Two things. First of all, TPP looks far scarier than every other law and agreement I've seen proposed so far. All previous attempts had at least been somewhat disguised as being limited - there was a clear effort to make the (dubious) claim that "they won't effect you". That seems to be gone now. I think the TC article does a pretty bad job of pointing out how strong TPP is, actually.
Secondly, these nasty provisions popped up only in the US proposal (IIUC), and yet, many of them run contrary to established US case law, and would circumvent current reform efforts. This agreement has quite clearly become a forum for the MPAA/RIAA/MAFIA lobbyists who couldn't get their policies passed out in the open. It fairly reeks of underhandedness.
Opinion, and somewhat OT: I think a lot of people who would/are naturally against these sorts of agreements and laws are also Obama supporters. The Obama administration doesn't just support these laws, it soaks in them. This is among the worst results of voting for one candidate because he's not the other candidate.
We need to start voting our real interests, not our negative interests.
It is pretty clear by now that the involved corporations and lobbyists will not stop until most of what they want has been implemented by law all over the world.
What can be done on a more meta-level to stop them from even trying? So instead of opposing each and every *PA/TTP, what can be done to make it futile for them to try and get these implemented? (because sooner of later they will have the laws they want)
If we could somehow get laws on the books that forbade the worst bits of what big business are trying to ram through, perhaps.
In the US, for instance, I guess this would be something like a constitutional amendment protecting internet traffic as free speech, or forbidding the government from enforcing copyright as a criminal offence (I'm not convinced it shouldn't be dealt with in the civil courts)...
... or maybe even just enforcing more openness in the procedures by which legislation is written, so it's far easier for the public/press to see "oh look, this proposal massively favours <supercorp>, who just happen to be throwing money at the primary sponsor WELL ISN'T THAT INTERESTING".
Not that that sort of thing is ever gonna happen. There's no incentive for the legislators to do so, and plenty for them not to.
>or forbidding the government from enforcing copyright as a criminal offense (I'm not convinced it shouldn't be dealt with in the civil courts)...
This is a very good point. At the moment, because copyright is given criminal provisions, the big media companies get to have their investigation, their prosecution, and their punishment mostly all paid for by the taxpayers.
Yet, in the other leg of "IP", that being patents, there is no criminal provision, and so the owner of a patent has to bear the full burden of paying for the investigation and paying for the prosecution of any infringement.
So, if patents can work with only civil court procedure, where the attacker has to pay his/her full costs himself (1) why should copyright be "special" in providing for criminal prosecution?
(1) I'm skipping over "loser pays" concepts, because even with "loser pays", the attacker still has to pay up until the point they finally win in court before they get any money back. They don't get free, government tax funded, assistance right from the start.
I'm working on giving people a way to demand stronger Australian Internet Access as a side project. Technology eg darknet, won't solve this at the rate of draconian laws being proposed. No technology can prevent arbitrary disconnections at whim by Hollywood, or notices, etc.
Give them a way to profit without implementing these laws?
The way I see it, these organizations are really scared that they're losing control and profits, and they don't know what to do besides trying to keep the status quo, which just isn't going to happen (not for very long, at least)...
Are they really using profits? There have been numerous postings on HN over the last few months all pointing out that the industries are making plenty of money.
Losing control, yes, and ultimately I suspect it is the loss of control that is the true driving force. The loss of "profit" (or of perceived possible profit) is easy to float in front of politicians and get their attention. Floating an outright argument of loss of control might not have the same effect (or would require even larger campaign contributions (bribes) to achieve the same effect).
Old money in germany is getting seriously nervous about the pirates, increasingly resorting to FUD like the above.
It seems we're close to a tipping point where the established parties will either have to break their ties with the content mafia and similar establishments, or face severe election losses.
Two things. First of all, TPP looks far scarier than every other law and agreement I've seen proposed so far. All previous attempts had at least been somewhat disguised as being limited - there was a clear effort to make the (dubious) claim that "they won't effect you". That seems to be gone now. I think the TC article does a pretty bad job of pointing out how strong TPP is, actually.
Secondly, these nasty provisions popped up only in the US proposal (IIUC), and yet, many of them run contrary to established US case law, and would circumvent current reform efforts. This agreement has quite clearly become a forum for the MPAA/RIAA/MAFIA lobbyists who couldn't get their policies passed out in the open. It fairly reeks of underhandedness.