Slashdot Mirror


TPP Copyright Chapter Leaks: Website Blocking, New Criminal Rules On the Way

An anonymous reader writes: Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) [Wednesday] morning released the May 2015 draft of the copyright provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership (copyright, ISP annex, enforcement). The leak appears to be the same version that was covered by the EFF and other media outlets earlier this summer. Michael Geist unpacks the leaked documents, noting the treaty includes anti-circumvention rules that extend beyond the WIPO Internet treaties, new criminal rules, the extension of copyright term for countries like Canada and Japan, increased border measures, mandatory statutory damages in all countries, and expanding ISP liability rules, including the prospect of website blocking for Canada.

47 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. They will strangle by catmandue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The goose that lays the golden egg that is the internet one day.

  2. They _ARE_ strangling by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 5, Informative

    and considering the utter populace indifference, they will prevail.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:They _ARE_ strangling by timrod · · Score: 2

      The populace is hardly indifferent. Look at the mass amount of letters and phone calls and emails sent in during the SOPA and PIPA hearings, or during the FCC "Fast Lane" proposal. I'm sure you've heard the term "bread and circuses" - screwing with the Internet is the modern equivalent of taking away the circuses. If TPP wasn't being held entirely behind closed doors with only occasional leaks to inform the public, there would be a massive outcry about it as well.

    2. Re:They _ARE_ strangling by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The populace is hardly indifferent. Look at the mass amount of letters and phone calls and emails sent in during the SOPA and PIPA hearings, or during the FCC "Fast Lane" proposal. I'm sure you've heard the term "bread and circuses" - screwing with the Internet is the modern equivalent of taking away the circuses.

      The "mass amount of letters and phone calls" mean absolutely nothing and will in no way stop the lockdown of the Internet. And as long as there are cat pictures on YouTube and Reddit forums for people to vent their 2 minutes hate, and plenty of stuff to buy from Amazon, that's all the "circuses" that most people care about. As long as there's online porn, most people don't care who's listening in, because they think their browser's "incognito" setting is protecting them.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:They _ARE_ strangling by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look at the mass amount of letters and phone calls and emails sent in during the SOPA and PIPA hearings

      They had no effect whatsoever. It wasn't until Google, Apple, HP, etc got involved did anybody listen. We simply don't have the capital to direct anything. People could try voting for different politicians I suppose, but they seem unwilling out of the irrational fear of losing what they have.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:They _ARE_ strangling by Sir_Substance · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >And as long as there are cat pictures on YouTube and Reddit forums for people to vent their 2 minutes hate, and plenty of stuff to buy from Amazon

      All three are under attack.

      1. People are increasingly looking at things like funny looking cats as things to incorporate around:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Realistically, lawsuits over the ownership of dank memes are a few years away tops.

      2. Reddit is increasingly working at *not* being a place for people to vent their two minute hate, as are facebook and twitter and githhub. Pretty much all corporate entities oriented around community contributions are stressing out about being seen as proponents of hatespeech and clamping down on it.

      3. Nations around the world are scrambing to add GST/VAT/other_sales_tax to digital goods and online purchases. There's a solid chance that moving goods through Europe may become harder and more paperwork-heavy in the next few years.

  3. Well shit by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At this rate you'll soon be able to smoke all the pot you want, but damn, if you download that song you'll be doing hard time.

    1. Re:Well shit by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny enough in some countries that are pushing for 'hard time' for copyright infringement, I could commit manslaughter(maybe as much as 2nd degree) here in Canada and be out before they would be.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Well shit by ewibble · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well there is no bigger crime than potentially reducing the profits of corporations

    3. Re:Well shit by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Not "expected" ... "completely fucking fictional".

      According to corporations copyright infringement costs them more than the entire GDP of ever nation on the planet.

      They basically would claim a zillion trillions dollars in losses, but that doesn't make it true.

      You haven't fixed anything.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Well shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong. You can download all you want, you just can't SHARE a movie. When people get in trouble for downloading, it's because they were using torrents, and sharing as they downloaded.

      I'm currently being sued for something I didn't download. Don't get me wrong, I torrent all the time, just the title I'm accused of sharing I never touched.

    5. Re:Well shit by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Funny

      Funny enough in some countries that are pushing for 'hard time' for copyright infringement, I could commit manslaughter(maybe as much as 2nd degree) here in Canada and be out before they would be.

      Of course, they want it for the threat, not the actual incarceration rate.

      Not a bona-fide Made Man with establishment credentials? Starting to get traction in local elections? A nice man in a black suit shows up at your door step with a suitcase full of printout (on tractor feed paper). He sits down in your living room and shows you and your wife the list of hundreds of copyright infringements you have committed, and asks you wouldn't it be a shame if your wife and kids were put out on the street because you were languishing in jail for longer than someone who committed manslaughter and really wouldn't it be a good idea to withdraw from the race and stop making press? Of course it would. And he was never there. And nobody would believe you if you said he was.

  4. Global framework of laws by jmd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This global framework of laws will render the nation state useless. Corporations will have ALL of the power nation states used to have. And you will have none.

    1. Re:Global framework of laws by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, ask yourself, which nation states are most actively advancing corporate interests because their politicians are on the payroll?

      This is the world being taken over by corrupt politicians who report only the those corporations, which means the rest of the world needs to be looking at these "trade" treaties and asking "in what way does this benefit our citizens, our economy, or our jobs".

      Because the short answer is "it doesn't, it maximizes corporate profits at the expense of everybody else".

      We're basically being robbed to allow multinationals carve up the world for themselves. And it's being championed by politicians who are lining their pockets at our expense.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Global framework of laws by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BUT BUT BUT Confederate flag! Black Lives Matter! Equal Rights Equal Marriage! Equal Work for Equal Pay!

    3. Re:Global framework of laws by Revek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The media pushes that crap so people won't worry about the real threats to their freedom.

    4. Re:Global framework of laws by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think there are certain issues like abortion that the two major parties have agreed upon as suitable for political theater - it distracts the public from the other issues on which they are in agreement, and would rather the public not talk about.

    5. Re:Global framework of laws by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it's being championed by politicians who are lining their pockets at our expense.

      Exactly. Anyone who says Obama gets an unfair amount of criticism - no he doesn't. He doesn't get nearly enough. TPP and TTIP will have happened on his watch, and not by accident.

    6. Re:Global framework of laws by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You should learn from them. Those issues *are* important, and people care about them, so they get coverage. People don't give a shit about international trade deals because they are boring and hard to understand. You need to figure out the practical implications and boil them down to examples you can use to rally people. Make people understand how it will screw with their lives, then they will care.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Global framework of laws by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Now, ask yourself, which nation states are most actively advancing corporate interests because their politicians are on the payroll?

      Ha! Trick question. The answer is: all of them.

  5. WTF can we do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is not that we are going to sit on our laurels and do nothing, but the said truth is, WTF can we do?

    It's the *ELITES* that are controlling every f*ing thing - so much that now they want to criminalize the non-elites for dipping out hands on their exclusive domain

    1. Re:WTF can we do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure the *ELITES* have convinced you that the Ds and the Rs are different.

    2. Re:WTF can we do? by Chas · · Score: 5, Informative

      1: Buy a gun, preferably something rifle-like with a decent range on it and a reputation for accuracy.
      2: Buy ammo.
      3: Buy MORE ammo.
      4: Shoot anyone involved in advancing this idiotic agenda.
      5: Repeat steps 2, 3 and 4 until you achieve your objective or are caught and killed.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    3. Re:WTF can we do? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pretty sure the *ELITES* have convinced you that the Ds and the Rs are different.

      Whatever.

    4. Re:WTF can we do? by flopsquad · · Score: 3, Informative

      The noun form of "elite" refers to one or more. It has no plural form, any more than "sick" does. It just makes you sound ignorant when you say "elites". Do you say "helping the sicks"?

      That's an overly narrow take on the word "elite" and its various meanings. Yes, in one construction, "elite" is a (usually plural) collective noun referring to a class of people or things that are superior. "The Silicon Valley elite are conspiring to keep the lowly programmer down, man!"

      But unlike "sick," "elite" need not be a collective noun. Right there in the dictionary definition, you can see a member of "the elite" is "an elite," and multiple such members would be plural "elites." Just because you have 3 Rockefellers and 2 Kennedys in a room together, does not reconstitute the whole murky cabal that is "the elite"--you have 5 elites. This construction also conveys a subtle connotation of particularity. You may say the "wealthy elite" are, as a class, not paying enough taxes, but you'd refer to "wealthy elites" who are being investigated for tax evasion.

      Now, GP's usage is closer to the first meaning, and it would've been fine to use "elite." But, whether intended or not, using "elites" gives the statement a slightly different spin. It reads not as [the whole of landed gentry] or [the class of one percenters], but rather a nonspecific-but-interested subset of the wealthy and powerful who want to further criminalize infringement of their IP.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  6. Yet more proof ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet more proof we live in a global oligarchy, championed by assholes, who have stacked the deck so heavily in favor of corporations the rest of us are completely fucked.

    Everything in these damned treaties are about maximizing the profits of multinational corporations, and don't benefit the citizens.

    The treaties are basically theft on a global scale designed to give corporations more rights than people.

    This is really American politicians fucking over everybody else in the world because they're so undeniably on the fucking payroll of the corporations it isn't even funny.

    It is now pretty much a moral imperative we either start eating the rich, or start copyright infringement on such a massive scale they simply can't do anything about it.

    We've sold the farm on the bullshit promise that what is good for greedy assholes and corporations somehow uplifts us all, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    The pressing problems we need to solve in the world haven't got a fucking thing to do with copyright.

    This treaty is a terrible idea.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Yet more proof ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The sad fact is that there was and is, only one evil empire in the world.

      Systemd.

    2. Re:Yet more proof ... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

      "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

      ...Thomas Jefferson

      When in doubt children go back to the founding fathers, they were the revolutionaries of their time and saw a LOT of this shit coming and did their best to stop it. It was only by decades of perverting the law of the land, through treasonous bribery and outright corruption, that this country was able to get into such a state.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Yet more proof ... by yoink! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some interesting insight with regards to the possible breaking down of negotiations: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com...

      It's a longer-than-a-slashdot-summary-read, but insightful.

    4. Re:Yet more proof ... by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Systemd is a nice operating system. All it needs now is a good init subsystem.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  7. You gotta view it from the *ELITE* pov by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Internet may be the goose that lays the golden egg, to 99% of the people, but to the *ELITES* the same Internet has become a threat to their exclusivity

    Before the Internet the masses had no way to know what the *ELITES* were doing - yeah, we may have the trash rags with occasional pics of the *ELTES* doing _something_, but all in all the *ELITES* were well protected, even their scandals could be covered up easily

    With the advent of Internet, more and more of the scandals of the *ELITES* have been pried open and leaked into the wild. As more and more of the internal dealings are being known to the masses the status of the *ELITES* has started to crumble

    That is why for the *ELITES* the Internet is no necessarily the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is a big threat to them, and is becoming more and more threatening

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  8. Re:Just a reminder... by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you think voting for any other candidate would have created a better outcome?

  9. Fighting back the only way it seems I can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to buy all of the media I consumed. It seemed to be the right thing to do.

    Now they say I can't rip the media I bought to use it when and where I want. I'm infringing simply by watching it where I work and on my way to work (oil rig, hotel on the way).

    A treaty from another country gets to write my country's laws? And we don't have any say in it?

    I am so sickened by all this that I stopped purchasing media. It only funds these assholes. I have no respect for copyright any more. Why should I? There is no respect for the consumer any more. I'm a freetard now.

  10. How Odd! by edibobb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who knew that trade negotiators could pass legislation without the knowledge, let alone approval, of Congress? Do countries other than the U.S. also kowtow to the music and film industries? Google or Microsoft could buy the entire music and recording industry, and never bat an eye. How does such a small industry carry the weight to mandate worldwide legislation?

    1. Re:How Odd! by CrashNBrn · · Score: 4, Informative

      You would think... except many of those media companies are themselves owned by multi-nationals that dwarf Microsoft and Google put together.

    2. Re:How Odd! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe there is a documentary that shows that pretty much all companies that are large enough to matter (including all media companies) are owned by the 6 large chemical companies.

      It was sort of interesting as it showed that a parent company of a soda company bought a media company so they could add more advertisement blocks to sell the soda.

    3. Re:How Odd! by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      You would think... except many of those media companies are themselves owned by multi-nationals that dwarf Microsoft and Google put together.

      Doesn't seem so:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Unless you have other references to share?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  11. It's election time in Canada... by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And we have a Prime Minister who's vowing and trying to get TPP ratified just before the vote. He's disappointed he couldn't get it ratified before the election call, but in the middle of his campaigning, that's one of his key pillars.

    Might also try to participate in that debate as well and ask about it. Though given bill C-51, and the other bills he's trying to get passed, website blocking might be the least of your problems.

    And always - go vote. I know he also passed a new law making it harder to do so, and the courts have even admitted that while the law is bad, they won't overturn it because it will screw with the election. All the forms and all that were printed out and it's too troublesome for the courts to repeal the bad law because it's too close to an election. Between that and his efforts to disenfranchise voters through other means (including fake phone calls directing people to the wrong location - and handcuffing the officials in charge of investigating election fraud...), well, make sure you have all your ducks in a row, because unless you bring in a Conservative party member card, they're going to make it hard for you to vote.

    1. Re: It's election time in Canada... by ubercam · · Score: 2

      This coming election is one that I'd love to have voted in. Except I got a letter through the door this week saying that the Ontario Court of Appeals has ruled that expats must wish to return to Canada and must not be gone more than 5 years unless employed by the government.

      These restrictions are fucking idiotic. I fully intend to return, I just don't know when exactly. So what if I've been gone 5 years (and 16 days). I still care a great deal about my country. I was born and raised and will always be Canadian, not even dual citizenship will change that in the slightest. I want to at least have the opportunity to have my say about its future or I might not recognise it when I do eventually return.

      So unless I can prove I work abroad for the government by the 15th of September, my rights as a citizen will be trampled.

      Is there going to be a Supreme Court challenge or have they already declined to consider this?

  12. TPP minus USA? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although it is hard to know because of the secrecy, it seems like there is a whole lot of stuff around 'intellectual property' and corporations getting to sue governments over policy changes which has been pushed hard by the USA and opposed not quite as hard by everyone else. So there is lots of stuff that objectionable to everyone but the USA. (Given that the USA parliaments haven't been allowed to see the TPP, possibly not even they want it. This could be stuff wanted only by the USA negotiators, not the country.)

    What I want to see is USA kicked out of the TPP, then renegotiate to get rid of all the bad stuff USA pushed in. After that, the USA can negotiate for a late entry into the agreement. They can propose all this IP stuff, and the rest of us can consider whether we that badly want USA in the TPP.

    That is pretty much a pipe dream, but more realistically: I'd like to see the governments of all participating countries go through all the provisions and state how strongly they are for or against them. If there are any bits that are liked only by negotiators, this would show them up.

    It really worries me that this is secretly negotiated by people with almost no democratic oversight and will be presented as a monolithic take-it-or-leave-it with greater effective force than the laws of the participating nations.

    Buying into the TPP is effectively accepting a huge lump of laws you had almost no say over and are almost impossible to modify in future.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:TPP minus USA? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      and corporations getting to sue governments over policy changes

      It's to stop those pesky governments that try to limit cigarettes and asbestos.

  13. Re:Ha Ha Ha by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    You honestly blame the low quality of the puppet theater on the punch, not his player?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:Can't we have some sort of ATPAX? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Sorry, doesn't work. We've been doing that for a while now. All it accomplished was to give them an argument for more ridiculous laws, for when we don't buy their overhyped, overpriced crap content, it can only mean that we're copying it. It is simply not fathomable that we do without it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Ok, kids, here is the deal by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Next time you want to have music, don't download it. Go into a store, kick the guard in the nuts and grab the CD. Alternatively, find some old granny on the street, hit her over the head and grab her purse, then pay for your downloads.

    The reason is simple: If you get caught, you'll be doing much less time.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. "mandatory statutory damages in all countries" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would have thought that would be incompatible with the legal systems of most countries. "Damages" are normally limited to the real loss suffered by the plaintiff/claimant. "Punitive damages" is a US thing.

  17. Re:Ha Ha Ha by fnj · · Score: 2

    All the Obamabots who regularly rant on sites like Slashdot about big corporations, copyright laws, patent trolls, etc are the very people who enthusiastically put Obama in office where he is shoving through the massive TPP treaty that nobody will ever be able to undo.

    Suck on it, fools. You will live the rest of your life under this heap of garbage that will overrule even your national and state laws and no political action of yours in the future will be able to roll it back. You present yourselves as freedom lovers while supporting totalitarian corporatism and most of you are gearing up to double-down in 2016 with Hillary even though the facts have been right in front of you for years: Obama got more funding from Wall St investment bankers than any candidate in history and both Hillary and Jeb are getting piles of cash from the very same people.

    You sold your freedom. Good luck ever getting any of it back. Of course, your politicians will legalize pot so you can get (and stay) too stoned to notice what they are doing to you (and your kids, and grandkids...)

    I believe if you really think about it, you will find that the election and re-election of Mr. Obama says a lot more about the unbelievably abysmal quality of the opposition, than it says about how dumb the voters are.

    Do you realize that the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about political parties, conventions, or primary elections? As far as the Constitution is concerned there needn't be any political parties at all. But it does impose the Electoral College, and (surprise), those electors are not Constitutionally bound to honor the popular votes of their states. So while Constitutionally you could have a Presidential ballot with 50 or 100 unaffiliated contenders listed on it, there is no provision for a runoff if, say, none of them polls over 10% or so.

    I don't know how you can destroy the lock the two Parties have on the process, and even more crucially, I have no idea how you can prevent them from conniving with each other. George Washington believed there should be no parties, but it would take a Constitutional Amendment to ban them, and as well as a chilling effect on free association, it wouldn't work anyway. It would just drive the affiliations underground. As a practical matter, most countries have more than two Parties in meaningful contention, many times a great many more than two, which tends to lead to coalition governments. What is not clear is how, practically, you can effect a change in power away from only two parties.

  18. Its all about control by jonwil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All through the 20th century if you created some content and wanted to distribute that content to a wide audience, you needed to go through a distributor who could distribute that content. These distributors would distribute your content (whether it be music, movies, TV shows, books, video games, magazines or whatever else) to the wide audience and would take their cut.

    But in the early years of the 21st century, things changed and new distribution methods have appeared that allow people to distribute their content (even paid content) to a wide audience without going through a big corporation middleman taking a cut.

    And now the big corporations are fighting back and trying to put the Internet genie back in the bottle and return to a world where companies like Comcast, Disney, 21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Viacom and Sony get to control what content is available to the general public.

    Its been said before but I am saying it again, the #1 problem with this world is the control of the worlds governments by big corporations. Find a way to end that and the roadblocks preventing many of the other problems with this planet from being fixed will disappear.