Can anyone explain to me how this is a secret treaty?
My understanding is that the only way the treaty actually comes into effect for its main participant (the USA) is a vote in the Senate, which would make it a public treaty.
Or does the domain of 'secret treaty' include all treaties that were at one point secret (such as during the negotiations)? Doesn't this make the majority of significant treaties 'secret treaties'?
This treaty has been in secret negotiations for years and only the large content companies have been able to be part of the negotiations.
Information about the treaty has been shared with negotiators for the member states and large content companies, but no one who represents the 'normal' person. No legislators and no organizations like EFF, Wikipedia or Creative Commons have been allowed to advocate on behalf of ideas like fair use or limits to powers of content companies.
The text of the treaty was recently leaked by WikiLeaks and is contradictory to what politicians have promised it would represent. It represents a huge step back on the rights of users and extends copyright yet again.
I think the biggest problem or criticism with these deals is that they are being negotiated with special interests completely in the dark.
When it then comes up for public voting (in senate, congress, whatever) any attempt to amend or change it is turned down with the justification that "the deal has already been agreed upon by our international parties", parties which needless to say will be given the very same explanation when they too object.
This is special interests trying to frame something as an "agreement" which everyone somehow sees a benefit from, while it most certainly is not.
This sort of thing needs and deserves as little secrecy as possible, so that we can avoid long-term, fundamental damage to the internet. Serving these dinosaurs one last dish isn't worth much, and definitely not a price that big.
You're right that it's not a "secret treaty" per se. It's a "too secret treaty". Discussions have been ongoing in secrecy for years, despite the fact that the treaty does not regard a sensitive matter of national security and it does regard subjects that cause spirited public debate. This makes people feel disenfranchised for obvious reasons.
HuffPost: The proposed terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal are secret. The Obama administration, like many of its predecessors, has registered the trade platform as classified information, to the chagrin of lawmakers. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/trans-pacific-partn...
The way that negotiating positions taken by nations are concealed in IP deals is in stark contrast to that taken in other trade negotiations: the negotiations for GATT, the US-EU deal, NAFTA and EEC have been very contentious and public.
My understanding is that the only way the treaty actually comes into effect for its main participant (the USA) is a vote in the Senate, which would make it a public treaty.
Or does the domain of 'secret treaty' include all treaties that were at one point secret (such as during the negotiations)? Doesn't this make the majority of significant treaties 'secret treaties'?