The Final Leaked TPP Text is All That We Feared

[KamaAina]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared

Today's release by Wikileaks of what is believed to be the current and essentially final version of the intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn't survive to the end of the negotiations....

If you skim the chapter without knowing what you're looking for, it may come across as being quite balanced, including references to the need for IP rules to further the “mutual advantage of producers and users” (QQ.A.X), to “facilitate the diffusion of information” (QQ.A.Z), and recognizing the “importance of a rich and accessible public domain” (QQ.B.x). But that's how it's meant to look, and taking this at face value would be a big mistake.

If you dig deeper, you'll notice that all of the provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. That paragraph on the public domain, for example, used to be much stronger in the first leaked draft, with specific obligations to identify, preserve and promote access to public domain material. All of that has now been lost in favor of a feeble, feel-good platitude that imposes no concrete obligations on the TPP parties whatsoever.

Another, and perhaps the most egregious example of this bias against users is the important provision on limitations and exceptions to copyright (QQ.G.17). In a pitifully ineffectual nod towards users, it suggests that parties “endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system,” but imposes no hard obligations for them to do so, nor even offers U.S.-style fair use as a template that they might follow. The fact that even big tech was ultimately unable to move the USTR on this issue speaks volumes about how utterly captured by Hollywood the agency is.

[Maedhros]

1. Obama sold us out. Hillary helped. [n/t]

[hifiguy]

2. Eeyup. nt

[Fearless]

15. Correction... is helping.

[MissDeeds]

38. +1

[riversedge]

53. Keep up with the news. Hillary opposed the TPP

[dflprincess]

55. Two or three days ago she decided she opposed it "today"

she left herself enough wiggle room to go back to supporting it on a day that shall be named later.

[lewebley3]

107. Hillary had to respect Obama, she waited until it was finished: We only have one President at time!

Hillary is loyal Dem, Obama is the Head of the Dem party she will need his help!

[dflprincess]

136. And if she's the nominee, she will need our votes

and is apparently wiling to say anything to get them.

[enid602]

153. TPP

To be fair, Hillary changed her mind on the TPP once she learned more of the details of the agreement. Bernie has always been against it, as he has always been against all free trade agreements. He's more of a protectionist, which is his right. Hillary believes in free trade and markets, which is her right. She came out against TPP on the basis of how the agreement is worded.

[cui bono]

57. She opposed it the minute she said she opposed it. That's all we can count on.

[Katashi_itto]

66. Lol! So predictable. So dishonest.

[Art_from_Ark]

85. Apparently, "the gold standard of trade agreements"

doesn't mean what it used to.

Or maybe she meant to say "the fool's gold standard"

[Fearless]

67. Bwahahahaha! Best joke I've heard this morning!

[cascadiance]

78. She claimed she didn't like that it would costs us jobs! Hey... H-1B ALSO costs us jobs!!!

When is she going to change her views again to oppose that for the same supposed reasons? Hasn't done so yet. I guess the problem is that she doesn't view it being enough on CNN's radar yet to ask questions about in next Tuesday's debate, and is hoping that no one will ask her on that topic in the six debates we have that DWS blessed her with!

[sulphurdunn]

98. It's often expedient during a political campaign

to oppose something your previously supported after it's a done deal.

[840high]

39. ...^ that

We got screwed - again.

[davidpdx]

45. +1

[Enthusiast]

83. Same team.

[Doctor_J]

3. so disappointed in Krugman

He used to be a liberal.

[kelliekat44]

6. So if you are for or support the TPP you are no longer a liberal???? nt

[Doctor_J]

10. well that's feasible of course

Since the TPP is anti labor, anti consumer, anti working people, and pro corporation in the extreme. But prof Krugman's also fallen in love with newt Gingrich's healthcare scam, which is as far as one can get from a progressive plan. He's too enamored with the president to be taken seriously on the issues any more.

[Puzzledtraveller]

42. Liberalism has only been a feel-good thing

to many of these people and more likely an attempt at protecting their own vistas on the socioeconomic ladder than actually aiding the bottom rung dwellers in moving up.

[Fearless]

16. I'll go with yes. Anyone who supports the TPP is not economically liberal

[ananda]

21. Agree.

I would say that support of the TPP puts a person firmly in the
corporate-fascist camp.

[Egnever]

22. Do you always base your labels on things you haven't seen?

It is amazing to me that people are so ready to make judgments on things they have zero knowledge of.

The TPP may be horrible but until it is released officially the hair on fire nonsense level is quite a spectacular show.

[Scootaloo]

25. Sorta like the PATRIOT act, huh?

[Egnever]

71. .

[Jack Rabbit]

32. Let's stop this charade, shall we? We know quite a bit about what's in it

Last edited Sat Oct 10, 2015, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)

thanks to Mr. Assange and his organization. At least somedy is working to a the public informed in what is putatively a democratic state.

In addition, the fact that we "don't know" what's in it is reason enough to oppose it. We have every right to know what's in it, yet this agreement was negotiated by representatives of large corporations, major polluters and crooked banks.

Do we have any obligation to abide by an agreement not in our interest made in secret by enemies of the People and passed, as it will be, virtually without debate by corrupt politicians bought and paid for by the very polluters, banksters and union busters who stand to benefit at the expense of the public? I say we do not, and no court or militarized police force can make it so.

[daleanime]

47. +1

[Thespian2]

50. What you said...

Right On, Brother!!

[bbgrunt]

59. well said. k and r

[Egnever]

63. So what?

It will be released for all to read with out the spin from people with agendas. Will you read it then or just base your opinion on what Mr Assange deemed to release to you?

Opposing it because you don't know what is in it is nonsense.

[Jack Rabbit]

76. So far, all I've heard in support is spin from people with agendas

Opposing it because I don't know what's in it is hardly nonsense. It is the right of a citizen of a democratic state to know what is in it, and we should have to depend on Mr. Assange to provide it.

However, those who want this thing passed don't want us to know what's in it. What are they hiding?

Sorry if anybody's authoritarian tendencies are offended by a refusal to go along with Il Duce ha sempre regione. I don't trust people who think spying on all Americans is OK, or crooked banksters who crashed the world economy by gambling away our savings or industrial polluters who tell the public, after hiding their own studies to the contrary for decades, that established climate science is a hoax.

No sir, Julian Assange has far more credibility than those asses and vipers. If you want to believe those liars, go right ahead. It would demonstrate conclusively that one of has embraced nonsense and that it isn't me.

The other point I'd like to impress upon you is that's already too late to have this discussion. The very latest time to have it was before the passage of trade promotion authority. They could release the text of the agreement tomorrow and it wouldn't matter because the TPP is a done deal and even if the TPP is as bad I a think it is, there's nothing we can do to stop it except hit the streets and hit them hard.

[Scuba]

86. +1

[ctsnowman]

95. Bravo

You hit it out of the park. If it's to help the average American then it has to have 60 votes to get out of the Senate. Anything that screws us can get by with 51. Funny how that works.

[Egnever]

132. LOL

Well that was worthy of an Alex Jones segment.

Blah blah citizens shouldn't be kept in the dark blah blah stealing and spring blah blah.

Kindly point to a single treaty that has been negotiated with the details published throughout the negotiation.

I am willing to bet you can't.

It is how negotiions are done.

The secrecy trope is foolish nonsense as well
It is just about to be published for everyone to see at least 60 days before it is voted on. How is that a secret agreement ? It isn't in spite of all of your conspiracy thoeries.

It may turn out that on balance it is a horrible agreement it certainly won't be one hundred percent beneficial to anyone. We will have all the details soon enough for rational judgments to be made.

Once again I am also willing to bet when it is published you won't take the time to read it yourself you will wait for your favorite blogger to tell you what to think.

Mindsets like yours make me greatfull we live in a republic instead of a democracy.

The heard is way too easy to manipulate.

[Jack Rabbit]

137. Why thank you for that wonderful complement, Egnever

Mindsets like yours make me greatfull we live in a republic instead of a democracy.

I am proud to be a democrat, thank you. Are you proud to be an authoritarian?

Now, I know our founding fathers did leave that little flaw in their otherwise marvelous work, but we shall remedy that in time and America will become a true democracy and not a mere republic.

I should remind you that a republic is merely a state without a crowned head. Stalin's Soviet Union, Pinochet's Chile and Suharto's Indonesia were all republics. So was Saddam's Iraq. I'm glad I didn't live in any of them.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to have any faith in the common people to determine their own future. I got news for you. We don't need authoritarian jerks to tell us to eat our spinach and that austerity is good for us. I don't have a favorite blogger who tells me what to think. I don't know any human being, no matter how obtuse he appears, who isn't capable of drawing his own conclusions.

Even at the level of a private corporation, the most pathetic string of incompetent asses since the Habsburgs and Romanovs were the string of dummies employed by General Motors as CEO. You cannot convince me that working class stiffs with high school diplomas on the assembly line couldn't have designed, built and marketed a better car than the idiots in the suites with Ivy League degrees. All those problems our US auto makers had in the last forty years might have been avoided.

While you are correct in stating that treaties are negotiated in secret, this one has bee more secret that any I've ever seen before. The entire roll out of the TPP was designed to to stifle discussion. This treaty does for more than the peace treaties that ended wars. This treaty makes corporations sovereign and national governments obsolete. After a regulation or law is enacted, if a private interest believes that the act of the legislative body harms the prospect of realizing "expected profits," then the corporation may take the government to the ISDS, a panel of unelected corporate shysters on leave from private industry. That sounds like a real unbiased panel, doesn't it?

I wonder what Adam Smith would have said about the "right" of a business to realize expected profits.

We will have all the details soon enough for rational judgments to be made.

That simply is not true. The text of the agreement still has not been made public, but the terms of debates have been set. Each member of congress will get about two minutes to express his idea about the agreement. That's hardly enough time for debate over an agreement as sweeping as this one. Moreover, Congress will not be able add amendments to the agreement. They'll get one vote, yea or nay. Up or down. That's all.

That's no way to approve an agreement like this one. Even if it is as benign as you say it is, this is no way to approve it.

[Egnever]

140. Oh good lord

Another wall of nonsense.

You believe debate is done on the floor of congress?

The floor of congress is reserved for grandstanding and nothing more these days the fact that you believe otherwise shows how much actual attention you pay to what actually happens on the floor.

Yes throwing snowballs to deny climate change is what passes for debate on the floor these days. What a shame we can't have more of that.

One amendment from one Numbskull in congress would invalidate the entire agreement. While that is clearly your goal ,thankfully people able to think farther than instant gratification acknowledged that fact and made sure that xlownsnlike Ted cruse couldn't screw the whole thing with an amendment to make Texas the new capital or similar foolishness.

For a person that pretends to want to have a democracy you seem to have an odd objection to a majority vote. Odd that. Much better that we let the tools that were supporting shrub for 8 years vite on it based on their fear level.

Nope the public has shown time and again indeed even in the posts here you are making that they have no level of curiosity for reality they are much happier making decisions based on gut instinct and fear level.

Thank god we are a republic. The founding Fathers got that right if nothing else.

And again I will ask, when it is released in a couple of weeks will you bother to read it or will you spew whatever nonsense your favorite blogger tells you to?

My bet is the later.

[Jack Rabbit]

143. Oh, great cosmic oneness

You just throw your own nonsense right back at me.

For several months, I have expressed a firmly held and well considered view that passage of the TPP constitutes the destruction of American democracy. I'm usually greeted with mockery for that from the smattering of TPP paerisans at DU, although I don't know what one is supposed to call it the people vote to send a candidate to Congress who promised to do something about industrial greenhouse emissions, successfully works to enact such legislation only to have some tyrant in a corporate suite who doesn't think he should have to clean up after himself go crying to a panel of unelected corporate shysters who rule that the nation's taxpayers owe the tyrant for the fact that abating greenhouse gases from his industrial plants result in the tyrant's not realizing his expected profits. I call that the destruction of democracy. I don't understand why anyone else wouldn't.

You, egnever, seem to be the first to tell me that it would indeed be the destruction of democracy, but that you are OK with it.

Well, you got one thing right, as irrelevant as it may be, I would like very much to have some numbskull hero do something that will invalidate the whole thing. Really, the matter is moot any way. A working majority of corrupt Republicans and Democrats who just want enough bribes from tyrannical oligarchs to get them through the next election cycle are passing judgment on monumentally sweeping changes to how international trade is conducted. They will do this next to no debate and no real part of the process except to vote this thing up or down with no other input from those who are putatively the people's representatives.

It is a process designed to keep Congress silent. It is a processed designed to keep the People ignorant. It is not a valid process and, as such, no valid legislation can come from it.

The entire problem is not that there has been too much democracy but that has not been enough. Democracy is being strangled by the oligarchs who buy politicians whose job is to represent us. I really don't blame any citizen for losing interest in an process where they are faced with the prospect voting for the candidate of his choice with the realization that most if not all the candidates are on the take.

It isn't the people's fault if Washington and most state capitals resemble a zoo nowadays. As for a cynical elitist who blames the people for this state of affairs and believes a corrupt, anti-democratic system that minimizes the vox populi is just fine and dandy, that kind of person is part of the problem and, even worse than that, offers no solution.

I invite one such as that to reevaluate his world view and join those of us who wish to change it.

I agree with SusannaMontanta (see post 84) who comments on the TPP:

We don't have the obligation to abide by it.

We DO have an obligation to oppose it.

I'll take that one step further. We have an obligation to bury it. With a stake through its heart.

You assignment tonight, egnever, is to read The Republic of Plato and write an essay on what Plato means by the word tyrant and how that tyrants differs from newsworthy figures like Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd.

But my bet is you won't do it and you'll come back here tomorrow spouting the same nonsense borrowed from Ayn Rand or Robert Welch about how America is not a democracy but a mere republic and how the only moral system is no holds barred capitalism where the market, the courts and the government are rigged to to the exclusive interests of corporate tyrants.

[markpkessinger]

80. Spot on response! n/t

[SusanaMontana41]

84. I'd go further than that.

We don't have the obligation to abide by it.

We DO have an obligation to oppose it. The Framers said so.

[GoneFishin]

88. +1000.

[Fearless]

36. Let me guess... n'th dimensional super crazy amazing chess and we wee pawns could never understand?

[Egnever]

62. Probably not

Will you read it when it is released?

I only ask because the vast majority on this board never bothered with reading the ACA and it wasn't that difficult. The hysteria level was quite similar though.

[Fearless]

68. The vast majority of this board was correct in their assessment is the ACA

That it helped but was a corporate giveaway.

[Egnever]

72. LOL

If that is your assessment of the ACA it speaks volumes.

[Fearless]

73. You're joking??

Advocating against single payer health insurance? Really? As far as I'm concerned that tells me all I need to know.

Good day.

[rhett o rick]

112. The thing is we are not ignorant about the TPP. There are lots of clues to make us skeptical.

Seems to me that those that are not skeptical are naive and blindly follow the President.

We've seen bits and pieces that have been terrible. Those pieces have clearly shown the intent. Again it's naive to think that those terrible parts we've seen would miraculously change to being great for the 99%.

Big corporations are not our friends by definition. Their goal is first and foremost to make a profit. If they can help mankind in the process, some will do it and if they hurt mankind in the process, some will do it. Corporations have had a major hand in developing this agreement at the exclusion of people in the 99%.

We've had lots of experts explain how this agreement will hurt the 99% and no one, zero, have explained how this will help. Pres Obama asks us for our blind trust. Not cool for Democrats.

[Egnever]

134. Clue are spin sent to you by people trying to get clicks

The full text will be available soon. Why are you so against actually reading the text of the documents.

It is bizarre and completely opposite of fact based reasoning that the left is supposed to embrace.

[rhett o rick]

138. Why should I trust corporations building an agreement in secret. Not secret from corporations

but secret from the people. To think that major corporations will build an agreement that will help anyone other than themselves is naive. The full text is available, but I am sure those that blindly follow the president won't bother to read it.

[Egnever]

141. Who is asking you to trust anything?

It is going to be published in a couple of weeks for all to see.

Good lord the FUD factor is at unbelievable levels.

It may indeed suck on balance. I am quite sure there will be parts I don't like.

That won't stop me from reading it myself instead of what you seem to be shilling for that it should not be passed because you refuse to wait to read it.

[rhett o rick]

150. Do you have a link to where it says it will be published in a few weeks for all to see?

I think it's supposed to be kept secret for a period of time after ratification.

[randome]

154. November 7th.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/08/after-years-backroom-secrecy-public-will-finally-get-see-full-tpp-text

According to Kevin Collier at Daily Dot, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has said the text will be made available to the public at large in approximately 30 days—on or around November 7.

President Barack Obama must wait at least 90 days after formally notifying Congress of the deal before he can sign it and send it to Capitol Hill, and the full text of the agreement must be made public for at least 60 of those days. Congress gets to spend the first 30 days of that time privately reviewing the documents and consulting with the administration.

So we will have at least 60 days (and probably 90) for public review.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

156. Thank you. nm

[jwirr]

115. Okay we will use Hillary's words. "From what I know today"

I think the TPP stinks. I have not read one good thing about it.

The phrases in the article are just more double talk that is meant to mislead just like the statement from Hillary that says "From what I know today I do not support the TPP."

[Jack Rabbit]

30. As Granny D said

Neoliberalism is the colonial department of neoconservatism.

My only objection to that remark is that she got it backward. It should read Neoconservatism is the enforcement department of neoliberalism.

In any case, one response from rank-and-file Americans to the TPP should be massive civil disobedience. We'll start with something that is, at least for now, perfectly legal: let us eschew military service so that if the oligarchs want Middle Eastern oil that badly, then they'll have to send their own sons and daughters to fight and die for it. Beyond that, let's boycott into bankruptcy any corporation whose officers even think out loud about taking any government for any reason to ISDS, a panel of unelected corporate shysters who can't be expected to be the least bit impartial. The ISDS is nothing more than an end run around democratic restraints on corporate abuse.

So, yes, I endorse the statement that no true liberal or progressive can support free trade and still be a liberal or progressive.

[cui bono]

58. Of course. Being liberal means standing for certain things so when there is policy that crushes

those things you cannot be a liberal and be for that policy.

The term Liberal does mean something.

[raouldukelives]

96. Any "liberal" with investments in Wall St.

Does far more to elect conservatives than a conservative unaffiliated with Wall St.

When money is speech, every dollar is an extra notch on that volume knob.

These days, sadly, it matters more what you pay for than what you vote for.

Still, in spite of shareholders, we are allowed to operate in the sliver of democracy they haven't figured out how to deny, yet.

[rhett o rick]

111. More than likely they were never a liberal. What one thing in the TPP will help the 99%. nm

[Hoyt]

14. People love Krugman when he supports their position. I think his latest opinion on TPP

is balanced.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2015/10/06/tpp-take-two/?referer=

[lewebley3]

108. Krugman is a Dem :therefore not Sanders supporter

[hifiguy]

119. Wut?

[Doctor_J]

124. so none of the millions of Sanders supporters are dems?

[neverforget]

142. Oh my

[jeff47]

120. Uh...he's described himself as a lukewarm opponent of the TPP

and says that's because he's only looked at the economics of what's leaked.

What's the disappointment?

[Fast Walker 52]

155. Indeed-- I never heard Krugman come out for the TPP and I read him religiously

[truedelphi]

126. When was he a liberal?

During Bill Clinton's first term, he was out there fully supporting NAFTA, and then rather than apologizing, he says something like, "Well, I had no idea that they would be so ruthless in its wording and the framing of its legalities - I had a more idealistic version of it in mind."

He is an ivory-towered academic, and I doubt he would survive for two minutes in the real world. But once you support something like NAFTA, you will always get a top position inside the University System.

[whatchamacallit]

131. I've long suspected he was an establishment tool n/t

[n2doc]

4. But But Our Worlds bestest President was gonna fix it all!!

Truly he was!

I'm sure this is all just a mistake and the 'real' version will be much much better

[GoneFishin]

90. He's going to fix it all in his third term. Besides, the Republicans are making him do it.

[kelliekat44]

5. What is BELIEVED to be the final version. I'll read it first. nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

7. The crowning achievement of 35 years of reaganbushonomics. Done by Democrats, SAD!

[pangaia]

11. No. They are not Democrats.

[Dont call me Shirley]

13. Corporacrats.

[TBF]

8. There's a shock. nt

[tk2kewl]

9. kick

[pampango]

12. It is the leak of "what is believed to be the 'essentially final version'" of one chapter.

It is not the "final TPP text".

Previous leaks did not, AFAIK, reveal the provisions that Big Pharma and Big Tobacco seem to be so upset about.

The actual final version will be released within 30 days. I can wait.

[JDPriestly]

24. Just because we are told that Big Pharma and Big Tobacco are unhappy with the

final TPP agreement does not mean that they really are or that the agreement's provisions on their issues are unfavorable to them.

Let's see the final text. I bet it is far, far more generous to Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big every other big sector, rich sector of our economy than any of us could ever imagine.

If it weren't we would know a lot more of the specifics about it.

The plan of the corporate lobbyists who wrote this behemoth is to release this many, many, many page of boring legalese to the American people, not allow us enough time to read or understand it and then vote on it.

That is what passes for "democracy" in our corporate-dominated country today.

Obama and Hillary are at the top of the heap of this corporate domination.

We do not need the TPP.

We need to stop it.

Feel the Bern!

[GoneFishin]

91. The same scheme was used to pass the Patriot Act. Rush it through before any discussion.

It's a classic right wing weasel tactic.

[pampango]

100. "Let's see the final text. I bet it is far, far more generous to Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big every

other big sector, rich sector of our economy than any of us could ever imagine.

If it weren't we would know a lot more of the specifics about it."

If that is the case, I will be right with you opposing this. OTOH, if Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and other "Bigs" are as upset by the final text as they are at least pretending to be now, I will take a second look at it.

I don't remember reading that Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, etc. were upset with the interim drafts of the negotiations. I assumed they had "a lot more of the specifics about it" than we did and would have known which direction the negotiations were headed in at the time.

I don't know if their apparent displeasure is real - perhaps they thought that shortcomings in the earlier drafts would be 'fixed' before a final deal or they did complain about it and I just don't read the right sources to know what the "Bigs" are happy and unhappy about. The other possibility, as you point out, is that they really are not unhappy and they and Obama are just yanking our chains with this show of "unhappiness". If that is the case, you and I are on the same page.

I certainly agree with you that we should 'see the final text'. That should clarify whether the Bigs' unhappiness is real or faked.

[pnwmom]

17. What is so terrible about supporting intellectual property rights?

Shouldn't people who work on intellectual and creative endeavors be able to earn a return on their labors?

Should musicians, actors, and writers be expected to give away their work to "users"?

[KamaAina]

18. This extends that protection to their third-generation descendents.

[pnwmom]

19. Other forms of property, such as real estate and personal property,

can be inherited by one's grandchildren.

Why not intellectual property?

I don't share the Libertarian view against intellectual property rights.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/05/02/the-economic-case-for-strong-protection-for-intellectual-property/id=49376/

[daleanime]

48. "We stand on the shoulders of giants..."

Have you have heard that quote? Think about what it means, then imagine the giants are gone. That's the best description I can give right now. With everything locked down in an attempt to make more money, how will anyone make any progress?

[pnwmom]

49. You can allude to the giants without plagiarizing them.

The debatable issue is how long copyrights can extend, but I don't think they need to be limited to the lifetime of the creator. The creator of Shrek had his first monumental success at the age of 90+. Should he have been prevented from leaving a legacy to his children and/or grandchildren?

[daleanime]

56. Under our current system.....

was his family left destitute? Besides which, why only talk about entertainment? Copyrights and patents are taken out in all kinds of fields. I see no advantage for the human race in trying to create longer living 'cash cows', which is all this is.

[pnwmom]

61. No, and that is my point. I'm fine with the current system. I disagree with those

who want to significantly shorten the periods of intellectual property rights, especially those who want to end the term at the death of the creator.

[rhett o rick]

64. So are you saying that you support the TPP? If you do, please let us know why. nm

[pnwmom]

70. I don't know what's in the final TPP, do you? Wikileaks has supposedly

released a draft.

And the TPP is a HUGE document. I doubt that I'll decide to support or not based on a single issue.

[rhett o rick]

110. Those that have seen parts of it are in two camps. One camp says that there isn't

anything in there aimed at helping the 99%, only corporations. Since it was produced without input of the 99% and secret to the 99% but open to big corporations, I find their assessment very plausible. The other camp are those that favor the agreement and they will not tell us one thing that will help the 99%. To ignore it until it is ratified is like standing on the train track and stating you'll believe there is a train coming when it hits you.

It would be wonderful if we could put our blind faith in the President, but a good Democrat should be skeptical.

[pnwmom]

118. Paul Krugman is now leaning toward favoring it, and he's on the side of the 99%.

So the jury's still out in my opinion. I still don't know enough.

[daleanime]

101. Not too many that I know....

I'm wondering why you would want to strengthen and lengthen them.

[JDPriestly]

27. Yes. And Article I, section 8 of our Constitution authorizes OUR CONGRESS

to establish and protect those rights.

If people in another country violate the rights we and our Congress guarantee for intellectual and scientific creators, then we should stop buying their products. We should also devise a system under which we can enforce our copyright and patent laws against nationals of countries that violate our laws by bringing actions against their assets within the US.

We do not need the TPP.

We should not enter into the TPP.

Our pharmaceuticals already make plenty of money. Same for Disney and all others whose copyright and patent rights we do and should respect.

And if our Congress wants to extend patent and copyright rights beyond the periods for which they are not fixed, it has the authority under our Constitution to do that.

Of course, the members of Congress who vote to extend those ownership rights have to answer to their constituents in the elections, so they probably won't do that.

Our patent and copyright laws are good to creative people and even their heirs.

Having patent and copyright laws that extend too far into the future will actually slow down progress in creative fields.

That is because creativity builds on what has proceeded it and uses the creativity of those who were creative in the past to create new realities in the future.

So we have to have a balance that rewards and creates an incentive for creativity but that also allows the creative products to become a part of our culture that is not protected by our copyright and patent laws.

No to the TPP.

I bet you it is much worse than any of us imagine.

[truedelphi]

125. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^n/t

[davidpdx]

44. Copyrights are not the problem

It is the distribution of content that is the problem. Corporations have clung to the old ways of distribution for way too long. While it has improved slightly the last decade or so, for the most part little has changed.

[JDPriestly]

20. The TPP is a corporate coup.

We were not represented in the negotiations.

And WE DO NOT NEED AN AGREEMENT OF THIS KIND.

There is no benefit for ordinary people in any country from an agreement of this kind.

It was written by wealthy corporations for wealthy corporations.

It isn't the fact that they have a lot of money that is wrong, utterly wrong about this.

It is the fact that they wield their money like a weapon to grab what is left of our rights and our property and take it all.

As Bernie says, they can't have it all.

Corporations are like lions that need to be tamed. Wonderful animals, but dangerous when left in charge of humans -- especially at their feeding times.

And the TPP negotiations were feeding time for the corporations. They are helping themselves to big, big portions of our freedom and right to self-government.

No to the TPP.

[haikugal]

29. This....Thanks for saying it so clearly!!!

[hifiguy]

34. Bravo!

As usual, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

[KoKo]

37. Yes...and hopefully all the work that's gone into defeating it will hold..

going forward.

[Hissyspit]

41. +1

[davidpdx]

43. +1

[Fuddnik]

79. Elizabeth Warren said it perfectly.

See my sig line.

We never had a seat at the table.

[GoneFishin]

92. +1

[daleanime]

102. +1

[Historic NY]

23. Intellectual property...

why not regulate who can take my stuff w/o permissions. I'm dealing with it now because a publication was done around 1910....its regenerated many times over now in on demand on e-bay for sale. Its an outdated unedited version which is being sold, considering only 100 editions were ever made Your cherry picking one portion which they already released .

People should retain rights and should be able to go after those who violate those rights.

[JDPriestly]

28. Are you joking? No one should have copyrights on information or ideas that

are more than a century old.

At some point, copyrighted material has to become just a part of our culture.

The original author of the publication is not alive any more. And the heirs did not create it.

The social purpose of copyrights and patents is to reward and encourage, that is to provide incentives for creativity and scientific research. To extend copyrights and patents so that the heirs of a patent or copyright who did not contribute to the creation or research of the copyrighted or patented work defeats the purpose of the special right that Congress can create under Article I, section 8.

If someone creates or discovers something and wants to possess it and never let it go to be openly shared and used without cost by the public, then they should hide it in their attic and in their heart.

I'm all for reasonable copyright and patent laws and their enforcement. But to extend them beyond what they are determined to be by the US Congress is wrong and will slow the course of history.

The important thing is that we should all try to respect reasonable patent and copyright laws in our use of creative products.

We need to understand why they exist if we are to do that.

[hifiguy]

35. In all seriousness, the manipulation of copyright terms can be laid at the feet

of one corporation: Disney.

Every change to copyright terms in the last fifty years should actually have been named the "Protect Mickey Mouse in Perpetuity Act." Disney as a corporation basically believes that copyright should be eternal.

[JDPriestly]

54. If copyrights were eternal, Disney would have been violating some big ones when

it made movies based on the Grimms fairy tales like Snow White.

Then there is Alice in Wonderland, the first Disney movie I saw as a child. Did it pay any royalties to the heirs of Lewis Carroll for the rights to make that movie?

Disney wants copyrights for its intellectual property, but I doubt that it paid the heirs of those from whom it stole the ideas for many of its best selling movies and characters.

Q: Are the books and the pictures still copyright protected?

When the Alice books were published, they were copyright protected until 42 years after the first publication or 7 years after the author’s death, whichever was the longer. Later, the 1911 Act replaced the 1842 Copyright Act which extended the period to 50 years after the author’s death.

This means that the copyright on “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” subsisted until 1907 and that of “Through the Looking-Glass and what Alice found there” until 1948. As Tenniel died in 1914, his illustrations came into the public domain in 1964. This includes the colored illustrations for the Nursery Alice.

Notably the British Copyright act did not protect the stories and illustrations from being reproduced abroad. Many foreign publishers, for example in America, were therefore able to publish the story and Tenniel’s illustrations without permission from Carroll, while they were still copyright protected in the UK.

Disney’s cartoon movie still remains in copyright. If you wish to use movie stills, video, audio, or anything else from the movie, you’ll need to ask permission from Disney Consumer Products.

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/resources/faq/#copyright

Disney's movie called Alice in Wonderland was released in 1951. The copyright on the final work ended in 1948, 41 years after Alice itself. What a wonderful coincidence for Disney. Just plums and peaches. Right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice's_Adventures_in_Wonderland

[hifiguy]

74. Purely accidental, I am sure.

The sarcasm icon should be unnecessary. Disney is about as nasty as any corporation gets. No surprise, as Kindly Uncle Walt was actually a viciously reactionary, anti-Semitic right wing asshole of the first order.

[CanSocDem]

99. In that vein...

But that Realist centerfold back in the 60's opened my eyes to what you're saying.

edited to add:

http://classes.design.ucla.edu/Fall06/161A/projects/daisy/text:image/wood_page_image.jpg

[JDPriestly]

51. Did you write or create the manuscript in 1910?

How long do you think that a copyright or patent should be protected?

Do you think that an author's great-great-great-great grandchildren should still be earning money from their ancestor's work?

What do you think is a fair limit?

It has been over a century since 1910.

I'm genuinely interested in what you think is fair.

[GoneFishin]

26. Thank you KamaAina for pulling the first loose thread. I think crowd sourcing the reading and

digesting of the text will be a powerful tool.

I will be scouring it, and I hope others will also.

[blackspade]

31. I'm sure the corporate apologists will be here soon...

I'll have to get my and

[KamaAina]

46. They beat you to it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027248363#post17

[blackspade]

75. Curses!

Foiled again!

[KansDem]

93. Hey! That's been used before!

Don't you owe somebody some money now?

[blackspade]

104. Under the TTP your probably right!

[historylovr]

33. K & R

[WillyT]

40. I Think Cenk Uyger Of The Young Turks Was Right All Along...

He's always used the example of the Harlem Globe Trotters versus the Washington Generals...

It's made to look like a game of competition, while guaranteeing the Final Score.

[AzDar]

52. K & R

[joshcryer]

65. US tech and Hollywood should be pleased.

[cascadiance]

77. We need to "Trump call" our reps and tell them if they vote for TPP

They are FUCKING FIRED next election, just like over half of the Democrats that voted for the NAFTA POS got fired in the subsequent election too!

[RichVRichV]

122. It doesn't matter.

Every Democrat in congress could vote no now and it would still pass with full Republican support. That's what fast track was for. It gives the Democrats an out on it passing. Only enough Democrats had to switch to pass the fast track (had they needed more, more Democrats would have voted for fast track).


This is the perfect time to pass pro-corporation legislation. Republicans hold both houses of congress and there's a corporate backed Democrat who is at term limit as president (so there's "no one" to direct the actual blame at).


It's all one big game and we're not invited.


Seriously does anyone really think the Republicans would have voted to give Obama (who they claim to despise on all ways) fast track authority if the fix wasn't in on this?

[eridani]

81. New Leak of Final TPP Text Confirms Attack on Freedom of Expression, Public Health

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/09/new-leak-final-tpp-text-confirms-attack-freedom-expression-public-health

The document is dated October 5, the same day it was announced in Atlanta, Georgia that the member states to the treaty had reached an accord after more than five years of negotiations.

Aside from the WikiLeaks publication, the vast majority of the mammoth deal's contents are still being withheld from the public—which a WikiLeaks press statement suggests is a strategic move by world leaders to forestall public criticism until after the Canadian election on October 19.

Initial analyses suggest that many of the chapter's more troubling provisions, such as broader patent and data protections that pharmaceutical companies use to delay generic competition, have stayed in place since draft versions were leaked in 2014 and 2015.

Moreover, it codifies a crackdown on freedom of speech with rules allowing widespread internet censorship.

"The text of the TPP's intellectual property chapter confirms advocates' warnings that this deal poses a grave threat to global freedom of expression and basic access to things like medicine and information," said Evan Greer, campaign director for the digital rights group Fight for the Future. "The contents of the TPP's IP chapter were bought and paid for by Hollywood and the pharmaceutical industry before the negotiations even began."

[randome]

94. And yet they won't explain what that 'grave threat to global freedom of expression' derives from.

It's just "Take our word for it, you should be afraid."

Oh journalism, I knew thee well.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[YoungDemCA]

114. Trust Wikileaks

Because they have no agenda of their own, right?

[randome]

116. I don't think they have the energy to have an agenda.

All they do is print what someone else steals for them. Push a button, go on break.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[RichVRichV]

123. The only possible agenda I've ever seen from Wikileaks is ego.

I don't see many governments denying what they release so it's not being fabricated.

If they cherry picked what they released, like most reporters do, I could see an agenda argument. But Wikileaks usually just data dumps what they get. It's kind of hard to accuse them of agenda when they're mass releasing everything (which is problematic for other reasons).

[randome]

146. There was the 'Collateral Murder' video they doctored and tried to pass off.

But yes, you're right, they usually don't do anything but print what they're given so far as we know.

It is, however, standard to not respond to the publication of stolen documents. Otherwise, you're in the position of having to refute or confirm every statement made anywhere.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[eridani]

144. Based on other "trade" agreements, you should be afraid.

I just can't figure people on a Democratic board defending this bullshit.

Thanks to an ISDS provision in a past trade agreement, a mining company didn’t have to go to a Canadian court to challenge the permit decision – they went right to a special ISDS panel of corporate lawyers. Last month, the international panel ruled in favor of the mining company, and the decision cannot be challenged in Canadian courts.

Now the Canadian taxpayers may be on the hook for up to $300 million in “damages” to the mining company – all because their government had the gall to stand up for its environment and the economic livelihood of its local fishermen.

ISDS isn’t a one-time, hypothetical problem – we’ve seen it in past trade agreements. Just in the past few years:

• A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.
• A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.
• A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.
• Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates – because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giant’s profits.

Anyone who thinks any of this bullshit is a good thing is no progressive.

[randome]

145. So if a court doesn't rule against a company 100% of the time, the TPP is bad?

That Canadian case was based on Canada trying to exclude a company for reasons they did not disclose. Environmental laws actually had nothing to do with it, although Canada tried to claim they did. And that's protectionism. That's a no-no.

Philip Morris is expected to lose their case. The others? Well, that's what the ISDS is for, isn't it? To make these decisions? Who should make these decisions? A district judge who has no experience whatsoever in trade or economic issues?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[eridani]

147. A goddam fucking UNELECTED corporate-appointed tribunal should not make these decisions

How about you donate your retirement funds to governments so they can defend against Philip Morris and their lawsuits? That way they won't have to raise taxes on their citizens to do it. I'd trust any local judge to do better that a 1%-er suit.

[randome]

148. I'm 57 and I have NO retirement funds.

When Philip Morris loses in Australia, I hope they get stuck with Australia's bill. It's the very thing that tort reform was supposed to address.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/blog/2014/March/Facts-Investor-State%20Dispute-Settlement-Safeguarding-Public-Interest-Protecting-Investors

Investor-state arbitration is designed to provide a fair, neutral platform to resolve disputes. The arbitration rules applied by tribunals under our agreements require that each arbitrator be independent and impartial. These rules permit either party in a dispute to request the disqualification of an arbitrator and the appointment of a new arbitrator if necessary to ensure the independence and impartiality of all tribunal members.

Of course not everything is going to fall into place and any system be 100% fair but the language is there to encourage it.

As for local judges having jurisdiction over international trade treaties...no, I don't think so. I would no more support that than I would a local judge ruling on the constitutionality of abortion. The Supreme Court is not an elected body, either, you'll recall.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[eridani]

149. Arbitration is loaded in favor of corporations

No labor or environmental groups were including in drafting TPP--only the entities dedicated for screwing the 99%. If you don't have retirement funds, the people and policies you are advocating are one reason why.

[Enthusiast]

82. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

They need to know that we are aware this trade deal is little better than treason.

[Scuba]

87. Obama's most recent betrayal.

[Helen Borg]

89. Big surprise there...

[Babel_17]

97. TPP, ISDS & The End of Democracy

Link to an extensive comic that does an amazing job of explaining the pitfalls of the TPP: http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

It's done by the team behind Economix (author Michael Goodwin, illustrator Dan E. Burr).

Praise for Economix

“I just cannot stress enough how amazing this book is.”
–James Floyd Kelly, Wired.com

“It’s simply phenomenal.”
– David Bach, author of Debt Free for Life and The Automatic Millionaire

“Goodwin has done the seemingly impossible–he has made economics comprehensible and funny.”
– Joel Bakan, author of The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power

“An amazing lesson in true-world economics! Delightfully presented, powerful, insightful, and important information. What a fun way to fathom a deep and often dark subject”
– John Perkins, author of Hoodwinked and the New York Times bestseller Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

“Economix is a lively, cheerfully opinionated romp through the historical and intellectual foundations of our current economy and our current economic problems. Goodwin has a knack for distilling complex ideas and events in ways that invite the reader to follow the big picture without losing track of what actually happened. Any reader wondering how our economy got to where it is today will find this a refreshing overview.”
– Timothy W. Guinnane, Philip Golden Bartlett Professor of Economic History, Yale University

DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027248961

[99th_Monkey]

106. Very good information. Thanks. nt

[truedelphi]

128. Exceptionally Brilliant.

I gotta buy the book - except I don't know why he is picking on Ranch Dressing.

[Babel_17]

135. Lol, wait, the guy in the video ...

Lol, wait, the guy in the video isn't either of the fellows behind the book. He just happens to also be funny and brilliant, and of a like mind.

I now have an excuse to kick the thread I started over this. Thank you!

[Zorra]

103. If Hillary or a republican is elected, this will be just the tip of the iceberg.

[lewebley3]

109. If Hillary is elected: Happy Day will be here again!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

105. The Gold Standard of trade agreements!!!!

[YoungDemCA]

113. I fail to see the big fuss

I guess that makes me an ignorant authoritarian shill for the "corporatists."

[rhett o rick]

117. So all those that said they could decide until they saw the completed document are going

to now come forward to tell us we worried for nothing. I am sure they will. Any minute now. Show us that the TPP really will help the 99% and not those corps that wrote it.

[stillwaiting]

121. I'd like to think that we, as Democrats, also care about how the TPP will impact average people in

other countries. The TPP most likely won't serve the interests of average American workers and the middle class as well, but even if it somehow and miraculously did, we will take in to account that our government is getting other sovereign governments to subject their citizens to rules that most likely benefit the financial elite at the expense of their citizens I'd hope.

We are better than the Republicans aren't we?

I loathe the argument that ISDS has never resulted in the U.S. being taken to court and the U.S. losing a case. Even if the U.S. NEVER loses a case due to ISDS, it is still a horrible aspect of the TPP. And, I don't care if it's been in use for decades. It needs to NOT be in use because it gives too much power to multinational corporations to wield power over elected officials BEHIND CLOSED DOORS in world governments that allow themselves to be subject to these terms. Threats can be made that we never even hear about. The potential is there to subvert elected governments acting on behalf of the citizens that elect them.

They don't hate us for our freedoms that's for damn sure. More of us need to care much more than we do.

[rhett o rick]

139. With NAFTA the promise was that if we moved jobs to Mexico their standard

of living would rise and they would be able to buy more of our products. What a bunch of bullcrap. The corporations made more with the cheaper labor. They didn't raise the wages of the Mexican workers. Workers both in the USofA and Mexico lost.

[Egnever]

133. Has the final text been published?

Not yet and you know that.

[Aerows]

127. The TPP has, to put it kindly

been a horrible piece of shit from day one.

It's not even surprising that more people besides "policy wonks" and "hot national political pundits" suddenly think it is anything more than a BOHICA trade agreement (when their candidate wakes up, smells the coffee and realizes it pisses off those pesky, irritating voters).

When the debates roll around (finally!) on Tuesday, I'm pretty sure that the TPP will get mentioned.

It's not even a damn surprise at this point that suddenly it is " the story that she opposes things in it.

I have to give her credit for prevaricating and being vague when she has absolutely no intention of holding up the TPP, since she had a hand in writing it. I have to give the Clinton campaign credit, though, for realizing a few days before the first debate that she is going to be asked about it, and can provide a typical vague, tepid answer.

[truedelphi]

129. Nah, the debate will not bring up The TPP-

The Main$tream media has done nothing but talk about Obama's brilliant desire for a plan to end Global Climate Change.

I am betting that the hardest question Ms Clinton will be asked is if she is as environmental as Obama. (Never mind that under the TPP, American Corporations will continue to move to third world countries that do not have any environmental controls or regulations on the books.)

On edit: one of the deeper ironies regarding Obama's new status as Chief Planet Saver, is that if the TPP is implemented, any plan that the USA now formulates for helping out the planet will immediately be stopped by provisions of the TPP. And, like Mr Obama doesn't know that!

[Aerows]

130. I'm so fed up with the pandering to the TPP, sometimes I wonder

if our leaders don't *WANT* to kill most of us off.

[RKP5637]

151. Yep! Transparency at its finest. I'm so disappointed with the transparency charade. n/t

[Ilsa]

152. The excuses Thomm Hartmann has been questioning

involve whether this agreement somehow reigns in China. I (and I think TH, if I followed correctly), don't see why 99% of the US population has to be screwed over hard to reign in China.