Go to Prison for File Sharing? That's What Hollywood Wants in the TPP Deal

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.

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...

"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...

" 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.

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.