Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trans-Pacific Partnership Includes Unwanted Elements of SOPA

Posted by timothy on from the meet-the-new-candidate-for-boss dept.

New submitter Error27 writes "Last month Wikileaks leaked a draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty. Here is Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's response to the leaked documents. She points out that there several troubling issues with the trade agreement. It locks countries into extremely long copyright terms. It limits fair use. It includes DRM provisions which would make it illegal to unlock your cell phone. These laws come from the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which Americans already rejected."

8 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Well, duh by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is how things work these days: if you can't get a law passed in your country, you convince other governments to make it part of a treaty, then blame them when the treaty is passed.

    1. Re:Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The DNC just said that presidental appointments no longer need 60 votes, it only needs 50. There is nothing stopping them from doing the same with treaties.

      We have gotten to the point where the two parties no longer prevent each other from doing stupid things, if the House is not involved the DNC can do whatever they want. Glad you all voted the way you did in order to make this possible!

    2. Re:Well, duh by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's hardly the point. The constitution mentions nothing about unlocking cell phones or copyright length. Those are merely provisions in US LAW. Treaties can and DO override US Law all the time.

      Yes, that WAS my point. One of them, anyway. In order to override ANY U.S. law, it first has to be ratified by the Senate.

      In spite of the 10th amendment, it is clear that the founders intended the Federal Government to acquire additional powers under the Treaty power, and specifically mentioned in "The Necessary and Proper Clause" of Article 1.

      Absolute BS. The "Necessary and Proper" clause only says that the Federal government can pass such laws as are necessary for it to implement and enforce the Constitution itself. It does NOT give the Federal government to enact laws that are not "necessary and proper" (and necessary is very much a key word) to other parts of the Constitution. That's a complete misinterpretation of what it means.

      If anything is "clear" from history it is that nothing that is not within the enumerated powers is within the purview of the Federal government, except those things that are "necessary and proper" to enforce the other enumerated powers.

      "Treaties do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. "

      And where did you got the idea that I thought they didn't? That isn't what I wrote at all.

      "In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states."

      This still doesn't contradict anything I wrote earlier. I have to wonder who you're arguing with.

      But since you brought it up, the Supreme Court ruled recently that corporations have First Amendment rights. Are you really going to quote them as some kind of Constitutional authority? Especially in recent years?

    3. Re:Well, duh by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the US used to be 'one person, one vote'.

      it has been converted to 'one dollar, one vote'.

      wish I was kidding...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  2. Negotiations? Hardly! by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given that the NSA is busy tapping the phones and email conversations of the leaders with which the USA is "negotiating" this TPPA, it's hard to believe that this isn't just a one-sided deal.

    How can other nations "negotiate" when the USA knows exactly what their bottom lines are (given that they've likely exchanged such information with their fellow politicians within their own country by phone or email)?

    What's more -- why does this all need to be done in secret -- hidden away from the eyes and ears of those who these politicians are elected to REPRESENT and SERVE?

    This is a huge con-job on the peoples of the non-US nations involved.

    I strongly suspect there will be a great deal of "post-political career" employment on offer for those foreign politicians who agree to the US-dictated terms of the TPPA.

    Outrageous!

  3. If you can't get a law passed in your country by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You keep trying again and again until the opposition blinks. .Then its too late.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  4. the worst of this is it had to be leaked by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The worst part of this is that it had to be leaked. The whole process by which these "agreements" are negotiated shouldn't be allowed in a democratic society. You leak secrets, and there should be nothing secret about these negotiations. Please spare me any "diplomatic requirements" BS. This is not a peace treaty where secrecy of negotiations might be necessary to get the thing done, or at least get it done relatively quickly.

    These negotiations should be no different than the way "negotiations" are handled in the legislature of a representative government - all completely public, and proposed bills available to anyone. You can even watch congress on TV if you can stay awake long enough. Why should this be any different?

  5. Unwanted Elements of SOPA by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remind me, what were the wanted ones?