Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Gosh-darn Separate Thread for: TPA TTIP TPP [TRADE]

13»

Posts

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    I for one welcome our corporate overlords who think we should be jailed for ripping the media we bought onto our computers.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Edith Upwardselectricitylikesme
  • AntoshkaAntoshka Miauen Oil Change LazarusRegistered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    The EFF did strike me as being more than a little shrill about this whole thing, although i've been giving them the benefit of the doubt because they were some of the first movers in saving this country from SOPA, which would have indeed been that bad.

    Criminalizing reading ebooks on your phone, or journalism, or allowing outsized copyright infringement penalties, etc. are not substantial problems?

    This agreement is worse than the current state of affairs for hundreds of millions of people, and better for a handful of corporate fat cats.

    How woefully abused are we that "only moderately worse than today" is the standard we're willing to accept?

    It's just hard to go with after one side of the argument has been battering me for years with "TPP is end of the internet as we know it." Is it part of a gradual erosion of consumer rights? Yes. Is it apocalyptic? No.

    Will it pass Congress? Now there's the question.

    It would be vastly amusing if it doesn't, but is that actually a possibility? I mean, the benefits more or less mostly accrue with some of the largest donors, so why would they block it?

    n57PM0C.jpg
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    The EFF did strike me as being more than a little shrill about this whole thing, although i've been giving them the benefit of the doubt because they were some of the first movers in saving this country from SOPA, which would have indeed been that bad.

    Criminalizing reading ebooks on your phone, or journalism, or allowing outsized copyright infringement penalties, etc. are not substantial problems?

    This agreement is worse than the current state of affairs for hundreds of millions of people, and better for a handful of corporate fat cats.

    How woefully abused are we that "only moderately worse than today" is the standard we're willing to accept?

    It's just hard to go with after one side of the argument has been battering me for years with "TPP is end of the internet as we know it." Is it part of a gradual erosion of consumer rights? Yes. Is it apocalyptic? No.

    Will it pass Congress? Now there's the question.

    I think that undersells it. Entrenching the legal, social, and technological capability of ISPs to act like secret informants against everyday citizens has all the possibility to go there in the near future. A good number of provisions help provide more chilling effect against dissent. Etc.

    Besides, this complete, unmitigated victory for the bad guys will only embolden them in the future.

    Furthermore, this is just a single section of the trade deal, and many other aspects are going to be similarly harmful. When we lose jobs, people get harmed by products, more money gets transferred to the 0.1%, etc. that will add up harm, but harm that will continue to grow over time, and again, not only sets the precedent that it is acceptable to sell our countries to corporations in secret backroom deals that mere plebians aren't even allowed to know about, let alone participate in until it is too late, but it gives them more resources to push that sort of corruption.

    That's the beauty of the process. Regulatory capture affords you the money and power to finance future corruption.

    Wicked Demiurge in most games. Solacus is my main in GW2.
    LanzMortiousMan in the MistsLord_AsmodeusTryCatcherEdith Upwards
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    zakkiel wrote: »
    If those are the worst things the EFF can find to say about it, my estimation of the agreement has risen again. Like, come on:
    EFF wrote:
    The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

    Heaven forbid governments maintain public databases concerning domain-name registrants for official government sites. What a chilling prospect.

    I don't think that means official government sites.

    For example, they list .jp there. One major Japanese media import shop I know of, CD Japan, is a .jp address and I'm pretty sure they're not an arm of the Japanese government.

    in context, the EFF says:
    ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

    The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

    The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN's flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

    which, maybe I'm mixing it up, wasn't this the thing a few months back that people were concerned could lead to assholes basically using this information to harass people across the net, including death and rape threats?

    Searching around, seems to be an earlier EFF article on the subject:
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/powerful-coalition-letter-highlights-danger-icanns-new-domain-registration
    Domain registrants have long been able to use domain privacy services, sometimes called proxy registration. When using a privacy service, the service’s own contact information appears in the WHOIS database instead of the domain owner’s. The Working Group’s new proposal would require privacy services to turn over the domain registrant’s private contact information or even list that information in the public database, based on a mere accusation of copyright or trademark infringement—no court order required.

    Even worse, a few members of the Working Group would like ICANN to ban privacy services entirely for websites that are used for a “commercial purpose”—which is broadly defined and includes “handling online financial transactions for commercial purpose.”

    As the coalition letter points out, this proposal threatens a wide range of people who have good reason to want to keep their information private:
    women indie game developers who sell products through their own online stores
    freelance journalists and authors who market their work online
    small business owners who run stores or businesses from their homes
    activists who take donations to fund their work, especially those living under totalitarian regimes
    people who share personal stories online to crowdfund medical procedures
    Even without the ban on privacy for “commercial” websites, the proposal creates serious privacy problems for website owners. Accusations of copyright and trademark infringement are easy to make and easy to abuse, and the working group proposal doesn’t impose any consequences for false or abusive accusations.

    The danger posed by having a home address made public is serious:
    "Doxing" is the malicious practice of obtaining someone's personal information (e.g. home address, phone number, etc) and making that information more readily and widely available. Doxing makes possible a wide range of crowdsourced harassment and intimidation, which includes everything from unwanted pizza deliveries to unrelenting barrages of rape and death threats.

    And as Katherine Cross, a sociologist specializing in research on online harassment and gender in virtual worlds points out, “A WHOIS search is by no means the only way to dox someone, but we should be making it harder to acquire such information, not greasing the skids… Would-be doxers don’t need help from the Internet’s custodians.”

    She’s absolutely right. Doxing and other forms of harassment that involve the use of someone’s home address can be profoundly damaging to the free speech and privacy rights of the people targeted—and these types of harassment are frequently used to intimidate and silence the most marginalized groups. Privacy isn’t a philosophical question. For some, it's a matter of access to the Internet, especially for those who need it most. That’s often women, minorities, and people with unpopular political views.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    The EFF did strike me as being more than a little shrill about this whole thing, although i've been giving them the benefit of the doubt because they were some of the first movers in saving this country from SOPA, which would have indeed been that bad.

    Criminalizing reading ebooks on your phone, or journalism, or allowing outsized copyright infringement penalties, etc. are not substantial problems?

    This agreement is worse than the current state of affairs for hundreds of millions of people, and better for a handful of corporate fat cats.

    How woefully abused are we that "only moderately worse than today" is the standard we're willing to accept?

    It's just hard to go with after one side of the argument has been battering me for years with "TPP is end of the internet as we know it." Is it part of a gradual erosion of consumer rights? Yes. Is it apocalyptic? No.

    Will it pass Congress? Now there's the question.

    I think that undersells it. Entrenching the legal, social, and technological capability of ISPs to act like secret informants against everyday citizens has all the possibility to go there in the near future. A good number of provisions help provide more chilling effect against dissent. Etc.

    Besides, this complete, unmitigated victory for the bad guys will only embolden them in the future.

    Furthermore, this is just a single section of the trade deal, and many other aspects are going to be similarly harmful. When we lose jobs, people get harmed by products, more money gets transferred to the 0.1%, etc. that will add up harm, but harm that will continue to grow over time, and again, not only sets the precedent that it is acceptable to sell our countries to corporations in secret backroom deals that mere plebians aren't even allowed to know about, let alone participate in until it is too late, but it gives them more resources to push that sort of corruption.

    That's the beauty of the process. Regulatory capture affords you the money and power to finance future corruption.

    They're dinosaurs, fighting a losing battle. Their victories are not insignificant, mind, but the tide of the world is moving against them and TPP is merely a stopgap in their long defeat, as much as they're trying to enshrine their agenda with treaty-level supremacy.

    It is victory enough that society is aware of it, because that's where the regulatory capture usually exercises its greatest power, not merely that the processes are opaque, but that their business goes on completely unnoticed. TPP has been noticed; it's an electoral issue in the US and Canada, albeit a minor one and a part of a larger trend of a left wing awakening from its long slumber.

    So i think part of my point is that yes, it sucks and should be fought against, but a lost battle today is not going to doom us forever. That and the fact that the battle isn't lost yet. Hell, US has no legislative authority to speak of at the moment. Congress can barely keep the lights on, and they want to pass something that's remotely controversial?

  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    They're dinosaurs, fighting a losing battle

    That is severely underestimating the intelligence and drive of people who own enough money and power to buy a country or all of them

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    NSDFRandprogramjunkieJragghenMan in the MistsSkeithGennenalyse RuebenSynthesisLord_AsmodeusTL DR
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    The EFF did strike me as being more than a little shrill about this whole thing, although i've been giving them the benefit of the doubt because they were some of the first movers in saving this country from SOPA, which would have indeed been that bad.

    Criminalizing reading ebooks on your phone, or journalism, or allowing outsized copyright infringement penalties, etc. are not substantial problems?

    This agreement is worse than the current state of affairs for hundreds of millions of people, and better for a handful of corporate fat cats.

    How woefully abused are we that "only moderately worse than today" is the standard we're willing to accept?

    It's just hard to go with after one side of the argument has been battering me for years with "TPP is end of the internet as we know it." Is it part of a gradual erosion of consumer rights? Yes. Is it apocalyptic? No.

    Will it pass Congress? Now there's the question.

    I think that undersells it. Entrenching the legal, social, and technological capability of ISPs to act like secret informants against everyday citizens has all the possibility to go there in the near future. A good number of provisions help provide more chilling effect against dissent. Etc.

    Besides, this complete, unmitigated victory for the bad guys will only embolden them in the future.

    Furthermore, this is just a single section of the trade deal, and many other aspects are going to be similarly harmful. When we lose jobs, people get harmed by products, more money gets transferred to the 0.1%, etc. that will add up harm, but harm that will continue to grow over time, and again, not only sets the precedent that it is acceptable to sell our countries to corporations in secret backroom deals that mere plebians aren't even allowed to know about, let alone participate in until it is too late, but it gives them more resources to push that sort of corruption.

    That's the beauty of the process. Regulatory capture affords you the money and power to finance future corruption.

    They're dinosaurs, fighting a losing battle. Their victories are not insignificant, mind, but the tide of the world is moving against them and TPP is merely a stopgap in their long defeat, as much as they're trying to enshrine their agenda with treaty-level supremacy.
    What on earth do you base this off of? Economic statistics over the last half century (or at least, 30-40 years) seem to imply the exact opposite, and the trend has not reversed.

    Kaputa on
    GvzbgulTL DR
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Had a big post that got eaten up by a site error, i guess my frustration with EFF et al is this persistent sense of crisis and doom. It doesn't gel with me, which isn't to say i'm unaware of policy implications, i guess these types of discussions just bother me, i don't like to angst about what i can't control, i like to support change where i can.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Had a big post that got eaten up by a site error, i guess my frustration with EFF et al is this persistent sense of crisis and doom. It doesn't gel with me, which isn't to say i'm unaware of policy implications, i guess these types of discussions just bother me, i don't like to angst about what i can't control, i like to support change where i can.

    Well, you can, to some extent. It's hard to keep up the dams against the relentless assault of the wicked, but all we need is for Congress to scuttle this, and it buys more time. Hell, Europeans, depending on area, have actual Pirate party candidates to vote for.

    Wicked Demiurge in most games. Solacus is my main in GW2.
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    The EFF did strike me as being more than a little shrill about this whole thing, although i've been giving them the benefit of the doubt because they were some of the first movers in saving this country from SOPA, which would have indeed been that bad.

    Criminalizing reading ebooks on your phone, or journalism, or allowing outsized copyright infringement penalties, etc. are not substantial problems?

    This agreement is worse than the current state of affairs for hundreds of millions of people, and better for a handful of corporate fat cats.

    How woefully abused are we that "only moderately worse than today" is the standard we're willing to accept?

    Read again.
    EFF wrote:
    The odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown)

    To whit: if you are reading your own purchased material on your own device, you cannot be criminally liable because there is no commercial motive.

    The "outsized copyright infringement penalties" referenced here are literally the government's ability to seize your computer if you use it to upload pirated DVDs. Let me suggest you not use your compy for that if you're not prepared to lose it.

    So far as "criminalizing journalism" goes, this is hysteria. The US would not negotiate a provision that won't survive US Constitutional review.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Aren't we like at "shut down the internet" state over legislation which was in Congress twice over the past two years?

    The EFF is always in crisis mode because we're at the point where any further push is a crisis.

    The FCC ruling earlier this year might be the first time in my lifetime that I can think of things moving in a pro-consumer manner in my LIFE.

    autono-wally, erotibot300KraintLord_AsmodeusEdith Upwards
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    If those are the worst things the EFF can find to say about it, my estimation of the agreement has risen again. Like, come on:
    EFF wrote:
    The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

    Heaven forbid governments maintain public databases concerning domain-name registrants for official government sites. What a chilling prospect.

    I don't think that means official government sites.

    For example, they list .jp there. One major Japanese media import shop I know of, CD Japan, is a .jp address and I'm pretty sure they're not an arm of the Japanese government.

    in context, the EFF says:
    ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

    The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

    The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN's flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

    which, maybe I'm mixing it up, wasn't this the thing a few months back that people were concerned could lead to assholes basically using this information to harass people across the net, including death and rape threats?

    Ah. National difference there. I don't know of any .us sites that aren't government. Regardless, it's an extremely easy provision to get around if you don't want to deal with it.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    The only one I can think of offhand is del.icio.us - however those rules are already in place for .us domains. Other ccTLDs run on their own rules

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    a few urls are words that end in "ous" spread out like that.

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Is there a specific legal definition of "commercial motive" that the text is referencing? Does it only apply to somebody trying to make a profit from an activity, or does it also apply for somebody trying to not have to spend money to purchase something for two different platforms?

    steam_sig.png
    Surfpossum
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    If those are the worst things the EFF can find to say about it, my estimation of the agreement has risen again. Like, come on:
    EFF wrote:
    The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

    Heaven forbid governments maintain public databases concerning domain-name registrants for official government sites. What a chilling prospect.

    I don't think that means official government sites.

    For example, they list .jp there. One major Japanese media import shop I know of, CD Japan, is a .jp address and I'm pretty sure they're not an arm of the Japanese government.

    in context, the EFF says:
    ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.

    The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”

    The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN's flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?

    which, maybe I'm mixing it up, wasn't this the thing a few months back that people were concerned could lead to assholes basically using this information to harass people across the net, including death and rape threats?

    Ah. National difference there. I don't know of any .us sites that aren't government. Regardless, it's an extremely easy provision to get around if you don't want to deal with it.

    Country-code top-level domains aren't limited to government, even .us isn't. It's just that in the US .com is the norm and almost nobody but the government uses .us.

    In most other countries the country-code is the norm however, so while you can get around it it means you get much less traffic and stuff. People will naturally assume that your site ends in whatever the norm is.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Can't really comment on the TPP, until we have something mores substantial to go on.

    Sure there are leaks, but I'd take those all with a healthy does of salt. I would not at all be surprised if many of the leaks prove to be inaccurate in some form. Throw in the fact that some people are interested in seeing it not get passed, altogether or in it's current form, along with it being under wraps. So you have the possibility that some of the leaked details, are intentionally misleading. I mean, it already sounds like some big corps didn't get what they wanted, so I wouldn't put it past some of the rat fuckers running those.

    I mean, I'm not optimistic at all that the TPP won't be a shit for consumers. As I said earlier, the who arbitration thing over lost profits raised flags for me. If the copyright stuff proves accurate, I'm not sure I can really get upset because I've resigned myself to the notion, that IP laws probably won't get their proper adjustment until number of policy makers stuck in the past, greatly decreases.

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    http://www.zdnet.com/article/wikileaks-isps-to-hand-over-copyright-infringer-details-under-tpp/

    I can't see this going wrong at all. Nope. I, for one, welcome our corporate overlords.

    steam_sig.png
  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
  • milskimilski UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ Registered User regular
    Cherry picked quotes that ignore e.g. the part where only commercial DRM circumvention is illegal makes it really hard to form an opinion.

    You can't write me off like that! You're just a voice, pal! You don't know a DAMN THING ABOUT RACING!!
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Cherry picked quotes that ignore e.g. the part where only commercial DRM circumvention is illegal makes it really hard to form an opinion.

    Plus, if you want to understand why people lean towards the takedown model, learn about freebooting:


    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • EddyEddy Gengar the Bittersweet Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Alright, dragging this thread up from the graveyard because I feel like the topic of trade just got a brooklyn accent and a new lease on life

    How do we even feel about these trade agreements now? The Economist in 2008 scoffed at a possible new era of protectionism and deflation, but that was back before the Tea Party, before unions started hinting at mutiny from the Dems, before overt white nationalism became great again. People are hammering NAFTA and TPP from all populist corners, grousers of all education and income levels are actually getting fired up about trade policy, all this despite perhaps only a tiny fraction of the world understanding any of it thanks to decades of neoliberal rhetoric...

    I feel like this is going to be a weirdly important issue in the general election, no matter who ends up on either of the tickets (unless it's Rubio I guess?) So how should we start formulating our lines of defense? Is there any defense to be made for free trade? Should we start just repeating "Smoot...Hawley..." and bring up the Great Depression at every turn?

    Eddy on
    “Even as a gengar she was lovely.” ― Ovid, Metamorphoses
  • pyromaniac221pyromaniac221 this just might be an interestin YTRegistered User regular
    Free trade is a difficult sell because the losers are much more easily identified than the winners. It's become increasingly salient in the current election with Trump bundling anti-trade rhetoric with anti-foreigner sentiment, which resonates with a lot of poorer whites who feel left behind by a globalized world.

    It doesn't help that huge swathes of people never get much in the way of economics education and see the economy as a zero-sum game.

    psn tooaware, friend code SW-4760-0062-3248 it me
    Rchanen
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Well, I know I'm only voting for a party that is against ttip.

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.