The TPP: Copyright Law, the Creative Industries, and Internet Freedom
medium.com
medium.com
"... breaking a copyright protection system (i.e. DRM, TPM, etc.) would land you in hot water ... if you need to circumvent a DRM for personal use, you are now liable for criminal penalties. Traditionally, for many jurisdictions, circumventing DRM is typically reserved for civil penalties. Criminal penalties implies that the government would foot the bill for enforcement. In civil cases, it is typically rights holders that go after individuals.
... civil damages do apply. How much are civil damages if an alleged infringer is found guilty? Well, that is up to rights holders, not a judge. Prosecution is able to determine the damages and a judge would have to accept whatever number comes out regardless of evidence to the contrary. A good example might be that a song may be sold for 99 cents, but the damages sought could be in the millions for all the prosecutors are concerned.
... an act of copyright infringement as set forth in this “trade” agreement doesn’t actually have to occur before the authorities are sent after you. There just has to be evidence that infringement is taking place or is about to take place.
... if you have a cell phone, and you have something on it that could be considered infringing, authorities have the right to seize it because you are suspected of trafficking. Of course, you could also be liable for civil and criminal penalties as earlier outlined and could be fined any amount copyright holders feel like.
... you could be fined on the spot because of your cell phone on top of it all. No need for a judge here. Also, no, you may not get your cell phone back. It could be destroyed ... Who gets to pay for all of this? According to page 77, you do."
They are bullshitting the world.
Any politician that signs this, should be held liable for it.
It's one thing being opposed to the proposed laws, but much of the opposition seems to be based in what is said about it rather than the proposed changes themselves.
You've quoted that damages are "up to right holders, not a judge". But the draft explicitly says it will be up to the judge to consider, and that they may consider anything put in front of them. The commentary flatly contradicts the proposed wording.
Much of the other text that is criticised is also quite standard in global law. For example, it's surprising that the passage about 'imminent' infringement is called out. Would the same criticism apply to stopping other crimes before they are committed, if they are known to be imminent? Courts the world over provide injunctions against this sort of thing. It's not new.
In fact – and again contrary to the commentary – the real purpose of that paragraph is that it provides a heavy evidential burden against potential copyright suits and requires payment in advance just in case those suits are abused and that results in damage to the defendant.
Much of the proposed text actually works to the benefit of the 'infringer' rather than to the detriment.
Most interesting aspect is how it plays out in the election, only 14 days away.
Countries are partnering to work for the interests of the big corporations and (potentially) against the interests of their own people.
The thinking, that with a stronger industry (and maybe) more jobs, everything will be alright, is plainly wrong. In Germany, we have more jobs now, because we followed this route, but less people can live from their earnings -- and the social system has been undermined to reach the optimal state for "more jobs" (and more profits for the corporations). So, the result plainly is: More really poor people, that either work their ass of (some with two or three jobs) or are living in extreme poverty, strangled by a ruthless social security system. And of course: The rich people get even more money. For the shrinking "middle class" nothing is left.