Why would he want a legacy of pushing corrupted undemocratic agreements which are clearly against society? It's like having a legacy of the biggest crook.
And in general, if he is leaving, why is he pushing it so much? Those who stay in power might do it for corruption reasons (money and power they'll get from those who lobbied for this garbage). But pushing for it when leaving is simply weird.
i guess Obama is mainly talking to businessmen, so its is the 'what is good for business is good for america' mantra.
everything is moving to the net, so business wants to get money out of it, so far they came up with two models to do business
- surveillance as the business model of the internet
- DRM lock in
and so it goes that we run into a big reversal: the internet, which is after all a technology that promises freedom of information and transparency turns into a tool that results in exactly the reverse.
Expanding on the existing business models; maybe this is all about the terms and conditions that people are able to comprehend:
maybe this whole business model thing is about domination - if megacorporation is not in a dominating position then there is no business model to think about, so there is nothing serious to begin with;
i mean that a position of dominance is a prerequisite for a business relationship - one where the owner of the business can turn the mutual relationship into money.
However this is only speculation, since i don't know enough on the subject of money making.
> 'what is good for business is good for america' mantra.
Except what is good for one business can be quite bad for another. And DRM in general is bad overall for business and economy (same as lock-in, growing monopoly and etc.). So this mantra doesn't sound meaningful.
but DRM is good for content owners and this is a very strong interest groups - they don't mind that it kills opportunities for growth in the future; all they care about is to turn their IP into something that results in a steady rent.
There is a major difference between a self publishing artist and a record label; the artist is primarily interested in gaining a wider audience and DRM is a hindrance here; the artist wants to increase his reach, he is less bothered by piracy.
The record label however is very worried about piracy - i argue that your position on the subject depends on your initial position in the hierarchy of things.
Not really. DRM reduces sales and end user reach. It reduces quality of what they offer. Unless you define as "good" those reasons they really use DRM for. And for sure none of them are good in general.
> they don't mind that it kills opportunities for growth in the future
Then it's even more pointless for anyone to think in this context that "what's good for business is good for America".
I'd rephrase it. To certain legacy business which can't compete and instead wants to use various combination of corrupted laws and lock-in to preserve their control over the market. There as well can be big business which is hurt by TPP and the like.
Because to regular people he spins it as a trade deal that will get us x, y, and z. Regular people don't understand how they're being fucked in the ass by Obama on this issue.
I doubt he can spin anything forever in this information age. I.e. he can of course mislead some to push this through, but it surely won't give him any positive legacy. Quite the opposite.
And in general, if he is leaving, why is he pushing it so much? Those who stay in power might do it for corruption reasons (money and power they'll get from those who lobbied for this garbage). But pushing for it when leaving is simply weird.