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.
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.
...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?...
There is no sense to it.
.
But that doesn't matter because the TPP was written by industry interests and rubber-stamped by the governments involved.
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.
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.
moo!
Copyright Cow 2016
No part of this may be reproduced, copied or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in any database or retrieval system, without the express prior written permission of the owners. No part of this shall be reproduced, modified, transmitted, distributed, disseminated, sold, published, sub-licenced, or have derivative work created or based upon it, without the express prior written permission of the owners. If you wish to reproduce any part of this, please contact the owners, providing full details.
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.
Get less time for killing Michael Jackson, than for copying his music.
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.
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.
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.
The wording in the treaty doesn't apply to any one. It's a guidance for each member country to craft their own changes to their own laws.
No one is going to charge me under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement for copyright infringement.
The only law that applies in my country has been passed as an act by parliament.
The only way for a criminal charge to be valid is for it to be defined in an act.
Also, there's this part from the treaty
Each Party shall endeavour to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, among other things by means of limitations or exceptions giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes.
So fair use is in there. and it's up to each country to define it for themselves.
Congratulations, you have been successfully misinformed.
Before you continue to tell people what's in the TPP, you should check for yourself and not blindly believe everything someone says.
You get what this is all really about. 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. Basically the intent is to shut down the internet under threat of criminal prosecution for copyright infringement, only the big players left standing and everyone else wiped out. Never forget copyright infringement counts for a single photo or a single page of text or a ring tone or etc. etc. etc. The intent is to hand the internet back to main stream media, a straight up act of blatant corruption.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
That is true but I'd never do it for money. In fact, you are not obligated to collect or cash any payments made for your service. I have never accepted money for my jury duty service. I know it probably sounds silly but I take my job serious when I'm called to do it. In some States, you can voluntarily submit yourself to the jury pool. I have never done so. I do, however, get called on a semi-regular basis it seems. I've been selected more often than not. I believe in the concept of a "reasonable person" and I'm aware of the burden of proof (I've even sat on civil proceedings) and enjoy the opportunity to ensure that the State meets that burden and not finding guilty of they fail to meet that burden.
Yeah, I know... It sounds odd but I really do enjoy it. No, not for the thrill or for the power. It's definitely not thrilling and it's not actually a lot of power in one person's hand ALL the time (it can be). I'm keen on being as unbiased as possible and dealing in accordance with the limits. I dress up for the occasion and everything. I'd rather avoid specifics but I have been what I felt was the voice of reason, more than once, and prevented a miscarriage of justice because of it. I'm not necessarily proud of having done so - but I am content in my decision.
It is unfortunate that it can cause real financial discomfort (even harm) and I think it might be prudent to consider paying the jurors more. It would also help if people didn't view it as a hardship or a nuisance and saw it as a privilege and an obligation. There are definitely improvements to be considered.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
They can't justify sending people to jail for personal use of weed anymore, so copyright is the new "it". Jails gotta make money too, guys.
Yep, I also did jury duty as a civic duty, although I've only been ever called up once - and was selected. The pay was rather laughable, but I still felt it was important to do. Honestly, I wish they'd pay better, as I think they'd get more and better qualified candidates who wouldn't try so hard to avoid it, but I suppose that can't be helped. When those government bureaucracies are being funded, do you really think that paying jurors more is at the top of their priority list?
It was both a positive experience and an unpleasant experience all at the same time. It's good to see the system actually working as intended, even if only at a very small level. It was a minor case, but it's obviously hugely important to those involved, and everyone took their job very seriously. The unpleasantness comes from having to wallow in someone's alleged crimes for the length of the trial (mine was just a single day), after which you want to go home and take a shower. The case I was a juror for involved a young ex-couple, a baby, custody disputes, and allegations of physical abuse. Bleh.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
The powerful always get what they want.
No, not always. Sometimes their heads come off.
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
What are the penalties for crashing the global economy?
Oh wait, I forgot, boat-loads of cash...
Requiem for the American Dream
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.
And you too Hillary! Your corporate overlords are quite pleased with your efforts.