Slashdot Mirror


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."

26 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 JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      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..

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Well, duh by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Well, duh by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

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

    4. Re:Well, duh by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Well, duh by FridayBob · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. 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."
    7. Re:Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Well, duh by Don+Wills · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Well, duh by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Well, duh by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    11. Re:Well, duh by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    12. Re:Well, duh by clovis · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. There's more to the story by Puls4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:There's more to the story by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

    2. Re:There's more to the story by Jeeeb · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. An attack on sovereignty by corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. Has it occured to anyone that SOPA by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can be the abbreviation of Start Online Piracy, Act!

  5. re: Global Trade by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

    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.

     

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  6. 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!

  7. 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 ----
  8. 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?

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

    Remind me, what were the wanted ones?

  10. Re: Global Trade by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. Life plus? by boojumbadger · · Score: 2

    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?

  12. Re: Global Trade by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    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.