Trans-Pacific Partnership

[jos]

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed trade agreement between several Pacific Rim countries concerning a variety of matters of economic policy. Among other things, the TPP seeks to lower trade barriers such as tariffs, establish a common framework. Participating countries set the goal of wrapping up negotiations in 2012, but contentious issues such as agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments have caused negotiations to continue into the present^, with the latest round of negotiations set for July 2015.

 

Source

Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb said "98% is concluded," blaming the "big four" economies in the group - the United States, Canada, Japan and Mexico - for the failure to reach a final deal.

New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser was upbeat after the talks on the Hawaiian island of Maui.

Japan's Economy Minister Akira Amari singled out intellectual property rights as an area on which agreement had proved impossible.

Drug patents are another divisive issue, setting the US at odds with all the other countries, said one participant quoted by Reuters news agency.

The TPP will encompass 40% of the world economy. But the latest delay means that any agreement is now unlikely to have time to gain approval in the US Congress before the elections this November and the end of Barack Obama's presidency.

The US, Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru are taking part in the talks.

 

Source

 

One of the biggest ongoing arguments in the TPP negotiations (as far as we know, anyway) remains the question of how far the United States can push the other signatories to adopt its views on intellectual property law. The contentious points revolve around the ability to undertake criminal legal action against IP violators. “The U.S. wants the standards for damages to be very high, and to go beyond TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) obligations for injunctions and the destruction of infringing goods,” according to James Love of Knowledge Economy International. The United States has also pushed for increasing the ability of government to undertake criminal legal procedures against intellectual property infringers.

First, U.S. corporate actors have long viewed intellectual property protection as a key element of their profit strategies, and believe that IP violations in many of the TPP’s candidate countries have severely cut into their margins. These firms helped build the existing architecture of the international intellectual property regime, and they clearly want to ensure that they have access to the most effective possible tools for maintaining control of their IP.

Second, it appears that the Obama administration has come to the conclusion that strict IP regulation, including protection not only of U.S. copyrights and patents, but also of U.S. trade secrets, is the key to U.S. industrial and technological competitiveness in the coming decades. Because of changes associated with the digitization of knowledge and the advent of 3D printing, the United States has concluded that traditional methods for staying on the edge of the innovation curve will not suffice. The advanced nature of the U.S. economy means that an ever-greater percentage of its products (whether artistic, commercial, or industrial) consists of intellectual property, which loses its value if not properly protected. Expanding protection world-wide for U.S. intellectual property, by this logic, helps maintain the competitiveness of the U.S. economy.

 

Source

Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP, and countries could even be sued by other TPP countries, or by private companies from those countries. Developing countries such as Vietnam, which employs a large number of SOEs as part of its economic infrastructure, would be affected most. SOEs continue to fulfil vital public functions in even the most privatised countries, such as Canada and Australia.The TPP is the world's largest economic trade agreement and will, if it comes into force, encompass more than 40 per cent of the world's GDP. Despite its wide-ranging effects on the global population, the TPP is currently being negotiated in total secrecy by 12 countries. Few people, even within the negotiating countries' governments, have access to the full text of the draft agreement, and the public – who it will affect most – none at all. Large corporations, however, are able to see portions of the text, generating a powerful lobby to effect changes on behalf of these groups and bringing developing countries reduced force, while the public at large gets no say.

 

Source

 

Copyright Term

Unsurprisingly, the U.S.wants all TPP countries to ensure that their copyright term of protection is at least life of the author plus 70 years. That would require countries such as Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Malaysia to extend their terms by 20 additional years beyond the international standard found in the Berne Convention. The length of term within the TPP is currently in square brackets, suggesting that countries have still not reached a final decision (though expectations are that Canada will cave on the issue).

The Importance of the Public Domain

The general provisions section of the IP chapter contains a notable dispute between Canada and the U.S. over the public domain. There is an article that emphasizes the importance of taking into account the interests of rights holders, service providers, users and the public. Canada and Chile have proposed additional language to acknowledge “the importance of preserving the public domain.” The U.S. and Japan oppose the reference.

Limitations and Exceptions

The copyright provisions include an article on limitations and exceptions that references “criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled.” There is also a footnote recognizing the Marrakesh Treaty and one that acknowledges that commercial uses may be legitimate purposes under exceptions and limitations. This article is consistent with current Canadian law.

Internet Retransmission

The U.S., Singapore, and Peru support a provision granting rights holders stronger rights over Internet retransmission of television signals. The provision states:

No Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal

Canada – along with Vietnam, Malaysia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Brunei, and Japan – all oppose the provision.

Anti-Circumvention Rules

The DMCA’s anti-circumvention rules (often referred to as digital lock rules) make it into the chapter with restrictions that extend beyond those required by the WIPO Internet treaties. Earlier opposition to mandatory criminal penalties for some circumvention has disappeared as the countries now agree that it is a requirement. The TPP permits some exceptions (there are some found in Canadian law), subject to strict limitations.

In addition to the anti-circumvention rules, there are also provisions on rights management information. Canada currently stands alone in opposing mandatory criminal penalties for rights management information violations (for example, making available copies of works knowing that rights management information has been removed). If Canada caves on the issue, the digital lock and rights management information provisions in the Copyright Act would require amendement by adding new criminal penalties.

ISP liability

The liability of Internet service providers is currently the subject of a lengthy addendum that is complicated by different approaches in the varying TPP countries. The primary approach is to create a legal requirement for ISPs to cooperate with anti-infringement activities in return for limits on liability. The key requirements include a notice-and-takedown system similar to that found in the United States. However, there are also flexibilities included for other countries and a complete carve-out for Canada.

Given that the Canadian government invested significant political capital in the new notice-and-notice system, Canada and the U.S. have proposed an annex to the IP chapter that exempts countries from the ISP requirements provided they have rules that look a lot like the current Canadian copyright rules. These include a notice-and-notice system, a provision creating liability for those that enable infringement, and a search engine content removal provision. It is worth noting that several countries, including Chile, Vietnam, Brunei, and Peru oppose the concept of an annex to address the legal system of one country.

There is potentially one critical additional requirement that would be added to Canadian law – website blocking. The provision currently states that the country would “induce”

Internet service providers carrying out the function referred to in paragraph 2© to remove or disable access to material upon becoming aware of a decision of a court to the effect that the person storing the material infringes copyright in the material. 


The word “induce” is bracketed, suggesting that there is still some disagreement on the legal requirement associated with the issue. It is not clear what “induce” means in this context, but it seems likely that the U.S. is pushing Canada to create a new website blocking requirement in return for acceptance of the notice-and-notice system.

Copyright Misuse and Abuse

Virtually all countries support a provision that allows for compensation where a rights holder has abused the enforcement powers. The proposal states:

Each Party shall ensure that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order a party at whose request measures were taken and who has abused enforcement procedures to provide the party wrongfully enjoined or restrained adequate compensation for the injury suffered because of such abuse. The judicial authorities shall also have the authority to order the applicant to pay the defendant expenses, which may include appropriate attorney’s fees.

The lone holdout? The U.S., which opposes the provision.

Statutory Damages

There remains a significant dispute over the inclusion of statutory damages. The U.S. wants all countries to be required to have them. Many TPP countries, including New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Australia, Brunei, and Malaysia, oppose a mandatory requirement. Canada already has statutory damages within the law.

 

Source

What  does this means to tech lovers? If this deal goes through, which is currently being rejected by many (after the first negotiation just ended) .. the developing countries will suffer.. There are many tech gaints in US, they could sue many business overseas. there are even patents for business practices.. this will increase the price of the products..

[Trik'Stari]

This is possibly the most evil piece of global "legislation" (not sure if that's the right term) ever considered.

 

Personally, I wish it would be bigger in the news. I'm surprised that more of Obama's voter base isn't up in arms over it because of how clearly pro-corporation anti-person this bill is.

[AlwaysFSX]

Yep, the US is trying to buttfuck everyone with this thing and the counter-part for Europe. Honestly if countries are for supporting it they can kiss their ass goodbye economically.

[DigitalHermit]

This might suck for us... bigtime... (well, as long as our labor export holds steady, we can manage for a few more years...)

 

(and our gov't is basically a puppet for the US Gov't... and pretty much anyone with a bigger stick... ugh... if only the leaders had more guts when it comes to internal and international relations...)

[Trik'Stari]

Yep, the US is trying to buttfuck everyone with this thing and the counter-part for Europe. Honestly if countries are for supporting it they can kiss their ass goodbye economically.

It's not just the US you know, the countries involved represent approx, 40% of the worlds GDP.

 

And it would actually hurt the US pretty badly as well (at least the people living here, but as with all governments, the corporations would be rolling in ever increasing piles of cash)

[AlwaysFSX]

It's not just the US you know, the countries involved represent approx, 40% of the worlds GDP.

 

And it would actually hurt the US pretty badly as well (at least the people living here, but as with all governments, the corporations would be rolling in ever increasing piles of cash)

All they care about is being able to sue the ever living hell out of everyone else and remove them from the economy so they're the only money makers..

 

Because that idea works. Honestly politicians need to be shot. They're fucking dumb and corrupt.

[Wildosvt]

One major leap to the New World Order if this goes all the way...

[Trik'Stari]

All they care about is being able to sue the ever living hell out of everyone else and remove them from the economy so they're the only money makers..

 

Because that idea works. Honestly politicians need to be shot. They're fucking dumb and corrupt.

I'd prefer to set them all adrift on a single large iceflow. Position snipers at the edge of the shore to prevent them from coming back. I would also put all their lawyers, advisors, and assistants on the iceflow as well.

[LightCode Gaming]

I like that people are looking at this finally...

I've been watching this "deal" closely and its NOT going to end well for anyone except the rich.

It would give countries the right to BYPASS US LAWS for items they sell. Thats a bad idea.

[Norman_the_Owl]

I still don't understand why people are so angry about this.

 

Sure, prices will go up because knockoffs will be illegal, but that's not the end of the world i don't think

[jos]

I still don't understand why people are so angry about this.

 

Sure, prices will go up because knockoffs will be illegal, but that's not the end of the world i don't think

Many countries does not have patents for medicines.. Medicines are cheap there... The patented medicines will cost more than they will make in lifetime.. making medicine a thing of rich for people in such countries

 

This is

Continuum- rise of corporation

[bomerr]

I still don't understand why people are so angry about this.

 

Sure, prices will go up because knockoffs will be illegal, but that's not the end of the world i don't think

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/big-tobacco-puts-countries-on-trial-as-concerns-over-ttip-deals-mount-9807478.html

[Murdoch]

This is possibly the most evil piece of global "legislation" (not sure if that's the right term) ever considered.

 

What about the USA - EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

 

There's some pretty disturbing things being negotiated in that too. Under little scrutiny from the public.

[Trik'Stari]

I still don't understand why people are so angry about this.

 

Sure, prices will go up because knockoffs will be illegal, but that's not the end of the world i don't think

Because it creates courts for copyright infringement that answer to no single nation. As well as effectively giving corporations more power than nations.

 

What about the USA - EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

 

There's some pretty disturbing things being negotiated in that too. Under little scrutiny from the public.

 

I'm not sure if that was during my time, or happened since I started paying attention to politics and stuff. Seems fairly bad considering the headline "Big Tobacco puts countries on trial". Which is funny because I'm a smoker, and even I find that headline disconcerting.

[Dabombinable]

This is possibly the most evil piece of global "legislation" (not sure if that's the right term) ever considered.

 

Personally, I wish it would be bigger in the news. I'm surprised that more of Obama's voter base isn't up in arms over it because of how clearly pro-corporation anti-person this bill is.

I thought corporations were people.......(and yes some retard actually managed to get them recognised as people-not sure about the affected area though).

[Trik'Stari]

I thought corporations were people.......(and yes some retard actually managed to get them recognised as people-not sure about the affected area though).

Corporations should not be considered people. Sadly, lawyers are able to convince people of a lot of stupid untrue things.

[Dabombinable]

Corporations should not be considered people. Sadly, lawyers are able to convince people of a lot of stupid untrue things.

Which is why I say lawyers are parasites (and I know I'm not the only one that thinks that).

[Trik'Stari]

Which is why I say lawyers are parasites (and I know I'm not the only one that thinks that).

Oh I agree completely. Lawyers should be banned from holding public office, or advising elected officials on political matters.

[Nena Trinity]

Kill the TPP with fire!!!

[dalekphalm]

I still don't understand why people are so angry about this.

 

Sure, prices will go up because knockoffs will be illegal, but that's not the end of the world i don't think

The big issue is that it gives foreign corporations a hell of a lot more power in host countries. Those companies can sue local governments (even the federal government) over laws that threaten their profits - AND it's done via a secret, non-public tribunal (For example: A stricter anti-pollution law is enacted to save dying wildlife - a foreign company can sue over this).

 

There are also term limits before you're allowed to back out of the treaty, so if our current government rams it through Parliament, this could affect us for decades (There's a federal election in 2 and a half months for electing a new (or not) Federal government).

[Trik'Stari]

The big issue is that it gives foreign corporations a hell of a lot more power in host countries. Those companies can sue local governments (even the federal government) over laws that threaten their profits - AND it's done via a secret, non-public tribunal (For example: A stricter anti-pollution law is enacted to save dying wildlife - a foreign company can sue over this).

 

There are also term limits before you're allowed to back out of the treaty, so if our current government rams it through Parliament, this could affect us for decades (There's a federal election in 2 and a half months for electing a new (or not) Federal government).

A lot of us "western" nations just need to come out and force through a law that our governments can no longer conduct meetings, negotiations, or briefings in private.

 

Yes it would cause problems, but those problems can be dealt with. The only other option is to have governments like we do now, the kind that do whatever the fuck they want and then lie through their teeth to us.

[dalekphalm]

A lot of us "western" nations just need to come out and force through a law that our governments can no longer conduct meetings, negotiations, or briefings in private.

 

Yes it would cause problems, but those problems can be dealt with. The only other option is to have governments like we do now, the kind that do whatever the fuck they want and then lie through their teeth to us.

The big issue is that - if my own government conducts hidden meetings, etc, at least I have the chance of voting in a new Government.

 

With the TPP - super conglomerates from China (Of which several have large interests in Canadian natural resources - Thanks Harper Appreciate you letting those deals go through) - are now able to subvert Canadian democracy because they can sue the government when the government makes a law that's inconvenient to them. The TPP also makes no obligation for these foreign entities to concentrate jobs in Canadian soil when dealing with our resources, nor does it make any obligation to employ Canadians when they do decide to create jobs here.

 

If you're a mega-corp, you'll love the TPP - regardless of where your HQ is - Canadian, Chinese, UK, Saudi, etc - but it shits all over the sovereignty of government, and by extension, democratic process.

[Trik'Stari]

The big issue is that - if my own government conducts hidden meetings, etc, at least I have the chance of voting in a new Government.

 

With the TPP - super conglomerates from China (Of which several have large interests in Canadian natural resources - Thanks Harper Appreciate you letting those deals go through) - are now able to subvert Canadian democracy because they can sue the government when the government makes a law that's inconvenient to them. The TPP also makes no obligation for these foreign entities to concentrate jobs in Canadian soil when dealing with our resources, nor does it make any obligation to employ Canadians when they do decide to create jobs here.

 

If you're a mega-corp, you'll love the TPP - regardless of where your HQ is - Canadian, Chinese, UK, Saudi, etc - but it shits all over the sovereignty of government, and by extension, democratic process.

They can sue, but your government could just drop the treaty and tell them to fuck off. What can they really do? Not like we wouldn't have your backs. Afterall, they'd have to come through American airspace to get to you.

[Murdoch]

snip

 

The problem being though, how do we contest these trade agreements. TTIP  for example is being negotiated behind closed doors, all major political parties in the UK support it. The press seldom mention it, and the average person on the street is clueless to it's existence.

 

I don't even...

[Trik'Stari]

The problem being though, how do we contest these trade agreements. TTIP  for example is being negotiated behind closed doors, all major political parties in the UK support it. The press seldom mention it, and the average person on the street is clueless to it's existence.

 

I don't even...

"freedom of the press" indeed.