

Stop Secret Copyright Treaties - moo
https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9357

======
r0h1n
Given the overwhelming amount of cynicism and ennui in most people's minds
about any meaningful change to US policies for the Internet or NSA spying, I
must applaud organizations like the EFF for continuing to fight the good
fight. Even though at times it appears they may only be tilting at windmills.

~~~
davidw
> Given the overwhelming amount of cynicism and ennui in most people's minds
> about any meaningful change to US policies for the Internet or NSA spying

A lot of this is entitled whining in the sense that changing stuff is _hard
work_. If you get cynical just because you voted for one president who didn't
do what you want, you're failing in the persistency department.

Think about the history of the civil rights movement, for instance. Not to
compare the two directly, just that some struggles are very difficult, and
some are things you fight for in the hope that your children see the benefits.

------
Ilverin
Can anyone explain to me how this is a secret treaty?

My understanding is that the only way the treaty actually comes into effect
for its main participant (the USA) is a vote in the Senate, which would make
it a public treaty.

Or does the domain of 'secret treaty' include all treaties that were at one
point secret (such as during the negotiations)? Doesn't this make the majority
of significant treaties 'secret treaties'?

~~~
lylebarrere
This treaty has been in secret negotiations for years and only the large
content companies have been able to be part of the negotiations.

Information about the treaty has been shared with negotiators for the member
states and large content companies, but no one who represents the 'normal'
person. No legislators and no organizations like EFF, Wikipedia or Creative
Commons have been allowed to advocate on behalf of ideas like fair use or
limits to powers of content companies.

The text of the treaty was recently leaked by WikiLeaks and is contradictory
to what politicians have promised it would represent. It represents a huge
step back on the rights of users and extends copyright yet again.

See the full text at wikileaks:
[https://wikileaks.org/tpp/](https://wikileaks.org/tpp/)

------
looser
Thinking about this scenario: Imagine they succeed with these policies, and
implement it. If a given amount of users start using some tool that exchanges
only encrypted content, will they be able to apply these policies against
these users, this tool and the encrypted content?

------
codex
Note that the treaties themselves are not secret (as strongly implied by the
EFF), but the negotiation process is. The EFF has always been a fundamentalist
organization, but shame on them for resorting to such blatant misinformation
to make their case.

These secret negotiations very much resemble the frank, closed door
negotiations between, say, members of Congress and the White House, where
deals wouldn't be made if they had to be made in public. Politicians can't be
seen giving concessions to the other side, nor do they want sound bites used
against them in the next election.

It also appears that these negotiations are extremely slow, which is likely
why only the executive branch is involved. It's hard to negotiate when there
are 100 factious parties involved instead of just the President. I suppose
that's the entire reason we have an executive branch.

~~~
mcv
Yet corporations get do get access to the negotiations. What makes them more
essential to the process than the legislature that has to ratify the treaty?

In the end, it is the legislature that has to determine whether this treaty
serves the interests of the public, if it serves them enough, and if enough
has been done to defend the interests of the public during those negotiations.
A very secretive process makes that evaluation very hard. Limiting the time to
decide, may make it impossible for any honest representative to say anything
other than "no". (So it'll probably be ratified.)

