Well the studios will obviously pressure content sites to include a dispute process, otherwise trolls from 4chan will issue DMCA takedowns right back at them.
Please, give them ideas. False flag takedowns will probably be an issue for years, as the MPAA and RIAA will realize the consequences of a dispute process (they will loose on occasion). Or maybe "rightsholders" will get special privileges to issue takedowns and all other takedowns will go through an administrative review. Anyway, the point is that getting a dispute process in place will take years, and lots of abuse, by most stakeholders.
But the fact of the matter is that every person is a rights holder. I'm a rights holder of this comment. You are a rights holder of your family pictures. It is a tricky balancing act.
Sure, technically anyone who creates something in tangible form is a "rightsholder". But the process for enforcing those rights is beyond most of us US citizens, rather like disputing a patent lawsuit is beyond most small companies. The costs of specialist attorneys put the enforcement beyond reach for all but the rich and large corporations. You called out the problem yourself with the "tricky balancing act". Balancing will require lawsuits, and almost nobody has the money for a lawsuit. So "rightsholders" becomes another word for "wealthy and large corporations".
They are only stakeholders through imposition of laws such as those proposed.
A more likely future is that most content will be new and not controlled by MPAA or RIAA. These legacy content holders will fade from relevance as their content is duplicated beyond their control and, even more importantly, rarely ever accessed.
I like your optimism, bully for you, and that's a great idea. But I fear that the ISP/"rightsholder" conglomerates, like Comcast/NBC, will only let very select, RIAA and MPAA owned content through.
They already give priority in their cable packages, and they already own Hulu.
Content delivery is controlled by content creating big media IP holders. Obviously they will try to keep competition down, especially new media that understands how the Internet makes information free.
I think it will primarily be determined by who can support (fund) the artists who are making the content people want to watch.
Of course, easy, essentially-free, world-wide distribution will make it harder for RIAA and MPAA to maintain control over the flow of mainstream art.
Viewer-funded (or even mini-investor funded) models could be viable. I'd imagine they could even compete favorably with large production studios if the right structure was found.
They'll make fraudulent take-down notices a serious crime, and make a few high profile examples. That'll stop the vast majority of it (more sophisticated people will continue the trolling).
Studios might also choose to push for an authenticated scheme instead. Their account gets certified (eg on YouTube), and content on that certified account becomes exempted. There are relatively few hollywood houses that would need it, so it would be easy from a scale point of few to certify them.
I agree that there might be a certification process, but on the issue of false takedowns leading to jail time I disagree with you. Think about it from the studio's perspective: If they do a single fraudulent take-down the fees wouldn't be worth the other 999 legitimate ones.
DCMA works because it is fast, but fast needs a safety valve. Without that it will get thrown out in court.
"Under the agreement, it appears that internet service providers could be forced to block websites hosting content that infringes copyright ... if a US court were to, say, find that a popular filesharing website was distributing copyrighted Hollywood movies, ISPs in all TPP countries would be compelled to block access to that site."
IIRC you only need to affirm that you believed it to be in good faith. Companies using automated takedown software regularly issue takedown requests for their own websites, google.com, etc.
I beleive the perjury clause applies to whether you represent who you claim to represent (eg. not saying you are a lawyer for SomeCorp when you are not). As pkinsky said, I think you only have to meet a "good faith standard" that you think the thing you are filing against is actually infringing.
In practice you don't even need to make a "good faith" claim that you actually have a copyright at all -- no company has ever been punished for sending takedown notices for things that are clearly in the public domain.
