Some Countries Want To Fix TPP... By Making It More Like ACTA
from the TRIPS-is-for-wusses dept
ACTA and TPP have much in common, but the way in which they represents two aspects of the same impulse has never been shown more clearly than here, in this proposal to re-use elements of one in the other:
In an apparent effort to break the deadlock in negotiations for an intellectual property rights (IPR) chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), several countries are proposing that certain provisions in a U.S. proposal be replaced with language from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), according to informed sources.
Some of the more "moderate" participating countries have realized that TPP's criminal enforcement provisions are simply disproportionate:
Sources said that other ACTA signatories involved in the TPP – New Zealand, Australia and Singapore – want to substitute language from the agreement’s criminal offenses section with the proposed U.S. language on criminal enforcement, according to sources in Dallas.the ACTA and the U.S. proposal [for TPP] both would require countries to provide for criminal procedures and penalties at least in cases of "willful" counterfeiting of trademarks and copyright piracy on a "commercial scale."
That last comment is noteworthy, because it shows that the copyright industries want to punish general users swapping unauthorized copies with criminal sanctions even if there is no money involved. It confirms that these treaties are not really about fighting organized crime, as they are often presented, but truly a war on online sharing itself, where the aim is to put ordinary people behind bars.
However, the U.S. proposal contains a much stricter interpretation of what constitutes commercial scale because it would cover significant infringements for both the purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain as well as acts that result in no direct or financial gain.
One source said this provision could criminally punish an individual who has committed a significant act of infringement but does not intend to gain financially from it. IPR industry sources defend this approach as capturing users of file sharing services who do not stand to gain financially by sharing a large amount of pirated content.
To break the deadlock on this issue, the moderate wing of the TPP club is apparently suggesting that the equivalent ACTA provisions should be re-used. It's interesting to see ACTA, which is still being fiercely fought in Europe because of its harsh and unbalanced nature, presented here as a milder option compared to TPP. If nothing else, that negotiating calculus emphasizes just how extreme TPP is.
However, it's also disturbing that ACTA, although not yet in force, is already being taken as the new baseline. Indeed, the article quoted above notes that ACTA's provisions "represent a much higher standard than the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)" - the previous benchmark here.
Moreover, as regards the current "compromise" idea of using ACTA's provisions instead of the US proposals for TPP, an industry source had the following to say:
the U.S. IPR text largely reflects the U.S.-Korea FTA [Free Trade Agreement] and it would be unlikely the U.S. would agree to provisions that are less strict in the area of criminal enforcement.
As far as the US is concerned, it seems, every treaty in this area, whether bilateral (as in the US-Korea FTA) or multilateral (as with ACTA and TPP), is part of a policy ratchet that allows change in only one direction: more. The unspoken assumption that more copyright and more enforcement are always better is one of the key reasons why SOPA failed, ACTA is meeting such resistance, and even TPP is stumbling.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, australia, fta, new zealand, singapore, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find it amazing that these people think they can get away with this. It even gets somewhat humorous when these autocrats get upset about the public outcry, but they keep digging that hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only reason why IP law survives is that the government does not bother the average citizen.
The worst that can happen for copyright maximalism is the government actually enforcing the law as written.
If one million violate copyright law by forwarding email, copying cds or something else, and the government promises an enforcement rate at 1, 2 or 5 percent, supporting copyright becomes political suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't this exactly what happens when one side wins a war?
And then after all the details have been worked out in secret by the victors, the losers are forced to agree to the terms. And then to add insult to injury ... they claim to be the victims of class warfare. The audacity is astounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even assuming that copyright infringement is wrong, the citizen by virtue of being a taxpayer is a stakeholder in how and where the law should operate.
The taxpayer has no inherent moral obligation to support or accept copyright enforcement as a tax subsidized activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Same with copyright. The laws affect everyone, sometimes severely, whether or not they even look at or listen to copyrighted materials, legally or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know the federal government was never intended to regulate local activities from drug, firearms possession to health care or growing marihjuana in your own garden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I seriously doubt such a motion would be passed by popular vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would consider a yea vote on such a thing only because the existing regime as currently constituted is nearly irreversibly corrupt. Were it more socially acceptable to take pliers and blow torch to rich sociopaths I would vote nay, in an instant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the way things are now, drug enforcement efforts are wasted money, time, and opportunity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxation without representation
But apparently only IP enforcement is a sacred cow for the small government folks.
Copyright must be scaled back to a purely civil matter, and if the rights holders now claim that copyright law without bells and whistles is a dead letter, just abolish it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's right, we, America, have people advocating for more laws that put more people in jail, just so the jails can make more money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So if the state imposes criminal punishment for commercial bootlegging, it according to your logic is perfectly reasonable to impose criminal sanction for non-commercial copying even among family and friends.
Well and good, but taxpayers have no obligation to fund criminalization of the most intimate private conduct unless you can convince them that consistent criminalization of non-commercial as well as commercial transactions is in their best interest.
How much will it cost if the law is consistently enforced against all discoverable non-commercial infringement?
If you are going to argue that it's no problem because the law is not to be enforced, there is no legitimate reason for having a criminal prohibition which is rarely enforced.
So either start enforcing the law as written and defend the costs, or admit that it is never going to be enforced.
You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is their goal, copyright is simply their excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government profits when they have a lever of social control and when there is a transaction of money.
These laws are about both. Removing the law so there is one less stick to be beaten with isn't going to happen.
But one can decide to not participate - don't consume the media products of the MPAA/RIAA. Don't pay for 'em, don't download them for no payment - just don't consume them.
By not watching The Avengers you'll have more time to read and post to Techdirt, and that's a good thing - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where you gonna put 'em?
Especially noteworthy is that the United States already has the highest level of incarceration, per capita, in the world. Also prisons, especially in California, are subject to court ordered reductions in prisoners due to overcrowding. Toss in the fact that my state, California, suffers from a severe lack of revenues. What this all adds up to is that there aren't any more beds available and there is no end in sight to this lack due to budget cuts as a result of an eroded tax base.
So what's a state to do? Why they hand their prisoners over to county and municipal jails, which are also overcrowded and unlikely to add new bed space as well, but having the singular advantage of more creative methods of punishment. The overall result is non-violent offenders are the first in line to be dumped on the counties and municipalities which similarly dump them in addition to their over-supply back out on the street often times on probation, community service and perhaps GPS monitoring, tossed into the mix. Some enforcement!
I would be lax in not pointing out that the very industry that shows a bent for creative accounting such that they pay little or no taxes are clamoring for serious criminal enforcement using money extracted for the very citizens they often wish to criminalize. My state has already had one tax revolt which triggered a round of tax revolts around the United States. Pity the (literally, by their lights) poor entertainment industry when the bill comes due on their efforts in criminalization of copyright infringement.
So I ask 'em, where you gonna put 'em?
[Criminalization without enforcement not only breeds contempt for any one particular law but for all laws. Why does the copyright mafia persist in not only annoying their customers but also show a real talent for getting the complete opposite of their goal. Witness for the jury the DDOS attacks on The Pirate Bay, among others. This takes real talent folks!]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where you gonna put 'em?
Only total and categorical legalization of all non-commercial copying will bring sense back to the law.
There is no middle ground between illegal or illegal non-commercial file sharing.
Either I can go to jail for copying a cd or I can't.
Many here are apparently dancing around the subject unwilling to categorically state that all non-commercial copying should be legal fullstop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, what they want is for other countries to play their dirty little game. And look, they even purposely left the text of their proposal so mind-numbingly broad so that other countries can come up with even more ridiculous thresholds. Gotta catch 'em all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://tinyurl.com/d4uyo2c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/action-required-on-crucial-acta-votes-next-week
After all the BS that might be dead or something, referral to the ECJ, reports rejecting this crap, countries saying NO, etc, and according to Christian Engstr�m and La QuadraTure Du Net, we see this s*** from the EU Parliament???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]