November, 05 2015, 11:00am EDT
Final TPP Text Confirms Worst Fears: Shadowy Agreement Poses a Grave Threat to the Internet and Freedom of Expression
Final TPP text confirms worst fears: shadowy agreement poses a grave threat to the Internet and freedom of expression
WASHINGTON
Early this morning, the government of New Zealand released the final negotiated text of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP.)
Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, said, "Now that we can read the final TPP text, it's obvious why it was kept in total secrecy for so long: this agreement is a wishlist for powerful special interests and multinational corporations. The Intellectual Property chapter confirms our worst first about the TPP's impact on our basic right to express ourselves and access information on the Internet. If U.S. Congress signs this agreement despite its blatant corruption, they'll be signing a death warrant for the open Internet and putting the future of free speech in peril."
Fight for the Future has been at the forefront of a massive coalition of groups that oppose the TPP, and has organized a wide range of high profile actions against the agreement. As an organization that works to protect the Internet, many of our concerns focus on the Intellectual Property chapter, which reads as if it were written directly by by lobbyists from Hollywood, the record indsutry, and big pharmaceutical companies (because it was.)
Here are several sections of grave concern based on our initial read of the final released text. There are undoubtedly other serious issues in the TPP that will be surfaced as technologists and experts read more deeply.
Article 18.26: Term of Protection for Trademarks
Increases the minimum protection for trademarks to 10 years, forcing countries to follow the U.S. model on this rather than make their own trademark policy based on the public interest. This will limit technological innovation and could curtail affordable access to medicines or other basic necessities.
Article 18.37: Patentable Subject Matter
Allows for the patenting of "new methods of using a known product," which essentially allows for unlimited patents from Pharmaceutical companies and will block affordable access to medicines and medical procedures and prevent innovation of better and more affordable healthcare procedures.
Article 18:28: Domain Names
This undermines anonymous online expression by requiring governments to keep a public database of real names and addresses associated with country code top level domain names, (such as .us, .au, .ca, etc). This is dangerous especially for the ability of opposition groups in repressive countries to voice their concerns online without fear of violent retribution.
Article 18.63: Term of Protection for Copyright and related Rights
This is one of the most egregious pieces of the deal. It forces the most draconian parts of the U.S.'s broken copyright system on the rest of the world without expanding protections for fair use and free speech. This section requires countries to enforce copyright until 70 years after the creator's death. This will keep an enormous amount of information, art, and creativity out of the public domain for decades longer than necessary, and allow for governments to abuse copyright laws to censor online content at will, since so much of it will be copyrighted for so long.
Article 18.68: Technological Protection Measures
This section attempts to make it a crime to circumvent any "Digital Rights Management" (DRM) locks on a device, even if you own it. It could criminalize people who unlock their phones in order to use accessibility software, for example, or make it illegal to circumvent DRM on a computer in order to use Linux.
Article 18.69: Rights Management Information
This section criminalizes basic activities that involve removing a Rights Management marker, even if it's done in the process of creating something totally legal. For example, cropping a photo that has a watermark on it in order to use it as part of a fair use creation or as part of a political protest. And yes, that does include if you give credit elsewhere (like the description of a YouTube video).
Article 18.78: Trade Secrets
Criminalizes the "unauthorized and wilful disclosure of a trade secret including via a computer system." This is clearly intended to stifle whistleblowers and journalism covering the documents they expose -- it could criminalize, for example, The Guardian's reporting on the documents they received from Edward Snowden.
Section J: Internet Service Providers
This is one of the worst sections that impacts the openness of the Internet. This section requires Internet Service Providers to play "copyright cops" and assist in the enforcement of copyright takedown requests -- but it does not require countries to have a system for counter-notices, so a U.S company could order a website to be taken down in another country, and there would be no way for the person running that website to refute their claims if, say, it was a political criticism website using copyrighted content in a manner consistent with fair use.
Section J makes it so ISPs are not liable for any wrongdoing when they take down content -- incentivizing them to err on the side of copyright holders rather than on the side of free speech.
Additionally, the Trans-Pacific Partnership's chapter on investments includes intellectual property as a matter that can be included in investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS).
Article 9: Investor-State Dispute Settlement
No matter what else is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, this section makes it bad for people everywhere. It allows companies to sue governments -- but not the other way around. These legally-binding challenges are decided by arbitrators hired for that case only, and investors have every reason to stack the cases with as many standards violations as they'd like. Intellectual property is just one of the many things that investors can bring suits over, but we could soon see cases of investors suing governments because they think punishments and rewards for copyright or trademark violations aren't enough to satisfy them. Decisions that impact the future of the Internet should never be made in secretive international tribunals -- especially not ad hoc ones.
Additional background:
Fight for the Future is a digital rights nonprofit that has driven more than 130,000 emails and more than 15,000 phone calls to Congress opposing the TPP in recent months, rallied more than 7,500 websites for an online protest, and helped coordinate a letter to Congress from more than 250 tech companies expressing transparency and tech related concerns about Fast Track legislation.
The group made headlines in March when they flew a 30' blimp over several of Senator Ron Wyden's town hall meetings calling for him to "Save the Internet" by opposing Fast Track for the TPP, and then parked a Jumbotron on capitol hill to display the viral video they made about the stunt. More recently, Fight for the Future made a splash on the hill when they delivered actual rubber stamps to every house Republican's office with a mock letter from President Obama asking Congress to "please rubber stamp my secret trade agenda.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Netanyahu to Press for 'Another Round of War With Iran' in Meeting With Trump This Week
Amid a growing rift between Israel and the White House, one foreign policy analyst says the meeting "will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation."
Dec 28, 2025
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Mar-a-Lago to meet with US President Donald Trump on Monday, amid a growing rift with the president and his advisers, reports say he'll seek to push the US back toward war with Iran.
Last week, NBC News reported that at the meeting, "Netanyahu is expected to make the case to Trump that Iran’s expansion of its ballistic missile program poses a threat that could necessitate swift action" and that "the Israeli leader is expected to present Trump with options for the US to join or assist in any new military operations."
"Netanyahu plans to press Donald Trump for US backing for another round of war with Iran, now framed around Iran’s ballistic missile program," said Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. “Netanyahu’s pivot to missiles should therefore be read not as the discovery of a new threat, but as an effort to manufacture a replacement casus belli after the nuclear argument collapsed."
He noted criticisms levied against Netanyahu by Yair Golan, chair of the Democrats, a center-left party in Israel, earlier this week: "How is it possible that last June, at the end of the war with Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu solemnly declared that ‘Israel had eliminated Iran’s nuclear threat and severely damaged its missile array’; and that this was a ‘historic victory’—and today, less than six months later, he is running to the president of the United States to beg for permission to attack Iran again?" Golan said.
Iran is just one of several areas the two will likely discuss on Monday. According to Israeli officials who spoke to the Washington Post, Netanyahu also reportedly wants Trump to "take a tougher stance on Gaza and require that Hamas disarm before Israeli troops further withdraw as part of the second phase of Trump’s 20-point peace plan."
The chief of Israel's armed forces suggested earlier this week that its occupation of more than half of Gaza would be permanent, but walked those comments back after reported behind-the-scenes outrage in the White House. Meanwhile, Trump—invested in his image as a peacemaker—has reportedly balked at Israel's routine violations of the ceasefire agreement he helped to broker in October.
Near-daily strikes have resulted in the death of at least 418 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Media Office. Meanwhile, Israel's continued blockade of humanitarian aid has left hundreds of thousands of people—displaced from homes destroyed by Israeli bombing—to languish in the cold without tents. Desperately needed fuel, food, and medicine have entered the strip at far lower numbers than the ceasefire agreement required.
As Axios reported on Friday, Trump's advisers increasingly fear that Netanyahu is intentionally slow-walking and undermining the peace process in hopes of resuming the war.
Netanyahu also seeks Trump's continued backing of Israel's territorial expansion in Syria. Earlier this month, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pushed through a UN-monitored demilitarized zone between Israeli and Syrian-held positions in the Golan Heights, which Israel illegally occupies.
This push into southern Syria went against the wishes of the Trump administration, which feared it could destabilize the Western-backed government that rules in Damascus following the ouster of former President Bashar al-Assad.
Israel has also routinely struck Lebanon in violation of the US-brokered ceasefire it signed with Hezbollah in late 2024, with bombings becoming a near-daily occurrence in December. Last month, the UN reported that at least 127 civilians, including children, had been killed in Israeli strikes since the ceasefire began.
"Netanyahu’s visit unfolds against a backdrop of unresolved fronts, with widening disputes with Washington over the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, including postwar governance, reconstruction, and Turkish involvement," Toossi said. "At the same time, Israel is seeking greater latitude to escalate again against Hezbollah in Lebanon, an end to US accommodation of Syria’s new leadership, and firm assurances on expanded military aid."
“Taken together, Netanyahu’s visit is less about resolving any single crisis than about postponing strategic reckoning," he continued. "The outcome will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation, or whether this meeting marks the beginning of clearer limits on Israel’s regional strategy.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Hits Back as Silicon Valley Oligarchs Threaten Primary Challenge Over California Billionaires Tax
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where... healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," the San Francisco lawmaker said.
Dec 28, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna defended California's proposed tax on extreme wealth Saturday after a pair of prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists threatened to launch a primary bid for his California House seat.
The proposal, which advocates are gathering signatures to place on the ballot in 2026, would impose a one-time 5% tax on those with net worths over $1 billion to recoup about $90 billion in Medicaid funds stripped from the state by this year’s Republican budget law. The roughly 200 billionaires affected would have five years to pay the tax.
While higher taxes on the superrich are overwhelmingly popular with Americans, the proposal has rankled many of California’s wealthiest residents, as well as California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said earlier this month that he’s “adamantly” against the measure.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that two of the valley's biggest powerbrokers—venture capitalist and top Trump administration ally Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page—were threatening to reduce their ties to California in response to the tax proposal.
This has been a common refrain from elites faced with proposed tax increases, though data suggests they rarely follow through on their threats to bail on cities and states, even when those hikes are implemented. Meanwhile, the American Prospect has pointed out that the one-time tax would still apply to those who moved out of the Golden State.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who is both a member of the House's progressive faction and a longtime darling of the tech sector, has increasingly sparred with industry leaders in recent years over their reactionary stances on labor rights, regulation, and taxation.
In a post on X, the congressman reacted with derision at the threats of billionaire flight: "Peter Thiel is leaving California if we pass a 1% tax on billionaires for five years to pay for healthcare for the working class facing steep Medicaid cuts. I echo what [former President Franklin D. Roosevelt] said with sarcasm of economic royalists when they threatened to leave, 'I will miss them very much.'"
Casado, who donated to Khanna’s 2024 reelection campaign according to OpenSecrets, complained that “Ro has done a speed run, alienating every moderate I know who has supported him, including myself.”
"Beyond being totally out of touch with [the moderate] faction of his base, he’s devolved into an obnoxious jerk," Casado continued. "At least that makes voting him the fuck out all the more gratifying."
Casado's post received a reply from another former Khanna donor, Garry Tan, the CEO of the tech startup accelerator Y Combinator.
"Time to primary him," Tan said of Khanna.
Tan, a self-described centrist Democrat, has never run for office before. But he is notorious for his social media tirades against local progressives in San Francisco and was one of the top financial backers of the corporate-led push to oust the city's liberal former district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in 2022.
Casado replied: "Count me in. Happy to be involved at any level."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball marveled that “Tech oligarchs are now openly conspiring against Ro Khanna because he dared to back a modest wealth tax.”
So far, neither Casado nor Tan has hinted at any concrete plans to challenge Khanna in 2026. If they did, defeating him would likely be a tall order—since his sophomore election in 2018, a primary challenger has never come within 30 points of unseating him.
But Khanna still felt the need to respond to the brooding tech royals. He noted that he has "supported a modest wealth tax since the day I ran in 2016," which prompted another angry retort from Casado, who accused the congressman of "antagonizing the people who made your district the amazing place it is" with a tax on billionaires.
Khanna hit back at his critics with a lengthy defense of not just the wealth tax, but his conception of what he calls "pro-innovation progressivism."
"My district is $18 trillion, nearly one-third of the US stock market in a 50-mile radius. We have five companies with a market cap over $1 trillion," Khanna said. "If I can stand up for a billionaire tax, this is not a hard position for 434 other [House] members or 100 senators."
"The seminal innovation in tech is done by thousands, often with public funds," Khanna continued. "Yes, we need entrepreneurs to commercialize disruptive innovation... But the idea that they would not start companies to make billions, or take advantage of an innovation cluster, if there is a 1-2% tax on their staggering wealth defies common sense and economic theory."
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where 70% of Americans believe the American dream is dead and healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," he concluded. "What will stifle American innovation, what will make us fall behind China, is if we see further political dysfunction and social unrest, if we fail to cultivate the talent in every American and in every city and town... So, yes, a billionaire tax is good for American innovation, which depends on a strong and thriving American democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nigerian Village Bombed by Trump Has 'No Known History' of Anti-Christian Terrorism, Locals Say
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigeria's information minister.
Dec 27, 2025
When President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas, he described it as an attack against "ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians."
But locals in a town that was hit during the strike say terrorism has never been a problem for them. On Friday, CNN published a report based on interviews with several residents of Jabo, which was hit by a US missile during Thursday's attack, which landed just feet away from the town's only hospital.
The rural town of Jabo is part of the Sokoto state in northwestern Nigeria, which the Trump administration and the Nigerian government said was hit during the strike.
Both sides have said militants were killed during the attack, but have not specified their identities or the number of casualties.
Kabir Adamu, a security analyst from Beacon Security and Intelligence in Abuja, told Al Jazeera that the likely targets are members of “Lakurawa,” a recently formed offshoot of ISIS.
But the Trump administration's explanation that their home is at the center of a "Christian genocide" left many residents of Jabo confused. As CNN reported:
While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa–which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with [the] Islamic State–villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.
Bashar Isah Jabo, a lawmaker who represents the town and surrounding areas in Nigeria's parliament, described the village to CNN as “a peaceful community” that has “no known history of ISIS, Lakurawa, or any other terrorist groups operating in the area.”
While the town is predominantly Muslim, resident Suleiman Kagara, told reporters: "We see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this."
Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation with more than 237 million people, has a long history of violence between Christians and Muslims, with each making up about half the population.
However, Nigerian officials have disputed claims by Republican leaders—including US Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)—who have claimed that the government is “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians.”
The senator recently claimed, without citing a source for the figures, that "since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred, and over 18,000 churches and 2,000 Christian schools have been destroyed" by the Islamist group Boko Haram.
Cruz is correct that many Christians have been killed by Boko Haram. But according to reports by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the approximately 53,000 civilians killed by the group since 2009 have been Muslim.
Moreover, the areas where Boko Haram is most active are in northeastern Nigeria, far away from where Trump's strikes were conducted. Attacks on Christians cited in October by Cruz, meanwhile, have been in Nigeria's Middle Belt region, which is separate from violence in the north.
The Nigerian government has pushed back on what they have called an "oversimplified" narrative coming out of the White House and from figures in US media, like HBO host Bill Maher, who has echoed Cruz's overwrought claims of "Christian genocide."
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigerian information minister Mohammed Idris Malagi. “While Nigeria, like many countries, has faced security challenges, including acts of terrorism perpetrated by criminals, couching the situation as a deliberate, systematic attack on Christians is inaccurate and harmful. It oversimplifies a complex, multifaceted security environment and plays into the hands of terrorists and criminals who seek to divide Nigerians along religious or ethnic lines."
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has criticized the Trump administration's attempts to turn the complex situation in Nigeria into a "holy war."
"This theme of persecution of Christians is a very politically charged, and actually religiously charged, theme for evangelicals across the world. And when you say that Christians are being persecuted, that’s a thing," she told Democracy Now! in November. "It fits this sort of savior narrative of this American sort of ethos right now that is seeing itself going into countries for a moral war, a moral suasion, as it were, to do something to help other people."
Nigeria also notably produces more crude oil than any other country in Africa. Trump has explicitly argued that the US should carry out regime change in Venezuela for the purposes of "taking back" that nation's oil.
Butler has doubted the sincerity of Trump's concern for the nation's Christians due to his administration's denial of entry for Nigerian refugees, as well as virtually every other refugee group, with the exception of white South Africans.
She said: "I think this is sort of disingenuous to say you’re going to go in and save Christianity in Nigeria, when you have, you know, banned Nigerians from coming to this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular