|
Broken Machine posted:Great news, the government of Japan has released a summary of the TPP, and someone translated it The White House Trade Representative also posted a summary: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Wikileaks also claims to have a copy of the final IP section of the agreement. It's wikileaks so grain of salt. https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Wikileaks also claims to have a copy of the final IP section of the agreement. It's wikileaks so grain of salt. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/09/wikileaks-releases-tpp-intellectual-property-rights-chapter Guardian article I just read on this topic. The line "Obama has pledged to make the TPP public but only after the legislation has passed." stuck out to me. Yeah... gently caress that noise. I know we haven't seen the full deal yet, but cagey bullshit like this doesn't exactly put me in a trusting mood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/09/wikileaks-releases-tpp-intellectual-property-rights-chapter That would be illegal under the terms of the fast track legislation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/09/wikileaks-releases-tpp-intellectual-property-rights-chapter I'm not sure why The Guardian is reporting that because it would be illegal for him to do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
That entire article is weird, in fact. A paragraph devoted to the claim that the TPP would allow countries to prohibit trials if they would be embarassing to the government followed by one sentence that says "oh btw the TPP says that local whistleblowing laws take priority so this section isnt even applicable to countries that aren't already doing this"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/09/wikileaks-releases-tpp-intellectual-property-rights-chapter It stuck out because it's a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
The way I'm reading it they're going to let Congress look it over for a month but not the general public. It could just be an error though I suppose. Either way, with all the awful crap being leaked I'm pretty comfortable being on team "no" until I see reason to do otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The way I'm reading it they're going to let Congress look it over for a month but not the general public. It could just be an error though I suppose. Either way, with all the awful crap being leaked I'm pretty comfortable being on team "no" until I see reason to do otherwise. I'm reading the wikileaks text right now and the sections that the article is alarmed about are: 13. Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution and 2. Subject to Paragraph 3, Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties for one or more of the following: (a) the unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system; (b) the unauthorized, willful misappropriation of a trade secret, including by means of a computer system; or (c) the fraudulent disclosure, or alternatively, the unauthorized and willful disclosure of a trade secret, including by means of a computer system. 3. With respect to the acts referred to in Paragraph 2, a Party may, where appropriate, limit the availability of such criminal procedures, or limit the level of penalties available, to one or more of the following cases: (a) the acts are for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain; (b) the acts are related to a product or service in national or international commerce; (c) the acts are intended to injure the owner of such trade secret; (d) the acts are directed by or for the benefit of or in association with a foreign economic entity; or (e) the acts are detrimental to a Party's economic interests, international relations, or national defense or national security1 Which only seem to be terrible if you're Wikileaks and/or a news outlet that has a special relationship with Wikileaks ie. The Guardian.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The way I'm reading it they're going to let Congress look it over for a month but not the general public. It could just be an error though I suppose. Either way, with all the awful crap being leaked I'm pretty comfortable being on team "no" until I see reason to do otherwise. Well what you're reading is wrong and so are most of the headlines regarding the leaks. Spend 1.3 minutes googling what you think is "awful crap" and come back here if you still have questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Any word on ISDS?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The way I'm reading it they're going to let Congress look it over for a month but not the general public. It could just be an error though I suppose. Either way, with all the awful crap being leaked I'm pretty comfortable being on team "no" until I see reason to do otherwise. Yeah that's not correct. There's also the fact that America is not the arbiter of when the document gets released regardless: Australia, New Zealand and Canada are all English speaking countries who are also party to it and likely to release it in English. And the other 8 countries will likely release it in their languages. Also what awful crap?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Which only seem to be terrible if you're Wikileaks and/or a news outlet that has a special relationship with Wikileaks ie. The Guardian. That does seem terrible because they're two of the few organizations interested in investigating and exposing the terrible poo poo US and US-aligned governments are doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
tekz posted:That does seem terrible because they're two of the few organizations interested in investigating and exposing the terrible poo poo US and US-aligned governments are doing. Oh don't worry, I'm sure Russia Today will still exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm reading the wikileaks text right now and the sections that the article is alarmed about are: Aren't these already law in most of the countries involved?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:05
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah that's not correct. There's also the fact that America is not the arbiter of when the document gets released regardless: Australia, New Zealand and Canada are all English speaking countries who are also party to it and likely to release it in English. And the other 8 countries will likely release it in their languages. Just from what I read of the Japanese notes, there are a few things, like the relaxation of foreign currency reserve requirements and the liberalization of automotive markets in SE Asia, which are fairly iffy. Not what most people care about, of course.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Aren't these already law in most of the countries involved? Yeah most governments already have a "not allowed to leak classified material" law on the books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
EFF article slamming the TPP: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared Some choice bits: quote: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 rightsholders 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. The bolded bit confirms something one of the initial drafters of the treaty said in this interview (http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/trans-pacific-partnership-prospects-and-challenges/): quote:I have felt a bit like the creator of Frankenstein’s monster. A decade ago, when I and other Asia hands developed the concept for the TPP, our goal was actually quite idealistic: The point of the enterprise was to promote labor standards, human rights, environmental projections, and prosperity in Asia without the use of force or coercion. It was also part of an American hedging strategy on China’s rise. Let’s also remember that the free flow of trade is a classically liberal idea. Over time, however, the lobbyists, lawyers, and corporate money corrupted this pure idea, turning it into something more questionable in its current form. Will the TPP become a good monster or bad one? I’m not sure, and I can understand why there is now opposition to the TPP these days, for example over the provisions that would restrict access to generic, affordable drugs. More from that EFF article: quote: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. quote:Ban on Circumventing Digital Rights Management (DRM) quote:On damages, the text (QQ.H.4) remains as bad as ever: rightsholders can submit “any legitimate measure of value” to a judicial authority for determination of damages, including the suggested retail price of infringing goods. Additionally, judges must have the power to order pre-established damages (at the rightsholder's election), or additional damages, each of which may go beyond compensating the rightsholder for its actual loss, and thereby create a disproportionate chilling effect for users and innovators. quote:Trade Secrets DMCA for everyone except Chile quote:ISP Liability mila kunis fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:11
|
|
tekz posted:EFF article slamming the TPP: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared You do understand that the US is also bound by the treaty, so rewriting large parts of US law would sink the treaty in Congress? I mean, it'd be great if we could use the TPP to spear Disney, the RIAA, et al, through the heart, but it's simply out of bounds at the moment.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
tekz posted:EFF article slamming the TPP: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared As far as I can see, this stuff is all consistent with existing laws in the countries that are party to the agreement, except that it means New Zealand (and maybe Chile? Not sure) finally expands copyright from life plus 50 to life plus 70. The majority of nations already have had copyright at life plus 70 for a couple decades,including us/Canada/Mexico
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
tekz posted:EFF article slamming the TPP: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared EFF has stopped being anything other than fearmongering on anything IP related. Basically assume they're full of poo poo on copyright because even when they get the effects of a law right (no longer a given), they get the practical effects totally wrong. For example, that monstrous life + 70 copyright term isn't going to change anything in about half of the countries (because that's what they're already at, with the rest at life + 50). Know who else is at life + 70? Sweden, which as we all know is full of evil laws. (The entire EU is also at +70.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
tekz posted:EFF article slamming the TPP: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared This looks a lot like "the TPP is bad because it doesn't revoke laws on the US books that we don't like and also make them illegal for all treaty signatories." The parts you linked and bolded even say that the treaty contains provisions for local governments to bypass DRM but because they aren't "mandatory" the treaty is bad. Apart from that it looks like a lot of buzzwords and demagoguery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Now, it would be good if we had a Congress that was willing to stand up to the rent-seeking assholes of the entertainment industry and use this to bulldoze better IP laws through. But we don't, so allowing signatory nations to basically keep their laws without mandating changes to American laws is about the best outcome.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Kalman posted:EFF has stopped being anything other than fearmongering on anything IP related. Basically assume they're full of poo poo on copyright because even when they get the effects of a law right (no longer a given), they get the practical effects totally wrong. A quick search claims that a 20-year increase in copyright term only increases the present value of a work by 0.16% (Section 1a). That's negligible for a living author, so the only one that really benefits in the long run are the inheritors of that copyright i.e. businesses in the entertainment industry or owners of the author's estate. If the opportunity cost outweighed the benefits of shorter terms, +70 might be understandable, but I'm not seeing that here. I ask because your post indicates that internationally standardizing +70 term copyright is at least not a significant economic loss or reason for concern. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:What are the economic benefits of +70 term copyright? I don't think that life + 70 is better than life + 50 - I think they are effectively indistinguishable in basically all cases and therefore think that pretending that life + 70 is some huge offense against humanity life EFF does is ridiculous. E ugh you didn't even read your own link. "It is straightforward to calculate that when royalties remain constant over time and the discount rate is 7%, adding 20 years contributes a mere 0.16% to the present value of a work created by the author (See appendix 1)." Royalties don't remain constant over time. I have no idea if a discount rate of 7% is reasonable but even if it is, this is basically saying "because the value is so far in the future it can be heavily discounted" without actually attempting to justify any of its assumptions. It also assumes that the function of copyright is to incentivize creation - that's a story that is demonstrably false (see eg Tushnet's Economies of Desire, amongst others of her articles). If we instead assume that its primary function is to provide the creator with a measure of control over the use of their creation (quasi-moral rights), we are in much better territory, combined with a secondary function of rewarding successful exploitation of creation, i.e., copyright functions to reward dissemination, not creation, which is fine, because creators will create regardless but disseminators won't take on that role for free. Copyright rewards the author noneconomically in the form of control and middlemen economically, and should be constructed to do so while not overly restraining creation. Kalman fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
tekz posted:The bolded bit confirms something one of the initial drafters of the treaty said in this interview (http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/trans-pacific-partnership-prospects-and-challenges/): Yeah, but has he seen the final draft????????
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
For what it's worth the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade here in New Zealand estimates that the 20 year increase in copyright term is going to build up over time to $55 million a year in cost. To put that in perspective, they estimate $259 million reduction in tariffs on goods exported and a $20 million tariff reduction on goods imported per year once fully implemented. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/TPP-Q&A-Oct-2015.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:What are the economic benefits of +70 term copyright? I'm guessing he's being somewhat sarcastic. As it stands now, U.S. Copyright law means that Mickey Mouse won't fall into fair use until about 30 years after the heat death of the universe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:I'm guessing he's being somewhat sarcastic. As it stands now, U.S. Copyright law means that Mickey Mouse won't fall into fair use until about 30 years after the heat death of the universe. Well, that post that LookingGodInTheEye quoted said nothing about economic benefits, just that the laws weren't out of the average, and that even Communist Sweden had Life + 70. computer parts fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
Here's a useful map for comparing worldwide copyright terms as of about 2012:  Not sure why that labels the US in a different color from the rest of the Life+70s, but it does. Also no idea why Mexico's copyright term is life plus 100 years?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Also no idea why Mexico's copyright term is life plus 100 years? According to Wikipedia it was only extended to that in 2003 (pre-1994 it was Life + 50, 1994-2003 was Life + 75). Also very strange is that this also extends to government works. Unlike the US, they aren't Public Domain by default. The really strange thing is that according to an article about TPP Mexico currently has IP laws ranging from 50-75 years after death, and TPP would extend them to 95 years. Either that's specifically referring to works created before 1994 and 2003 respectively, or it's a lie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
So uhhh the full text is out. Apparently Vietnam agreed to US labor laws including the freedom to unionize and strike. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/business/international/trans-pacific-trade-deal-tpp-vietnam-labor-rights.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
With all the handwringing about it I'm surprised the thread isn't more active with the full text release.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:With all the handwringing about it I'm surprised the thread isn't more active with the full text release. Give it a day or two for the usual suspects to start overblowing the contents and then I'd expect some posts along the lines of "EFF says this is the worst thing ever!!!!" Along the lines of Vietnamese concession to improve labor standards, there's an enforceable requirement to give access to telco services and interconnect on RAND terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Along the lines of Vietnamese concession to improve labor standards, there's an enforceable requirement to give access to telco services and interconnect on RAND terms. What does this mean?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:What does this mean? Short version: some basic net neutrality provisions are enshrined in the treaty language. E: huh. Thinking about it, even if this wasn't an anti-China bill, China probably couldn't sign on to it without dropping the Great Firewall/restrictions on Google/etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Short version: some basic net neutrality provisions are enshrined in the treaty language. This is both cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
So did anyone find out what's in the TiPP?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So did anyone find out what's in the TiPP? it finally turns the world into full on shadowrun
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
In a complete and utter shock, the deal is almost exactly what was leaked months ago. But remember, it was wrong to come to a conclusion based on a preliminary leak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:20
|
|
