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.

Re:How do you act

[gweihir]

Traditionally? Revolution and chop of the heads of the a*******. Unfortunately with modern police and military that does not work anymore.

Let me guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're mandating net neutrality, eliminating bandwidth caps, and dramatically scaling back copyright terms in light of the fact that the Internet offers a worldwide market for copyrighted material with instantaneous delivery of goods?

Re:Let me guess.

[Dr Caleb]

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

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...?

Re:If this is the draft version

[Princeofcups]

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.

It's for show, the illusion of representative democracy. The decisions were already decided on a golf course in the Bahamas by the multinational industrialists who really wrote it.

Re:If this is the draft version

[meta-monkey]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

In the Before Time, in the Long, Long Ago, back when legal principle meant something, the level of ignorance a person could show of the law and still be bound by it existed on a sliding scale. This was the difference between malum en se and malum prohibitum. For instance, you don't need to be aware of laws against beating a man to death in order to be found in violation of the specific law against beating a man to death. That act is malum in se. Evil in and of itself. However, if there's a law against walking your dog by the river on Tuesdays, that act is not evil in itself. It's just prohibited because, I don't know, maybe the local cat trade is huge, and new shipments of cats come in on Tuesdays, and it's really better for everybody if dogs are just kept away from the river that day. Then, you can be guilty of the act, but if it's not well publicized with signs posted saying "Illegal to walk your dog by the river on Tuesdays," but not have done so intentionally and be found not guilty of the crime. Particularly if the law is well crafted and has words in it like "willfully" and "knowingly." That is, you knew you were walking your dog in the dog free zone (because you were caught next to the 'no dogs allowed' sign) and you willfully did it anyway, you're busted.

That is no longer the case anymore, though. Today laws are rammed through congress completely without the mens rea components, which leads to things like the Lacie Act where there are literally people in jail for having possessed the wrong kind of crustacean in the wrong kind of package without having any idea that was a violation of some obscure law.

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.

[spire3661]

Which is EXACTLY what the RIAA tried to do to the first MP3 player. Those moments turned me into a lifelong enemy of ALL copyright. I have seen copyright stifle too much innovation for it to be useful to society in its current incarnation. The verdict is vengeance, a vendetta.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[spire3661]

I have created plenty, and I give it all away. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. The difference is i dont attempt to make things just to profit from them. I design with the idea that whatever I make is already owed to the cultural that educated me.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[jedidiah]

Except the differences between copyright and property are not subjective. That was the entire point of the OP.

The differences here are very real.

Plus the corporate interests want to have it both ways. They want all of the advantages and none of the downside. They also want rights only for them and no one else.

It really doesn't work that way. Trying to will bring the whole house of cards down for everyone.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[jedidiah]

Bullshit. Intel lives on the bleeding edge. Patents don't do squat for their bottom line. Keeping ahead of their rivals is what creates their bottom line. A 20 year long monopoly is meaningless in a world where yesterday's technology is considered stale.

Intel is perhaps the WORST example you could have come up with.

Patents exist to encourage the disclosure of trade secrets.

Intel makes money by SELLING THINGS.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[PRMan]

They did.

You had speed limits of 9 mph, requirements to have a guy waving a lantern in front of you, etc., etc., etc.

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.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax.

[cheekyjohnson]

People don't know how to compromise and meet in the middle for the good of humanity.

I do not compromise away rights I believe to be fundamental. I do not compromise on the TSA. I do not compromise on many things if I believe them to violate people's rights. It's called having principles.

Copyright is a good thing

There is no proof of that that I know of. Can you do anything beyond speculate when considering what our society would look like without copyright? I seriously doubt it.

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:Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks.

[FriendlyLurker]

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

It is a sad day that we must rely on an donation sponsored organization like Wikileaks to attempt to defend the rights and interests of consumers - our respective national institutions have obviously failed us. Wikileaks and brought some sunlight on the backroom dealing, bribing and power struggle negotiations over the TPP and defiantly hurts the corrupt politicians goverment functionaries and corporations behind it.

If this knowledge now translates into pushback and political action then maybe it will not have been in vain. Given mass media is not interested in informing the masses that their rights and interest are about to be stripped away by this deal then this it is a long shot. We the people get the governance we deserve in the end, I guess.

This just in: Fails all around.

[girlintraining]

Here's a brain teaser:

Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs (such as marijuana, ecstacy, etc.) -- ignoring the fact that the scientific consensus now is that both are less harmful than alcohol, or cigarettes, both of which are legal, is that it would fund terrorism. In other words, their argument is that because a small amount of it is bad, we should keep the whole thing illegal.

Yet, here we have IP law -- of which much of it is bad, and yet they tell us we should keep the whole thing legal... or [insert boogieman story here]. I'm not buying. I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me? Maybe that I'm just young and stupid... or maybe I'm just seeing things more clearly. Maybe I just don't think the government has any credibility left to it, and so whatever the government says is right... it's a safe bet marching in the opposite direction will be better for you.

Re:This just in: Fails all around.

[Joce640k]

I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

You haven't figured out how to get free drugs using the Internet?

I wonder...

[mitzampt]

I actually wonder why it was secret to begin with. And I wonder why is there a need to start these treaties like that. It's has become a democratic tradition to empower the citizens you represent with the ability to deal with the results of your negotiations, as public opinion wouldn't react correctly to a well intended and morally sound proposal.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Devil's advocate: the reason the negotiations are kept secret is because that a lot of things get put on the table that won't appear in the final draft. The US, say, might put forward a proposal that throws its dairy industry under the bus in exchange for all of New Zealand's gold mines or something. In a public negotiation the dairy industry would read about this proposal and raise an uproar.

And that's desirable. If the US government is working for the US country, then it should want that result to occur.

Then the proposals change, as proposals are wont to do, and the dairy farmer part is cut out. But the average dairy farmer still thinks he's getting screwed.

And that's desirable too, since it's a correct that he's getting screwed (even though that part is now out). He (and everyone else) has learned that the dairy industry is getting screwed, because "throwing them under the bus" had been an option at one point.

So they keep the negotiations secret, because they don't want people getting in a fuss over things that won't be in the final draft..

..but people getting in a fuss is good, in a democracy. There's no downside to it, and shitloads of upside.

Re:I wonder...

[FriendlyLurker]

You would have a point if the time from "Final Draft" to final law included time for consumers and community groups to review and contribute to the draft before it is passed into law. As we have seen from past abusive treaties like ACTA THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN in most of the countries that finally signed it. No it is all kept secret and undemocratic so as to keep consumers and community groups off the negotiating table and leave them no time to react once the final draft is released and it is quickly passed into law.

Also now that we know that "the wheeling and dealing" involves spying on the negotiators or anyone else in key positions that stands in the way of the worst case clauses of the agreement - basically blackmailing them into agreement wherever possible. This is another important reason why no self respecting democracy (are there any left) should allow such negotiations to be held for so long in secret, nor run by a small select few of power brokers operating in the dark.

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.

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