TPP Change Means Drastically Higher Penalties For Copyright "Infringement" (eff.org) 192
Mephistophocles writes: A sneaky and underhanded change to the TPP, spotted by the EFF and summarized here by Jeremy Malcolm, means much stiffer penalties for copyright "infringement:"
Under the TPP's original terms, a country could limit the exposure of the owner of such a website to prison time, or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn't cause any lost sales to the copyright owner. (Note that they would be liable for civil damages to the copyright owner in any case.)
Although a country still has the option to limit criminal penalties to "commercial scale" infringements (which is so broadly defined that it could catch even a non-profit subtitles website), the new language compels TPP signatories to make these penalties available even where those infringements cause absolutely no impact on the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. This is a massive extension of the provision's already expansive scope.
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the fact that this means those stiff penalties apply even when there is no harm or threat of harm to the copyright owner caused by the infringement.
Think about it. What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway? Surely, if the copyright holder suffers no harm, then a country ought to be able to suspend the whole gamut of criminal procedures and penalties, not only the availability of ex officio action.
This is no error -- or if it is, then the parties were only in error in agreeing to a proposal that was complete nonsense to begin with.
Under the TPP's original terms, a country could limit the exposure of the owner of such a website to prison time, or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn't cause any lost sales to the copyright owner. (Note that they would be liable for civil damages to the copyright owner in any case.)
Although a country still has the option to limit criminal penalties to "commercial scale" infringements (which is so broadly defined that it could catch even a non-profit subtitles website), the new language compels TPP signatories to make these penalties available even where those infringements cause absolutely no impact on the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. This is a massive extension of the provision's already expansive scope.
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the fact that this means those stiff penalties apply even when there is no harm or threat of harm to the copyright owner caused by the infringement.
Think about it. What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway? Surely, if the copyright holder suffers no harm, then a country ought to be able to suspend the whole gamut of criminal procedures and penalties, not only the availability of ex officio action.
This is no error -- or if it is, then the parties were only in error in agreeing to a proposal that was complete nonsense to begin with.
Trust the jury ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Trust the jury ... (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck finding a jury that will send someone to jail when no harm has been done. Now everyone, please bone up on jury nullification.
The jury doesn't send people to jail: they vote guilty or not guilty and the judge decides the sentence, expect possibly in death penalty cases. And, in the U.S. at least, the jury isn't allowed to be told what the possible sentence is.
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from (Score:4, Insightful)
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.
Re:Get less time for shopping lifting the movies f (Score:5, Insightful)
Get less time for shopping lifting the movies from Walmart.
Get less time for killing Michael Jackson, than for copying his music.
Re:Get less time for shopping lifting the movies f (Score:5, Informative)
You get what this is all really about. Totally shutting down the internet except for a very few publishers under the threat of criminal penalties for any copyright infringement be it a single photo, a paragraph of text, a site layout. Basically the intent is to shut down the internet under threat of criminal prosecution for copyright infringement, only the big players left standing and everyone else wiped out. Never forget copyright infringement counts for a single photo or a single page of text or a ring tone or etc. etc. etc. The intent is to hand the internet back to main stream media, a straight up act of blatant corruption.
Re:Get less time for shopping lifting the movies f (Score:4, Interesting)
Totally shutting down the internet except for a very few publishers under the threat of criminal penalties for any copyright infringement be it a single photo, a paragraph of text, a site layout.
The big guys infringe copyright all the time. What they want is not to stop people doing it, but to get their cut. They see things like fan videos on YouTube as free promotion, they just feel that as well as the extra buzz it generates they should be able to tax it too, and block anything negative.
Re:Get less time for shopping lifting the movies f (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The powerful always get what they want.
No, not always. Sometimes their heads come off.
Re: (Score:2)
King George didn't. Neither did Louis the XIV. Both Stalin and Hitler failed to build their respective thousand-year regimes. In fact, the very fact that we're having this discussion in a democratic republic rather than sitting in silence, too afraid of our feudal overlords who rule by divine right to speak, is a testament to the utter inability of power and the powerful to even keep their positions, much less advance.
So how about you grow a pair, Anon, and stop repea
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty common knowledge what the penalties are for various crimes, such as 1st and 2nd degree murder, etc - anyone who reads the news will know this, with all the shootings going on.
A jury can be presented with several different possible verdicts, each with a different penalty, and pick the one they want - so in effect, the jury does decide to a great part what the penalty shall be.
And all this (the arguments you threw up) are irrelevant to my point - juries know that it's a criminal trial; they know
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty common knowledge what the penalties are for various crimes, such as 1st and 2nd degree murder, etc - anyone who reads the news will know this, with all the shootings going on.
No, it's not.
As another person already pointed out, penalties vary a lot from state to state, and even municipality to municipality in some cases, depending on the charge.
A lot of people in this thread today seem to think there is some kind of universal criminal code in the United States, but it just isn't so. Most criminal laws -- including rape and murder -- are State matters, and not just the sentencing but the actual laws vary from state to state. Similar? Yes, in most cases. The same? No.
There
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... with all the shootings going on.
Shootings are at a 30 year low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised. DNA evidence, for example, has never been peer reviewed, and the math is totally screwed up when it comes to people of the same ethnicity, and it requires subjective interpretation as to whether there's a match or not.
Defense lawyers are there to educate the jury on these problems. Then again, most jurors have a certain distrust of it to begin with.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whatever you paid them to do?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure the entire point of the TPP is to put more power in the hands of corporations and circumvent sovereign nations legal systems. If a nation is a member of the treaty then the treaty agreement supersedes the will of their people and the laws of the land regardless of what new laws they pass through their local governing bodies. This is about taking power away from people so that corporations can do whatever they want with impunity. They can sue for monetary damages if they even suspect some law
Re:Trust the jury ... (Score:5, Informative)
>I'm pretty sure the entire point of the TPP is to put more power in the hands of corporations and circumvent sovereign nations legal systems.
It's a trade agreement, that's literally the definition of trade agreements. Perhaps there was a time when it wasn't, I doubt that because "lost golden ages" invariably turn out to be unsubstantiated nostalgia but it definitely has been the definition of a trade agreement for at least the full 36 years I've been on this planet. A trade agreement is essentially governments agreeing to modify their laws to make it easier for corporations to profit in the other country - which is a nice way of saying "get rid of any pesky legal protections that may reduce the foreign company's ability to exploit the citizens of another country the way they do at home".
Re: (Score:2)
The jury doesn't send people to jail: they vote guilty or not guilty and the judge decides the sentence, expect possibly in death penalty cases. And, in the U.S. at least, the jury isn't allowed to be told what the possible sentence is.
Close, but not *quite* it.
Jurors are finders of fact. They determine what happened, "as a matter of fact.", so to speak.
Judges are finders of law. They determine a conclusion, "as a matter of law."
Judges can also be finders of law, where there are no jurors and in other situations.
So a juror can find, as a matter of fact, that someone intended to and actually killed someone else, and thereby committed homicide. A judge can find that as a matter of law the act of homicide is a punishable offence, and comp
Re: (Score:3)
"The jury doesn't send people to jail: they vote guilty or not guilty and the judge decides the sentence, expect possibly in death penalty cases. And, in the U.S. at least, the jury isn't allowed to be told what the possible sentence is."
But as juries catch on that disproportionate sentencing is taking place, they will vote to nullify.
Re:Trust the jury ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nor can you petition a jury for jury nullification. Its automatic mistrial.
Only in 49 states. Not in New Hampshire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trust the jury ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if this is true. I've sat on more than one jury and I'm quite aware of Jury Nullification. I can say that nobody has ever, not once, mentioned it while I was present. However, I know what it is and when I'd feel it is appropriate to utilize that power. I've yet been on a jury where it was an actual concern. Unlike most, I don't mind jury duty. I kind of like it. I'd do it more often, if they'd let me. It's pretty boring most of the time. But, I enjoy it and I pay attention and I understand the burden. I'm aware of the consequences of a poor juror and jury. Being an obstacle in the way of a miscarriage of justice is a good thing to be. I like jury duty.
Re:Trust the jury ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trust the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We've also stopped upholding our end of the social contract. It is our job to observe the courts and to be knowledgeable in their doings. Instead, we rely on yellow journalism, politics played as a team sport, and hope the EFF or ACLU stands up if it's too grievous. We've stopped observing the courts and power that goes unchecked has only one direction to go, it's natural - it's wrong, but it's natural. This is a rhetorical question but when was the last time you took one of your days off from work to observe the local district court and watched to observe justice was being served? We rely on someone else to tell us when to be outraged and offer no oversight on the smaller things - that's how it got this big.
And that's a royal we. That's us, the collective. There's some truth to the adage that you get the government you deserve and the other adage about being ruled by consent. Don't think I have the answers, I know I do not. There's a lot of things that are complicated but we seem hell bent on making them more complicated than they need to be. I don't know why. I can speculate why. I can even present what I think is a logical argument for holding those beliefs. However, it's off-topic, long, and I'm lazy tonight. But, I'll write you that novella if you want one...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't suppose you've got any suggestions, realistic ones, as to how we can change this?
1. Don't shirk jury duty.
2. Vote.
3. When you see injustice, speak up. This can be as simple as posting in your neighborhood forum (nextdoor.com, Yahoo groups, whatever).
to bad that the jury duty. pay is way to low (Score:2)
to bad that the jury duty. pay is way to low
Re: (Score:2)
That is true but I'd never do it for money. In fact, you are not obligated to collect or cash any payments made for your service. I have never accepted money for my jury duty service. I know it probably sounds silly but I take my job serious when I'm called to do it. In some States, you can voluntarily submit yourself to the jury pool. I have never done so. I do, however, get called on a semi-regular basis it seems. I've been selected more often than not. I believe in the concept of a "reasonable person" an
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, I also did jury duty as a civic duty, although I've only been ever called up once - and was selected. The pay was rather laughable, but I still felt it was important to do. Honestly, I wish they'd pay better, as I think they'd get more and better qualified candidates who wouldn't try so hard to avoid it, but I suppose that can't be helped. When those government bureaucracies are being funded, do you really think that paying jurors more is at the top of their priority list?
It was both a positive expe
Re: (Score:2)
It was almost 10 years ago, but the base pay was $95 (tax free), parking (if you drove to the courthouse - and indoor packing during deliberations), Free breakfast (lots of pastries, etc), a decent free lunch (and once a week an outing to a really good restaurant with things like buffalo cuts and wine), and some more snacks for the afternoon.
And if you were in a union that had a clause saying you were paid during jury duty, you could double dip, without having to show up at work.
So when I hear of people n
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt there may be good reasons that juror pay is on the low side - I can certainly see the line of reasoning you're presenting. Honestly, it's not a topic I've given a lot of thought to, so I'm more than willing to consider reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue.
Also, my handle reflects my ancestral heritage + my love of gaming. My grandparents were all from Holland. One fought in WWII (very briefly, obviously), while the other was sent to a German work camp, and subsequently escaped an
Re: (Score:3)
"This, if they know you know about Jury Nullification, neither the judge nor the prosecutor want you there."
That's why you never stand up and proclaim yourself a believer in nullification. At trial, just be prepared to 'show your work' in a jury poll as having judged on some element of the evidence and testimony, no matter how far-fetched may be your reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck finding a jury that will send someone to jail when no harm has been done. Now everyone, please bone up on jury nullification.
Won't the Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses change the way they process these cases?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trust the jury ... (Score:5, Informative)
Tell that to Kevin Mitnick. He was held in prison for four and a half years without trial. He was in maximum security and solitary for some of that time. source [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you want a truly dysfunctional system - try South Africa, where well over half the population of our prisons have never been convicted of any crime whatsoever. They are all prisoners awaiting trial, a small fraction were denied bail - the rest simply could not afford bail.
Re: (Score:3)
Now I'm not going to say the TPP is good, because like every good intentioned policy, there will be overreach
The assumption of good intentions is utterly drowned out by the plethora of blatant evidence of special-interest greed. Check the EFF website if you don't believe.
most child-porn related laws overreach into comics/drawings and video game characters, hence why there are no children in ANY R-rated content in America
Nonsense. In 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled [wikipedia.org] (paraphrased summary): in order for material to be child pornography, it has to (A) be actual pornography, and (B) involve actual children.
The exact wording of the Federal law Congress passed (the CPPA) is pretty much irrelevant, because SCOTUS limited its reach.
That is not to say an
Re: (Score:2)
>Those are the cases where indeed the copyright holder suffers damages from the marketing end.
Except that not a single one of your examples if a copyright case - those are all trademark cases. Trademark is generally misunderstood (and widely mispresented by lawyers) - it's not a right to a company, it's a consumer protection law. The *purpose* of trademark laws is to ensure that consumers can be reasonably certain that the product they buy is the product they *intended* to buy. It does have benefits for
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck finding a jury that will send someone to jail when no harm has been done. Now everyone, please bone up on jury nullification.
Do civil suits have juries? Usually, they are just judges listening to arguments and if the law specifies the punishment, the judge's role is merely one of making sure proper procedure is followed versus determining a just settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
criminal cases have higher standards of proof (Score:2)
criminal cases have higher standards of proof then the cases there they just sue you.
Also destruction of evidence by the cops will kill the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Also destruction of evidence by the cops will kill the case.
if they get caught
Re: (Score:2)
if they get caught?
so the defense can say that they failed to give use the evidence so we move for a mistrial with prejudice
Re: (Score:2)
Only for evidence presented in court.
Destroying evidence against the accused would be something only a very dumb cop would do. Evidence in favor of the accused however, can easily be "lost" so it is never presented by either side. Even the best defense lawyers can't present a move based on evidence they never knew existed.
In many cases evidence proving somebody's innocence is only uncovered when the actual guilty person is prosecuted for a completely different crime years later. At which point the convicted
Re: (Score:2)
What if they some how destroy your hardware then took but they still have the out side logs?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the fact that this means those stiff penalties apply even when there is no harm or threat of harm to the copyright owner caused by the infringement.
Now how hard was that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
usually one needs to establish standing to sue, and that requires actual harm
Your standing is established by showing that you created the work, and are thus the copyright holder. The "harm" can be as simple as having your work reproduced without your permission. A copyright holder that hasn't registered the work has limited options in court (usually limited to things like forcing take-downs, or getting the amount of compensation that would normally be available based on the creator's history of selling such work - not very helpful for most amateurs), but putting a stop to the infri
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your standing is established by showing that you created the work, and are thus the copyright holder. The "harm" can be as simple as having your work reproduced without your permission.
That is easily prevented by not releasing said work.
If you don't want information spread, don't spread it. If you want absolute control over information, well congratulations, the totalitarian state is on its way. Just don't think you will be on top.
TPP is essentially a free pass for the ruling class to punish anyone they want without producing anything or proving anything.
As long as you are one of the main corporations you don't need proof of ownership. If they see anything they want blocked they just do i
Re: (Score:3)
Except that none of that is relevant since this isn't saying anything about civil cases or suing.
This is requiring that states pass laws to *criminally* prosecute people for infringements even when there is no harm and even when the copyright holders does *not* object to the activity that is alleged to infringe.
The kind of technical copyright infringements that this criminalizes are more likely to make money for the copyright holder than to deny him any. The example in the article - of a non-profit provider
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's no actual societal harm in reproduction of work without permission
Right, because authors, musicians, photographers, graphic artists and the like - they're not part of society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume TIPP is a typo for TPP, and that you're not talking about something else. Out of 12 TPP countries, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Singapore (that's 7 countries out of 12) do not have jury trials. That means less than half of TPP countries have juries. Definitely not most.
No, TTIP is NOT a typo. It's the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership [wikipedia.org] - a proposed trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. Last I looked, Europe didn't include all those countries you listed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you possess it, you bought it or otherwise obtained it, which is possession and trafficking in a controlled substance, so sure, they can throw your silly ass in jail, same as if you had prescription narcotics without a prescription. So who's the ignorant one now?
Go buy a clue. Please.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter who infringes ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that this will not be enforced when $LargeMediaCorp rips off pictures from a small, independent photographer and private individuals (& other similar).
Gonna be on the side of Trump & Sanders on thi (Score:3, Insightful)
Virtually all "free trade" agreements have SCREWED the average American worker for the benefit of large companies. That's enough for me to hate the TPP.
Re:Gonna be on the side of Trump & Sanders on (Score:5, Insightful)
Virtually all "free trade" agreements have SCREWED the average American worker for the benefit of large companies. That's enough for me to hate the TPP.
That is because free trade agreements are not meant to protect the average American worker. They are, however, meant to benefit the large corporations.
Sense (Score:3)
...What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway?...
There is no sense to it.
.
But that doesn't matter because the TPP was written by industry interests and rubber-stamped by the governments involved.
copyright cow (Score:5, Funny)
Copyright Cow 2016
No part of this may be reproduced, copied or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in any database or retrieval system, without the express prior written permission of the owners. No part of this shall be reproduced, modified, transmitted, distributed, disseminated, sold, published, sub-licenced, or have derivative work created or based upon it, without the express prior written permission of the owners. If you wish to reproduce any part of this, please contact the owners, providing full details.
It Won't Make Any Difference (Score:2, Interesting)
The market for counterfeits is already well established outside of the United States and especially in Mexico where pirated movies and music are sold on physical media in outdoor markets for a dollar a pop. The entire business is also hooked into the corruption and lawlessness that plagues that country. The federal government in Mexico has much bigger fish to fry than worrying about counterfeit goods. They're fighting what amounts to a low intensity civil war against the drug cartels who also run the counte
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is on the border, just like Mexico, and it doesn't have the problems of a low intensity civil war. The problem is Mexico's, drugs are just an excuse.
This has been going on for much too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments commit us into treaties, and if we complain, they tell us their hands are tied: treaty. While the USA have a history of ignoring and violating treaties whenever the stipulations would hurt them, they will treat it like a law of nature if it pleases them. Take back your democratic right: No government can sell you into servitude!
The TPP has not been approved (Score:5, Insightful)
There is still time to stop this corrupt giveaway of power to corporate interests, and a political campaign season is an excellent time to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how political campaigns work. They are not there to listen to your concerns, they are there to direct your concern to the things they think make them look good. TPP is an existential, vague threat that seems remote and intangible compared to the imaginary illegal immigrant who took your job etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And then RIP and SHARE ALL your shit 24 hours a day 365 days a year nonstop with complete untouchable location anonymous encrypted hidden service glee and impunity and put these copyright motherfuckers in their grave.
Nonsense.
Kill them with boycotts: more effective, easier, less risky, creates lots of free time to actually do things.
Unless you're really just concerned about getting stuff for free.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really not sure that League of Legends is a terribly good basis for an argument on consumers losing out.
It's an online multiplayer game, so do please explain how this could be achieved without connecting to a network.
It's a free to play game which doesn't try and impose continual microtransactions. I think that's a rather good deal for customers.
Seems to me your description of the industry winning is quoting a fine example of the industry going out of its way to give customers a great experience. The su
LAN party (Score:2)
It's an online multiplayer game, so do please explain how this could be achieved without connecting to a network.
By connecting to a private computer network that is disconnected from the Internet. They used to call that a "LAN party".
Re: (Score:2)
While I'd love that to be an option for online multiplayer games, I'd also always put it secondary to Internet based matchmaking.
It's not that I don't have any friends, it's just that we game in a couple of spare hours the occasional evening, and driving three hours for a 90 minute LAN gaming session feels a little excessive.
Here come the appoligists. (Score:2, Interesting)
Already, with only 14 comments to this summary, we have people supporting the idea that if no harm was done (the assumption being that all the investigation work is complete and no harm was found to have been committed), then you should be jailed because some copyright holder could have been harmed, despite evidence to the contrary.
There is no sense to this. The very notion that you can be locked away in a cage without casing harm to anyone, goes against self-preservation. Nevertheless, we have people who w
Re:Here come the appoligists. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect part of the problem in the US is people who say "I dont particularly like these new laws but I dont consider them important enough to vote for the other guy when the other guy disagrees with my views on other issues I consider more important" or in many cases "I dont particularly like these new laws but everyone who actually stands a chance of winning supports these laws therefore it doesn't matter who I vote for therefore I will vote for the guy who supports my positions on other issues"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What other guy? There are only two political parties worth mentioning, and they both support TPP.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the TPP (Score:2)
The problem with treaties like the TPP is that they cover so much ground that even if the intention *were* good some minor apparatchik could sneak in a malicious provision. Those opposed to the treaty, which I'm sure has some or a few good provisions, could then be accused of wanting to throw out the baby along with the bath water, when their intention all along was to toss out the baby (our civil liberties).
Re:Here come the appoligists. (Score:4, Insightful)
The death of free expression on the Internet (Score:2)
Fear. That great manipulator of the masses. Unless you are a faceless corporation, with deep pockets and legions of lawyers you run the risk of jail time for posting ANYTHING online under the terms of the TPP.
Even if you aren't quoting a book, or a song verse, for all you know you could print, or repost, something that can be held up as in breach of copyright.
It's no longer "copyright", it's a gagging order for the common man.
It's a return to media being entirely in control of the few.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no longer "copyright", it's a gagging order for the common man.
*This.* Call it paranoia if you want, but I think that's exactly where this is headed - the death of free speech/expression (and not just on the internet - anywhere; these rules don't just apply to the web). Of course not every case will (or can) be tried, but you don't want to be used as the deterrent example, and neither do I. So, shut up civilian, and let the government/mass media tell you what to think. Then don't you dare criticize it, or the penalties will be more than you care to deal with.
Re:The death of free expression on the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
I miss the cold war.
Back in the good old days the "free west", would tout it's political and social freedom as why it was on the side of humanity.
Something for the oppressed behind the iron curtain to dream of attaining and seeing their over lords for the tyrants they were.
Then down came the Berlin Wall.
Today you'd think the history books on the communist era in east Europe were the manuals/manifestos for state control in the West.
The only thing our governments needs to be better than today is IS.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to immediately assign the worst possible motives to the perpetrators. Those motives may or may not exist - maybe we can
McConnell wants to sneak it through, so I oppose. (Score:2)
That's pretty much all I need to know about the TPP to oppose it.
If it were genuinely a good bill he could pass it before the election and take credit for it.
Copyright is the new weed (Score:3)
Why the "quotes"? (Score:2)
means much stiffer penalties for copyright "infringement:"
I don't know why that's been put in quotes.
TPP (Score:2)
What are the penalties for crashing the global economy?
Oh wait, I forgot, boat-loads of cash...
Thank you Obama! (Score:4, Informative)
And you too Hillary! Your corporate overlords are quite pleased with your efforts.
How About ? (Score:2)
Re:Quotes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why place the word infringement in quotes? Does the OP not consider that to be real word, or consider it to be somehow incorrectly used? Is that just some lazy way of expressing disdain for the idea of copyrights in the first place? Will the OP's minions now "moderate" this post? Or are they being distracted because we're having such nice "weather" outside and using "slashdot" is a poor use of their "time?"
The treaty has no concept of fair use, absolutely none... Just by referencing the summary now and saying that it puts something in quotes, would make you criminal according to TPP rules. When the treaty talks about "infringements", reasonable people have no choice but put it in quotation marks.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The wording in the treaty doesn't apply to any one. It's a guidance for each member country to craft their own changes to their own laws.
No one is going to charge me under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement for copyright infringement.
The only law that applies in my country has been passed as an act by parliament.
The only way for a criminal charge to be valid is for it to be defined in an act.
Also, there's this part from the treaty
Each Party shall endeavour to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, among other things by means of limitations or exceptions giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes.
So fair use is in there. and it's up to each country to define it for the
Re: (Score:2)