Yet another secret treaty, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP))

wes

Before, I give my take on this, some background (not much avaliable due to the secret nature of these treaties):

Guardian Comment is Free:
The Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free

Boing Boing:
LEAKED! TPP: the Son of ACTA will oblige America and other countries to throw out privacy, free speech and due process for easier copyright enforcement

What we have is all the bad stuff, we saw before with ACTA, PIPA etc, that the copy right industry (using this as short hand, as its not just the entertainment guys) have tried to get put into law before, and it looks like they won't stop trying until, these dracionian measures are put in place.

While, I understand the desire for the copy right industry to protect itself, they have already imho gone to far with current law, and these measure make things even worse. Tossing out any semblance of balance or fairness. The current laws are bad enough, where a business like Megaupload is effectively destroyed before even being found guilty before any kind of court, and not to mention the various acts of violence etc that was used against the owner for no real reason.

So making even more harsh laws is imho, not in the best interests of the public, and I believe the copyright industry are going to far, and seemingly won't give up, until they get the draconian measures they want implemented.

Chuck Stone

Very Orwellian indeed. There's absolutely nothing free about these moves to keep corporate privileges. What's doubly frustrating is that these corporate privileges mean people are ripped off as consumers and tax-payers because the public pay for the police and customs state apparatus that enforces these laws.


Something has to change.

Channel Zero

It has been called "NAFTA on steroids".

Medicines Sans Frontiers were sufficiently concerned to release a statement and report on it the other week:
http://aids2012.msf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TPP-Issue-Brief-IAC-July2012.pdf

KyussBishop

I've been keeping an eye on this since ACTA/Irish SOPA stuff; it's worse in some respects, but (as far as I remember) will not affect us.

When I was helping a volunteer group research all of this and publicize it, a notable thing relating to all of these treaties are the US Trade Representatives; they are basically corporate shills/lobbyists given diplomatic status by the US, and free writ to write up and push these treaties.
All these treaties are basically an undemocratic back-door method of pushing draconian sovereign US laws on copyright/patents etc. (and worse laws, which they US failed to pass internally but can impose on itself through treaty), onto other countries through this completely inappropriate use of secret treaties.

People are much more wise to this now since ACTA, and also because of many previously unbalanced trade treaties pushed (and passed) by the US over the last 20+ years, so can guarantee significant public lobbying against them from now on I reckon; they are a big threat, but they are a clumsy and prone to failure, so in the end it's going to be locally written laws that have a higher potential to nibble away specifically at internet freedoms.

SamHarris

Whats a "secret" treaty? My understanding is that the senate/congress has to vote on an international treaty for it to become effective.

Most countries have already fell to this kind of legislation - France, Australia and, obviously, the vast majority of non-Western countries have very tough internet laws. Just as Equador has been in the news recently and as an example their law enforcment can now trace IPs without court orders. It really was only a matter of time before governments got in on the free for all that is the internet.

Is there any real ideas out there for fighting piracy? It clearly is a big problem and one that the companies do have a legit reason to try and fight, though the manner in which they choose to do so leaves much to be desired.

Lantus

monetarism, the system we currently are enslaved to, doesn't promote fairness. It's all about preferencial advantage. If you can exploit people or the environment to gain financial benefit then it will be done. It's even encouraged, we call it competition to make it sound nice.

By ramping up copyright and patents we are robbing humanity of its free right to all of the worlds resources and the benefits of mankinds knowledge. It's the actions of a very stupid and short sighted group of people motivated by money.

nyarlothothep

Lantus wrote: »

monetarism, the system we currently are enslaved to, doesn't promote fairness. It's all about preferencial advantage. If you can exploit people or the environment to gain financial benefit then it will be done. It's even encouraged, we call it competition to make it sound nice.

By ramping up copyright and patents we are robbing humanity of its free right to all of the worlds resources and the benefits of mankinds knowledge. It's the actions of a very stupid and short sighted group of people motivated by money.

Yet you've got to ask yourself which fools enabled them to get into those positions of power? Because those very stupid and short sighted corporate cretins should be ignored.

antoobrien

Lantus wrote: »

By ramping up copyright and patents we are robbing humanity of its free right to all of the worlds resources and the benefits of mankinds knowledge. It's the actions of a very stupid and short sighted group of people motivated by money.

Even going back to the dark ages this "right" never existed. Legend has it that the concept of copyright goes back to the times of the Isle of saints and scholars. The original copyright dispute is supposedly when St Columba copied the first bible to reach Ireland without the permission of its owner, who (despite being a colleague) got annoyed and brought the dispute to the High King. The ruling has been more or less the core concept of copyright law ever since:

I don’t know where you get your fancy new ideas about people’s property. Wise men have always described the copy of a book as a child-book. This implies that someone who owns the parent-book also owns the child-book. To every cow its calf, to every book its child-book.

SamHarris

Lantus wrote: »

monetarism, the system we currently are enslaved to, doesn't promote fairness. It's all about preferencial advantage. If you can exploit people or the environment to gain financial benefit then it will be done. It's even encouraged, we call it competition to make it sound nice.

By ramping up copyright and patents we are robbing humanity of its free right to all of the worlds resources and the benefits of mankinds knowledge. It's the actions of a very stupid and short sighted group of people motivated by money.

People should have the right to profit from the fruits of intelectual toil in exactly the same way we can from the physical. Much of the enormously beneficial medicines, technology and media we enjoy today were created with the express intent of being able to sell and make profit from it. To do away with this incentive would be madness.

Corporations and people should have a right to be able to protect their intelectual property, to what extent, how, and to what degree this should iminge on the end user I really havent thought about that much.

Chuck Stone

SamHarris wrote: »

People should have the right to profit from the fruits of intelectual toil in exactly the same way we can from the physical.

Corporations and people should have a right to be able to protect their intelectual property, to what extent, how, and to what degree this should iminge on the end user I really havent thought about that much.

There are other ways of rewarding innovation and creativity. Patents and copyrights allow corporations to price gouge and double shaft the consumer/tax payer (cost of product and socialised costs of protection of patent/copyright).

Governments pay billions of dollars every year buying inflated cost medicines and protecting patents. One suggestion is to divert some of this money to public driven research where the public owns the patent for breakthrough medicine. Then governments could invite private companies to produce the drugs in competition against each other - the costs of medicine would plummet.

Another suggestion is public prize funds for innovation. A small levy on all medicines would generate vast sums for prize funds in a short space of time and drive speculation on recouping investments.

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

- George Bernard Shaw

SamHarris

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There are other ways of rewarding innovation and creativity. Patents and copyrights allow corporations to price gouge and double shaft the consumer/tax payer (cost of product and socialised costs of protection of patent/copyright).

Governments pay billions of dollars every year buying inflated cost medicines and protecting patents. One suggestion is to divert some of this money to public driven research where the public owns the patent for breakthrough medicine. Then governments could invite private companies to produce the drugs in competition against each other - the costs of medicine would plummet.

Another suggestion is public prize funds for innovation. A small levy on all medicines would generate vast sums for prize funds in a short space of time and drive speculation on recouping investments.

There is public research and it is ancilary to private (or visa versa), as it could and should be.

Prize funds to exist, see NASA and Space One.

The fact remains that it is the best method we have to stimulate investment and inovation. Leaving aside the moral qualms of stealing somebody elses work (even when it is a coroporation) to leave it unprotected would remove completly the stimulus that creates progess.

Im not arguing that this act should be passed but something should be done about online piracy. Everyone knows the vast majority isnt people copying much needed medicine - it is people not wanting to pay 8 euro to see a movie or 30 euro to buy a game. Given the amount of work, time and risk that goes into these ventures its sad how many peopel feel perfectly entitled to take without giving.

I have very little knowledge of how exactly a fair system would or should be implented, that would protect internet privacy and still reward those that should be rewarded however, right now, there is far too much leaking through the net.

Perhaps its only peoples attitudes that need to change.

Chuck Stone

SamHarris wrote: »

Prize funds to exist, see NASA and Space One.

So there's evidence that publicly funded prizes work works. Maybe there should be more of it when it comes to medicines although I can imagine big pharma lobbying hard against such moves to protect their profits.

The fact remains that it is the best method we have to stimulate investment and inovation.

According to who? You could just as easily argue that copyright/patents stifle innovation and many people do. The recent Apple v Samsung is a total fiasco - companies are abusing the system to try to suppress each other.

Leaving aside the moral qualms of stealing somebody elses work (even when it is a coroporation) to leave it unprotected would remove completly the stimulus that creates progess.

It's not stealing it's copying - there is a difference. The person who creates the content still owns his content if someone copies it. It's not like the 'pirate' can put his name to a piece of music or film and claim it as his own.

it is people not wanting to pay 8 euro to see a movie or 30 euro to buy a game.

Box office records are still being smashed afaia. Also, the further away that something gets from its true value the more likely people are to copy it and not pay. The vast majority of people will want the genuine product as long as they are not being ripped off. For too long middle men in the form of corporations were reaping the lion's share of music sales revenue.

SamHarris

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So there's evidence that publicly funded prizes work works. Maybe there should be more of it when it comes to medicines although I can imagine big pharma lobbying hard against such moves to protect their profits.

Yes. Again its ancillary to the enormous amount being pumped in privatly.

I doubt they would be too interested in stopping research into things that dont exist yet. More than likely they would be the ones winning the competition, when you think about it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

According to who? You could just as easily argue that copyright/patents stifle innovation and many people do. The recent Apple v Samsung is a total fiasco - companies are abusing the system to try to suppress each other.

Who do you think makes the vast majority of the advances we enjoy everyday? Companies. They dont do it because its fun. If there was a greater reason for it, there would be greater outlay from a different scource. Its simple observation.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not stealing it's copying - there is a difference. The person who creates the content still owns his content if someone copies it. It's not like the 'pirate' can put his name to a piece of music or film and claim it as his own.

Sure, its not exactly stealing.

I dont think its moral and never will, you think its fine. Doubt there is any real point in arguing that.

I will say that, say for example a game company, more than deserve my 40 euro for something that 100 people may have spent 2 years on.

You honestly think there would be as many or as high quality goods if people couldnt charge for it? The proof of that is in the pudding, Im afraid. There is an indy game and movie sector, no doubt much of it done for love of the art. But I seriously doubt Skyrim, or Pulp Fiction or even Lord of the Rings would exist if the author(s) did not believe they would at least be reimbursed for their work. Again, the proof of that is in how few people chose to freely give out their work. The vast majority of highly skilled workers are not going to do research or build new components in their spare time.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Box office records are still being smashed afaia. Also, the further away that something gets from its true value the more likely people are to copy it and not pay. The vast majority of people will want the genuine product as long as they are not being ripped off. For too long middle men in the form of corporations were reaping the lion's share of music sales revenue.

Yes, I hope the vast majority would. And the billions of euro that people feel free cheating artists and programers out of billions every year is still a problem, even if alot of them DO get more than enough back.

The damage tends not to be to the things that do majorly well, but to the vast majority of work that only makes small profits - profits that quickly disapear because there is a large number of people out there who feel that because something exists they have a perfect right to it, without contributing something to those that spent their time and treasure on developing it.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes. Again its ancillary to the enormous amount being pumped in privatly.

I doubt they would be too interested in stopping research into things that dont exist yet. More than likely they would be the ones winning the competition, when you think about it.





Who do you think makes the vast majority of the advances we enjoy everyday? Companies. They dont do it because its fun. If there was a greater reason for it, there would be greater outlay from a different scource. Its simple observation.





Sure, its not exactly stealing.

I dont think its moral and never will, you think its fine. Doubt there is any real point in arguing that.

I will say that, say for example a game company, more than deserve my 40 euro for something that 100 people may have spent 2 years on.

You honestly think there would be as many or as high quality goods if people couldnt charge for it? The proof of that is in the pudding, Im afraid. There is an indy game and movie sector, no doubt much of it done for love of the art. But I seriously doubt Skyrim, or Pulp Fiction or even Lord of the Rings would exist if the author(s) did not believe they would at least be reimbursed for their work. Again, the proof of that is in how few people chose to freely give out their work. The vast majority of highly skilled workers are not going to do research or build new components in their spare time.





Yes, I hope the vast majority would. And the billions of euro that people feel free cheating artists and programers out of billions every year is still a problem, even if alot of them DO get more than enough back.

The damage tends not to be to the things that do majorly well, but to the vast majority of work that only makes small profits - profits that quickly disapear because there is a large number of people out there who feel that because something exists they have a perfect right to it, without contributing something to those that spent their time and treasure on developing it.

Leaving aside the obscene mark-ups big-pharma put on their products the biggest problem with the entertainment industry is that they have not updated their business model for the world we inhabit today.

The simple fact is they are a dinosaur in a digital world and they need root and branch change. Piracy isn't new, it's been around since someone noticed a round rock rolled and it was copied, it's healthy and encourages innovation.

thebman

SamHarris wrote: »

There is public research and it is ancilary to private (or visa versa), as it could and should be.

Prize funds to exist, see NASA and Space One.

The fact remains that it is the best method we have to stimulate investment and inovation. Leaving aside the moral qualms of stealing somebody elses work (even when it is a coroporation) to leave it unprotected would remove completly the stimulus that creates progess.

Im not arguing that this act should be passed but something should be done about online piracy. Everyone knows the vast majority isnt people copying much needed medicine - it is people not wanting to pay 8 euro to see a movie or 30 euro to buy a game. Given the amount of work, time and risk that goes into these ventures its sad how many peopel feel perfectly entitled to take without giving.

I have very little knowledge of how exactly a fair system would or should be implented, that would protect internet privacy and still reward those that should be rewarded however, right now, there is far too much leaking through the net.

Perhaps its only peoples attitudes that need to change.

I don't think people need to change. I think the model is unworkable which is why it meets so much resistance.

If you expect people to pay for building on prior work then eventually it becomes too expensive for anyone to do anything because of the upfront investment required to actually get a project off the ground.

It essentially makes large parts of society read only where even if they have the knowledge and skills they can't benefit from them because they'd be infringing other peoples intellectual property rights.

It isn't sustainable or workable in the long run IMO which is why it has such opposition.

SamHarris

thebman wrote: »

I don't think people need to change. I think the model is unworkable which is why it meets so much resistance.

If you expect people to pay for building on prior work then eventually it becomes too expensive for anyone to do anything because of the upfront investment required to actually get a project off the ground.

It essentially makes large parts of society read only where even if they have the knowledge and skills they can't benefit from them because they'd be infringing other peoples intellectual property rights.

It isn't sustainable or workable in the long run IMO which is why it has such opposition.

Has it not worked for centuries? Whats changed? Its interesting that 3 or 4 nations account for the vast majority of IP in high tecnology and media (at least the sort that people want ie makes big money). The research and advancment are not forced to places that would not/do not enforce IP. Does this not indicate that you are creating market forces that do not exist?

Chuck Stone

SamHarris wrote: »

Who do you think makes the vast majority of the advances we enjoy everyday? Companies.

Companies/corporations are fictional entities granted their privileges by the state. Ultimately ideas come from the minds of men. There is no law of nature that states advancement will only happen through the corporation.

They dont do it because its fun.

I lot of people do their jobs because they love their work. I'd imagine making breakthrough discoveries in medicine carries a lot of non-monetary reward.

If there was a greater reason for it, there would be greater outlay from a different scource. Its simple observation.

There are multitudes of innovations that were not created by corporations but by people who were innovating for innovations sake. Off the top of my head; the airplane, rocket motor, jet engine, pneumatic tyre and internal combustion engine.

I dont think its moral and never will, you think its fine.

I didn't say I thought it was fine. I'm against people being shafted and arbitrary privilege.

Consider 'Cliff Richard's Law' . He had copyright protection increased from 50 to 70 years in the EU in spite of the protestations of a number of countries.

in 2009 the European commission ignored two studies carried out by the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law that argued against extension (of copyright), prompting Professor Bernt Hugenholtz to accuse it of "wilfully ignoring scientific analysis and evidence" in its policy-making.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/13/cliff-richard-royalties-copyright

Again privilege is protected at the expense of the public.

I will say that, say for example a game company, more than deserve my 40 euro for something that 100 people may have spent 2 years on.

I know nothing about gaming but I'd hazard a guess your stance would be that of the vast majority of gamers.

You honestly think there would be as many or as high quality goods if people couldnt charge for it? The proof of that is in the pudding, Im afraid.

I never said people shouldn't be rewarded for their work - of course people should be remunerated. I'm just questioning if we shouldn't be looking at alternatives and whether we should be allowing the corporations to write their own laws.

There is an indy game and movie sector, no doubt much of it done for love of the art. But I seriously doubt Skyrim, or Pulp Fiction or even Lord of the Rings would exist if the author(s) did not believe they would at least be reimbursed for their work6

Funnily enough I believe Pulp Fiction is a rip-off of a foreign film.

Regardless, I'm not saying we should burn the current system to the ground - I would like to see the current system which grants privileges to corporations at the expense of the public have to compete with alternative business models and methods of stimulating innovation and creativity.

KyussBishop

SamHarris wrote: »

I have very little knowledge of how exactly a fair system would or should be implented, that would protect internet privacy and still reward those that should be rewarded however, right now, there is far too much leaking through the net.

The long and short of it is basically, that due to the way the Internet works and its actual structure, it's literally impossible to support net neutrality, free speech and privacy, and to also effectively defend copyright.

Any increasing attempts to block or detect copyrighted content, will invariably increasingly infringe upon either net neutrality, free speech or privacy, and (most importantly) none of those attempts will be effective, because (due to the way the Internet works and routes information) there is always a way around blocking/detection.

If you play out each round in the 'arms race' of detection vs evasion, the casualty every time is either free speech, privacy, or net neutrality, and that arms race can only stop when all of free speech, privacy and net neutrality are fatally compromised.


A good example (probably the 'ultimate' example at the moment) of the ability to evade detection on the Internet is Tor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29

It is impossible (for the most part, but not quite 100%) to shutdown or censor any services (e.g. a file sharing website), or to identify people on the Tor network; you just can't do it, because of the way it works.
Right now, it is useless for file sharing because their network just isn't big enough, and wide-scale file sharing would cripple the network.

However, in the long term as average bandwidth increases on the Internet for users, Tor (and other networks like it) will become feasible for file sharing; coupled with the excellent anonymity that provides to both users and services, you would have to completely ban Tor to continue adequate defense of copyright.

This however, would be a fatal breach of all three principals of net neutrality, free speech, and privacy, as Tor epitomizes these principals, and only the most tyrannical of governments have tried (and failed) to block it.


So yes, the long and short of it is, it's impossible either Internet freedoms will be completely crippled, or copyright will become impractical to enforce.

Channel Zero

KyussBishop wrote: »

so in the end it's going to be locally written laws that have a higher potential to nibble away specifically at internet freedoms.

Just to pick up on this part KB. One of the main characteristics of TPP potentially is to override local and national laws on intellectual property, local environmental laws, local labour regulations etc. It's got very little to do with trade and more to do with corporate rights and privileges as you're probably aware.

According to the leaked text, what's being proposed is the setting up of a three lawyer tribunal to hear complaints from corporations, be they pharma companies or whoever, regarding regulations in the country they're operating in.
If say a corporation or company feels it is losing profits because of its host nations overtime laws, the tribunal could rule that the country (ie its taxpayers) owe the company compensation for this loss.

Edit: PublicCitizen.org is a good source on this. Worth a look.

KyussBishop

^^ I didn't know it in that much detail, interesting; if the treaty does get signed in for the host countries and directs local laws, it's definitely going to result (in one big blow) more harm than nationally-originated laws could manage in a decade or more, though with the big and clumsy treaty route, it's less of a sure thing than the incremental nationally-originated laws.

PopePalpatine

Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I figured that it would be important to keep the TPP fresh in everyone's memories. Here's a HuffPo article on the latest push to give the President the ability to "fast-track" trade deals like the TPP.

Manach

Given that the historic trend of Intellectual property right legislation has been an upward slope of longer term limits and harsher penalties, that there is so much secrecy associated with the talks is worrying that instead of a balanced treaty that includes the rights of the end-user to reasonable fair use that a too commercially driven one is on the cards.

Slightly OT, but the EU has a consultation on public reform of IP.
http://boingboing.net/2014/01/05/urgent-input-needed-on-eu-cop.html.

Iwasfrozen

Concepts like net neutrality and internet anonymity have gone too far. When people go on the internet they think they can do what they like. They believe the country's laws no longer apply to them and copyright piracy is a perfect example of this. We need to have much tighter controls on what people can do online.

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Concepts like net neutrality and internet anonymity have gone too far.

Eliminate net neutrality, and the Internet gets sold to the highest bidder. Not literally, but figuratively, as big business will obviously try to have their sites given priority.

As for anonymity? "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is just plain Daily Mail commentator-grade rubbish.

Iwasfrozen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Eliminate net neutrality, and the Internet gets sold to the highest bidder. Not literally, but figuratively, as big business will obviously try to have their sites given priority.

As for anonymity? "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is just plain Daily Mail commentator-grade rubbish.

That's not what I mean, internet service providers have a duty to ensure they don't unwittingly provide access to illegal material by blocking access to file sharing websites when they are made aware of them. This should be centrally directed, for example there's little point having pirate bay blocked on eircom when users can still access the site through UPC. This problem could be solved by creating a "black list" of known file sharing sites all ISPs in the state are required to block.

And yes anonymity has gone too far, people think as soon as they turn on a computer the law suddenly doesn't apply to them. They're anonymous and they can do whatever they like because they believe there is no way they can be traced. Even on this thread a person could openly admit to downloading illegal material, admitting to breaking the law in a supposedly public arena and there wouldn't be any reprisals against him. It's not about "restricting internet freedoms" it's about bringing the internet back back into the sphere of public governance because right now it's more like Somalia.

PopePalpatine

It is the height of naivety to believe that the Internet can be governed as you have described, and that it won't become big business's bitch.

There's no point in blocking the Pirate Bay anyway, it only takes a matter of seconds to find a proxy server or another torrent site.

Iwasfrozen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It is the height of naivety to believe that the Internet can be governed as you have described, and that it won't become big business's bitch.

There's no point in blocking the Pirate Bay anyway, it only takes a matter of seconds to find a proxy server or another torrent site.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about enforcing a ban list of sites that are known to share files or link to file sharing sites on all ISPs in the country.

And then we find new ways of closing the loop hole and add the other torrent site to the ban list. You're pointing out issues I have already addressed in my previous post.

Nate--IRL--

The internet is not anonymous at all. If some one goes to the effort of finding out who you are, they can.

Also the idea of censoring the internet without due process concerns me. It should be for courts to decide, not politicians.

Even then this fundamentally misses the point of the internet's basic design - there is always another route to a destination.

Nate

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What are you talking about? I'm talking about enforcing a ban list of sites that are known to share files or link to file sharing sites on all ISPs in the country.

And then we find new ways of closing the loop hole and add the other torrent site to the ban list. You're pointing out issues I have already addressed in my previous post.

So the government forces ISPs to introduce deep packet inspection and filtering technology. Who's going to pay for it?

And do you seriously believe it will take more than five minutes to work around it?

Iwasfrozen

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the government forces ISPs to introduce deep packet inspection and filtering technology. Who's going to pay for it?

And do you seriously believe it will take more than five minutes to work around it?

I admit IT isn't my area so I'll stay away from the specifics of how it would be managed but I would imagine the cost to be imposed on the ISPs, who will then be free to either absorb it or pass it onto their consumers as a cost of legally providing their service.

Five minutes is an exageration but I would imagine the protocols would need to be updated regularly yes.

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I admit IT isn't my area so I'll stay away from the specifics of how it would be managed but I would imagine the cost to be imposed on the ISPs, who will then be free to either absorb it or pass it onto their consumers as a cost of legally providing their service.

Unfortunately, IT isn't the government's area either, and they're happy to stay away from the specifics of how it's to be managed as well. They just wave their magic wand and tell private companies to spend money - and it's a shedload more money than you'd believe, because you're asking (most) ISPs to do something radically different to traffic than what they normally do - to achieve something that's ultimately futile, because no matter what you try to block on the Internet, anyone who really wants to get to it will get to it.

If you think I'm exaggerating the radical change involved, look at it like this: imagine an ISP is a freeflow junction on a motorway. Traffic is directed from various inbound roads to various outbound roads.

What you're asking is that the ISP instead stop every car, search it for contraband, and remove it from the road if it's carrying something illegal. Now, only in the fevered imagination of the most IT-illiterate politician imaginable is it possible to change a freeflow junction to a stop-and-search checkpoint without any negative impact on the customer's experience, but that's what's expected.

Five minutes is an exageration but I would imagine the protocols would need to be updated regularly yes.

And if the "protocols are updated" to block access to content that you want to access but the government doesn't want you to see, that's a price worth paying for allowing copyright owners to dictate (via government) how the Internet should work?

Nate--IRL--

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I admit IT isn't my area so I'll stay away from the specifics of how it would be managed but I would imagine ............

You imagine wrong. familiarise yourself with how the internet works, technically, then come back with a proposal.

Nate

PopePalpatine

The final terms of the TPP have been agreed on.

micosoft

karma_ wrote: »

Leaving aside the obscene mark-ups big-pharma put on their products the biggest problem with the entertainment industry is that they have not updated their business model for the world we inhabit today.

What's obscene? Context? It costs and obsence amount of money, billions, to develop new drug products. For the most part Drug Companies returns ares moderate and high risk. Typically owned by Pension companies.

karma_ wrote: »

The simple fact is they are a dinosaur in a digital world and they need root and branch change. Piracy isn't new, it's been around since someone noticed a round rock rolled and it was copied, it's healthy and encourages innovation.

I know plenty of musicians who could get by in the pre piracy era and are now living in near poverty. There is a vast difference copying a music style and stealing somebodies intellectual copyright.

Of course it's no coincidence that those who have created nothing value nothing.

karma_

micosoft wrote: »

What's obscene? Context? It costs and obsence amount of money, billions, to develop new drug products. For the most part Drug Companies returns ares moderate and high risk. Typically owned by Pension companies.



I know plenty of musicians who could get by in the pre piracy era and are now living in near poverty. There is a vast difference copying a music style and stealing somebodies intellectual copyright.

Of course it's no coincidence that those who have created nothing value nothing.

How do you know what I have created? As it happens I have, and do.

As for obscene, perhaps you were aware of the Martin Shkreli case a few weeks ago. I'd definitely file a 5000% hike in price for a generic drug in that category.

micosoft

KyussBishop wrote: »

The long and short of it is basically, that due to the way the Internet works and its actual structure, it's literally impossible to support net neutrality, free speech and privacy, and to also effectively defend copyright.etc

Technically true but its a false argument. All that is has to be done is to make it difficult not impossible. Few understand how to create tors which are also slow. Make it difficult/awkward and 80% of people who don't have the skills will sign up to a music package which is happening. I use Deezer which connects to my Sonos speaker system for example giving me wireless music throughout my house. Netflix is a great example where the convenience of the product is reinventing television.

micosoft

karma_ wrote: »

How do you know what I have created? As it happens I have, and do.

As for obscene, perhaps you were aware of the Martin Shkreli case a few weeks ago. I'd definitely file a 5000% hike in price for a generic drug in that category.

Great. Can I take it then? Or let me guess. You don't have to pay your rent from any income from it.

Taking a complete outlier and casting that as the norm is dishonest. But let me put it this way. It takes $2,500,000,000 to develop a new prescription drug on average. Say only 10,000 people are afflicted with the condition. What would you charge for the drug? A nickel?

karma_

micosoft wrote: »

Great. Can I take it then? Or let me guess. You don't have to pay your rent from any income from it.

Taking a complete outlier and casting that as the norm is dishonest. But let me put it this way. It takes $2,500,000,000 to develop a new prescription drug on average. Say only 10,000 people are afflicted with the condition. What would you charge for the drug? A nickel?

Dishonest? How so? Behaviour like this by Big Pharma has been under criticism for some time, sure this was a particularly nasty price hike but there's nothing dishonest about bringing up something that actually happened. Dishonest indeed.

micosoft

karma_ wrote: »

Dishonest? How so? Behaviour like this by Big Pharma has been under criticism for some time, sure this was a particularly nasty price hike but there's nothing dishonest about bringing up something that actually happened. Dishonest indeed.

Yes - plenty of criticism. Like the usual crowd who criticise capitalism. The same people who don't have a meaningful thought out alternative. I'm not defending the outlier case. What I am saying is that the pharma sector as a whole have been incredibly successful in extending lifespans and quality of life and have delivered incredible innovation. Now that most common ailments are treated increasingly pharma are entering spaces where the numbers affected are small.

You didn't answer what you think is reasonable in the above example to charge. You are of the group that somehow imagines that pharma will invest billions in drugs only to be told they can't make any money from selling them. How do you think that will play out? I stand by my statement that it's a dishonest view to say that the only costs pharmas have to cover is manufacturing and that it will have no impact on future drug development if pharmas cannot set prices.

gobsh!te

Is anyone here pro TPP? I mean if you are why?

PopePalpatine

WikiLeaks have leaked the copyright & IP chapter of the TPP, and it looks bleak:

• ISPs will be forced to block sites suspected of facilitating piracy.
• "White hat" hackers will have their devices destroyed if they dare tamper with DRM.

Iwasfrozen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

WikiLeaks have leaked the copyright & IP chapter of the TPP, and it looks bleak:

• ISPs will be forced to block sites suspected of facilitating piracy.
• "White hat" hackers will have their devices destroyed if they dare tamper with DRM.

Finally, some property protection.

gobsh!te

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Finally, some property protection.

Sarcasm?

PopePalpatine

gobsh!te wrote: »

Sarcasm?

Unfortunately not, judging by his history in threads like this.

Phoebas

PopePalpatine wrote: »

WikiLeaks have leaked the copyright & IP chapter of the TPP, and it looks bleak:

• ISPs will be forced to block sites suspected of facilitating piracy.
• "White hat" hackers will have their devices destroyed if they dare tamper with DRM.

Am I missing something here?
Your link says ISPs will have to block content based on a 'suspicion', but the linked article doesn't say that - it refers to a court decision.

internet service providers must "remove or disable access" to content upon “becoming aware” of a decision by a court that says the content infringes
copyright.

PopePalpatine

Phoebas wrote: »

Am I missing something here?
Your link says ISPs will have to block content based on a 'suspicion', but the linked article doesn't say that - it refers to a court decision.

I trust this treaty as much as I trust Martin Shkreli to not be an utter cünt.

Iwasfrozen

gobsh!te wrote: »

Sarcasm?

Nope. For a very long time now governments have done very little to protect intellectual property rights from the development of the internet. This is a step in the right direction.

PopePalpatine

And how do you suppose they'll do that? Have some sort of copyright Stasi?

Iwasfrozen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And how do you suppose they'll do that? Have some sort of copyright Stasi?

Make ISPs socially conscious. This is a good start.

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope. For a very long time now governments have done very little to protect intellectual property rights from the development of the internet. This is a step in the right direction.

No, it's not. It looks like a step in the right direction in the "we have to do something; this is something; therefore we have to do this" sense, but blocking. doesn't. work.

I've explained in detail earlier in this thread why blocking will be an onerous burden on ISPs. Add to that the fact that it's trivial to bypass, and all you're doing is imposing immense costs on ISPs. This cost will have absolutely no upside whatsoever for the ISPs (the businesses who are facing all the downside), and no additional costs and only questionable benefits for the rights holders (the only businesses who stand to gain).

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Make ISPs socially conscious.

Protecting the profits of large studios who refuse to adapt to the business realities of the modern world isn't social consciousness.

The only reason studios want blocking is that it saves them the time and expense involved in pesky due process.

The problem with blocking is that it's a great idea when it's something that you dislike that's being blocked; suddenly it becomes a less good idea when something you like is blocked, but it's a bit late to cry about the nasty ISPs interfering with your internets after you've been cheerleading for them to become censors.