20 ms·

Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

755 points by cdubzzz 11y ago

0942v8653 11y ago
Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g/full_text_of_the_tpp_has_just_been_released/ https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g/full_text...
unprepare 11y ago
I suspect it will take a while for all of this text to be digested and for people much smarter than me to find a lot of nasty stuff in there. Meanwhile, I found the New Zealand and US side letter amusing: >To the extent contemplated in the Code, New Zealand shall not permit the sale of any product as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey, unless it has been manufactured in the United States according to the laws of the United States governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey and the product complies with all applicable regulations of the United States for the sale or export as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey. I assume this must be quite prevalent in New Zealand if they wrote a letter specific to this one issue. I didn't see a similar letter with France regarding cognac or champagne.
- ranit 11y ago
  France is not part of TPP.
  - melvinmt 11y ago
    France is part of TTIP negotiations which probably will cover the same stipulations.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pmelendez 11y ago
  <jokingly tone> The most amusing part to me is the glorification of Bourbon and Tennessee Whiskey. IMO, They don't stand a chance in front a good Scotch or even a Rye. </jokingly tone>
  - corin_ 11y ago
    I know this is purely subjective, but personally I genuinely haven't found a bourbon I like, while I love plenty of single malts (not just from Scotland but also Irish/Japanese). Maybe someday that'll change for me or maybe I'm just destined to not be a fan of Bourbons - I have plenty of friends who love them. Haven't tried Tennessee. (But as a Brit I completely approve of your joking, too)
    - freehunter 11y ago
      It's a different flavor. Sweet, instead of smoky. It's completely okay in my opinion to like scotch and not bourbon, or the other way around. I like scotch, but I prefer bourbon. The smoky flavor turns me off a bit. Everyone has a personal choice, but I'm of the opinion that if you don't like Maker's Mark, you probably won't like bourbon.
      - GordonS 11y ago
        Only Islay malts are typically smokey, and it is certainly an acquired taste. Malts from other regions of Scotland vary a lot, and as a point of interest, many are matured in bourbon casks because it imparts sweet notes.
        br3w5 11y ago
        I tried an Islay malt recently (https://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/caol-ila-12-year-old-whisky/ https://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/caol-ila-12-year-old-w...) that was matured in bourbon casks which softened the smoky flavour somewhat - very nice
        GordonS 11y ago
        Caol Ila is probably the 'lightest' of all the peaty Islay malts (from memory, I think it proclaims this on the bottle too).
        11y ago
- cryoshon 11y ago
  This is the clause demanded by some of the alcoholic beverage manufacturers, which is to say they paid for that specific clause to be implemented even though it has no real global benefit and may harm smaller local groups in NZ producing similar goods. This should not be seen as a surprise to anyone.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    What problem is it going to cause NZ locals? Why would they want to brand their whiskey as Tennessee whiskey or Bourbon? Bourbon is widely recognized as a US whiskey, probably from Kentucky, using that name for something made in NZ is more likely to piss customers off than anything else (Tennessee whiskey has a somewhat more obvious geographic meaning).
    - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
      When teenagers here drink cheap liquor, they might drink 'bourbon' or a 'bourbon and coke' - anything they can get for less than $20. Accordingly, there are a number of brands targeted at that market, and I would not be surprised if some of them have nothing do with the US original.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using it as a brand. But I'm pretty skeptical that those teenagers care that their cheap whiskey be called Bourbon.
        AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
        Its worse than that. I remember being surprised when I got older and found out that Bourbon is the same thing as Whiskey. The common conception was that they were distinct drinks, and that Whiskey was too expensive.
    - _delirium 11y ago
      I agree for Tennessee whiskey, which is clearly tied to production in Tennessee. But "bourbon" is increasingly seen as a just style of barrel-aged corn-mash whiskey. It's already in the process of losing its geographical specificity within the U.S., with producers in places like California and Illinois [1]. Once you have California whiskey producers making bourbon, it's not that big a stretch to imagine that one of the Japanese whiskey companies might want to come out with a bourbon. I think it would be more principled to either let anyone produce it (subject to style requirements), or to geographically restrict it to only the vicinity of Kentucky. But the U.S.'s position seems to be to want to make it a specifically American brand, but otherwise not regionally restricted. Which I understand the trade motivations for, but honestly I don't see bourbon from Tokyo as any less authentic than bourbon from San Francisco, assuming it's made correctly. [1] http://www.nonkentuckybourbon.com/non-kentucky-bourbon-list http://www.nonkentuckybourbon.com/non-kentucky-bourbon-list
- atwebb 11y ago
  I believe NZ allows legal home-distilling, maybe it's related to that? Similar to home brewers making Belgian beers by using the correct yeast and methods, people could be mini-batching TN/KY bourbon & whiskey using the style and methods.
  - adrianmacneil 11y ago
    We allow distilling, but only for personal use (you can't legally sell it), so I doubt this is related.
- ekidd 11y ago
  There's a way of thinking about things like "Tennessee Whiskey" and "champagne" that makes good business sense: They're basically shared regional brands. In Europe, many traditional kinds of cheese, alcohol and meat are covered by a system known in various countries as AOC (France, Appellation d'origine contrôlée) or DOC (Italy, Denominazione di origine controllata). Conceptually speaking, the idea goes something like: 1. Large-scale producers can always just create a trademark and market it. Customers will be able to recognize the product and evaluate it based on its reputation. 2. Small-scale producers, however, lack the reach to advertise and be recognized on their own. But what if they're making a traditional, high-end product for which their region is famous? Well, we could set up a shared "brand", where anybody from the right region can agree to follow traditional recipes and have their quality judged. And eventually, customers will realize that Parmigiano-Reggiano means "a certain kind of really good traditional Parmesan cheese from Italy." Under this system, the right way to think of things like "champagne" and "Tennessee Whiskey" is to treat them as a particular kind of brand. Any company can sell products under this brand, provided (a) they come from the right region, and (b) they meet a certain set of quality standards. The system of AOC/DOC seems to work well for both "foodie" customers (who want to be able to recognize a high-quality traditional product), and small- to mid-size producers (who get to pool their branding efforts). The only cost of this system is that names like "Tennessee Whiskey" essentially become international trademarks under the control of a regional organization.
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    The only problem with that is that there might be producers outside these regions who produce better quality products, these producers will be penalized for not being able to use the actual product name and may give up on it, leaving the market worse off, with lower quality products. The other problem is that producers who benefit from the regional brand name have very little reason to improve or even maintain the quality of their product as they have a monopoly on it.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      That's probably true given it already happens with brand names in general.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  My home state doesn't play around about their Whiskey. The best stuff isn't for export, though: homebrewed as moonshine, mixed with custom recipes, and distributed to family and friends. Jack n Coke is still a favorite drink.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  France has a deal with the US and other countries that protects the name "champagne". In the US, you can't call your sparkling white wine "champagne" unless A) it's from Champagne, France, or B) you were selling it under the same label before 2006.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  > I didn't see a similar letter with France regarding cognac or champagne. France is not a signatory to the TPP, so you wouldn't.
- rosege 11y ago
  Where do I start the rum thread? specifically spiced rum...yum!
- jmaygarden 11y ago
  NAFTA contains language that strictly defines bourbon as well.
walterbell 11y ago
Zip file download (with all annexes) seems to be broken. Chapters + annexes are available as dozens of individual files. Zip file mirror needed.
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/T...
- cuonic 11y ago
  It's linking to their internal dev site (http://dev.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip http://dev.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif...), they forgot to update the link, just remove the dev and you're in: http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/T...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I've dropped it into the Internet Archive.
BillFranklin 11y ago
> 2. No Party shall require a covered person to use or locate computing facilities in that Party’s territory as a condition for conducting business in that territory. No Russian server situations http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/14.%20Electronic%20Commerce%20Chapter.pdf http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif...
- walterbell 11y ago
  National data sovereignty would be restricted by TPP, if enacted into law, http://www.zdnet.com/article/tpp-moves-toward-killing-off-government-mandated-data-sovereignty/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/tpp-moves-toward-killing-off-go... & https://blog.ffii.org/a-license-to-spy-cross-border-data-flows-in-ttip/ https://blog.ffii.org/a-license-to-spy-cross-border-data-flo... "Governments ... will be unable to force companies from those countries to store government data in local datacentres ... governments will not only be prevented from mandating data sovereignty provision, they will also be unable to demand access to source code from companies incorporated in TPP territories."
  - MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
    Wow. So this would mean that it is illegal to even require something like a safe haven for your own data?
    - walterbell 11y ago
      TPP is an agreement between governments and corporations. Corporations could make individual agreements with their supplier corporations, where they could impose privacy conditions for data storage and jurisdiction. But this would be difficult for small businesses to negotiate. In Europe, the proposed TISA trade treaty text on data sovereignty is in conflict with EU law, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/09013129465/new-tisa-leak-us-collision-course-with-eu-over-global-data-flows.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/09013129465/new-t... "For the European Union, that's a hugely sensitive issue. Under data protection laws there, personal data cannot be sent outside the EU unless companies sign up to the self-certification scheme known as the Safe Harbor framework. TISA Article X.4: Movement of Information No Party may prevent a service supplier of another Party from transferring, accessing, processing or storing information, including personal information, within or outside the Party's territory, where such activity is carried out in connection with the conduct of the service supplier's business." http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/dont-forget-big-data-ttip-and-tisa-314487 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/dont-forget-big..., "It is one thing to have free data flows in the EU, where our own institutions make the rules for data protection and we can develop our technological sovereignty, but quite another to have free data flows across the Atlantic without adequate US rules for the treatment of European data ... Data about our condition and behaviour are assets ... they constitute a new asset class, which Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance assets.”
walterbell 11y ago
From the "Legal and Institutional" section, http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Legal-and-Institutional.pdf http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Legal-... Any Party may withdraw from TPP by providing six months notice of withdrawal. How many ISDS lawsuits (http://isdscorporateattacks.org http://isdscorporateattacks.org) and World Bank fines (https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU) would it take for a country to withdraw from TPP?
- giltleaf 11y ago
  Depends on how successful (ie valuable to the participants) the trade agreement is.
voltagex_ 11y ago
Oh boy, they should have stripped metadata from those PDFs.
- teekert 11y ago
  What did you find? Or what can be in it?
  - fukusa 11y ago
    Author: GRIFFIN, Richard (LGL/TLU) is all I could find.
- wmt 11y ago
  Maybe the file was stolen from phewitso:s computer? Or someone who actually knew what they were doing and adjusted the metadata.
- BillFranklin 11y ago
  What did you find? There's nothing that interesting that I could see. 8.\ Technical\ Barriers\ to\ Trade\ Chapter.pdf Title: TTP TBT Chapter Text - Jan 2015 Author: LESLIE, Susannah (TND) Creator: Acrobat PDFMaker 11 for Word Producer: Adobe PDF Library 11.0 CreationDate: Wed Nov 4 19:59:17 2015 ModDate: Wed Nov 4 19:59:40 2015 Tagged: yes Form: none Pages: 38 Encrypted: no Page size: 595.32 x 841.92 pts (A4) (rotated 0 degrees) File size: 201868 bytes Optimized: yes PDF version: 1.5 13.\ Telecommunications\ Chapter.pdf Title: Legal Scrub Telecommunications NZ Review Subject: Keywords: Author: Creator: Acrobat PDFMaker 11 for Word Producer: Adobe PDF Library 11.0 CreationDate: Wed Nov 4 20:02:38 2015 ModDate: Wed Nov 4 20:02:54 2015 Tagged: yes Form: none Pages: 22 Encrypted: no Page size: 612 x 792 pts (letter) (rotated 0 degrees) File size: 127798 bytes Optimized: yes PDF version: 1.5
- late2part 11y ago
  using pdftk, I see little more than author's name, chapter/bookmark titles, and dates. Anything else in there?
mbrock 11y ago
I wonder if there are any systems for defining these things in a more explorable format, because I don't particularly enjoy reading legalese. assert> forbid(anyone-in(nz), sale(illegitimately-labelled-product("Bourbon Whiskey")) query> prohibitions-for(anyone-in(nz)) Or something. Semi-logical legal code.
- bru 11y ago
  Prolog seems like a good fit for that. Any PhD student wants to publish a paper on a Prolog translation of the TPP? :-)
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Here is a paper describing a "port" of the UK Nationality Act to Prolog: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~sok/papers/s/p370-sergot.pdf http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~sok/papers/s/p370-sergot.pdf
    - mbrock 11y ago
      That's exactly what I was fishing for. Thanks.
      - arethuza 11y ago
        My wife is a commercial litigation lawyer and I've always wondered about the similarities between legislation, contracts and code.
        mbrock 11y ago
        Cool. Do you know about the paper on "composable contracts" that defines financial contracts (derivatives, etc) in terms of functional combinators? It's pretty cool. They're able to define automatic Black-Scholes valuations for complex derivatives, and stuff. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Papers/financial-contracts/contracts-icfp.htm http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Papers...
lighthawk 11y ago
According to 18.37.3 and 4, microorganisms cannot be excluded from patentability. I assume this is to allow patenting of things like probiotics. However, all humans rely their skin, mouth, and gut floras to be healthy. If the bacteria and yeast in that flora can't be excluded from patentability, are they considered not a part of the human animal? I understand that probiotics should be protected, but I wonder if someone could take advantage of this and claim patent on any naturally occurring microorganism by just isolating it and showing that it has some use. Something else not specified in this section are viruses. Viruses are not strictly microorganisms, and no mention is made of them, but yet they can be manufactured and used for treatments- recently even for cancer: http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/department-molecular-medicine/harnessing-viruses-treat-cancer http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/departmen... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/fda-approval-imlygic-cancer-hunting-viral-treatment http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/fda-approval-... If viruses could be excluded from patentability since they aren't mentioned, then any research or manufacturing done would not be patentable, and therefore some companies may hesitate to invest too heavily in research.
- aroch 11y ago
  I think the spirit of this to allow for drastically modified yeast that produce, say, anti-cancer drug X to be patented. To make the biological equivalent of an industrial methods patent. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to protect your IP even though significant effort has gone into creating a chimeric yeast, because its just a collection of natural products (natural product's are currently not patentable). Still, seems a little odd / slippery slope-y to me. On the one hand, I understand and, to some extent, agree with the need to protect / profit off what you've developed. On the otherhand, USPTO is pretty bad at biological patent screening and I can see a huge landrush to patent bacteria for no good reason. (Full disclosure, I am in the process of patenting a modified natural product made by a bacteria)
  - david-given 11y ago
    I've never understood why people patent organisms. That's not an ethical thing --- I understand why people want IP protection. It just seems like the wrong mechanism. Isn't the goal of restricting copying of your engineered organism better suited to the copyright system, rather than the patent system? Patents are for processes, right? But an organism is a thing, not a process. Isn't making an illegal copy of that thing a copyright violation?
belorn 11y ago
I see that they are retaining the paragraph that leads several countries to join Russia in burning and bulldozing food and other commodities, if and when trade mark infringed.
walterbell 11y ago
Note the ex officio statement in the IP chapter: even if a copyright holder does not want to initiate border measures (e.g. destroy fanzines), this can be enforced by governments, http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/18.%20Intellectual%20Property%20Chapter.pdf http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif.... In 2013, Japanese lawyers warned about the fair use implications, http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzine-environment.html http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzin... & http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/IP_Theory_13/Papers2Discuss/Kaneko_Japanese_fair_use.htm http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/IP_Theor... Article 18.76: Special Requirements related to Border Measures 5. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities may initiate border measures ex officio [118] with respect to goods under customs control that are: (a) imported; (b) destined for export; (c) in transit, and that are suspected of being counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods. [118] For greater certainty, ex officio action does not require a formal complaint from a third party or right holder.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  > For greater certainty of abuse FTFY And are there any accountability or requirements for being familiar with the thing it is claimed to infringe? Should everything have to carry copyright notice signed by all copyright holders?
- verandaguy 11y ago
  For greater certainty, ex officio action does not require a formal complaint from a third party or right holder I wonder if it's possible for a "third party or right holder" to explicitly state that they don't wish to start border measures.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    They could just grant the fan site a license. Or had a broad license that fan materials can use. It isn't unheard of.
rustynails 11y ago
New Zealand copyright laws extended from 50 to 70 years with grandfather clause. While it aligns with the Mickey Mouse clause used by other countries, it goes against the original intent to benefit society as people can't extend or make use of copyright works for an extra 20 years. There is also provision to unlock DVDs purchased overseas that is still retained. I could not see provision to restrict tax free havens or to curb tax avoidance by multinational corporations.
tosseraccount 11y ago
[ edit: this apparently does not get the annexes ] For those who want to grep it ... download ... wget http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif... unzip ... unzip TPP_All-Chapters.zip convert to text ... pdftotext "0. Preamble.pdf" 0.Preamble.txt pdftotext "1. Initial Provisions and General Definitions Chapter.pdf" 1.InitialProvisionsandGeneralDefinitionsChapter.txt pdftotext "2. National Treatment and Market Access for Goods Chapter.pdf" 2.NationalTreatmentandMarketAccessforGoodsChapter.txt pdftotext "3. Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures Chapter.pdf" 3.RulesofOriginandOriginProceduresChapter.txt pdftotext "4. Textiles and Apparel Chapter.pdf" 4.TextilesandApparelChapter.txt pdftotext "5. Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation Chapter.pdf" 5.CustomsAdministrationandTradeFacilitationChapter.txt pdftotext "6. Trade Remedies Chapter.pdf" 6.TradeRemediesChapter.txt pdftotext "7. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Chapter.pdf" 7.SanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasuresChapter.txt pdftotext "8. Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter.pdf" 8.TechnicalBarrierstoTradeChapter.txt pdftotext "9. Investment Chapter.pdf" 9.InvestmentChapter.txt pdftotext "10. Cross-Border Trade in Services Chapter.pdf" 10.Cross-BorderTradeinServicesChapter.txt pdftotext "11. Financial Services Chapter.pdf" 11.FinancialServicesChapter.txt pdftotext "12. Temporary Entry for Business Persons Chapter.pdf" 12.TemporaryEntryforBusinessPersonsChapter.txt pdftotext "13. Telecommunications Chapter.pdf" 13.TelecommunicationsChapter.txt pdftotext "14. Electronic Commerce Chapter.pdf" 14.ElectronicCommerceChapter.txt pdftotext "15. Government Procurement Chapter.pdf" 15.GovernmentProcurementChapter.txt pdftotext "16. Competition Policy Chapter.pdf" 16.CompetitionPolicyChapter.txt pdftotext "17. State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies Chapter.pdf" 17.State-OwnedEnterprisesandDesignatedMonopoliesChapter.txt pdftotext "18. Intellectual Property Chapter.pdf" 18.IntellectualPropertyChapter.txt pdftotext "19. Labour Chapter.pdf" 19.LabourChapter.txt pdftotext "20. Environment Chapter.pdf" 20.EnvironmentChapter.txt pdftotext "21. Cooperation and Capacity Building Chapter.pdf" 21.CooperationandCapacityBuildingChapter.txt pdftotext "22. Competitiveness and Business Facilitation Chapter.pdf" 22.CompetitivenessandBusinessFacilitationChapter.txt pdftotext "23. Development Chapter.pdf" 23.DevelopmentChapter.txt pdftotext "24. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Chapter.pdf" 24.SmallandMedium-SizedEnterprisesChapter.txt pdftotext "25. Regulatory Coherence Chapter.pdf" 25.RegulatoryCoherenceChapter.txt pdftotext "26. Transparency and Anti-Corruption Chapter.pdf" 26.TransparencyandAnti-CorruptionChapter.txt pdftotext "27. Administrative and Institutional Provisions Chapter.pdf" 27.AdministrativeandInstitutionalProvisionsChapter.txt pdftotext "28. Dispute Settlement Chapter.pdf" 28.DisputeSettlementChapter.txt pdftotext "29. Exceptions Chapter.pdf" 29.ExceptionsChapter.txt pdftotext "30. Final Provisions Chapter.pdf" 30.FinalProvisionsChapter.txt
late2part 11y ago
You have to pass TPP to know what's in TPP.
TheCraiggers 11y ago
I'm curious- has anybody compared this official text with the leaks to see how close they were or what they may have changed in the last few weeks?
seren 11y ago
Is there a reason why the US are negotiating separately a transpacific and transatlantic trade agreement ? The fact that, except for the US, no one knows what will go in both agreement until the end of the negotiation seems pretty odd.
- TillE 11y ago
  I can see a lot of reasons for the US to negotiate a trade treaty specifically with the EU, but both treaties seem to cover a lot of the same ground. And the US has to comply with both, which presumably means that they have to be mostly identical where they do overlap. The whole thing is a bit strange.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Presumably the USA ['s most rich business owners] can get different things out of each, they'll be able to diddle the Pacific countries out of some things that wouldn't wash in Europe and vice-versa - why would they limit themselves to the benefits they could accrue from all nations. Also if they can get various regulations passed that wouldn't pass in the other region later it may be possible to push those same regulations to the other region based on standardisation.
- schnable 11y ago
  It's hard enough to get the number of parties in each of two agreements to agree on anything. Wrangling what would be the majority of the developed world into a single agreement is not feasible at this time.
- debacle 11y ago
  It's widely assumed that these trade agreements are simply pro-hegemony anti-China agreements, so in that case it makes sense for the US to try and work two different deals to get as much out of each as possible.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    China's RCEP covers similar ground as TPP, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-no-trade-agreement-could-be-worse-tpp-meet-rcep https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-... TPP allows new trade from China to the US, as automobile parts that will be counted as "Made in Japan/TPP" and qualify for reduced tariffs, http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-winners-toyota-japanese-automakers-could-still-use-mostly-2127095 http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-winners-toy...
codewithcheese 11y ago
In Soviet Russia trade agreement protects you from company. In America trade agreement protects company from you! /joke
jonawesomegreen 11y ago
Am I the only one who is constantly surprised that these treaties can be negotiated in secret?
- josephpmay 11y ago
  Can you think of any major treaty in history that has NOT been negotiated in secret?
- lumberjack 11y ago
  No. For the government to decide which local industries should be winners or losers without first consulting the public seems to me to be an abuse of its mandate. If there is a legitimate economic case for why some industries should be the winners and other the losers, (and I do think that sometimes such a case does exist), then make it public and let the public support you. Yes it will be harder to pass the treaty but that is the price we pay for an actual democracy. And in the end it will not be any more efficient to hide the negotiations as then corruption becomes a major issue.
abbabon 11y ago
Am I the only one who thought TPP stood for Twitch Plays Pokémon ? :(
- Aaronneyer 11y ago
  Haha nope, I was half expecting this to be the full text log from Twitch Plays Pokemon, and was like "Man, that's about to be one big ass text file..."
  - ahstilde 11y ago
    That would be fascinating. Plus you could recreate it.
arbitrage314 11y ago
I've heard many folks complain about TPP on the premise that it will destroy and/or degrade American jobs. I believe there is lots of truth to that--people in other countries are usually willing to work for less than Americans. Even so, TPP will help job-hungry people in other countries (at least slightly) by dumping more jobs into their job markets. So, if we're going to help Americans by ditching TPP, we're going to do so at the expense of people in other countries. Is that the right trade? Helping Americans by hurting others? Maybe it is. Or maybe I'm missing something... Thanks for your thoughts!
- deathhand 11y ago
  The concept you are referring to is called "nationalism". Jury is still out on whether it is a good thing or not. Ultimately every human should be equal but at the same time we don't want to feel the pain equality will bring.
  - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
    The problem is that equality in the working class, internationally, means wages will become lower - because textile manufacturing in China is so cheap, for example. But it wouldn't mean equality across the board - i.e. the rich / higher management / 1% having to share their wealth with the bottom 99%. Another commenter mentioned 8 billion in less expenses for the US due to lower income tax, but those savings wouldn't end up at the working class, it'd be a benefit for companies and their higher management and shareholders. Better financial results rarely / never mean higher income or conditions for employees.
- debacle 11y ago
  Your username is highly relevant here. We need to price arbitrage around standards of living and especially environmental regulation into our tariffs. Right now we aren't doing that at all, and it means that everyone suffers.
  - harryh 11y ago
    Imagine people in foreign countries made us a bunch of stuff for free. Wouldn't that be awesome for us? Why is it bad if they make us a bunch of stuff for cheap? Also, I think it's pretty clear that "everyone suffers" isn't an accurate reflection of what's going on in the world: http://bit.ly/1MBTFzC http://bit.ly/1MBTFzC
cdubzzz 11y ago
Here is the USG version including the US letter exchanges: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...
temuze 11y ago
Article 13.6: International Mobile Roaming 1. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare. That sounds... great!
- jefe_ 11y ago
  I propose the following addition: 1 (b) Seeing as consumer welfare is not limited to cross-border scenarios, the Parties shall also promote fair and reasonable telecom pricing and access in their home territories. The standard for pricing and access shall be calculated by the Parties using the following 'Lossless Commute' formula: AvgDailyCommuteTimeInMinutes * 11MB * 30DAYS * PerMBCost = .05 * AnnualFederalPovertyLevel / 12 This would allow people in the United States, with average commute times, the ability to obtain the bandwidth necessary for streaming CD Quality Music during their commute for $45 per month. The .05 of the Monthly Federal Poverty Level is set based on the current mandate requiring employers to offer healthcare with the employee contribution not exceeding .095 of the Monthly Federal Poverty Level. In 2015, if it is reasonable to believe that an individual can obtain quality health insurance coverage for ~$93 per month, it is very reasonable to believe an individual can receive 18GB of bandwidth for half of that.
- raquo 11y ago
  "shall endeavour to cooperate" means this provision will never be the reason why this happens, if it does.
andrewmutz 11y ago
I would suggest that while reading this and forming an opinion, you take all the consequences of the treaty into account. In something this large there will definitely be points that are objectionable, but that doesn't mean TPP as a whole isn't good for the parties involved. Reaching agreement between governments that span the globe and govern hundreds of millions of citizens requires a lot of horse-trading and compromise. The final agreement can still be good for the world, even if there are objectionable provisions.
- cromulent 11y ago
  The agreement is, as you say, between governments, not between the hundreds of millions of citizens they govern, and was negotiated in secret. So, as a whole, it may be good for "the parties involved", but I would suggest that it is absolutely right for any citizen to criticise any part of this they want to, as vociferously as they desire. You could equally make the opposite point: In something this large there will be points that are good, but that doesn't mean that the TPP as a whole isn't bad for the average citizen.
  - azernik 11y ago
    No treaties are negotiated between citizens, and mosttreaties are negotiated in secret. We usually don't hear see intermediate drafts of agreements until well after they've either passed or failed. This is a good thing. We want negotiators to have freedom to throw out unpopular ideas, and the only part where public scrutiny is important is the actual final text that our governments might sign.
    - raquo 11y ago
      Huge, all-encompassing all-or-nothing deals like the TPP are not good. They're merely easier to negotiate. What's the point of post-factum public scrunity if the deal can not be modified at this point? It's just a farce.
      - azernik 11y ago
brokentone 11y ago
Why is this not released to the public before it is signed by lawmakers?
- x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
  It hasn't been signed by lawmakers?
bendmorris 11y ago
In 19.1 on labour, party nations are required to "adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations" certain rights, including - "freedom of association" - "a prohibition on the worst forms of child labour" - "the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation" - "acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health." Sounds nice, but there is absolutely no guidance on what types of regulations these incredibly subjective "rights" would require, and I imagine every party will interpret them differently (and probably conclude that their existing regulations already provide all of these guarantees.)
- n0us 11y ago
  It still provides a legitimate means to hold countries accountable. For example if you were holding children in literal slavery working 100hr/wk absolutely no one would believe that this constitutes "acceptable conditions." You can only get so ridiculous with vague language before people will draw the line.
- badloginagain 11y ago
  > - "a prohibition on the worst forms of child labour" Just the worst. A little child labour, that's OK. I'd love to see the circles any lawyer would have to run to give a legal definition of the "worst" forms of child labour.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    > A little child labour, that's OK This may be an unpopular opinion, but what's wrong with child labor under proper conditions? Only 50 years ago and even today in the country side children have been working the land alongside their parents. And even though I don't agree with exploited children and this rule sounds good, there is such a thing as the sovereignty of a country, so I'm surprised that such rules made it into a trade agreement at all.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Its a first-world response. We can have all the morals we can afford.
MichaelMoser123 11y ago
We were told that the draft says that ISP's are liable for copyright violations on their network or something. Is that in the final document? Anybody knows enough legal language in order to clarify this issue? Also does the document say anything about terms/expiration of copyright? How does it treat creative commons? how does the final document compare to the leaked draft?
- chipperyman573 11y ago
  ISP copyright was addressed in this reddit post: https://reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g https://reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g >ISPs must move quickly to remove material with a copyright claim against it: >these conditions shall include a requirement for Internet Service Providers to expeditiously remove or disable access to material residing on their networks or systems upon obtaining actual knowledge of the copyright infringement >If your data/material/whatever is pulled down because of a bogus claim, you can't sue ISPs: >An Internet Service Provider that removes or disables access to material in good faith under subparagraph (a) shall be exempt from any liability for having done so >[All pulled from Chapter 18, Annex 18 E/F]
  - DarkLinkXXXX 11y ago
    Now, I must know: is automatic take down, without any checks (automated of some kind, or otherwise), considered good faith?
    - zanny 11y ago
      I'm sure the MPAA would appreciate your show of faith. Fundamentally its tiny individuals vs giant ISPs and media conglomerates. Justice matters not in such proceedings, only the amount of money you have to fight it out in court.
saint_fiasco 11y ago
>Article 14.17: No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory. Does this make GPL unenforceable, or am I reading too much into this?
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Um... the question would be what the definition of "Party" is in the agreement. If a Party is a signatory country, than it wouldn't affect the GPL. If a "Party" is just "anyone", then it might?
  - andrewpi 11y ago
    Party = country here.
    - Taniwha 11y ago
      so it might make it impossible for a court (a govt entity) from enforcing the GPL
- riskable 11y ago
  INAL but I think it has more to do with deals like where China requires the source code of certain products before they're allowed to be imported or used by the Chinese government. It doesn't read like it would prevent an individual from applying the GPL to their software but it might prevent the government from doing the same... Which would be exceptionally strange and problematic. It could mean that government agencies would be prohibited from contributing to GPL-styled open source software or even using said software since they would be required to distribute it to anyone that asks for the code.
  - azernik 11y ago
    I don't think that last interpretation would be valid; this specifically says it prohibits territorial requirements. ie if you required that all software imported to your country be GPL, that would fall under this section.
swehner 11y ago
Obviously, some economists like globalization and "levelling the playing field". However, it will probably be recognized as a fashion and fad soon enough. (How far do economists think ahead? 3 months or what?) There's value in preserving local differences. But that's not even getting into the details of these arrangements.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Globalization is a fad? Only if World War 3 takes us back to the stone age. The box has been opened and it can't be closed.
SFjulie1 11y ago
When decisions are irreversibly taken that will bind the future of citizens without their consents it has to be named by its real name: autoritarism. Technocracy boils down to aristocracy by diploma (eventually related to birth) instead of pure aristocracy. Still, the people of the nations should be the one edicting the laws. And if we mandate people to do laws in our name it is not acceptable that our consent is not sought by debating. Modern so called democracies are only democracies by name in this case. I might not the only one thinking that governments are losing their legitimacy. I am apt for being called under the flag and in case my government call me to defend their values/regim... I will not. The social contract has been broken between modern governments and citizens. The social contract does not bind me anymore since the other party is not respecting the term of the contract.
walterbell 11y ago
EFF has published their initial analysis of the final text, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/release-full-tpp-text-after-five-years-secrecy-confirms-threats-users-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/release-full-tpp-text-... "The most shocking revelation from today’s release is how the TPP's Investment chapter defines "intellectual property" as an asset that can be subject to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process. What this means is that companies could sue any of the TPP nations for introducing rules that they allege harm their right to exploit their copyright interests—such as new rights to use copyrighted works for some public interest purpose. A good example of this might be a country wishing to limit civil penalties for copyright infringement of orphan works ... ... the E-Commerce chapter has the next most serious ramifications for users ... it restricts the use of data localization laws, which are laws that require companies to host servers within a country’s borders, or prohibit them from transferring certain data overseas ... The E-Commerce chapter ... imposes a strict test that such measures must not amount to “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade”—a test that would be applied by an investment court, not by a data protection authority or human rights tribunal." EFF wrote previously about conflict between TPP and US Copyright Office efforts to improve the situation with Orphan Works, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/users-ustr-dont-sign-away-our-ability-fix-orphan-works-problem https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/users-ustr-dont-sign-a..., "... the Register of Copyrights acknowledges a need to do something about the fact that "orphan works are a frustration, a liability risk, and a major cause of gridlock in the digital marketplace." The report includes a discussion of several proposals that could expand access to orphan works. One proposal is to put limits on the legal consequences for those who do anything technically infringing, in order to make it less daunting to take a chance and use them."
jsprogrammer 11y ago
Great start! >Article 1.1: Establishment of a Free Trade Area The Parties to this Agreement, consistent with Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS, hereby establish a free trade area in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Begin with a bunch of undefined acronyms that apparently pull in tons of other shit not written down in this paper. E: mmm, that delicious taste of downmods in the morning
shmerl 11y ago
So, when exactly is the critical vote for this garbage?
dthal 11y ago
How are people who are starting from zero on this supposed to understand it in 60 days? This disclosure only a little more than a transparency fig leaf.
- azernik 11y ago
  By the usual means that complicated issues are explained to the public - professional journalists poring over it for clauses of public concern. How many people actually read through the ACA, or the myriad budgets and semi-budgets passed in the US over the past decade with much even shorter public-disclosure periods than this?
  - dthal 11y ago
    The ACA wasn't negotiated in secret. Budgets are normally continuing resolutions; they only negotiate the delta from previous years, which is usually small. And again, budget negotiations don't involve years of secret negotiations.
    - azernik 11y ago
      I'm sorry, continuing resolutions are now our ideal? And even then, the full process is on a similar timescale to just the public disclosure period of this treaty. Same with respect to full budgets - they're long, they're complicated, but the period during which they're publicly available is on a similar timescale to this 60-day period.
      - dthal 11y ago
        >>I'm sorry, continuing resolutions are now our ideal? I did not say that continuing resolutions are an ideal. My point was that although budgets are complex, only a relative small part of them changes from one cycle to the next. People don't have to digest the whole budget, because they already know what was in it before. They only have to understand the changes.
ryall 11y ago
I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords
- zanny 11y ago
  New? They have been around for several centuries now. Its just a see-saw of personal liberty and corporate control, and we are very much rapidly descending upon their side of the swing now.
mikeyouse 11y ago
The White House published the full thing as well, along with descriptions and summaries of each section: https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership

755 points by cdubzzz 11y ago

Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g/full_text_of_the_tpp_has_just_been_released/ https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g/full_text...

unprepare 11y ago

I suspect it will take a while for all of this text to be digested and for people much smarter than me to find a lot of nasty stuff in there. Meanwhile, I found the New Zealand and US side letter amusing: >To the extent contemplated in the Code, New Zealand shall not permit the sale of any product as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey, unless it has been manufactured in the United States according to the laws of the United States governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey and the product complies with all applicable regulations of the United States for the sale or export as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey. I assume this must be quite prevalent in New Zealand if they wrote a letter specific to this one issue. I didn't see a similar letter with France regarding cognac or champagne.

ranit 11y ago
France is not part of TPP.
- melvinmt 11y ago
  France is part of TTIP negotiations which probably will cover the same stipulations.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pmelendez 11y ago
<jokingly tone> The most amusing part to me is the glorification of Bourbon and Tennessee Whiskey. IMO, They don't stand a chance in front a good Scotch or even a Rye. </jokingly tone>
- corin_ 11y ago
  I know this is purely subjective, but personally I genuinely haven't found a bourbon I like, while I love plenty of single malts (not just from Scotland but also Irish/Japanese). Maybe someday that'll change for me or maybe I'm just destined to not be a fan of Bourbons - I have plenty of friends who love them. Haven't tried Tennessee. (But as a Brit I completely approve of your joking, too)
  - freehunter 11y ago
    It's a different flavor. Sweet, instead of smoky. It's completely okay in my opinion to like scotch and not bourbon, or the other way around. I like scotch, but I prefer bourbon. The smoky flavor turns me off a bit. Everyone has a personal choice, but I'm of the opinion that if you don't like Maker's Mark, you probably won't like bourbon.
    - GordonS 11y ago
      Only Islay malts are typically smokey, and it is certainly an acquired taste. Malts from other regions of Scotland vary a lot, and as a point of interest, many are matured in bourbon casks because it imparts sweet notes.
      - br3w5 11y ago
        I tried an Islay malt recently (https://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/caol-ila-12-year-old-whisky/ https://www.masterofmalt.com/whiskies/caol-ila-12-year-old-w...) that was matured in bourbon casks which softened the smoky flavour somewhat - very nice
        GordonS 11y ago
        Caol Ila is probably the 'lightest' of all the peaty Islay malts (from memory, I think it proclaims this on the bottle too).
        11y ago
cryoshon 11y ago
This is the clause demanded by some of the alcoholic beverage manufacturers, which is to say they paid for that specific clause to be implemented even though it has no real global benefit and may harm smaller local groups in NZ producing similar goods. This should not be seen as a surprise to anyone.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  What problem is it going to cause NZ locals? Why would they want to brand their whiskey as Tennessee whiskey or Bourbon? Bourbon is widely recognized as a US whiskey, probably from Kentucky, using that name for something made in NZ is more likely to piss customers off than anything else (Tennessee whiskey has a somewhat more obvious geographic meaning).
  - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
    When teenagers here drink cheap liquor, they might drink 'bourbon' or a 'bourbon and coke' - anything they can get for less than $20. Accordingly, there are a number of brands targeted at that market, and I would not be surprised if some of them have nothing do with the US original.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using it as a brand. But I'm pretty skeptical that those teenagers care that their cheap whiskey be called Bourbon.
      - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
        Its worse than that. I remember being surprised when I got older and found out that Bourbon is the same thing as Whiskey. The common conception was that they were distinct drinks, and that Whiskey was too expensive.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    I agree for Tennessee whiskey, which is clearly tied to production in Tennessee. But "bourbon" is increasingly seen as a just style of barrel-aged corn-mash whiskey. It's already in the process of losing its geographical specificity within the U.S., with producers in places like California and Illinois [1]. Once you have California whiskey producers making bourbon, it's not that big a stretch to imagine that one of the Japanese whiskey companies might want to come out with a bourbon. I think it would be more principled to either let anyone produce it (subject to style requirements), or to geographically restrict it to only the vicinity of Kentucky. But the U.S.'s position seems to be to want to make it a specifically American brand, but otherwise not regionally restricted. Which I understand the trade motivations for, but honestly I don't see bourbon from Tokyo as any less authentic than bourbon from San Francisco, assuming it's made correctly. [1] http://www.nonkentuckybourbon.com/non-kentucky-bourbon-list http://www.nonkentuckybourbon.com/non-kentucky-bourbon-list
atwebb 11y ago
I believe NZ allows legal home-distilling, maybe it's related to that? Similar to home brewers making Belgian beers by using the correct yeast and methods, people could be mini-batching TN/KY bourbon & whiskey using the style and methods.
- adrianmacneil 11y ago
  We allow distilling, but only for personal use (you can't legally sell it), so I doubt this is related.
ekidd 11y ago
There's a way of thinking about things like "Tennessee Whiskey" and "champagne" that makes good business sense: They're basically shared regional brands. In Europe, many traditional kinds of cheese, alcohol and meat are covered by a system known in various countries as AOC (France, Appellation d'origine contrôlée) or DOC (Italy, Denominazione di origine controllata). Conceptually speaking, the idea goes something like: 1. Large-scale producers can always just create a trademark and market it. Customers will be able to recognize the product and evaluate it based on its reputation. 2. Small-scale producers, however, lack the reach to advertise and be recognized on their own. But what if they're making a traditional, high-end product for which their region is famous? Well, we could set up a shared "brand", where anybody from the right region can agree to follow traditional recipes and have their quality judged. And eventually, customers will realize that Parmigiano-Reggiano means "a certain kind of really good traditional Parmesan cheese from Italy." Under this system, the right way to think of things like "champagne" and "Tennessee Whiskey" is to treat them as a particular kind of brand. Any company can sell products under this brand, provided (a) they come from the right region, and (b) they meet a certain set of quality standards. The system of AOC/DOC seems to work well for both "foodie" customers (who want to be able to recognize a high-quality traditional product), and small- to mid-size producers (who get to pool their branding efforts). The only cost of this system is that names like "Tennessee Whiskey" essentially become international trademarks under the control of a regional organization.
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  The only problem with that is that there might be producers outside these regions who produce better quality products, these producers will be penalized for not being able to use the actual product name and may give up on it, leaving the market worse off, with lower quality products. The other problem is that producers who benefit from the regional brand name have very little reason to improve or even maintain the quality of their product as they have a monopoly on it.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    That's probably true given it already happens with brand names in general.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
My home state doesn't play around about their Whiskey. The best stuff isn't for export, though: homebrewed as moonshine, mixed with custom recipes, and distributed to family and friends. Jack n Coke is still a favorite drink.
marcoperaza 11y ago
France has a deal with the US and other countries that protects the name "champagne". In the US, you can't call your sparkling white wine "champagne" unless A) it's from Champagne, France, or B) you were selling it under the same label before 2006.
snowwrestler 11y ago
> I didn't see a similar letter with France regarding cognac or champagne. France is not a signatory to the TPP, so you wouldn't.
rosege 11y ago
Where do I start the rum thread? specifically spiced rum...yum!
jmaygarden 11y ago
NAFTA contains language that strictly defines bourbon as well.

walterbell 11y ago

Zip file download (with all annexes) seems to be broken. Chapters + annexes are available as dozens of individual files. Zip file mirror needed.

voltagex_ 11y ago
http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/T...
cuonic 11y ago
It's linking to their internal dev site (http://dev.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip http://dev.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif...), they forgot to update the link, just remove the dev and you're in: http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/T...
toomuchtodo 11y ago
I've dropped it into the Internet Archive.

BillFranklin 11y ago

> 2. No Party shall require a covered person to use or locate computing facilities in that Party’s territory as a condition for conducting business in that territory. No Russian server situations http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/14.%20Electronic%20Commerce%20Chapter.pdf http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif...

walterbell 11y ago
National data sovereignty would be restricted by TPP, if enacted into law, http://www.zdnet.com/article/tpp-moves-toward-killing-off-government-mandated-data-sovereignty/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/tpp-moves-toward-killing-off-go... & https://blog.ffii.org/a-license-to-spy-cross-border-data-flows-in-ttip/ https://blog.ffii.org/a-license-to-spy-cross-border-data-flo... "Governments ... will be unable to force companies from those countries to store government data in local datacentres ... governments will not only be prevented from mandating data sovereignty provision, they will also be unable to demand access to source code from companies incorporated in TPP territories."
- MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
  Wow. So this would mean that it is illegal to even require something like a safe haven for your own data?
  - walterbell 11y ago
    TPP is an agreement between governments and corporations. Corporations could make individual agreements with their supplier corporations, where they could impose privacy conditions for data storage and jurisdiction. But this would be difficult for small businesses to negotiate. In Europe, the proposed TISA trade treaty text on data sovereignty is in conflict with EU law, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/09013129465/new-tisa-leak-us-collision-course-with-eu-over-global-data-flows.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/09013129465/new-t... "For the European Union, that's a hugely sensitive issue. Under data protection laws there, personal data cannot be sent outside the EU unless companies sign up to the self-certification scheme known as the Safe Harbor framework. TISA Article X.4: Movement of Information No Party may prevent a service supplier of another Party from transferring, accessing, processing or storing information, including personal information, within or outside the Party's territory, where such activity is carried out in connection with the conduct of the service supplier's business." http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/dont-forget-big-data-ttip-and-tisa-314487 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/dont-forget-big..., "It is one thing to have free data flows in the EU, where our own institutions make the rules for data protection and we can develop our technological sovereignty, but quite another to have free data flows across the Atlantic without adequate US rules for the treatment of European data ... Data about our condition and behaviour are assets ... they constitute a new asset class, which Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance assets.”

walterbell 11y ago

From the "Legal and Institutional" section, http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Legal-and-Institutional.pdf http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Legal-... Any Party may withdraw from TPP by providing six months notice of withdrawal. How many ISDS lawsuits (http://isdscorporateattacks.org http://isdscorporateattacks.org) and World Bank fines (https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU) would it take for a country to withdraw from TPP?

giltleaf 11y ago
Depends on how successful (ie valuable to the participants) the trade agreement is.

voltagex_ 11y ago

Oh boy, they should have stripped metadata from those PDFs.

teekert 11y ago
What did you find? Or what can be in it?
- fukusa 11y ago
  Author: GRIFFIN, Richard (LGL/TLU) is all I could find.
wmt 11y ago
Maybe the file was stolen from phewitso:s computer? Or someone who actually knew what they were doing and adjusted the metadata.
BillFranklin 11y ago
What did you find? There's nothing that interesting that I could see. 8.\ Technical\ Barriers\ to\ Trade\ Chapter.pdf Title: TTP TBT Chapter Text - Jan 2015 Author: LESLIE, Susannah (TND) Creator: Acrobat PDFMaker 11 for Word Producer: Adobe PDF Library 11.0 CreationDate: Wed Nov 4 19:59:17 2015 ModDate: Wed Nov 4 19:59:40 2015 Tagged: yes Form: none Pages: 38 Encrypted: no Page size: 595.32 x 841.92 pts (A4) (rotated 0 degrees) File size: 201868 bytes Optimized: yes PDF version: 1.5 13.\ Telecommunications\ Chapter.pdf Title: Legal Scrub Telecommunications NZ Review Subject: Keywords: Author: Creator: Acrobat PDFMaker 11 for Word Producer: Adobe PDF Library 11.0 CreationDate: Wed Nov 4 20:02:38 2015 ModDate: Wed Nov 4 20:02:54 2015 Tagged: yes Form: none Pages: 22 Encrypted: no Page size: 612 x 792 pts (letter) (rotated 0 degrees) File size: 127798 bytes Optimized: yes PDF version: 1.5
late2part 11y ago
using pdftk, I see little more than author's name, chapter/bookmark titles, and dates. Anything else in there?

mbrock 11y ago

I wonder if there are any systems for defining these things in a more explorable format, because I don't particularly enjoy reading legalese. assert> forbid(anyone-in(nz), sale(illegitimately-labelled-product("Bourbon Whiskey")) query> prohibitions-for(anyone-in(nz)) Or something. Semi-logical legal code.

bru 11y ago
Prolog seems like a good fit for that. Any PhD student wants to publish a paper on a Prolog translation of the TPP? :-)
- arethuza 11y ago
  Here is a paper describing a "port" of the UK Nationality Act to Prolog: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~sok/papers/s/p370-sergot.pdf http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~sok/papers/s/p370-sergot.pdf
  - mbrock 11y ago
    That's exactly what I was fishing for. Thanks.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      My wife is a commercial litigation lawyer and I've always wondered about the similarities between legislation, contracts and code.
      - mbrock 11y ago
        Cool. Do you know about the paper on "composable contracts" that defines financial contracts (derivatives, etc) in terms of functional combinators? It's pretty cool. They're able to define automatic Black-Scholes valuations for complex derivatives, and stuff. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Papers/financial-contracts/contracts-icfp.htm http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Papers...

lighthawk 11y ago

According to 18.37.3 and 4, microorganisms cannot be excluded from patentability. I assume this is to allow patenting of things like probiotics. However, all humans rely their skin, mouth, and gut floras to be healthy. If the bacteria and yeast in that flora can't be excluded from patentability, are they considered not a part of the human animal? I understand that probiotics should be protected, but I wonder if someone could take advantage of this and claim patent on any naturally occurring microorganism by just isolating it and showing that it has some use. Something else not specified in this section are viruses. Viruses are not strictly microorganisms, and no mention is made of them, but yet they can be manufactured and used for treatments- recently even for cancer: http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/department-molecular-medicine/harnessing-viruses-treat-cancer http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/departmen... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/fda-approval-imlygic-cancer-hunting-viral-treatment http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/fda-approval-... If viruses could be excluded from patentability since they aren't mentioned, then any research or manufacturing done would not be patentable, and therefore some companies may hesitate to invest too heavily in research.

aroch 11y ago
I think the spirit of this to allow for drastically modified yeast that produce, say, anti-cancer drug X to be patented. To make the biological equivalent of an industrial methods patent. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to protect your IP even though significant effort has gone into creating a chimeric yeast, because its just a collection of natural products (natural product's are currently not patentable). Still, seems a little odd / slippery slope-y to me. On the one hand, I understand and, to some extent, agree with the need to protect / profit off what you've developed. On the otherhand, USPTO is pretty bad at biological patent screening and I can see a huge landrush to patent bacteria for no good reason. (Full disclosure, I am in the process of patenting a modified natural product made by a bacteria)
- david-given 11y ago
  I've never understood why people patent organisms. That's not an ethical thing --- I understand why people want IP protection. It just seems like the wrong mechanism. Isn't the goal of restricting copying of your engineered organism better suited to the copyright system, rather than the patent system? Patents are for processes, right? But an organism is a thing, not a process. Isn't making an illegal copy of that thing a copyright violation?

belorn 11y ago

I see that they are retaining the paragraph that leads several countries to join Russia in burning and bulldozing food and other commodities, if and when trade mark infringed.

walterbell 11y ago

Note the ex officio statement in the IP chapter: even if a copyright holder does not want to initiate border measures (e.g. destroy fanzines), this can be enforced by governments, http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/18.%20Intellectual%20Property%20Chapter.pdf http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif.... In 2013, Japanese lawyers warned about the fair use implications, http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzine-environment.html http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzin... & http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/IP_Theory_13/Papers2Discuss/Kaneko_Japanese_fair_use.htm http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/IP_Theor... Article 18.76: Special Requirements related to Border Measures 5. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities may initiate border measures ex officio [118] with respect to goods under customs control that are: (a) imported; (b) destined for export; (c) in transit, and that are suspected of being counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods. [118] For greater certainty, ex officio action does not require a formal complaint from a third party or right holder.

Natanael_L 11y ago
> For greater certainty of abuse FTFY And are there any accountability or requirements for being familiar with the thing it is claimed to infringe? Should everything have to carry copyright notice signed by all copyright holders?
verandaguy 11y ago
For greater certainty, ex officio action does not require a formal complaint from a third party or right holder I wonder if it's possible for a "third party or right holder" to explicitly state that they don't wish to start border measures.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  They could just grant the fan site a license. Or had a broad license that fan materials can use. It isn't unheard of.

rustynails 11y ago

New Zealand copyright laws extended from 50 to 70 years with grandfather clause. While it aligns with the Mickey Mouse clause used by other countries, it goes against the original intent to benefit society as people can't extend or make use of copyright works for an extra 20 years. There is also provision to unlock DVDs purchased overseas that is still retained. I could not see provision to restrict tax free havens or to curb tax avoidance by multinational corporations.

tosseraccount 11y ago

[ edit: this apparently does not get the annexes ] For those who want to grep it ... download ... wget http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif... unzip ... unzip TPP_All-Chapters.zip convert to text ... pdftotext "0. Preamble.pdf" 0.Preamble.txt pdftotext "1. Initial Provisions and General Definitions Chapter.pdf" 1.InitialProvisionsandGeneralDefinitionsChapter.txt pdftotext "2. National Treatment and Market Access for Goods Chapter.pdf" 2.NationalTreatmentandMarketAccessforGoodsChapter.txt pdftotext "3. Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures Chapter.pdf" 3.RulesofOriginandOriginProceduresChapter.txt pdftotext "4. Textiles and Apparel Chapter.pdf" 4.TextilesandApparelChapter.txt pdftotext "5. Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation Chapter.pdf" 5.CustomsAdministrationandTradeFacilitationChapter.txt pdftotext "6. Trade Remedies Chapter.pdf" 6.TradeRemediesChapter.txt pdftotext "7. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Chapter.pdf" 7.SanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasuresChapter.txt pdftotext "8. Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter.pdf" 8.TechnicalBarrierstoTradeChapter.txt pdftotext "9. Investment Chapter.pdf" 9.InvestmentChapter.txt pdftotext "10. Cross-Border Trade in Services Chapter.pdf" 10.Cross-BorderTradeinServicesChapter.txt pdftotext "11. Financial Services Chapter.pdf" 11.FinancialServicesChapter.txt pdftotext "12. Temporary Entry for Business Persons Chapter.pdf" 12.TemporaryEntryforBusinessPersonsChapter.txt pdftotext "13. Telecommunications Chapter.pdf" 13.TelecommunicationsChapter.txt pdftotext "14. Electronic Commerce Chapter.pdf" 14.ElectronicCommerceChapter.txt pdftotext "15. Government Procurement Chapter.pdf" 15.GovernmentProcurementChapter.txt pdftotext "16. Competition Policy Chapter.pdf" 16.CompetitionPolicyChapter.txt pdftotext "17. State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies Chapter.pdf" 17.State-OwnedEnterprisesandDesignatedMonopoliesChapter.txt pdftotext "18. Intellectual Property Chapter.pdf" 18.IntellectualPropertyChapter.txt pdftotext "19. Labour Chapter.pdf" 19.LabourChapter.txt pdftotext "20. Environment Chapter.pdf" 20.EnvironmentChapter.txt pdftotext "21. Cooperation and Capacity Building Chapter.pdf" 21.CooperationandCapacityBuildingChapter.txt pdftotext "22. Competitiveness and Business Facilitation Chapter.pdf" 22.CompetitivenessandBusinessFacilitationChapter.txt pdftotext "23. Development Chapter.pdf" 23.DevelopmentChapter.txt pdftotext "24. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Chapter.pdf" 24.SmallandMedium-SizedEnterprisesChapter.txt pdftotext "25. Regulatory Coherence Chapter.pdf" 25.RegulatoryCoherenceChapter.txt pdftotext "26. Transparency and Anti-Corruption Chapter.pdf" 26.TransparencyandAnti-CorruptionChapter.txt pdftotext "27. Administrative and Institutional Provisions Chapter.pdf" 27.AdministrativeandInstitutionalProvisionsChapter.txt pdftotext "28. Dispute Settlement Chapter.pdf" 28.DisputeSettlementChapter.txt pdftotext "29. Exceptions Chapter.pdf" 29.ExceptionsChapter.txt pdftotext "30. Final Provisions Chapter.pdf" 30.FinalProvisionsChapter.txt

late2part 11y ago

You have to pass TPP to know what's in TPP.

TheCraiggers 11y ago

I'm curious- has anybody compared this official text with the leaks to see how close they were or what they may have changed in the last few weeks?

seren 11y ago

Is there a reason why the US are negotiating separately a transpacific and transatlantic trade agreement ? The fact that, except for the US, no one knows what will go in both agreement until the end of the negotiation seems pretty odd.

TillE 11y ago
I can see a lot of reasons for the US to negotiate a trade treaty specifically with the EU, but both treaties seem to cover a lot of the same ground. And the US has to comply with both, which presumably means that they have to be mostly identical where they do overlap. The whole thing is a bit strange.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  Presumably the USA ['s most rich business owners] can get different things out of each, they'll be able to diddle the Pacific countries out of some things that wouldn't wash in Europe and vice-versa - why would they limit themselves to the benefits they could accrue from all nations. Also if they can get various regulations passed that wouldn't pass in the other region later it may be possible to push those same regulations to the other region based on standardisation.
schnable 11y ago
It's hard enough to get the number of parties in each of two agreements to agree on anything. Wrangling what would be the majority of the developed world into a single agreement is not feasible at this time.
debacle 11y ago
It's widely assumed that these trade agreements are simply pro-hegemony anti-China agreements, so in that case it makes sense for the US to try and work two different deals to get as much out of each as possible.
- walterbell 11y ago
  China's RCEP covers similar ground as TPP, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-no-trade-agreement-could-be-worse-tpp-meet-rcep https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/just-when-you-thought-... TPP allows new trade from China to the US, as automobile parts that will be counted as "Made in Japan/TPP" and qualify for reduced tariffs, http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-winners-toyota-japanese-automakers-could-still-use-mostly-2127095 http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-winners-toy...

codewithcheese 11y ago

In Soviet Russia trade agreement protects you from company. In America trade agreement protects company from you! /joke

jonawesomegreen 11y ago

Am I the only one who is constantly surprised that these treaties can be negotiated in secret?

josephpmay 11y ago
Can you think of any major treaty in history that has NOT been negotiated in secret?
lumberjack 11y ago
No. For the government to decide which local industries should be winners or losers without first consulting the public seems to me to be an abuse of its mandate. If there is a legitimate economic case for why some industries should be the winners and other the losers, (and I do think that sometimes such a case does exist), then make it public and let the public support you. Yes it will be harder to pass the treaty but that is the price we pay for an actual democracy. And in the end it will not be any more efficient to hide the negotiations as then corruption becomes a major issue.

abbabon 11y ago

Am I the only one who thought TPP stood for Twitch Plays Pokémon ? :(

Aaronneyer 11y ago
Haha nope, I was half expecting this to be the full text log from Twitch Plays Pokemon, and was like "Man, that's about to be one big ass text file..."
- ahstilde 11y ago
  That would be fascinating. Plus you could recreate it.

arbitrage314 11y ago

I've heard many folks complain about TPP on the premise that it will destroy and/or degrade American jobs. I believe there is lots of truth to that--people in other countries are usually willing to work for less than Americans. Even so, TPP will help job-hungry people in other countries (at least slightly) by dumping more jobs into their job markets. So, if we're going to help Americans by ditching TPP, we're going to do so at the expense of people in other countries. Is that the right trade? Helping Americans by hurting others? Maybe it is. Or maybe I'm missing something... Thanks for your thoughts!

deathhand 11y ago
The concept you are referring to is called "nationalism". Jury is still out on whether it is a good thing or not. Ultimately every human should be equal but at the same time we don't want to feel the pain equality will bring.
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  The problem is that equality in the working class, internationally, means wages will become lower - because textile manufacturing in China is so cheap, for example. But it wouldn't mean equality across the board - i.e. the rich / higher management / 1% having to share their wealth with the bottom 99%. Another commenter mentioned 8 billion in less expenses for the US due to lower income tax, but those savings wouldn't end up at the working class, it'd be a benefit for companies and their higher management and shareholders. Better financial results rarely / never mean higher income or conditions for employees.
debacle 11y ago
Your username is highly relevant here. We need to price arbitrage around standards of living and especially environmental regulation into our tariffs. Right now we aren't doing that at all, and it means that everyone suffers.
- harryh 11y ago
  Imagine people in foreign countries made us a bunch of stuff for free. Wouldn't that be awesome for us? Why is it bad if they make us a bunch of stuff for cheap? Also, I think it's pretty clear that "everyone suffers" isn't an accurate reflection of what's going on in the world: http://bit.ly/1MBTFzC http://bit.ly/1MBTFzC

cdubzzz 11y ago

Here is the USG version including the US letter exchanges: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

temuze 11y ago

Article 13.6: International Mobile Roaming 1. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare. That sounds... great!

jefe_ 11y ago
I propose the following addition: 1 (b) Seeing as consumer welfare is not limited to cross-border scenarios, the Parties shall also promote fair and reasonable telecom pricing and access in their home territories. The standard for pricing and access shall be calculated by the Parties using the following 'Lossless Commute' formula: AvgDailyCommuteTimeInMinutes * 11MB * 30DAYS * PerMBCost = .05 * AnnualFederalPovertyLevel / 12 This would allow people in the United States, with average commute times, the ability to obtain the bandwidth necessary for streaming CD Quality Music during their commute for $45 per month. The .05 of the Monthly Federal Poverty Level is set based on the current mandate requiring employers to offer healthcare with the employee contribution not exceeding .095 of the Monthly Federal Poverty Level. In 2015, if it is reasonable to believe that an individual can obtain quality health insurance coverage for ~$93 per month, it is very reasonable to believe an individual can receive 18GB of bandwidth for half of that.
raquo 11y ago
"shall endeavour to cooperate" means this provision will never be the reason why this happens, if it does.

andrewmutz 11y ago

I would suggest that while reading this and forming an opinion, you take all the consequences of the treaty into account. In something this large there will definitely be points that are objectionable, but that doesn't mean TPP as a whole isn't good for the parties involved. Reaching agreement between governments that span the globe and govern hundreds of millions of citizens requires a lot of horse-trading and compromise. The final agreement can still be good for the world, even if there are objectionable provisions.

cromulent 11y ago
The agreement is, as you say, between governments, not between the hundreds of millions of citizens they govern, and was negotiated in secret. So, as a whole, it may be good for "the parties involved", but I would suggest that it is absolutely right for any citizen to criticise any part of this they want to, as vociferously as they desire. You could equally make the opposite point: In something this large there will be points that are good, but that doesn't mean that the TPP as a whole isn't bad for the average citizen.
- azernik 11y ago
  No treaties are negotiated between citizens, and mosttreaties are negotiated in secret. We usually don't hear see intermediate drafts of agreements until well after they've either passed or failed. This is a good thing. We want negotiators to have freedom to throw out unpopular ideas, and the only part where public scrutiny is important is the actual final text that our governments might sign.
  - raquo 11y ago
    Huge, all-encompassing all-or-nothing deals like the TPP are not good. They're merely easier to negotiate. What's the point of post-factum public scrunity if the deal can not be modified at this point? It's just a farce.
    - azernik 11y ago

brokentone 11y ago

Why is this not released to the public before it is signed by lawmakers?

x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
It hasn't been signed by lawmakers?

bendmorris 11y ago

In 19.1 on labour, party nations are required to "adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations" certain rights, including - "freedom of association" - "a prohibition on the worst forms of child labour" - "the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation" - "acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health." Sounds nice, but there is absolutely no guidance on what types of regulations these incredibly subjective "rights" would require, and I imagine every party will interpret them differently (and probably conclude that their existing regulations already provide all of these guarantees.)

n0us 11y ago
It still provides a legitimate means to hold countries accountable. For example if you were holding children in literal slavery working 100hr/wk absolutely no one would believe that this constitutes "acceptable conditions." You can only get so ridiculous with vague language before people will draw the line.
badloginagain 11y ago
> - "a prohibition on the worst forms of child labour" Just the worst. A little child labour, that's OK. I'd love to see the circles any lawyer would have to run to give a legal definition of the "worst" forms of child labour.
- bad_user 11y ago
  > A little child labour, that's OK This may be an unpopular opinion, but what's wrong with child labor under proper conditions? Only 50 years ago and even today in the country side children have been working the land alongside their parents. And even though I don't agree with exploited children and this rule sounds good, there is such a thing as the sovereignty of a country, so I'm surprised that such rules made it into a trade agreement at all.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Its a first-world response. We can have all the morals we can afford.

MichaelMoser123 11y ago

We were told that the draft says that ISP's are liable for copyright violations on their network or something. Is that in the final document? Anybody knows enough legal language in order to clarify this issue? Also does the document say anything about terms/expiration of copyright? How does it treat creative commons? how does the final document compare to the leaked draft?

chipperyman573 11y ago
ISP copyright was addressed in this reddit post: https://reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g https://reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3rlu3g >ISPs must move quickly to remove material with a copyright claim against it: >these conditions shall include a requirement for Internet Service Providers to expeditiously remove or disable access to material residing on their networks or systems upon obtaining actual knowledge of the copyright infringement >If your data/material/whatever is pulled down because of a bogus claim, you can't sue ISPs: >An Internet Service Provider that removes or disables access to material in good faith under subparagraph (a) shall be exempt from any liability for having done so >[All pulled from Chapter 18, Annex 18 E/F]
- DarkLinkXXXX 11y ago
  Now, I must know: is automatic take down, without any checks (automated of some kind, or otherwise), considered good faith?
  - zanny 11y ago
    I'm sure the MPAA would appreciate your show of faith. Fundamentally its tiny individuals vs giant ISPs and media conglomerates. Justice matters not in such proceedings, only the amount of money you have to fight it out in court.

saint_fiasco 11y ago

>Article 14.17: No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory. Does this make GPL unenforceable, or am I reading too much into this?

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
Um... the question would be what the definition of "Party" is in the agreement. If a Party is a signatory country, than it wouldn't affect the GPL. If a "Party" is just "anyone", then it might?
- andrewpi 11y ago
  Party = country here.
  - Taniwha 11y ago
    so it might make it impossible for a court (a govt entity) from enforcing the GPL
riskable 11y ago
INAL but I think it has more to do with deals like where China requires the source code of certain products before they're allowed to be imported or used by the Chinese government. It doesn't read like it would prevent an individual from applying the GPL to their software but it might prevent the government from doing the same... Which would be exceptionally strange and problematic. It could mean that government agencies would be prohibited from contributing to GPL-styled open source software or even using said software since they would be required to distribute it to anyone that asks for the code.
- azernik 11y ago
  I don't think that last interpretation would be valid; this specifically says it prohibits territorial requirements. ie if you required that all software imported to your country be GPL, that would fall under this section.

swehner 11y ago

Obviously, some economists like globalization and "levelling the playing field". However, it will probably be recognized as a fashion and fad soon enough. (How far do economists think ahead? 3 months or what?) There's value in preserving local differences. But that's not even getting into the details of these arrangements.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Globalization is a fad? Only if World War 3 takes us back to the stone age. The box has been opened and it can't be closed.

SFjulie1 11y ago

When decisions are irreversibly taken that will bind the future of citizens without their consents it has to be named by its real name: autoritarism. Technocracy boils down to aristocracy by diploma (eventually related to birth) instead of pure aristocracy. Still, the people of the nations should be the one edicting the laws. And if we mandate people to do laws in our name it is not acceptable that our consent is not sought by debating. Modern so called democracies are only democracies by name in this case. I might not the only one thinking that governments are losing their legitimacy. I am apt for being called under the flag and in case my government call me to defend their values/regim... I will not. The social contract has been broken between modern governments and citizens. The social contract does not bind me anymore since the other party is not respecting the term of the contract.

walterbell 11y ago

EFF has published their initial analysis of the final text, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/release-full-tpp-text-after-five-years-secrecy-confirms-threats-users-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/release-full-tpp-text-... "The most shocking revelation from today’s release is how the TPP's Investment chapter defines "intellectual property" as an asset that can be subject to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process. What this means is that companies could sue any of the TPP nations for introducing rules that they allege harm their right to exploit their copyright interests—such as new rights to use copyrighted works for some public interest purpose. A good example of this might be a country wishing to limit civil penalties for copyright infringement of orphan works ... ... the E-Commerce chapter has the next most serious ramifications for users ... it restricts the use of data localization laws, which are laws that require companies to host servers within a country’s borders, or prohibit them from transferring certain data overseas ... The E-Commerce chapter ... imposes a strict test that such measures must not amount to “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade”—a test that would be applied by an investment court, not by a data protection authority or human rights tribunal." EFF wrote previously about conflict between TPP and US Copyright Office efforts to improve the situation with Orphan Works, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/users-ustr-dont-sign-away-our-ability-fix-orphan-works-problem https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/users-ustr-dont-sign-a..., "... the Register of Copyrights acknowledges a need to do something about the fact that "orphan works are a frustration, a liability risk, and a major cause of gridlock in the digital marketplace." The report includes a discussion of several proposals that could expand access to orphan works. One proposal is to put limits on the legal consequences for those who do anything technically infringing, in order to make it less daunting to take a chance and use them."

jsprogrammer 11y ago

Great start! >Article 1.1: Establishment of a Free Trade Area The Parties to this Agreement, consistent with Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS, hereby establish a free trade area in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Begin with a bunch of undefined acronyms that apparently pull in tons of other shit not written down in this paper. E: mmm, that delicious taste of downmods in the morning

shmerl 11y ago

So, when exactly is the critical vote for this garbage?

dthal 11y ago

How are people who are starting from zero on this supposed to understand it in 60 days? This disclosure only a little more than a transparency fig leaf.

azernik 11y ago
By the usual means that complicated issues are explained to the public - professional journalists poring over it for clauses of public concern. How many people actually read through the ACA, or the myriad budgets and semi-budgets passed in the US over the past decade with much even shorter public-disclosure periods than this?
- dthal 11y ago
  The ACA wasn't negotiated in secret. Budgets are normally continuing resolutions; they only negotiate the delta from previous years, which is usually small. And again, budget negotiations don't involve years of secret negotiations.
  - azernik 11y ago
    I'm sorry, continuing resolutions are now our ideal? And even then, the full process is on a similar timescale to just the public disclosure period of this treaty. Same with respect to full budgets - they're long, they're complicated, but the period during which they're publicly available is on a similar timescale to this 60-day period.
    - dthal 11y ago
      >>I'm sorry, continuing resolutions are now our ideal? I did not say that continuing resolutions are an ideal. My point was that although budgets are complex, only a relative small part of them changes from one cycle to the next. People don't have to digest the whole budget, because they already know what was in it before. They only have to understand the changes.

ryall 11y ago

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords

zanny 11y ago
New? They have been around for several centuries now. Its just a see-saw of personal liberty and corporate control, and we are very much rapidly descending upon their side of the swing now.

mikeyouse 11y ago

The White House published the full thing as well, along with descriptions and summaries of each section: https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership