Does the author or anyone else who feels aggrieved know what 'fast track' is or why it's important in a treaty deal? It means that the treaty can only be debated and voted on in its final form, and it's important because of the deal is modified, then every country has to go back to the drawing board. That doesn't mean congress or the people won't see the text. We have limited access, because treaties are almost always negotiated in secret. This is because all parties have to give something up to get something they want. Nobody wants to be seen giving things away, so everyone agrees to do it in secret. When the final treaty is drafted and went for a vote, it will be public. If it's distasteful or counterproductive, the senate can reject it. That's how treaties work. This deal will probably bring many people out of poverty in the world, especially in Latin America and Southeast Asia. What is the humanitarian argument against it? No detractors will address that question. All I keep hearing is 'NAFTA!!!' and 'Internet piracy!!!' Neither of those are arguments, and anyway American IP is stolen at alarming rates overseas. It's funny that the left always tries to portray itself as the humanitarian side, but nobody ever wants to acknowledge that liberalism is what has caused the dramatic reduction in world poverty since the end of the Cold War.
A few ISDS rulings against a smaller nation can be devastating. The amounts can be small to medium potatoes to a global cooperation but it can be the education or health budget to a small country. The threat of ISDS rulings can keep countries from even thinking about changing environmental or worker protection laws. I'm all for lowering the barriers to trade. Done right everyone is better off. There is a lot of stuff in this agreement that looks to only benefit corporations. Trade should first serve the people and second serve corporations, I suspect that isn't what we have here.
So long as there's enough money behind convincing us to by into ideas being property that can be stolen that "American IP is stolen at alarming rates" doesn't sound ridiculous to most ears, piracy isn't widespread enough.and anyway American IP is stolen at alarming rates overseas.
"American IP is stolen at alarming rates" is a ridiculous thing to say. "Stealing" implies the owner of a thing is deprived of the thing stolen. It is impossible to steal intellectual property. Intellectual property is not a thing, it's a bad analogy that justifies laws allowing publishers to monetize the culture we should be freely sharing with each other. It has always been that way, and arguments about the benefits to authors have been rhetorical slight of hand from the beginning. The only way we will be rid of IP protections is for them to become unprofitable, or for the industries dependent on them to die off. Either way, widespread not-really-stealing hastens that day, and so is a good thing.
The utopian vision of the Internet set is one in which nobody makes money off anything. Somehow, movies, cars, novels, and everything else would still get made in a world where anyone can sell anything. Remember: ideas and creations aren't the same thing. People put real blood sweat and tears into creations.
Yes, they were paid for their work just like any other worker. It was not necessary to be able to collect rent on the product of that work indefinitely. That's the more common case now too; it's publishers who derive significant income from licensing, and publishers are quickly becoming irrelevant.
I'm guessing, but: People are trying to make the idea that "ideas are property and can be stolen" more popular. Those same people are doing this to push tough copyright restrictions(?) We should reject this idea by pirating things.So long as there's enough money behind convincing us to by into ideas being property that can be stolen
that "American IP is stolen at alarming rates" doesn't sound ridiculous to most ears
piracy isn't widespread enough.
> Does the author or anyone else who feels aggrieved know what 'fast track' is or why it's important in a treaty deal? Yes. I specifically looked into when and why this could even be considered justifiable, and understand the positive implications it has for negotiating a good deal.
But that kind of closed-door secrecy only even begins to be acceptable when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can't or won't be abused to try and rush things past the general public - which, considering the leaks that highlight the worrisome fact that special interest groups have seats at the table - I have no confidence in.
In some hypothetical world, closed-door negotions like this can, should, and would have to take place to make the deal work out as best for everyone. But right now, with the near-outright plutocracy we have in place, allowing this kind of behavioral precedent to be set is beyond dangerous.