EFF Delivers 210,000 Signatures Opposing Trans-Pacific Partnership (eff.org)

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: "The TPP is simply bad for tech users and innovators," writes the Electronic Frontier Foundation, arguing the proposed trade agreement for the Pacific Rim "exports the most onerous parts of U.S. copyright law and prevents the U.S. from improving them in the future, while failing to include the balancing provisions that work for users and innovators, such as fair use." At a press conference, the EFF delivered 210,000 signatures gathered in conjunction with other activist groups "to call on Democratic Party Leader Nancy Pelosi to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership from going to a vote during the 'lame duck' session of Congress following the November election."

More signatures are still being collected online, to be delivered on July 21. In a statement, the EFF adds that the TPP also "does nothing to safeguard the free and open Internet, by including phony provisions on net neutrality and encryption, trade secrets provisions that carry no exceptions for journalism or whistleblowing, and a simplistic ban on data localization...to buy off big tech."

Comments

Re:Wrong, evil and going to happen

[The Real Dr John]

There is massive public opposition to the TTP and TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic. When people learn what is in it, they invariably don't like it (unless they run a large multinational corporation, like Disney). It still may pass, but I wouldn't bet on it at this point. Even Clinton, the most corporate owned presidential candidate in history, has been forced to say it is a bad deal for the people. Of course, her surrogates at the DNC platform convention have refused repeatedly to formally denounce the TTP, so that says something about what Clinton would do once back in the White House again. Still, it is going to be a big stain on any politician's record who votes for it. There has never been this level of organized opposition to a trade deal. This time, now that there has been 20 years to assess NAFTA and CAFTA, many of the offending politicians may be voted out of office in the next election.

Here's the Scoop

[retroworks]

The "most onerous portions of USA copyright law" are tiddlywinks compared to the "most onerous portions" of Japanese copyright law (citation Fuji vs. Jazz Camera, Lexmark vs. Arizona Cartridge Manufacturers). Unfortunately, Japan's interpretation of protecting OEM rights internationally ("e-waste" takeback laws were invented in Japan for reasons having NOTHING to do with environmental destiny and EVERYTHING to do with re-manufacture and reverse-engineering) seems to have metastasized in Asia. EFF is on the right side of this, but pulling TPP's finger from the hole in the dike may result in "the perfect is the enemy of the good", ie if the USA was the strongest proponent to protect copyright - Disney lobbyists aside - then it's speculation whether TPP "could have done more".

I'm not an expert in TPP, or what concessions USA made or even brought to the table to protect USA lobbyists. But I'm above average as expert in the fact that trade is generally anti-protectionism, and protectionism is generally anti-trade, and TPP, NAFTA, TAP, etc. are generally trying to remove barriers. Glad EFF is there, but when I interviewed them about Chinese and Japanese law they said they didn't have enough bandwidth to be experts in that, and since the point of TPP is to leverage Japan vs. China (which despite certain idiot comments is NOT PART OF TPP), we had to find common ground, ie try to compromise with Japan.