Also, if Bernie Sanders wins, he'll veto it. If Clinton wins, she'll "evolve" once again on the issue, and pass it. If Trump wins, despite him saying he doesn't like it he'll probably be convinced to pass it.
If there is a TPP vote in early 2016, before the general election, labor groups like the AFL-CIO can organize Nov 2016 election campaigns to punish/unseat members of Congress who vote for the TPP. If the TPP vote is moved to the lame duck period between Nov 2016 and Jan 2017, Congress can be re-elected before going on-record with a TPP vote that is opposed by American workers and possibly a majority of voters.
By moving the TPP vote to a lame duck session in Nov 16, the anti-TPP lobbying/campaigning power of American workers in the general election could be neutralized. Sen. Sherrod Brown from the linchpin electoral swing state of Ohio is not a TPP fan, http://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-to-...
"Access to the text has been inadequate throughout the TPP negotiations. A copy of the agreement was not readily available for Members of Congress until we demanded it. And even after the text was deposited in the secure reading rooms in the House and Senate, Members had to ask USTR for TPP annexes and other related documents to be made available. In addition, despite repeated requests, congressional staff with the necessary security clearance are still prohibited from seeing the text on their own."
That goes both ways. By pushing it to the lame duck session, it gives us an opportunity to neutralize TPP. We can vote out anyone who indicates support for it before they get the opportunity to vote on it.
Make it an election issue. Make the candidate go on record. If they won't go on record against TPP, then we can assume they are for TPP and vote them out. Don't even let them through the primaries.
And in general, if he is leaving, why is he pushing it so much? Those who stay in power might do it for corruption reasons (money and power they'll get from those who lobbied for this garbage). But pushing for it when leaving is simply weird.
everything is moving to the net, so business wants to get money out of it, so far they came up with two models to do business
- surveillance as the business model of the internet
- DRM lock in
and so it goes that we run into a big reversal: the internet, which is after all a technology that promises freedom of information and transparency turns into a tool that results in exactly the reverse.
Except what is good for one business can be quite bad for another. And DRM in general is bad overall for business and economy (same as lock-in, growing monopoly and etc.). So this mantra doesn't sound meaningful.
There is a major difference between a self publishing artist and a record label; the artist is primarily interested in gaining a wider audience and DRM is a hindrance here; the artist wants to increase his reach, he is less bothered by piracy.
The record label however is very worried about piracy - i argue that your position on the subject depends on your initial position in the hierarchy of things.
Not really. DRM reduces sales and end user reach. It reduces quality of what they offer. Unless you define as "good" those reasons they really use DRM for. And for sure none of them are good in general.
> they don't mind that it kills opportunities for growth in the future
Then it's even more pointless for anyone to think in this context that "what's good for business is good for America".
I'd rephrase it. To certain legacy business which can't compete and instead wants to use various combination of corrupted laws and lock-in to preserve their control over the market. There as well can be big business which is hurt by TPP and the like.
maybe this whole business model thing is about domination - if megacorporation is not in a dominating position then there is no business model to think about, so there is nothing serious to begin with;
i mean that a position of dominance is a prerequisite for a business relationship - one where the owner of the business can turn the mutual relationship into money.
However this is only speculation, since i don't know enough on the subject of money making.