Watch The President Use Fair Use To Support A Trade Deal That Undermines Fair Use
from the three-step-test dept
Lots of people are talking about the fact that President Obama went on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon on Thursday night to "slow jam the news" and play up a bunch of his accomplishments while stumping for the TPP agreement. If you haven't seen it yet, it's here:"I believe it is of the utmost importance to work alongside other leaders. That's why I signed the Iran nuclear deal, that’s why we reopened diplomatic ties with Cuba, and that is why I negotiated the new trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP," Obama said, to the backdrop of the Roots.The President is being misleading, but we'll get to that. The really amusing point, as pointed out by Johnjac is that the little Rihanna homage breakdown there is legal thanks to fair use. But the TPP, contrary to the claims of some, actually looks to limit fair use, by putting in place a test (that US fair use wouldn't currently qualify for) -- and making any fair use optional.
"Now, hold on there, Prez dispenser. Are you saying you’re down with TPP?" Fallon responded.
"Yeah, you know me. Look, Jimmy, the TPP allows American businesses to sell their products both at home and abroad. The more we sell abroad, the more higher-paying jobs we provide at home. It’s that simple," Obama said.
"So what are you saying, that this trade deal would put Americans back to work, work, work, work, work?" Fallon said, singing Rihanna as Obama joined in.
So... that seems like a bit of irony. But it's the kind of thing almost no one is going to comment on, because ha ha, the President is singing and it's funny.
As for the claim that the TPP allows American businesses to sell their products both at home and abroad, that's... not really true. Most American businesses can already sell their products at home (obviously) and abroad. The TPP only removes tariffs and other restrictions in a few limited cases. It's not really going to open up that many markets. And as we've seen with other trade deals (e.g., NAFTA) it's arguable how much it helps to put Americans who are out of work "back to work." But if this were just about trade then he might have a point, but as we've pointed out over and over again, trade is such a small part of the TPP. So much more of it is about "non-tariff barriers" which is basically another way of talking about setting up protectionist laws like stronger copyright and patent requirements.
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: barack obama, copyright, fair use, jimmy fallon, president obama, slow jam, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's Obama
I am wondering which party figures it out first... that supporting a lying politician gets everyone no where. I almost thought the repuke did with all the hate against Drumpf, but no dice it seems.
I do not even see much threat of party implosion from the left but they already agree with the ends justifying the means. A liar is fine so long as they keeping paying lip service to their ideals regardless of actually doing it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is a corrupt narcissist half wit that has set civil rights back decades by always playing the "people dislike what I do because I am black" card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: going full meta...
no one cares about your personal prejudices about personal prejudices...
about the article: yeah, ain't it kool that the leader of the frei world, like, raps and shit, and, um, that obviates war krime droning of brown peoples all over the globe...
so, we've got that going for us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah wow.
I wonder if Obama was pushed by his lobby masters to try to rally the public. Amazingly Boxer got back to me saying she's reversed position on the TPP and stands against it.
It is disturbing how an article criticizing one of Obama's actions seems to bring out Obama haters, and they don't actually offer criticisms. The point isn't that Obama is a bad president or a bad guy, the point is why.
Because, you know, if he didn't do so many awful things, he wouldn't be so bad a president. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decent presidents
Is there any candidate in recent history who would not be tap-dancing for the TPP on Jimmy Fallon? I'm pretty sure they're all owned by the Chamber of Commerce to the last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Decent presidents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Decent presidents
Well, I would say that it's not technically impossible to get one elected, but it's impossible for one to remain a decent president after getting into office.
The problem is less the specific people in office than the institutionalized corruption of the political system as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Decent presidents
Logically, the most qualified person (man or woman) to run for president would be a CEO of a company. But CEO's only have to worry about their company, not the entire country. And CEO's get a butt-ton of money in salary and stock-options, but the president's salary is fixed.
So, instead, we get popularity contest every 4 years between career politicians, military leaders, and even a real estate mogul/ reality show host.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Decent presidents
I strongly disagree with this. First, the job of being President isn't analogous to the job of being CEO. Second, the nation is not a company and should not be run like one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Decent presidents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re-reading this, I realize my point was lost.
While I have plenty of criticisms of Obama, when someone just decides to express their dislike for him, my presumption is that they're doing so for the most popular one: that Obama is (allegedly) a Kenyan Muslim sleeper-cell Terrorist.
Of course this presumes that the person so expressing themselves is an idiot, so I want to invite people to be more specific.
So yeah, saying Obama is a corrupt narcissist half wit doesn't mean all that much. Saying what specifically he did that drives one to call him that is the meat of the statement.
Unless the sentiment is that Obama is bad because he's a Kenyan Muslim terrorist, in which case I get sad because my nation is peopled with imbeciles, and I am once again reminded of this.
Even with more egregious examples such as President George W. Bush, he was guilty of so much jackassery that were I to express this, my reasons would not be the same as others. Lying to the people to start the Iraq war is a more obvious one. Burning a spy for political reasons (the Valerie Plame affair) stokes my personal ire because that sort of thing was regarded as crass in the cold war. Facilitating war profiteering and covering up war crimes really made it clear our administration wasn't even trying to pretend to serve the people or the nation anymore.
Even in clearer cases, such as George W. Bush, if I si
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re-reading this, I realize my point was lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legacy
I love that the President pulled the biggest federal fast one of all time by making everybody pay into the medical pool and not letting the Republicans take credit for accomplishing that, but really, his legacy is "First Black President." Herman Cain could 'a' done that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legacy
Because most readers own the wit to infer that the classes of indictment explicit in those comments are additionally and entirely expectedly implied for the behavior detailed in the article. That is, previous actions lead to a total lack of surprise for most of us at the President's asshattery on TPP.
We forgot YOU were going to be here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point of the article is not "President stumps for TPP and that's a surprise"
And he's not using it in a Wow, because there's no law, I can do this awful thing, which is why we need the law sort of way.
I think it's bad form to use the article as license to generically insult the president, on the implication that someone else as president would do differently.
They wouldn't. This problem can't be solved by changing who is President.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called Mercantilism
Yeah, and we do that by instituting protectionist laws around the world. That is mercantilism by any other name.
And it won't help at home of course, because those "higher paying jobs" will be "lawyers", and not much else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would you expect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Celebrate Barack Hussein Obama's Legacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Celebrate Barack Hussein Obama's Legacy
Except for George W. Bush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]