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).
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!
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."