11 ms·

I am generally a fan of international trade. It is the force that has lifted billions of people out of extreme poverty. I also believe it makes sense to have i

I am generally a fan of international trade. It is the force that has lifted billions of people out of extreme poverty. I also believe it makes sense to have international IP protection to the degree that The IP metaphor actually promotes useful arts and sciences. But I am really displeased with the fact that the TPP makes the 70-year copyright term a (likely permanent) fixture of international law. You can find the full text here: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran... The offending language is Article 18.63 within the Intellectual Property section.

bufordsharkley 11y ago
I don't know if it's fair to blame the TPP-- it seems that everybody everywhere was independently converging upon this. The EU, for instance, moved from 50-year copyright terms to 70-year in 2011.[1] It's yet another case of a motivated special interest. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyright-extension http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyr...
- afarrell 11y ago
  I was unaware of that. It is a shame. I had been holding out hope that the rise of pirate parties in Europe meant that there was enough of a countervailing special interest to push things back to 14+14.
  - derefr 11y ago
    Rather than Europe, I imagine the biggest countervailing force going forward will be a billion-strong market of Chinese consumers who don't consider IP rights to exist, and don't really care whether the products they're purchasing are originals or bootlegs.
    - tl 11y ago
      Once upon a time, Americans didn't care about violating European (largely British) copyright. I expect at some point, the Chinese will start moving to protect the "originality" of their near copies which will get more legitimately original over time.
      - umanwizard 11y ago
        Unfortunately it's really difficult to produce cultural products (films, TV, books, etc.) in China because you never know when the censors are going to shut you down -- unless what you've produced is so bland there's no way anyone could find it objectionable. This will have to be fixed before China can start producing its own export-quality cultural products.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      They will be led to believe these rights exist when there's sufficient Chinese artistic IP that people from abroad want to use.
    - afarrell 11y ago
      They aren't going to push for limited copyight terms though.
  - clort 11y ago
    Just on this a+b issue. I think the +b is the most objectionable part of the whole thing and I wish people would not propose a return to shorter terms but include that as a sop. My reasoning is this. If I publish something, and claim copyright on it '(c) yyyy' for example. Then, after yyyy+a years it could be known by all to be copyright free, because you have the original published document in your hand which states the start date and the term is known. With the possible +b included, it becomes difficult to determine what the copyright status is because you don't know if it has been 'extended' so you really need to wait until after yyyy+a+b. With the current system of life+b then its even harder to know if a published work is out of copyright unless the author is well known, and because this suits the entrenched interests I believe that it is at least partially intentional. If pirate parties or anybody else want to campaign for copyright reform, then my utmost wish would be that they fix this issue at the start. Lets have a fixed term please.
    - slavik81 11y ago
      The problem with fixed terms is that there's really two classes of copyrighted things: junk and treasure. The opposition in this debate is obsessed with treasure. They love the rare, valuable IPs that retain relevance for decades. A scheme that still assigns long copyright terms to treasure is much easier to pass. Then at least the junk can have short copyright terms. That might seem pointless, but the fact is that there's a lot more junk than treasure in the world. And, just because the copyright holder didn't value it doesn't mean it's useless. After all, one man's junk is another man's treasure.
      - beefield 11y ago
        That's why the copyright term should be flexible. A natural way to achieve this would be to tax copyright (why not? many other properties are taxed, why not IP?) progressively over time. For example first three years zero tax, fourth year $1000 and doubling every year from that. When copyright holder is not willing to pay the tax anymore, the piece of work moves to public domain. This solves also the orphan works issue automatically. (Obviously, there are some international details to be sorted out with this idea.)
- mark-r 11y ago
  I wouldn't blame the TPP, I'd blame the powers behind the TPP. This is an effort that's been going on in parallel along many fronts.
cookiemonsta 11y ago
Why don't people want copyright? Say you wrote a book. Why should other companies/other people be able to copy it just because a certain number of years has passed?
- curyous 11y ago
  Because the book you wrote is not original. It is based on the work of many that have come before it, and just like you copied others (perhaps indirectly) those that came after you should be able to do the same with your work.
- zardo 11y ago
  Ideas should be shared. We could find a way to make sure people benefit from their work without restricting access to knowledge and culture.
  - Nutmog 11y ago
    Could find a way or should find a way? I don't think anybody has found such a way. We might not be able to.
- pinkythepig 11y ago
  This article makes a pretty good argument for a shorter term: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-c...
- derekp7 11y ago
  Copyright isn't a "natural" right. For physical possessions, you can defend them or have others defend them. For copyright, you are using my tax money to have the government prevent what I can do with what ideas are presented to me, even if it doesn't directly harm you. So it feels kind of like bullying. But copyright does make sense "for a limited time". I think the big issues is that the current time limits don't make sense. Let's say that you interpret that having a government-enforced monopoly on creative works is what lets you make money off them, and that making money is what promotes the initial creation of those works. In reality, most of the market value on the vast majority of instances of several classes of works is much shorter than "life of the author plus 70 years". For example, a new hit song may sale quite a bit in the first year, a bit more over the next few years, then it dies out into obscurity. Long copyrights keep such works dead (no one will continue to publish it if it doesn't make money, and nobody else is allowed to publish it). So this is a net loss to society. Now what what really makes sense, and feels more fair, is that if you as an author want to use my government's force to maintain an exclusive monopoly on your work, then you should pay for that service. This could be a per year fee (doesn't have to be a lot), so that if the work becomes abandoned then it doesn't become lost to society.
pessimizer 11y ago
How does protectionism lift people out of extreme poverty? I thought the consensus was that it was the lowering of tariffs that gradually did that, not the creation of new ones.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  Some protectionism helps poorly developed industries grow locally until they're competitive enough to compete globally (eg postwar Japan). However, other protectionism maintains inefficient industries at the expense of poor people in other countries who could do the same job cheaper (eg US agriculture)
  - mixedCase 11y ago
    >However, other protectionism maintains inefficient industries at the expense of poor people in other countries who could do the same job cheaper ...thus protecting the nation's citizens from having their jobs exported overseas. How is that not government protecting the nation's best interests?
- rowanseymour 11y ago
  To borrow an example from here in Zambia. In the 1960s Zambia used to have a textile industry that produced clothes sold in the region. That's disappeared because it couldn't compete with cheap imports from Asia and second-hand clothes from the west. A bit of protectionism would be required to get that industry started again, and with enough investment, it could eventually hopefully become competitive without protectionism.
informer2 11y ago
Stupid apologetic attempt of first world rulers.

bufordsharkley 11y ago

I don't know if it's fair to blame the TPP-- it seems that everybody everywhere was independently converging upon this. The EU, for instance, moved from 50-year copyright terms to 70-year in 2011.[1] It's yet another case of a motivated special interest. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyright-extension http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyr...

afarrell 11y ago
I was unaware of that. It is a shame. I had been holding out hope that the rise of pirate parties in Europe meant that there was enough of a countervailing special interest to push things back to 14+14.
- derefr 11y ago
  Rather than Europe, I imagine the biggest countervailing force going forward will be a billion-strong market of Chinese consumers who don't consider IP rights to exist, and don't really care whether the products they're purchasing are originals or bootlegs.
  - tl 11y ago
    Once upon a time, Americans didn't care about violating European (largely British) copyright. I expect at some point, the Chinese will start moving to protect the "originality" of their near copies which will get more legitimately original over time.
    - umanwizard 11y ago
      Unfortunately it's really difficult to produce cultural products (films, TV, books, etc.) in China because you never know when the censors are going to shut you down -- unless what you've produced is so bland there's no way anyone could find it objectionable. This will have to be fixed before China can start producing its own export-quality cultural products.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    They will be led to believe these rights exist when there's sufficient Chinese artistic IP that people from abroad want to use.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    They aren't going to push for limited copyight terms though.
- clort 11y ago
  Just on this a+b issue. I think the +b is the most objectionable part of the whole thing and I wish people would not propose a return to shorter terms but include that as a sop. My reasoning is this. If I publish something, and claim copyright on it '(c) yyyy' for example. Then, after yyyy+a years it could be known by all to be copyright free, because you have the original published document in your hand which states the start date and the term is known. With the possible +b included, it becomes difficult to determine what the copyright status is because you don't know if it has been 'extended' so you really need to wait until after yyyy+a+b. With the current system of life+b then its even harder to know if a published work is out of copyright unless the author is well known, and because this suits the entrenched interests I believe that it is at least partially intentional. If pirate parties or anybody else want to campaign for copyright reform, then my utmost wish would be that they fix this issue at the start. Lets have a fixed term please.
  - slavik81 11y ago
    The problem with fixed terms is that there's really two classes of copyrighted things: junk and treasure. The opposition in this debate is obsessed with treasure. They love the rare, valuable IPs that retain relevance for decades. A scheme that still assigns long copyright terms to treasure is much easier to pass. Then at least the junk can have short copyright terms. That might seem pointless, but the fact is that there's a lot more junk than treasure in the world. And, just because the copyright holder didn't value it doesn't mean it's useless. After all, one man's junk is another man's treasure.
    - beefield 11y ago
      That's why the copyright term should be flexible. A natural way to achieve this would be to tax copyright (why not? many other properties are taxed, why not IP?) progressively over time. For example first three years zero tax, fourth year $1000 and doubling every year from that. When copyright holder is not willing to pay the tax anymore, the piece of work moves to public domain. This solves also the orphan works issue automatically. (Obviously, there are some international details to be sorted out with this idea.)
mark-r 11y ago
I wouldn't blame the TPP, I'd blame the powers behind the TPP. This is an effort that's been going on in parallel along many fronts.

cookiemonsta 11y ago

Why don't people want copyright? Say you wrote a book. Why should other companies/other people be able to copy it just because a certain number of years has passed?

curyous 11y ago
Because the book you wrote is not original. It is based on the work of many that have come before it, and just like you copied others (perhaps indirectly) those that came after you should be able to do the same with your work.
zardo 11y ago
Ideas should be shared. We could find a way to make sure people benefit from their work without restricting access to knowledge and culture.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  Could find a way or should find a way? I don't think anybody has found such a way. We might not be able to.
pinkythepig 11y ago
This article makes a pretty good argument for a shorter term: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-c...
derekp7 11y ago
Copyright isn't a "natural" right. For physical possessions, you can defend them or have others defend them. For copyright, you are using my tax money to have the government prevent what I can do with what ideas are presented to me, even if it doesn't directly harm you. So it feels kind of like bullying. But copyright does make sense "for a limited time". I think the big issues is that the current time limits don't make sense. Let's say that you interpret that having a government-enforced monopoly on creative works is what lets you make money off them, and that making money is what promotes the initial creation of those works. In reality, most of the market value on the vast majority of instances of several classes of works is much shorter than "life of the author plus 70 years". For example, a new hit song may sale quite a bit in the first year, a bit more over the next few years, then it dies out into obscurity. Long copyrights keep such works dead (no one will continue to publish it if it doesn't make money, and nobody else is allowed to publish it). So this is a net loss to society. Now what what really makes sense, and feels more fair, is that if you as an author want to use my government's force to maintain an exclusive monopoly on your work, then you should pay for that service. This could be a per year fee (doesn't have to be a lot), so that if the work becomes abandoned then it doesn't become lost to society.

pessimizer 11y ago

How does protectionism lift people out of extreme poverty? I thought the consensus was that it was the lowering of tariffs that gradually did that, not the creation of new ones.

Nutmog 11y ago
Some protectionism helps poorly developed industries grow locally until they're competitive enough to compete globally (eg postwar Japan). However, other protectionism maintains inefficient industries at the expense of poor people in other countries who could do the same job cheaper (eg US agriculture)
- mixedCase 11y ago
  >However, other protectionism maintains inefficient industries at the expense of poor people in other countries who could do the same job cheaper ...thus protecting the nation's citizens from having their jobs exported overseas. How is that not government protecting the nation's best interests?
rowanseymour 11y ago
To borrow an example from here in Zambia. In the 1960s Zambia used to have a textile industry that produced clothes sold in the region. That's disappeared because it couldn't compete with cheap imports from Asia and second-hand clothes from the west. A bit of protectionism would be required to get that industry started again, and with enough investment, it could eventually hopefully become competitive without protectionism.

informer2 11y ago

Stupid apologetic attempt of first world rulers.