Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TPP Change Means Drastically Higher Penalties For Copyright "Infringement" (eff.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the copyright-infringement dept.

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.

10 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Trust the jury ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Trust the jury ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tell that to Kevin Mitnick. He was held in prison for four and a half years without trial. He was in maximum security and solitary for some of that time. source

    2. Re:Trust the jury ... by KGIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know if this is true. I've sat on more than one jury and I'm quite aware of Jury Nullification. I can say that nobody has ever, not once, mentioned it while I was present. However, I know what it is and when I'd feel it is appropriate to utilize that power. I've yet been on a jury where it was an actual concern. Unlike most, I don't mind jury duty. I kind of like it. I'd do it more often, if they'd let me. It's pretty boring most of the time. But, I enjoy it and I pay attention and I understand the burden. I'm aware of the consequences of a poor juror and jury. Being an obstacle in the way of a miscarriage of justice is a good thing to be. I like jury duty.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Trust the jury ... by KGIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."
    4. Re:Trust the jury ... by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      >I'm pretty sure the entire point of the TPP is to put more power in the hands of corporations and circumvent sovereign nations legal systems.

      It's a trade agreement, that's literally the definition of trade agreements. Perhaps there was a time when it wasn't, I doubt that because "lost golden ages" invariably turn out to be unsubstantiated nostalgia but it definitely has been the definition of a trade agreement for at least the full 36 years I've been on this planet. A trade agreement is essentially governments agreeing to modify their laws to make it easier for corporations to profit in the other country - which is a nice way of saying "get rid of any pesky legal protections that may reduce the foreign company's ability to exploit the citizens of another country the way they do at home".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Does it matter who infringes ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that this will not be enforced when $LargeMediaCorp rips off pictures from a small, independent photographer and private individuals (& other similar).

  3. copyright cow by surd1618 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  4. Re:Get less time for shopping lifting the movies f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.

     
    Get less time for killing Michael Jackson, than for copying his music.

  5. This has been going on for much too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  6. Re:Get less time for shopping lifting the movies f by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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