Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
wikileaks.org
Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
1–10 of 201 posts
Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#2Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#3Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#4 Each party shall provide [VN: oppose adequate and effective]
[VN propose: appropriate] remedies against the registration traffickingRe: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#5Any good overviews of this leak yet?
Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#6Anyone that leaks information is a fucking hero.
Edit: Stop attacking me personally. I'm talking about the government's privacy here, not mine (nor anyone else's). I actually think my privacy will improve if this becomes a reality.
Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#7Any good overviews of this leak yet?
Skimming through it, it's entertaining to see "CA/CL/AU/NZ/JP/ETC oppose; US/BLAH propose" strewn about. One has to wonder where the line is drawn between self-interest and political favors.
Here is the section that might interest you, on ISP liability:
http://wikileaks.org/tpp/#QQI1
A small part of me feels like some party attributions may not be written by representatives of their respective country, and that there is some political/corporate hand-wringing influencing/forcing party attributions. To avoid political fallout, these party attributions must be kept secret (lest they contradict prior established stances).
Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#8What 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/a...
Here is NAFTA - 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).
Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#9Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
#10Also, I'm getting sick and tired of our "leaders" attempting to legislate free speech and intellectual property in secret through anti-democratic means. It's disgusting.
Edit: second paragraph