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."

10 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 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.
    2. 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.
    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."
    4. 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.
  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.

  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. 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 ----
  5. 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?

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

    Remind me, what were the wanted ones?