
TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter - playhard
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/
======
shmerl
The whole TPP should be dumped for good. Make sure to put pressure on your
representatives. Copyright term increase is enough of a reason. And of course
the usual anti-circumvention garbage, which forbids breaking DRM even for non
infringing purposes.

 _> Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this
paragraph is independent of any infringement that might occur under the
Party’s law on copyright and related rights._

(See Article QQ.G.10: {Technological Protection Measures}). Same usual nasty
stuff which mirrors DMCA-1201.

The worst part is, that this stuff in TPP will make it much harder to repeal
DMCA-1201 or to decrease copyright term in US, since DRM lobby will scream _"
We can't violate our international obligations!"_ (of course omitting the fact
that they imposed those obligations on everyone without any democratic
process). It's really sick that there exists this alternative legislative
power which has no oversight and therefore is simply prone to corruption.

~~~
infamouscow
The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government
that can sign and negotiate treaties. It is one of the few powers that the
Constitution grants the President (Article II, Section 2). Congress has no
role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the
event the President has made a sole-executive agreement.

The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. The only person
you should be blaming is the President.

~~~
matthewbauer
That's not true in this case. Like most trade deals, this one is through
congressional-executive agreements. That means Congress will get an up or down
vote for the deal.

~~~
drcube
All treaties have to be approved by the Senate. They just voted this time to
approve a special "fast track" for TPP, which gives it a strict up or down
vote in the Senate while waiving their right to amend the treaty or add
attachments.

------
acqq
"Article QQ.H.7: {Criminal Procedures and Penalties}"

"Each Party shall provide for _criminal procedures_ and penalties to be
applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or
related rights piracy on a commercial scale. In respect of willful copyright
or related rights piracy, “on a commercial scale” includes at least:"

"(b) significant acts, _not carried out for commercial advantage or financial
gain,_ that have a substantial prejudicial impact on the interests of the
copyright or related rights owner in relation to the marketplace 135,136."

"135 It is understood that a Party may comply with subparagraph (b) by
addressing such significant acts under its _criminal procedures and penalties
for non-authorized uses of protected works, performances and phonograms_ "
(All emphasis Ed.) "in its domestic law."

Does it mean the law is going to be:

Sing a song on the birthday party, don't pay the copyright => you are a
_criminal_?

What are actually the "significant acts, not carried out for commercial
advantage or financial gain, that have a substantial prejudicial impact on the
interests of the copyright or related rights owner in relation to the
marketplace"?

~~~
sp332
It does say "on a commercial scale", so it has to be big. However, I think
using bittorrent counts since you are offering to upload the file to anyone on
the internet who asks for it. Just singing it at a single private party
wouldn't be included, but a restaurant chain singing it for every birthday
party would.

Not sure what "prejudicial impact" means, but it's probably something that
would keep people from buying the copyrighted version.

~~~
bediger4000
_so it has to be big_

I think you're putting too much faith in the usual meaning of words. Think
about the wording of the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment (or 4th Amendment)
and how different the legal meaning is from what someone who isn't a lawyer
would expect.

I bet that "commercial scale" is "at least on the scale of that guy selling
knock-off Nikes out the back of his van" after we make it through the courts.

~~~
pluma
Technically, "commercial scale" can mean anything from "someone somehow made
money while doing it" (e.g. from ads to pay for hosting) all the way to "how
someone doing it for money might do it" (e.g. using a proxy or fake contact
details). It's intentionally vague.

~~~
sp332
This section specifically says "not carried out for commercial advantage or
financial gain", so it doesn't apply to people who actually make money from
this. I don't know what section that's covered in though.

------
ColinDabritz
This definitely feels like a political end run, going back on humanitarian
progress we've recently made such as on generic drugs. Treaties as a way
around that pesky will-of-the-people thing. "Oh we can't go back on that, we
signed a treaty. Sorry about your justified outrage."

~~~
acqq
Sounds really dangerous:

[https://wikileaks.org/tpp-
ip3/pharmaceutical/Pharmaceutical%...](https://wikileaks.org/tpp-
ip3/pharmaceutical/Pharmaceutical%20Provisions%20in%20the%20TPP.pdf)

"Marketing exclusivity for new forms and uses of old medicines could be
considered a form of evergreening. Since marketing exclusivity applies
regardless of the patent status of a drug, even off-patent medicines presented
in the forms and uses described below would not have a generic competitor."

~~~
ColinDabritz
Yes, I don't think it's any exaggeration when they say that the TPP agreement
will kill people. Medicine vital to survival will be priced out of reach of
some of the less fortunate, and some of them will die. This bill is not safe
for public consumption.

My hope is that this particular issue will be bigger than they thought it
would be due to the recent price issues around Daraprim (from $13.50 a pill to
$750).

~~~
FilterSweep
It won't just kill people on the Pharma side.

It will also kill people on the Corporate externality side with its Corporate
Sovereignty provisions [0]

Suppose TPP-Protected Corporation XYZ moves its manufacturing to Town F in
impoverished country ABC. This is allowed because, look at all the jobs XYZ
creates! XYZ finds it much cheaper to dump excess waste products into the
local river. Many citizens of Town F die from the numerous poisons it dumps in
the river. Local Government of Town F would like to stop XYZ's pollution, but
XYZ is now allowed to override local laws and take Country ABC to a private
tribunal to "deal" with the pesky citizens complaining about dying.

[0]
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17151130431/corpo...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150325/17151130431/corporate-
sovereignty-provisions-tpp-agreement-leaked-via-wikileaks-would-massively-
undermine-government-sovereignty.shtml)

------
clarkmoody
Criminal penalties agreed upon at the international level basically cede
national sovereignty to the "collective" of nations. The individual has nearly
no recourse against such crimes, since an appeal would need to go to
_Congress_ to change the terms of the treaty.

~~~
arca_vorago
I think this is the core of the discussion to be had, not just about this
treaty but other treaties/TPA's and the general direction of the geostrategic
goals of the United States. It's all about national sovereignty, and while I
understand the arguments for a reduction of it and an increase in globalism
(teetering towards _world government_ ), my main issue is that I don't
understand how people who have sworn an oath to protect and the defend the
constitution can turn around and undermine it, especially without having first
had the discussion with the American public about their reasons for such
pushes.

I suspect the reason they don't bring these issues into the public light is
because they rightly predict that the American people would quickly reject the
level of blatant globalism that has pervaded the corridors of power in Wall
Street, K Street, and DC.

~~~
pdkl95
The American Empire is falling apart[1]. Everybody has been distracted with
modern technology and the higher standard of living - and complexity - it
brings. We have been riding a powerful economic curve for decades, which has
kept most people in a "good enough" situation. Revolutions happen when people
start to go hungry, and technology and a good-enough economy has prevented
that from happening.

Meanwhile, we are starting to see the inevitable consequences of using
_profit_ as the sole criteria used when judging societies[2]. I believe this
belief system started much earlier, but the Red Scare certainly locked the
country into it's fears about anything that wasn't _overtly_ profit-driven.
Once the paranoid-style[3] took over, the country has been locked into that
course.

So now we have a situation where some people are paranoid about our failing
empire and our declining influence. In an effort to preserve what they see as
the status quo, they keep trying ever more radical "fixes". The TPP is one
such "fix". When you only consider profit, little things like "rule of law" or
actually maintaining a functioning society become less important.

This isn't even about "globalism", at least not directly. This is people who
see their world crumbling (aka profits are down). Moving jobs around only
happens if it's profitable. You could call it a giant bust out[4], except it's
our government that's being looted.

> I don't understand how people who have sworn an oath to protect and the
> defend the constitution can turn around and undermine it

"Everyone has their price."[5]

Organized and well-funded groups like ALEC[6] have been hard at work offering
bribes with pre-written bills attached. I wish Lawrence Lessig luck in his
quest[7] to fix the corruption issue, but it is going to take a lot more
people joining his fight before it can accomplish anything.

\--

[1] If anybody doubts this, I suggest listening to this talk by Lawrence
Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief of staff):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-
FW7-dc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-FW7-dc)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNttT7hDKsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNttT7hDKsk)
(abridged written version of that talk:
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-
cap...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-
marx-two-americas-wire) )

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics)

[4] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/bain-capital-
tony-s...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/bain-capital-tony-
soprano_n_1542249.html)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Christian_%28film%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Christian_%28film%29)

[6] [http://billmoyers.com/episode/united-states-of-alec-a-
follow...](http://billmoyers.com/episode/united-states-of-alec-a-follow-up/)

[7]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3O1MC1AqvM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3O1MC1AqvM)

------
guelo
It doesn't make sense for Americans to oppose this treaty. We already live
under most of these IP rules with no hope of relaxing them. Extending these
profit protections to other countries will mainly benefit American companies
and improve our economy.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
They aren't American companies, they're multi-nationals, and will keep the
money in a tax haven to avoid paying US taxes on it. And this isn't a
prediction, this is what is happening RIGHT NOW.

It won't help the US economy one iota, and if you push this dysfunctional
nonsense out internationally you have gone from "almost no chance of reform"
to "absolutely no chance of reform."

~~~
guelo
They can hide profits from taxes but they still create jobs and spend money
here.

~~~
nisa
liberal copyright laws create jobs. This is the opposite of that. It's big
corporations securing profits and making sure there will be no competition.

~~~
guelo
My point is that we're not getting liberal copyright laws here. At least this
helps our economy.

~~~
ta0967
> At least this helps our economy.

please explain how.

------
Animats
Business method patents are back. Software is clearly patentable.

 _Article QQ.E.1: {Patentable Subject matter}_

 _1\. Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4, each Party shall make patents available
for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology,
provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable
of industrial application._

------
sp332
Oh, I didn't realize the significance of the waiting period in Canada!
Although from what I've heard, this won't change anyone's mind about Harper.

~~~
bryanlarsen
No, but it will make a huge difference choosing between Trudeau & Mulcair.
Mulcair is unequivocably against the TPP, Trudeau said he'll "thoroughly
examine" it.

~~~
gruez
>Trudeau said he'll "thoroughly examine" it.

The cynical side of me thinks that his constituents don't support the TPP, but
he doesn't want to upset his donors by not passing it. So he's using weasel
words to make it look like he's against it, but after the election (if he
wins) he's going to pass it.

------
teddyh
№ 6: The whole Earth, as The Village?

№ 2: That is my hope. What’s yours?

№ 6: I’d like to be the first man on the moon.

— № 2 & № 6, _The Prisoner_ , _The Chimes of Big Ben_ , 1967

~~~
walterbell
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=OfvOGcYUY6g](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OfvOGcYUY6g)

~~~
teddyh
The conversation I quoted occurs in part 2:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxnTFpConD4#t=4m42s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxnTFpConD4#t=4m42s)

~~~
wyldfire
How delightfully relevant -- is the content legitimately licensed to be
reproduced on Youtube by its owner? It's certainly not old enough for its
copyright to have expired.

~~~
walterbell
The full series is also available at
[http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26w64y_the-
prisoner-e02-th...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26w64y_the-
prisoner-e02-the-chimes-of-big-ben_shortfilms) in HD.

Apparently the owners have not (yet?) requested a DMCA takedown.

~~~
teddyh
“ _When you break rules, break ‘em good and hard._ ”

— _Wyrd Sisters_ , Terry Pratchett

[https://thepiratebay.vg/torrent/9369039/The_Prisoner_1967_10...](https://thepiratebay.vg/torrent/9369039/The_Prisoner_1967_1080p__complete_series)

[http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/torrent/9369039/The_Prisoner_1...](http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/torrent/9369039/The_Prisoner_1967_1080p__complete_series)

------
walterbell
The final TPP text includes similar _ex-officio_ language to a TPP draft
reviewed in a 2013 analysis of fanzine impact, by a Japanese lawyer,
[http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-
fanzin...](http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzine-
environment.html), _" in practice, it is rare for the police to commence an
investigation without a complaint by the rights holder. However, this
situation may change. The draft of the request of the US on Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP) 15.5(g) stipulates, "its authorities may initiate legal
action ex officio with respect to the offenses described in this Chapter,
without the need for a formal complaint by a private party or rights holder."_

We need these texts in a git repo with diffs. In QQ.H.7 below, the text is
modified:

    
    
      2011: its authorities may initiate legal action ex-officio 
            with respect to the offenses described in this Chapter
    
      2015: its competent authorities may act upon their 
            own initiative to initiate a legal action
    

The final text:

    
    
      QQ.H.6 Special Requirements related to Border Measures
    
      6. Each Party shall provide that its competent  
      authorities may initiate border measures 
      ex officio with respect to goods under customs
      control that are:  
    
      (a) imported; 
      (b) destined for export; or 
      (c) in-transit   
    
      and that are suspected of being counterfeit 
      trademark goods, or pirated copyright goods.
    
      ... A Party may exclude from the application 
      of this Article small quantities of goods of a 
      non-commercial nature contained in travelers' 
      personal luggage.
    
      QQ.H.7 Criminal Procedures and Penalties
    
      6. (g) that its competent authorities may act upon 
      their own initiative to initiate a legal action 
      without the need for a formal complaint by a 
      private party or right holder
    

From [http://www.freezenet.ca/an-analysis-of-the-latest-tpp-
leak/](http://www.freezenet.ca/an-analysis-of-the-latest-tpp-leak/)

 _" Parsing through the language here, it sounds like if the government
chooses to, they may elect to make an exception for your cell phone, but the
agreement does not prohibit this kind of activity. Even then, even if the
government thinks that seizing and destroying your cell phone on the basis of
copyright infringement is absurd, they can only say that your cell phone has
to be in your luggage. For many travelers, they would prefer to have their
cell phone on their person as opposed to buried in their luggage in, say, the
undercarriage of a plane. When they land on the other side, it’s not
unreasonable for them to want to call someone to let them know that they have
arrived. If a traveler is driving across a border, it is definitely a common
thing for passengers to be carrying a cell phone on their person as well. So,
the risk of authorities seizing and destroying your cellphone on the basis of
copyright infringement still stands here."_

