TPP Scuttles Attempts To Fix Orphan Works

jsrjsr writes: David Post, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy blog, describes how the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty may prevent any changes to copyright law regarding orphan works. Quoting: "Big problem #1 is that copyright law doesn’t require the plaintiff to show any damage whatsoever. And it authorizes awards of up to $150,000 in “statutory damages” for each work that is infringed — independent of any damage assessment. ... It appears that the latest version of the treaty contains, buried within its many hundreds of pages, language that could require the U.S. to scuttle its plans for a sensible revision of this kind. ... Any provision of U.S. law that eliminated 'pre-established damage' or 'additional damages' for any class of works could be a violation of various TPP provisions requiring that such damages be made available, and it even appears that distribution of orphan works would have to subject the distributor to criminal copyright liability."

Comments

So, we need to scuttle the TPP.

[danaris]

Like it's news that the TPP is a terrible, terrible treaty and needs to be stopped.

This is just one more reason we need to make quite sure that there's bipartisan opposition to this.

Dan Aris

Re:So, we need to scuttle the TPP.

[rmdingler]

Although the text of the treaty has not been made public, Wikileaks has published several leaked documents since 2013. A number of global health professionals, internet freedom activists, environmentalists, organised labour, advocacy groups, and elected officials have criticised and protested against the treaty, in large part because of the secrecy of negotiations, the agreement's expansive scope, and controversial clauses in drafts leaked to the public.[7][8][9][10][11]

As general rule of thumb, if governments conspire behind closed doors, it is not the average citizen's best interests being argued about.

Re:So, we need to scuttle the TPP.

[PPH]

Sadly, there appears to be support across parties for this. Although many of the Democratic presidential candidates (and Donald Trump) oppose it. At least publicly, that is. Once someone gets into office, I predict that there will be a closed door session with business leaders and the new president. And (s)he will suddenly 'see the light'.

Re:So, we need to scuttle the TPP.

[satsuke]

That's not the way it works in practice. It's not hyperbole to state that American politicians are bought and paid for by wealthy benefactors.

Re:So, we need to scuttle the TPP.

[QuietLagoon]

The first clue that the TPP was evil should have been the extreme secrecy surrounding it. The second clue should have been the main authors: corporations.

Duh!

[shentino]

Orphan works are potential competitors, even if the true authors decide to release them to the public domain.

If someone dug up an orphan work it's a potential threat to the revenue streams of the current incumbents and in its in their interest to keep it buried regardless of what the original owner may think.

This is especially true when without a valid owner asserting their rights you can't even be sure who the statutory damages are even supposed to get paid to.

Re:Stealing is stealing

[spire3661]

The LEGAL meaning for copyright infringement cannot by definition include the word 'stealing'. It is YOU who are wordsmithing. Infringement is not theft, it simply is not the correct term, you cannot use it in that context without being ABSOLLUTELY wrong.

Re:Maybe it's time to tax intellectual property

[Calydor]

Yes, when they sell their products.

What about all the stuff they used to sell but don't want to compete with the new stuff, so it just gets locked away? How much tax do they pay on being allowed to do that?