Forgot your password?
DRM Piracy Your Rights Online

Trans-Pacific Partnership Includes Unwanted Elements of SOPA 129

Posted by timothy
from the meet-the-new-candidate-for-boss dept.
New submitter Error27 writes "Last month Wikileaks leaked a draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty. Here is Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's response to the leaked documents. She points out that there several troubling issues with the trade agreement. It locks countries into extremely long copyright terms. It limits fair use. It includes DRM provisions which would make it illegal to unlock your cell phone. These laws come from the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which Americans already rejected."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trans-Pacific Partnership Includes Unwanted Elements of SOPA

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 06, 2013 @08:08PM (#45623431)

    I live in Australia, we are at the other end of this disgusting treaty.
    The treaty gives US corporations the right to sue our government for any legislation that might affect their profits. So our highly effective and world-renowned Plain Packaging laws for cigarettes will be the first to go. Then they will come after our excellent PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) which gives us extremely low-cost prescription drugs, something im sure those in the US would dream of having.
    This treaty is nothing more than further evidence that our governments are acting against the greater good and in the interests of big business.
    Please oppose it.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Friday December 06, 2013 @08:32PM (#45623575)

    "The TPP is horrible in a number of ways. It creates so-called free trade between the countries in a number of areas, including automobiles. Unfortunately, if you know anything about the markets you know that even while the Japanese may not place tariffs on automotive products from the US, their market is absolutely closed to US product through a number of other legal but fairly immoral actions."

    That's the essence of the problem. These "free trade" treaties haven't really implemented "free" trade at all. It there has been anything "free" about them it is the "free" subsidies that some companies get for their products.

    Further, we know by now that offshoring is damaging to the economy of the country doing it, if it is "free", i.e., no exchange rate on labor. This is one of the biggest lies that have been pulled in recent years.

  • Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Informative)

    by icebike (68054) on Friday December 06, 2013 @09:06PM (#45623753)

    It's not quite that simple. In the U.S., it still has to be ratified by the Senate, AND even if they do, it is not law if it conflicts with the Constitution.

    That's hardly the point.
    The constitution mentions nothing about unlocking cell phones or copyright length.
    Those are merely provisions in US LAW.
    Treaties can and DO override US Law all the time.

    When the President and two thirds of the Senate concur that a treaty can invalidate some sections of US Code, that code is toast, unless the treaty tried to override the amendments 1 thru 8 which specifically limit federal power.

    In spite of the 10th amendment, it is clear that the founders intended the Federal Government to acquire additional powers under the Treaty power, and specifically mentioned in "The Necessary and Proper Clause" of Article 1.

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Treaties do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.

    See more here: [] and here: []

  • Re:Well, duh (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 07, 2013 @01:25AM (#45624845)

    More specifically, they basically recognized that to these groups of people we call "corporations" spending practically unlimited amounts of money to achieve some political goal is a first amendment right. Therefore, It's alright for corporations to dump obscene numbers of dollars into political action groups which then turn around and are free to bribe candidates with huge mounds of cash for their campaigns.

  • Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Informative)

    by jamstar7 (694492) on Saturday December 07, 2013 @05:51AM (#45625513)

    The DNC just said that presidental appointments no longer need 60 votes, it only needs 50. There is nothing stopping them from doing the same with treaties.

    We have gotten to the point where the two parties no longer prevent each other from doing stupid things, if the House is not involved the DNC can do whatever they want. Glad you all voted the way you did in order to make this possible!

    No, you need 51 votes to consider an appointee. That's a simple majority. You can't filibuster the nomination portion of the appointment process anymore. If the nominee gets their 51 votes, it goes into the hearings phase, then when the confirmation hearings are done, it comes up for a vote that you need the supermajority of 60 votes. What was happening was, certain people were filibustering the appointees at the nomination phase, keeping a vote from attaining the 60 needed at that time to go to confirmation hearings.

1 Billion dollars of budget deficit = 1 Gramm-Rudman