Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Your Rights Online

WikiLeaks Releases the Secret Draft Text of the TPP IP Rights Chapter 212

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the democracy-in-action dept.
sproketboy writes "WikiLeaks releases the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter." The Syndney Morning Herald took a look at the leaked documents, from their article: "An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Releases the Secret Draft Text of the TPP IP Rights Chapter

Comments Filter:
  • How do you act (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dangerousbeans (735507) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:06PM (#45413267) Homepage
    when all our governments behave in this way. Their agenda is so different to our best interests it's horrific.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:07PM (#45413277)

    They're mandating net neutrality, eliminating bandwidth caps, and dramatically scaling back copyright terms in light of the fact that the Internet offers a worldwide market for copyrighted material with instantaneous delivery of goods?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:08PM (#45413283)

    Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:30PM (#45413535) Homepage

      Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all?

      They get travel expenses and fine food plus hook^Wentertainment...?

    • by Gonoff (88518)

      Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

      There used to be a legal principle that secret laws were invalid. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

      Now admittedly our laws have taken a beating due to the US Economic Hit Men and some of our politicians have shown themselves to be obedient to their masters. Someone is eventually going to point out that secret laws have less validity than unwritten agreements.

      That may be why...

      • by dgatwood (11270)

        "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

        Not even then. It's only valid when either all the laws are common sense or the number of laws is sufficiently small that a reasonable person can avoid being ignorant of them.

        Without those limits on the law, you end up in a society where lawyers run the world, and everybody is constantly having to run everything by their lawyers before they even have a simple conversation in public. We're rapidly approaching that point, assuming

      • by meta-monkey (321000) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @05:45PM (#45417399) Journal

        "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

        In the Before Time, in the Long, Long Ago, back when legal principle meant something, the level of ignorance a person could show of the law and still be bound by it existed on a sliding scale. This was the difference between malum en se and malum prohibitum. For instance, you don't need to be aware of laws against beating a man to death in order to be found in violation of the specific law against beating a man to death. That act is malum in se. Evil in and of itself. However, if there's a law against walking your dog by the river on Tuesdays, that act is not evil in itself. It's just prohibited because, I don't know, maybe the local cat trade is huge, and new shipments of cats come in on Tuesdays, and it's really better for everybody if dogs are just kept away from the river that day. Then, you can be guilty of the act, but if it's not well publicized with signs posted saying "Illegal to walk your dog by the river on Tuesdays," but not have done so intentionally and be found not guilty of the crime. Particularly if the law is well crafted and has words in it like "willfully" and "knowingly." That is, you knew you were walking your dog in the dog free zone (because you were caught next to the 'no dogs allowed' sign) and you willfully did it anyway, you're busted.

        That is no longer the case anymore, though. Today laws are rammed through congress completely without the mens rea components, which leads to things like the Lacie Act where there are literally people in jail for having possessed the wrong kind of crustacean in the wrong kind of package without having any idea that was a violation of some obscure law.

        • The other half of that is the tendency in the US to lock people up for trivial misdemeanours, giving "the land of the free" the highest incarceration rate of ANY nation on the planet, roughly 7X that of China's.
    • by TWiTfan (2887093)

      They have to put on a nice show that they're doing something, or someone back home may actually catch on to the fraud.

    • by Princeofcups (150855) <john@princeofcups.com> on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @02:35PM (#45415143) Homepage

      Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

      It's for show, the illusion of representative democracy. The decisions were already decided on a golf course in the Bahamas by the multinational industrialists who really wrote it.

    • by greenbird (859670)

      Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

      Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the US content industries (RIAA, MPAA). Same result with less effort.

      FTFY

    • by s.petry (762400)
      There are countless people that still believe the charade that their Government works for them and their citizens, not the same corrupt fuckers that "that other Government" works for. The people in power will keep trying to hold up the curtains until they are removed from social influence (which will eventually happen).
  • by MRe_nl (306212) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:11PM (#45413323)

    Property versus Knowledge
    Property can be held, physically possessed.
    It is easy to see who possesses a piece of property. Knowledge cannot be physically possessed. It can only be known.
    When I take property from you, you no longer have it.
    It is easy to see that property is (or can be) exclusive, or what the legal beagles call "rivalrous", a zero-sum game. To the extent that one person uses it, they limit the amount that another person can use it. Knowledge cannot be taken away from you; when I learn some knowledge that you know, you still know it.
    Property has a clear origin; you start with raw materials, sometimes you you add labour.
    It is easy to see where property came from. It is easy to trace the movements of a piece of property. Knowledge doesn't have a clear origin; it is all derived from existing human culture and knowledge.

    http://darksleep.com/notablog/articles/Intellectual_Property_Is_Fraud [darksleep.com]

    • by i kan reed (749298) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:15PM (#45413373) Homepage Journal

      Intellectual property is a useful social construct. This post is a bit like saying "manslaughter is a hoax" because all the distinctions between it and murder are subjective. The problem isn't the existence of intellectual property as a concept, but its treatment as a shining jewel of fundamental rights. Ignoring the purpose of something in legislating about it is always a problem.

      • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:39PM (#45413643) Homepage

        Intellectual property is a useful social construct.

        Sure. The problem is that these people think that draconian legislation is the answer to a changing marketplace that made their business model obsolete.

        Imagine if the buggy-whip manufacturers had had enough money to bribe the government to pass laws preventing manufacture of automobiles...

        • by spire3661 (1038968) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:05PM (#45413951) Journal
          Which is EXACTLY what the RIAA tried to do to the first MP3 player. Those moments turned me into a lifelong enemy of ALL copyright. I have seen copyright stifle too much innovation for it to be useful to society in its current incarnation. The verdict is vengeance, a vendetta.
          • You can and should be an enemy of lifelong copyrights, but you wouldn't want all copyright to be gone, would you?

            If movie theaters could just show movies without paying the studio anything, how would new movies get funded?

            If authors didn't get paid anything for writing books, do you think we'd continue to have as many books?

            If software wasn't protected by copyright, would as many programs get created?

            Do you really want to live in that world?

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Maybe we just wouldn't get so many movies that are crap by people who are only there to make a buck.

            • I dont want to live in a world where the default is for art to be locked and expect payment from up to 7 billion other humans, its absurd.. I dont think its right to give explicit control over monetization and venue to content creators. ITs used to create artificial markets and drive up prices. I would like to see more FRAND-style doctrines. I think there should be very firm controls linking production cost to monetization when it comes to government granted IP monopolies. IP is a SOCIAL BARGAIN and we ne
              • IP may be a SOCIAL BARGAIN but every society currently on the planet only cooperates in Social Bargains when they get something out of it. Nobody on any side is willing to agree or cooperate on anything if they feel they would be betraying their personal convictions and righteous crusades. Nationalism is on the rise, global cooperation is disappearing, misleading and biased rhetoric has replaced facts, and competition for resources is rising by the day. I see nothing to change these factors other than the

              • by Atzanteol (99067)

                The original idea is good - give that monopoly for a fixed period of time. That way "better" art can be more profitable than "crap." The period of time, however, needs to be reasonable and short. Certainly within the creators lifetime and probably a small fraction of that. I don't make money off code I wrote 10 years ago - it's absurd that an artist would expect the same.

                • *I am probably more with you than against you, ultimately*

                  That said...

                  "I don't make money off code I wrote 10 years ago - it's absurd that an artist would expect the same."

                  You would be if you had written and were selling the final product yourself. But something you wrote for your employer? Probably not. Likewise, an artist (maybe a scientific illustrator, for example) who produced art and was paid a salary to do so, probably isn't making any money off of it now.

            • by ultranova (717540)

              If authors didn't get paid anything for writing books, do you think we'd continue to have as many books?

              Probably, judging by how much content the Internet has for free, but even if not, does it matter? There's more books than I, you or anyone can possibly read, and those written solely for money are unlikely to be great losses.

              Do you really want to live in that world?

              Seeing how "that world" produced the very tropes and settings current for-profit copyright regime is rehashing over and over and over again.

        • by PRMan (959735) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @02:14PM (#45414931)

          They did.

          You had speed limits of 9 mph, requirements to have a guy waving a lantern in front of you, etc., etc., etc.

      • There are issues with just using 'intellectual property' as a catch-all term, because the dynamics ofcopyright, patents, trademark, and trade secrets are quite different. However, I would debate that copyright and patents are useful as a social construct, especially when couched in the 'property' metaphor. Property is a solution to the problem of limited resources, which doesn't exist with the intangible.
        • by tepples (727027)
          Labor to create new intangibles is a limited resource. According to the constitution of Slashdot's home country, copyrights and patents exist ostensibly "to promote the progress of" fields that revolve around these intangibles.
          • Yes, labor is a limited resource. Labor is also something that is pretty easily controlled by the producer. So long as we are not in literal slavery, you or I can choose to labor or not labor on the creation of intangibles, and we can do this for our own purposes or commissioned by someone else to do so.
            • by tepples (727027)
              Copyright exists to encourage people to create works of authorship by providing an economic incentive to "choose to labor" as you put it.
      • by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:51PM (#45414585) Homepage

        Except the differences between copyright and property are not subjective. That was the entire point of the OP.

        The differences here are very real.

        Plus the corporate interests want to have it both ways. They want all of the advantages and none of the downside. They also want rights only for them and no one else.

        It really doesn't work that way. Trying to will bring the whole house of cards down for everyone.

      • Intellectual property is a useful social construct.

        Well, let me guess guess for whom it is useful... [youtube.com]

    • by djmurdoch (306849)

      Intellectual property isn`t knowledge, it`s various forms of monopoly rights. Copyright is a monopoly right to make copies. Trademarks are a monopoly right to use certain forms of signs. Patents are monopoly rights to make use of various inventions.

      The idea of monopolies as goods that can be traded is a little abstract, but it`s similar to lots of other contracts. If you deposit money in a bank, they only need to return it to you because of an abstract concept of ownership. Nothing really changed hands

    • I've been making the same kind of argument here on Slashdot for years now; it's nice to see someone else doing so.

      I'm not sure calling it a "hoax" helps the argument's case though: the concept of [copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets] is real enough; it's just the attempt to conflate it with actual property that is a lie.

    • by FlyHelicopters (1540845) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:44PM (#45413719)
      There are a few issues with that...

      Without copyright, patents, etc. then you would have fewer inventions that benefit all of humanity.

      My father owned several patents years ago, ran a business for years based on them. He is retired now (and of course those patents are long expired), but for a time those provided us a comfortable living.

      He invested his parents life savings to make those inventions and get them patented. Do you really think he would have taken that risk without the chance of a reward?

      If he had to invest his parents life savings, and in return the government says, "sorry, that is just knowledge, anyone can copy it now that you've invented it", do you believe he would be inclined to do so?

      If you're honest, you'll agree that he would not, most people wouldn't.

      Could you find an example of someone who would? Yes, of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but the majority of people would not.

      Our world would be a very different place (and not for the better) without such laws in place.

      (Note: Patents are about right, 20 years... copyright has been extended too many times and lasts too long, I'd personally reduce that to 20 years to match Patents).

      • by TWiTfan (2887093)

        My father owned several patents years ago, ran a business for years based on them. He is retired now (and of course those patents are long expired)

        The problem is that copyrights, unlike patents, NEVER expire anymore. Not in the U.S. anyway, and the U.S. is all that fucking counts (because the rest of your pussy leaders will damn well do what the U.S. Government tells them to OR ELSE!)

        • If you read to the end of my comment, you'll notice that I said the same thing.

          If patents lasted as long as copyrights, I'd still be getting a royalty check to this day...

          I'm not, because they expire. And I'm ok with that, we were paid for 20 years, that is long enough.

          Copyright? Nuts, just nuts... move it back to 20 years...

      • O look, someone with a vested interest telling us its good for us......
        • Oh look, someone who has never created anything wants everything for free...

          Those patents are expired, maybe I should spend all my savings and invent something new, only to have you take it for free.

          Yea, no thanks. What have YOU invented with all your life savings and then given away?

          • by spire3661 (1038968) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:32PM (#45414301) Journal
            I have created plenty, and I give it all away. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. The difference is i dont attempt to make things just to profit from them. I design with the idea that whatever I make is already owed to the cultural that educated me.
            • So you work for free and refuse a paycheck? Impressive. How do you eat?

              If you write software in your free time as a hobby, more power to you. You're able to do that because you do something that earns you money, and the computer that you write that software on only exists because of people who wanted to earn money.

              The patents and copyrights on the hardware and software are what enabled computers to become what they are. Without that profit motive, Intel wouldn't be spending $5 billion dollars to bui

              • by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @02:11PM (#45414881) Homepage

                Bullshit. Intel lives on the bleeding edge. Patents don't do squat for their bottom line. Keeping ahead of their rivals is what creates their bottom line. A 20 year long monopoly is meaningless in a world where yesterday's technology is considered stale.

                Intel is perhaps the WORST example you could have come up with.

                Patents exist to encourage the disclosure of trade secrets.

                Intel makes money by SELLING THINGS.

                • Not everything in the world moves as fast as technology does, and rest assured that patents do matter very much to Intel.

                  Without patent protection, I could sell the same things as Intel and undercut them because I wouldn't have to spend billions on R&D, I'd just copy them.

              • by LocalH (28506) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @02:24PM (#45415041) Homepage

                This thread shows one of the biggest failings of humanity, which we see on a daily basis across many issues.

                People don't know how to compromise and meet in the middle for the good of humanity. People are taught never to waver in their beliefs, and if they give in even slightly they're taught that they're weak.

                One the one hand you have the copyright abolitionists, who would insist that all media be free for the taking from day one. On the other hand, you have the pro-copyright extremists who feel that things are fine the way they are.

                Copyright is a good thing, but it shouldn't last for over a century. Things are too much in favor of copyright holders nowadays, and under current law, the public interest may as well be nonexistent.

                This is why many people have no problem violating copyright, and arguably it is moral to do so, as long as it is carefully restricted to works owned by corporations who wish to de facto abolish the public domain. There's a difference between violating copyright because you want something for free, and violating copyright because you have a philosophical and moral opposition to the current handling of copyright. The latter can arguably be seen in the same light as other famous civil disobedience, the former is just greed and self-indulgence.

                • Copyright is a good thing, but it shouldn't last for over a century. Things are too much in favor of copyright holders nowadays, and under current law, the public interest may as well be nonexistent.

                  I totally agree, and said so in my original post.

                  20 years for patents strikes me as reasonable. We could debate 10 years, we could debate 30 years, but I doubt any of us think 70 years makes sense.

                  Copyright? 20 years sounds reasonable to me, again we could debate 10 years, or 30... the current system is indeed too long. Cinderella has been out for 63 years, the people who created it aren't even alive anymore, the fact that it will remain under copyright for well into this century is just absurd.

                • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @07:29PM (#45418329)

                  People don't know how to compromise and meet in the middle for the good of humanity.

                  I do not compromise away rights I believe to be fundamental. I do not compromise on the TSA. I do not compromise on many things if I believe them to violate people's rights. It's called having principles.

                  Copyright is a good thing

                  There is no proof of that that I know of. Can you do anything beyond speculate when considering what our society would look like without copyright? I seriously doubt it.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            BS. Software I write (with 2 other developers) gets sold for high five figures per copy. We do not rely on copyright at all, but rather on contract law. To say that people cannot get paid without Imaginary Property monopoly privileges is nonsense

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Is worse than that. US is officially not acknowledging the right of intellectual property of anyone in the planet (except of for the insiders [propublica.org]) with its wide surveillance (and sabotage/backdooring/etc) effort, including specially every single citizen of those signing countries. Why them should acknowledge that right of for US citizens/corporations, unless they are in the bag already?
    • by gweihir (88907)

      Yes, indeed. But the unmitigated greed of the content industry is trying very hard to prevent people from seeing that, no matter the damage they do.

  • by jeffb (2.718) (1189693) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:12PM (#45413327)

    Without them, we might never have suspected that large moneyed interests influence international policy in their own favor.

    Seriously, though, good on WikiLeaks. It can't hurt to rub people's noses in the facts -- can it?

    • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:03PM (#45413923)

      Seriously, though, good on WikiLeaks. It can't hurt to rub people's noses in the facts -- can it?

      It is a sad day that we must rely on an donation sponsored organization like Wikileaks to attempt to defend the rights and interests of consumers - our respective national institutions have obviously failed us. Wikileaks and brought some sunlight on the backroom dealing, bribing and power struggle negotiations over the TPP and defiantly hurts the corrupt politicians goverment functionaries and corporations behind it.

      If this knowledge now translates into pushback and political action then maybe it will not have been in vain. Given mass media is not interested in informing the masses that their rights and interest are about to be stripped away by this deal then this it is a long shot. We the people get the governance we deserve in the end, I guess.

    • This is true.

      Wikileaks is necessary because our own governments won't tell us what they're doing.

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:19PM (#45413421)

    Here's a brain teaser:

    Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs (such as marijuana, ecstacy, etc.) -- ignoring the fact that the scientific consensus now is that both are less harmful than alcohol, or cigarettes, both of which are legal, is that it would fund terrorism. In other words, their argument is that because a small amount of it is bad, we should keep the whole thing illegal.

    Yet, here we have IP law -- of which much of it is bad, and yet they tell us we should keep the whole thing legal... or [insert boogieman story here]. I'm not buying. I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me? Maybe that I'm just young and stupid... or maybe I'm just seeing things more clearly. Maybe I just don't think the government has any credibility left to it, and so whatever the government says is right... it's a safe bet marching in the opposite direction will be better for you.

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:33PM (#45413561) Homepage

      I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

      You haven't figured out how to get free drugs using the Internet?

      • > You haven't figured out how to get free drugs using the Internet?

        Not by using bit torrent I haven't. Yet. But once I do, the next challenge will be how to get them from my Downloads folder and into my hand.
      • by LocalH (28506)

        IDoser doesn't count.

    • by compro01 (777531)

      . I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

      That you only buy tangible property and that we haven't invented mindcandy yet?

      • That you only buy tangible property and that we haven't invented mindcandy yet?

        Basically, yeah. I'll pay for a good, or a service. For example, I'm okay paying for netflix. Videos are a service. Putting a lot of them together on a website is a convenience. I like convenience. That's a tangible thing -- even though it's just electrical impulses, someone sat down and made it for me, and at a reasonable price. Cheaper than what it replaced: Video stores.

        But software? No. Not because it isn't also a good, or because it's not valuable -- but because it's grossly overvalued. And yet, partic

    • Ask the artists who openly break drug laws because they claim unpopular laws not supported by the majority of people (so they claim) are immoral.

      Ask the artists who support copyright laws because they claim laws that hurt a small minority but have no popular support are moral and those who break said laws are immoral.

      The reality of course is that pretty everyone is FOR laws that benefit themselves and against laws that don't.

      Companies want to produce in cheap labor markets but preclude consumers from con

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs

      They don't bother to justify drug policy these days. They just refuse to talk about it. Petition Obama to ask why Cannabis can't be treated like alcohol, and you get a response that says "drugs are bad, mmmkay" and doesn't mention alcohol at all. They know they can't win, so they simply stonewall.

    • by swb (14022)

      I think you've just described the argument for *legalizing* drugs -- by legalizing their production, you're not buying a substance grown or produced in a conflict area where the local insurgent militia takes a cut and provides protection.

      Instead, it's grown/produced as part of the above-ground economy at non-risk inflated prices, eliminating the flow of cash to militias and terrorist groups.

      CF, the end of alcohol prohibition.

  • we need to make so people can just get BS patents and troll useing them.

    • > we need to make so people can just get BS patents and troll useing them.

      Newsflash: it's already that way right now.

      I'm filing for a patent on a method and system for making binary decisions based on the launching of a flat round decision support device into the air and making a determination of the outcome based on which side the decision support device lands on. I will also sell these decision support devices. A basic model for $10 is made of copper and is decorated with a picture of Lincoln o
  • I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mitzampt (2002856) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:28PM (#45413509)
    I actually wonder why it was secret to begin with. And I wonder why is there a need to start these treaties like that. It's has become a democratic tradition to empower the citizens you represent with the ability to deal with the results of your negotiations, as public opinion wouldn't react correctly to a well intended and morally sound proposal.
    • Devil's advocate: the reason the negotiations are kept secret is because that a lot of things get put on the table that won't appear in the final draft. The US, say, might put forward a proposal that throws its dairy industry under the bus in exchange for all of New Zealand's gold mines or something. In a public negotiation the dairy industry would read about this proposal and raise an uproar. Then the proposals change, as proposals are wont to do, and the dairy farmer part is cut out. But the average

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Devil's advocate: the reason the negotiations are kept secret is because that a lot of things get put on the table that won't appear in the final draft. The US, say, might put forward a proposal that throws its dairy industry under the bus in exchange for all of New Zealand's gold mines or something. In a public negotiation the dairy industry would read about this proposal and raise an uproar.

        And that's desirable. If the US government is working for the US country, then it should want that result to occur

        • by PRMan (959735)
          The whole point is to slow the government down until they come up with solutions that benefit everyone, not only the rich.
      • Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:21PM (#45414139)

        You would have a point if the time from "Final Draft" to final law included time for consumers and community groups to review and contribute to the draft before it is passed into law. As we have seen from past abusive treaties like ACTA THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN in most of the countries that finally signed it. No it is all kept secret and undemocratic so as to keep consumers and community groups off the negotiating table and leave them no time to react once the final draft is released and it is quickly passed into law.

        Also now that we know that "the wheeling and dealing" involves spying on the negotiators or anyone else in key positions that stands in the way of the worst case clauses of the agreement - basically blackmailing them into agreement wherever possible. This is another important reason why no self respecting democracy (are there any left) should allow such negotiations to be held for so long in secret, nor run by a small select few of power brokers operating in the dark.

    • They keep these treaties secret as long as they can because they know that the people they represent would otherwise not countenance the agreements. They know this because every time they have tried to push forward these sorts of acts and people HAVE gotten wind of it, their constituents have raised a fuss and forced their representatives to back down. So now the politicians try to keep these laws hidden as long as they can, in order to provide the shortest opportunity during which people can voice their di

    • Negotiations of any kind are seldom held in a public forum.

      What people should be outraged over is the US Government negotiating on behalf of trans-national corporate interests, none of whom have any vested concern in supporting the goals or purposes of nation-states, including the government that is negotiating on their behalf. Which leads to the only and obvious conclusion that not only is the US Government not willing to act in the public interest, it's only concern is in furthering trans-national corpor

  • Capitalism is a great system for allocating capital, when well regulated. Otherwise, it becomes a winner-take-all game, as economic power, begets more economic and political power, in a reinforcing feedback loop.

    Markets are a great economic system, but a really crappy religion. Will it be power of economic and political winners that takes us down, or will it be computers and robots who forget the three laws?

    If we're going to continue on with some semblance of democratic citizen rule we need to under
  • do something about abandonware / stuff not sold any more.

    Lot's of people with old versions, beta versions, rare games, tv shows and movies have saved them for all. But other people with them have used the they are under the 75+ year copyrights even when they are no longer made and are sitting on old platforms that can fail and take the last few copy's with them.


  • Reading this document is like reading the mind of the collective consciousness of the economy. This is perhaps the closest thing to a genuine "conspiracy" we are going to see and it's riddled with disagreement and apparent contradictions (or at best logical knots). For example, FTA:

    goods or services may not be considered as being similar to each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classfied in the same class of the Nice Classification. Conversely, each Party shall provide that goods or services may not be considered as being dissimilar from each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classified in different classes of the Nice Classification.

    So if they are of the same class that doesn't mean they are the same and also if they are of a different class that doesn't mean they are different. OK then...
    Now I must admit that I haven't read T whole FA yet and if you ha

  • At least they make a special exception for medicine:

    "The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all..."

  • by JigJag (2046772) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:56PM (#45414669)

    she would have parsed, pieced, and posted all that we, techies, needed to know about such a document

  • Why the fuck is it that we the people allow our government to participate in this kind of secret talk at all? We might as well be bending over and asking for it!
  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @02:28PM (#45415067)
    At the current rate of insanity, it would not surprise me if individuals with photographic memories will soon be rounded up and imprisoned for IP theft.
  • Pigopolists feel that the consumer's only rights are to give them money, consume the shite (once only, you unindicted pirate), and go the fuck away.

    Perfectly rational in an utterly amoral "maximize profits by any method we can get away with" sense.

  • by beachdog (690633) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @09:52PM (#45419213) Journal

    One reason the treaty has been kept secret is the copyright and patent privileges do not have socially redeeming intrinsic value matching the legal measures proposed.

    My point of view as a citizen bystander is it appears that copyright and patent privileges are becoming too inflated in their value. The organizations that hold or depend on copyright and patent privileges are aggressively and systematically are trying to use law and trade treaties to close all the ways in which others might evade paying for the use of their privileges.

    The point I wish to propose to Slashdot readers is: The intrinisic worth or value of the fact or accomplishment underlying a copyright or patent privilege is a modest dollar amount. What is happening in our society is the percieved value has undergone an enormous inflation. The companies are effectively policy prisoners.

    In previous centuries, novel and plausible arguments about the intrinsic worth of things has set off revolutions. Adam Smith instantiated time, money and energy beginning with his Theory of Sentiments. Karl Marx redefined another similar set of relationships and launched a political restructuring.

    Consider the level of corporate belief in the value of their copyright and patent privileges. Some corporation decided to invest in tipping the trade treaty towards their business benefit. Lets estimate, each well qualified lawyer dispatched to edit and ammend the international trade treaty costs $2m dollars per year. Suppose one company sent one lawyer and they budget 3 years of lawyering and 1 year of waiting. For their 6 to 10 million dollar expenditure, how much gross sales do they require to recover their expenditure?

    On the other side, suppose we look at taming the financial stupidity of "charge all the market will bear" patent and copyright licensing. What model to use? Well the Uniform Commercial Code is a body of business law that is a model of fairness. I would start with that.

    To estimate the "intrinsic value" of a patent, we could first figure the labor and material cost for the first embodiment. How about one engineer year plus some electronic equipment; $250k. For the next 12 patents, lets cost those at $250k for all 12. Suppose we say a fair profit is 100%. That makes $1m/13 = $77k each for a bundle of 13 patents. Suppose we license the entire industry of 10 companies, each company paying $7,700 each for a lifetime of the patents license.

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...