
TPP Text Confirms Massive Loss to Canadian Public Domain - jdc
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/11/official-release-of-tpp-text-confirms-massive-loss-to-canadian-public-domain/
======
intopieces
We need a massive, concerted effort to widely distribute digitally, for free,
the works of all the authors who would have entered public domain. It's clear
that negotiating with our leaders has failed; the free and open internet that
has served us so well in the preceding decades is closing faster than ever and
our only hope is digital civil disobedience.

~~~
junto
Whilst "digital civil disobedience" is all well and good, breaking their rules
won't help us break their will.

The last bastion of hope is a "union of the consumers", where we collectively
punish and break companies that we collectively see as dangerous to the future
of our world.

We only need to tear down one company to be able to set off a chain reaction.
Once consumers realise the power they hold as a well organised and effective
collective, the people can pull back some of the power from the corporation
(and our governments to which they now hold the power over).

Corporations can't survive without income and customers. Every day we vote
with our wallets without giving it a second thought. It's time we started to
appreciate that fact.

Edit:

I know this isn't particularly realistic :-(

~~~
vijayr
How will this work practically? Let's say we want to try this just for a
month. Make a list of such companies and try not to spend our money with them.
First of all, making this list itself isn't that simple, because of confusing
and ever changing murky corporate structures (apps like buycott [1] can help
here). In many industries, a handful of players control the entire market -
just 3 or 4 companies control meat supply in the US, Monsanto controls a
_huge_ portion of seeds and so on. In the end we'll probably end up with a
list of couple of dozen companies in our "bad list" and our options to shop
(even the basic necessities) will be severely limited. Not saying it can't be
done, it is just difficult to do it without some serious _collective_ effort.
It is definitely a good exercise to brainstorm ideas though, we gotta start
somewhere.

[http://buycott.com/](http://buycott.com/)

~~~
noja
You buy from the least bad one.

Then the others become less bad, and you switch to them. And so on.

~~~
clusterfoo
I don't think that's feasible either on a large scale. How about this
strategy:

1\. Pick the top three offenders (not in the same industry).

2\. For each offender, find their cash cow, or top 3 most profitable products.

3\. Make a concerted effort to boycott those products, and those products
alone, indefinitely. Make some real damage.

The purpose here is to make an example out of someone. Build morale among
protesters that if well organized, they can be effective.

First scenario: One million US/Canadian citizens sporadically decide to buy
from company Y instead of company X... nobody notices.

Second scenario: Company Z suddenly loses 100,000 customers for their core
product... I'll bet you someone notices.

~~~
walterbell
Yes, see the history of fossil fuel divestment and boycotts,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_divestment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_divestment)

------
Johnny_Brahms
Copyright does no longer exist to protect creators, but to protect the
distributors. We badly need a reform.

~~~
hamstergene
Isn't distribution done by third-party services either? Kindle store or iTunes
store aren't copyright holders, for example.

The problem with copyright is that it is used as an excuse to deliver the good
idea to protect the new authors who are still alive, in the same package with
the bad idea to let unspecified number of loosely related and unrelated people
feed off free money source created by long dead authors decades ago.

~~~
coldtea
> _The problem with copyright is that it is used as an excuse to deliver the
> good idea to protect the new authors who are still alive, in the same
> package with the bad idea to let unspecified number of loosely related and
> unrelated people feed off free money source created by long dead authors
> decades ago._

I think part of the idea is that whether the creators are dead or not, having
copyright and "unrelated people feed off", still maintains an economy over the
item and gives it monetary value. Whereas if it was de-copyrighted it would
lose that value -- everybody could just copy it.

E.g. Disney only being able to create or allow the creation of Mickey Mouse
stuff (t-shirts etc), leads to a large business for them, taxes for US etc.
(Plus pays a lobby to ensure longer copyright). If Mickey Mouse was suddenly
public domain, that would stop and its characters would be devalued very fast,
with everybody competing with ever cheaper products with him on.

~~~
coldpie
And they would come up with some other creative character with a new copyright
duration, thus enriching our public culture with their previous works and
employing people to create new works for people to enjoy.

Twenty years ought to be enough to recoup your investment, but I'm open to
compromise. In any case, (rougly) 150 years, as it currently is, is way, way,
way, way, way, way way too long.

~~~
coderdude
Way too long for why? I don't believe citizens are harmed by not being able to
make money from something they didn't create.

~~~
coldpie
Really? Copyright is siloing off culture in unprecedented ways. Martin Luther
King's "I Have a Dream" speech is under copyright by his estate, and will be
until the 2040s. It can't be used by anyone without paying (large) licensing
fees to his estate, even though they had literally nothing to do with the
creation of the speech.

Ever notice how restaurants and movies never use "the Happy Birthday song"?
That's because Warner Bros claimed copyright on it for decades. Another part
of our culture that can't be used thanks to copyright.

There are plenty of films, plays, and TV series based on works in the public
domain. Romeo and Juliet, Pride and Prejudice, and Sherlock Holmes to name
just a few that come to mind. Should those creators be required to pay tribute
to the descendants of the long-dead authors in order to use those parts of our
shared culture?

~~~
pluma
A famous stained-glass window in a church in my home town was heavily censored
(i.e. publishing photographs of it resulted in legal threats, fair use or not)
because the estate of the late artist who created it vigorously enforced his
copyright. High-resolution photographs were available for free of every
stained-glass window on the church website, except for this one. At times
there were even talks about covering it up physically because of claims about
public display licensing issues. The artist in question likely didn't see any
of this coming during his lifetime.

Being granted exclusive protections during your lifetime or for a reasonable
period of time after the creation of a work is defensible. De facto perpetual
protections afforded to the artist's grandchildren (or great^n-grandchildren),
not so much.

------
bufordsharkley
Is there any indication that this has an overall limit of 95 years as per the
U.S. Copyright? ("Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1,
1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication
date."[0])?

This cannot be stressed enough, that the real losers here aren't people who
want to remix ultra-famous copyrighted works-- it's that works that nobody
cares to profit upon will remain orphaned.

If there is one protection to the Public Domain that needs to take place, it's
that copyright owners should have to show a willingness to profit off their
material (by paying a recurring fee) so we don't experience this deadweight
loss.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)

~~~
bufordsharkley
More on Orphaned Works:

"Significant among those changes were the elimination of the registration and
notice requirements, which resulted in less accurate and incomplete
identifying information on works, and the automatic renewal of copyrighted
works that were registered before the effective date of the 1976 Copyright
Act." [0]

Bringing back registration and ending automatic renewals would do a lot of
good. (Adding a fee would be better.) Has there been any work on laws to do
this?

[0] [http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-
works2015.pdf](http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf)

~~~
eigenman
The problem is the Berne convention explicitly forbids requiring registration
for a work to enjoy the benefits of copyright. The USA ratified this
convention in 1989.

However, I agree with you. There needs to be some mechanism pushing back on
copyright holders encouraging them to let their works revert to the public
domain. A nominal fee at regular intervals would go a long way to encouraging
this. However, perhaps something more aggressive is needed. Since the
advocates of increased copyright duration often phrase their argument in terms
of "intellectual property", perhaps a copyright property tax would be more
appropriate.

"OK Disney, you can keep the mouse out of the public domain, but that will be
$50M/yr."

~~~
bufordsharkley
Thanks for this pointer.

At this juncture, it certainly seems that the US shouldn't have caved to
signing Berne. We made it 100 years, why didn't we stick it out?

Well, commendations to Zoe Lofgren (representing San Jose) at attempting to
renew U.S. copyright formalities. [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_formalities#Renewed_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_formalities#Renewed_interest_in_formalities)

EDIT: It appears she hasn't pushed ahead copyright formalities (in the form of
the Eldred Act) much since 2005. Here's hoping something new comes up...

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Infinite copyright terms are unconstitutional in the United States. Hopefully
SCOTUS will notice that someday.

~~~
MichaelBurge
Have the copyright extensions actually been upheld in court? Nothing stops a
legislator from passing an unconstitutional law, but if nobody fights it then
it won't get struck down.

~~~
venomsnake
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
> Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
> Writings and Discoveries.

Depends on how you literally minded you read it and how the Supreme court
feels:

1) Any copyright or patent that does not promote Science of Useful arts is
unconstitutional

2) Only written words are protected, not visual or software.

3) There should be some limitation on the term but it could be way past couple
of googols in years.

and so on. The constitution is (un) intentionally vague in a lot of places.

~~~
anon4
You forgot

4) Copyright cannot extend past the life of the author, since only the author
can have exclusive rights to his writings. I.e. copyright is non-transferable
to heirs, corporations, etc.

~~~
hfsktr
Do you think I'm being paranoid if I thought that the author/copyright holder
would suddenly have an "accident" if their death meant it would end the
copyright?

------
baldfat
Public Domain's Number One Enemy = Mickey Mouse. Until there is some way to
protect Disney and not have its IP placed in public domain we will never have
nice things again in the public domain.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
But ... this is wrong. Mickey should be in (or be headed towards) the public
domain.

~~~
baldfat
Until there is a solution for Mickey Mouse the millions of dollars will keep
everything behind copyright. We solve that one we will have Public Domain
again.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
We solve that one and everyone follows Mickey's lead and nothing enters PD.

------
walterbell
If you want to do something positive:

1\. Organize a local event or travel to DC in the week of Nov. 14, there is a
90-day window to mobilize opposition to TPP,
[https://www.eff.org/event/global-week-actions-against-tpp-
tt...](https://www.eff.org/event/global-week-actions-against-tpp-ttip-tisa).
EFF actions in DC will coincide with APEC meetings in the Philippines, where
US officials (including trade reps) will push the TPP, and EFF Philippine
allies will have mass protests.

2\. Remember how many companies rallied against SOPA? Ask your tech employer
to issue a public statement on TPP and digital rights. Create a public list
that links to company statements. TPP unfairly advantages legacy business
models at the expense of emerging business models. It is not about "elites"
vs. "citizens", it is about crony insider companies vs. all other companies.

3\. Ask organizations like Wikipedia, Archive.org, Google, Facebook to run
banners to raise awareness about TPP, asking users to flood TPP governments
with calls for representation. Companies and citizens have never had so many
channels for rallying opposition. If TPP (and TTIP and TISA later) passes,
those channels may be limited in the future. Use them or lose them. We not
only need to stop each of these bad agreements, we need to reduce incentives
for future bad agreements. They are a DDoS on the legislative process, at the
expense of opportunities to create sensible rules which support technology
innovation and the goals of modern civil society.

------
tareqak
I put up most of the TPP on genius.com yesterday [0]. All chapters from 0 to
30 are there except for chapter 20 and the annexes of chapters 2, 12, and 15.
I am still working on reformatting the text since formatting is lost when
copying from a PDF to an HTML textbox.

I still have not heard back from genius.com support about some of the
technical issues I am having: I can't delete/move chapter 20 with the rest,
and new chapters do not appear in the collection list ("album" in genius
parlance).

If you know anyone with legal expertise who is willing to annotate a few
places, please forward them to [0]. Alternatively, please retweet [1]. If you
want to read the US government's take on the TPP, this link has a summaries
before the full text in each of the chapters [2].

[0] [http://genius.com/albums/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-
negoti...](http://genius.com/albums/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-negotiating-
parties/Trans-pacific-partnership)

[1]
[https://twitter.com/TeeAyKay/status/663830955971338240](https://twitter.com/TeeAyKay/status/663830955971338240)

[2] [https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership](https://medium.com/the-
trans-pacific-partnership)

If you've made up your mind about the TPP in whichever direction, please let
your government know (Use #TPP on Twitter):

Canada: Prime Minister's Office:
[http://pm.gc.ca/eng/contactpm](http://pm.gc.ca/eng/contactpm)

Prime Minister's Twitter:
[https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau](https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau)

Minister of International Trade:
[https://twitter.com/CanadaTrade](https://twitter.com/CanadaTrade) and
[https://twitter.com/cafreeland](https://twitter.com/cafreeland)

Members of Parliament (by postal code!):
[http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/Constituencies/Fin...](http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/Constituencies/FindMP)

USA: White House: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-
call](https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call)

White House: twitter
[https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse](https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse)

House:
[http://www.house.gov/representatives/](http://www.house.gov/representatives/)

Senate:
[http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...](http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)

* I am not affiliated with genius.com, or any political party. I just want an informed decision and the best possible outcome, whatever it may be.

Edit: spacing

------
machrider
What the hell is the justification for the document being secret, anyway?

~~~
kspaans
See the discussion on another link:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10532565](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10532565)

Summary: international trade deals involve a lot of tradeoffs in various
sectors of a country: e.g. throwing textiles under the bus in order to get
some advantages in automotive. If the initial negotiation of the treaty was
open, special interest groups would make massive amounts of noise and no
country would be able to come to agreement. Once the treaty is done being
written, then countries can debate it internally, in its entirety. There will
still be lots of noise but at least there is a complete treaty to argue over.

See also:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-
deal-confidential)

~~~
mcv
But that argument stops working once certain industry groups do get access to
the negotiations, which I thought was the case here.

Also, this agreement goes way beyond a simple trade deal; parts on this
undermine the very basis of our democracy and justice system. I don't see how
any democratic country can possibly agree to this.

~~~
cryoshon
Not only our democracy and justice system, but the systems of the other
signatory countries as well. For many of them, the TPP will result in loss of
relative sovereignty to the American multi-national corporations that are
privy to the details of the deal-- Novartis being the biggest pusher in the
pharma aspects of the deal as they relate to copyright.

~~~
mcv
Not my democracy and justice system, actually. I'm more concerned about TTIP
in that respect.

------
mark_l_watson
A while ago, I said something like "the elites have totally won the battle
against the slave class (formally known as the middle class)" to a friend and
he was shocked that I felt that way. I was half way joking but the more I
think about it the more I think that it is game over for the non-elites,
except for a few things that people can do:

1\. Pay a lot of attention to your own job skills and education, managing
career, etc.

2\. Put a lot of energy into maintaining your economic outlook, that of your
family and friends, and that of your local community

3\. Ignore crap like the show of elections, and the show of "news" in general.
If you want to do something positive then pick a cause, like a constitutional
amendment to overthrow the Citizen's United ruling, and work on that cause
year after year. Time better spent.

~~~
onion2k
It's never been "game over" in the past. History has shown that oppression of
the masses is usually the forerunner to a revolution. Why would be any
different this time around?

(I'm not advocating revolt as a solution; just questioning the validity of the
idea that the 'slave class' have no way to change things.)

~~~
yesco
People really harp off about 1984 a lot when speaking about surveillance but
they always seem to leave out what I considered the most disturbing part of
the book. The government in the story was very aware that they were following
a pattern that would lead to a revolution. So they created a system where
revolution was impossible.

1984 like most science fiction, was created to show an extreme. While there is
no such thing as an unbeatable system, there is definitely people higher up
aware of the possibility and actively preventing any major paradigm shifts in
politics. The only thing that would truly force a revolution (which doesn't
even have to be violent) is if people don't have enough food or their life is
on the line. We saw this in the Arab Spring with the rise in wheat prices,
which Saudi Arabia was able to avoid through subsidies.

------
amelius
I think the text needs a provision to roll it back gracefully. For instance,
by tapering any repercussions in a certain time-window.

------
richard_mcp
The Canadian copyright length is being extended. Does the TPP also put a cap
on the US copyright length or are countries still free to extend their
copyrights as they see fit?

~~~
kuschku
It just requests a minimum length, nothing about maximum lengths. (Obviously,
as the US needs to extend Disney’s copyright soon again)

