New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law • Hacker News Board

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#11

Post by ewzimm » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:59 PM UTC

norea-armozel wrote: post #9

ewzimm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, there's always the alternative of listening to music without DRM. There's a lot of good unencumbered music out there, and maybe all these restrictions will help give it a boost. I think the industry message should be as clear as possible: they are selling something dangerous that could land you in jail if you use it with the wrong music player. If they want to spread that message, help them.

To me that doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem as I see is that hardware manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, and etc will feel obligated to cover their rear ends and force consumers to verify their non-DRM content. So, if you can't verify it then you can't load it on their phones/players. The reason why they would do this sort of thing is to cover themselves in case of liability. If you can't load up non-DRM c…

I sure hope it doesn't go in that direction. What will they do when I want to play the music I recorded myself or my friends' bands? It seems like this might actually discourage verification because it can be a criminal offense to change the name of the artist or track name, so it could introduce some huge liability for misidentifying music. Any verification system is going to have a few bad results, so they might have to just avoid doing it altogether to avoid liability for it.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#12

Post by norea-armozel » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:18 PM UTC

ewzimm wrote: post #11

norea-armozel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem as I see is that hardware manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, and etc will feel obligated to cover their rear ends and force consumers to verify their non-DRM content. So, if you can't verify it then you can't load it on their phones/players. The reason why they would do this sort of thing is to cover themselves in case of liability. If you can't load up non-DRM c…

I sure hope it doesn't go in that direction. What will they do when I want to play the music I recorded myself or my friends' bands? It seems like this might actually discourage verification because it can be a criminal offense to change the name of the artist or track name, so it could introduce some huge liability for misidentifying music. Any verification system is going to have a few bad results, so they might ha…

I don't know if it's definitely going to pan out that way, but I wouldn't put it passed any of the hardware makers to put in some form of restriction. I believe Corey Doctorow talked about this in a more general sense where computers were compromised in how they could execute code. Meaning that computers in the hypothetical setting would be self-censoring.

The only element that keeps this from happening, at least in my view, is the fact that the same businesses depend on hardware and software to do their business. If applications become compromised such that performance cannot be guaranteed then they can't state any guarantee to investors. So, the whole thing hinges on greed which has a nasty way of twisting things. So, I won't bet on it either. Whatever happens is what happens.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#13

Post by iclelland » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:22 PM UTC

a-priori wrote: post #10

"Behind closed doors and in secret, Canada will have already agreed to make these changes." Well they can't have agreed to anything yet, seeing as Parliament is dissolved for the October election. And it's currently a dead heat in the polls between the top three parties (Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats), so it's really unclear who is going to form the government.

Apparently they have that covered, too: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/canada-changed-its-el...

It can't be officially signed until after the election, but they can still negotiate. And all three parties, according to the article, are in support of the agreement.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#14

Post by wxs » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:40 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #4

> songs purchased through Apple’s iTunes music store—which restricts playback to a handful of computers This is not true. If you download songs through Apple Music, then they are protected m4p, but if you purchase music, the files are unprotected m4a and play in other software like Traktor or in CDJ's without any problem.

Though if I'm not mistaken the unprotected m4a still contains a "digital watermark" (i.e. metadata with your iTunes account info) which this article claims would become illegal to remove.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#15

Post by jbeales » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:41 PM UTC

iclelland wrote: post #13

a-priori wrote: post #10

"Behind closed doors and in secret, Canada will have already agreed to make these changes." Well they can't have agreed to anything yet, seeing as Parliament is dissolved for the October election. And it's currently a dead heat in the polls between the top three parties (Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats), so it's really unclear who is going to form the government.

Apparently they have that covered, too: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/canada-changed-its-el... It can't be officially signed until after the election, but they can still negotiate. And all three parties, according to the article, are in support of the agreement.

Nitpicking: It can probably be signed, but cannot be ratified. Ratification makes the treaty binding, signing does not, but I imagine it may be very difficult to re-open negotiations after signing.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#16

Post by walterbell » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

iclelland wrote: post #13

a-priori wrote: post #10

"Behind closed doors and in secret, Canada will have already agreed to make these changes." Well they can't have agreed to anything yet, seeing as Parliament is dissolved for the October election. And it's currently a dead heat in the polls between the top three parties (Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats), so it's really unclear who is going to form the government.

Apparently they have that covered, too: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/canada-changed-its-el... It can't be officially signed until after the election, but they can still negotiate. And all three parties, according to the article, are in support of the agreement.

From Michael Geist, the law professor quoted in that article, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/08/canadian-government-amend...

"Despite the government’s attempt to grant itself the power to continue to negotiate the TPP during an election campaign, there are reasons to doubt that it can effectively do so. First, while there would seemingly be no problem with ensuring Canada remains at the negotiating table, committing to significant policy changes would go well beyond the description of a caretaker government that should be largely limited to “routine” activities.

.. Without a government mandate, Canadian negotiators simply can’t provide other TPP countries assurances that concessions made today will last beyond October 19th."

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#17

Post by seiji » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:52 PM UTC

norea-armozel wrote: post #8

kuschku wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read TPP? The current leaks specify that selling, buying, owning, using, inventing, planning, modifying, etc of devices, software, or methods that can be used or could be helpful for removal or circumvention of DRM have to be treated as a a crime.

That's what I don't grasp about this situation. Why can't content industries just accept that the gravy train of yesteryear is over? Just figure out a new business model. They've had well over a decade and a half to throw enough heads at the problem to figure out how to prevent further decline in their revenues. But it just seems they're as stubborn (if not more so) as an ox when it comes to accepting reality.

Why can't content industries just accept that the gravy train of yesteryear is over?

When you are a 60-70 year old media executive (or a shady cabal of dozens of them, each reinforcing their own viewpoints—sound familiar?) and your life has been money and success and everybody bowing down to you, why wouldn't you fight to keep it? They aren't in a business of generosity, they are in a business of taking your money.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#18

Post by afarrell » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

norea-armozel wrote: post #8

kuschku wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read TPP? The current leaks specify that selling, buying, owning, using, inventing, planning, modifying, etc of devices, software, or methods that can be used or could be helpful for removal or circumvention of DRM have to be treated as a a crime.

That's what I don't grasp about this situation. Why can't content industries just accept that the gravy train of yesteryear is over? Just figure out a new business model. They've had well over a decade and a half to throw enough heads at the problem to figure out how to prevent further decline in their revenues. But it just seems they're as stubborn (if not more so) as an ox when it comes to accepting reality.

To be fair, few software product companies have committed to do the equivalent thing: releasing all of their code as open source with instructions that make it possible for an average person to spin up an instance of the product with the push of a button.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#19

Post by walterbell » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:59 PM UTC

Are ex-officio powers still included in TPP? This would allow computer equipment to be searched/seized by customs officials and law enforcement, without any complaint from rightsholders, e.g. even in the case of fanzines.

From an industry lobby letter, http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Business%20Coalitio...

"Ex-officio authority for law enforcement officials. The TPP should mandate that law enforcement officials have the ability to seize infringing goods even if not specifically named in a warrant and without complaint by a right holder.

Border measures. It is critical that the TPP recognize the importance of preventing counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods from entering the channels of commerce, whether in the domestic market or intended foreign markets. As such, the TPP should provide customs authorities the ability to act ex-officio against imports, exports, goods in-transit, and goods in free trade zones."

From a 2013 analysis, http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzin...

"..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."

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#20

Post by PythonicAlpha » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC

Those "partnership" treaties are ultimately used by big corporations and other "big pockets" to annul democratic decisions and processes.

This is seen at the current TTIP negotiations and even more at the results that already in-place treaties have. Look at Mexico and its treaty with the US. The small farmers are the losers of this treaty and corporations are the winners. And not only on the Mexican side are the losers -- also the workers on the US side are losing because work gets cheaper and cheaper and even more important, health and environment standards are undermined!

With all those treaties (which are currently planned or already signed) in-place we have a capitalistic utopia with all the gains of society of decades annulled. Back to the capitalism of robber barons and uncontrolled exploitation (of humans and the nature).