Leaked: What's in TPP’s intellectual property chapter

Post by dublinben » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 12:07 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #114

tomp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a rather empty argument. Sure, protection intellectual "property" is important for encouraging innovation, but the length of protection must be carefully balanced to prevent rent-seeking (resting on laurels of past innovation). Currently, the terms are ridiculous for many categories (software patents, copyright). In particular, there's nothing that "encourages innovation" when terms get extended retroactively…

That's an orthogonal point. You could make a similar argument for private land ownership (why should someone be able to keep a parcel in his ownership for decades if he doesn't plan to use it?)

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 12:32 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #103

TeMPOraL wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apathy may be something that grows with time as well. It seems to me (though I don't have much evidence to back it up so I welcome being shown I'm wrong) that a lifespan of a functioning democracy is ~100 years. The people who shed blood for it care. Their children are taught to care as well. But the grand-grand-children, born into a working system, don't have any context of how it was before that would give them mot…

And for the US, one could plausibly start that 100 year clock in 1865, rather than in 1789. That would put the start of the apathy in 1965. Feels about right. (Unless you're going to count it from 1945, in which case the real apathy hasn't started yet.)

Post by hellbanner » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 12:40 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #110

wirelesskarma wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, there are a lot of things that the hypothetical NWO does that I fully agree with. I stand in full favour of GMOS, Nuclear Energy, Carbon Taxation/Trading, and also a global government (on the condition of it being a good one). However, the extra political power being given to corporations and the reduction of citizen's capacity for political influence is something to stand firmly against. Of course I don't b…

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that I like the TPP. You're right about the power given to corporate entities being something to fight against. > the world is certainly largely run by a group of individuals in power This reminds me of an observation I once read - that there's no surprise those on top can look like they form a club even if they represent opposite spectrum on political scene; after all they studied at t…

Post by oldmanjay » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 12:52 AM UTC

gress wrote: post #90

slg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are letting the citizenry off the hook for their part in this. The only reason corporations gained this power is because they have more collective money (or at least are more willing to use that money) to lobby. The only reason lobbying works is because politicians need money to get elected. The only reason politicians need money to get elected is because people are so susceptible to political marketing.…

You make it sound as though being easily manipulated by people with a lot of resources is a character flaw, rather than a characteristic of all humans throughout history. It is unlikely (and maybe even undesirable) that we are going to be able to easily overcome our inherent susceptibility to influence. Therefore if we are to improve things we must recognize that this is part of who we are, and design our institution…

Post by crdoconnor » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 1:06 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #117

icanhackit wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. negotiators have basically functioned as drug lobbyists I made a similar comment a few days ago - what we need is a crowd-funded lobbying platform for everyday people. A kind of Kickstarter for law and policy. If a few thousand or even tens of thousands of people chip in a few dollars to lobby for a change in policy, we can compete with corporations who have bought their way into power. While we're complaining o…

How is this any different from the panoply of public lobbying and advocacy organizations that exist today? The Chamber of Commerce pulls in $200 million per year. EDF pulls in $121M. Sierra $98M. CAP $40M. Cato $29M. The Family Research Council $13M. The EFF pulls in $10M. Even the smallest of these are not small numbers. And, if you're interested in policy or political change, you've heard of all of them, and they a…