3 ms·

> not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're probably referring to... Yes, the final text, if it becomes law, will be public. The

by justsee 13y ago

> not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're probably referring to... Yes, the final text, if it becomes law, will be public. The leaked texts show how dedicated the negotiators are to weakening sovereignty and empowering vested interests. This is the issue. Lobbying groups have worked out how to hack sovereignty (with those pesky democratic processes and a desire to consider the public interest) by negotiating 'trade agreements' which are a bulk insert of desired laws around patent, copyright, and DRM into the legislative frameworks of multiple countries at the same time, without consultation or input by the citizens of each negotiating country. These efforts are serious attacks on fundamental ideas we hold around self-determination, consent of the governed, transparent democratic processes. So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements, historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in continued artful misdirection.

001sky 13y ago
Lobbying groups have worked out how to hack sovereignty (with those pesky democratic processes and a desire to consider the public interest) We just saw this with the repeal of glass stegal. Could not be fixed because why? Idiots put it in the WTO via the FSA. Now we are stuck with it. Of course nobody ever mentions this until some working paper is leaked by people trying to spike the nomination of larry summers for the Fed Chair. [Regardless of your position of summers or derivatives regulation, its the <technique> that is cringeworthy] ______ “As we enter the end-game of the WTO financial services negotiations, I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs…” ... ...Until the bankers’ re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to ... {too big to fail universal banks}. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-...
anigbrowl 13y ago
That's your take on the issue. I see IP as just another market with a variety of interested parties, not of all whose interests coincide. From my perspective, a lot of people want to build consumer services without having to pay for content, just as many content holders are engaged in rent-seeking. I don't like the copyright lobby, but nor do I subscribe to the proposition that because the marginal cost of production in some industries is terribly low, no ownership interest should entail. And in case you're wondering, I do not lobby for or even own shares in any media or IP portfolio companies. So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements, historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in continued artful misdirection. Sorry, those happen to be my actual opinions. copyright, patent, and DRM issues are not the whole story of economics. I'm also interested in things like environmental and labor standards, public health policy, food security and poverty reduction, and I'm not going to apologize for having an interest in broader economic issues or willingness to compromise; it's my firm opinion that half a loaf is better than no bread, especially so in matters of economics. That's why I'm broadly in support of a TPP and ardently in support of TTIP, not withstanding the numerous likely imperfections.
- justsee 13y ago
  The issue is the TPP process. You largely continue to avoid this, addressing it upthread in an 'it will help speed things up, I'm okay with it' way. An unsatisfactory, superficial response to some very deep issues. The commendable 'issues resume' you present at the end of your response, up hard against your ringing endorsement of TPP is very incongruous. Seeing as the TPP works against all of those noble causes. Oh mysterious duplicity!
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    As I explained earlier, I haven't decided whether I support the TPP yet because I don't know what's in it, so I don't know where you're getting the idea of a'ringing endorsement.' What I'm defending is the idea that it can get negotiated and then offered for an up or down vote. I actually think this is a better approach for judging the proposal as a whole. Yes, it's less democratic, which is not an altogether bad thing in my view; it's faster; it forces an assessment of priorities, and makes it easier for multiple countries with different cultures and political systems to negotiate. Oh mysterious duplicity! I have a different and probably more cynical worldview than you do. Apparently you find this so impossible to imagine that you think I must be lying about something. I don't really care whether you find my views unsatisfactory or not, any more than you care for my approval.
    - prirun 13y ago
      The problem with waiting until the text is final is that the final text, which might be thousands of pages, is presented on Monday morning and voted on Monday afternoon. It may have taken them 4 years to negotiate the details, because of extreme complexity, but you can bet they won't allow the public to mull it over and give feedback for an equal amount of time. The new "democratic" process in the US is for corporations to write law and Congress to rubber stamp it. They don't even read the shit they pass.
- lambda 13y ago
  You do realize that many of the people who object to IP laws don't object because they want to build consumer services without having to pay for content, but because they want to produce hardware and software without having to cripple them, right? This is not "just another market with a a wide variety of interested parties." This is people telling me what I am legally allowed to do in my own home. This is passing laws saying that you can't produce an innovative new device because someone, somewhere may use it to subvert someone else's IP interests. And the issue with the treaty process is that a treaty can be used to bypass the democratic process within a country. A proposal that would be shot down due to public outcry can instead be done in a secret treaty, only revealed once it's fait accompli, with everyone involved being able to disclaim that "I didn't want that, but that's what we had to do to get the treaty passed" and thus dodge the political ramifications.

by justsee 13y ago

001sky 13y ago

Lobbying groups have worked out how to hack sovereignty (with those pesky democratic processes and a desire to consider the public interest) We just saw this with the repeal of glass stegal. Could not be fixed because why? Idiots put it in the WTO via the FSA. Now we are stuck with it. Of course nobody ever mentions this until some working paper is leaked by people trying to spike the nomination of larry summers for the Fed Chair. [Regardless of your position of summers or derivatives regulation, its the <technique> that is cringeworthy] ______ “As we enter the end-game of the WTO financial services negotiations, I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs…” ... ...Until the bankers’ re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to ... {too big to fail universal banks}. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-...

anigbrowl 13y ago

That's your take on the issue. I see IP as just another market with a variety of interested parties, not of all whose interests coincide. From my perspective, a lot of people want to build consumer services without having to pay for content, just as many content holders are engaged in rent-seeking. I don't like the copyright lobby, but nor do I subscribe to the proposition that because the marginal cost of production in some industries is terribly low, no ownership interest should entail. And in case you're wondering, I do not lobby for or even own shares in any media or IP portfolio companies. So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements, historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in continued artful misdirection. Sorry, those happen to be my actual opinions. copyright, patent, and DRM issues are not the whole story of economics. I'm also interested in things like environmental and labor standards, public health policy, food security and poverty reduction, and I'm not going to apologize for having an interest in broader economic issues or willingness to compromise; it's my firm opinion that half a loaf is better than no bread, especially so in matters of economics. That's why I'm broadly in support of a TPP and ardently in support of TTIP, not withstanding the numerous likely imperfections.

justsee 13y ago
The issue is the TPP process. You largely continue to avoid this, addressing it upthread in an 'it will help speed things up, I'm okay with it' way. An unsatisfactory, superficial response to some very deep issues. The commendable 'issues resume' you present at the end of your response, up hard against your ringing endorsement of TPP is very incongruous. Seeing as the TPP works against all of those noble causes. Oh mysterious duplicity!
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  As I explained earlier, I haven't decided whether I support the TPP yet because I don't know what's in it, so I don't know where you're getting the idea of a'ringing endorsement.' What I'm defending is the idea that it can get negotiated and then offered for an up or down vote. I actually think this is a better approach for judging the proposal as a whole. Yes, it's less democratic, which is not an altogether bad thing in my view; it's faster; it forces an assessment of priorities, and makes it easier for multiple countries with different cultures and political systems to negotiate. Oh mysterious duplicity! I have a different and probably more cynical worldview than you do. Apparently you find this so impossible to imagine that you think I must be lying about something. I don't really care whether you find my views unsatisfactory or not, any more than you care for my approval.
  - prirun 13y ago
    The problem with waiting until the text is final is that the final text, which might be thousands of pages, is presented on Monday morning and voted on Monday afternoon. It may have taken them 4 years to negotiate the details, because of extreme complexity, but you can bet they won't allow the public to mull it over and give feedback for an equal amount of time. The new "democratic" process in the US is for corporations to write law and Congress to rubber stamp it. They don't even read the shit they pass.
lambda 13y ago
You do realize that many of the people who object to IP laws don't object because they want to build consumer services without having to pay for content, but because they want to produce hardware and software without having to cripple them, right? This is not "just another market with a a wide variety of interested parties." This is people telling me what I am legally allowed to do in my own home. This is passing laws saying that you can't produce an innovative new device because someone, somewhere may use it to subvert someone else's IP interests. And the issue with the treaty process is that a treaty can be used to bypass the democratic process within a country. A proposal that would be shot down due to public outcry can instead be done in a secret treaty, only revealed once it's fait accompli, with everyone involved being able to disclaim that "I didn't want that, but that's what we had to do to get the treaty passed" and thus dodge the political ramifications.