Ok, so I took like 2 weeks off here and I swear I meant to respond earlier... Some issues have already been worked out so I'll try not to rehash things. I'll do this by topic.
On bills in general
First, I'll say that it's terribly unhelpful to try and read the actual language of a bill yourself, if you don't have a background in law, public policy, congressional procedures, etc. Legalese is like computer code: lots of references to other laws on the books, specific jargon, etc. -- so reading the bill itself is about as inefficient as, say, reading the source code to Call of Duty to get better at the game. Some of the most damaging parts of a bill can be (intentionally) hidden through these types of references.
That being said, laws while they're being debated
need to be on public record. That enables organizations that are way better than the average person to parse it and distill out the information you need -- hence why the EFF (personal favorite) or PolitiFact are the best resources for the average person. So... first conclusion is that it should be a giant red flag to anyone concerned that the law's main proponents are not being public with the actual text of the bill, and it was Wikileaks that had to disclose it. Second conclusion is that I really suggest checking other sources like the EFF that have people on staff who are much better at interpreting legalese for information (or if you think you're more likely to support the bill, then look for other organizations maybe? I admit my bias towards the EFF here).
On LunarNET and other fan-sites
US fan-sites are
seriously unlikely to be affected, LunarNET included. The main reason is that there are US entities that hold the copyrights and trademarks associated with the Lunar series (as with nearly everything else). If, let's say, Game Arts wanted to take LunarNET down, then there's nothing preventing them
now from attempting to do so via XSeed, Ubisoft, or whoever holds the rights in the US (same with Sony of Japan via Sony of America, and so on). The only situation I could see where the TPP
may change things is with a Japanese entity that doesn't have a US presence.
(FYI, though... If, hypothetically, Iwadare messaged me and asked us to take down the music samples we have, I would still do so, fair use or not. That's less about IP laws and more about respect for the creators. That may be tangential, but just understand that
our desire is basically to avoid having a confrontational relationship with the people behind the Lunar series, and that's served us well for 15 years.)
At least in the realm of intellectual property, my main beef with the TPP isn't that it gives other countries' companies more power, it's that it gives US companies more power. More on that later.
On the TPP specifically
FYI, the current state of the TPP is that the Senate has passed it, but the House did not, though it'll be brought up to a vote later this week again -- the specific contention is over "fast-track" authority (enables the executive branch to make some trade decisions without Congressional approval -- details are irrelevant here, my point is just that it's temporarily set back, but not actually defeated). Also, it's interesting that most of the criticism has come from other Democrats. Most Republicans are in favor of it (including most of the Pres. candidates); on the Democratic side, Sanders is very strongly opposed, and Hillary... hasn't clarified her position.
Anyway, I won't get into a lot of links unless someone requests clarification on something, but I'll put up two for now:
- Opinion article on it from Al Jazeera America contributor -- this articulates some of my issues with it, but more importantly it brings up an important contrast with NAFTA (...I think most of the people on this board may be too young to remember the NAFTA debate, though -- I was really little during all of it myself.)
- EFF's summary -- Sonic# already linked it, but I'm linking it again for emphasis
To summarize, the things that concern me the most have little to do with the entertainment industry in the US. Mostly, it's (1) risks to US environmental protections, and (2) weakening the ability of several
other countries to market generic brands of pharmaceuticals. That (2) is the biggest thing to me since it's a matter of public health and well-being. Stacked up against that, well, the risk of some VG sites having to take down content (which I don't actually thing is increased with the TPP) is almost negligible.
On debating the issue
So, last thing I'll mention is on the way this was debated in this thread... I'll try not to rehash too many things though.
First, one of the most common rules of any debate* is that the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim (i.e., "the bill contains XYZ" is a positive claim; "the bill does not contain XYZ" is a negative claim). It's a simple reason that proving a positive claim is possible by citing a particular thing, while putting the burden on someone to "prove a negative" opens them up to having to cite everything in the known universe before everyone is satisfied. There are exceptions (e.g., if you make an extremely outrageous claim, you usually have the burden of proof), but that's the reason for the general rule.
(* I'm basing this on how rules for Parliamentary, Policy, Oxford-style, and Lincoln-Douglass debates are set up.)
Second, and this is one reason I took so long to respond here, making extreme claims (e.g., "party X wants to destroy the country") rarely helps the debate.
Sorry, but I do have to respond to a couple of specific things here to make the point:
Arlia wrote:Obama and his clowns have to be the worst government model in the history of the US. I mean, Hitler was a despicable man, but he meant to IMPROVE his country. These idiots are destroying the ground they stand on.
So, making comparisons to someone like Hitler can also lead you into the weird position of having to identify and argue for positive characteristics of Hitler. Assuming you were just being hyperbolic, you'd still have to present a case as to why, say, the current administration is worse than Buchanan, Hoover, Coolidge, Reagan, etc.
Arlia wrote:Also, Obamacare is ridiculous, everyone hates him for it; the border/amnesty crisis* is getting out of control; and he doesn't care about his public- he wants himself and his family to be safe, and the other 1% of people that can afford to be exempt to what he's putting everyone else through. He has completely sold-out his people to giant corporate, and the super rich (and maybe others, too.)
Just on the first point, it's not even possible to argue that "everyone hates Obama" for the Affordable Care Act -- wording really matters (use "ACA" instead of "Obamacare" and that improves the perception), and some aspects of the law are way more popular than others (most people *do* like not being priced out of insurance for pre-existing conditions, staying on their parents' plans until age 26, and having a place to buy individual insurance if they can't get it through their employer -- less popular are things like the individual mandate).
There is a thread from years ago on it, if you want to continue this topic:
http://www.lunarthreads.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4666
My point though is just that it's difficult to make large claims like that and support them. Bringing this back to the TPP, it doesn't
need extreme claims to make the case against it. Some of the very clear red flags are reason enough: secrecy behind the language, application of US IP laws elsewhere, weakening of our own regulatory laws, etc. KF