31–40 of 76 posts
It doesn't make sense for Americans to oppose this treaty. We already live under most of these IP rules with no hope of relaxing them. Extending these profit protections to other countries will mainly benefit American companies and improve our economy.
It doesn't make sense for Americans to oppose this treaty. We already live under most of these IP rules with no hope of relaxing them. Extending these profit protections to other countries will mainly benefit American companies and improve our economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of your points amount to equivocation. True, the US can decide to exit a treaty. How likely is that, in this case? Not very. TPP is not a real treaty, but it carries the force of a treaty. Is the SCOTUS likely to find something unconstitutional? Again, it's true that SCOTUS could dump the TPP, but I think it's highly unlikely, given court's deference to intent of legislation, will of the legislators,etc etc. The…
I'm not trying to argue that the TPP isn't bad. It is. Nor am I trying to conceal the truth on anything regarding the mechanisms of government. I just wanted to state that there are ways to control the TPP should it get voted in.
It doesn't make sense for Americans to oppose this treaty. We already live under most of these IP rules with no hope of relaxing them. Extending these profit protections to other countries will mainly benefit American companies and improve our economy.
2) There is always the hope, however small, that we'd be able to do it domestically. With an international agreement of this scale, it would truly be impossible.
It doesn't make sense for Americans to oppose this treaty. We already live under most of these IP rules with no hope of relaxing them. Extending these profit protections to other countries will mainly benefit American companies and improve our economy.
I think this perspective needs to be expanded on (thank you btw). I'd like to see a couple IP experts 'debate' the issue and the implications of its facets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't specify what the penalty must be, however (does it?). For example, US Code, in the criminal section (506) it says: (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. They could make singing the wrong song a $20 penalty and presumably still comply with t…
A $20 fine and a criminal record, which as I understand it is something you _really_ don't want.
The whole TPP should be dumped for good. Make sure to put pressure on your representatives. Copyright term increase is enough of a reason. And of course the usual anti-circumvention garbage, which forbids breaking DRM even for non infringing purposes. > Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyri…
The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. The only person you should be blaming is the President.
The whole TPP should be dumped for good. Make sure to put pressure on your representatives. Copyright term increase is enough of a reason. And of course the usual anti-circumvention garbage, which forbids breaking DRM even for non infringing purposes. > Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyri…
The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government that can sign and negotiate treaties. It is one of the few powers that the Constitution grants the President (Article II, Section 2). Congress has no role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement. The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. T…
Oh, I didn't realize the significance of the waiting period in Canada! Although from what I've heard, this won't change anyone's mind about Harper.
No, but it will make a huge difference choosing between Trudeau & Mulcair. Mulcair is unequivocably against the TPP, Trudeau said he'll "thoroughly examine" it.
> For all these reasons, the NDP will not uncritically accept the TPP agreement that was negotiated by Stephen Harper in secret and which could re-write many laws against the interests of Canadians.
> We will push for a full review of the details of this agreement. We will consult Canadians and stakeholders. We will measure it against the needs of Canadian families and communities, and test it against the long-term interests of Canada.
> Only Tom Mulcair will give this agreement the scrutiny it needs. Only Tom Mulcair will fight for our jobs, our families and our communities and stand up to a wrongly-negotiated trade deal.
> Thank you again for your interest.
> All the best,
> Canada's New Democrats | Le NPD du Canada
The whole TPP should be dumped for good. Make sure to put pressure on your representatives. Copyright term increase is enough of a reason. And of course the usual anti-circumvention garbage, which forbids breaking DRM even for non infringing purposes. > Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyri…
The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government that can sign and negotiate treaties. It is one of the few powers that the Constitution grants the President (Article II, Section 2). Congress has no role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement. The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. T…
So far so good.
> Congress has no role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement.
Quite wrong. Go reread article II: the President's treaty-making power is subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. What that means is that the President can negotiate and sign all the treaties he wants, but none of them have force of law until the Senate gives its consent, expressed through a supermajority approval.
Sole executive agreements -- which are not exercises of the treaty power -- are limited in scope to things the President would be, with or without dealing with another state, empowered to do through executive action.
Of course, just because something is negotiated like a treaty doesn't mean it is a treaty. It can instead be, in effect, a sole executive agreement to seek a particular change in domestic law, which is then effectuated through a normal law, rather than treaty ratification. Which is, actually, how many trade agreements, including TPP (and, earlier, among others, NAFTA) work. Its why "Fast track" authority is a big deal, because it effects the rules in Congress for considering laws which are implementations of such trade deals.