TPP Is the Most Brazen Corporate Power Grab in American History

I'm not quite sure I understand the point of your very long quoted article. It seems to be saying that TPP is bad because it doesn't close all possible loopholes re: China. Well, ok, then any agreement is going to be bad.

If China can sell to Vietnam and Vietnam can resell to the US under the TPP, they can surely do so now.

barfo

 

Not sure where you guys are getting your information about TPP, and I'm not saying the white house would never lie to you, but here's what they say about that issue:

barfo

 

Here's what the Internet hates about the TPP trade deal

Investor-state dispute settlement
While it isn’t part of the IP chapter, the TPP comes with its own legal system, called the investor-state dispute settlement, which shows why it’s such a big deal if each member country adopts the new measures. In theory, the ISDS is a kind of court to help resolve trade disputes. But the consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen warns that it actually “would not meet standards of transparency, consistency, or due process common to TPP countries’ domestic legal systems or provide fair, independent, or balanced venues.”

When would such disputes arise? Internet-rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes that in 2011, Australia, in addressing the fact that cigarettes were among the leading causes of preventable death in the country, passed the Plain Packaging Act, which denied cigarette manufacturers from branding packs of cigarettes. U.S.-based cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris sued, unsuccessfully, over that law, citing a different trade agreement. The TPP’s legal system, the EFF argues, “can be characterized as a tool for private industry to directly undermine democracy and any public interest rule.”

The Office of the United States Trade Representative, which argued the U.S.’s stance for the TPP, previously told the Daily Dot that it wouldn’t agree to anything that contradicts U.S. law—in particular, when it comes to intellectual property, the oft-criticized 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). But a close reading, the EFF found, revealed that while the IP chapter seemed to strike a balance between regular Internet users and copyright holders, “all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding.”

Extended copyright terms
The TPP finds that copyright on works can last 70 years before they’re released into the public domain. Different countries have different standards on a copyright’s expiration date. Canada, say, or Malaysia—both TPP nations—currently have 50-year terms. That means that it’s currently perfectly legal there to share a movie or book or album from 1945-1965. But once Canada adopts the TPP, a person there can be accused of, and sued for, copyright infringement for sharing content of that age—and expect to face the ISDS instead of a real court. As Canadian copyright expert Michael Geist has noted, this also means that Canada will have to adopt the U.S. copyright “takedown” system, which legally compels websites to take down content if someone claims they hold the copyright to it.

ISP liability
A central way that the DMCA deals with piracy revolves around the concept of “safe harbor.” In essence, a website isn’t responsible if a user posts copyrighted content—otherwise, how would Facebook, or Tumblr, or any major site survive the onslaught of lawsuits?—provided that site is quick to take down that content when a copyright owner sends a DMCA notice. Technically, though, a copyright owner can sue a user’s Internet provider if they think that user is a repeat pirate and insist that the ISP block that user from getting online. In practice, this rarely happens, though there is one prominent copyright enforcement service, RightsCorp, that’s made kicking users offline part of its business model.

Since the TPP follows the DMCA’s lead on safe harbor, that means that copyright holders in one TPP nation can sue those in another over alleged piracy. It can be quite easy to be falsely accused of piracy, and in the past, major copyright holders have had no problems with suing regular users for hundreds of millions of dollars over claims of copyright infringement. And remember, these claims can go to the ISDS.

DRM
Digital rights management, or DRM, is a broad term, but it boils down to the basic sense of “locks” on electronics. Remember how iTunes used to let you “rent” songs, rather than buy them, meaning you couldn’t send them to friends or play them on non-Apple devices? The concept extends to hardware, like how you’re not supposed to use Keurig coffeemakers or John Deere tractors for anything other their intended purposes.

The general argument against DRM is pretty clear: Customers feel like they should be able to do whatever they want with items they pay for, and that includes hacking them to see how they work or repurposing them for something else. The DMCA criminalizes DRM circumvention, which is harsher than a number of other TPP countries’ existing laws.

But the intellectual property chapter would enforce the DMCA’s provision in every country, criminalizing anyone who “circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram.”

Cybersecurity
Another provision of the TPP, designed to protect the interests of software developers prevents nations from demanding source code.

In theory, this would help prevent piracy and protect the rights of those developers. But it also means that if the source code is secret, there are far fewer eyes searching for potential flaws—a key part of good cybersecurity—increasing the likelihood that the digital products we use can be hacked and our data exploited.

Stewart Baker, a lawyer who specializes in national security and technology issues, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that the U.S. was extremely shortsighted here. “I doubt US security agencies are comfortable letting Vietnam write apps that end up on the phones of their employees without the ability to inspect the source,” he wrote. “In short, this is a tough policy call that is likely to look quite different in five years than it does today.”

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/what-is-tpp-internet-intellectual-property/?tw=dd

 

I agree with what you're saying but it seems like it will benefit corporations more than smaller nations. In this agreement corporations will have more power than governments.

 

barfo

 

Are you for the TPP?

 

No, my position is as stated earlier in the thread: I have no position, I don't know enough to have a position.
However, it seems like all of the discussion in this thread is on one side of the argument, and some of it is quite misleading.
For example, reading this thread one would get the idea that ISDS is some crazy new thing they snuck into this agreement - it's not, it's been around for decades and is part of various other trade treaties we have, including NAFTA.
That, of course, does not mean it's a good thing - just that it is not a departure from standard trade treaty practice.

barfo

 

Why do you hate America?

 

I am hungry, and it looks tasty.

barfo