Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WikiLeaks Releases the Secret Draft Text of the TPP IP Rights Chapter

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the democracy-in-action dept.

Your Rights Online 212

sproketboy writes "WikiLeaks releases the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter." The Syndney Morning Herald took a look at the leaked documents, from their article: "An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

cancel ×

212 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Business as usual (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413259)

When you have a gun pointed at the head of the world, you can make them do whatever you want.

Re:Business as usual (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 9 months ago | (#45413407)

Until everyone figures out that due to maintenance cutbacks your gun has rusted tight due to years of neglect and decay, and that you no longer possess the skills to competently load the gun, having replaced the loading procedure with an MBA designed "just in time" ammo delivery system designed to minimise the total number of idle bullets in stock, and in any case you no longer possess bullets due to even more cutbacks and the recent outsourcing of the last factory in your country that actually makes them.

But don't worry, you still have enough credibility left to bluff .... oh, wait.

Re:Business as usual (2)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 9 months ago | (#45413753)

Until everyone figures out that due to maintenance cutbacks your gun has rusted tight due to years of neglect and decay, and that you no longer possess the skills to competently load the gun, having replaced the loading procedure with an MBA designed "just in time" ammo delivery system designed to minimise the total number of idle bullets in stock, and in any case you no longer possess bullets due to even more cutbacks and the recent outsourcing of the last factory in your country that actually makes them.

But don't worry, you still have enough credibility left to bluff .... oh, wait.

If the US's gun gets too rusty, and multinational corporations need to use another country's gun to force the people of the world into submission, it would be inconvenient, but not disastrous for them. They really aren't subject to weakness like "patriotism" or "community" or anything like that that us humans are.

How do you act (5, Insightful)

dangerousbeans (735507) | about 9 months ago | (#45413267)

when all our governments behave in this way. Their agenda is so different to our best interests it's horrific.

Let me guess. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413277)

They're mandating net neutrality, eliminating bandwidth caps, and dramatically scaling back copyright terms in light of the fact that the Internet offers a worldwide market for copyrighted material with instantaneous delivery of goods?

Re:Let me guess. (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 9 months ago | (#45413507)

+1 funny.

Re:Let me guess. (4, Insightful)

Dr Caleb (121505) | about 9 months ago | (#45413835)

More like "+1, Almost a laugh but really a cry"

Re:Let me guess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414023)

+3 pigs

If this is the draft version (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413283)

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

Re:If this is the draft version (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45413535)

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all?

They get travel expenses and fine food plus hook^Wentertainment...?

Re:If this is the draft version (2)

Gonoff (88518) | about 9 months ago | (#45413541)

Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.

There used to be a legal principle that secret laws were invalid. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.

Now admittedly our laws have taken a beating due to the US Economic Hit Men and some of our politicians have shown themselves to be obedient to their masters. Someone is eventually going to point out that secret laws have less validity than unwritten agreements.

That may be why...

Re:If this is the draft version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413581)

Easy. They're holding out for more bribes.

Re:If this is the draft version (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 9 months ago | (#45413757)

They have to put on a nice show that they're doing something, or someone back home may actually catch on to the fraud.

Intellectual property is a hoax. (5, Insightful)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 9 months ago | (#45413323)

Property versus Knowledge
Property can be held, physically possessed.
It is easy to see who possesses a piece of property. Knowledge cannot be physically possessed. It can only be known.
When I take property from you, you no longer have it.
It is easy to see that property is (or can be) exclusive, or what the legal beagles call "rivalrous", a zero-sum game. To the extent that one person uses it, they limit the amount that another person can use it. Knowledge cannot be taken away from you; when I learn some knowledge that you know, you still know it.
Property has a clear origin; you start with raw materials, sometimes you you add labour.
It is easy to see where property came from. It is easy to trace the movements of a piece of property. Knowledge doesn't have a clear origin; it is all derived from existing human culture and knowledge.

http://darksleep.com/notablog/articles/Intellectual_Property_Is_Fraud [darksleep.com]

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45413373)

Intellectual property is a useful social construct. This post is a bit like saying "manslaughter is a hoax" because all the distinctions between it and murder are subjective. The problem isn't the existence of intellectual property as a concept, but its treatment as a shining jewel of fundamental rights. Ignoring the purpose of something in legislating about it is always a problem.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45413643)

Intellectual property is a useful social construct.

Sure. The problem is that these people think that draconian legislation is the answer to a changing marketplace that made their business model obsolete.

Imagine if the buggy-whip manufacturers had had enough money to bribe the government to pass laws preventing manufacture of automobiles...

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (3, Interesting)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45413951)

Which is EXACTLY what the RIAA tried to do to the first MP3 player. Those moments turned me into a lifelong enemy of ALL copyright. I have seen copyright stifle too much innovation for it to be useful to society in its current incarnation. The verdict is vengeance, a vendetta.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45414345)

You can and should be an enemy of lifelong copyrights, but you wouldn't want all copyright to be gone, would you?

If movie theaters could just show movies without paying the studio anything, how would new movies get funded?

If authors didn't get paid anything for writing books, do you think we'd continue to have as many books?

If software wasn't protected by copyright, would as many programs get created?

Do you really want to live in that world?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414425)

Maybe we just wouldn't get so many movies that are crap by people who are only there to make a buck.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414597)

Movies and books could be made by people who want to share what they know, think, or feel.

Software will be written to be productive and useful. (I say "will be" because I am a software developer, and I would work under this arrangement.)

Yes. I really want to live in that world. I want greed to go away. I want greedy people to die.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414675)

You do know that Hollywood is only where it is because they fled as far away from the east coast as possible to infringe on Edison's patents without consequence, right?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414829)

You can and should be an enemy of lifelong copyrights, but you wouldn't want all copyright to be gone, would you?

Yes.

If movie theaters could just show movies without paying the studio anything, how would new movies get funded?

My two favorite solutions:
1) Crowdfunding. For example, Kickstarter campaigns by your favorite authors and movie studios.
2) Prediction markets - you bet against "a sci-fi movie by Steven Spielberg will rate over 80% on Rotten Tomatoes this year". When Spielberg decides to make the film, he sees your bet and everyone else's.
If you don't like these particular implementations that's fine - my lack of creativity shouldn't be your problem.

If authors didn't get paid anything for writing books, do you think we'd continue to have as many books?
If software wasn't protected by copyright, would as many programs get created?

Yes.

Do you really want to live in that world?

Absolutely. Do you really want to live in a world where the government can suppress useful information?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45414871)

I dont want to live in a world where the default is for art to be locked and expect payment from up to 7 billion other humans, its absurd.. I dont think its right to give explicit control over monetization and venue to content creators. ITs used to create artificial markets and drive up prices. I would like to see more FRAND-style doctrines. I think there should be very firm controls linking production cost to monetization when it comes to government granted IP monopolies. IP is a SOCIAL BARGAIN and we need to re-balance the equation. I think once you have reached a certain monetization threshold, your IP should weaken.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (5, Informative)

PRMan (959735) | about 9 months ago | (#45414931)

They did.

You had speed limits of 9 mph, requirements to have a guy waving a lantern in front of you, etc., etc., etc.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 9 months ago | (#45413811)

There are issues with just using 'intellectual property' as a catch-all term, because the dynamics ofcopyright, patents, trademark, and trade secrets are quite different. However, I would debate that copyright and patents are useful as a social construct, especially when couched in the 'property' metaphor. Property is a solution to the problem of limited resources, which doesn't exist with the intangible.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 9 months ago | (#45414363)

Labor to create new intangibles is a limited resource. According to the constitution of Slashdot's home country, copyrights and patents exist ostensibly "to promote the progress of" fields that revolve around these intangibles.

Re: Intellectual property is a hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414637)

people with the knowledge to create new intellectual property are scarce because of artificially imposed scarcity of knowledge, created by intellectual property laws?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414423)

> Intellectual property is a useful social construct.
Because you say so?

Intellectual property is an invention from Lawyer & Accountant Hell, first introduced as a metaphor to subsume copyright, patent and trademark laws (in themselves very disparate things, and rightly so!), and slowly mutating into something comparable to "Real Property", so as to be able to play the same casino capitalism on it as it is played on "Real Property".

Which is less-than-funny when said "Real Property" is food, but I disgress...

When said Lawyers & Accountants are done, our lives won't be as much fun as they still are.

I think we should resist the introduction of this term.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 9 months ago | (#45414585)

Except the differences between copyright and property are not subjective. That was the entire point of the OP.

The differences here are very real.

Plus the corporate interests want to have it both ways. They want all of the advantages and none of the downside. They also want rights only for them and no one else.

It really doesn't work that way. Trying to will bring the whole house of cards down for everyone.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413453)

Good distinction. Also different from both property and knowledge is potential to profit.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | about 9 months ago | (#45413459)

Intellectual property isn`t knowledge, it`s various forms of monopoly rights. Copyright is a monopoly right to make copies. Trademarks are a monopoly right to use certain forms of signs. Patents are monopoly rights to make use of various inventions.

The idea of monopolies as goods that can be traded is a little abstract, but it`s similar to lots of other contracts. If you deposit money in a bank, they only need to return it to you because of an abstract concept of ownership. Nothing really changed hands in most cases, you and the bank just agreed on a contract.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413493)

Creating (or finding?) knowledge has associated costs. Time, money, and labour are all spent on the development of more knowledge.

So by preventing anyone from reasonably exploiting the knowledge they have created/found, where is the incentive to continue advancing knowledge?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413971)

Open S/W seems find the necessary incentives, which says that there is more than one possible model.

The IP folks have forgotten that the reason they have the right (not property) in the first place was because of a two sided deal with society.
        The forever refreshing of patents and copyrights and the ignoring of fair use are examples of renigging on their side of that deal.
          (The Internet has enabled wide spread renigging on the other side of the copyright deal.)

Although there are wrongs on both sides, it does seem that lobbying is pushing things a bit too much to one side.
    The rights holders are (as usual) shooting themselves in the foot in this respect because eventually there will be a backlash which fixes the Mickey Mouse laws.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45414401)

It would seem so, until you think about it more...

That free, open source software, is written on computers that are anything but free, that were developed for the purpose of making their companies a profit.

The development work that FOSS is built on was all "for profit" software.

You wouldn't even have a computer on your desk in the first place if it wasn't for "profit".

Yes, there are people who are willing to work on FOSS, but they have an income from somewhere, you can't eat "love and happiness".

The irony is that just a few stories back on SlashDot, there was a story about how to get more young people involved with Linux, the core developer base is aging. The best reply in the whole thread was, "because people like to get paid". It helps with minor things like... keeping a roof over your head and eating on a semi-regular basis.

Making free software doesn't do any of that. (and free GMail accounts aren't "free", you're the product being sold)

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 9 months ago | (#45414619)

Necessity is the mother of invention, not avarice.

The same argument you use in favor of patents run amok can also be applied to the victims of patent trolls.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413513)

I physically possessed your mother last night. You could say I knew her in the Biblical sense.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#45413765)

You could say I knew her in the Biblical sense.

You mean you found her sort of quaint and near incomprehensible?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414407)

No, lying through her teeth, trying to command all the idiots.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 9 months ago | (#45413565)

I've been making the same kind of argument here on Slashdot for years now; it's nice to see someone else doing so.

I'm not sure calling it a "hoax" helps the argument's case though: the concept of [copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets] is real enough; it's just the attempt to conflate it with actual property that is a lie.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413681)

It's a semantic game around terminology that ignores the real issues. While Slashdot circle-jerks over whether or not this is "property" and whether or not infringement is "theft" the world is moving on regardless, using those terms as useful real-world anchors for the deeper concepts involved.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 9 months ago | (#45414315)

Allowing the "Intellectual Property [sic]" proponents to frame the debate just makes it that much easier for them to win.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

Mathinker (909784) | about 9 months ago | (#45414335)

It may be useful to have anchors for these concepts, but ignoring the fact that humans are swayed by how language is couched is simply naive. I personally prefer to communicate as I think best, rather than mindlessly subjugate myself to whatever convention is currently accepted by society. I can understand the other position, however... a lot of people don't feel comfortable wearing the non-conformist hat...

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 9 months ago | (#45414661)

> It's a semantic game around terminology that ignores the real issues

Semantics are the issue. Corporate shills pretend that copyright is a natural right to align their interests with the Bill of Rights when the exact opposite is the case.

Semantics is at the center of the pro-corporate propaganda here.

Knocking down this propaganda is the first step to restoring balance to this situation.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (4, Insightful)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45413719)

There are a few issues with that...

Without copyright, patents, etc. then you would have fewer inventions that benefit all of humanity.

My father owned several patents years ago, ran a business for years based on them. He is retired now (and of course those patents are long expired), but for a time those provided us a comfortable living.

He invested his parents life savings to make those inventions and get them patented. Do you really think he would have taken that risk without the chance of a reward?

If he had to invest his parents life savings, and in return the government says, "sorry, that is just knowledge, anyone can copy it now that you've invented it", do you believe he would be inclined to do so?

If you're honest, you'll agree that he would not, most people wouldn't.

Could you find an example of someone who would? Yes, of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but the majority of people would not.

Our world would be a very different place (and not for the better) without such laws in place.

(Note: Patents are about right, 20 years... copyright has been extended too many times and lasts too long, I'd personally reduce that to 20 years to match Patents).

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 9 months ago | (#45413827)

My father owned several patents years ago, ran a business for years based on them. He is retired now (and of course those patents are long expired)

The problem is that copyrights, unlike patents, NEVER expire anymore. Not in the U.S. anyway, and the U.S. is all that fucking counts (because the rest of your pussy leaders will damn well do what the U.S. Government tells them to OR ELSE!)

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45414299)

If you read to the end of my comment, you'll notice that I said the same thing.

If patents lasted as long as copyrights, I'd still be getting a royalty check to this day...

I'm not, because they expire. And I'm ok with that, we were paid for 20 years, that is long enough.

Copyright? Nuts, just nuts... move it back to 20 years...

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45413973)

O look, someone with a vested interest telling us its good for us......

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45414273)

Oh look, someone who has never created anything wants everything for free...

Those patents are expired, maybe I should spend all my savings and invent something new, only to have you take it for free.

Yea, no thanks. What have YOU invented with all your life savings and then given away?

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (5, Interesting)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45414301)

I have created plenty, and I give it all away. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. The difference is i dont attempt to make things just to profit from them. I design with the idea that whatever I make is already owed to the cultural that educated me.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 9 months ago | (#45414471)

So you work for free and refuse a paycheck? Impressive. How do you eat?

If you write software in your free time as a hobby, more power to you. You're able to do that because you do something that earns you money, and the computer that you write that software on only exists because of people who wanted to earn money.

The patents and copyrights on the hardware and software are what enabled computers to become what they are. Without that profit motive, Intel wouldn't be spending $5 billion dollars to build new manufacturing facilities.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (4, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | about 9 months ago | (#45414881)

Bullshit. Intel lives on the bleeding edge. Patents don't do squat for their bottom line. Keeping ahead of their rivals is what creates their bottom line. A 20 year long monopoly is meaningless in a world where yesterday's technology is considered stale.

Intel is perhaps the WORST example you could have come up with.

Patents exist to encourage the disclosure of trade secrets.

Intel makes money by SELLING THINGS.

Re:Intellectual property is a hoax. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 9 months ago | (#45414339)

Is worse than that. US is officially not acknowledging the right of intellectual property of anyone in the planet (except of for the insiders [propublica.org] ) with its wide surveillance (and sabotage/backdooring/etc) effort, including specially every single citizen of those signing countries. Why them should acknowledge that right of for US citizens/corporations, unless they are in the bag already?

Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks. (4, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 9 months ago | (#45413327)

Without them, we might never have suspected that large moneyed interests influence international policy in their own favor.

Seriously, though, good on WikiLeaks. It can't hurt to rub people's noses in the facts -- can it?

Re:Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks. (3, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 9 months ago | (#45413923)

Seriously, though, good on WikiLeaks. It can't hurt to rub people's noses in the facts -- can it?

It is a sad day that we must rely on an donation sponsored organization like Wikileaks to attempt to defend the rights and interests of consumers - our respective national institutions have obviously failed us. Wikileaks and brought some sunlight on the backroom dealing, bribing and power struggle negotiations over the TPP and defiantly hurts the corrupt politicians goverment functionaries and corporations behind it.

If this knowledge now translates into pushback and political action then maybe it will not have been in vain. Given mass media is not interested in informing the masses that their rights and interest are about to be stripped away by this deal then this it is a long shot. We the people get the governance we deserve in the end, I guess.

Ditch the smarm (1)

Rujiel (1632063) | about 9 months ago | (#45414705)

Wikileaks doesn't simply tell us that entities are corrupt and expect us to believe it at face value. There are always specific examples.

Re:Well, thank goodness for WikiLeaks. (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 9 months ago | (#45414985)

This is true.

Wikileaks is necessary because our own governments won't tell us what they're doing.

THATS WHY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413347)

For those that wonder why we should support Wikileaks. THAT's why. Government goons try to do things in secret, and not in our best interest. Wikileaks makes the difference.

Re:THATS WHY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413963)

It is a small groups selfish egotistical corrupt self interest to push this through out of the public limelight. Guess what - at the end of the day all of us in the affected countries voted for this...

This just in: Fails all around. (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 9 months ago | (#45413421)

Here's a brain teaser:

Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs (such as marijuana, ecstacy, etc.) -- ignoring the fact that the scientific consensus now is that both are less harmful than alcohol, or cigarettes, both of which are legal, is that it would fund terrorism. In other words, their argument is that because a small amount of it is bad, we should keep the whole thing illegal.

Yet, here we have IP law -- of which much of it is bad, and yet they tell us we should keep the whole thing legal... or [insert boogieman story here]. I'm not buying. I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me? Maybe that I'm just young and stupid... or maybe I'm just seeing things more clearly. Maybe I just don't think the government has any credibility left to it, and so whatever the government says is right... it's a safe bet marching in the opposite direction will be better for you.

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (3, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about 9 months ago | (#45413561)

I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

You haven't figured out how to get free drugs using the Internet?

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 9 months ago | (#45413623)

> You haven't figured out how to get free drugs using the Internet?

Not by using bit torrent I haven't. Yet. But once I do, the next challenge will be how to get them from my Downloads folder and into my hand.

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413629)

Maybe that I'm just young and stupid... or maybe I'm just seeing things more clearly.

I think I will go with the former... I have seen the other end of the burnouts who use drugs. Its not pretty. Ive known about 10 different people who died from their lifestyle. In addition to the many others who just will not go anywhere. Ever meet a 40 year old drug addict? Its pathetic. You seriously feel sorry for them. But they made their choices. I have known people who are stuck (and would by some accounts be successful) but then turn to drugs as a way to ignore the issues at hand.

My wife who used to abuse everything known to man has this to say after she quit 'I wake up and do not feel like crap anymore. I miss it but will *never* go back I enjoy feeling good about everything now'. You end up in a cycle of more and more, where it is never enough.

In life there there are choices. Some are good some are bad. Some seem like a good idea at the time. When in hindsight they are stupid as hell. You do not set out to be a burnout. You get there 1 pill/joint/rail at a time.

-- "this is your life and it is is ending one minute at a time"

What are you going to do about it?

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (1)

Mathinker (909784) | about 9 months ago | (#45414393)

Er, even though your post is interesting and insightful, as a reply to someone saying "I buy drugs" it's either a strawman or a false dichotomy...

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413659)

Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs [...] is that it would fund terrorism.

Of course if the stuff were legalized, it could be taxed -- thus de-funding terrorism and funding government. Colorado voters just massively approved new taxes on marijuana sales, which are now (at that state level) legal.

Now, there's an argument to be made in favor of intellectual "property" rights, but that ain't it.

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 9 months ago | (#45413673)

. I'll buy drugs, but I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

That you only buy tangible property and that we haven't invented mindcandy yet?

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 9 months ago | (#45413855)

That you only buy tangible property and that we haven't invented mindcandy yet?

Basically, yeah. I'll pay for a good, or a service. For example, I'm okay paying for netflix. Videos are a service. Putting a lot of them together on a website is a convenience. I like convenience. That's a tangible thing -- even though it's just electrical impulses, someone sat down and made it for me, and at a reasonable price. Cheaper than what it replaced: Video stores.

But software? No. Not because it isn't also a good, or because it's not valuable -- but because it's grossly overvalued. And yet, participating in our society, which pretty much demands internet access, demands we all pay through the nose for this. I will not. Same with a video game; Most are not worth $40 or more and then fuck you on DLC or monthly subscriptions on top of that. Netflix gives me nearly unlimited entertainment for $10 a month... while a game might provide, at most, 50-100 hours of entertainment, and yet costs four times more. The reason for the cost difference is intellectual property.

Netflix would have been sunk too if the MPAA had its way -- and they're still trying with the ISPs. But it got too big, too fast, and they had only a narrow window to try and kill it. They missed it. So now we have cheap access to videos. It was an accident... but one I'm happy to pay for.

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413859)

I won't buy video games or software. What does that say about me?

Hopefully it says you only use free software? Or am I being naive?

The government says vaccinate your children. Are you going to refuse to do that merely because the government says you should? I'd say follow your theory to the logical conclusion but ... does it have a logical basis in the first place? Or does it merely provide a false sense of empowerment that politics has so far denied you? Realize that if you always do the opposite of what someone says, you're still giving them the power to decide your actions for you ...

Well ask the hypocrits (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 9 months ago | (#45414015)

Ask the artists who openly break drug laws because they claim unpopular laws not supported by the majority of people (so they claim) are immoral.

Ask the artists who support copyright laws because they claim laws that hurt a small minority but have no popular support are moral and those who break said laws are immoral.

The reality of course is that pretty everyone is FOR laws that benefit themselves and against laws that don't.

Companies want to produce in cheap labor markets but preclude consumers from consuming from cheap labor markets (see import restrictions), you CD is made in Vietnam but you can't buy it from Vietnam.

Workers want companies to keep factories local so they can get a salary which they then wish to spend on cheap goods made abroad.

We are all selfish pieces of shit out to screw everyone and ending up screwing ourselves.

Re:Well ask the hypocrits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414687)

Good summary of being a human. If I had mod points I would give you +1, Insightful.

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 9 months ago | (#45414109)

Much of the justification lately for not decriminalizing drugs

They don't bother to justify drug policy these days. They just refuse to talk about it. Petition Obama to ask why Cannabis can't be treated like alcohol, and you get a response that says "drugs are bad, mmmkay" and doesn't mention alcohol at all. They know they can't win, so they simply stonewall.

Re:This just in: Fails all around. (1)

swb (14022) | about 9 months ago | (#45414177)

I think you've just described the argument for *legalizing* drugs -- by legalizing their production, you're not buying a substance grown or produced in a conflict area where the local insurgent militia takes a cut and provides protection.

Instead, it's grown/produced as part of the above-ground economy at non-risk inflated prices, eliminating the flow of cash to militias and terrorist groups.

CF, the end of alcohol prohibition.

The real news is these "agreements" are secret (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413445)

WHY are these agreements secret in the first place??

I don't think it's a huge surprise to anyone that the actual content of the treaty is anti-american and anti-consumer and just
has the interests in mind of __scum__ .. but why keep it secret, (scum)? It's not like drugged out TV watching fast food gobbling Americans
are going to read it, so why all this fuss over keeping it secret when you could send copies of it to every mailbox in America
and that wouldn't change a thing?

Re:The real news is these "agreements" are secret (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 9 months ago | (#45413585)

WHY are these agreements secret in the first place??

I don't think it's a huge surprise to anyone that the actual content of the treaty is anti-american and anti-consumer and just
has the interests in mind of __scum__ .. but why keep it secret, (scum)? It's not like drugged out TV watching fast food gobbling Americans
are going to read it, so why all this fuss over keeping it secret when you could send copies of it to every mailbox in America
and that wouldn't change a thing?

Because while most of the country may be drugged out coach potatoes, there are those that would make issues and cause them problems, such as the EFF.

Re:The real news is these "agreements" are secret (4, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about 9 months ago | (#45413653)

You beat me to posting the question. So I'll post the answer, which is right in the summary:

"An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"

No surprise there. No wonder why it must be done in secret.

Protip: if you must conduct international negotiations in secret, then you're probably not representing the people of the nation you are negotiating on behalf of.

what about patent abuse / junk patents (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#45413479)

we need to make so people can just get BS patents and troll useing them.

Re:what about patent abuse / junk patents (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 9 months ago | (#45413679)

> we need to make so people can just get BS patents and troll useing them.

Newsflash: it's already that way right now.

I'm filing for a patent on a method and system for making binary decisions based on the launching of a flat round decision support device into the air and making a determination of the outcome based on which side the decision support device lands on. I will also sell these decision support devices. A basic model for $10 is made of copper and is decorated with a picture of Lincoln on one side. A more expensive $25 model has a picture of George Washington and is constructed using superior metals. This is a valuable patent from which I anticipate making a mint (no pun intended). This is NOT a lame software patent. This is a patent on genuine hardware contributing a genuine advance in the important field of executive management decision making which has major applications in the areas of business, commerce and sporting events.

I wonder... (5, Interesting)

mitzampt (2002856) | about 9 months ago | (#45413509)

I actually wonder why it was secret to begin with. And I wonder why is there a need to start these treaties like that. It's has become a democratic tradition to empower the citizens you represent with the ability to deal with the results of your negotiations, as public opinion wouldn't react correctly to a well intended and morally sound proposal.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 9 months ago | (#45413775)

Devil's advocate: the reason the negotiations are kept secret is because that a lot of things get put on the table that won't appear in the final draft. The US, say, might put forward a proposal that throws its dairy industry under the bus in exchange for all of New Zealand's gold mines or something. In a public negotiation the dairy industry would read about this proposal and raise an uproar. Then the proposals change, as proposals are wont to do, and the dairy farmer part is cut out. But the average dairy farmer still thinks he's getting screwed.

(still devil's advocate) So they keep the negotiations secret, because they don't want people getting in a fuss over things that won't be in the final draft, but are just part of the wheeling and dealing. The final result, of course, will not be secret, and will be revealed to the public before the Senate votes to approve the treaty or not. Any objections can be voiced at that time.

Re:I wonder... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414025)

Devil's advocate: the reason the negotiations are kept secret is because that a lot of things get put on the table that won't appear in the final draft. The US, say, might put forward a proposal that throws its dairy industry under the bus in exchange for all of New Zealand's gold mines or something. In a public negotiation the dairy industry would read about this proposal and raise an uproar.

And that's desirable. If the US government is working for the US country, then it should want that result to occur.

Then the proposals change, as proposals are wont to do, and the dairy farmer part is cut out. But the average dairy farmer still thinks he's getting screwed.

And that's desirable too, since it's a correct that he's getting screwed (even though that part is now out). He (and everyone else) has learned that the dairy industry is getting screwed, because "throwing them under the bus" had been an option at one point.

So they keep the negotiations secret, because they don't want people getting in a fuss over things that won't be in the final draft..

..but people getting in a fuss is good, in a democracy. There's no downside to it, and shitloads of upside.

Re:I wonder... (3, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 9 months ago | (#45414139)

You would have a point if the time from "Final Draft" to final law included time for consumers and community groups to review and contribute to the draft before it is passed into law. As we have seen from past abusive treaties like ACTA THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN in most of the countries that finally signed it. No it is all kept secret and undemocratic so as to keep consumers and community groups off the negotiating table and leave them no time to react once the final draft is released and it is quickly passed into law.

Also now that we know that "the wheeling and dealing" involves spying on the negotiators or anyone else in key positions that stands in the way of the worst case clauses of the agreement - basically blackmailing them into agreement wherever possible. This is another important reason why no self respecting democracy (are there any left) should allow such negotiations to be held for so long in secret, nor run by a small select few of power brokers operating in the dark.

Re:I wonder... (2)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 9 months ago | (#45413825)

They keep these treaties secret as long as they can because they know that the people they represent would otherwise not countenance the agreements. They know this because every time they have tried to push forward these sorts of acts and people HAVE gotten wind of it, their constituents have raised a fuss and forced their representatives to back down. So now the politicians try to keep these laws hidden as long as they can, in order to provide the shortest opportunity during which people can voice their dissent.

There is no other reason for economic treaties and agreements to be kept secret. It is a purposeful attempt to circumvent the power of the people.

Anyone know the names of the people involved in writing this treaty (the negotiators and politicians)? These need to be publicly posted so people know who is responsible. It is as important - if not more so - than knowing the names of the senators and representatives who will vote in favor of it when it finally comes to Congress.

Re:I wonder... (1)

RocketChild (1397411) | about 9 months ago | (#45413913)

Really, it is business as usual. Shoot for the moon and see what sticks and you can get away with. Then work on another amendment later to add in more of what you didn't get the first go around.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413961)

Because if they're not doing anything wrong, they've got nothing to hide, right?

Re:I wonder... (2)

ImOuttaHere (2996813) | about 9 months ago | (#45414269)

Negotiations of any kind are seldom held in a public forum.

What people should be outraged over is the US Government negotiating on behalf of trans-national corporate interests, none of whom have any vested concern in supporting the goals or purposes of nation-states, including the government that is negotiating on their behalf. Which leads to the only and obvious conclusion that not only is the US Government not willing to act in the public interest, it's only concern is in furthering trans-national corporate greed. Period.

I actually wonder why it was secret to begin with. And I wonder why is there a need to start these treaties like that...

Re:I wonder... (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 9 months ago | (#45414673)

I actually wonder why it was secret to begin with

Governmental secrecy only proves that they know the power that The People wield.

Power is the missing discussion in economics (2)

Exoman (595415) | about 9 months ago | (#45413529)

Capitalism is a great system for allocating capital, when well regulated. Otherwise, it becomes a winner-take-all game, as economic power, begets more economic and political power, in a reinforcing feedback loop.

Markets are a great economic system, but a really crappy religion. Will it be power of economic and political winners that takes us down, or will it be computers and robots who forget the three laws?

If we're going to continue on with some semblance of democratic citizen rule we need to understand and embrace the discussion about power .

do something about abandonware / stuff not sold (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#45413553)

do something about abandonware / stuff not sold any more.

Lot's of people with old versions, beta versions, rare games, tv shows and movies have saved them for all. But other people with them have used the they are under the 75+ year copyrights even when they are no longer made and are sitting on old platforms that can fail and take the last few copy's with them.

Hitler did it the wrong way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413555)

He used armies to conquer. What he should have done is negotiate secret treaties with countries to get them to slowly give up their sovereign rights voluntarily. For example, in exchange for continued access to German beer and sausage, each country would have to agree to kill their own jews.

The Germans have learned to do it the right way this time along with their take over of the economies of Greece and Cyprus, and the WTO has successfully convinced many small countries to give up their water supply to multinational corporations and put their own farmers out of business in favor of grain imports.

Fascism is best done at the point of a pen, not a gun.

Re:Hitler did it the wrong way. (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 9 months ago | (#45413887)

He used armies to conquer. What he should have done is negotiate secret treaties with countries to get them to slowly give up their sovereign rights voluntarily.

Look up Anschluss. Pretty much forced the Austrian government to fold without ever firing a shot.

Back to basics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413621)

Wikileaks redeems itself with this. No longer a vehicle for mere self-centred traitors, but once again a way for the rest of us to see what we need to know (and, maybe, to resist).

Re:Back to basics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413937)

I fail to see how Wikileaks was a vehicle for mere self-centred traitors.

Unless you think Slashdot is a vehicle for mere self-centred traitors by the fact that you personally were allowed to post a comment.

The collusion is second only to the confusion. (1)

deathcloset (626704) | about 9 months ago | (#45413721)


Reading this document is like reading the mind of the collective consciousness of the economy. This is perhaps the closest thing to a genuine "conspiracy" we are going to see and it's riddled with disagreement and apparent contradictions (or at best logical knots). For example, FTA:

goods or services may not be considered as being similar to each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classfied in the same class of the Nice Classification. Conversely, each Party shall provide that goods or services may not be considered as being dissimilar from each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classified in different classes of the Nice Classification.

So if they are of the same class that doesn't mean they are the same and also if they are of a different class that doesn't mean they are different. OK then...
Now I must admit that I haven't read T whole FA yet and if you have then you are amazing, so the confusion is probably mine, but the fact that there is no consensus on, I think, any of the sections says something in and of itself.

Re:The collusion is second only to the confusion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45413901)

Legalese for "You may eat your cake and have it too."

Medical Clause (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 9 months ago | (#45414041)

At least they make a special exception for medicine:

"The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all..."

Purpose of government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414317)

The only possible reason for a government to exist is that is works for the common good. Secret laws and secret negotiations for laws indicates that those laws are not working for the common good. Secrecy protects political corruption (graft). All laws should be developed using a public version tracking system, similar to git, with every revision tagged with the author and the entire history including discussions available to the public.

Here's a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45414541)

If politicians lost their right to a pension if they didn't keep getting elected up to age 65, then maybe they would represent the people.

that's when I long for Groklaw's PJ (4, Insightful)

JigJag (2046772) | about 9 months ago | (#45414669)

she would have parsed, pieced, and posted all that we, techies, needed to know about such a document

Someone remind me... (1)

Roger Wilcox (776904) | about 9 months ago | (#45414689)

Why the fuck is it that we the people allow our government to participate in this kind of secret talk at all? We might as well be bending over and asking for it!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>