31 ms·
Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
- stevengg 13y agoAny good overviews of this leak yet?
- TomGullen 13y agoThere's a lot of information there... probably take a few days.
- simgidacav 13y agoI hope someone will post tl;dr indeed. This is like reading licenses. No wonder there's people who just blindly accepts everything without reading. I love when there's a blog post and they put tl;dr on head. On the other hand, by sticking to the tl;dr you accept the version the non-lazy guy will give you.
- ISL 13y agoAlmost anywhere you live, it's your government. If you want your government to make clear and simple rules, vote in people you think might make that happen.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago> On the other hand, by sticking to the tl;dr you accept the version the non-lazy guy will give you. This isn't even the main problem. The main problem is the people who say they've read through the thing and openly lie about what's in it. (speaking generally)
- ihsw 13y agoThe EFF will definitely be issuing some manner of condemnation and praise, especially since a variety of nation's stances are made clear. Skimming through it, it's entertaining to see "CA/CL/AU/NZ/JP/ETC oppose; US/BLAH propose" strewn about. One has to wonder where the line is drawn between self-interest and political favors. Here is the section that might interest you, on ISP liability: http://wikileaks.org/tpp/#QQI1 http://wikileaks.org/tpp/#QQI1 A small part of me feels like some party attributions may not be written by representatives of their respective country, and that there is some political/corporate hand-wringing influencing/forcing party attributions. To avoid political fallout, these party attributions must be kept secret (lest they contradict prior established stances).
- nodata 13y agoThe Verge has one: http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/13/5099236/wikileaks-publishes-leaked-draft-of-tpp http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/13/5099236/wikileaks-publish...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- logn 13y agoI just skimmed the whole thing. If you've paid attention at all to news related to IP issues in the last 10 years, none of the content of this agreement would come as a surprise. I don't see any radically different provisions here compared to current laws. The portions on 'genetic resources' were most interesting I thought, only because everything was so vaguely defined that I worried how countries would interpret it.
- sdoering 13y agoOlder version on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6725046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6725046
- k3n 13y agoOddly, given the same exact title, this newer one is around 2x as successful (comments & votes) as the older one.
- sdoering 13y agoWell I was watching it (I made the mistake, of posting the link with a anchor in it to the start of the document). It gained some fast early upvotes, without having comments, it reached #2 on the frontpage, gained its first comment, while my submission had about 4 - 5 comments and was trailing some 5 - 6 places behind on the frontpage. But ok, it gained traction faster, so it is quite ok with me. And, for me the information counts, not who submitted it. So please, everybody: put your comments on the winning thread, as there will be much more interaction going on there.
- mrspeaker 13y agoIt's fun seeing how important lil' old words can be! Each party shall provide [VN: oppose adequate and effective] [VN propose: appropriate] remedies against the registration trafficking
- AlexanderDhoore 13y agoI really, really hope the culture of leaking information becomes so strong that governments will become incapable of keeping anything a secret. That would give me some hope for the future. Anyone that leaks information is a fucking hero. Edit: Stop attacking me personally. I'm talking about the government's privacy here, not mine (nor anyone else's). I actually think my privacy will improve if this becomes a reality.
- retube 13y agoThat is a very naive and idealistic position. Governments often and rightly have genuine reasons for keeping things secret - as do other institutions, businesses and indeed individual people.
- zxcdw 13y agoApart from "obvious" national security in the name of TERRORISM[1], what are such reasons? [1]: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
- scarmig 13y agoNegotiations. When you go to a new job and they tell you "How much do you make at your current position? Tell us, you have nothing to hide." what do you do?
- erre 13y agoGoing on a tangent here, if they also assume this stance - meaning, they'll tell you everyone else's salaries - it can be quite interesting. I can't quite find where I first saw this, but googling a bit brings up a few interesting example. For instance, http://99u.com/articles/15527/the-age-of-salary-transparency http://99u.com/articles/15527/the-age-of-salary-transparency
- sgustard 13y agoYou say, tell me how much all your current employees make. Don't negotiate with someone who holds all the cards.
- nikcub 13y agoThe content isn't interesting[1] because bilateral free trade agreements are public[0], and having the USA force partners into accepting patent enforcement, copyright laws like the DMCA etc. are well known What is a little interesting is the negotiations and diplomacy at work. You can see how each country is trying to further its own position and interest. Looking at this version of the document, it is impossible to see how a compromise will be reached since there are so many areas that are at complete opposite viewpoints - but you know that in a few weeks time an agreement will be announced as one side or another gives way (guess which!), and the public are nonethewiser. Some are really good at watering things down, eg. > The Parties shall endeavour to [US/SG propose: cooperate] [US oppose: establish a framework for cooperation] among their respective patent offices to facilitate You can see already that they don't intend to cooperate. Establishing a framework? what the hell does that even mean .. You can now see that Australia, Singapore and Mexico are on Team USA when it comes to copyright terms (Australia opposed it during the FTA negotiations), everybody else opposes, but they will eventually have to come around on this: > [NZ/BN/MY/VN/CA/JP propose; US/AU/SG/MX oppose: The term of protection of a work, performance or phonogram shall be determined according to each Party's domestic law and the international agreements to which each Party is a party.] [0] Here is USA - Australia: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/australian-fta/final-text http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/a... Here is NAFTA - https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Default.aspx?tabid=97&language=en-US https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Default.aspx?tabid=97&langua... [1] It might not be interesting because we have seen a lot of this in completed deals previously, but it is very important. The USA enforces its business interest laws such as patent and copyright terms onto recipients of "free trade" agreements, in exchange for getting access to the non-protected part of their domestic market. This is why US laws are so important to the rest of the world, because we end up having to adopt them (this is what modern imperialism looks like).
- Camillo 13y ago> The content isn't interesting[1] because bilateral free trade agreements are public[0] That's like saying that weather forecasts aren't interestings because the weather is public. The point is that we want to have a public discussion on these agreements before they are signed.
- aferreira 13y agoI'm actually more interested in the US-EU negotiations, I wonder how long that one's going to take :)
- pvnick 13y agoThis revelation proves Wikileaks is stil alive and relevant. I hope they see a renewed jolt of donations and interest. This is the organization of heroes that helped get Snowden to safety. Also, I'm getting sick and tired of our "leaders" attempting to legislate free speech and intellectual property in secret through anti-democratic means. It's disgusting. Edit: second paragraph
- ihsw 13y agoThe problem with these kinds of things is that the document might be watermarked to obviate who leaked it. It follows the same vein as "spying on allies" which -- until recently -- was tin-foil-hat conspiracy territory. The political fallout will not be minimal, and it will not be kept secret.
- twoodfin 13y agoIt follows the same vein as "spying on allies" which -- until recently -- was tin-foil-hat conspiracy territory. Not at all. Nations have been spying on their allies since there have been nations and spies. Anyone "shocked" by those revelations is either putting on a show or rather naive.
- ihsw 13y agoYou are correct, perhaps spying on allies was a poor choice of word. Evaluating allies would probably fit better.
- mpyne 13y agoI doubt it. We had plans about how to invade Canada prior to WWII. People freaked out when they first heard about that, but it had nothing to do with Canada in particular, and everything to do with the Department of War having plans for effectively everybody that had any major military capability that could theoretically harm the U.S., just like Batman has plans to defeat every other superhero in the Justice League (just in case...). Until the days of unilateral world government (when nations won't have to act in their own best interest), allies should evaluate each other, at least at a high level. That doesn't have to mean sinister things though. Just ask Batman.
- JackFr 13y agoAm I the only one who is bothered by the fact that wikileaks isn't actually a wiki?
- k3n 13y agoBut it actually is... or at least it uses the Wikimedia software: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Confidential_plans_for_1.2_billion_ID_cards:_Creating_a_Unique_ID_for_every_resident_in_India,_Nov_2009 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Confidential_plans_for_1.2_billion...
- warnick 13y agobut the conceptual framework is not there. (I.E. most visitors cant edit anything)
- PeterisP 13y agoWiki conceptual framework is about how stuff should be kept/edited in a community, but it's not saying anything about if that ability should be granted only to 'blessed contributors' any or random visitors; i.e., if you are considered part of that editor community.
- warnick 13y agoNo, every time I think about them this comes up in the back of my mind and I get a little confused
- PavlovsCat 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki > Ward Cunningham, the developer of the first wiki software, WikiWikiWeb, originally described it as "the simplest online database that could possibly work". "Wiki" (pronounced [ˈwiti] or [ˈviti]) is a Hawaiian word meaning "fast" or "quick". Great, now I'm bothered by the fact that everybody pronounces "wiki" wrong :D
- _mulder_ 13y agoOr the fact that they keep half of their leaked material secret from us.
- sker 13y agoWikileaks again messing up the world's economy and putting lives at risk. Won't somebody shut them down? On a more serious note, wasn't there a reward if they got their hands on this leak? Also, as a mexican, it sucks that we're part of this treaty. So far Mexico has been a lawless wild west with regards to copyright enforcement.
- gesman 13y agoWould be great if someone to summarize this bloat of gibberish in human readable bullet-points format...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- trendoid 13y agogood overview and relevant links at reddit : http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1qj6xd/wikileaks_releases_the_secret_negotiated_draft/cddbt55 http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1qj6xd/wikileaks_... http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1qj6xd/wikileaks_releases_the_secret_negotiated_draft/cddc5sq http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1qj6xd/wikileaks_... Aaron Swartz turned in his grave.
- lettergram 13y agoSeems to me this may have just been given to Wikileaks directly from the government. The language seems a bit simpler than most trade agreements I have read (though to be fair I have only read 3 or 4).
- shmerl 13y agoAt last.
- shmerl 13y agoNote how some propose more proper approach of not applying anticircumvention restrictions on non infringing usage, while others oppose it. It's good that Wikileaks now published this with demonstrating opinions of the participants as well. > [CA oppose: noninfringing uses [SG oppose: of a work, performance, or phonogram] in a particular class of works, [SG oppose: performances, or phonograms] when an actual or likely adverse impact on those noninfringing uses [CL propose: or exceptions or limitations to copyright or related rights with respect to users] is [PE oppose: credibly demonstrated] [PE propose: found] [CL propose: demonstrated or recognized] in a legislative or administrative review or proceeding [SG oppose: by substantial evidence]; provided that [AU/PE oppose: any limitation or exception adopted in reliance upon this clause shall have effect for a renewable period of not more than three [SG propose: four] years] [AU/PE propose: any such review or proceeding is conducted at least once every four years] from the date of conclusion of such review or proceeding.] The bottom line, they want to create some kind of DMCA 1201 clone as was expected. Now hopefully there will be more chances to stop this beast.
- mankypro 13y agoThe President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur... Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2
- mpyne 13y agoThat's an accurate quote and all. Of course no treaty has been signed yet so I'm not sure what your point is.
- husein10 13y agoI think it's absurd that these negotiations were shrouded in such secrecy in the first place. These rules, if implemented, will have a massive impact on how the global economy will work. Yet, the public, who will end up living under the yoke of these rules, not only has very little direct input into the process but didn't (until today) even have a clear view of what rules were being considered. I don't see how one can have a modern democracy if rules are made in what was (before the leak) a black box. Hopefully this will lead to more transparency for these types of negotiations in the future. Leaking/spreading this leaked information should help show those with political power that this type of closed door process is not going to be palatable to a connected and informed public. These types of international agreements tend to stick around for a long time once they are implemented. So, expending energy on the front end to get a more balanced agreement that works for everyone impacted, not just those with an invitation to sit at the table, will save a lot of trouble later on.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- shmerl 13y agoDetailed analysis: http://www.keionline.org/node/1825 http://www.keionline.org/node/1825
- contingencies 13y agoThe negotiation of this has been known for some time. I submitted an objection to the Wikimedia ethics board when I found out that at the same time this agreement was under negotiation, Wikimedia Indonesia was hosting an event in the US embassy sponsored 'American Cultural Center' (or similar) in Jakarta. As a long term Wikimedia contributor, I expected at least a response. I received nothing.
- ksrm 13y ago>[US propose; AU/NZ/VN/BN/CL/PE/MY/SG/CA/MX oppose: shall make patents available for inventions for the following] [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: may also exclude from patentability]: Made me laugh. You're on your own there, USA.
- shmerl 13y agoI wonder why this "USA" there is supposed to represent the whole USA. Who decides? USTR isn't even democratically elected, yet it got some weird authority to draft far reaching regulations which affect everyone.
- danbruc 13y agoWhat the hell is going on? Secret negotiations about trading policies? What is the legitimation for doing this in secrecy? When did the people lose their right to know what their government is doing?
- mtgx 13y agoHere's an explanation for some of the more dangerous stuff in it: http://keionline.org/node/1825 http://keionline.org/node/1825 By the way, they intend to maintain unlocking phones or other devices illegal with TPP. It's just that now it will extend to a lot more countries.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThe title is slightly misleading. They've only released the IP chapter - presumably because they figure the content will annoy hacktivists. I personally want to know about the whole thing, since agricultural tariffs, labor conditions, visa rules and the like seem to me at least as important as IP matters.
- s369610 13y agointeresting search: "[US propose".
- NamTaf 13y agoThe AU government has previously stayed neutral/supportive of our high court ruling that ISPs are included under 'safe harbour' clauses and that they carry common-carrier status, in that they provide a service but do not have to police what that service is used for. In specific, they are not the police when it comes to online piracy and do not have to block websites, disconnect users, etc. iiNet won a hard-fought legal battle to get that ruling and it was used as precedence to basically stop the US IP lobby groups exerting pressure on AU businesses to conform to something our laws didn't even support. Now it's become apparent from this that the government wants to throw all of that under the bus and is supporting transcontinental IP laws that are almost entirely in US interests and serve to screw over our citizens and go against high court rulings. All to be a lap dog to the US and appease their taskmasters. I have nothing but hatred for our government for conducting themselves in such a miserable, self-serving sense.