Slashdot Mirror
TPP Change Means Drastically Higher Penalties For Copyright "Infringement" (eff.org)
Mephistophocles writes: A sneaky and underhanded change to the TPP, spotted by the EFF and summarized here by Jeremy Malcolm, means much stiffer penalties for copyright "infringement:"
Under the TPP's original terms, a country could limit the exposure of the owner of such a website to prison time, or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn't cause any lost sales to the copyright owner. (Note that they would be liable for civil damages to the copyright owner in any case.)
Although a country still has the option to limit criminal penalties to "commercial scale" infringements (which is so broadly defined that it could catch even a non-profit subtitles website), the new language compels TPP signatories to make these penalties available even where those infringements cause absolutely no impact on the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. This is a massive extension of the provision's already expansive scope.
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the fact that this means those stiff penalties apply even when there is no harm or threat of harm to the copyright owner caused by the infringement.
Think about it. What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway? Surely, if the copyright holder suffers no harm, then a country ought to be able to suspend the whole gamut of criminal procedures and penalties, not only the availability of ex officio action.
This is no error -- or if it is, then the parties were only in error in agreeing to a proposal that was complete nonsense to begin with.
Under the TPP's original terms, a country could limit the exposure of the owner of such a website to prison time, or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn't cause any lost sales to the copyright owner. (Note that they would be liable for civil damages to the copyright owner in any case.)
Although a country still has the option to limit criminal penalties to "commercial scale" infringements (which is so broadly defined that it could catch even a non-profit subtitles website), the new language compels TPP signatories to make these penalties available even where those infringements cause absolutely no impact on the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. This is a massive extension of the provision's already expansive scope.
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the fact that this means those stiff penalties apply even when there is no harm or threat of harm to the copyright owner caused by the infringement.
Think about it. What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway? Surely, if the copyright holder suffers no harm, then a country ought to be able to suspend the whole gamut of criminal procedures and penalties, not only the availability of ex officio action.
This is no error -- or if it is, then the parties were only in error in agreeing to a proposal that was complete nonsense to begin with.
I suspect that this will not be enforced when $LargeMediaCorp rips off pictures from a small, independent photographer and private individuals (& other similar).
Virtually all "free trade" agreements have SCREWED the average American worker for the benefit of large companies. That's enough for me to hate the TPP.
Virtually all "free trade" agreements have SCREWED the average American worker for the benefit of large companies. That's enough for me to hate the TPP.
That is because free trade agreements are not meant to protect the average American worker. They are, however, meant to benefit the large corporations.
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.
Get less time for killing Michael Jackson, than for copying his music.
Governments commit us into treaties, and if we complain, they tell us their hands are tied: treaty. While the USA have a history of ignoring and violating treaties whenever the stipulations would hurt them, they will treat it like a law of nature if it pleases them. Take back your democratic right: No government can sell you into servitude!
There is still time to stop this corrupt giveaway of power to corporate interests, and a political campaign season is an excellent time to do it.
I suspect part of the problem in the US is people who say "I dont particularly like these new laws but I dont consider them important enough to vote for the other guy when the other guy disagrees with my views on other issues I consider more important" or in many cases "I dont particularly like these new laws but everyone who actually stands a chance of winning supports these laws therefore it doesn't matter who I vote for therefore I will vote for the guy who supports my positions on other issues"
If only more people shared your view. The USA's legal systems might actually start work as originally intended.
We've also stopped upholding our end of the social contract. It is our job to observe the courts and to be knowledgeable in their doings. Instead, we rely on yellow journalism, politics played as a team sport, and hope the EFF or ACLU stands up if it's too grievous. We've stopped observing the courts and power that goes unchecked has only one direction to go, it's natural - it's wrong, but it's natural. This is a rhetorical question but when was the last time you took one of your days off from work to observe the local district court and watched to observe justice was being served? We rely on someone else to tell us when to be outraged and offer no oversight on the smaller things - that's how it got this big.
And that's a royal we. That's us, the collective. There's some truth to the adage that you get the government you deserve and the other adage about being ruled by consent. Don't think I have the answers, I know I do not. There's a lot of things that are complicated but we seem hell bent on making them more complicated than they need to be. I don't know why. I can speculate why. I can even present what I think is a logical argument for holding those beliefs. However, it's off-topic, long, and I'm lazy tonight. But, I'll write you that novella if you want one...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I think people rarely have the choice to vote for someone against these trade deals. Both sides of the establishment want this.
I miss the cold war.
Back in the good old days the "free west", would tout it's political and social freedom as why it was on the side of humanity.
Something for the oppressed behind the iron curtain to dream of attaining and seeing their over lords for the tyrants they were.
Then down came the Berlin Wall.
Today you'd think the history books on the communist era in east Europe were the manuals/manifestos for state control in the West.
The only thing our governments needs to be better than today is IS.
Your standing is established by showing that you created the work, and are thus the copyright holder. The "harm" can be as simple as having your work reproduced without your permission.
That is easily prevented by not releasing said work.
If you don't want information spread, don't spread it. If you want absolute control over information, well congratulations, the totalitarian state is on its way. Just don't think you will be on top.
TPP is essentially a free pass for the ruling class to punish anyone they want without producing anything or proving anything.
As long as you are one of the main corporations you don't need proof of ownership. If they see anything they want blocked they just do it.
The powerful always get what they want.
No, not always. Sometimes their heads come off.
Close. It's about force feeding you internet 2.0 and freedom 2.0. It's about the 1990s cable TV style of tiered internet where only the 3 media companies can be considered players, and good luck even ACCESSING any of their lower level competition, because it will have been wiped off the net by then. Once you have a stranglehold through copyright law, on the competition (the competition being any site helping create or deliver content) you have won. THEN you charge them into oblivion. What? You don't want to follow their rules and pay their price? Enjoy your jail sentence. Note that none of this will stop organized copyright criminals, but it sure as hell will give enough room to start throwing even modest pirates into jail... or better yet, and falling in line with the true intent of these clauses, convince them to pay settlements to stay out of court.
See the thing you are probably missing is that these same people are the ones foaming at the mouth, fighting to ensure the rich get their tax cuts. Why? Why fight for a group of people that you are not a member of? Because this nonsense brainwashing you've come to call "the american dream". I CAN'T make the rich pay their fair share, because I might someday be rich, and I sure as hell don't want anyone taking MY money. Well we're now in the world of youtube celebrities making more money than brain surgeons. I certainly can't do anything to impact that copyright owners ability to sue people and possibly put them in jail because.... I might be famous someday and I want to get paid cash money son. Anyone else siding with the TPP is a shill, plain and simple, cold as ice. There's no justification to supporting this insanity unless you are a moron that stands to gain (in your head) from it's insane clauses. Maybe they think it's ok to live in a world where an internet pirate can do more jail time than a rapist. I do not.