TPP is the "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership". It does a lot of stuff outside of IP law (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_E

TPP is the "Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership". It does a lot of stuff outside of IP law (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Econom...). Two things. First of all, TPP looks far scarier than every other law and agreement I've seen proposed so far. All previous attempts had at least been somewhat disguised as being limited - there was a clear effort to make the (dubious) claim that "they won't effect you". That seems to be gone now. I think the TC article does a pretty bad job of pointing out how strong TPP is, actually. Secondly, these nasty provisions popped up only in the US proposal (IIUC), and yet, many of them run contrary to established US case law, and would circumvent current reform efforts. This agreement has quite clearly become a forum for the MPAA/RIAA/MAFIA lobbyists who couldn't get their policies passed out in the open. It fairly reeks of underhandedness.