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.
Good luck finding a jury that will send someone to jail when no harm has been done. Now everyone, please bone up on jury nullification.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Why place the word infringement in quotes? Does the OP not consider that to be real word, or consider it to be somehow incorrectly used? Is that just some lazy way of expressing disdain for the idea of copyrights in the first place? Will the OP's minions now "moderate" this post? Or are they being distracted because we're having such nice "weather" outside and using "slashdot" is a poor use of their "time?"
The treaty has no concept of fair use, absolutely none... Just by referencing the summary now and saying that it puts something in quotes, would make you criminal according to TPP rules. When the treaty talks about "infringements", reasonable people have no choice but put it in quotation marks.
The market for counterfeits is already well established outside of the United States and especially in Mexico where pirated movies and music are sold on physical media in outdoor markets for a dollar a pop. The entire business is also hooked into the corruption and lawlessness that plagues that country. The federal government in Mexico has much bigger fish to fry than worrying about counterfeit goods. They're fighting what amounts to a low intensity civil war against the drug cartels who also run the counterfeit markets in areas under their control as a profitable sidelines, taxing sales and providing protection from interference by local police. Unless Mexico can solve their drug cartel problem, which won't happen until drug prohibition ends in the United States, the counterfeit good markets will continue more or less as usual because with all of the corruption and violence down there, they're basically above these kind of laws and under the law of the gun instead.
Already, with only 14 comments to this summary, we have people supporting the idea that if no harm was done (the assumption being that all the investigation work is complete and no harm was found to have been committed), then you should be jailed because some copyright holder could have been harmed, despite evidence to the contrary.
There is no sense to this. The very notion that you can be locked away in a cage without casing harm to anyone, goes against self-preservation. Nevertheless, we have people who will gladly uphold this new law simply because some politician signed it, and some vague self-serving crap about the rule of law. Which seems to becoming more and more like the rule of religion with each passing bill, and just as impossible to reason with it's supporters.
Rule of law believer: "But, but it's THE LAW!"
Me: Yeah, so because it's the law, a cop can kill an unarmed naked person without penalty, your ability to self govern can be revoked, and now individuals can be locked up simply because they could cause harm to a corporation. You don't see anything wrong with that?
Rule of law believer: "Well, yes that's wrong. But we just have to change the law."
Me: Change the law? How? You keep voting for the people who support this shit, they've used that fact to stack the deck against you, (Gerrymandering, fast track authority, unconstitutional spying, etc.), and now they are enshrining this into international agreements, which are even harder to change. So how, pray tell, do you intend to change this?
Rule of law believer: "By voting as prescribed by the law."
Me: So, why do you uphold these laws when they are designed to harm you?
Rule of law believer: "Because it's the law."
The US is truly full of idiots. Of course what else could be said about a nation that's openly a supporter of torture, ignores the needs of it's own people (like clean water....), betrays the trust given to it when it suits them ("Oh, we were just collecting metadata."), while at the same time pushing corporatism down the world's throat via international treaties? I guess it's just natural for them to punish anyone that threatens their idiocy, to the detriment of everyone. Oh well. It's not like the rest of world will do anything about it. So I guess I should stop complaining. It's falling on deaf ears. (And ears looking to silence dissent.)
Disclaimer: Yes I'm a US citizen. So I'm also referring to myself in this statement. Also before anyone tries a "Well what have you done?" argument, I've tried to vote out my incumbents. The current senator for my state has been in office longer than I've been alive. (He supported SOPA and PIPA, and that's just one reason I dislike him.) Our current governor was elected by less than 36% of the total registered voters in my state. (Whom I did not vote for, as he was a pathological liar even during his campaign, and his real stance on any given issue was whatever got him the vote from the given audience. A.K.A A True Politician(TM).) I've also tried reasoning with people about the bad laws that are being passed when they say they support them, and all I manage to do is get a response of "agree to disagree". So I do try to work within the system, but I have no confidence in it.
Totally shutting down the internet except for a very few publishers under the threat of criminal penalties for any copyright infringement be it a single photo, a paragraph of text, a site layout.
The big guys infringe copyright all the time. What they want is not to stop people doing it, but to get their cut. They see things like fan videos on YouTube as free promotion, they just feel that as well as the extra buzz it generates they should be able to tax it too, and block anything negative.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC