Trans-Pacific Partnership Includes Unwanted Elements of SOPA

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."

Comments

Well, duh

[0123456]

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.

Re:Well, duh

[JaredOfEuropa]

That is pretty much how the EU works. Of course the bothersome part of passing a treaty has already happened; one merely has to get the eminently undemocratic EU bureaucracy to pass a bill. Here in NL several parties have pushed to get something that doesn't sit well with their own constituents passed in the EU. All so they can still claim to be against X, but "the EU is forcing us". Bonus points for those parties claiming to be critical of the EU, of course.

By the way, I am glad Lofgren is still on top of this issue, across the pond..

Re:Well, duh

[FridayBob]

Yes, but America has far more economic influence and our representatives must also agree to those heinous provisions. The problem is that it's no longer us that they represent: it's their donors, and they're the ones who keep pushing for those provisions. However, these and other seemingly intractable problems will fix themselves as long as we first get big money out of politics.

Re:Well, duh

[icebike]

It's not quite that simple. In the U.S., it still has to be ratified by the Senate, AND even if they do, it is not law if it conflicts with the Constitution.

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.

When the President and two thirds of the Senate concur that a treaty can invalidate some sections of US Code, that code is toast, unless the treaty tried to override the amendments 1 thru 8 which specifically limit federal power.

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.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

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

See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause and here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/13/can-treaties-override-the-constitution

Re:Well, duh

[Anubis IV]

Huh. Well, how do we make it stop? Clearly voting isn't working.

Re:Well, duh

[Jane Q. Public]

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?

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution? What's that? Oh, is that what the members of the US Government wipe their asses with now?

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

but America has far more economic influence

Had. Past tense.

Re:Well, duh

[ebno-10db]

make it part of a treaty

This is not a treaty, where ratification requires 2/3 of the senate. If accepted by the US it will be a congressional-executive agreement, which can be passed in the same way as an ordinary law. I think the distinction is bogus, but since CEA's have been accepted and approved by the courts since the Jefferson administration, I don't think they're going away.

Re:Well, duh

[Jane Q. Public]

Look... here's my point: as your own source (Tenth Amendment Center) says, there are some suggestions in history that Congress could, in a few select ways, use their power to grab authority that the Constitution does not explicitly give. However, the one example they give of that -- a treaty with the Netherlands -- runs afoul of the First Amendment, which the same source says it may not do.

So the one example they give is actually a contradiction of what they claimed earlier... that a treaty cannot override the first 8 Amendments.

Further, it must be noted that the Constitution itself overrides the Articles of Confederation, under which that treaty was made.

The real telling thing here is that the Supreme Court itself said that the Necessary and Proper clause (again, quoting your own source) restricts Federal action to things that are both "(1) subordinate to powers listed expressly and (2) connected to them by custom or reasonable necessity."

Re:Well, duh

[icebike]

True, but bringing it back to the topic at hand, poster 123456 above stated that if you "can't get a law passed in your country, you convince other governments to make it part of a treaty".

And s/he is perfectly correct in this assessment, and that is exactly what the Trans-Pacific Partnership proponents are trying to do, and, as I pointed out, if ratified, this treaty becomes law (because it does not directly contradict the constitution).

You replied that it was "Not quite that simple". But it is EXACTLY that simple.

1) Get defeated in congress.
2) Draft a treaty
3) Get treaty ratified ...
Profit.

When the SOPA protest caused the bills to be pulled, it was most effective in the House of representatives.
So Chris Dod and friends, are end-running the house all together. They get no say about a treaty.

Re:Well, duh

[FridayBob]

Huh. Well, how do we make it stop? Clearly voting isn't working.

See WOLF-PAC and help get big money out of politics. After that, voting will start to make a difference again.

WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas, but now also Idaho and Kentucky. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians, not to mention a far more productive Congress, emerge within one or two election cycles.

.

*) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.

**) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.

Re:Well, duh

[miroku000]

the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention.

Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes? If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed. A cynical person might point to places where they wanted to shift to using OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office. It seems like large companies have tactical units that can be deployed to influence government on more local levels when it is in their best interests.

Re:Well, duh

[infinitelink]

And then in the US "psychos" like me (i.e. pro-constitutionalists) insist that any who insists a treaty can override the Constitution or be excuse to infringe our rights is a domestic enemy and subject either to crimes about aiding foreign powers or about conspiracy against rights--it's the only way to go, either we start threatening these people--and those who pay them to do this--with real consequences or we get to soon be little more than slaves free in name only. I know it's dangerous but it's necessary to do.

Re:Well, duh

[FridayBob]

Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes?

I strongly suspect the latter.

If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed.

They might give it a shot and they might succeed, but I don't think so. They would have to bribe an awful lot of legislators in a relatively short span of time. From wolf-pac.com:

"Once an Article V. Convention has been called we will continue to put pressure on our Legislators to do exactly what they called the convention to do. There will be so much media attention at this point due to the historic nature of the event that no Legislator would dare propose an amendment that the vast majority of the country does not agree with. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then they would have to be ratified by three-fourths of our state governments (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution. That is why we are confident that an amendment to deal with money in politics in the United States is the only possible amendment that could come from such a convention."

Re:Well, duh

[TheGratefulNet]

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

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

wish I was kidding...

Re:Well, duh

[dbIII]

to crimes about aiding foreign powers

Irrelevant since even selling weapons to terrorists that had killed over a hundred US Marines less than a year before was not enough to make it difficult for Oliver North to get a new government job requiring a high security clearance. There are no "real consequences" down that road.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

More specifically, they basically recognized that to these groups of people we call "corporations" spending practically unlimited amounts of money to achieve some political goal is a first amendment right. Therefore, It's alright for corporations to dump obscene numbers of dollars into political action groups which then turn around and are free to bribe candidates with huge mounds of cash for their campaigns.

Re:Well, duh

[Don Wills]

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution is clear that treaties require 2/3 of Senators voting in the affirmative to enact a treaty.

Re:Well, duh

[bill_mcgonigle]

Most importantly, Congress can't simply repeal a provision of a treaty, which is why it's so much better for industry to get their welfare written into a treaty rather than a statute. The next election could threaten their favorite statute (in theory anyhow).

Re:Well, duh

[AlphaWolf_HK]

If that were really the case, then Morse should have won the Colorado recall by a landslide. His side literally outspent the opposition 11 to 1.

Re:Well, duh

[jamstar7]

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!

No, you need 51 votes to consider an appointee. That's a simple majority. You can't filibuster the nomination portion of the appointment process anymore. If the nominee gets their 51 votes, it goes into the hearings phase, then when the confirmation hearings are done, it comes up for a vote that you need the supermajority of 60 votes. What was happening was, certain people were filibustering the appointees at the nomination phase, keeping a vote from attaining the 60 needed at that time to go to confirmation hearings.

Re: Well, duh

[jamstar7]

Tell it to Obamacare. A blatantly unconstitutional law.

Actually, you might want to read it sometime. Granted, it'll take you awhile. But the main point of Obamacare is insurance company reform. Some great stuff in there. And yes, it is constitutional in that it regulates corporations. Even the right-wing Supreme Court says it's constitutional.

Re:Well, duh

[jamstar7]

Good idea. It won't work, though. Do some research on ALEC. They're handcrafting 'model legislation' for every state legislature that will defeat any attempt to push a constitutional ammendment contrary to ALEC's sponsors.

Re:Well, duh

[jamstar7]

to crimes about aiding foreign powers

Irrelevant since even selling weapons to terrorists that had killed over a hundred US Marines less than a year before was not enough to make it difficult for Oliver North to get a new government job requiring a high security clearance. There are no "real consequences" down that road.

They had to do the paperwork first to clear him of his felony convictions. It's called a 'presidential pardon'. And I consider its useage in this instance to have been an impeachable offense, but nobody was paying attention til the ink was dry.

Re:Well, duh

[Teancum]

Treaties can and DO override US Law all the time.

When the President and two thirds of the Senate concur that a treaty can invalidate some sections of US Code, that code is toast, unless the treaty tried to override the amendments 1 thru 8 which specifically limit federal power.

So treaties that override other amendments like the 19th Amendment are just fine and constitutional?

I'm sure that would go over real well. Besides, since when has Congress felt limited by any part of the constitution? They pretty much treat it as a mere guideline any more.

Re:Well, duh

[FridayBob]

That's assuming ALEC is as well organized as the conservative block in the US Congress; that they can block almost anything that is not in their interest. But how can that be when so far the most headway WOLF-PAC has made with State Legislators is with Republicans in red States (Texas, Idaho and Kentucky)? If anything it would seem that, despite ALEC, Republican State Legislators are even more averse to the current level of crony capitalism in Congress than are their Democratic counterparts. However, I agree that we should not expect this effort to be a cakewalk.

Re:Well, duh

[squiggleslash]

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.

Technically true, but remember that a treaty is usually a combination of clauses, not just one, all of which need to be agreed to. If the Senate agrees that the good clauses are something they want then they have to decide whether the bad ones are something that can be tolerated or not.

Now, based upon this, and based upon the fact the Senate can't just pass amendments or similar in the usual way, and given the fact that SOPA is pretty much what the political establishment wants in this country, do you think we stand much of a chance of seeing this treaty go unratified?

Re:Well, duh

[icebike]

Please re-read what I wrote. You are churning.
This isn't about the constitution.

Re:Well, duh

[kermidge]

As I understand it, fast-tracking changes some of that. It side-steps the formal treaty process by calling it a legislative-executive agreement. Fast-tracking has already been asked for the TPP, and the same approach is planned for the Atlantic version.

Re:Well, duh

[icebike]

Please reread what I wrote.
Put your glasses on, and try reading the bold sentence that you quoted, but still some how never even noticed.

This isn't about the constitution.
Congress could have passed the original SOPA act.
Congress could have passed the original PIPA act.
The President could have and would have signed both.
Once signed they both would have been LAW.

Public protest caused both to be withdrawn.
But if you put key features of these into a Treaty, the House of Representatives is out of the picture, and 60 Senators is all it takes to approve a treaty, and the president will sign it, and they are LAW.

Since neither act directly violated any provision in the constitution, the whole constitutional question is moot.

Its distressing and a bit depressing that you don't understand this. Your low Slashdot ID suggests you should be out of junior high by now.

Re:Well, duh

[Jane Q. Public]

"But it is EXACTLY that simple."

NO, it isn't. You've taken this out of the context of my original statement, then included part of my original statement. WTF?

Point (3) was MY point, and THAT is why "It's not so simple." You can't just sign a treaty, you have to get it ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And THEN it's still not law if it violates the Constitution, ratified or not.

Re:Well, duh

[Jane Q. Public]

"Since neither act directly violated any provision in the constitution, the whole constitutional question is moot."

No, it isn't. Sheesh.

To use one of your own examples: it is very much arguable that SOPA would have infringed on the First and possibly even the Fourth Amendment.

Reminder: this whole thread was in response to a comment to the effect of: "it isn't just a matter of signing a treaty" to get it into law. It's more complicated than that. It has to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, and it may not violate the Constitution. (The latter according to your own sources.)

SOPA is a great case in point: it should not take a huge uprising from the American people to resist possible dismantling of our Constitutional rights, as was the case with SOPA. That's what our government representatives were elected to do. If they aren't doing it, then they aren't doing their jobs and need to be replaced. But more to the point: as Thomas Jefferson famously said (paraphrase): "Any extra-constitutional 'law' is not law. It is of no force, null, and void."

Re: Well, duh

[Jane Q. Public]

"And yes, it is constitutional in that it regulates corporations."

Um, no.

The Federal government has legal authority to regulate interstate trade. (And the amount to which it has "interpreted" the word "regulate" would have our founders rolling over in their graves.)

Most insurance companies only operated in-state. So theoretically, they should not be subject to Federal regulation.

The problem is, the Federal government has insinuated it into the State businesses via things like Medicaid, leaving them vulnerable to further regulation from the Feds via more regulation.

It's a typical Fed government trick: regulate something, do a shitty job of it, then use the failing system as an excuse to further regulate. It's insidious, and they've done it hundreds of times.

Re:Well, duh

[wumbler]

Just some clueless foreigner here with an honest question: Why does 2/3 not mean "two thirds"? Is this one of those things where 2/3 of all present (!) senators need to vote for it, so they put the vote up at some ungodly hour where only the few necessary hardlines will be present? Or do you have something else in mind?
 

Re:Well, duh

[7-Vodka]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Treaties do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Costitution 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.

Fuck off. The 10th amendment is abundantly clear and anything you or anyone else writes or says elsewhere is meaningless.

The feds were granted very specific and NARROW domains and anything not mentioned is NOT THEIR BUSINESS.

The fact that they wipe their asses with the constitution on an hourly basis and in perpetuity does not make it right and some day when they've pissed off enough people there will be a revolution.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

He was trying to be funny by having "/" mean "or", so "2/3" would mean "2 or 3".

Re:Well, duh

[clovis]

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!

Nope, that is incorrect on a number of levels.

There is not, nor ever has been, a requirement for 60 votes to confirm an appointment.
Nor is there a requirement for 50 votes. The requirement is for a majority of present members assuming that a quorum is present.
This is in the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendent

Ratifying a treaty is also in the constitution, and requires a two thirds vote.
This is in the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendent

You may be thinking of the cloture rule to break filibusters. This is NOT in the Constitution.
This is part of the Senate rules that the Senate can change at any time - it's their rules.
The cloture rule to break filibusters was introduced in 1916, and it was set to two-thirds of the full senate.
The vote was changed to require 60 in 1975.
Now it's changed to 50 votes.

Senate rules:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2D4QLO9%0A

The House has its own rules (set in 1842) that prevent filibusters so they don't have this self-inflicted problem.

Re:Well, duh

[ops2048]

um ... more like one million dollars equals one vote.

Re:Well, duh

[dbIII]

It's an example that it's not just the constitution that is in trouble but even something as far back as Magna Carta. The same laws do not apply to those in power. The US constitution relies on the law seeing all as equal, and when people such as North, Libby etc get to do far worse than Manning, Snowdon etc without consequence it shows the ground is shaky. The rule of law is being scorned. Chinese style "might makes right" is far more convenient for the people that like to call themselves conservative to hide what they really are.

Who

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are the people responsible for this? Names and home addresses please.

Global Trade

[Travis Mansbridge]

There are some amazing evangelists for global trade because there are some that truly believe this to be the path to world peace (If we all have things we want to trade, we should all be able to get along). Unfortunately, many simply see it as a new means for greater wealth, and it's often hard to distinguish between these different proponents. Since WWII imperialism has been passeé, so now taking foreign countries for all their worth has become a bureaucratic process.

re: Global Trade

[Runaway1956]

Globalists are mostly fools. Those who actually understand what they are doing may or may not be fools, but the masses who believe in the hype are most certainly fools.

Every one of these "free trade" treaties compromises one or more nation's sovereignty. We, here, in the US, can clearly see that these "intellectual property" treaties are so much hogwash, are being sucked into the treaty. After signing, our (mostly bought and paid for) politicians can then refuse to pass laws that we demand, claiming that they would violate international treaties.

It's as bad, or worse, for other nations. Some third world nation, where people might make a couple thousand dollars PER YEAR, can't afford to pay the prices for our software under any circumstances. Today, the people might pirate an operating system, but with the trade agreements, piracy could result in a lifetime imprisonment. Or death.

Almost no one benefits from these treaties, almost no one benefits from globalization, except corporations.

 

Re: Global Trade

[MrDoh!]

Maybe, the route to world peace IS getting rid of the concept of a nation's sovereignty? Ok, not replacing it with a corporation, but if EVERYONE's the same country, it'd make it that bit trickier to go to war with yourself.

Re: Global Trade

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars

Re:Global Trade

[ebno-10db]

There are some amazing evangelists for global trade because there are some that truly believe this to be the path to world peace

That'd be funny if it weren't such a serious issue. It's exactly what people said during the first so-called great age of free trade (late 19th and early 20th centuries). People were saying that in 1913. By 1914, WWI had thoroughly disproved the theory.

Re: Global Trade

[ebno-10db]

Sounds good. Let's start small though to demonstrate the practicality of it. Let's unite the US and Canada. Two countries with the longest undefended border in the world. No hostilities between them in 150 years. Very similar culture and background. Common language except for a French speaking minority that the new country could accommodate as well as Canada can. Should be easy.

Get back to me when that's done, and then we can talk about adding the rest of the world.

Re: Global Trade

[shentino]

There will never be peace as long as at least two people want to be better than everyone else. Only one person can be at the top of the list, and if you have more than one person competing for that spot you're going to have conflict.

Re: Global Trade

[currently_awake]

Your proposal would likely cause the destruction of the USA. About 30% of the US population speak Spanish fluently- how would they react to Canadian bilingualism? You try telling a hundred million citizens they are not important enough to get their native language, but the french are. How would Americans react to the "Northern" states getting universal health care, but they don't? Again it would be a national riot. And you think you could just roll those programs back up north? Try telling 30 million voters (who vote as a block) that they must lose their most important pork? In Canada you literally can't win an election unless you support these two programs. It would be easier to merge Mexico into the union than adding Canada. At least they would take the bribes.

Re:Global Trade

[jamstar7]

There are some amazing evangelists for global trade because there are some that truly believe this to be the path to world peace

That'd be funny if it weren't such a serious issue. It's exactly what people said during the first so-called great age of free trade (late 19th and early 20th centuries). People were saying that in 1913. By 1914, WWI had thoroughly disproved the theory.

They've been telling me that trickle down economics works, too. Still haven't seen the money trickling down. Money ain't brown, anyways, not in the US...

Re: Global Trade

[Teancum]

Ok, not replacing it with a corporation, but if EVERYONE's the same country, it'd make it that bit trickier to go to war with yourself.

Yeah, that worked out real well for America. As if you even need countries to have bloody wars of hundreds of thousands of soldiers on each side.

There's more to the story

[Puls4r]

The TPP is horrible in a number of ways. It creates so-called free trade between the countries in a number of areas, including automobiles. Unfortunately, if you know anything about the markets you know that even while the Japanese may not place tariffs on automotive products from the US, their market is absolutely closed to US product through a number of other legal but fairly immoral actions.

To top it off, the Japanese are even WORSE at currency manipulations than Americans. As of this second, Japan enjoys an $8000 imbalance between autos made over there versus what we can make them over here, specifically because of their intervention in the currency market.

Free trade doesn't work when countries can play games, dumping products and using massive government subsidies to drive people out of the market. The Automotive industry is virtually the last bastion of American manufacturing, and supports a huge proportion of what remains of the American middle class.

This is a BAD partnership. Oppose it.

Re:There's more to the story

[Jane Q. Public]

"The TPP is horrible in a number of ways. It creates so-called free trade between the countries in a number of areas, including automobiles. Unfortunately, if you know anything about the markets you know that even while the Japanese may not place tariffs on automotive products from the US, their market is absolutely closed to US product through a number of other legal but fairly immoral actions."

That's the essence of the problem. These "free trade" treaties haven't really implemented "free" trade at all. It there has been anything "free" about them it is the "free" subsidies that some companies get for their products.

Further, we know by now that offshoring is damaging to the economy of the country doing it, if it is "free", i.e., no exchange rate on labor. This is one of the biggest lies that have been pulled in recent years.

Re:There's more to the story

[Jeeeb]

Unfortunately, if you know anything about the markets you know that even while the Japanese may not place tariffs on automotive products from the US, their market is absolutely closed to US product through a number of other legal but fairly immoral actions.

Yet strangely, German cars do well in Japan, and Japan's second largest maker is owned by the French. Maybe if the American makers made better small cars and medium sedans, there would be more interest in them.

Re:There's more to the story

[shentino]

Do we mean better, or do we mean more amenable to japanese political influence?

Re:There's more to the story

[Jeeeb]

Do we mean better, or do we mean more amenable to japanese political influence?

I mean better. That's how the Germans have succeeded in Japan. That's how the French rebuilt Nissan. Meanwhile, the American makers for the last 30 years have been unable to even capture their homemarket and instead have been leaning on Washington to intervene.

Re:There's more to the story

[ganjadude]

Clearly you havent looked at american cars since the early 90s. In the years since we got our asses handed to us in the segment we have made great strides. The fuzion and the impala are both better cars than the toyotas and hondas for the higher end cars, the focus ST will roll all over the civic and corolla. Try actually looking at and driving some of them

An attack on sovereignty by corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Australia, we are at the other end of this disgusting treaty.
The treaty gives US corporations the right to sue our government for any legislation that might affect their profits. So our highly effective and world-renowned Plain Packaging laws for cigarettes will be the first to go. Then they will come after our excellent PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) which gives us extremely low-cost prescription drugs, something im sure those in the US would dream of having.
This treaty is nothing more than further evidence that our governments are acting against the greater good and in the interests of big business.
Please oppose it.

Re:An attack on sovereignty by corporations

[caffeine_high]

Phillip Morris is already pursuing Australia for damages under the ISDS system after losing in the Australian high court. Australia signed a free trade treaty with Hong Kong in the 90s and that is the basis for this action. The TPP will only make matters worse.

Re:An attack on sovereignty by corporations

[gronofer]

I agree with your objections to the treaty, but I'm not sure that your point about prescription drugs is correct. See this.

Has it occured to anyone that SOPA

[Mister Liberty]

Can be the abbreviation of Start Online Piracy, Act!

Negotiations? Hardly!

[NewtonsLaw]

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!

If you can't get a law passed in your country

[nurb432]

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

Re:Well, Dulles...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of thing isn't new at all. The Dulles brothers, who ran the CIA and Dept of State simultaneously after WWII, crafted pro-US business policies and force smaller countries to allow foreign ownership and investment at the expense of the people in those countries. They trampled the rights of foreign citizens worldwide by overthrowing governments, installing dictators and 'advising' foreign military leaders on counter-insurgency warfare, used against peasants to move them off land where valuable resources could be mined or extracted. The Dulles brothers cared only for Wall Street and the wealthy.

The neo-liberal policies of the World Bank and IMF create oppressive economic conditions that favor the wealthy and do little to benefit the bottom socio-economic strata of 'developing' nations, as well. The blowback is showing up in the Western world where the limits of growth are coming up against reality.

It will be less pretty as scarce potable water, the best agricultural land and other basic resources are depleted and the marginal cost of developing new assets increases. Climate change will also play a role as long term capital investments where the environment is no longer stable will be less productive, more expensive to maintain and will yield less than their projected returns.

Welcome to the 21st century, when the world comes to grips with the limits of irresponsible business practices and limits to growth.

the worst of this is it had to be leaked

[ebno-10db]

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?

Re:the worst of this is it had to be leaked

[luther349]

but being we shot down sopa and all its clones every time it goes public they will try to do it in secret now.

Re:the worst of this is it had to be leaked

[elashish14]

The problem is very simply that Americans aren't as involved in the democratic process as they should be (or they are and that they're simply too ignorant to understand how it's supposed to work). This is certainly not true of all Americans, but it is true of the vast majority, and what more is Democracy? Nothing more than the only thing the /. moderation system can beat....

Unwanted Elements of SOPA

[FuzzNugget]

Remind me, what were the wanted ones?

Re:Unwanted Elements of SOPA

[danlip]

All of them were wanted by someone, just not me or you.

Re:Fuck you, Obama.

[luther349]

Lying weasel corporate sockpuppet. that would be the entire government of pretty much every country.

Life plus?

[boojumbadger]

Is it just me or does anyone else think this is a bit screwy? What happens to your copyright if you never die or due to medical breakthroughs live for 500 years?
How long before these laws get tweaked so that corporations get lumped in with humans, can they die? Are they like the Borg with smaller companies getting assimilated into the collective and thus never dying for so long as some other company is prepared to buy up the parts still valuable?

Re:Life plus?

[miroku000]

How does it work when a company copyrights something rather than a person? Companies are people, now, right?

Re:Life plus?

[SuricouRaven]

In the year 2050, corporations will start to store their most valued creative employees in suspended animation to postpone their legal death.

Re:Life plus?

[gronofer]

They just get the X years, you don't have to wait for the corporation to die.

Re:Life plus?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Where "X" == infinity+1

Treaties

[manu0601]

International treaties are a convenient way for executives to push unwanted legislation through legislator's throat. European Union citizen now know that trick very well. You can even have people refusing thing by referendum, and have it adopted by an international treaty 3 years later.

Copyright in the internet era...

[bayankaran]

How will 'copyright' affect the average citizen anywhere in the world as far as video/audio/books are concerned?
If you upload something on You Tube they will pull it down if it infringes on someone's copyright. This is usually an issue with audio, with visual data its not that simple, but still possible.
Metallica proved that you cannot win the hearts and minds by taking a strong stance against popular sentiment. I don't see any artist going that path again.
The worst case scenario would be some corporation claiming copyright for singing "Happy Birthday". But that's a far fetched scenario.
Corporations will lock it down to the max they can. Let them. At some point they will start leaking their own stuff. Because for art and entertainment, you want people to watch and listen.
About cellphone unlocking and software patents...that's a different beast altogether.

Re:Copyright in the internet era...

[gronofer]

Copyright claims on "Happy Birthday" are old news.