Trans Pacific larceny

* Could it turn your friendly ISP into a internet cop waiting to make a collar?

Article 16 (p 32) of the Wikileaked 2011 draft of the TPP mandates that countries create "legal incentives" for internet service providers to do their own copyright policing online. Does this mean that li'l ole Optus or TPG will be held legally responsible if subscribers download illegally? Will subscribers have their browsing history logged for possible unauthorised downloading? What does this mean for privacy? What will this mean for monthly charges?

* What will it mean for rules governing Australian content in the performing arts?

It is known that a menagerie of media companies from the United States has been lobbying the U.S. Trade Representative to pressure Canada into repealing Canadian content rules as part of the TPP. This has raised concerns that Canada's cultural industries could be steamrolled by the TPP. Will the Hollywood Heavies bully us into surrendering Australian content in music, film and television?

* Is the TPP "A Corporate Giveaway".

U.S. House Rep. Alan Grayson, (Democrat-Florida's 9^th District) was recently allowed to see a draft copy of the TPP. While he's been banned from telling anyone what he read, the populist Floridian described the agreement as one that "hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests." It undermines America's middle class, working class and is unjustly skewed in favour of Big Business.

The takeaway? If middle America is being given the finger; just how bad will the treaty be for non-Americans such as us or our cousins in Ottawa?

Columbia University's Joseph E. Stiglitz on 4^th July in a syndicated column alerted anyone interested to the reality that any agreement signed must be symmetrical. If the US for instance, demands we open our market for its apples and pears then we should be able to sell our fruit, any fruit into the US, without any US fruit grower enjoying any subsidy of money or water of any kind.

Also no trade agreement should put Big Business ahead of broader national interests, especially when non-trade-related issues like financial regulation and intellectual property are at stake. Stiglitz is livid about America's trade agreement with Chile that runs over Chile's use of capital controls – even though the International Monetary Fund now recognizes that capital controls can be an important instrument of macro-prudential policy.

And as a warning to Australia is implied.

Big Pharma, which wields considerable clout with the office of the USTR, has triumphed in imposing on other countries an unbalanced IP regime, which is designed to fight generic drugs. Tooth and nail.

Finally, there must be a commitment to transparency. Stiglitz is convinced that Big Business (aka the "US") is committed to a lack of transparency in any negotiation process. Heck, the USTR's office has been reluctant to reveal its negotiating position even to elected members of the United States Congress!

Ditto Ottawa, when it comes to Canadian consumers.

Ditto Canberra, when it comes to Australian consumers.

Where are Julian Assange and Eric Snowden when we need them to publish the balance of the TPP? Huh?