Saturday, February 14, 2015

TPP Police State

Go to Prison for Sharing Files? That’s What Hollywood Wants in the Secret TPP Deal
Posted on February 13, 2015 Written by eff.org
The Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship agree­ment (TPP) poses mas­sive threats to users in a dizzy­ing num­ber of ways. It will force other TPP sig­na­to­ries to accept the United States’ exces­sive copy­right terms of a min­i­mum of life of the author plus 70 years, while lock­ing the US to the same lengths so it will be harder to shorten them in the future. It con­tains extreme DRM anti-circumvention pro­vi­sions that will make it a crime to tin­ker with, hack, re-sell, pre­serve, and oth­er­wise con­trol any num­ber of dig­i­tal files and devices that you own. The TPP will encour­age ISPs to mon­i­tor and police their users, likely lead­ing to more cen­sor­ship mea­sures such as the block­age and fil­ter­ing of con­tent online in the name of copy­right enforce­ment. And in the most recent leak of the TPP’s Intel­lec­tual Prop­erty chap­ter, we found an even more alarm­ing pro­vi­sion on trade secrets that could be used to crack­down on jour­nal­ists and whistle­blow­ers who report on cor­po­rate wrongdoing.
Here, we’d like to explore yet another set of rules in TPP that will chill users’ rights. Those are the crim­i­nal enforce­ment pro­vi­sions, which based upon the lat­est leak from May 2014 is still a con­tested and unre­solved issue. It’s about whether users could be jailed or hit with debil­i­tat­ing fines over alle­ga­tions of copy­right infringement.
Dan­ger­ously Low Thresh­old of Criminality
The US is push­ing for a dan­ger­ously broad def­i­n­i­tion of a crim­i­nal vio­la­tion of copy­right, where even non­com­mer­cial activ­i­ties could get peo­ple con­victed of a crime. The leak also shows that Canada has opposed this def­i­n­i­tion. Canada sup­ports lan­guage in which crim­i­nal reme­dies would only apply to cases where some­one infringed explic­itly for com­mer­cial purposes.
This dis­tinc­tion is cru­cial. Com­mer­cial infringe­ment, where an infringer sells unau­tho­rized copies of con­tent for finan­cial gain, is and should be a crime. But that’s not what the US is push­ing for—it’s try­ing to get lan­guage passed in TPP that would make a crim­i­nal out of any­one who sim­ply shares or oth­er­wise makes avail­able copy­righted works on a “com­mer­cial scale.”
As any­one who has ever had a meme go viral knows, it is very easy to dis­trib­ute con­tent on a com­mer­cial scale online, even with­out it being a money-making oper­a­tion. That means fans who dis­trib­ute sub­ti­tles to for­eign movies or anime, or archivists and librar­i­ans who pre­serve and upload old books, videos, games, or music, could go to jail or face huge fines for their work. Some­one who makes a remix film and puts it online could be under threat. Such a broad def­i­n­i­tion is ripe for abuse, and we’ve seen such abuse hap­pen many times before.
Fair use, and other copy­right excep­tions and lim­i­ta­tions frame­works like fair deal­ing, have been under con­stant attack by right­sh­older groups who try to under­mine and chip away at our rights as users to do things with copy­righted con­tent. Given this real­ity, these crim­i­nal enforce­ment rules could go fur­ther to intim­i­date and dis­cour­age users from exer­cis­ing their rights to use and share con­tent for pur­poses such as par­ody, edu­ca­tion, and access for the disabled.
Penal­ties That Must be “Suf­fi­ciently High”
The penal­ties them­selves could be enough to intim­i­date and pun­ish users in a way that is grossly dis­pro­por­tion­ate to the crime. Based upon the leak, which showed no oppo­si­tion in key sec­tions, it seems TPP nego­tia­tors have already agreed to more vague pro­vi­sions that would oblige coun­tries to enact prison sen­tences and mon­e­tary fines that are “suf­fi­ciently high” to deter peo­ple from infring­ing again. Here is the text:
penal­ties that include sen­tences of impris­on­ment as well as mon­e­tary fines suf­fi­ciently high to pro­vide a deter­rent to future acts of infringe­ment, con­sis­tently with the level of penal­ties applied for crimes of a cor­re­spond­ing gravity;
Already in many coun­tries, crim­i­nal pun­ish­ments for copy­right grossly out­weigh penal­ties for acts that are com­par­a­tively more harm­ful to oth­ers. So the ques­tion as to what crimes copy­right infringe­ment cor­re­sponds to in “grav­ity” is obscure. What’s more alarm­ing is that coun­tries with­out exist­ing crim­i­nal penal­ties or whose penal­ties are not “suf­fi­ciently high” to sat­isfy the US gov­ern­ment, may be forced to enact harsher rules. The US Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive (USTR) could use the cer­ti­fi­ca­tion process, at the behest of right­sh­older groups, to arm-twist nations into pass­ing more severe penal­ties, even after the TPP is signed and rat­i­fied. The USTR has had a long his­tory of pres­sur­ing other nations into enact­ing extreme IP poli­cies, so it would not be out of the realm of possibility.
Prop­erty Seizure and Asset Forfeiture
The TPP’s copy­right pro­vi­sions even require coun­tries to enable judges to uni­lat­er­ally order the seizure, destruc­tion, or for­fei­ture of any­thing that can be “trace­able to infring­ing activ­ity”, has been used in the “cre­ation of pirated copy­right goods”, or is “doc­u­men­tary evi­dence rel­e­vant to the alleged offense”. Under such oblig­a­tions, law enforce­ment could become ever more empow­ered to seize lap­tops, servers, or even domain names.
Domain name seizure in the name of copy­right enforce­ment is not new to us in the US, nor to peo­ple run­ning web­sites from abroad. But these pro­vi­sions open the door to the pas­sage of ever more oppres­sive mea­sures to enable gov­ern­ments to get an order from a judge to seize web­sites and devices. The pro­vi­sion also says that the gov­ern­ment can act even with­out a for­mal com­plaint from the copy­right holder. So in places where the gov­ern­ment chooses to use the force of copy­right to cen­sor its crit­ics, this could be even more disastrous.
Crim­i­nal­iza­tion of Get­ting Around DRM
We’ve con­tin­ued to raise this issue, but it’s always worth men­tion­ing—the TPP exports the United States’ crim­i­nal laws on dig­i­tal rights man­age­ment, or DRM. The TPP could lead to poli­cies where users will be charged with crimes for cir­cum­vent­ing, or shar­ing knowl­edge or tools on how to cir­cum­vent DRM for finan­cial gain as long as they have “rea­son­able ground to know” that it’s ille­gal to do so. Chile, how­ever, opposes this vague lan­guage because it could lead to crim­i­nal penal­ties for inno­cent users.
The most recent leak of the Intel­lec­tual Prop­erty chap­ter revealed new excep­tions that would let pub­lic inter­est organizations—such as libraries and edu­ca­tional institutions—get around DRM to access copy­righted con­tent for uses pro­tected by fair use or fair deal­ing, or con­tent that may sim­ply be in the pub­lic domain. But even if it’s legal, it would be dif­fi­cult for them to get around DRM since they may not be equipped with the knowl­edge to do it on their own. If some­one else tries to do a pub­lic ser­vice for them by cre­at­ing these tools for legally-protected pur­poses, they could still be put in jail or face huge fines.
Con­clu­sion
Like the var­i­ous other dig­i­tal copy­right enforce­ment pro­vi­sions in TPP, the crim­i­nal enforce­ment lan­guage loosely reflects the United States’ DMCA but is abstracted enough that the US can pres­sure other nations to enact rules that are much worse for users. It’s there­fore far from com­fort­ing when the White House claims that the TPP’s copy­right rules would not “change US law”—we’re still export­ing bad rules to other nations, while bind­ing our­selves to oblig­a­tions that may pre­vent US law­mak­ers from reform­ing it for the bet­ter. These rules were passed in the US through cycles of cor­rupt pol­icy laun­der­ing. Now, the TPP is the lat­est step in this trend of increas­ingly dra­con­ian copy­right rules pass­ing through opaque, corporate-captured processes.
These exces­sive crim­i­nal copy­right rules are what we get when Big Con­tent has access to pow­er­ful, secre­tive rule-making insti­tu­tions. We get rules that would send users to prison, force them to pay debil­i­tat­ing fines, or have their prop­erty seized or destroyed in the name of copy­right enforce­ment. This is yet another rea­son why we need to stop the TPP—to put an end to this seem­ingly end­less pro­gres­sion towards ever more chill­ing copy­right restric­tions and enforcement.
If you’re in the US, please call on your rep­re­sen­ta­tives to oppose Fast Track for TPP and other unde­mo­c­ra­tic trade deals with harm­ful dig­i­tal policies.

Related Posts

No comments:

Post a Comment