Speaker: TPPA: It's Extreme
72 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Or sham-pagne… or is that just for the really nasty ones that are not “méthode traditionnelle”? :)
-
I like "bubbly"
-
The Maori word for ‘bubbly’ is ‘mirumiru’ (that’s Kati Porou/Kai Tahu – it’s also a bird name)…
“sham-pagne” was one of the losers in that particular contest-
I notice lot of younger people asking for "I'll have some bubbles/bubbly please" instead of any variation of 'champane'-
I rather suspect the market for the brand 'champagne' has kinda gone by the board-
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
James Joyce died in 1941, so that means his works would theoretically come under public domain this year. At least according to EU copyright law.
The counting starts at 1 January of the year following the creator's death, so it's next year not this.
In the US, courtesy of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, Joyce's work won't enter the public domain for, potentially, nearly three decades (depending when it was published). And if Disney manage to buy yet another extension, could be longer. Hell, if the MAFIAA get their way Joyce might never enter the public domain in the US - or the EU, given that that jurisdiction didn't just extend copyright terms they also revived expired ones! If that doesn't exemplify how much of a joke the idea of copyright as mutually-beneficial has become, I don't know what does. -
-
JoJo, in reply to
For an accessible (I think) introduction to the TPPA, there's also No Ordinary Deal: Unmasking the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement, by Jane Kelsey (ed).
-
The reason why NZ producers of bubbles do not describe it as champagne has nothing to do with GIs in a Trade Mark Act sense. It is because the Champagne area producers succeeded in a passing off/Fair Trading Act case against Wineworths back in the early 90s. That is why MED (which is in charge of the IP section of the TPPA) says that NZ law already deals with the issue. So, they conclude we already comply with TRIPs and need not introduce specific GI provisions into our trade mark law. MED actually has a useful summary of the current law on GIs at http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____1203.aspx (which has a citation for the Wineworths case for anyone interested).
-
The EFF comments on the latest TPPA leak
-
Bringing this over from another thread:
He said the secrecy around negotiations was not something to be worried about, given that was how all Free Trade Agreements came about
Key used an example of selling a house worth $600,000 for $500,000 and telling the media.
“Are you really telling me you would go to the paper and say ‘for sale, one house – $600,000, wink-wink, nudge-nudge if you offer me $500,000 I’ll take it’?
“No one does that.”
Perhaps someone can help me understand what the Prime Minister is getting at with this. Why is he selling the house for less than it’s worth? Why is he concerned about advertising that sale on the media if he’s already decided to take less than it’s worth? Couldn’t advertising a property at a reduced price generate interest and possibly ignite a bidding war? I can understand that outside Auckland, Christchurch, South Otago, properties are still selling at around GV, so I guess we’re talking about houses elsewhere, but why sell a house below GV? Why not hold out for a better deal? Why the urgency? Is selling the house a metaphor for selling the country? How is signing a deal for ongoing trade in any way comparable to selling a house? Is it that he has no clue how what the TPPA is or is this a plain sight admission that he’s selling us out? Who is the preferred buyer? Why is he choosing to sell to that buyer at a loss rather than open the sale up to the wider market? What are his accommodation plans once the house has sold below GV? Is he relocating somewhere with cheaper real estate? Is he suggesting others might prefer to sell the house to the paper? Is he against papers’ buying the house? Was he sober when he spoke at the luncheon? Were the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce receptive to this metaphor?
“If you believe the protesters of TPPA you’d think this was a great revolutionary you’ve never heard of before – [that’s] nonsense.
Does the TPPA metaphorically contain a persona, kind of like Che Guevara? Is there a perception in the community that elements in the TPPA are similar to someone like Che Guevara? Did the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce raise concerns that the TPPA or elements therein may be compared with someone unknown but bearing similarities with the likes of Guevara, Trotsky or Lenin? Which revolutionary does the TPPA threshold most resemble? Have protesters been making noises comparing the TPPA to a revolutionary? When comparing the TPPA to a revolutionary was it a revolutionary that John Key had never heard of or a revolutionary that the Nelson Chamber of Commerce have never heard of? Were either the GCSB or SIS used to garner intelligence as to exactly which revolutionaries the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce has collectively never heard of? Is it nonsense that this feature of the TPPA is a revolutionary that we’ve never heard of before? Is it nonsense that we think elements in the TPPA may be a revolutionary we’ve never heard of before when we actually have? Is it nonsense that we believe the protesters think the right of companies to sue the Government as advanced within TPPA was a great revolutionary? Is it all nonsense? Is any of it not nonsense? Is it that John Key wants to sell a house for less than it’s worth because it contains a revolutionary we’ve never heard of, or is it that John Key wants to sell a house below market value because protesters say it’s accommodating a revolutionary we’ve never heard of? Is the revolutionary renting or squatting? If the great revolutionary we’ve never heard of is renting then how long will it be until the lease expires? Would any of the above details be flexible were the revolutionary less great? If he could somehow evict the revolutionary would he be able to ask for market value for his property? In this metaphor what exactly does the revolutionary stand for? Have any other features of the agreement been personified? How did the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce respond to all this? Is this a failure of journalism or public speaking?
-
See here for a live stream of the planned press conference later today from Atlanta:
Why does it not surprise me that the video is private.
Humbug... -
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
Bah!
-
Why anybody thought you could let some of the world's biggest protectionists in and still call it a free trade agreement I do not understand.
-
That link’s broken Chris.
www.stuff.co.nz/72688061/grosser-fucks-new-zealand
There. I fixed it.
You'll have to cut and paste that one because the PAS system screws it up. Sort of like the Nats have just done to the country.
-
try
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72688061/no-increased-medicine-costs-under-tppa
(by the number still the same story) -
Alfie, in reply to
Cutting and pasting my link does work, and it looks so much more appropriate in the browser address bar. ;-)
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Groser (gets us) Jack…
Cutting and pasting my link does work…
That’s interesting to know for future reference, that just the first bits of the url/address finds the rest, hmmm
‘Grocer Tim’ won’t let us down, he will get off his back and feed the town…
Yeah, Nah! -
Alfie, in reply to
That’s interesting to know for future reference, that just the first bits of the url/address finds the rest, hmmm
Yep… with Stuff only, just tack the story number onto the end of the .co.nz/ and you can give it any name you like. It results in some very interesting links. ;-)
-
An article from The Intercept on how the TPP may benefit China:
Right now, the U.S. reserves the right to slap large tariffs on China, as it has done on steel (up to 236 percent), solar panels (up to 78 percent) and tires (up to 88 percent). But under TPP, many products, from agriculture to chemicals to plastics to leather seating, can include up to 60 percent of material from a non-TPP country.
[...]
So China would not have to raise any standards or comply with any TPP rules, yet still be able to produce millions of auto parts and textiles for TPP countries at a lower cost, without the burden of tariffs. “This will undoubtedly hurt the competitiveness of American manufacturers, particularly the American auto industry,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Michl.), an opponent of TPP.
-
Sacha, in reply to
and that's exactly why the resistance from many US Congresspeople/Senators will continue to be loud over the next couple of months. Canada's new government may also be our salvation, I guess
-
chris, in reply to
It puts our lack of investment in value adding industries into a new perspective.
And the winner is Vietnam:
In a decade, the country’s gross domestic product will be boosted 11 percent, or $36 billion, as a result of the world’s largest trade pact. Exports may soar 28 percent in the period as companies move factories to the Southeast Asian country.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
and that’s exactly why the resistance from many US Congresspeople/Senators will continue to be loud over the next couple of months.
I am waiting for the backlash from the US over this....http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201779142/us-feathers-ruffled-over-china-lease-of-port-of-darwin
I bet this went down like a cup of cold sick...
-
… for some optimism and alternatives
The Fabians have organised this event in Chchch:Wellbeing Economics – an alternative approach to national policy
I would like to remind/invite you to hear Professor Paul Dalziel discuss this topic at 7:30pm on Friday 20 November at the WEA Rooms, 59 Gloucester Street, Christchurch.
Professor Dalziel will speak on the ideas behind “wellbeing economics”, particularly Amartya Sen’s famous expression that authentic development means increasing the capabilities of people to lead the kinds of lives they value and have reason to value.
Paul Dalziel is Professor of Economics and Deputy Director of the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit at Lincoln University.If you would like to attend, please register here or phone the WEA 03 366 0285. If you know of anyone else who may be interested, please pass this invitation on to them.
—–
<Disclaimer: I am no relation to Paul Dalziel,
nor am I the ‘Fab’ Ian, the society is based on
and I added the italics and the quote picture
and must now follow up on this Amartya Sen
- seems to be some good thinking going on there...>
:- )
Post your response…
This topic is closed.