WikiLeaks Releases the Secret Draft Text of the TPP IP Rights Chapter

sproketboy writes "WikiLeaks releases the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter." The Syndney Morning Herald took a look at the leaked documents, from their article: "An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

Comments

How do you act

[dangerousbeans]

when all our governments behave in this way. Their agenda is so different to our best interests it's horrific.

If this is the draft version

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

Re:If this is the draft version

[Joce640k]

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all?

They get travel expenses and fine food plus hook^Wentertainment...?

Intellectual property is a hoax.

[MRe_nl]

Property versus Knowledge
Property can be held, physically possessed.
It is easy to see who possesses a piece of property. Knowledge cannot be physically possessed. It can only be known.
When I take property from you, you no longer have it.
It is easy to see that property is (or can be) exclusive, or what the legal beagles call "rivalrous", a zero-sum game. To the extent that one person uses it, they limit the amount that another person can use it. Knowledge cannot be taken away from you; when I learn some knowledge that you know, you still know it.
Property has a clear origin; you start with raw materials, sometimes you you add labour.
It is easy to see where property came from. It is easy to trace the movements of a piece of property. Knowledge doesn't have a clear origin; it is all derived from existing human culture and knowledge.

http://darksleep.com/notablog/articles/Intellectual_Property_Is_Fraud

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[i kan reed]

Intellectual property is a useful social construct. This post is a bit like saying "manslaughter is a hoax" because all the distinctions between it and murder are subjective. The problem isn't the existence of intellectual property as a concept, but its treatment as a shining jewel of fundamental rights. Ignoring the purpose of something in legislating about it is always a problem.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[Joce640k]

Intellectual property is a useful social construct.

Sure. The problem is that these people think that draconian legislation is the answer to a changing marketplace that made their business model obsolete.

Imagine if the buggy-whip manufacturers had had enough money to bribe the government to pass laws preventing manufacture of automobiles...

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[FlyHelicopters]

There are a few issues with that...

Without copyright, patents, etc. then you would have fewer inventions that benefit all of humanity.

My father owned several patents years ago, ran a business for years based on them. He is retired now (and of course those patents are long expired), but for a time those provided us a comfortable living.

He invested his parents life savings to make those inventions and get them patented. Do you really think he would have taken that risk without the chance of a reward?

If he had to invest his parents life savings, and in return the government says, "sorry, that is just knowledge, anyone can copy it now that you've invented it", do you believe he would be inclined to do so?

If you're honest, you'll agree that he would not, most people wouldn't.

Could you find an example of someone who would? Yes, of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but the majority of people would not.

Our world would be a very different place (and not for the better) without such laws in place.

(Note: Patents are about right, 20 years... copyright has been extended too many times and lasts too long, I'd personally reduce that to 20 years to match Patents).

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[LocalH]

This thread shows one of the biggest failings of humanity, which we see on a daily basis across many issues.

People don't know how to compromise and meet in the middle for the good of humanity. People are taught never to waver in their beliefs, and if they give in even slightly they're taught that they're weak.

One the one hand you have the copyright abolitionists, who would insist that all media be free for the taking from day one. On the other hand, you have the pro-copyright extremists who feel that things are fine the way they are.

Copyright is a good thing, but it shouldn't last for over a century. Things are too much in favor of copyright holders nowadays, and under current law, the public interest may as well be nonexistent.

This is why many people have no problem violating copyright, and arguably it is moral to do so, as long as it is carefully restricted to works owned by corporations who wish to de facto abolish the public domain. There's a difference between violating copyright because you want something for free, and violating copyright because you have a philosophical and moral opposition to the current handling of copyright. The latter can arguably be seen in the same light as other famous civil disobedience, the former is just greed and self-indulgence.

Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks.

[jeffb (2.718)]

Without them, we might never have suspected that large moneyed interests influence international policy in their own favor.

Seriously, though, good on WikiLeaks. It can't hurt to rub people's noses in the facts -- can it?

Re:The real news is these "agreements" are secret

[DickBreath]

You beat me to posting the question. So I'll post the answer, which is right in the summary:

"An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

No surprise there. No wonder why it must be done in secret.

Protip: if you must conduct international negotiations in secret, then you're probably not representing the people of the nation you are negotiating on behalf of.

Re:Let me guess.

[Dr Caleb]

More like "+1, Almost a laugh but really a cry"

that's when I long for Groklaw's PJ

[JigJag]

she would have parsed, pieced, and posted all that we, techies, needed to know about such a document