Slashdot Mirror
Full Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Intellectual Property Chapter Analyzed (freezenet.ca)
Dangerous_Minds writes: Freezenet seems to be the first website to publish a full run-down of the final draft of the Intellectual Property chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The leak was published on Wikileaks earlier. The analysis seems to confirm what the EFF has said, saying that the chapter "confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn't survive to the end of the negotiations." The analysis focuses mainly on copyright enforcement on the Internet and the impact the chapter would have on personal devices, VPN services, and ISPs. One noteworthy find by Freezenet is the inclusion of a "TPP Commission" which would decide when different countries are supposed to meet outside of the 10-year cycle, discussing "market circumstances" of "the development of new pharmaceutical products." What other roles the TPP Commission takes on is unclear given that it is not mentioned anywhere else in the chapter.
So to summarize the effect of TPP in one semi-sentence....
"....and the horse you rode in on..."
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Hope and Change you can believe in!!
fuck off you racist idiot
The name "TTP commission" strongly echoes the EU commission's name. The later is an unelected, unaccountable body that takes over nation state sovereignty, and it is interesting they chose a look alike name.
For those who are still very thick in the head and cannot comprehend the simplest thing since for the first time in history of this planet a rock was used to bash somebody on the head, I would like to repeat this axiom: governments = evil.
Government is an evil structure by its very definition, as it is set up to provide the collective with violent means of dominating an individual. Whatever system that is fundamentally based on violence can not and will not avoid using violence to increase its own power, and a government is seen as legitimate by its very definition, doesn't it? It's the *government* after all, it is there to serve and protect...
Here is your problem: you are not the ones it will be serving and protecting once it manages to grow its power enough with its legitimate use of violence. It will dominate and subjugate you and it will imprison you.
I will also repeat something I said for nearly two decades now: abolish government protected copyrights and patents.
Government exists to use power and it ends up using its power against you, understand it and work against it. Copyrights and patents are a manner used to create monopoly power for specific individuals. Many of you believe that monopolies are the property of free market capitalism, however in a free market capitalism monopolies are temporary and their existence depends on them providing a good enough product / service in the most cost effective way possible.
With government there is no such requirement, government simply sets up monopolies and uses its violent power to maintain them. Utility companies, copyright holders, patent holders, military, education, name whatever government does and there is violence there, used to protect somebody's monopoly.
My position is that TPP is inevitable once government with violent powers exists.
You can't handle the truth.
In the future the global legal framework will be created and enforced by corporations. The nation-state will lose its sovereignty.
From the governments become more corrupted from representing their people to the privatization of military forces to Google and other corporations owning, paying for research that they can 'sell back' to consumers, your world will be controlled by corporations. Democracy, socialism and communism will no longer exist thanks to capitalism.
This is a good time to read "When Google Met Wikileaks" by Julian Assange
Another treaty that was negotiated by the leaders of world governments without concern about the state of the citizens they represent and kept as much in secret as possible.
The Savior Of America, the half-breed kid, Barak Hussain Obama, is laid on the table.
Disgusting.
Ha ha
Thank you for illustrating perfectly why the people in power get away with this kind of stuff. Instead of looking at reality people are mostly swayed by emotionally driven, partisan nonsense. This isn't unique to the right either, Democrats are 100% guilty of this trash.
I sure hope while you're digesting your talking points from the same 'lamestream media' that you so pretend to hate that you take a moment to realize that the companies that control the news have the opposite of your best interests in mind.
I really don't know why I wasted my time, the 'communist muslims leftie gay agenda freedom haters' have already taken over America in your mind, and as the Rambo of your own fantasies it's your job to defend it. "How fortunate leaders that men do not think" - Adolph Hitler
This video explains the evidence in a recent study. It shows why what Americans want has practically no effect on what American politicians do.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
But after careful consideration, I must take away a star. If they send me more free stuff, I'll update this and give it 5 stars. Hint-hint.
We were clearly told by the appointed future president that it was the "gold standard" of agreements. Although for show she suddenly has reservations about it I'm sure once elected it will be fully supported. When it comes to stopping the freight train of "free trade" vote Trump or Sanders.
Judging from across the pond, I'd say that both parties are experts in making political debates irrational in order to distract from the real issues. One of them is the gap between 1% of the richest and the rest of the population. If you look at the statistics, this gap has become ridiculously huge during the past 60 years. Whether you like it or not, this is going to be Americas biggest problem in the long run.
------ free analysis of Republican meeting following
However, I watched part of a replay of the last debate of Republican candidates last evening and realized with some relief that not all of them are totally irrational. If you disregard misogynic egomaniacs like Trump, fanatics like Huckabee and this moron who was talking about Iran all the time (who the fuck is this guy?--Ah, looked him up, John Dummett, what a dumbass), the rest was not necessarily worse than Clinton, if you know what I mean. Bush, Carson, Paul, and Fiorina weren't that bad, the most reasonable of them was Paul (within Rep. limits), but even Bush appeared to be far more reasonable than any other Bush I've heard before. (Bush can't make it, though, because he has the wry smile of a loser and it's all about showbiz.)
These are just the last gasps. Intellectual Monopoly is on the way out. It cannot be enforced. The economy is too fast for the bureaucrats to control now. Sure the laws will be there but they will be ignored and only used occasionally for political revenge. it will just be a cost of doing business.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
100% dismantling democracy and directly handing power over to the biggest corporations. 100% treason, it's nothing short of a corporate coup.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Yes, those are things that nobody would demand in a market situation.
If you don't have a government you don't have a market. Markets can only operate where there are some basic rules which the participants can be trusted to follow. This requires someone with the best/most pointy sticks to enforce the rules which will be the de facto government.
Your link goes on about freedom but the only reason many of us have some guaranteed freedoms is because there is a government which is willing to enforce them with the use of pointy sticks. That's why we created them and why we still have them despite their many flaws.
If you want an idea about what life without government is like look back at history, not the 250 years that the US has been around but several thoused years ago and more. Life in the stone age was free but would you prefer living then rather than now? The big difference is of course technology but look at history: technology is closely tied to the development of governments and the better the government the more rapid the technological progress. It's unlikely Newton would have come up with his laws of motion if he had to spend most of his time worrying about how to protect himself and his property.
And when you use them, you become a murderer.
Protest without guns. They can't shoot you without looking like the bad guys.
And a million people who decide to just walk up to them will crush them to death.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Every effort should be made to stop ratification. Unfortunately in Canada, Trudeau refused to really say anything claiming the text wasn't available (strangely enough the mainstream media all bought the excuse that he didn't know anything about the TPP, which strikes me as odd) so with the majority that can go any way. The top contenders in the US for president that are openly anti-TPP get attacked on all fronts. One of the minor parties pulling out won't stop the TPP, but two or three might.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
We should be up in arms and even potentially taking organized violent measures to defend our rights and liberties against these actions. The government has long overstepped its bounds and we the people are sitting idly by doing nothing. Have many here have even spent time and money to fight these laws? As a (non-violent) organizer in some of these efforts I can tell you not many.
I'm afraid that if we're going to have any success there needs to be more people participating in mass-migrations from around the country and around the world. The problem right now is freedom-loving individuals are terribly spread out and not in a good position to organize serious fights. We can't protect ourselves let alone the rest of the population. Right now there is only one serious effort to change that: The Free State Project.
On the other hand there is hope. As an example thanks in big part to Free State Project participants protests were organized against the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to stifle a New Hampshire libraries participation in the Tor network (https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/how-a-small-new-hampshire-library-fought-government-fearmongering/). The protests succeeded in convincing the library to ignore DHS fearmongering.
Now we just need focus on making more people aware of such migration projects, and encouraging participation, and keep fighting until a real state can be formed.For those who are interested there are two yearly events to check out: PorcFest (a camping event) and New Hampshire Liberty Forum.
Watch "End Of Nations: EU Takeover And The Lisbon Treaty" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWWsWxjl71Q)
The US constitution affords the government no power to give away its powers, especially those not enumerated to it in the first place. IT'S TREASON
As much as starting your own business means you will sexually harass your female employees, defraud your investors, dump toxic waste in the river, and join the international slave trade. For what some businesses have done, all businesses will do.
That's either equally brilliant as your assertion that government = evil, or equally asinine.
Another problem left out of your Randian storyline: look back at the worst Soviet agency, program or institution you could name, and its bureaucrats wouldn't have a direct, personal incentive to cut corners the way capitalists do. Because, as you Randians constantly tell us, socialism/communism leads to lazy, unproductive workers that have guaranteed jobs and salaries no matter how little they work. As opposed to capitalists, who choose to leave people with cancer, disembowelment or death to save a buck (or less) on products that cost thousands of dollars.
That governments had a two-fold purpose to refusing to discuss the TPP during negotiations:
1). A legitimate wish to keep the trade negotiations in an open-ended state, with the fewest possible restriction on the trade negotiators;
2). An illegitimate wish to stifle public discussion of the ramifications of global trade agreements, focus on winners and losers, and the implicit freedom we give capital even as we withhold the same freedoms, rights and practical considerations that restrict workers, employment, and the flow of citizens. If we were serious about treating capital and labour the same, we'd grant free flow of citizens throughout the TPP zone. No border restrictions, no green cards, no visas, no working permits, nothing.
Once the TPP exists but has not been ratified, we are bombarded with statements that "we have to", "ratification is necessary to keep us competitive", "the TPP will leave us behind, the train is leaving the station", and "all the cool countries are doing it".
I'm not saying the TPP is wrong per se. I'm saying that we aren't having the necessary structure and policy discussions. These agreements change our economy, flows of money and wealth, and business opportunities. This is equivalent to signing a complicated insurance agreement without having a good understanding what is in it and why.
Judging from across the pond, I'd say that both parties are experts in making political debates irrational in order to distract from the real issues. One of them is the gap between 1% of the richest and the rest of the population. If you look at the statistics, this gap has become ridiculously huge during the past 60 years. Whether you like it or not, this is going to be Americas biggest problem in the long run.
------ free analysis of Republican meeting following However, I watched part of a replay of the last debate of Republican candidates last evening and realized with some relief that not all of them are totally irrational. If you disregard misogynic egomaniacs like Trump, fanatics like Huckabee and this moron who was talking about Iran all the time (who the fuck is this guy?--Ah, looked him up, John Dummett, what a dumbass), the rest was not necessarily worse than Clinton, if you know what I mean. Bush, Carson, Paul, and Fiorina weren't that bad, the most reasonable of them was Paul (within Rep. limits), but even Bush appeared to be far more reasonable than any other Bush I've heard before. (Bush can't make it, though, because he has the wry smile of a loser and it's all about showbiz.)
Unfortunately they are all bad. Most of them have come out saying they would end net neutrality. Paul is a libertarian like his father and their philosophy is basically in line with Ayn Rand (who was a sociopath). Fiorina is best known for laying off thousands from HP and destroying the company. She is also a big fan of H1B visas. The only candidate that isn't completely awful is Bernie Sanders. Some of his ideas are out there but Congress will restrict what he can accomplish anyway. He's the only candidate I know of that's opposed to the TPP and given the Trade Promotion Authority that was granted to negotiate these treaties in the first place is for 6 years it would be good to have him in the white house to stop the next one from happening.
Negotiated in secret, without even elected representatives able to review it? I will break it in secret - seems fair to me.
While true, please remember that the Republican party has been solidly in control of Congress for quite awhile now. BOTH parties have conspired to foist this off on us.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.