The Most Nefarious Part Of The TPP Proposal: Making Copyright Reform Impossible

there are multiple provisions in here that will absolutely require changes to US law. We'll discuss a few in other posts, but what's much more nefarious and downright obnoxious, is that this would lock in a variety of really bad copyright policies, making it nearly impossible for Congress to go back and change them. And that's a real issue, because, as we've been discussing, Congress is actually discussing copyright reform again. The head of the US Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, has proposed a bunch of changes to copyright law (some good, some bad), and astoundingly, just as Congress is at least trying to have the discussion about whether or not those and other ideas make sense, the USTR is looking to effectively tie everyone's hands by saying "these things cannot be changed," including many of the reforms that Pallante has directly proposed.

www.techdirt.com...

the idea that giving a monopoly for one hundred years after the death of the innovator,
encourages the dead innovator to create more innovations is preposterous,
as is the idea that a dead innovator will create more innovation after death,
DOES THE USA THINK GHOSTS ARE CONTENT OR INNOVATION CREATORS?

madness wrapped up in the idea that people only create for profit,
my designs were not made because of money, they were made because of need.

necessity is the mother of innovation,
monopoly is the strangling of future innovation,
for the benifit of out dated innovation

please read the article before responding,
as most people who dont create or innovate have the exact opposite position,
on copy write and patent protection because the think "the lie they have been sold"
instead of the TRUTH

monopoly of ideas hinders innovation, in favour of previous ideas, that would normally be super ceded, in due time by further innovation, that is now hindered.

none of my designs have come about because of the profit motive.

and before you try to attack my position,
TAKE A LOOK AT THE INTERNET, IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF IP OR PATENT PROTECTION.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

On the one hand, you have the very head of the Copyright Office suggesting some reforms, and you have Congress beginning the process to explore that. On the other, you have the USTR totally ignoring the sole power of Congress to make copyright and patent law, and effectively saying "you cannot make any of the suggested reforms." And then the USTR has the gall to ask Congress to give up its power to challenge specific provisions in the agreement? While we're concerned about the Congressional copyright reform process, at least it's being done in the open. The USTR has been hashing out the plan in TPP in total secrecy for years.

www.techdirt.com...

why do i get the feeling this "so called" Free Trade Deal,
is where the negotiators Trade the rights of the citizens, to make a deal with legacy cooperation's,
so they can Freely "override" national laws,
so they can make a Deal for future employment

xploder

so we get to see who is really in charge in the usa,

Who the hell does the USTR think they are that they can flat out override the Constitution and the Congressional process, and effectively block them in and stop any meaningful attempt at copyright reform? All done via a process driven entirely by a few special interests? It's anti-democracy. It's pure corporate cronyism by the worst cronies around.

www.techdirt.com...

does the usa want to destroy innovation world wide,
just to protect a few massive cooperation's?

its very strange only a select "group" of industries is driving profits over innovation,
CONSIDERING THE "GRANTED MONOPOLY" IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE INNOVATION,
does this innovation of the movie industry out weigh the innovation of all other groups?
INCLUDING THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD?

xploder

the granting of an effective monopoly, to reward innovators, designers and creators,
was intended to "reward" the actual creative s in our society,
these copy write provisions encourage large corperations,
to sit back and NOT to innovate,
so they can rent seek off of others peoples creations,

copy-write and most patents are anti competitive monopolies,
that in effect BLOCK future innovation for the profit motive

THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT IS INTENDED,
most people believe the fantasy that one hundred years is a reasonable term to recover investment,

BUT THAT IS ONE HUNDRED YEARS WHERE INNOVATION IS HELD A BAY FOR THE PROFIT MOTIVE

xploder

the only people that want to extend copy write and patent protection terms are the same people who refuse to innovate or compete with innovators,

they want a longer monopoly term,
because they are not the innovators of today and cannot compete on a level playing feild.

this is a monopoly granted to the few at the expense of the many,
to reward people who are the DESCENDANTS of creative people,

THIS DOES NOT STIMULATE MORE INNOVATION,
it allows rent seeking!!!!

why is the USA pushing this so hard?
does the USA feel it cant compete with innovators from other countries?

TPP is a corporate coup to stifle innovation,

xploder

copyright is one of the worst laws ever enacted, it has caused massive technological stagnation especially in fields monopolized by big buisiness like energy and medicine.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation says TPP has “extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate”. It’s Hollywood’s wish list.

www.rawstory.com...

i respect the EFF and believe this is NOT hyperbole
this is an affront to a real capitalistic free market,
and more akin to socialism than capitalism,

one rule for us and a different rule for THEM!

xploder

monkofmimir
copyright is one of the worst laws ever enacted, it has caused massive technological stagnation especially in fields monopolized by big buisiness like energy and medicine.

from your sig,

free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny

in its original form, copy-write was a "limited" granted monopoly,
there is nothing more limiting than death,
to promote copywrite longer than a natural human life span is an abhorrent act,
that benefits only those who are happy with stagnation,

thank you for your rely

xploder

if the people knew what we were negotiating in their name it would not pass congress,
so its a secret because its such a bad deal for so many?

If they become aware – that’s the key. One of TPP’s most odious elements has been the secrecy under which it’s been negotiated. The Obama administration’s fondness for secret laws, policies and methods has a lot to do with a basic reality: the public would say no to much of which is done in our names and with our money if we knew what was going on. As Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out, in a letter to the White House:

www.rawstory.com...

if we let legacy players control our fate,
they will hold onto hundred year old tech, like petrol engines,
and our future will be misery.

xploder

Thanks friend...

Like this was not pissing me off enough already.

You see the President up there today free wheeling out of bounds Constitutionally and now the USTR decides to just skip the whole damn process. 'Fast track this stuff it's such good news!'

M.a.y.b.e. on the heels of the Patriot Act, bank bailouts, NSA surveillance, the ACA, and now this.......nah, never mind.

reply to post by XPLodER

Your post is confusing. You start off with an external quote about copyright laws, then begin talking about innovations and inventors. Copyright and patent laws are very different, as described here.
I also can't help noticing that none of the other replies brought this up.
So, what are we really talking about here; copyrights or patents?


Edit:
Okay, so I've potentially made myself look foolish by not realizing the scope of the the news in question before replying. I will not let pride prohibit me from admitting mistakes.

While I will let the original statement/question stand, I should add that this draconian TPP agreement is most certainly anti-consumer, anti-innovation, and anti-intellectual. It's true that in the spirit of my original question, the Partnership has different implications for copyright and patent law.

My own personal ideology (as someone who would like to eventually publish works of fiction) on the subject is this: Maybe it shouldn't even be a legal option for a writer or inventor to sell their works outright. Licensing for shorter periods of time (which is more common in publishing than inventing) means the originator of the work retains ownership, and perhaps has a greater influence to inspire others to follow and improve on their work. It also seems that it would cut out the possibility of the originator losing all influence on future developments, especially when sold to corporate interest.

I should cut it short there. That is the essence of what I have to say. Any more, and the post will be excessively large.

reply to post by Jodash

My own personal ideology (as someone who would like to eventually publish works of fiction) on the subject is this: Maybe it shouldn't even be a legal option for a writer or inventor to sell their works outright. Licensing for shorter periods of time (which is more common in publishing than inventing) means the originator of the work retains ownership,

this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the only reason for extending copy write or patent PAST the life of the owner is to benefit RENT SEEKERS,
i TOTALLY agree with you, at the point copy or patent ownership is transferred in ownership in totality,
IT SHOULD BE NULL AND VOID!!!.

this would still be an incentive to creative s while preventing rent seeking parasites.

nice work friend

xploder

Copyright shouldn't last more than 5-10 years at most because that should be enough time to recoup your losses for design and to either develop a new patent or build up a loyal customer base.

society is build upon layer upon layer of other peoples work and ideas, to turn around and so severely warped a fundemental aspect of human development is frankly sick.

The worst part of this is the amount of technology that large companies sit on because it would be to risky for them to implement and they don't want some small company using better ideas and stealing a share of their profits.

If humanity had had patent laws for all of human history we would maybe just have started into the iron age.

Even worse is classified pattents, if you patent somthing too advanced such as an advanced power sources especially if it can be used by the military the patent can be classified and the owner looses all rights to it without compensation and are also banned from ever talking about it.

should we trust secret agreements,
where legacy stake holders can push their needs over all others?
should we trust a government who tried to push sopa and pipa?
DO YOU THINK WE ARE TOO STUPID TO REMEMBER YOUR ATTEMPT TO DISTROY THE INTERNET?

i dont trust a single word coming out of the mouths of the "media" on this issiue.

Rather than give so much space to conspiracy theorists and those outright anti-US in their views, we would rather the media asked the question - can New Zealand afford not to be part of TPP? We think there is only one answer to this - no, we can't afford to leave this process.

www.nzherald.co.nz...

using FEAR to drive your point of lost profits,
at the expense of lost freedoms and rights?

REALLY?

if this was really in the best interests of citizens and not corporations,
you would have citizens as stake holders,
NOT MASSIVE MULTINATIONALS, THAT USE "HOLLYWOOD" ACCOUNTING PRACTICES,
to ensure no benefits "trickle down"

you see by leaving us out from the negotiating table you show your intent,

to do an "end run" around public opinion is a very bad thing to do if you expect us to "trust you"

this strategy of hyping the benefits and ignoring the down side makes this article disingenuous,

anyone reading this,
this IS about control, the very opposite of free.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


So I take you have NEVER has intellectual property stolen.

It is really something rather different; to work for months on an original idea, Long days, late nights; little sleep, and almost no reward or compensation.

Then someone who "thinks" they like it tries to take it all. Tries to take all the hard work you have done, and make it their own with out so much as asking, nor acknowledging the original effort.

Next time y'all think about this; think..."the bastards just came in here and took my child without even a single word."

Cause that's what it like; someone stealing you child, and then lying about it.

It isn't even about the loss of money, its about the lack of respect for the creative spark, and the individual who has "THAT" spark.

Copyright laws do not impede innovation, they make it more secure, and possible. These laws give me the protection I need to feel like innovating is actually worth the effort, trouble, lost sleep, and no income that also accompanies true innovation.

tanka418
reply to post by XPLodER

 

So I take you have NEVER has intellectual property stolen.

It is really something rather different; to work for months on an original idea, Long days, late nights; little sleep, and almost no reward or compensation.

Then someone who "thinks" they like it tries to take it all. Tries to take all the hard work you have done, and make it their own with out so much as asking, nor acknowledging the original effort.

Next time y'all think about this; think..."the bastards just came in here and took my child without even a single word."

Cause that's what it like; someone stealing you child, and then lying about it.

It isn't even about the loss of money, its about the lack of respect for the creative spark, and the individual who has "THAT" spark.

Copyright laws do not impede innovation, they make it more secure, and possible. These laws give me the protection I need to feel like innovating is actually worth the effort, trouble, lost sleep, and no income that also accompanies true innovation.

you do not need a hundred year monopoly to recover your investment!
YES i have had intellectual property stolen, i have also given it away freely in some cases.

if you LOOK, the NEED for 100 years protection cannot stand the "smell test"

if you die,
how does tying up the innovation for 100 years give your corpse incentive to continue to create?
YOUR DEAD YOU CANT AND DONT NEED 100 years protection ONLY IF RENT SEEKING AND HINDERING real innovation is your goal.



EXPLAIN AGAIN HOW LOCKING UP INNOVATION IS A GOOD THING?

the story of an individual "protecting" their IP is one thing, SO COPY FOR THE LIFE OF THE AUTHOR OR INVENTOR IN FINE, but to allow a monopoly on that same work for one hundred years after death does nothing to stimulate the creation of MORE IP!!!!

IN EXTREME CASES real innovation is blocked from markets and jobs lost, FOR A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE DEATH of the original creative s death! even if the patent holder NEVER MADE A SINGLE UNIT OR GOOD!

you are stuck in the fairy tale people are told about "the lone individual"
that "singular inventor who did it all on his own"
some one creative who took a chance and created or innovated something beneficial to "society"

what happens "in real life" is the lone inventor gets sued out of existence,
or is forced to sell his innovation if they want to see it actually mass produced,

you have heard of patent trolls? how does empowering those who buy up useless patents and bunch them together to litigate small start ups out of business, almost EXTORTION do anything for either the lone inventor or the society as a whole?

no sir, for every one real true inventor there are 10 trolls, 2 giant legacy companies and a wake of stifled innovators and VERY RICH PATENT AND COPY WRITE FRATERNITIES.

the reason copy write was included in the constitution is to promote the "benifit" of innovation and "TO PROMOTE THE USEFUL ARTS"

what has happened over time is that ideal has been twisted into something that does the exact opposite,

while you can try to convince me MORE copy-write extensions mean MORE innovation,
or longer patent terms mean MORE innovation,

the real facts bear out, and my experience tells me,

ALL IT DOES IS LET PEOPLE AND COMPANIES SIT BACK AND SEEK RENT,
there is a perverse incentive to BLOCK innovation.

xploder

reply to post by tanka418


here is a more nuanced view, from the EFF

The copyright reform train is gathering steam, but whose hand is at the controls? Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on "The Rise of Innovative Business Models: Content Delivery Methods In The Digital Age." We expect witnesses from the major movie and TV studios to expand on their recent theme: that major studios are doing plenty of innovation already, so Congress doesn't need to make copyright law more innovation-friendly. They will say studios' limited forays into digital distribution, like Hulu, HBO GO, Crackle, and the UltraViolet digital rights management (DRM) system are innovation aplenty. But that’s disingenuous, as they've continued to litigate with scorched-earth tactics against others who dare to innovate without the studios' permission.

Innovation is indeed the key to growing the arts, and the business of entertainment, and the studios' shift towards new distribution technologies is their best way forward. But the innovation that happens within the walls of Disney, Time Warner, and Comcast/NBC is not enough. Trailblazing innovation that empowers individuals and creates new markets almost never happens within the walls of well-established, market-dominating companies. IBM didn't invent the personal computer. AT&T didn't invent the Internet. Sears didn't invent online retail. And major movie and TV studios have fought against every major shift in video distribution, from cable to VCRs to DVRs.

www.eff.org...

when you see the effects of holding ideas captive to the wants and greed of the few over the many,
you realise that we would be much more advanced as a species and planet,

if monopolies on ideas were ONLY ever granted for the term set down in the original constitution.

xploder

reply to post by tanka418


my view is very similar to this guy,

Nathan Seidle of Sparkfun explained why his company has chosen to sell its products without patent protection (the company also shares its software via a CC-license).

Attempting to stop pirates is a waste of time. Show me an anti-piracy law or technology and I’ll show you a dozen 15 year-old girls and boys who can crack it. The resources spent stopping pirates comes at the expense of innovation and improving the business practices that actually serve the customers and industry. The most efficient way to get reimbursed for creative work is to make it easy to purchase and consume that content. How do you get the market to buy your product or service? Provide better support, better quality, better price, and better availability. If you show the consumer that you are a better company with which to do business, they will shop with you. This is not a new business model. This is how business has been done for thousands of years. There is no need to waste time, energy, money and resources suing infringers or pirates; our time is better spent innovating.

Yes. Not surprisingly, Seidle got by far the most pushback from the members, who seemed to have difficulty understanding that Seidle was not saying patents and other IP protections shouldn't exist at all, but rather that they are not necessarily crucial to many types of innovation. "Innovation moves faster than the shield of IP protection."

www.eff.org...

makes a good point dont you think?

xploder

reply to post by tanka418


here is an example of where having a CC (creative commons licence)
makes software cheaper more accessible, more useful.

why does this work if we "need" maximal copy write?

In the past three years, OpenStack has grown so rapidly that it’s not only used by NASA but by other operations across the federal government. It is an engine of growth, backed by hundreds of companies worldwide, including technology giants such as Cisco, Dell, HP, IBM, and Red Hat. This one project — OpenStack — is directly responsible for tens of thousands of new American jobs and has driven billions of dollars of growth and investment.

OpenStack is even more astounding in the human dimension. There are over a thousand individual contributors, who have collectively written enough code and documentation that, if it were all printed out, would reach to the moon.

These companies and these people are both technologists and content creators. This massive contribution to innovation is the result not of exclusive and tight control over their copyrighted content, but of the deliberate spreading and dissemination of their efforts.

www.eff.org...

This is far worse than how long one holds a copyright.

It has 3 strikes and you're out.

It takes away most freedoms and fair use, and would be a massive dark ages for the planet.

It is conducted in secret, and is classified. THEREFORE IS TREASON.

It, like nafta, makes sovereign laws of a country subject to fines and approval of a tribunal of corporate types. TREASON. Plain and simple.

If passed will need to be taken to court and over and over until they lose.

Further don't elect anyone who will not immediatley treat it as an illegal document and toilet paper.

But the signatures of this crime, like the nuremburg trials, should be admissions of guilt.

They should be put on trial for treason.

Also, only on ATS, not other places, but when Im posting on threads like this, there is some kind of interference with my mouse and it freezes up, so I have to go to libreoffice. And when I reset the desktop, it seems to be about controlling the mouse. It says imput not recognized or something.