They are, but looking into it, that quote is misleading, since it refers to their analysis of the first leaks. I'll quote from the 2016 blog post its taken from (bolding the part used on Wikipedia):
When we reviewed the first leaks of the RCEP's intellectual property chapter, they contained quite simply the worst provisions on copyright that we had ever seen in a trade agreement, but we also hoped that these extravagant claims put forward by Japan and South Korea did not represent anything like the final compromise text that would be likely to emerge.
Here's the blog post from a 2015 before that where they express their concern over some truly awful provisions. However, in the second draft they're looking at in 2016, these extreme measures have been scaled back significantly. I encourage you to look through the 2016 post, but here's the summary of their conclusions:
Without such an overbearing influence from Hollywood lobbyists, RCEP does manage to avoid some of the worst excesses of the TPP—such as the extension of copyright term, the prescriptive ISP liability regime, the most restrictive DRM provisions, and the expansion of trade secrets law. But other provisions, most notably on enforcement, are largely unchanged from the TPP.
By the same token, RCEP fails to improve much on the TPP in areas where it quite easily could; most notably in the language on limitations and exceptions, which fails to require countries to include an equivalent to fair use in their copyright laws.
Finally, the proposed language on related rights for broadcasters is actually worse than the TPP. The TPP negotiators were wise to mostly avoid this topic, being that it is currently still under negotiation at WIPO, whereas RCEP has plunged ahead and sought to enshrine obligations for the protection of broadcasters that remain controversial and untested around the world.
Basically, specifically concerning IP: probably not as shitty as the TPP, but still shitty. These are from four years ago, of course, but I can't imagine that everyone involved in negotiating these treaties had a change of heart and decided to work together to improve the lives of the citizens of the entire region instead of maximizing wealth extraction potential.
btfoing the copyright protections is very good tho
Is that what it means though? I'd think the EFF would be pro loose IP laws. But maybe I'm just an outdated relic from the early days.
They are, but looking into it, that quote is misleading, since it refers to their analysis of the first leaks. I'll quote from the 2016 blog post its taken from (bolding the part used on Wikipedia):
Here's the blog post from a 2015 before that where they express their concern over some truly awful provisions. However, in the second draft they're looking at in 2016, these extreme measures have been scaled back significantly. I encourage you to look through the 2016 post, but here's the summary of their conclusions:
Basically, specifically concerning IP: probably not as shitty as the TPP, but still shitty. These are from four years ago, of course, but I can't imagine that everyone involved in negotiating these treaties had a change of heart and decided to work together to improve the lives of the citizens of the entire region instead of maximizing wealth extraction potential.
EFF is a Silicon Valley front [1]