
Go to Prison for File Sharing? That's What Hollywood Wants in the TPP Deal - walterbell
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/go-prison-sharing-files-thats-what-hollywood-wants-secret-tpp-deal/#
======
acd
What I do not like about these deals which always have funny acronyms TPP,
ACTA, SOPA is that they are done in secrecy. If the one who are drafting these
agreements are acting in the publics best interest, why are the deals and
drafts drawn up in secret? If you have nothing to hide and have good honest
intentions why hide your drafts?

That makes me come to the conclusion that the deals they are drafting are not
in the publics best interest and thus they want to hide their bad intentions!

Guess what, we live in the information age and the public will know anyway.

~~~
ekianjo
> the public will know anyway.

Yes, but that does not mean the public can actually do something about it (not
saying we should not try, though). Political lobbies can be more powerful than
citizens, it would not be the first time it happens.

~~~
walterbell
_> that does not mean the public can actually do something about it_

If public businesses and consumers believe they can or cannot do something
about it, they are correct (remember SOPA/PIPA?
[http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2012/01/5094412/...](http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2012/01/5094412/defeat-
sopa-and-pipa-washington-learns-not-meddle-west-coast-code-and-)). Choosing
which something is the important part. Learning about the proposals is a
start.

Why did most countries drop their opposition to criminalization proposals?
Possibly because implementation will be delayed until the government who sign
the agreement have left office,
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest-
tpp-leak-shows-even-harsher-copyright-rules/)

 _"... while the last leaked draft of the TPP, dated November 2013, showed
strong international opposition to this criminalization plan, Canada now seems
to be the only serious hold-out. This may, suggests James Love of Knowledge
Ecology International, be because this new draft gives some countries extra
time to implement the agreement – meaning that current governments won’t
necessarily have to carry the can for their decisions."_

Public opinion matters, otherwise why delay implementing the proposed rules?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Given the failure to pass measures SOPA and PIPA, et al; expect new tactics
from the proponents. They will keep trying new and old tactics until fatigue
sets in on the other side, or they get a lucky break.

~~~
walterbell
Hopefully opponents are prepared for any lucky-break attempts to rush
TPP/TTIP/CETA through while press and populace are distracted by some future
unpredictable crisis.

------
walterbell
This is a complex topic with many nuances, all of which need public input.
Glynn Moody at Computerworld UK has been providing detailed coverage on TTIP
issues at [http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-
up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-updates--the-
glyn-moody-blogs-3569438/), which has similar provisions to TPP.

The US has a legislative process that reduces the chance of bundling of non-
contested and practical trade agreements with debatable propositions. Fast
Track would bypass debate on topics that need both public and legislator
input. In the US, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon needs to be lobbied by
constituents, to block Fast Track,
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/ron-wyden-fast-
trac...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/ron-wyden-fast-track-trade-
deal_n_6714748.html)

 _" Seventy-three percent of respondents indicated that they oppose "Congress
giving the president fast-track authority for the NAFTA-style trade agreements
like the TPP." If fast-track authority is in place, lawmakers can vote only
"yes" or "no" on final trade packages."_

A Japanese lawyer comments on TPP implications for fanzines, which showcase
new manga artists and are tolerated by publishers, even though they are
technically infringing on copyrights,
[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."_

Could someone be charged with copyright violation even if the OWNER of the
copyright does not want to press charges? That would defeat the purpose of
copyright (promote creative works) and property rights (respect decisions by
copyright owners). It also risks selective abuse by law enforcement, who would
no longer need anyone to press charges, before seizing computers, etc.

~~~
venomsnake
If it needs public input while is held in the secret?

~~~
walterbell
We need people to call and write their representatives. Europe has moved
towards greater transparency and received 150,000 public comments,
[http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-
up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update-
xlvii-3593403/)

 _" The Commissioner outlined two main proposals for boosting transparency.
First, to extend access to TTIP texts to all Members of the European
Parliament, beyond the currently limited group of Members of the European
Parliament’s International Trade Committee. Second, to publish texts setting
out the EU's specific negotiating proposals on TTIP."_

[http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-
up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update-
xlviii-3593961/)

 _".. the unexpected decision to hold a consultation on the area last year.
The hope seems to have been that this would keep critics quiet, and allow the
European Commission to come up with a few minor tweaks to its proposals while
claiming that the public had been allowed to air their views.

It didn't quite work out like that. An unprecedented 150,000 replies were
received - and this was on a hitherto obscure aspect of a traditionally boring
trade agreement. That number alone bespeaks a new relationship between the
public and the politicians who are supposed to serve them. "_

~~~
Silhouette
I'm not sure the European powers that be are as transparent about TTIP in
practice as the spin might suggest, though:

[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transatlantic-trade-
and-i...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transatlantic-trade-and-
investment-partnership-cable-urges-greater-transparency)

"In a meeting in London today (16 February 2015) Vince Cable and UK Trade
Minister Lord Livingston will ask Commissioner Malmström to give senior UK
parliamentarians access to TTIP treaty text as it is developed, so that they
can monitor progress and ask questions on the public’s behalf."

That is, in the UK even senior members of our own national government don't
know what we're supposedly signing up for with TTIP.

Given that:

\- we have an election coming up in less than three months

\- the outcome of that election is probably the most unpredictable in living
memory

\- TTIP is already perceived by a significant proportion of the general public
to be a threat to "national treasures" like the NHS

\- depending on the outcome of the election it is quite possible we will have
a referendum on leaving the EU entirely within the lifetime of the next
government

these kinds of shenanigans seem likely to push the UK public even further
towards leaving the EU.

~~~
sandbags
Its seems to be worse than this. According to a radio interview I heard a few
weeks ago only MEP's can look at the TTIP text and then only in a special
secure room. They are not allowed to make any notes or take any copies and are
not permitted to discuss it.

TTIP seems to me the antithesis of any semblance of a democratic process we
should support. I don't know how they get away with it.

------
wazoox
For some mysterious reason, Americans always talk about TPP and never about
TAFTA. But both are parts of the global US strategy, and both are secret
agreements chock full with odious provision against the people. It's US
imperialism at its worst, and both treaties are Trojan horses direct from the
big lobbyists to get at last out of reach of the rule of law. If both these
treaties come into existence, democracy will be dead for good.

~~~
joshbuddy
It seems that TAFTA and TTIP are the same thing, no?
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/tafta-us-eus-trojan-
tr...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/tafta-us-eus-trojan-trade-
agreement-talks-and-leaks-begin)

------
segmondy
It's ridiculous how much money tech has yet media can push us around. I know
media has been in bed with the govt for a longer time, but in DC, money talks
and bullshit walks. why can't we bribe errr lobby the hell out of DC on behalf
of what's best for society and tech.

~~~
innguest
If the taxpayer wasn't so easily distracted they should be voting for Lobby
Neutrality where the communication ways with politicians would be guaranteed
to be equal to everyone, be they a citizen or a corporation or Israel.

~~~
wyager
> where the communication ways with politicians would be guaranteed to be
> equal to everyone, be they a citizen or a corporation or Israel.

So... everyone in America is entitled to about 52 milliseconds a year with
each politician? That's how you'd have to split it up to be "equal" (assuming
we force politicians to spend an unrealistic 12 hours a day satisfying the
requirement to provide "equal" lobbying opportunities).

~~~
tomjen3
Thats actually not so stupid: you could donate your miliseconds to whatever
cause or group you believe in and they would then get a pooled time to speak
with the politician. Can't get ten thousand people in the US to care about
your cause? Then the cause likely suck.

There are certainly other, better options, but it is not clear that it is as
bad as you suggested.

------
empressplay
The average user can avoid prosecution by setting their torrent client's
upload speed to 0. No upload == no share, and besides, the folks 'capturing'
IP addresses need to get a "clandestine" packet from you before they can put
you on the naughty list (since they can't send _you_ a clandestine packet, for
obvious reasons.)

Don't need a VPN, just don't upload.

~~~
jsutton
If everyone did this, it would render torrents useless.

~~~
T-hawk
There is room for users in a hostile jurisdiction to avoid uploading, while
users in a permissive jurisdiction provide the uploading to keep the torrents
functional.

------
6stringmerc
The Media lobbying efforts, specifically with respect to Copyright and
punishment, make the Patent Wars look like a knock-off. According to the
MPAA/RIAA, their industries are essentially responsible for the health of the
US economy...if you read some of their PR, that's what you'll find. Deeper
evaluation of the numbers shows they're outright lying about their importance.
Like with many large entities, the money floats to the top (e.g. "investors")
and wages, labor conditions, and investment in communities is outright
terrible. It has been this way for a long time, and the money pays to
influence DC and the world to try and keep the status quo.

If you want a couple good explanations for how the Media industry keeps
rigging the game, just take a look at two of the major power players / persons
of influence. One is Chris Dodd
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd)).
The other is Maria Pallante ([http://copyright.gov/about/office-
register/](http://copyright.gov/about/office-register/)). Through their words,
actions, and espoused philosophies, neither of them genuinely serve the public
interest, or by proxy, the US economy. It's not about individuals, per se, but
about power being funneled through individuals that needs to be strongly
monitored.

------
xnull6guest
Here's the deal with the TPP. It is a critical component of the financial and
strategic future of the United States.

Put plainly, Asia and the Pacific Region is forecasted by both OECD and the
International Monetary Fund to be the primary area of financial growth for the
next several decades (while down in the latest report the long term prospects
are encouraging). China continues to grow despite recent staggarings; Taiwan
is projected to continue acceleration of growth; South Korea with support from
China and the United States are planning for reunification with North Korea
(and the subsequent acquisition of resource rich lands). The region's
development index is cresting a knee on the curve - pairing nicely with its
large population, strong trading routes, and stability (compared with the
European pressure cooker).

China, the new kid on the block, now the largest creditor nation and second
largest economy is leading a trade deal in the Pacific (and a few other
invited nations) called AFTA - a trade deal the United States has not been
invited to, despite her vocal interest.

The US has done what it can to dissuade allies from joining in on AFTA, and
has offered these allies instead membership to an alternative trade deal - one
that curiously lacks China, despite its vocal interest...

The Trans-Pacific Partnership represents a keystone in America's 'pivot' to
Asia (/'rebalancing'); a bid to win key influence on the rules for
international trade policy in the region that will benefit the US - and will
exclude China unless it agrees to the some longstanding US wishlists
(especially with regard to intellectual property).

It is an unfortunate fact then that what is know from leaked drafts of the
trade that it comes with certain trojan horses - administrative and corporate
wishlists that could not pass the muster of even a generally distracted
domestic voting population, such as requirements mentioned in the article for
internet service providers to filter and monitor customer traffic.

It's a sort of damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. The TPP is
important for navigating future global financial and international policy
options, but bundled with it are laws that would otherwise be rejected at the
ballot box.

To summarize it's important to understand the issue broadly: it is dangerous
to be a single issue voter. It would be a shame to trade major strategic
opportunities for the ability to share ripped DVDs. It would also be a shame
to take another step back on internet freedom for international trade whose
benefits in the short term are bound to be largely captured by large and
multinational corporations. Thus enters the important of a representative
government - only a representative government has the perspective to both
barter at the macro scale for the benefit of whole of the nation as a singular
identity at the same time brokering for the interests and the preferences of
the daily concerns and liberties of the regular citizen.

~~~
pdkl95
So how much do they pay you to post that "press release"-style post that
doesn't actually explain _how_ the TPP would help? You've posted a lot of
fear-mongering, but haven't actually shown what would be changed by the
treaty.

As we _already_ have very little in the way of tarriffs or other barriers to
international trade, there isn't a lot that could be done to "improve trade"
between US and asia. So why the treaty? The TPP is nothing more than an
attempt to legalize the movement of _capital_.

I suggest reading this fun comic that explains the economic history and
theories, and what is actually being done to try and consolidate even more
wealth.

[http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/](http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/)

In the long run, once _both_ goods and capital can be moved freely outside the
reach of government regulation - and taxation - we find the true purpose of
the TPP in these two terrifying words: Corporate Sovereignty.

John Oliver just a good example of the narcissism and greed that we can expect
to get a _lot_ worse if the TPP were to pass:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-
oliver-highlights-ridiculousness-corporate-sovereignty-provisions.shtml)

~~~
xnull2guest
I do not get paid to post to Hacker News. That would be a fun job... but alas
I am not that lucky.

Why do you think my post was fearmongering, specifically?

As per the implication that corporations stand a lot to gain from the TPP -
you'll see in my post I've said precisely the same thing. I would agree that
there is a trend in the direction of corporate sovereignty - another large
trend in this direction is what Bruce Schneier calls "Public-Private
Partnership" where he suggests (rightly so IMHO) that as each is subject to
different laws partnerships allow them to be bound by neither (he's gone so
far as to call this partnership a "Modern Leviathan":
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/corpora...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/corporate-
government-data-collection)).

You can be sure that the TPP _is_ in the interest of the US's strategic
financial and diplomatic future. That's not a lie - nor is it fearmongering.

Regarding what can be improved regarding trade - most of it has to do with
fixing international standards and laws - though there are other details being
ironed out (is it Korea or Taiwan that is building a giant shipping port as
part of the agreement?). That's actually why it's important for the US to have
influence there. The US wants to have as much influence setting the standards
and regulations regarding trade and goods as possible. An important secondary
effect is that both the process of negotiation and resulting trade partners
garners political clout for future joint (bi- and uni-lateral) ventures.

~~~
pdkl95
> Why do you think my post was fearmongering, specifically?

You're entire original post - and part of this one - is trying to stir up
fears about the future financial stability of the US. This is fear mongering
because you haven't actually shown how the TPP fixes this other than to say it
is necessary in some vague and highly theoretical ways.

> You can be sure that the TPP is in the interest of the US's strategic
> financial and diplomatic future

No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of
_corporations_ , while _removing_ much of the features of government that
might stop those corporations. Allowing foreign corporations the power to
wield a criminal codes or civil liabilities - that they largely get to make up
- over people in the US can only be "in the interest of the US" in the "we had
to burn the village down to save it" sense.

I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass
things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be
the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the constitution,
aka "sedition".

Any legitimate concerns about _specific details_ of trade or the US's
relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal
legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own.

> nor is it fearmongering.

lol

~~~
xnull2guest
I can garuntee you that my post is not trying to stir up fears. (I know this
because I wrote it...)

That said if the idea that the gloomier prospects of US finances and it
needing to jockey for position in the Asian Pacific region is new and scary I
would suggest two things: first that the original post included some
perspective regarding the importance of the region in upcoming decades and
second that it is mere truth that the dollar, US bonds and Western financial
institutions have not been seeing strong trends. The US and China are in the
same relationship the UK and US were when the Stirling Pound was traded for
the US Dollar as the international fiat currency; with the UK as the largest
debtor nation and the US as the largest creditor. This is true today but it is
the US who is the largest debtor and it is China who has been establishing
international banks and building an empire of credit. I do not claim that the
sky is falling, nor that this is somehow a secret disclosure - it is in fact
commonly traded knowledge. My bet is that if you do independent research
regarding the strength of the US as an economic power you will see that she is
facing challenges. Not sky is falling challenges. But challenges that require
action to address them. One of those things is the TPP. Or rather, one option
is the TPP. The US government chose the Asia-Pacific option a decade ago and
the TPP today is one tactic in that continuing strategy.

The TPP is not _the_ fix. Complex problems do not have simple singular fixes.
It is, however, a keystone effort to establish a primary trade treaty in the
region at a time it may be otherwise denied from.

Nor does the post champion the TPP. I hoped to show how it is both important
and potentially damaging, specifically in regard to domestic law.

> No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of
> corporations

I'm exactly the sort of person who would agree that there are dangerous trends
toward corporate world governance. Nestle owns nearly half the world's potable
water and 51 of the world's one hundred largest economic forces are
international corporations (and as opposed to a democracy of any sort
corporations are primarily autocratic and required _by law_ to maximize the
wealth of their leadership at the possible expense to others).

However, I think we depart. Where you see a cabal of corporations running the
show, bending the US government to its will, I see something very different. I
see a US government, earnest to do right by its people (albeit partially blind
to some of it's peoples ideals and struggles), positioned in stride with
corporations. That is: from the perspective of both the US government _and_
from US corporations the TPP is a strategic win.

That the TPP may go further to enshine corporations as global players and a
powerful political class is not mutually exclusive with the TPP being an
important diplomatic and financial opportunity for the US as a republic.
Rather, it is precisely what I say in my parent comment - that it's a damned
if you do damned if you don't situation. The TPP is sincerely important for
the US as a nation. It also further benefits large and international
corporations. This is to say - yes I agree with you that corporate governance
is an emerging threat. But it isn't the _only_ emerging threat. The US's
future is too. It's important that we recognize the issue in full scope rather
than make it about any singular favorite issue.

> I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass
> things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be
> the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the
> constitution, aka "sedition".

The constitution directly allows the US to make treaties with other nations
and for those treaties to be the law of the land. This is also not the first
time, nor and exceptional time, that this has been done.

So I think I misunderstood you here. You're clearly not saying this is
unconstitutional. I think you're saying that the TPP is an agreement that will
hurt the US more than help it - and that US leadership knows this - and thus
it is 'sedition'? Again we depart. The TPP is important for the US and US
leadership recognizes this. An unfortunate truth is that the TPP will not
correct, and will probably exacerbate, the power and wealth concentrated
within large corporations. We should definitely be having conversations about
the role of corporations and their domestic and international political power.
But we don't need to unilaterally reject the TPP - in fact if we were to we
would still have a problem with corporate power. It's absolutely important we
deal with consolidated capital and influence inside of these institutions -
but it should not blind us from everything else going on. I would suggest,
with my tongue partially pressed to my cheek, that making the TPP out to be
entirely about corporate world order sounds a whole lot like... fearmongering?

> Any legitimate concerns about specific details of trade or the US's
> relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal
> legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own.

Negotiating trade deals with so many divergent interests is not something that
is done well by normal legislative bodies - nor do I think you want to suggest
our deadlocked legislation would be an improvement. But with regard to the
general sentiment that you wish there were more transparency: I agree.

------
SpaceInvader
It's all about money. Hollywood is greedy and wants more to create another
mediocre (at best) movies.

~~~
unfortunateface
A business wanting to make more money by charging for their good/bad/ok
product? how evil.

I don't agree that copyright infringement should be a criminal rather than
civil matter.

Even when I'm watching a mediocre movie, I still appreciate that it took lots
of peoples time and money to create.

Edit: updated with word 'more' in response to response to this response of a
response

~~~
nmrm
_> A business wanting to make more money by charging for their good/bad/ok
product? how evil._

A business encouraging governments to throw people in jail for something which
has never been considered a criminal infraction in order to make more money is
pretty evil.

I would never dream of asking a government to throw somebody in jail for
pirating my software. The benefit that I get (ostensibly deterrence) is
minuscule in comparison to the human cost of a criminal record and even a
short stint in jail.

~~~
unfortunateface
I think i made it clear in my comment that I also dis-agree with it being a
criminal matter. That was not really the argument I was responding to.

------
tratratra
Hollywood brought that up to itself, you can't be paying actors for millions
and then wonder why people want to get your stuff for free. Make affordable
prices by reducing actors salaries and gfx artists salaries to 6 figures
rather than having them sitting at a lot of millions.

~~~
gambiting
I think you got it completely backwards. It's demand vs. supply,like
everywhere else. If you are making a film,and want to hire an actor, you have
to look around - if Robert D. Junior wants $10 million to play this role,and
an unknown actor X will play it for $100k, you either pay $10 million to hire
RDJ,or he won't work for you. You can't "Make affordable prices by reducing
actors salaries" \- you are simply not in charge of that, you are not their
boss, or their accountant. And in general, I have no idea where you got this
silly notion that somehow people wouldn't want films for free if the actors
were paid less.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
I can't speak for the US, but I'm just not buying the fear about the TPP. I
honestly can't see the Australian judiciary sending people to jail, or issuing
large fines, for sharing media.

Suppose the sentencing is mandatory leaving the judiciary with no choice.
We'll see how long that lasts, but very well then, I'll happily spend 3 months
in an Australian prison for sharing media. I think you'd probably have to book
in advance. How comical.

How can law enforcement possibly police this? The idea is so ridiculous, like
some kind of 'War on Piracy'.

> penalties that include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines
> sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement

C'mon, seriously? Is there anyone who doesn't know risk of imprisonment
doesn't act as deterrent. There are Australian's about to be executed in
Indonesia for drug trafficking. Should be pretty obvious.

I'm sorry, but with all the hyped up FUD, I just can't seem to get uptight
about the TPP.

Certainly life will go on, and people will continue to share media.

~~~
pdkl95
You apparently haven't been keeping up with the news, as this kind of "remote
prosecution" _already happens_. It is not theoretical.

If you want a quick intro to these attacks, I suggest watching the most recent
John Oliver episode.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-
oliver-highlights-ridiculousness-corporate-sovereignty-provisions.shtml)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Did you link to the right video? We still have plain tobacco packaging in
Australia. Can you tell me where to skip to in the video that talks about
remote prosecution of individuals with regard to piracy.

~~~
pdkl95
Keep watching - the corporate stuff starts a few minutes in, with the tobacco
industry throwing around threats to various countries legislatures to stop
those legislatures from passing Australian-style packaging laws and other
public-health regulations.

edit: if you're in a hurry, try starting at about 5:55
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6U...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6UsHHOCH4q8#t=355)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Can you tell me where to skip to in the video that talks about remote
prosecution of individuals with regard to piracy.

