Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#51

Post by arca_vorago »

clarkmoody wrote: post #17

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.

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.

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#52

Post by walterbell »

acqq wrote: post #2

"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 fina…

In New Zealand, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/72854916/sky-tv-i...

"Internet users and Sky Television want to know if it will become a criminal offence to get around blocks on overseas online television services ... not sure whether that meant criminal penalties for people who used Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to disguise their location and access online services that were supposed to be "geo-blocked" in New Zealand, such as the US version of Netflix.

Legal experts have said it is a grey area whether the use of anti-geo-blocking services to access overseas TV services currently breached civil law. Sources said the answer to that question could determine whether the Government might be empowered to make an exemption relating to VPNs, or whether their use to access overseas online television services would now need to become a criminal offence."

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#53

Post by guelo »

nisa wrote: post #48
guelo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#54

Post by btown »

acqq wrote: post #2

"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 fina…

QQ.H.7(1)(b) would seem to be in place to cover large-scale file sharing that is not done for commercial gain.

At least we have this referring to (b):

> 136 A Party may provide that the volume and value of any infringing items may be taken into account in determining whether the act has a substantial prejudicial impact on the interests of the copyright or related rights owner in relation to the marketplace.

So if your lawmakers are sane (...) you're likely safe singing Happy Birthday.

The true problem with (a) comes in regards to fan-made works that are not clearly reviews or parodies, and are thus not under international standards of fair use.

For instance, there's Japan's dojinshi market, valued at US$588mm/yr, in which it is common for creators of astonishingly professional-quality arrangements of copyrighted video game/anime music (among other things) to charge money for limited runs of physical albums. There's no doubt that allowing this to be commercial allows higher-quality productions to be made, and more people to use this as a way to practice their creative skills... this is true of any creative industry.

There's a real fear that Japan's hand may be forced, if they accept the TPP, to criminalize and prosecute this marketplace, even though right now it is considered a crime that can only be prosecuted if the victim files charges. For if they don't make and enforce such a law, they'd be in violation of the broader treaty.

For more context, see: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2015-05-21/japanes...

And lest we think this is limited to Japan, consider that any unlicensed cover bands that charge for gigs anywhere in the world, or sell a demo CD, would be considered criminals. And minimum sentencing does indeed exist in the United States...

(IANAL)

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#55

Post by 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..., "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/

"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."

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#56

Post by 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.

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#57

Post by Lawtonfogle »

sp332 wrote: post #5
acqq wrote: post #2

"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 fina…

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 t…

"Shall not be infringed"

Here, pay this money, register here, sign this, don't do that, pay this other fee, and if you do this other thing, you will go to prison. Also, options C through Z are banned, only options A and B are allowed. But we don't consider this infringing a basic right.

Basically, if voting rights were treated like gun rights, Jim Crow era discrimination would pale in comparison.

I full expect the government to twist the wording of this law as well.

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#58

Post by Lawtonfogle »

tedunangst wrote: post #18
acqq wrote: post #2

"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 fina…

It doesn't specify what the penalty must be, however (does it?). For example, US Code, in the criminal section (506) it says: (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. They could make singing the wrong song a $20 penalty and presumably still comply with t…

Consider how bad the sex offenders registry is. Now consider that that isn't even a criminal punishment (which is why it can be retroactively applied and extended, which a criminal punishment cannot be).

So it could work out to a nothing fine and all is well, but I would highly doubt it ending up as such.

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#59

Post by neves »

guelo wrote: post #28

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.

Good point. It would be better to argue with this kind of arguments.

Re: TPP final negotiated text – IP chapter

#60

Post by Lawtonfogle »

arca_vorago wrote: post #51
clarkmoody wrote: post #17

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.

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 t…

Same way the Constitution was undermined by obscenity clauses, gun control, voting restriction, and a host of other things.
Post reply on HN