
The Final Leaked TPP Text Is All That We Feared - walterbell
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared
======
SwellJoe
The thing I find most galling about this is not merely what it contains. It is
an awful document, with horrible policy, yes.

But, what is most disgusting is that we had to learn of how bad it is from
_leaked documents_.

The leadership in _many_ nations (not just in one nation, this is effectively
a conspiracy at the highest levels of several nations, most egregiously the
US) supported the TPP, lobbied for the TPP on behalf of a select few corporate
interests, and all around sold themselves to the highest bidder, while keeping
the details of it a secret from the people they allegedly represent. Democracy
doesn't run on secrecy. What these leaders are pushing is not democratic, it
is oligarchic.

It isn't one party's doing, either. This secret deal is not a Republican deal,
or a Democrat deal. It has, at various times, had vocal support (even petulant
support in the case of Obama, when fast track powers were on the line) from
the likes of Hillary Clinton (she now makes noises acting as though she
doesn't like it, despite championing it dozens of times, and after the damage
has already been done), most high ranking Republicans in the house and senate,
and damned near everybody else who ever cashed a check from ALEC.

All while it was secret. All while the only people allowed to see it were the
lawmakers supporting and writing it and the corporations that paid for it
(seriously, legal representatives from several multinational corporations saw
this deal before the people of the United States were allowed to see it). Even
if the deal _weren 't_ awful, it would still be awful, because of the way it
is being made.

~~~
res0nat0r
I thought that this whole "secret" thing has been explained ad naueum here and
on reddit already. It is t secret before it becomes law, or is going to get
snuck in under the radar. It will be open for review before it is voted on.

Also you don't give away your bargaining wants to your competitors before you
sign a contract, kind of like how you don't go to a job interview and tell
them out of the gate the exact minimum amount you'd be willing to work for.
Thus, the wants of each party are kept to themselves before a final draft.

~~~
SwellJoe
That doesn't explain it, at all.

Corporations wanting the legislation to be secret until it is a done deal is
not a surprise. But, to assume that corporations are the stakeholders who
matter and who should have access to the secret deals being made, is
fundamentally incompatible with democratic ideals. The "explanation" is
exactly what I am arguing against. The explanation assumes that the only
people who should get to see this legislation are the corporations that paid
for it, and the people on whom this legislation will be imposed have no rights
other than to suck it up and deal with it.

Your explanation assumes good faith where there is demonstrably not good
faith.

~~~
res0nat0r
I'll link this comment which explains the reality of the situation much better
than I can:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/35mers...](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/35mers/if_the_trans_pacific_partnership_is_such_a_great/cr5rw6n)

There is continuous nonsense repeating "secrecy" when the reality is you or I
have no business nosing around in international treaty negotiation since we
are in no way qualified, so having some kind of open vote from everyone in the
world during the negotiation phase would in no way be realistic. Nothing has
been passed as of yet.

You have a chance to review and tell your rep to vote yes or no before
anything has a chance of passing, to say otherwise is really just flat out
incorrect.

~~~
SwellJoe
_" There is continuous nonsense repeating "secrecy" when the reality is you or
I have no business nosing around in international treaty negotiation since we
are in no way qualified"_

Who says? Why shouldn't international policy be something we, as a nation,
talk about _while it is being constructed_ rather than being given an all or
nothing ultimatum at the end of the process (and given effectively no time to
inform ourselves enough about what it contains to make effective demands of
our representatives)?

Why should economists outside of the government and outside of the
corporations the government serves be disallowed from reading the damned thing
and commenting on it while there is time to alter its course?

All this notion about it being secret because "reasons" or "that's how it's
always been" is, once again, oligarchic bullshit. It is saying: You'll shut up
and take what we give you.

"Fast track" legislation is often used to pass legislation that legislators
know will be unpopular or be challenging to pass if given time for sufficient
discussion at a national level. Just because it's been done many times before
doesn't mean that it should continue to be done that way. We live in an age
where every person can become as informed as they want to be about legislation
like this, as long as they are permitted to see it.

Again, the arguments for maintaining secrecy and then rushing it into law are
anti-democratic. There are, of course, reasons many people want it to be
secret, but those reasons aren't in the interests of the nation or the world
as a whole.

~~~
res0nat0r
If you read the linked post it already describes that everyone and their
brother chiming in with their uneducated opinions would not be helpful and
would cause the process to be even more inefficient and drawn out than it
already is.

~~~
SwellJoe
I read it. And, then I disagreed with it in a couple of comments.

------
rubbingalcohol
One thing EFF left out re: DMCA-style takedown laws: TPP member nations are
required to require takedowns of content whenever a copyright owner _alleges_
there is infringement. But there is no requirement for a counter-notice or
dispute process to get content restored. This could be a wholesale censorship
process in countries that decide to have more restrictive laws.

~~~
3pt14159
Well the studios will obviously pressure content sites to include a dispute
process, otherwise trolls from 4chan will issue DMCA takedowns right back at
them.

~~~
adventured
They'll make fraudulent take-down notices a serious crime, and make a few high
profile examples. That'll stop the vast majority of it (more sophisticated
people will continue the trolling).

Studios might also choose to push for an authenticated scheme instead. Their
account gets certified (eg on YouTube), and content on that certified account
becomes exempted. There are relatively few hollywood houses that would need
it, so it would be easy from a scale point of few to certify them.

~~~
mistercow
> They'll make fraudulent take-down notices a serious crime

IIRC this is already the case with the DMCA. I'm pretty sure you have to
affirm under penalty of perjury that your claim is in good faith.

~~~
stock_toaster
I beleive the perjury clause applies to whether you represent who you claim to
represent (eg. not saying you are a lawyer for SomeCorp when you are not). As
pkinsky said, I think you only have to meet a "good faith standard" that you
think the thing you are filing against is actually infringing.

~~~
YokoZar
In practice you don't even need to make a "good faith" claim that you actually
have a copyright at all -- no company has ever been punished for sending
takedown notices for things that are clearly in the public domain.

------
jdnier
The second-to-last paragraph contains this summary: "If you look for
provisions in the TPP that actually afford new benefits to users, rather than
to large, rights-holding corporations, you will look in vain. The TPP is the
archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled,
politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over
the last eight years."

------
EdSharkey
To me, code is much more of a long term threat to the power structure than
intellectual property theft is. I'm wondering how long before we have
government-sanctioned libraries, languages, and chipsets that we may develop
for. I see this TPP as power consolidating ahead of any looming citizen revolt
in order to chop it off at the knees. It's very weird and awesome to watch.

I do chuckle about all this though because these moves are so clumsy and
obvious. And recently the spokesmouths of the powerful have been SO
ineffective. The Jade Helm scare-o-tron rollout was completely botched and
scrapped as far as I can tell. Selling a war with Syria was also completely
botched. Kerry has been a fool as sec. of state and never met a war he didn't
like, talks about going to war all the time to the press with no context. CIA
and arms deals in Benghazi and the sloppy coverup around that, we FUBAR'ed
Libya for no good reason. Obama openly threatening whistleblowers like a
douche. Republican establishment is losing its grip on the reins and losing
containment of the growing number of dissenting voices. If I were the archons
in power behind the scenes, I'd be concerned.

As a developer, if I wanted to - REALLY wanted to - I feel like I could upend
all of their power and diminish their relevance. I wouldn't do it with anarchy
or hacktivism or whatnot because that destruction is desperate and ultimately
self-defeating. Instead, I'd take the constructive route and build an
alternate system to the internet that resists regulation and rewards the
decentralization of server computing power and storage.

I have a day job that pays just fine and I live a peaceful life with my family
where I get to enjoy a lot of personal freedom. I don't take a lot of action
today other than to avoid the social networks like the plague. I think the
trigger for me to act will be when my ox gets gored somehow by these new
regulations. Or, perhaps if we go to war with some rogue state who dares
violate the intellectual property rights of Disney, etc.

~~~
api
I see the TPP as part of the obsolescence of the nation state in favor of
global corporate governance. The incompetence you mention fits in with this--
those boobs are just leftovers from the old system. The fact that Donald Trump
is being seriously considered for president should tell you that the nation
state is dead.

Not saying this is a good thing. Read any 80s cyberpunk novel to see what's
coming. William Gibson was a prophet.

~~~
walterbell
Corporate lawsuits against governments at the World Bank (ISDS) can offer data
on the balance of power between states and corporations. See this Aussie
explainer video, in the style of the Daily Show:
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU](https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU)

More at
[http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org](http://www.isdscorporateattacks.org) &
[https://icsid.worldbank.org](https://icsid.worldbank.org)

    
    
      Water: Azurix v. Argentina
      Investor win (awarded $165 million plus interest)
    
      Ban of toxic fuel additive: Ethyl v. Canada
      Case settled (investor received $13 million, ban reversed)
    
      Toxic waste: Metalclad v. Mexico
      Investor win (awarded $16.2 million)
    
      Too-big-to-fail: Saluka v. Czech Republic
      Investor win (awarded $236 million)

~~~
yrro
This is incredible. Reading the details of the cases listed on that site makes
me feel sick. And there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

~~~
walterbell
Those pre-TPP cases are nothing compared to the future combined scope of TPP
(Pacific), TTIP (Europe) and RCEP (China, Korea, India, and other Asian
countries).

Never say there is nothing you can do. Tell other people about ISDS. Share the
videos [1][2][3][4].

Jon Oliver's video [4] about the Philip Morris tobacco ISDS lawsuit against
Australia (for brown paper packaging) caused such an outcry that TPP
negotiators were forced to exclude _the entire tobacco industry_ from ISDS.
This is the first time such an industry-specific carve-out has appeared in a
trade agreement.

[1]
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=M9ZFDpuiFUs](https://youtube.com/watch?v=M9ZFDpuiFUs)

[2]
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU](https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU)

[3]
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg](https://youtube.com/watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg)

[4]
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8](https://youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8)

~~~
yrro
Whenever I think about this for more than a passing moment I just become so
scared and angry. How the fuck is a company able to take a country to court
over a public health measure? Who the fuck voted for the evil bastards who
made that possible? How do they fucking live with themselves?

~~~
Excavator
The ones who listen to what they "will do", complain about what they do, then
promptly forgets during the buildup to the next election.

The ones who follow "the line" and are afraid of getting ostracized by their
peers.

The ones who value pocket change now over future prospects.

------
walterbell
KEI has a roundup of commentary on the TPP IP chapter,
[http://www.keionline.org/node/2335](http://www.keionline.org/node/2335)

A 6-min explainer video on TPP and ISDS,
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg](https://youtube.com/watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg)

HN discussion earlier today,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10359604](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10359604)

From the EFF article:

> _" One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made
> liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and
> implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed
> (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for
> circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)).
> Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of
> purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to
> a family's home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in
> sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center._"

Is TPM/DRM circumvention allowed for personal, non-commercial use? If so, why
would ripping Blu-Ray movies for personal use (e.g. watching on an airplane)
lead to computer seizure, e.g. during border inspection?

~~~
pjc50
Ripping Blu-rays for personal use is copyright infringement in many
jurisdictions. I'm not sure whether anyone's actually been prosecuted for it
though.

~~~
hugh4
Same deal with videoing stuff off TV, in the days when people did that.
Illegal in most jurisdictions, investigated and punished in none.

~~~
WaltPurvis
Recording TV shows with a VCR was not and is not illegal in the United States.
In what jurisdictions is it (nominally) illegal?

------
oldmanjay
I still feel strongly that disrupting the flow of free entertainment is the
one thing that will actually get people up and protesting. Rights and freedoms
stripped away with regularity have minimal impact, but SOPA got the world
riled up in fear that torrenting the next season of Game of Thrones was about
to get mildly more difficult.

I suspect something similar will happen here.

~~~
smtddr
Maybe... should have seen what happened when wikipedia disappeared for a day:
[http://laughingsquid.com/herpderpedia-a-collection-of-
tweets...](http://laughingsquid.com/herpderpedia-a-collection-of-tweets-by-
people-freaking-out-about-wikipedias-sopa-pipa-blackout/)

~~~
molmalo
Just imagine for a second what would happen if Facebook did the same for a
day...

Yeah, I know, I know, it's a corporation, It would loose lots of money by
going down for a whole day, and it's shareholders would be very angry. It's
not going to happen.

But if for some strange reason it did happen... that would call the attention
of LOTS of people.

------
teekert
This is very IT focused, (not strange for an HN post) but I am also very
curious about the standards that are altered for food safety. This is mainly
important for Europe which was about to ban a lot of endrocrine disruptive
pesticides but didn't, allegedly due to TTIP.

[http://www.ibtimes.com/ttip-controversy-us-officials-
industr...](http://www.ibtimes.com/ttip-controversy-us-officials-industry-
lobbyists-pressured-eu-not-regulate-harmful-1935564)

[http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/the-eu-claims-that-ttip-wont-
red...](http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/the-eu-claims-that-ttip-wont-reduce-eu-
safety-standards-but-is-this-true/)

------
joesmo
What are the chances that this will not be passed by congress? Is there enough
animosity that might stop this? I'm really hoping for some serious partisan
bickering and ridiculous Obama hate here or is this treaty so horrible (yes it
is) that our representatives intend to push it through no matter what?

~~~
crdoconnor
This can be used to rile up protest against it:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/slavery-
really_b_7462...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/slavery-
really_b_7462932.html)

This in particular does not go down at all well with the strongly religious,
even the religious right. So far it's mostly escaped their notice, however.

I have a feeling that if enough people call their Congresspeople and asking
why they are _voting for slavery_ and the destruction of American sovereignty
some of them will get cold feet. Bonus points if the congressperson purports
to be religious themselves.

For once, if you're in a flyover state, you can actually do something to help.

~~~
walterbell
Good point. The TPP is such a nightmare that we have even forgot _the mass
graves_.

------
dantiberian
From an NZ perspective this isn't great, but it could have been a lot worse.
The EFF didn't mention that NZ isn't required to allow software and medical
patents which was my greatest feared outcome.

~~~
zanny
I cannot believe the US is trying to spread the cancer of software patents
abroad. That is just so completely evil and stupid its insane.

------
mappu
The WHOIS-privacy thing is a little troubling. As a workaround, would it be
possible to create a "domain purchasing group" as a front for private
ownership?

(Primarily for stopping passive information leaks, not necessarily to prevent
active / legal information requests.)

~~~
pan69
Isn't that what current WHOIS privacy is? The way I understand it is that if
you currently have WHOIS privacy enabled, technically the domain doesn't
belong to you but to the registrar who is providing the WHOIS privacy.

~~~
mappu
I thought so too, but the occasional restriction (e.g. Namecheap prevent using
WhoisGuard on .ca/.uk domains) makes it seem like the technique isn't
generally applicable.

On second glance the submitted article doesn't specifically mention WHOIS -
perhaps i just read too far into it and it's only intended to stop junk data,
which is a lot more defensible.

~~~
ehPReth
The article doesn't mention WHOIS but there's this paragraph that seems like
something WHOIS-like would apply to ccTLDs at the least:

>The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for
country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in
place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a
reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name
registrants.”

------
mkhpalm
It seems like all these types of things are written up in secrecy these days.
When they can't do that, the other tactic is make it thousands of pages long
so nobody finds the nefarious nuggets hidden within. I've completely lost
faith that the federal government is for the people, by the people. It seems
to be centered around individuals these days.

------
Asbostos
Weren't there also thousands of tariffs removed? The economic advantages of
that might outweigh any loses from tighter copyright, and I suspect was the
carrot the US used to get all the copyright concessions. Everyone wants to
export to the US but the US is traditionally too protectionist.

Looking on the bright side of copyright. You never have to use somebody else's
copyright work. You can always just make your own if you really want. Using
somebody else's is just easier but not obligatory. See the popularity of open
source software as a recourse against copyright restrictions on the commercial
equivalents.

~~~
walterbell
_> Weren't there also thousands of tariffs removed?_

In one example, tariff reduction on some types of auto parts will move North
American manufacturing jobs to Chinese factories who will be allowed to supply
TPP member Japan, for export to North America.

 _> You never have to use somebody else's copyright work._

Some works are culturally significant, e.g. documentaries and historical
fiction.

~~~
Asbostos
Without an American-centric worldview, is there anything wrong with that
moving of manufacturing jobs? It seems to be better for overall good in the
world. It also serves American consumers who may get products cheaper.

If we allow somebody else's property to dictate our culture, then we're
already bound to the owner anyway. We already accept this with recently
produced movies/music/etc. I wouldn't even call that culture, just paid-for
passive entertainment much like paying for a ride at an amusement park. Once
you've used it, all you're entitled to is your memories.

~~~
DanBC
Cheaper products come with worker exploitation.

~~~
Asbostos
That implies the whole concept of developing nations is bad and we should try
to prevent it. All of them have worker exploitation to some extent. Don't
forget even exploited workers still choose where to work. They're not slaves.
Furthermore, tariffs aren't introduced to protect foreign workers. That really
isn't the reason for tariffs.

~~~
DanBC
> Don't forget even exploited workers still choose where to work.

We're not talking about long hours or low pay here - although those alone
should be cause for concern, but about working conditions that cause death and
permanent injury.

They're not slaves, but they don't have that much choice about where to work.
And they don't have any power within their place of work.

Why do you think women "choose" to work in a clothing factory with no fire
safety where they're locked in by supervisors?

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/bangladesh-
fact...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/bangladesh-factory-
fires-fashion-latest-crisis)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/bangladesh-
fact...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/bangladesh-factory-
fires-fashion-latest-crisis)

Or in clearly unsafe factories?

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/rana-plaza-
bang...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/rana-plaza-bangladesh-
one-year-on)

[http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2015/apr/24/...](http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2015/apr/24/bangladesh-factories-building-collapse-garment-dhaka-
rana-plaza-brands-hm-gap-workers-construction)

~~~
Asbostos
Are you saying lack of information is the problem? They don't understand the
risks so they're making a poor decision to work there? Since we can't educate
them, the next best thing is to force their factories to be shut down and
drive them back into subsistence farming?

Workers in China absolutely do have choice. Even the least skilled laborer
often has the option of going back to his family's farm and doing harder work
for lower pay. And that's what he would do if he's forced out of all other
kinds of work.

Most workers aren't so desperate though. There isn't a serious surplus of
labor in China anymore. Factory workers often earn more than university
graduates.

Here's a quick test that could help decide the matter. If you met such a
worker personally and got to know him. Then you had the power to choose to
fire him and prevent him ever finding similarly hazardous work again in his
life, or leave him alone. Which would you choose?

Beware that believing you know the best way to direct somebody else's life is
a risky area to step into.

Actually, this whole working conditions argument is a complete red herring.
The people who promote it are really the people who are nationalistic
protectionists and need an excuse to justify tariffs. But this isn't the
reason the government imposes tariffs. There isn't a "foreign workers health
and safety" lobby pressuring the government to apply taxes to imported
products.

But wait, there's more. Health risks are relative. We all accept them to some
extent. Is there an absolute level of acceptable danger? Is it OK for a US
construction worker to sometimes die but not OK for a Chinese factory work to
die slightly more often? Who's to say another culture won't deem our western
safety standards to be inhumane and try to prevent us driving all those cars
and building all those buildings because of all he fatalities they cause?

------
PavlovsCat
Take note of the people who kept parroting that line about this needing to be
negotiated in secret, because otherwise a meddlesome, uninformed public might
misunderstand and damage an otherwise positive thing. There was plenty of this
on HN, too, and thanks for nothing.

------
dmeeze
So, removing any rights management, even when no copyright infringement
occurs.

Sound bite: TTP bans memes.

------
zero-rated
What about works that are already in the Public Domain but would not have
qualified under the new laws? Will they revert back to the copyright holder?

~~~
walterbell
It appears that NZ and Malaysia negotiated exceptions that will delay the new
laws, so there will be no new public domain material for many years, but old
material will not be affected. It also appears that Canada failed to negotiate
such an exception, so public domain material from the past 20 years would
revert.

[http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/10/canada-caves-on-
copyright...](http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/10/canada-caves-on-copyright-in-
tpp-commits-to-longer-term-urge-isps-to-block-content/)

[http://beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/TPP-Q&A-Oct-2015.pdf](http://beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/TPP-Q&A-Oct-2015.pdf)

~~~
walterbell
response to zero-rated:

> Quick clarification: when you say "public domain material from the past 20
> years would revert" is that only work that originated in Canada, or for
> everything?

Ian Fleming has been used as an example, so probably everything. Nothing is
certain until the Canadian text is public.

------
nostromo
I think the EFF is being a bit hyperbolic here. This is certainly not _all_
that we feared.

TPP actually seems fairly banal from a U.S. perspective, in part because so
much of what is listed here directly mirrors U.S. law. (Laws like the length
of copyright and the DMCA.)

From the issues listed, I don't see how life will change online after TPP for
U.S. citizens in any major way. This seems positively mild compared to
something like SOPA.

~~~
bluehazed
As a Canadian, this terrifies me. I don't want US style copyright law here.
Just because the US has it, doesn't mean the rest of the world wants it (or
isn't a big deal if it's implemented)

~~~
nostromo
I feel you, dude. I don't like many of our laws either.

I'm simply pointing out that from a U.S. perspective this seems similar to the
status-quo. I agree that internationally these proposals may be much scarier.

~~~
namlem
Yes, but once our laws become codified in an international treaty, it greatly
reduces the possibility of liberalization in the future.

