WikiLeaks Releases the Secret Draft Text of the TPP IP Rights Chapter 212
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.'"
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:5, Informative)
They did.
You had speed limits of 9 mph, requirements to have a guy waving a lantern in front of you, etc., etc., etc.
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:How do you act (Score:5, Informative)
Traditionally? Revolution and chop of the heads of the a*******. Unfortunately with modern police and military that does not work anymore.
Re:If this is the draft version (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:5, Informative)
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.