24 ms·
The content isn't interesting[1] because bilateral free trade agreements are public[0], and having the USA force partners into accepting patent enforcement, cop
by nikcub 13y ago
The 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.
- sounds 13y agoSo far I have seen no mention of Article QQ.G.10, on TPM. "The US wants this separate cause of action to extend even to cases where there is no copyrighted works" [1] Even the DMCA only protects copyrighted works. The provisions of QQ.G.10 for example would make it illegal in enough countries to distribute dvdcss that linux would not play my DVDs. Once implemented, this will have a significant impact on linux users. [1] http://keionline.org/node/1825 http://keionline.org/node/1825
- einehexe 13y ago>this is what modern imperialism looks like Well that is a pretty tepid imperialism. If a country isn't willing to put their money where their mouth is then maybe they should be quiet.
- x3ro 13y agoWhat money? [1] [1] http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/ http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/
- wonderyak 13y agoMy understanding is that the TPP is not public (yet?), and parties involved are not allowed to discuss it for 4 years. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/house-pushing-back-on-trade-deal-more-detail-on-how-secretive-arbitration-panels-undermine-laws-and-regulations.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/house-pushing-back-on...
- mtgx 13y agoHow is that possible, when there were rumors they intend to pass it by the end of the year?
- wonderyak 13y agoIts been 'fast tracked' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)).
- brianpgordon 13y agoWhy would Congress pass legislation saying that it's not allowed to amend trade agreements? Why don't they just not amend trade agreements?
- wonderyak 13y agoits hard for me to think of an answer to this question that doesn't somehow devolve into an area of 'conspiracy'-type BS. I really do not know.
- kelvin0 13y agoWhy are alternatives to the current mainstream stories have to be 'devolving' into anything?
- wonderyak 13y agoIn this situation its probably a matter of 'don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity'? OTOH - the mainstream media is not reporting on this at all. Doing a search for 'trans pacific partnership' on CNN - the first result is a story about the G-20 Summit on Jul. 15th. The more you look at, investigate and try and understand this story the crazier you may seem to other people.
- rtpg 13y ago> [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.] On a sidenote, wouldn't it be great if we could at least get unified copyright law? From the draft it seems like the US is pushing more towards that