Meet RCEP: Yet Another Big Bad Trade Agreement No One Has Heard Of

from the worse-than-TPP,-worse-than-ACTA dept

Techdirt has been writing about major trade deals like TPP, TAFTA/TTIP and -- most recently -- TISA more than most. But there's one that we've not mentioned so far: the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). As Wikipedia explains, RCEP is:
Between the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) and the six states with which ASEAN has existing FTAs (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand). RCEP negotiations were formally launched in November 2012 at the ASEAN Summit in Cambodia.
As that makes clear, as far as participating nations are concerned, there is a big overlap between RCEP and TPP. The crucial difference is that the US is taking part in TPP, but not RCEP, while China and India are in RCEP, but not TPP. In this sense, then, they are rival free trade agreements, battling it out for economic supremacy in the Pacific region. Given the different views of the leading nations involved -- the US on the one hand, China and India on the other -- you might think the two trade agreements would be turning out to be very different, at least in certain areas. For example, as an interesting EFF analysis of a leaked South Korean RCEP document puts it:
We might then, expect that RCEP could be the "anti-TPP"; a vehicle for countries to push back against the neo-colonial ambitions of the United States, by proposing alternative, home-grown standards on the TPP's thorniest issues such as copyright, patents, and investor protection. Some members of RCEP have indeed spoken out against the TPP because of its unbalanced promotion of strict copyright and patent laws, and some commentators have characterized RCEP and the TPP as competitors.

But based on yesterday's leaks, the promise of RCEP pushing back against the TPP is being squandered. Instead, its IP chapter is turning out as a carbon copy.
Here are just a few of the proposals in the leaked South Korean document:
Prohibiting temporary copies of works in electronic form (a thoroughly misguided and anti-innovation provision that has even been erased from the TPP).

A prohibition on the Internet retransmission of broadcasts, mirroring proposals for a Broadcast Treaty that would inhibit the free use of public domain material.

Inflated awards for copyright or patent infringement, by calculating damages payable for the infringing works on the assumption that they were sold at full retail market value.

Criminal penalties for “commercial scale” copyright and trademark infringement, even where the infringer has not sought or made any profit from the activity.

Suspension of the Internet accounts of repeat infringers, and censorship of bulletin boards that are "considered to seriously damage the sound use of copyrighted works" (whatever that means).
As the EFF post rightly notes, these and the other ideas it lists are even worse than those found in TPP or ACTA, which is some achievement. So the question has to be: why has South Korea adopted this extreme position? The EFF offers an intriguing guess:
Having been pushed into accepting unfavorably strict copyright, patent, and trademark rules in the process of negotiating its 2012 free trade agreement with the United States, Korea considers that it would be at a disadvantage if other countries were not subject to the same restrictions.
If true, that would be a good demonstration of how intellectual monopolies like copyright and patents are not boons that bring benefits to those who embrace them, but banes that are imposed on others in order to hobble them. The South Korean chapter, with its revelations of just how bad things might be under RCEP, confirms once more the critical importance of leaks when negotiations with potentially far-reaching and global implications are conducted behind closed doors. Moreover:
Now that the text has been leaked and it has been revealed to be so atrocious, we can begin to build pressure for the negotiating countries to open up the process.
After all, it's hard to combat a threat if you don't even know it's there.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: china, copyright, india, intellectual property, rcep, tpp, trade agreements


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  1. icon
    PaulT (profile), 9 Jun 2015 @ 1:57am

    "Prohibiting temporary copies of works in electronic form"

    Erm, so caching is illegal now?

    "Inflated awards for copyright or patent infringement, by calculating damages payable for the infringing works on the assumption that they were sold at full retail market value."

    ...and utter unsupportable bullshit based on a fiction that's never been proven in any way and goes completely against any real world experience. Nice.

    "Criminal penalties for “commercial scale” copyright and trademark infringement, even where the infringer has not sought or made any profit from the activity."

    How is something "commercial" if no profit is even sought? Unless there's a Korean terminology that's being mistranslated, they're actually rewriting the dictionary?

    "censorship of bulletin boards that are "considered to seriously damage the sound use of copyrighted works" (whatever that means)"

    It means that someone wants an excuse to shut down sites they don't like. I'm sure this is intended to stop sites that link to torrents or discuss ways to download illegally, but it's ripe for abuse if not worded carefully.

    For example, Lowry could get Techdirt removed from the internet because he can't comprehend that criticising copyright law and noting that Google and Kim Dotcom aren't the combined antichrist are not the same and telling everyone to pirate.

    So, another wishlist of crap that's not only ignorant of reality, but would actively seek to make things less useful and/or have huge unintended collateral damage on free speech and other rights while doing nothing to encourage people to buy. The reasoning? "We were rtricked into screwing our citizens so we want to make sure everyone else is equally screwed"? How noble.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.