|
thrakkorzog posted:Can anyone explain to me why the house Dems voted for TPA, but then voted against TAA? Because I'm a bit confused here. Many of them actually aren't really against the TPP, but doing it this way allowed Pelosi to signal to Boehner that the House better get the transportation funding bill done first, and then they can revisit TAA and have a decent chance at passage.
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
cheese posted:Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal. You are, actually. They will have open access to the agreed upon text to determine if the U.S. would like to sign on to the deal as a whole, but (as a condition of the negotiations) they don't have open access to the text while it's being negotiated. You realize that the "TPP" votes have been, essentially, on whether or not the President can present the negotiated deal to Congress as an unamendable package for an up or down vote, right? Like, no one is voting right now on the actual contents of the deal except in the most general sense (the kind that briefings and limited access provides in plenty.). Voting yes on TPA and TAA is a precondition to an eventual vote on the negotiated text; it is no way actual approval of the negotiated text. All Obama/USTR are trying to do right now is make sure that they can negotiate with other people without having to worry about various Senators offering amendments to gently caress up the deal, because that's the only way anyone else is going to be willing to negotiate with the U.S. Part of the necessary preconditions for that are secrecy. And constitutionally, this is loving fine. The Senate may advise and consent on treaties. That is the same language as used with respect to nominations. Senators don't get to propose nominees - they take the nominees and (don't) vote on them. Similarly, the Senate takes a treaty and can approve or reject it. Constitutionally, they have no role in negotiations and a Senate-amended treaty still has to be approved by both the President and the other signatories to the treaty. This is simply the negotiating parties signaling, in advance, that they will reject all amendments in order to simplify the negotiations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why does containing china involve granting corporations the ability to bypass courts and sue governments over labor/environmental/any other legislation? Why have exactly 0 of the posters itt defending the tpp actually defended against any of the substantive objections (ISDS, patents), and instead focused on irrelevant tangents? Because most of the posters here have focused on bullshit secrecy arguments, and because most of them are too dumb to actually understand what the provisions they're whining about do. ISDS is the international law equivalent of the 5th Amendment. I have zero problem with that. Devil is in the details, but we actually do have some details about what that system will look like and it doesn't seem to be a bad one. The IP reforms I generally don't have an issue with as they're mostly harmonization reforms that require US/EU style laws. While I don't think those laws are perfect, I don't think a system in which generic pharma manufacturers can manufacture a drug from day one are a good idea either, and are in fact a worse idea than Hatch-Waxman style systems. The usual suspects (EFF) provide reasonably accurate analysis, but bury it under misleading headlines. When you dig into "arrested for downloading movies!" you see that it's actually "arrested for copyright infringement on a commercial scale regardless of financial benefit." Again, not something I'm going to have a problem with. Maybe there's something buried in the text that, when we get an actual release, will be upsetting. But what I've seen so far? Not so much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:Here's a question for the TPP defenders in the thread: What's your response to this critique? Doctors Without Borders is calling the TPP "the most harmful trade pact ever It helps pharmaceutical companies actually see a return on the extremely high investments that biologics require, which leads them to actually invest in creating biologics. Doctors Without Borders is a great group, but their primary interest is in cheap medicines, not in development of new treatments. They worry about inexpensive versions of existing treatments, not about what new treatments might be found. Drug companies don't develop drugs out of charity - they do it because they expect to be able to receive some return on the investment. The point of the patent system isn't to promote competition while the item is patented - it's to promote development of new ideas and to encourage post-patent cooperation. If you dislike that system and want some other system (public prizes or similar), that's fine and it's also not a reason to be against TPP. TPP doesn't bar public research and public domain biologics, but it does (at least, in the leaks I've seen) require that you receive a minimum time on market after regulatory approval. Because pharma patents don't correlate well to the regulatory process (even with term extension for approval delay, you aren't getting anywhere near 20 years and typically not even 10 years) it provides alternate protection to drugs with long approval processes. And even then, you can still make a generic during data exclusivity - you just have to spend the money to independently prove your drug is safe rather than relying on the first comers' clinical trials. (And just one more thought: the pharma companies don't charge 11k a month in other countries, nor would they be able to after TPP. They price based on ability to pay.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gee where could money for scientific research possibly come from if we don't let drug company executives divert the earnings of desperate Africans and SE Asians into new yachts and learjets. We don't. We let them divert your paycheck and mine. Desperate Africans and SE Asians don't get charged 11k/week for a drug because pharma companies know they can't pay it; that's the whole reason there was a fight about reimportation a while back. (If you say "the government" will fund product development, then I'll laugh at you after pointing out TPP doesn't prevent a government from doing exactly that. If you say "universities", then I'm going to ask where you think they'd get the funding given the huge cuts they're already facing and also point out that they're some of the worst trolls out there these days.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If drug companies can make more money selling drugs for $11k a year to the upper classes of poor countries rather than selling it cheaply so more people can afford to pay they will do it, that's why they want the treaty. The chemists and scientists do pretty drat well. And the government could fund drug research whether we sign the treaty or not - it just won't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That's what India does and it works pretty well on a median household income of <$3.5K. Mostly India free-rides off patented inventions because the patent system in India is a joke even before you account for some India-specific laws that favor generics. Let's not pretend there's a ton of new drugs coming out of Indian pharma.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Sure there are, example: Centchroman. Once-weekly non-hormonal contraceptive with superior side-effects profile to the COCP, made available for $1 a month. It's even getting studied in the West because it appears to be effective against certain types of breast cancer One drug first introduced in 1991. I think I will stay comfortable with my statement. I'll even restate it: the vast majority of pharmaceutical work is being done in countries with strong IP laws. What's more, Indian pharma has actually started doing original research in the last decade - right around the time they acceded to TRIPS and were required to allow product patents, not just process patents. Before that, the majority of the research was into improving manufacturing processes (which could be protected), with little research into new compounds (which could not.) E: I'm totally okay with the state bringing old compounds to market at low prices to avoid some of the issues that have recently cropped up with regards to old drugs (e.g., the doxy and digoxin price spikes), but those are circumstances where a manufacturer takes advantage of temporary lacks of competition to extract rents; that's not a situation that would be any better in the absence of patent protection, or the case of a rejection of TPP. Kalman fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:This is so loving stupid a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' I can't believe that even you can't see it. And it's not as if the bullshit rationales that the drug industry(and its guard labor) give to justify the vast rents they extract from the economy are going to be any more persuasive in this thread than in any other. Do we really need to drag out the ol' profit margin and R&D spending numbers to prove that the contention that poor suffering GlaxoSmithKline just wants to help Vietnamese peasants but mean ol' Big Labor won't let them is a load of horseshit? I don't think GSK wants to help Vietnamese peasants. I think they want to make money. I just am not dumb enough to think that they're going to continue to engage in pharma research outside of the environs where that research can be protected in ways that will make them money. One reason I think this: the fact that large pharma companies used to be in India, and left when India changed their laws to disallow compound patents. It's almost like an actual experiment showing that IP laws do affect behavior, that patent protection is considered valuable by drug makers, and if the desired behavior is to generate new drugs, we should look at laws that do that, not laws that don't. Hence TPP harmonization provisions, which are very much aimed at forcing people into regimes more like the U.S. IP regimes. Which work pretty well in pharma. And "vast rents" my rear end. As I've posted before, pharma profit margins are in line with comparable high tech companies. The bullshit BBC story everyone cites to downplays the fact that 2013 was a huge outlier year for Pfizer due to one-off accounting profits and that their actual margin once you strip out the 10bn they realized in spinning off Zoetis and some litigation revenue from Teva was around 22-23%. Which is comparable to Apple, MS, Intel, or Google.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The "old patents" poo poo is just Hatch-Waxman, right? Yeah, the entire thing is basically Hatch-Waxman.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That hasn't been the case for over 30 years, domestically, since the Hatch-Waxman Act. There's a secondary system called data exclusivity that deals with the fact that WJ's coworkers (meaning the PTO) are faster than clinical trials, so pharma patents are often near expiry when the NDA gets approved. Data exclusivity provisions (which are related to but different from reformulation issues, which are what Obdicut was talking about) are essentially a secondary patent-like system which bars ANDAs on drugs for a period of time after the drug is first approved for use. In the U.S. you get 5 years for new drugs, 3 years for new uses, and 12 years for biologics. During that period (assuming the patent is expired) a generic maker can apply via a NDA, but not via an ANDA (or the biosimilars equivalent), so they have to produce their own test data. For followons (ie ever greening), once the original drug comes out of exclusivity, you can ANDA the original drug even if there's exclusivity on the new indication. Of course, the EU offers 8 years for data exclusivity with an additional 2 years of market exclusivity (so you can start your trials after 8 years but you still can't sell for 10 after approval) and a 1 year new use exclusivity, while Japan is 6 years for new drugs. So it's not like data exclusivity is the sole driver in the U.S. (or even a primary driver). Lastly, shorter patent periods probably would not produce cheaper drugs - they would produce more expensive drugs during the patent period since the recoupment math changes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Thunder Moose posted:It would herald the generic cheaper brand sooner at the cost of making the designer drug more expensive if I get what you are saying? (Honest question, I am pretty bad at comprehending this sort of thing) Basically, yeah. It's not a 1:1 thing - you might wind up saving money overall, since pricing isn't purely based on recoupment cost, but you also might end up losing money overall, since it's not an exact science by any means. It's hard to say that a 100k/wk drug is suddenly going to become even more expensive, although if it did, that drug is only ever getting covered by insurance anyway. On the other hand, it's probably not a safe assumption that the $4000/wk drug won't go to $5000/wk while it's still protected if you cut the term of protection. Basically, earlier generics are likely to result in attempts to extract even higher prices during the protected period. Attempts may or may not succeed, depending on external factors, but it's not like it's all patient benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
rscott posted:More broadly, international treaties should be signed to increase the social wellbeing of the party nations, not to increase the profit margins of multinational corporations that are largely prospering while the rest of the world finds themselves in an increasingly precarious posistion. The TPP may lower drug prices for US consumers, since actual patent protection in other markets will increase the ability of a U.S. drug company to recoup out of that market, allowing them to lower U.S. prices in order to capture portions of the U.S. market they didn't previously serve. Should the U.S. government sign this treaty, based on the benefits to US citizens, even though it will harm people in (eg) India?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
rscott posted:Call me a skeptic if I don't believe that drug companies in this country would lower their prices when there is no regulatory pressure to do so, but even if we take your hypothetical to be true it would still be unethical for India to be party to such a treaty. It really isn't in any of these countries interest to sign this thing in my opinion though. Why give handouts to companies that do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes on their revenue and seek to supplant you at every turn? Pretend I'm India. I currently have a weak patent system. As a result of this, my major pharmaceutical companies (Ranbaxy and Dr Reddy's) make most of their money from reverse engineering and perfecting production techniques for drugs researched by western companies. Drugs for primarily local diseases aren't being researched by western companies to the extent I would prefer, and my local companies won't put money into researching it because they can't protect them from secondary reverse engineering companies (the bottom ~2000 Indian pharma generic makers). If I sign TPP and strengthen my patent laws, then my local pharma companies can transition from being generic makers over to doing original research - for example, on dengue or antimalarial drugs. In addition, I can recognize trade benefits and make it so that my current generic (soon to be brand) makers aren't being discriminated against because we don't recognize IP laws and that frequently triggers non-reciprocation clauses in other agreements. Is it unethical for India to sign TPP and strengthen their patent laws, in order to improve their local pharma industry which might solve local problems instead of relying on Western medicine?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really? The treaty has a grandfather clause that says "oh hey any patent violations you're already doing are totally cool and you don't have to pay any license fees"? That's not really relevant, since my argument wasn't predicated on Indian pharma ripping off new western drugs for local diseases. Instead, it explicitly was about them developing them themselves. And the reason I picked India, and Ranbaxy? Because I wasn't talking about TPP. I was talking about the actual outcome of India acceding to TRIPS, which forced them to introduce product patents, and how Ranbaxy started to move from being a pure generic maker to an original researcher, including working on an anti malarial that saw approval in 2011.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The assertion is that pharma companies aren't researching new drugs because they'll just be ripped off, but you're claiming a 4% difference between what they could sell those new drugs for with IP protection and without is enough to make those drugs profitable after all and spur research. The "charity" was functioning as an arm of Roche with respect to that medication, so it sounds like Roche gave up on it. They did early stage work in partnership, and Ranbaxy made a functional product out of it, which is actually the hard and expensive part. Kalman fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I never said anything about "not making it in a quarter" I said during the patent period. How big is the markup on drugs sold during the patent period over what the generic version will sell for. Indian pharma companies. Not Indian peasants. The markup in patent period is typically between 33-100% over generic (corresponding to a 25-50% price drop after expiration.) As the generic maker recoups their process investment, you typically wind up at 20-25% of original cost in the long term. Relationship doesn't hold for every drug but it's an okay rule of thumb. In particular, some of the more recent large molecule biologicals don't have as much of a patent markup because more of the cost is attributable to processing costs, so the relative recoupment vs. manufacture portions are closer to one another. I have no idea why you're stuck on this 4% number. E: you're also ignoring things like the relative difference in costs of research (India has cheaper labor, including PhDs) and manufacture (India typically has a cost of manufacture of roughly 50% compared to US manufacture, due to both cheaper labor and a long history of processing expertise). An Indian drug company, making drugs for Indian patients, can actually tolerate cheaper prices much more easily than a Western entity which can't take advantage of cheaper research labor as easily and which has to deal with the hassles of remote manufacturing if they wAnt the cheaper mfg costs. (Some pharma companies do. Others manufacture in Puerto Rico or other relatively low cost locations that don't require cross-world coordination.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If access to generic HIV drugs is threatened the price increase would be even larger than that. Are you saying that MSF and AMFAR and others are just fear mongering about nothing? They're making bad arguments, yes. (Fear mongering implies bad intent, and I think they're more in the boat of not actually understanding what's going on.) There isn't a retroactivity provision, so existing generics aren't affected, and a number of other important HIV drugs are scheduled to go off patent in the very near future. It will generate mean you won't have access to the absolute newest drugs, but the mainline treatments aren't far from genericity at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
McDowell posted:They still haven't released it? It's the final draft! No, they've agreed on the contents. Now they can assemble the final draft from the various pieces that were being negotiated on back and forth. The final draft will be made public soon, most likely, and from the most recent reports looks nothing like the version people were scare-mongering about.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How often has Wikileaks revealed false leaks? Well, given that public info says that the leaked draft is totally wrong as to at least the provision which has had a bunch of public info today (biologicals exclusivity), the answers are: Frequently on this topic. We shouldn't, but we also shouldn't assume it's bad. Depends on what it winds up containing but probably. You look like an idiot resisting things that aren't in it, or you could look like someone whose campaign is factually based instead of based on pathetic fear.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:By frequently you mean "so far once with regards to a provision that had been renegotiated, but is still pretty bad in the overall scheme of the bill"? So 100% of the time so far? quote:Why should we assume that a bill with the stated goal of removing regulation and tariffs which protect domestic workers from a global race to the bottom is good, irregardless of any other known provisions, is good? That's not the stated goal, that's what you assume the goal is. I can't imagine why someone wouldn't take you seriously. quote:So the worst consequences of campaigning now is that you might look silly if everything in the draft has been renegotiated into puppies and rainbows. Meanwhile the worst consequence of waiting until the last month is that you are massively behind in a PR race against an abysmal bill, but I guess you get to maintain your potential personal dignity? Yeah, I like not bloviating about things and being proven completely wrong when actual facts come out, which is why I am a bad D&D poster. And waiting a month isn't going to put you "massively behind in a PR race" even if it winds up being abysmal because hey, turns out that it doesn't matter if the negotiators agreed in principle if Congress turns it down. By shouting about it now based on bad info, you get ignored when good info comes out and you turn out to have been wrong (because you already cried wolf) instead of being taken seriously for providing accurate info.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:As a whole, would you say wikileaks is unreliable and cant be trusted? Have you held this stance on other wikileaks involved leaks? Yes and yes. And justifiably - they've trumpeted all sorts of poo poo in the past by dishonest editing of their releases, and have literally zero desire to exercise any sort of verification or analysis that would lead to understanding what their leaks mean and making sure they're actually leaks. They aren't trustworthy as a source of information. quote:Except that's a very insignificant amount of time compared to the time that will be spent declaring the mystery bill a historic moment in-the-making. Which it could be! Of course the same dynamics apply there - until there are specifics, people tend to take those claims with a grain of salt, and if they're shown to have lied then any valid claims of benefit will be ignored. quote:And how do you make trading with china (country with terrible work protections and rock-bottom unskilled labor wages) less appealing than its neighbors? if IP enforcement, a corporate court, and the removal of regulation and tariffs that allow domestic goods to compete are not likely to be a part of the deal, what will be in the agreement to achieve this goal? Keep in mind that your response should make sense with regards to official statements of those involved in the deal, who boast about how the agreement liberalizes trade and "removes red tape". By keeping tariffs on Chinese goods and incorporating the kind of worker/environmental protections into the deal that appear to be in the final version so that you can have improvements for workers while still having a price advantage over China? I mean, that's sort of the entire point of trade deals - you're creating an in group that gets advantages and using the deal to force norms onto that group. For example, requiring signatories to recognize the right to collective bargaining, which is an improvement for several of the nations involved. As more public info comes out, all of the people who've been screaming that the deal will destroy everything keep looking worse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:New Zealand's copyright is going to be extended to 70 years from 50, and patent protection for some biologics will be extended to 8 years from 5. No, patent protection won't be extended (for example, NZ already has a 20 years from filing date term for biologics patents). You're confusing that with data exclusivity, which is different, and it's not actually clear yet if NZ will have to extend past 5 - the agreement definitely sets a 5 year floor but there's some uncertainty as to whether the second option countries can choose (5+3) will effectively be a 5 year or 8 year period, or if the 3 year regulatory review portion really will vary. Data exclusivity essentially guarantees a certain period (eg 5 years) after marketing approval in which biosimilars can't enter using an abbreviated regulatory proceeding (like an ANDA, but slightly different because it's a biologic, not a small chemical). If the drug is off patent during that time frame, a biosimilars maker can still enter if they do the full clinical trials, but can't rely on the data generated by the innovator company until the exclusivity period expires. If the drug is still on patent after the 5 years, you still can't enter without challenging the patent, but you can rely on their testing to show that your drug is safe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It is not idiotic to preempt awful legislation based on uncontroversial evidence of said awful legislation. The fact that so much awful negatives have been found based on fragments does not make the case for TPP better. Like what?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Also, here's the opinion of a highly esteemed, uncontroversially respected organization: Given that they based those statements on inaccurate leaks, yes, they are.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How often does MSF partake in political overreactions based on unverified information? In this case? Every statement they've made about the TPP.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Yeah, didn't everybody basically go "lol nope" at the labour rights provisions in NAFTA once that it had been ratified? The NAFTA provisions don't really have an enforcement mechanism. The TPP ones appear to be enforceable via sanctions, and generally include more than previous trade deals anyway. Like most of these provisions I'm reserving judgment til the text is available (and for non-IP ones, until I can get the take of colleagues who regularly work in those areas) but it appears promising.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:well ok so you're saying that people should start from a blank slate to forming a coherent, effective opposition if opposition is necessary in thirty days if i'm reading you right Not sure where this "30 days" thing came from, but it's completely incorrect. "The president would have to notify Congress of the accord’s completion 90 days before he intends to sign it, a delay similar to past requirements. But in a new twist, the full agreement would have to be made public for 60 days before the president gives his final assent and sends it to Congress. Congress could not begin considering it for 30 days after that." So there's 90 days with public text before Congress even begins to consider it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:ok three months is better than one. i don't think the point is defeated, though - building a movement to counter something like this takes time, and if you're going to wait until the finished draft is out you're severely minimising your chances of accomplishing anything. How long is required? I'd say three months is more than enough time to build a movement against something, as evidenced by a number of recent protests against bills.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:The corporate court/ISDS provisions are sufficiently noxious that the bill could include provisions for all people everywhere to get free puppies and high-paying jobs for life and still be inexcusable. If you're broadly in favor of the world's legal system looking more like loving Shadowrun then your human and civil rights should be violated vigorously and often. Pssssst. ISDS provisions exist already and haven't turned the world into shadowrun. Also the reason it exists is because you SHOULD be able to sue governments and that's not necessarily true everywhere. The uproar over them is dumb (yes, that includes Warren's screed) because all it amounts to is a worldwide implementation of the concept of regulatory takings, which is generally a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:What is your opinion on these two cases? In response to my pointing out that ISDS provisions exist and are fine, you pointed to: 1) A dispute filed as a test case, meaning they're relatively less likely to win, which hasn't even come close to a decision. (FWIW, they should lose on the warning size portion but win on the trademark portion - barring the use of marks for a specific product is exactly the kind of issue ISDS are designed for.) 2) A case where the challenger lost. Not exactly a ringing rebuttal to "they exist and are basically fine."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I see you haven't read it. No, he's right. It looks very much like the text leaked in October 2015. Not necessarily any of the earlier leaks, but the leak of final text from a month ago seems more or less accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:ISPs are compelled to fight for the copyright protection of foreign holders. No. They're given safe harbor from liability for infringement if they participate in a notice and takedown system (or a couple of existing systems that are explicitly grandfathered in.). They can choose not to participate but may be liable if they do so. quote:It includes the same provisions for investor-state dispute settlement. The same provisions as are in many other trade deals and which are massively overblown as to what their impacts are? quote:Member nations have to agree to extended patent protections for medicine, like was claimed. Completely incorrect. There is no patent term extension for medicine. There's a data exclusivity provision, which protects clinical research, but patent term is unmodified. quote:There is no mention of climate change provisions, The words "climate change" do not appear. The words "low emission economy", on the other hand, do. They're not particularly strong, but the lack of a shibboleth doesn't mean there's no mention of climate change provisions. quote:or provisions agains currency manipulation. That's true. The TPP doesn't address currency manipulation. That's because there was a separate agreement specifically dealing with currency manipulation made amongst the TPP accessors. It's an international trade deal. It's not perfect but it's not the end of the world scenario people make it out to be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Wouldn't this have a massively negative impact on the manga and anime industries based on the impliciations of a copyright police state? We should be so lucky. E: oh wait you were serious. No, it won't, because that's not part of the treaty requirements. Japan is cracking down on manga and anime copyright violators all on their own already, but the treaty provisions essentially allow Japan to maintain their existing schemes for fair use type concepts and for notice and independent verification for takedowns. Practically speaking, copyright regimes in the US and Japan aren't going to change much, if at all, based on TPP. Kalman fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:No one really understands American copyright law, why should I believe anyone here is an expert in Indian copyright law? Some of us get paid to understand IP laws in various countries, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Boon posted:Hmm, yes, lol indeed. Lol indeed, my good man. I do! (Mostly by people being accused of violating it.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 00:17
|
|