[x-pubpol] Fwd: Who's down with TPP?

[Joly MacFie]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicola <searlen at gmail.com>
​
 to The IPKat <http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2015/10/whos-down-with-tpp.html> on
10/15/2015 10:07:00 a.m.​



Not every last lady. TPP is strangely becoming a key debate in the US
presidential campaign, with Democratic candidate hopeful Hillary Clinton
<https://youtu.be/CIaCRavIAt0> turning
<http://www.ibtimes.com/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-defends-trans-pacific-partnership-flip-flop-tells-2140339>
her
stance on TPP. Considered naughty by nature by some, a suspected near final
draft
<https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf>
of
the Trans Pacific Partnership
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership> agreement, known
as TPP, was released on Wikileaks last week.

TTP is causing a lot of consternation.  Critics say the agreement benefits
developed countries at the cost of developing countries.  They also argue
that negotiations have been suspiciously secret
<https://www.eff.org/en-gb/issues/tpp>. Proponents argue that TPP will
reduces barriers to trade, support economic and job growth, improve IP
protection and, 'create new 21st century trade rules.'
<http://tradebenefitsamerica.org/tpp-every-states-opportunity>

<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d_-r8Dw8PYQ/Vh5Uzy2r9NI/AAAAAAAADYs/baF66jqH51g/s1600/14954165368_9f76a6ba85_m.jpg>
Thor,
Cool Cat Patriot by Don Graham It will indeed establish new trade rules.
The agreement exports a number of American institutions and cultural
aspects of IP.  This should lead to harmonisation of laws, which can
improve business prospects as it reduces uncertainty
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty>.  However, harmonisation often
benefits <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2185402>
existing, wealthier rights holders (typically in developed nations) and at
the expense of developing nations.

With the promise of increased trade at the end of the agreement, the IP
provisions could be considered the price of admission for developing
countries.  The New Zealand government has put
<http://beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/TPP-Q&A-Oct-2015.pdf> it rather
bluntly, estimating an additional $2.7 billion in additional GDP by 2030,
however,

"The only significant cost comes from extending New Zealand’s copyright
period from 50 to 70 years. This cost – in terms of foregone savings on
books, films, music and other works – increases gradually over 20 years and
averages around $55 million a year over the very long term. "

<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ePKBmPNZePk/Vh5WAjOGfXI/AAAAAAAADY0/nj2oMSdRGeM/s1600/cats_vs_dogs__the_game_of_evolution_by_mythee-d6usimh.png>
Cats
VS Dogs by Mythee This economic case for the extension of copyright term to
a minimum of life plus 70 years is poor.  There is little evidence that
extending copyright term incentivises innovation
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2099876>.  There may be
a tipping point in copyright, where a shorter term could dissuade
innovation, but death plus 70 years is far from this point.  It is hard to
imagine starving artists, creative geniuses and dead creators increasing
their production because their heirs might receive more years of copyright
protection.

While the economic arguments are against term extension, there is evidence
that public domain
<http://www.create.ac.uk/publications/copyright-and-the-value-of-the-public-domain/>
content
spurs innovation and new content. Under the agreement, "The Parties
recognise the importance of a rich and accessible public" and recognise the
importance of good registers.  Despite this, the agreement's copyright
terms will reduce the public domain.

There are also provisions for making the circumvention of DRM illegal (and
everyone knows how much consumers looooove
<http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-11-11-your-customers-hate-drm-rambourg>
DRM)
and vague liability for ISPs.  Not in the leaked draft are the different
copyright terms for corporations
<http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/366479/questioning-value-tpp-reihan-salam>,
which were discussed earlier
<http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/tpp-leak-what-will-tpp-do-to-trans.html>,
presumably as life-support for Mickey Mouse.

Another interesting provision is that of damages in infringement cases.
For trademarks and copyright, Article QQ.H.4, 9 damages, "shall be set out
in an amount that would be sufficient to compensate the right holder for
the harm caused by the infringement, and with a view to deterring future
infringement." The sky's the limit.

In more money matters, the wording may also introduce the right for rights
holders
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?_r=0>
to pursue compensation
<https://www.tni.org/en/article/the-moral-case-against-the-tpp> from
governments for lost profits stemming from non-compliant regulations.  This
is already the case
<http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid>
elsewhere.  In the UK, companies may sue the UK government for damages
stemming from non-compliance with EU regulations, but the UK-EU
relationship is entirely different from this trade partnership.  Combine
that with the litigious American culture and who knows...

<http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BimsyQfv_vE/Vh5T11QBAiI/AAAAAAAADYk/2InC0V_pNVw/s1600/8126548287_438745942c_m-2.jpg>
Gangsta
Kat by Petful Counterpunch
<http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/13/all-rights-reserved-now-we-know-the-final-ttp-is-everything-we-feared/>
, <who, Merpel notes, unfortunately misspell the acronym>, notes that pro
rights holders arguments are binding, whereas those supporting the public
domain are not. They also point out that TPP also has trade secret
provisions which criminalise the theft of trade secrets via computers, but
without protection for whistleblowers.

There are some silver linings.  This more positive article
<https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-support-tpp-by-jeffrey-frankel-2015-10#XCqiWyH7J7JIiUV0.99>
by
Jeffery Frankel
<https://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/jeffrey-frankel>,
a specialist in capital formation and economic growth, notes that the
agreement provides environmental provisions and promotes better labour
conditions. Given how heated and polarising the debate has become, there
may be some cause for both sides to revisit.

Article QQ.H.3, 2 on enforcement practices makes the data geek in me happy,
"Each Party recognises the importance of collecting and analysing
statistical data and other relevant information concerning intellectual
property rights infringements..." In addition, there are a host
<http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/tpp-leak-peep-at-general-provisions.html>
of other considerations I've not covered: TK, exhaustion of rights, bits
and bobs on trade marks
<http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/tpp-leak-time-for-trade-marks.html>,
cybersquatting, GIs, a lot of issues related to patents
<http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/tpp-longish-peep-at-patents.html>,
criminalisation and others.

All of this makes for unique foreign American policy. So, hip hop hooray
for TTP.

--

-- 


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.isoc-ny.org/pipermail/x-pubpol-isoc-ny.org/attachments/20151015/4143a215/attachment.htm>