Google Comes Down on the Wrong Side of the TPP
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
Nonetheless, Google benefits from TPP because it enables them to shift operations to areas with lower costs, and not having their services blocked or censored in participating countries. They clearly feel that the advantages of TPP outweigh the drawbacks. I don't expect a public corporation to oppose a trade agreement on grounds of protectionism or ideology.
Author cites expansion of copyright and corresponding limitation of free use as specific problems with TPP, but Google comes out in support of those points. Analysis of other problematic provisions of TPP would serve to make the article more persuasive, rather than stating that Google is wrong on those grounds.
The problem is that's always how this works. You take a thousand people who each want something that will help them a lot and hurt everybody else a little. If you only look at them, they come out ahead, because they get +1200 from the thing they wanted and -1000 from the sum of all the little harms everybody else wanted. But everybody who isn't a huge corporation with the ability to shovel the thing they wanted into the treaty only gets the -1000, which makes the treaty a huge net negative because there are a lot more mortal people taking the big hit than there are huge corporations eeking out a little at the margin.
> Author cites expansion of copyright and corresponding limitation of free use as specific problems with TPP, but Google comes out in support of those points. Analysis of other problematic provisions of TPP would serve to make the article more persuasive, rather than stating that Google is wrong on those grounds.
Author links to their explanation in the article:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120804/00173819933/tpp-t...
I meant the analysis of all the -other- things, besides copyright harmonization, that make TPP bad, which the author refers to briefly:
"There's so much in there that's about blatant protectionism and supporting certain business models over others."
and
"(...) other problems in the agreement (such as the corporate sovereignty provisions that will almost certainly come back to bite Google and others)."
These could be good points, but since the author mentions them only in passing, and does not expand on them. After reading both links it sounds as if the author's opposition of Google's stance is entirely predicated on the copyright/fair-use topic, despite implying that TPP is deeply flawed for other reasons that should warrant its abandonment.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/study-projects-tpp-will-provide-...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160127/08075533442/yet-m...
So even if it Google did manage to pass some small clause in there that's of great help to them, it doesn't mean that's a good trade deal overall.
Big Pharma could make the same argument, that TPP will be great for them! But terrible for citizens if it bans generics, and so on.
That's why overall you may get very little gains if at all with the TPP, but a few big corporations could see huge gains from this deal (to the expense of everyone else).
Also, it sounds like this will also help other countries, which is generally a good thing.
That said, the IP provisions bug me.
This is the same fallacy Google has. You like one thing in the treaty so you vote in favor of some omnibus heap of garbage.
The fundamental problem with this treaty is that there are too many unrelated things in it. Even if the treaty was net positive (which it probably isn't), we should never accept something which is +1001 and -1000 when the -1000 parts are entirely unrelated and are only tacked on by lobbyists because they would never pass on their own merits.
There is no reason we can't reject this treaty and then go back and sign one that has only the good parts in it -- we're the ones asking for the bad parts. We could have the version that only has the +1001. If we dumped the bad stuff then we could even use the negotiating leverage to get more good stuff.
It doesn't matter if Google says they care about fair use or the expansion of copyright while throwing their support behind an agreement that does not. Even if this is to be expected, it's worth making a fuss about it because that's really the only weapon the public has at this point. Of course corporations care about their interests without taking only account negative externalities, but naming and shaming is a way consumers have to make them care about those externalities.
Yup, definitely the wrong side of this. I can't see how this will get passed in the EU when it directly contradicts all the previous data protection rulings, but presumably there will be some undemocratic process.
TTIP = Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Invest...
This seems good though.
Well, while you continue to think about that and have no answer, we'll continue using laws that protect content creators.
Many of these opinions are nonsensical anti-capitalist drivel.
TPP is consistency and compromise and if there's a real better way, you better believe countries will adapt to it.