Slashdot Mirror
TPP Change Means Drastically Higher Penalties For Copyright "Infringement" (eff.org)
Mephistophocles writes: A sneaky and underhanded change to the TPP, spotted by the EFF and summarized here by Jeremy Malcolm, means much stiffer penalties for copyright "infringement:"
Under the TPP's original terms, a country could limit the exposure of the owner of such a website to prison time, or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn't cause any lost sales to the copyright owner. (Note that they would be liable for civil damages to the copyright owner in any case.)
Although a country still has the option to limit criminal penalties to "commercial scale" infringements (which is so broadly defined that it could catch even a non-profit subtitles website), the new language compels TPP signatories to make these penalties available even where those infringements cause absolutely no impact on the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. This is a massive extension of the provision's already expansive scope.
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the fact that this means those stiff penalties apply even when there is no harm or threat of harm to the copyright owner caused by the infringement.
Think about it. What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway? Surely, if the copyright holder suffers no harm, then a country ought to be able to suspend the whole gamut of criminal procedures and penalties, not only the availability of ex officio action.
This is no error -- or if it is, then the parties were only in error in agreeing to a proposal that was complete nonsense to begin with.
Under the TPP's original terms, a country could limit the exposure of the owner of such a website to prison time, or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn't cause any lost sales to the copyright owner. (Note that they would be liable for civil damages to the copyright owner in any case.)
Although a country still has the option to limit criminal penalties to "commercial scale" infringements (which is so broadly defined that it could catch even a non-profit subtitles website), the new language compels TPP signatories to make these penalties available even where those infringements cause absolutely no impact on the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. This is a massive extension of the provision's already expansive scope.
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the fact that this means those stiff penalties apply even when there is no harm or threat of harm to the copyright owner caused by the infringement.
Think about it. What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway? Surely, if the copyright holder suffers no harm, then a country ought to be able to suspend the whole gamut of criminal procedures and penalties, not only the availability of ex officio action.
This is no error -- or if it is, then the parties were only in error in agreeing to a proposal that was complete nonsense to begin with.
Good luck finding a jury that will send someone to jail when no harm has been done. Now everyone, please bone up on jury nullification.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I imagine YouTube still gets to host millions of copyrighted videos.
This will only go after the small guys, the big companies get to do whatever.
Why place the word infringement in quotes? Does the OP not consider that to be real word, or consider it to be somehow incorrectly used? Is that just some lazy way of expressing disdain for the idea of copyrights in the first place? Will the OP's minions now "moderate" this post? Or are they being distracted because we're having such nice "weather" outside and using "slashdot" is a poor use of their "time?"
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I suspect that this will not be enforced when $LargeMediaCorp rips off pictures from a small, independent photographer and private individuals (& other similar).
Virtually all "free trade" agreements have SCREWED the average American worker for the benefit of large companies. That's enough for me to hate the TPP.
criminal cases have higher standards of proof then the cases there they just sue you.
Also destruction of evidence by the cops will kill the case.
Virtually all "free trade" agreements have SCREWED the average American worker for the benefit of large companies. That's enough for me to hate the TPP.
That is because free trade agreements are not meant to protect the average American worker. They are, however, meant to benefit the large corporations.
...What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway?...
There is no sense to it.
.
But that doesn't matter because the TPP was written by industry interests and rubber-stamped by the governments involved.
I am hereby applying to copyright the brand name "Anonymous Coward".
If anyone tries to infringe on my copyright, they will have hell to pay.
Note: licensing may be negotiated.
This post is copyright, Anonymous Coward.
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.
moo!
Copyright Cow 2016
No part of this may be reproduced, copied or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in any database or retrieval system, without the express prior written permission of the owners. No part of this shall be reproduced, modified, transmitted, distributed, disseminated, sold, published, sub-licenced, or have derivative work created or based upon it, without the express prior written permission of the owners. If you wish to reproduce any part of this, please contact the owners, providing full details.
Again.
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.
Get less time for killing Michael Jackson, than for copying his music.
The market for counterfeits is already well established outside of the United States and especially in Mexico where pirated movies and music are sold on physical media in outdoor markets for a dollar a pop. The entire business is also hooked into the corruption and lawlessness that plagues that country. The federal government in Mexico has much bigger fish to fry than worrying about counterfeit goods. They're fighting what amounts to a low intensity civil war against the drug cartels who also run the counterfeit markets in areas under their control as a profitable sidelines, taxing sales and providing protection from interference by local police. Unless Mexico can solve their drug cartel problem, which won't happen until drug prohibition ends in the United States, the counterfeit good markets will continue more or less as usual because with all of the corruption and violence down there, they're basically above these kind of laws and under the law of the gun instead.
I invented a new word, groublaiksmup, and hereby claim copyright of it. If you would like to use my new word, the fee is $1.00 USD per use or conctact me to negotiate a better deal for bulk quantities.
Regards,
Anonymous Coward
corporate stooge to the big time.
Governments commit us into treaties, and if we complain, they tell us their hands are tied: treaty. While the USA have a history of ignoring and violating treaties whenever the stipulations would hurt them, they will treat it like a law of nature if it pleases them. Take back your democratic right: No government can sell you into servitude!
There is still time to stop this corrupt giveaway of power to corporate interests, and a political campaign season is an excellent time to do it.
Already, with only 14 comments to this summary, we have people supporting the idea that if no harm was done (the assumption being that all the investigation work is complete and no harm was found to have been committed), then you should be jailed because some copyright holder could have been harmed, despite evidence to the contrary.
There is no sense to this. The very notion that you can be locked away in a cage without casing harm to anyone, goes against self-preservation. Nevertheless, we have people who will gladly uphold this new law simply because some politician signed it, and some vague self-serving crap about the rule of law. Which seems to becoming more and more like the rule of religion with each passing bill, and just as impossible to reason with it's supporters.
Rule of law believer: "But, but it's THE LAW!"
Me: Yeah, so because it's the law, a cop can kill an unarmed naked person without penalty, your ability to self govern can be revoked, and now individuals can be locked up simply because they could cause harm to a corporation. You don't see anything wrong with that?
Rule of law believer: "Well, yes that's wrong. But we just have to change the law."
Me: Change the law? How? You keep voting for the people who support this shit, they've used that fact to stack the deck against you, (Gerrymandering, fast track authority, unconstitutional spying, etc.), and now they are enshrining this into international agreements, which are even harder to change. So how, pray tell, do you intend to change this?
Rule of law believer: "By voting as prescribed by the law."
Me: So, why do you uphold these laws when they are designed to harm you?
Rule of law believer: "Because it's the law."
The US is truly full of idiots. Of course what else could be said about a nation that's openly a supporter of torture, ignores the needs of it's own people (like clean water....), betrays the trust given to it when it suits them ("Oh, we were just collecting metadata."), while at the same time pushing corporatism down the world's throat via international treaties? I guess it's just natural for them to punish anyone that threatens their idiocy, to the detriment of everyone. Oh well. It's not like the rest of world will do anything about it. So I guess I should stop complaining. It's falling on deaf ears. (And ears looking to silence dissent.)
Disclaimer: Yes I'm a US citizen. So I'm also referring to myself in this statement. Also before anyone tries a "Well what have you done?" argument, I've tried to vote out my incumbents. The current senator for my state has been in office longer than I've been alive. (He supported SOPA and PIPA, and that's just one reason I dislike him.) Our current governor was elected by less than 36% of the total registered voters in my state. (Whom I did not vote for, as he was a pathological liar even during his campaign, and his real stance on any given issue was whatever got him the vote from the given audience. A.K.A A True Politician(TM).) I've also tried reasoning with people about the bad laws that are being passed when they say they support them, and all I manage to do is get a response of "agree to disagree". So I do try to work within the system, but I have no confidence in it.
Fear. That great manipulator of the masses. Unless you are a faceless corporation, with deep pockets and legions of lawyers you run the risk of jail time for posting ANYTHING online under the terms of the TPP.
Even if you aren't quoting a book, or a song verse, for all you know you could print, or repost, something that can be held up as in breach of copyright.
It's no longer "copyright", it's a gagging order for the common man.
It's a return to media being entirely in control of the few.
Countries whose constitutions prohibit complying with these provisions will have no choice but to violate them or change their constitutions. In some countries, the latter is extremely difficult and not likely to happen.
Anyone know if this treaty has a clause that addresses such conflicts? If not, those countries might find themselves subject to the treaty's sanctions for non-compliance, being kicked out of the treaty altogether, or (and I state this as a purely theoretical matter since it's not gonna happen), another country becoming so offended that they declare war on the non-complying country and bomb them off the map.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The long game of the US is to make every other country pay for content, and the US holds a monopoly on content (much like a WalMart of the content world). And the US wants infinite copyright on the content, so that everyone else pays the US forever for content produced, and the US gets to prosecute people in other countries even if the laws in the other countries don't have penalties as harsh. The US has the most extreme lengths and extreme copyright violation penalties (and the most expensive copyright charges). The main reason the US wants full ratification of the TPP is that its like a tax on all the other countries of the world, and not just the countries, but on the people in those countries. At some point I can even see an American copyrighting "local news", and people in other countries can't even broadcast their local news without paying the American tax. Taxation without representation. The TPP is the worst thing to come along in the last 100 years. The stupid stupid stupid government in Canada could have scuttled it. They were warned, and yet ignored the warning. Hopefully a country in South America can scuttle this abomination.
The problem with treaties like the TPP is that they cover so much ground that even if the intention *were* good some minor apparatchik could sneak in a malicious provision. Those opposed to the treaty, which I'm sure has some or a few good provisions, could then be accused of wanting to throw out the baby along with the bath water, when their intention all along was to toss out the baby (our civil liberties).
Why can't we just write a law saying all lower class individuals will give 8/10 of their wealth to the elite. In return the elite will protect the unwashed from terrorist, pedophiles, and Alex Jones. This is pretty much the jist of TPP, but my simple common sense law does not require 10000+ pages and is honest.
Freedom is slavery, war is peace and ignorance is strength.
"Mitch McConnell has warned Obama not to send the trade deal to Capitol Hill for a vote before the presidential election." - http://www.startribune.com/sta... It looks like Democrat in Republican clothing is once again trying to get Obama's will carried out without being held responsible for it by having the vote during a lame duck session.
That's pretty much all I need to know about the TPP to oppose it.
If it were genuinely a good bill he could pass it before the election and take credit for it. Instead I bet he's telling the crony capitalists to be patient and they'll get what they want when the next election is two years away and the voters are likely to forget about once again being defrauded by the Republican leadership.
Hey Trump primary supporters! McConnel hates Cruz more! Vote Cruz!
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
You get what this is all really about. Totally shutting down the internet except for a very few publishers under the threat of criminal penalties for any copyright infringement be it a single photo, a paragraph of text, a site layout. Basically the intent is to shut down the internet under threat of criminal prosecution for copyright infringement, only the big players left standing and everyone else wiped out. Never forget copyright infringement counts for a single photo or a single page of text or a ring tone or etc. etc. etc. The intent is to hand the internet back to main stream media, a straight up act of blatant corruption.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
to bad that the jury duty. pay is way to low
That is true but I'd never do it for money. In fact, you are not obligated to collect or cash any payments made for your service. I have never accepted money for my jury duty service. I know it probably sounds silly but I take my job serious when I'm called to do it. In some States, you can voluntarily submit yourself to the jury pool. I have never done so. I do, however, get called on a semi-regular basis it seems. I've been selected more often than not. I believe in the concept of a "reasonable person" and I'm aware of the burden of proof (I've even sat on civil proceedings) and enjoy the opportunity to ensure that the State meets that burden and not finding guilty of they fail to meet that burden.
Yeah, I know... It sounds odd but I really do enjoy it. No, not for the thrill or for the power. It's definitely not thrilling and it's not actually a lot of power in one person's hand ALL the time (it can be). I'm keen on being as unbiased as possible and dealing in accordance with the limits. I dress up for the occasion and everything. I'd rather avoid specifics but I have been what I felt was the voice of reason, more than once, and prevented a miscarriage of justice because of it. I'm not necessarily proud of having done so - but I am content in my decision.
It is unfortunate that it can cause real financial discomfort (even harm) and I think it might be prudent to consider paying the jurors more. It would also help if people didn't view it as a hardship or a nuisance and saw it as a privilege and an obligation. There are definitely improvements to be considered.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
So what? The powerful always get what they want. Were you really so naive as to think things could go on forever like they did in 1992. It had to happen. We had about 25 years to play before they took the toy back. I didn't believe it would last that much.
So if a sentence from my website appears in a pop stars' song I can get them and the music company sent to jail? Awesome!
Well, nothing there. The important thing is to screw over anyone you want by screaming pirate, not to ensure any sort of equity or justice anywhere. Punishing corporations for false-charges or pulling down stuff they don't own would go against the entire point of the TPP.
Clearly these 'trade laws' that propose crazy extensions of scope to IP laws are not the result of a democratic process. The corrupt politicians who are pushing these laws need to be prosecuted now.
So I went back and searched for the change to the verbiage to Intellectual-Property chapter in the Final TPP and I couldn't find the change. As of today it's still "paragraph" https://ustr.gov/trade-agreeme...
They can't justify sending people to jail for personal use of weed anymore, so copyright is the new "it". Jails gotta make money too, guys.
means much stiffer penalties for copyright "infringement:"
I don't know why that's been put in quotes.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The point of such agreements is encouraging corporations to manufacture whatever it can at a lower cost than other countries can. This means low-value goods become manufactured offshore instead of being manufactured in domestic sweatshops. The displaced workers must change to labour-intensive jobs (services) or learn to make high-value goods. Ignoring the cost of re-structuring the labour market, such agreements mean more goods are manufactured and the total wealth (of the member countries) increases.
The problem is such agreements are used to enforce so-called protectionist policies that in reality, cause the opposite: They depress wages and limit high-value manufacturing on both sides of the agreement. The USA has more high-value manufacturing so the multitude of losses are offset by the few industries that profit from such agreements.
I'm not a TPP apologist and I think what is proposed is pretty silly, but note that countries can comply with the letter of this - making jail terms available as a punishment for such cases - but effectively all but ruling them out in sentencing guidelines.
Lots of crimes have a fairly wide range of available sentences, from very harsh top-end punishments to deal with the most egregious corner cases, to much lower sentences. I'm not sure how it works in the US - maybe the judge has complete autonomy on what sentence they hand down - but in many countries each law has a set of sentencing guidelines that the judge is mandated to follow.
So even if they sign up to this and implement a top-end sentence that includes jail time, by setting appropriate sentencing guidelines they can make sure that it almost never applies. e.g.:
Baseline sentence - £50 fine
Mitigating factor: no harm done to copyright holder - reduces punishment to stiff talking to
Exacerbating factor: repeat offence, commercial scale infringement, use of proceeds to fund crime - increases punishment to jailtime.
Yep, I also did jury duty as a civic duty, although I've only been ever called up once - and was selected. The pay was rather laughable, but I still felt it was important to do. Honestly, I wish they'd pay better, as I think they'd get more and better qualified candidates who wouldn't try so hard to avoid it, but I suppose that can't be helped. When those government bureaucracies are being funded, do you really think that paying jurors more is at the top of their priority list?
It was both a positive experience and an unpleasant experience all at the same time. It's good to see the system actually working as intended, even if only at a very small level. It was a minor case, but it's obviously hugely important to those involved, and everyone took their job very seriously. The unpleasantness comes from having to wallow in someone's alleged crimes for the length of the trial (mine was just a single day), after which you want to go home and take a shower. The case I was a juror for involved a young ex-couple, a baby, custody disputes, and allegations of physical abuse. Bleh.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I read TFS, and I still read TPP as 'The Pirate Bay'.
The powerful always get what they want.
No, not always. Sometimes their heads come off.
Totally shutting down the internet except for a very few publishers under the threat of criminal penalties for any copyright infringement be it a single photo, a paragraph of text, a site layout.
The big guys infringe copyright all the time. What they want is not to stop people doing it, but to get their cut. They see things like fan videos on YouTube as free promotion, they just feel that as well as the extra buzz it generates they should be able to tax it too, and block anything negative.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What are the penalties for crashing the global economy?
Oh wait, I forgot, boat-loads of cash...
Requiem for the American Dream
In this matter there is (as usual) no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
If you want to stop TPP you will have to vote for a third alternative.
or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn't cause any lost sales to the copyright owner.
These clauses don't compute. Is a get-away car used in a bank robbery also destroyed just because it didn't cause any inconvenience to the impatient customers waiting to be serviced at the robbed bank?
Close. It's about force feeding you internet 2.0 and freedom 2.0. It's about the 1990s cable TV style of tiered internet where only the 3 media companies can be considered players, and good luck even ACCESSING any of their lower level competition, because it will have been wiped off the net by then. Once you have a stranglehold through copyright law, on the competition (the competition being any site helping create or deliver content) you have won. THEN you charge them into oblivion. What? You don't want to follow their rules and pay their price? Enjoy your jail sentence. Note that none of this will stop organized copyright criminals, but it sure as hell will give enough room to start throwing even modest pirates into jail... or better yet, and falling in line with the true intent of these clauses, convince them to pay settlements to stay out of court.
I'm voting Cruz, with the rollover to Trump if he becomes the presidential nominee.
And you too Hillary! Your corporate overlords are quite pleased with your efforts.
And all the politicians were saying that it does not impact individual citizens. Clearly that was a lie.
If any court or police attempt to enforce such things on individual, then they will be subject to measured legal response.
you will have difficulty finding any record company that has never knowingly committed copyright infringement. I wonder how they will feel about going to jail? Oh wait, this only covers people not corporations.
How about some effective laws that would allow us to capture and punish people in foreign nations for acts that are illegal in the US such as the telemarketers who hide in China or God knows where instead of just concentrating on copyright issues? We could also demand the ability to round up people outside the US who ship dangerous products into the US such as that awful Chinese drywall that destroyed so many homes.
It's an online multiplayer game, so do please explain how this could be achieved without connecting to a network.
By connecting to a private computer network that is disconnected from the Internet. They used to call that a "LAN party".
Two things, only one of which is salient...
I've heard an argument... Let me backtrack...
I've a fascination with law but am not a lawyer. It started in school. The legal folks had a whole mock courtroom and would pay students to play a variety of roles in that courtroom. They also wanted volunteers and I sometimes had time.
So, that said, I've actually heard a reasoned argument for why the pay for jury duty is the rate that it is. They suggested it shouldn't be raised, at least not significantly, and had some good reasons why it is sound choice to not pay much to a jury member.
Unfortunately, I have the memory of a gnat and that was a long time ago. ;-) So, no... I have no idea what the hell they were on about. I've long since forgotten! But, they *did* present a logical argument about why the rates should be low. I believe that a part of that reasoning was that a higher rate would actually (potentially) encourage more people to sit jury duty and that some of them would be doing it for the money - if it paid more than their job, for example, as they'd not have to work so they'd happily get paid for jury duty and they're not actually going to care about their duty as much as someone who does it for a stipend and because they see it as their social duty.
I think that's how it went? I'm not completely sure but I think that's a good part of what they argued. I brought it up in a group of the students at the bar, as I recall. I really don't remember the varied reasons but I'm pretty sure that was a part of it - it was not the only reason. They had quotes and citations and had obviously discussed this in the past as they were well prepared with their opinions. I think there's some room for improvement but I'm inclined to agree with the premise that we might not want to pay too much for the service.
I've given it only a little thought since then and when I mull it over now, I can see the logic in not wanting to pay too much. Ideally, yes ideally, we'd not have to pay at all and we'd not need the money at all. Employers would cover it, where applicable. That's what I did. If you got jury duty, you still got paid. You could bring in a receipt (I know what they pay) and get paid the remainder or you could just not bring in a receipt and we'd pay you everything! Err... It was probably not the most economic choice? It's a trivial amount when you're paying more for your copy/print room(s) than you are for some of the labor. (A subject for another day, or at least a different post.)
And the second thing...
I've got two M.95s and your name always reminds me of them. It's a Dutch firearm - used from 1895 until the end of WWII. They're very nice. My two are in excellent condition and are collector's items but not of great worth. Other than their condition, they're not unique. Condition-wise, there's no record of issue and they are in near-pristine condition. They were presentation models or parade models - unknown which. They're a bit darker than most and the wood was all well chosen with tight, matching, grain. They're quite lovely and are very well made.
If you're unfamiliar with them (I have no idea, given your username) then I went and found you a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They're just a bit darker than that - almost a walnut dark.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It was almost 10 years ago, but the base pay was $95 (tax free), parking (if you drove to the courthouse - and indoor packing during deliberations), Free breakfast (lots of pastries, etc), a decent free lunch (and once a week an outing to a really good restaurant with things like buffalo cuts and wine), and some more snacks for the afternoon.
And if you were in a union that had a clause saying you were paid during jury duty, you could double dip, without having to show up at work.
So when I hear of people not getting anything for the first 10 days, and something like $15 a day thereafter, it's no wonder people run away from jury duty.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If you have a phone you can make your own...
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
-- U.S. Constitution, Amendment 8
As I read the rest of the US Constitution, the TPP is invalid, even if it passes.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
So any member of the U.S. Congress who votes for such an unconstitutional law will be guilty of violating their oath of office.
Finally, if I may suggest music to accompany the removal of members of the U.S. Congress: https://www.facebook.com/sonso...
The TPP was created by Hollywood.
Do you really think that is was just put there?
Why do you think that Hollywood likes that the government is taking over the Internet....
It's directive 10-289, plain and simple.
I don't doubt there may be good reasons that juror pay is on the low side - I can certainly see the line of reasoning you're presenting. Honestly, it's not a topic I've given a lot of thought to, so I'm more than willing to consider reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue.
Also, my handle reflects my ancestral heritage + my love of gaming. My grandparents were all from Holland. One fought in WWII (very briefly, obviously), while the other was sent to a German work camp, and subsequently escaped and fled back to Holland, where he remained in the Dutch underground for the remainder of the war - really an amazing story. I can also appreciate a quality firearm, as I have a few myself, but I wasn't actually familiar with that model, despite my name. My grandparents may have actually used a rifle like this, so thanks a lot for the link.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
King George didn't. Neither did Louis the XIV. Both Stalin and Hitler failed to build their respective thousand-year regimes. In fact, the very fact that we're having this discussion in a democratic republic rather than sitting in silence, too afraid of our feudal overlords who rule by divine right to speak, is a testament to the utter inability of power and the powerful to even keep their positions, much less advance.
So how about you grow a pair, Anon, and stop repeating the malevolent lies of a dying concept?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Mainly because Michael Jackson probably did not own his music. The thieving media mafia owns most copyright works.
They are also screwing the citizens of EVERY country involved in these so-called "trade" agreements. They are just an excuse for the US corporations to take control of the world. Corporations will be able to sue foreign governments if they pass any laws that reduce profits, for example laws that help reduce smoking within a population. These agreements are total immoral and criminal.