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.'"
How do you act (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is the draft version (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:If this is the draft version (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all?
They get travel expenses and fine food plus hook^Wentertainment...?
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:The real news is these "agreements" are secret (Score:5, Insightful)
No surprise there. No wonder why it must be done in secret.
Protip: if you must conduct international negotiations in secret, then you're probably not representing the people of the nation you are negotiating on behalf of.
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Let me guess. (Score:5, Insightful)
More like "+1, Almost a laugh but really a cry"
Re:Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's desirable. If the US government is working for the US country, then it should want that result to occur.
And that's desirable too, since it's a correct that he's getting screwed (even though that part is now out). He (and everyone else) has learned that the dairy industry is getting screwed, because "throwing them under the bus" had been an option at one point.
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
that's when I long for Groklaw's PJ (Score:5, Insightful)
she would have parsed, pieced, and posted all that we, techies, needed to know about such a document
Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:If this is the draft version (Score:4, Insightful)
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.