notions of property rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21 2016, @05:19AM
Simply calling your country and government "Communist" does not actually make it communist. By that logic, the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" would be one of the most democratic nations in the world.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 21 2016, @07:15AM
Simply calling your country and government "Communist" does not actually make it communist. By that logic, the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" would be one of the most democratic nations in the world.
Sure, you also have to look at the doctrines the governments actually enforced. That's what made them communist.