Slashdot Mirror


EFF: the Final Leaked TPP Text Is All That We Feared (eff.org)

An anonymous reader writes: Wikileaks has released the finalized Intellectual Property text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which international negotiators agreed upon a few days ago. Unfortunately, it contains many of the consumer-hostile provisions that so many organizations spoke out against beforehand. This includes the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years, and a ban on the circumvention of DRM. The EFF says, "If you dig deeper, you'll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever." The EFF walks us through all the other awful provisions as well — it's quite a lengthy analysis.

30 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. Kill it with fire! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before it lays eggs!

    1. Re:Kill it with fire! by Aurien · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny, I don't see Republican's going against this new trade deal. Last I checked they have majority in both houses. They could vote no and stop this, but they'll all vote yes. But yeah, it's all Obama's fault right? Republican's just have to vote yes right?

    2. Re:Kill it with fire! by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, it's never too late.

      Voltaire was right about assassinations. Seems like we need a system to keep the politicians in line.

    3. Re:Kill it with fire! by umghhh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A treaty that is so secret that even those that have to vote to approve it, cannot read nor discuss it freely - wow that is a new level of democratic development. I thought at least Muricans who are normally confused but dislike secret courts would do something but I guess life is too good. Maybe oligarchy is the best system after all.
      Let us see what EU will do with TTIP - protests are not that relevant for politicians doing what they can do best i.e. selling themselves to highest the bidder but there will be no heavy protests in EU. Peope here are quite busy with watching how silly Germans really are so TTIP may get approved without much fuss. Let us have cheese out of crude oil - it is good for you! Milo Minderbinder was right - people are stupid and tasteless idiots and they will eat soap if they are told it is tasty, maybe even asking for more.

  2. US to be Blamed by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most ignorant thing about pushing all this in the current global climate with the contortionists US twisting with regard to Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist/Rebels, everyone will blame America and Americans, everything bad in the TPP and it's ugly sibling TTIP will be blamed on American corporations and sales will suffer accordingly. Want your citizens and country to maintain any semblance of freedom boycott Large US Corporations (small ones run by real Americans apparently are fine, so oddly enough help America rebuild Main Street and protect you own country by working together globally to gut Wall Street).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:US to be Blamed by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This kind of shit always has big bipartisan support. The whores from both parties will put away the facade and do the bidding of their masters.

    2. Re:US to be Blamed by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      small ones run by real Americans apparently are fine

      What the fuck is a "real American"? Is it the Canadian-born son of a Cuban refugee who's running for President? Is it the naturalized Iraqi-American who owns a convenience store? How about an Australian who owns some of the most powerful media outlets in the US along with a Saudi prince?

      Please enlighten us.

      I'm all for gutting Wall Street, but when I hear that kind of populism paired up with phrases like "real American" I kind of get the willies.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Your laws ignore my rights by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I consider it well inside my rights to ignore your laws.

    In less martial words, issuing laws that contravene the consensus of the population is dangerous. Laws are upheld mostly because people consider them good, not because they are being enforce. Look around you and ponder which laws are upheld (in general) and which one are flauntingly broken. Do you see people go on murdering sprees, bank robberies or even do some minor shit like pushing grannies out of the way? No. Why? Not because they're forbidden, but because they go against the "general moral consensus", for a lack of a better term. People in general consider this "wrong". Yes, they are also illegal, but that doesn't matter too much.

    On the other hand, people of all times have broken laws without remorse if those laws were considered unjust. From speeding to copyright to drugs, all covered by laws with fines and punishment that are in no remotely sensibly proportion to the crime involved, laws being ignored and broken routinely by people you would otherwise consider upstanding, moral and law abiding.

    The actual danger here is in the view people get on laws in general.

    If you need an example for this, look no further than the former Communist Bloc. People in there quickly noticed that the laws are not there to protect them from "bad people", but to protect the state against them. Which in turn led to a corruption without parallel, because the average citizen's attitude was "why bother giving a shit about the state if it doesn't give one about me?".

    And we can have that too. If we insist in installing more and more laws that work against our population. People already don't ask what "they can do for their country" anymore. Oppression and trying to enforce even more ridiculously anti-population laws will only increase resistance to them, to the point where people will actually resent and oppose the state as much as people in the former East Bloc did resent and oppose their state.

    Ok, we cannot flee to a west. There is none.

    But there's always necks to be severed.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Your laws ignore my rights by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, we theoretically have the option to complain to our elected representatives or vote them out of office, something not possible in the former Soviet Bloc. The snag is that most people don't bother doing this, and most probably never even heard of this issue. Those that do care about the issue may be saying "meh, I'll just pirate things like I always do" which is no help at all.

    2. Re:Your laws ignore my rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How cute. You actually think you have political power.

      I'm sure the megacorps and .1 percenters are quaking in their boots at your impotent threat.

    3. Re:Your laws ignore my rights by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't see it happening because very few people know about it. Do you think that the lack of media coverage is accidental? Oh I know, Ben Carson the Republican candidate said something loony about having to attack a gunman on a spree just to kill, so that has to take all 7 "News" stations days to investigate and discuss. TPPIP? Not a word could be heard on any of those stations about that one. Amazingly, the candidates are not discussing it or being quoted on that one either.

      Oh but Donal Trump this and that, and of course everyone is just mean to Hillary because in all the time she served as Secretary of State she never ever sent or received even 1 classified email.

      The game is rigged pretty heavily today. People would probably shit themselves if they really know how much they are being manipulated. But hell, Facebook does not show anything too important in their feeds, and Facebook taking over control of that was accidental too.

      That rant is not really directed at you. It is directed at those who are now wearing that same tin-foil hat they accused others of wearing. I hope it fits them well.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Your laws ignore my rights by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't see it happening because very few people know about it. Do you think that the lack of media coverage is accidental? Oh I know, Ben Carson the Republican candidate said something loony about having to attack a gunman on a spree just to kill, so that has to take all 7 "News" stations days to investigate and discuss. TPPIP? Not a word could be heard on any of those stations about that one. Amazingly, the candidates are not discussing it or being quoted on that one either.

      First, Carson's comment is about as loony as calling the police and expecting them to save you. What he said was if you are about to die, try to save others. It's no different than after 9/11 when public discussion went from advising people to stay calm and follow orders/cooperate when an airplane is hijacked to assume you will be dead so take risks and save others. If you cannot understand that, you might have a serious problem.

      Next, there is no or little media coverage because until recently there was nothing to cover outside of speculation. It's all been drafts leaked to the public via questionable sources and as we found out, a lot is different. I suspect we will end up continuing with little coverage because the IP provisions benefit the news corporations greatly.

      Oh but Donal Trump this and that, and of course everyone is just mean to Hillary because in all the time she served as Secretary of State she never ever sent or received even 1 classified email.

      That is an outright lie.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...

      http://www.washingtontimes.com...

      The game is rigged pretty heavily today. People would probably shit themselves if they really know how much they are being manipulated. But hell, Facebook does not show anything too important in their feeds, and Facebook taking over control of that was accidental too.

      Yup and you demonstrated my point with your political half assery too. Whenever someone talks about this subject, they have half the facts and half the fallacy along with all the hyperbole.

      That rant is not really directed at you. It is directed at those who are now wearing that same tin-foil hat they accused others of wearing. I hope it fits them well.

      This happens more often than most of us are willing to realize. Early warnings of lost jobs came about with NAFTA, Crazies like Glenn Beck was warning of ISIS and the Caliphate long before it was mainstream. Hell, even the horrors of Nazi Germany were foretold before the world was shocked at what we found at the end of WWII. Escaped Jews were trying to get the US involved long before Pearl Harbor pushed us over the edge. I guess for some, they just have to reach out and touch the hot stove in order to understand what your warning about the stove being hot really means.

    5. Re:Your laws ignore my rights by ArylAkamov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hah, don't worry, the sarcasm was plain as day.

      It is directed at those who are now wearing that same tin-foil hat they accused others of wearing. I hope it fits them well.

      This is what really gets to me. If you try to mention any of this to the average person, they will scream tinfoil hat all day long. Even if you show them undeniable proof of some wrongdoing, the same person will act like they knew it all along and you're an idiot for thinking it to be news.

      Great example was Snowden.

      Me: Don't say anything stupid or incriminate yourself online, everything is recorded by the NSA
      Mr. X: Stop being so paranoid, there's no way they could possibly do that. Take off your tinfoil hat.

      Me: See? I told you they've been doing this without our knowledge
      Mr. X: Of course they have, what's so surprising about it? Stop acting like this is anything new, anyone with a brain already knew this

      There is no winning with them.

    6. Re:Your laws ignore my rights by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. You have the choice of the Corporate Slave R or Corporate Slave D.

      Sometimes you have an I on the ballot too, but politics is an expensive game - once you get past the local level a good campaign costs millions of dollars, so success is impossible without some rich sponsors in industry.

    7. Re: Your laws ignore my rights by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that they were the 0.1% of their day, they'll probably be all right with it. If you look at the history, you'll notice that their main beef was with taxes. And taxes are usually only something people who have lots will be riled up over enough to start a revolution. Poor people start revolutions over things like food.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Who are these people? by HairyNevus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I really got to wonder who these people are who wield the power to write these laws. Not the congressmen, the head of these mega corporations that own the congressmen who pass laws on their behalf, while blatantly shitting down the throats of the rest of us. I mean, I got to know if they honestly have an argument for why they think this is a good thing, even in the face of overwhelming unpopularity. Or, do they just not give a fuck? Are they delusional or nihilist? [whynotboth.jpg]

    --
    You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    1. Re:Who are these people? by caseih · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Robert Reich is certainly right on about the demise of capitalism. Corporations stack the deck so much in their favor that capitalism as we used to have it, as it used to benefit average people, and lift them out of poverty, is pretty much dead. Any attempts to reform the system cause them to scream "socialist wealth redistribution."

      I used to think those that picketed at G7 meetings against globalization were luddites. Now I completely understand. Globalization is more and more just bullying on a national scale.

      Hopefully in Canada we can get the Conservatives out, though I'm not hopeful. Harper wants Canada to be just like the US in all the bad ways. However a conservative minority government is probably the worst case scenario up here--Harper would be absolutely dictatorial in such a government knowing that the electorate are going to punish anyone who brings the government down and brings on another round of elections. Both opposition parties say they won't even bother reading the TPP in the house (which is honestly a lie, but at least they say they oppose it). I dunno. Plus Trudeau is being an idiot refusing to even talk about a coalition with the NDP. But I digress.

    2. Re:Who are these people? by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      capitalism as we used to have it, as it used to benefit average people, and lift them out of poverty, is pretty much dead.

      What makes you assume this was ever the purpose and not just a side-effect?

      It is very, very visible here in Germany. In fact, it's so transparent that you would have to be completely blind to not notice it.

      Germany had very strong social systems and a good distribution of wealth. There were poor and rich, but very few very poor and very few crazy rich. Normal people could afford a house and a car on one salary from a regular job. Unemployment money was high enough that you wouldn't lose your home and pensions were so that retiring didn't mean becoming poor. Universal health care? We've had that always and it was adequate. Doctors were so good we exported them to other countries. Basically, a lot of people could actually afford those Mercedes and BMW cars we make.

      After the fall of communism that all changed. Politics intentionally created a new low-cost labour market. Unemployment benefits dropped, lots of social benefits were dismantled, and when you are of working age, you are being bombarded with advertisement telling you to buy into this or that investment scheme because your pension will not allow you a good life anymore. All of that happened in less than 20 years. It started almost exactly after the re-unification, which provided a nice excuse for some measures ("it's so expensive, we need to save money").

      What you learn from that is that all of this has been a front. The reason capitalism in Germany allowed for a good life was not inherent to capitalism. It was added benefits that were included because West Germany was too close to communist East Germany and the western allies needed to make sure the west german people would not look to East Germany and see something better, but the other way around (which, btw., worked).
      Once the threat of people actually desiring communism disappeared, the facade came down. Now we see what capitalism is really about, has always been about. It just stopped pretending.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Who are these people? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      socialist wealth redistribution

      Often they just say 'wealth redistribution', which is the phrase that annoys me more than any other in political discussions. The people who say it are always implicitly in favour of wealth redistribution in one direction and often opposed to things that slow it, not just things that might reverse it. If I have $1m, and I invest it at a return 1% above the rate of inflation (not so hard when you have $1m), then I make $10K/year just from having money. If I have $10m and I make the same investments, then I'm making $100K/year, which is more than most people who work for a living, again just from starting with capital.

      The average net worth of US senators in 2011 (I couldn't find newer figures) was $14m, for senators it was $7m (before anyone jumps in with partisan claims, the average for Republicans was higher in the Senate, but lower in the House). These people are earning more from their investments than most of their constituents. They're all - on both sides of the aisle - very much in favour of wealth redistribution, as long as that wealth keeps flowing to them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Did you expect anything logical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What got passed is what the deep pockets paid for. It's called extortion.

  6. How? by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know about you, but 90% of the things I buy to live (Food, Toiletries, shelter) are owned and made by 13 companies. Unless you can afford really expensive boutique goods how the hell do you boycott? And if you can afford that TPP is good for you...

    Better yet, tell me how to get the churches and their blue collar workers back on track with socialism? How do I remove abortion as a wedge issue? I'm singling that one out since the left dropped guns and the right seems to be losing homosexuality and racism (and the welfare queens) as their wedge issues. It's the last major one I know of that divides our working class. Tell me how the hell to fix our politics...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. Role for Jury Nullification by trout007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why Jury Nullification is so important. Of course that's why many of these laws will be enforced without a trial.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Role for Jury Nullification by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jury nullification allows for the views of a community to override the letter of the law. This can be a good or bad thing, depending on the community.

    2. Re:Role for Jury Nullification by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is only a good thing. It cannot be a bad thing. You cannot convict anyone by jury nullification; only free someone. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man hang.

  8. Yes, but you must face a brutal fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obama and his people in the Commerce and State departments (which he, as President, appointed and controls) are the ones who have (A) Negotiated this deal, (B) classified it to prevent the public from reading it, and (C) demanded the TPA bill earlier this year to put it on a fast-track to fly through congress without proper Constitutional scrutiny.

    Sadly, "establishment" Republicans in congress (bribed by the same firms that funded Obama's rise to power) ignored their base voters and let him have TPA, and will do everything they can to pass TPP...... but There would BE no TPA or TPP without team Obama writing them and demanding them!

    This is broadly about multinational corporations (and their billionaire owners and investors) freeing themselves of national boundaries and rules - but at the core of it are the multinational entertainment companies and their lobbying groups like the MPAA which are every bit as much of the core of the modern Democrat party as trial lawyers, government employee unions, and gay marriage advocates - separating this from Obama would be like separating George W Bush from the NRA, social conservatives, or defense contractors, etc.

  9. Re:Ha by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're mad at Obama, you must try to open your eyes. I'm 100% opposed to Republican views (1) and yet I don't think Obama acts too far from what a Republican would do.

    That's because both parties are full of power-crazed psychopaths. The only difference is which lies they tell.

  10. Re:Blame It On by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It has been continuous since JFK; it also existed in a press (and newsreel) agreement during FDR's term to keep his medical condition secret from the American people; an agreement to support the war against our enemies during WWII and, during Eisenhower's administration, to be anti-Communist.

    Johnson lost the press and Hollywood, Nixon did not strengthen ties with them, Ford and Carter were cyphers with regard to the larger culture, and, you are right that Reagan reestablished ties which went back to Mankiewicz. The Bushes tried to ignore Hollywood; Clinton reeastablished ties; the younger Bush courted them without success, but Obama seems to have been made for Hollywood's surface glitz, leading to TIPP. Trump, of course, would be a master of neo-Kennedyism.

  11. Re:Ha by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but I'm not a single-issue voter like a lot of people.

    But the country's problems ARE single issue, namely that the government at high levels place the desires of corporations above the rights of the people. In fact the government places pretty much everything above the rights of the people. The problem is that this is not a partisan issue, it's not even an isolated American issue.

  12. Re:Ha by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And your solution to that is to vote for someone who wants to give the government even more power to screw over the people?

    Except that all the other candidates ON BOTH SIDES want this exact same thing.

    Anyone who thinks they don't simply hasn't been paying attention.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  13. Re:Ha by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Finally, "vote for Sanders, he is no worse than the other guys" is hardly a good proposition.

    That's not what I said, and not what I meant.

    Frankly I like Sanders' policies (not all of them) and see him as a hell of a lot better than the other candidates on both sides.
    There are over a million people who've donated to Bernie Sanders, and he isn't taking money from any SuperPACs. Like it or not, you have to respect that so many people like what he's saying enough to send him money.

    Hillary Clinton is a fascist and a war monger. She voted for the war AND for the PATRIOT act. Sanders voted against both of them. That counts for something with me.

    Clinton is a serial liar and a crook, and if she didn't brand herself a "Democrat", you'd swear she was a Republican.

    As for the Republicans, the entire Republican field is nothing but an disorganized array of theocratic, right-wing whackos who are begging to suck the dick of every corporate entity from Boston to Barstow, and they aren't even shy about it.

    They all want to impose their version of Christian sharia on the country, and many of them talk endlessly about how god "guides their decisions", etc etc etc. Santorum would turn this country back 1,000 years. Huckabee would put every non-believer to the sword of he could, and the rest aren't that much better. Is that what you want?

    Don't like Sanders? Then don't vote for him. Spend your vote on whoever you like. I'll be voting for Bernie if I get the chance.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...