Wikileaks Releases Final Intellectual Property Chapter Of TPP Before Official Release

from the and-it-sucks dept

Fri, Oct 9th 2015 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

Last weekend, negotiators finally completed negotiations on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. However, as we noted, there was no timetable for the release of the text (though some are now saying it may come out next week). Once again, it was ridiculous that the negotiating positions of the various countries was secret all along, and that the whole thing had been done behind closed doors. And to have them not be ready to release the text after completion of the negotiations was even more of a travesty. Wikileaks, however, got hold of the Intellectual Property Chapter and has released it online.

Much of what's in there is (not surprisingly) the same as the previous leaked version, which was from May of this year. The newly leaked version, of course, confirms what New Zealand's announcement had revealed earlier this week: multiple countries caved in so that TPP requires signatories to extend copyright to life plus 70 years -- even though the US itself had been exploring reducing copyright terms (that now won't be allowed). Similarly, it locks in dangerous anti-circumvention rules that have hindered innovation and freedom.

The final report shows that many of the problems we found in the May draft are still in this document. This includes the fact that while the agreement does at least make a nod to the public's rights such as fair use (which it calls "limitations and exceptions") it does so in a ridiculous way. All of the moves to make copyright stricter are mandatory in the TPP. They require signing countries to do things like extend terms and ratchet up punishment. But when it comes to fair use? Then it just says countries should explore the issue:

Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.16, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled.

Shall endeavor? Every other clause is a flat out "shall." But when it comes to fair use it's "eh, maybe consider it." That's ridiculous, given just how important the public's rights are and how things like fair use protect those rights.

There's also the issue of the public domain. As we noted in the May draft, the US and Japan actively opposed including "acknowledging the importance of preserving the public domain" in the section for "Understandings in respect of this Chapter." And it looks like the US won -- as that phrase is no longer in that section -- though there was a compromise. Further down in the document, a new section has been added acknowledging the public domain:

Article QQ.B.x: {Public Domain}

1. The Parties recognize the importance of a rich and accessible public domain.

2. The Parties also acknowledge the importance of informational materials, such as publicly accessible databases of registered intellectual property rights that assist in the identification of subject matter that has fallen into the public domain.

That's better than nothing, but it is notable that this is no longer included in the section of "objectives." Because, of course, this document has no objective to celebrate the public domain. The copyright extension terms show that the objective is to destroy the public domain. And, as the EFF notes in its analysis, by moving where this discussion of the public domain occurs, the negotiators made it a happy platitude rather than a required part of any intellectual property policy:

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.

Also, with the May release, we noted that the US and Japan, in particular, opposed any language that allowed for punishment for abusing patents. Australia had proposed some language that said that a country could cancel, revoke or nullify a patent if "the patent is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive, or abusive..." The US and Japan vehemently opposed this language and guess what is nowhere to be found in the document? You guessed it... The US and Japan also opposed a pretty simple statement that "Each Party may adopt or maintain measures to discourage vexatious or unreasonable proceedings as a result of the use of the exclusive rights of a patent."

And yet, in the final document, the only time "unreasonable" appears is in relation to "unreasonable" delays in granting patents. It really makes you wonder, why is the US so against a simple clause allowing countries to stop the abuse of patents? What possible rationale could they have other than knowing that they're helping companies abuse patents.

It also appears that negotiators did not heed the warnings from KEI and others that the last draft would go against a number of US laws that include exceptions for damages for infringement, including orphan works and sovereign immunity by state governments. In short, this would completely undermine the US's plans for dealing with the orphan works problem, because the TPP requires there be damages for infringement, even as the proposal to solve orphan works is to create an exception for damages if the work is an orphan work and certain conditions have been met.

The good folks at KEI have been listing out many other problems with the final text, some of which we'll explore as well. For example, the TPP says that patents can be available for "new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product" which of course can lead to perfectly common products getting extra patent protection and limiting competition, and driving up prices. There is significant concern over this issue in the drug space.

On the question of extra protection for "biologics" (which was apparently the final sticking point), the agreement says 8 years or something that can deliver a "comparable outcome in the market" via "other measures." This is problematic and will drive up healthcare costs and will almost certainly mean that people will die because they can't afford these medicines. Australia had been holding out for five years, but apparently lost. As we noted a few months ago, this also undermines some fundamental principles of science in locking up important data.

The other tidbit that is potentially a big deal is that it appears that the Intellectual Property Chapter may not be subject to the corporate sovereignty chapter, meaning that companies would not be able to make use of the special "ISDS" (investor-state dispute settlement) tribunals to argue that new IP regulations somehow deprived them of expected profits from investment in those countries. If that's true that would be quite interesting, but the details of the corporate sovereignty chapter have not yet leaked...

All in all the document is pretty much what was expected, which means... it's problematic. The USTR should not have negotiated this, as it directly harms the interests of the American public as well as the entire internet sector. Congress should not pass this. This is a bad agreement, which is basically what you'd expect for something negotiated behind closed doors where only large industry lobbyists had full direct access to the text and the negotiators.

WikiLeaks TPP IP Chapter 051015 (PDF)WikiLeaks TPP IP Chapter 051015 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: biologics, copyright, data, fair use, intellectual property, patents, public domain, tpp, ustr

51 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 9 Oct 2015 @ 6:56pm

Why were they there again?
From the sounds of it, the USG got it's way in pretty much every instance where there was a conflict of opinions. Given that, it seems they could have saved everyone a lot of time and effort if they'd just written it up on their own and sent it out to the other countries to sign, sight unseen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave, 9 Oct 2015 @ 9:29pm

discretion?
[quote]Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.16, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled. [/quote]
i read that each party can choose discretion when applying these rules. ?
Just a Q. From a Canook.
So keep it simple please :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 9 Oct 2015 @ 9:39pm
  
  Re: discretion?
  If by discretion you mean can choose if, and to what extent to follow what's listed, yes. The key words and phrases would be 'shall endeavor to' and 'appropriate balance'. The first means that they are supposed to do something, but aren't outright required to, while the second means that they can ignore anything listed if they don't believe it to provide a 'reasonable balance'.
  
  Basically those two phrases makes everything listed after them purely optional, and in no way required to be implemented.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 4:19am
    
    Re: Re: discretion?
    The real opinion of how they feel about the public rights is how they include us in it. Simple Solution is to just sue every one of them directly for lost revenue since they are depriving every member of the public of all works that should now be public and free for all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2015 @ 10:08pm

the TPP says that patents can be available for "new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product"

Table is wobbly?
Put an iPhone under a leg! - new patent
No ventilator?
Use an empty blender after drilling holes in it! - new patent

This will be fun! Everyone who doesn't have at least 100 patents will have a hard time to fighting all those law suits. Those things are new because no one has a patent and if there is no patent it is new.
Oh... I can't wait for TTIP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrian Lopez, 9 Oct 2015 @ 11:31pm

Whom does democracy serve, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 12:42am
  
  Re:
  The soon to be tyrants at this rate
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 10 Oct 2015 @ 1:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    What's your definition of a tyrant? Obama orders extrajudicial killings of both non-U.S.-citizens and U.S. citizens alike.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 5:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That definition should go on all dictionaries.....translated
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 7:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thanks Obama!
      
      Gotta love that tunnel vision. Cause there is only one person responsible for this - right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - David, 10 Oct 2015 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What makes you think that there is only one person responsible for any tyranny?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2015 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      someone who rules for themselves instead of for the good of the people. Someone who ignores basic rights their citizens have because they would rather get their way when it conflicts with the laws already set up. Some who uses all their power to hurt their enemies be it political or otherwise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Irving, 13 Oct 2015 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  Democracy exists so that the slaves (that's us) will feel as though they have a say and won't rise up against their owners.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Oct 2015 @ 5:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's "Hegemony." If people were more involved in the political process our democracies would actually work properly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 5:49am

corporate law

By the corporate for the corporate

Fuck human rights......right

What a fucking travesty this world is turning into

!!Warning!! General Offtopic rant follows

We have no choices anymore......i lie, we DO have choices,...choices with conditions that is, ......which is no choice at all

For instance
Want a job to recieve the means to put a roof over your head, food in your mouth, get a job to survive, one of the most assimulated things our society has created in our lives?
Against the surveillance state?

TOUGH

you go through regulation after regulation hoops, CONSENT to background checks (diminishing the value of a persons word by the way) WHILE indirectly CONSENTING to the propogation of a surveillance state, justifying the surveillance infrastructure to continue and no fucking doubt, EXPAND, by hanging the potential job on the line

Choices with conditions
Wanna job?
Against surveillance?
Agree to evolving background checks?
Go without that particular job or consent with your proverbial hands tied behind your back?

Result
Consent, or have your options considerably reduced i.e. good luck trying to find the ideal job, the one your working 20+ years down the line.......your left with the scraps unless your lucky, had your break, or know somebody

And thats just one specific example, a big example mind you, considering were talking about the ability to survive........disgusting that they've gone through this avenue

This mentality is prevaillant in all levels and fields of our societies, we put a charade on top of it, but underneath......we MUST consent, not, we CHOOSE to consent i.e.
Yes i would very much like this job, potential boss!
No, i dont consent to the propogation of the ever evolving surveilance infrastructure!
Soooooo, when should i start?
*door hits me on the back on the way out*

Not that i WANT chaos, i just want these invisible chains to break, and the system, seems built to fight against that

Its like i say sometimes, the world around us has evolved, but our societies have'nt, just got better, my personal opinion, got better at doing a bad thing

Thats not to say their are'nt good people trying, its just, that the bad folks "are untouchable" and free to interfere again and again..........and im not fucking talking about terrorists, the new label for bad people created to create overreaching "law"

The right to be left alone, as i think about it, the true test of freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  Thing is - those who promote these sorts of "laws" are so short sighted they do not see the almost unavoidable demise they are themselves creating.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Oct 2015 @ 5:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    AND when you try to argue the point they call you a Socialist for refusing to bow to your corporate masters and bend over that damn barrel.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 7:51am

Meanwhile on the other side of the galaxy,
Some guys in a dorm room were busily hacking up modules to integrate snow and namecoin into your average every day web browser, negating all the work these corrupt posers spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars doing.

Across town at Dr. Evils headquarters, walled garden networks are under construction to deny people the right to use those fully private and encrypted communications, when they eventually become popular.

Later that afternoon, posers drink expensive wine and pat themselves on the back about what a great job they did saving the universe from piracy.

And in suburbia jack booted thugs arrest Bilbo Smith for possessing digital copies of his favourite movie, which he was using to make a documentary praising that movie. Him and his fan club are being charged under RICO and are facing life in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marc John Randazza (profile), 10 Oct 2015 @ 8:35am

Trademarks
Another issue I didn't like in it -- trademark registrations need not be renewed for at least 10 years.

Under our current law, they expire if not renewed in 5 years. Since most businesses fail within 3 years, this gives a business ample time to get off the ground, time to fail, and time to sell off its assets, including its trademark -- or to succeed and renew.

Trademark trolling is not all that common, so it isn't on the level of horrifying (as some of the copyright and patent changes are). But still, it shows a theme of maximizing IP and not considering the practical implications of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Oct 2015 @ 5:53am
  
  Re: Trademarks
  I think they know it will cause problems but don't care as long as the extortion racket money keeps on rolling in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 8:43am

Mike, maybe you should read through it again, because it's a whole metric fuckton worse than merely "problematic". The ONLY good thing in the entire chapter was the extension of safe harbor for ISPs to other countries. That's it, the ONE good thing.

You also fail tot ouch of some of the incredibly vague language certain sections use which could be used as justification for all sorts of nefarious bullshit, from three strikes laws, to ending anonymity entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
annonymouse, 10 Oct 2015 @ 8:49am

It's all fine since dey didna take ur gunz.

News update - all males and females are considered armed and dangerous and shall be treated as such by laws enforcers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 10:11am

Maybe the EFF or KEI will have better guidance on how to kill this out of control process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all your TPP is belong to NSA, 10 Oct 2015 @ 4:04pm

lets just stop creating
like why bother.....you wont be able to afford to create off anything ever....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makoto saito, 10 Oct 2015 @ 5:00pm

Provably Fair Use as an Obligation to TPP-Copyright Commitments
The TPP copyright rules make it easier for right holder to protect copyright, meaning that the rules make it easier for consumer to prove fair use.
Provably Fair Use is designed to achieve the balance between right holders and consumers.
Provably Fair Use is estimated to be about US$8.00 per month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Oct 2015 @ 5:55am
  
  Re: Provably Fair Use as an Obligation to TPP-Copyright Commitments
  You just contradicted yourself, Makoto.
  
  Now go and look up the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. let me know what you discover.
  
  And be thankful you don't have to pay a fee to read about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 5:12pm

By the people?
" TPP requires signatories to extend copyright to life plus 70 years -- even though the US itself had been exploring reducing copyright terms (that now won't be allowed). "

Please correct me if I'm wrong but to me this means that the people can vote for some person and this person can become President of the United States but although this person can end life as we know it by nuclear means the person is not able to make a law in her/his country.

To me this means democracy is dead. The people elected aren't allowed to make laws in the name of the public but have to make laws in the name of a multinational agreement.
The constitution no longer applies because it is overwritten by TTP. Must feel good to be governed by Australia, Japan and other countries...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charliebrown, 10 Oct 2015 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re: Australia
  oh please don't drag us in to this, most of us don't want this agreement any more than you do!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shill, 10 Oct 2015 @ 5:52pm

I told you pirates to have faith but you never have faith. You couldn't wait for the bill to be signed before leaking it, no no no no no, you had to have proof if you wanted to believe that the bill is going to be all good. You must have faith in our politicians despite all their shortcomings and past history of scamming over the public ... (strike through) ... Just trust us. Yes, given their history of scamming over the public it takes a whole lot of faith to believe they are going to serve the public interest (strikethrough) ... You of little faith!!!!! OK the leaked documents were bad as you suspected and proves you right for not having faith (strike through) ... If you had only waited and had faith that the documents were in the public interest it would have been much too late by the time they got passed into law to do anything about it by then (strike through) just trust us that these laws are good. Faith!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 5:56pm

Who actually knows if this is really leaked , there is the possibility that they intentionally released a bogus copy and the real one is ten times worse than this.

that's what scares me the most about this , keep it hidden and we'll never know , they could be negotiating genocide against everyone but the 1% , and we'll never know until the deal is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 7:29pm
  
  Re:
  I sense that your post is sarcasm coming from a pro-IP shill pretending to criticize the secrecy surrounding this agreement.
  
  "that's what scares me the most about this , keep it hidden and we'll never know , they could be negotiating genocide against everyone but the 1% , and we'll never know until the deal is done."
  
  If your argument is really that the secrecy surrounding this agreement isn't that bad because 'it's not like they're negotiating genocide or anything like that' then I must say that the necessity to resort to such an extreme scenario as being not the case to justify the secrecy surrounding this agreement is strongly indicative of how bad this agreement really is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2015 @ 10:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That's quite a creative interpretation you then proceed to blame on the parent poster.
    
    Your final paragraph is a bit... convoluted, but ends up looking like you and the alleged "pro-IP shill" agree.
    
    So, who's on first, again...?
    
    [I'm not the parent poster]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2015 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pro-IP shills have been known to impersonate critics of the current system with extreme nonsense for the sake of discrediting them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jonathan, 11 Oct 2015 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: re-re
        And bourgeois corporate douche-nozzles, i.e. the middle-class, love to non-consensually parent others. The USA is nothing but a force for class warfare; what constitutes class is apparently decided by whoever's blood sells best in the soft drink section.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2015 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re-re
        How is the middle class "bourgeois corporate douche-nozzles"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2015 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re-re
        So, what, do you advocate a system with no middle class? One with lots and lots of income inequality where you have the rich and the poor? and, let me guess, you are going to be part of the rich, right? Yeah, you're not materialistic all right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2015 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re-re
        and you complain about the 'middle class' but do you really think it's the 'poor' that are pushing for all these pro-IP laws? 95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions so they can't (afford to) have access to so many expensive works that should have been in the public domain a long time ago and so they also can't have access to discontinued works that will compete with works that cost money that are currently in circulation reducing their access to information, works, culture, and education?
        
        and criticizing IP laws and wanting them to serve the public interest isn't 'parenting others'. It's called democracy whereby the people 'parent' themselves. What all the pro-IP businesses are doing, by buying politicians (undemocratically engaging in secretive meetings with politicians, buying politicians through campaign contributions and revolving door favors) and subverting the democratic process is 'parenting others'. It's called tyranny. This is supposed to be a democracy where we 'parent' / govern ourselves not get governed by a few business interests. If a pro-IP shill wants to follow pro-IP principles individually no one is forcing them not to. Not requiring them to is not 'parenting' them. But requiring others to follow pro-IP laws, taking away the freedoms of others, is 'parenting' them. If these laws are to exist lets make sure they are intent on serving the public interest and only the public interest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Oct 2015 @ 5:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re-re
        Countries with a strong middle class tend to be fairer and better to live in. It's the ones with a large rich-poor divide where everything sucks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
xz11111000000 (profile), 10 Oct 2015 @ 11:10pm

Should be interesting to se how this plays out for Clinton
On Fareed Zakaria GPS today, USTR Michael Froman was full of praise for Clinton's contribution framing TPP but, whoa, why did she suddenly make a U-turn and turn against it for political reasons?

I dunno the answer to that. Rats jumping ship?

One thing is for sure, both Froman and Clinton have been well-payed by Citibank for their past efforts on behalf of multinational corporations, and Froman is the gift that keeps giving. And if Congress give Clinton a free pass by ratifying the treaty, well, she will just be doing her job if elected, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2015 @ 1:14am

Are QQ.G.1, QQ.G.4, QQ.G.5 and QQ.G.14 granting new rights for performers who are *not* the current copyright owners over sound recordings of their performances, or is it just bringing other countries' rights up to the current U.S. status quo?

Is QQ.G.4 attempting to end the first-sale doctrine?

One thing I know for sure is that QQ.G.2 is quite onerous. It creates the "making available" right that the entertainment industry couldn't consistently obtain through the courts and legislatures. So it doesn't matter if the current standard of infringement—the *actual* making or transfer of copies—is ever met; the mere "offering" of copies will be an infringement which incurs a civil liability or criminal penalty for the offerer and nearly any other entity involved in facilitating the offer. A footnote indicates this isn't intended to penalize providers of "physical" communication facilities, so telecom & hosting providers aren't on the hook for what their users do, but any ISPs or other entities which supply cyberlockers, UGC, and file-sharing platforms would be targeted, as well as the users themselves.

Also, "making available" could be almost anything. Pretending to offer access to content that is not actually available could be infringement. Posting a torrent file (or even just its hash!) in a web forum could be infringement, even if the unauthorized content it purports to represent is never seeded or transferred. Linking to or embedding unauthorized content hosted elsewere, even embedding or linking to YouTube videos, would definitely be infringing. It could even be infringement to put unauthorized content where someone could *possibly* download it, such as in any kind of shared folder (including on cyberlockers, web hosts, and via file-sharing software), regardless of whether anyone ever knows about it, has the links to it, or ever downloads it.

Is it possible this "making available" right could be considered a conflict with free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Oct 2015 @ 1:56am

So now we KNOW that it's as bad as we feared...
We can cause enough of a public uproar to stop this thing, yes?

The IP chapter alone is absurdly protectionist and totally contrary to either what the people of the US want or what best serves them.

So yeah, if this passes, then it totally confirms the disenfranchisement of not just the voters, but the US legislature.

Do I have this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2015 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: So now we KNOW that it's as bad as we feared...
  The problem is, as far as I understand it, that with Fasttrack approved, the only choices left to make is either a YES or NO.
  Sure, we can pressure, shout, and protest but I don't think it will matter in the end. They will see it as having spent years preparing this deal and if it is not accepted then they will have to either do it all over again or being left out entirely.
  I don't mean to be a cynic, and I will protest and shout as much as the rest, but at this point I don't see it being voted down.
  The damned politicians danced to their flutes, giving them everything they could ever wish for to make the 1% richer and the rest of the people poorer, both economically and artistically.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Oct 2015 @ 11:26am
    
    Re: Re: So now we KNOW that it's as bad as we feared...
    It wasn't the people who set up the choice to be yes or no, and to use a mechanism that bypasses legislature to install what is the largest installment of new rules by trade agreement ever (possibly by orders of magnitude).
    
    This is nothing short of a coup, and it will destroy the last remnants of the American Republic in favor of corporate oligarchy.
    
    They hacked democracy. And the whole affair with Malaysia shows that they've happily dispensed with human rights to do it.
    
    We will be at their mercy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Oct 2015 @ 11:27am
      
      Pre-coffee posting
      Crap. I screwed up my markups again. Sorry, folks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEMont, 11 Oct 2015 @ 5:12am

TPP - and all secret trade agreements - Must Die Now.
"That's ridiculous, given just how important the public's rights are and how things like fair use protect those rights."

Methinks that right there do indeed be the crux of the matter.

You see, the public's rights simply are no longer important enough to bother with as far as such things go, and things like "fair use", which as you say, protect those rights, are now seen more as a hindrance to corporate rights, which, as it turns out, trumps the public's rights in the minds of the TPP teams, because the TPP "agreement" is specifically designed to replace public rights with corporate rights, legally.

If this thing is not killed before its born, you can expect years of nasty court battles, mega-billion dollar law suits flat-lining small countries, and complete regression of most legal protections the public has won over the last century, world-wide.

Sounds to me like the TPP scam is really the re-introduction of a modern form of Feudalism, with corporations as kings, counts and dukes - and the rest of us as peasants, serfs and indentured laborers. This, I believe, is a corporate coup.

All is fair in love and war you know. :)

---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2015 @ 11:03am

The only way to get rid of this...
...is for the public and some honorable companies to not buy into it. Place disclaimers in their work that they're voiding any extra protections or extensions the TPP would grant, waiving away the stupid "damages required for orphaned works" idiocy as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zonker, 12 Oct 2015 @ 11:55am

Just say No to the Trans-Protectionist Pact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
michael, 12 Oct 2015 @ 12:23pm

Fallen?
"2. The Parties also acknowledge the importance of informational materials, such as publicly accessible databases of registered intellectual property rights that assist in the identification of subject matter that has fallen into the public domain."

Things don't "fall" into the public domain; they are *elevated to* the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 12 Oct 2015 @ 3:20pm

Happy Columbus Day, people
From the White House Website in the ISDS chapter of the TPP:

Before we had investment rules and ISDS international agreements, unlawful behavior by countries that targeted foreign investors tended either to go unaddressed or escalate into conflict between countries. In fact, early in our history, the U.S. had to deploy “gunboat diplomacy,” or military intervention, to protect private American commercial interests. ISDS is a more peaceful, better way to resolve trade conflicts between countries.

Let's all remember our roots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 12 Oct 2015 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re: Happy Columbus Day, people
  "the U.S. had to deploy “gunboat diplomacy,” or military intervention, to protect private American commercial interests"
  
  No, the US never had to do any such thing. The US has chosen to act as the private military for corporations.
  
  ISDS does not change this. It merely institutionalizes it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Oct 2015 @ 5:49am

TPP says that patents can be available for "new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, or new processes of using a known product" which of course can lead to perfectly common products getting extra patent protection and limiting competition, and driving up prices.

This is imperialism via IPR. As Obama said, it's about having America set the terms of trade in the Pacific. We were warned about it years ago: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
[ link to this | view in chronology ]