LEAKED! TPP: the Son of ACTA will oblige America and other countries to throw out privacy, free speech and due process for easier copyright enforcement

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the son of ACTA, a secretive copyright and trade treaty being negotiated by the Pacific Rim nations, including the USA and Canada. As with ACTA, the secretive negotiation process means that the treaty's provisions represent an extremist corporate agenda where due process, privacy and free expression are tossed out the window in favor of streamlined copyright enforcement. If this passes, America will have a trade obligation to implement all the worst stuff in SOPA, and then some. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Carolina Rossini and Kurt Opsahl explain:

TPP article 16.3 mandates a system of ISP liability that goes beyond DMCA standards and U.S. case law. In sum, the TPP pushes a framework beyond ACTA[1] and possibly the spirit of the DMCA, since it opens the doors for:

* Three-strikes policies and laws that require Internet intermediaries to terminate their users’ Internet access on repeat allegations of copyright infringement

* Requirements for Internet intermediaries to filter all Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material

* ISP obligations to block access to websites that allegedly infringe or facilitate copyright infringement

* Efforts to force intermediaries to disclose the identities of their customers to IP rightsholders on an allegation of copyright infringement.

Incredibly, it gets worse:

If the copyright maximalists have their way, the TPP will include a “side-letter,” an agreement annexed to the TPP to bind the countries to strict procedures enabling copyright owners to insist material are removed from the Internet. This strict notice-and-takedown regime is not new—in 2004, Chile rejected the same proposal in its bi-lateral trade agreement with the United States. Without the shackles of the proposed requirements, Chile then implemented a much more balanced takedown procedure in its 2010 Copyright Law, which provides greater protection to Internet users’ expression and privacy than the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)’s copyright safe harbor regime.

Instead of ensuring due process and judicial involvement in takedowns, the TPP proposal encourages the spread of models that have been proven inefficient and have chilling unintended consequences, such as the HADOPI Law in France or the DMCA.

TPP Creates Legal Incentives For ISPs To Police The Internet. What Is At Risk? Your Rights.


  1. How did it ever get to the point that copyright holders’ rights are so “obviously” more important than the entire internet and the millions of people who use it? The sheer cost of this idiotic monitoring is more than insane.

    1. When they started talking about intellectual property. Property is obviously sacrosanct, doubly so when owned by multinationals.

      1. Not really.  Intellectual “property” is actually in direct OPPOSITION to property and property rights. People don’t usually think about this, but the reality is that enforcing intellectual “property” is nothing more than PUNISHING YOU for your peaceful uses of your own property. E.g. if you use your computer (actual legitimate property) to copy intellectual “property” (not actual property), and who gets punished? You. E.g. you use your throat (actual legitimate property of you) to sing happy birthday (not actual property) in front of enough people, and who gets punished? You. See how it works? You nominally and morally have a right to peacefully use your property, UNLESS someone else who asserts property rights over your stuff (via idiotic intellectual “property” legislation) says otherwise. That whole arrangement is the OPPOSITE of property.

        The people who profiteer off of intellectual poverty just called it intellectual “property” for P.R. purposes, but — as you can see from this simple logical deduction — the reality is that intellectual poverty is a form of ANTI-property which is 100% incompatible / in direct contradiction with all legal and moral precepts surrounding property. That P.R. campaign was a magical stroke of genius that accomplishes three very profitable things for these monopolists: confusing the legal landscape of property rights in favor of the monopolists, weakening ACTUAL property rights by defamatorily blaming the malevolent conequences of intellectual poverty onto the concept property, and associating the virtues normally associated with property rights to monopolies that are NOT property. Win-win-win for them, lose-lose-lose for you and me.

    2. Unfortunately, in this day and age, the U.S. Government considers copyright more important than the general public’s rights, and its own cultural heritage, which is much worse than disregarding the rights of the millions of Internet users as well.

      The draconian regime of enforcement on the behalf of copyright owners is squelching a whole generation’s production of art and cultural artifacts

      1.  Exactly. The whole idea of copyright in our system was supposed to protect the creator’s rights and profits, for a short time. And then, it was assumed, the work would pass into the public domain, where it would be used, stretched, changed to something even better.

        So, these Mickey Mouse copyright laws are retarding our cultural growth, all in the name of more obscene profits for Mickey.

      2.  Here let me correct that statement for you, “the U.S. Government considers campaign dollars more important than the general public’s rights”.
        Not to forget blatant acts of corruption, like jobs for family members, book contracts, public speaking contracts, media contracts and, high paying zero effort corporate appointments.
        Corporate lawyers write up the legislation and pass it direct to douche bag politicians to shove it down the general public’s throat.

    3. In a word: lobbying. Copyright holders give politicians money so they can campaign/become suspiciously rich, but such transactions never go one way. The copyright holders expect something in return.

      The funny thing is that a lot of politicians actually seem to hate the lobbying system, yet they keep using it because it works, as if they’re locked into it in a way. Someone else can provide more information on that than I can.

      1. The most offensive part of this is how cheap the lobbying is for them, compared to the enormous leverage they gain.  There’s a false assumption by the politicians that they just-sort-of-have-to-give-in.  For these laws that control tens of billions in profits, the industry has had to pay… mere thousands.

        I’d hate corrupt politicians a lot less if they charged a going rate.  It would even up the results.

    4. Wake up. This goes far beyond simple copyright issues. This is the effort of governments who want to control people. Copyright infringement is an excuse.

  2. I just can’t wait until they turn the Internet into Television, so we can all benefit from the stream of pre-approved ‘content’ with exclusive contracts and licensing agreements withing the borders of the specific countries and marketing regions. Freedom be damned, it has the word free in it and as we all know that’s not what a good consumer wants. I pray to thee, oh glorious media masters. Please show me the light! 

    /Brainwashed in Cleavland.

    1. Nope, it wasn’t shut down. But come the next budget year, it will lose most of its funding effectively shutting it down. 

  3. I feel safer already! No, wait. ‘Safer’ isn’t the word I’m looking for.. Boycotty! That’s how I feel!

    Seriously. Money is the only language they speak. Be silent.

  4. I’ve been meaning to do this for a long time… I’m going completely media-less. selling my hundreds of DVDs, games and books at the flea market and re-downloading them in non encumbered, DRM free formats, I’m never going to go see a film in the theatre again.  If artists want money for their work, start a kick starter, or a donations page, I’ll give you a 100% cut of the sales price. If media companies want a war, they’ve got one.

    1. Not that I’m in support of the publishers and their antiquated models, but your proposed method isn’t exactly fair to the hundreds of people other than the artist who actually do provide value to the product development, such as the sound engineer or the gaffer who would not receive compensation.  Funding the “talent” won’t cure the problem.  We need to emphasize the devaluation of IP protection, not stop consuming. 

      The problem is that we’re not about to give up IP when IP is all that the U.S. produces anymore.  No legislator in his right mind will want to cook the so-called golden goose when the rest of the farm went overseas for production.  If you want to propose a war, I suggest turning the tables on the legislators and finding them and their children accountable for breaking the laws that they pass.  Make our enemy their enemy.

          1. People who work to create products people want to buy, are the “talent.” This includes all people working on the production end. No one is saying those people dont deserve money.

          2. I don’t think this argument holds up, the “gaffers” don’t make decisions and they have to make aliving just like everyone else right? Is it their fault that the companies they work for are creating such a mess in the first place? Of course, this doesn’t mean that you should go see movies just because you don’t want to hurt “The little people”, I’m just saying there’s no need to demonize them so you can vote with your dollars.

          3. @tachin1:disqus  there’s also no need to sympathize with them. my position is the neutral one.

    2. This is certainly not a difficult decision.  I’ve stopped watching new movies years ago, in protest of studios disregarding original stories in favor of ruining/remaking classics with mediocre “talent”, cheesy cgi’s, and modern product placements.  On the flipside, now that most of the musical projects I like are forced to go independent, I’m buying alot more music again.  I’ve also stopped stealing video games… games and music still have plenty of originality left to them and aren’t simply generated on profit motives.
      Also, I don’t understand getting rid of print media in favor of more easily-DRM’ed, less-persistent soft copies.

  5. Even though politicians are not much more than elected robber barons, the past few years they have been all but naked on their greed and willingness to trample constitutional rights in the name of lined pockets from their rich bitch backers. Unfortunately, people are so blinded by party spiel they don’t know (or don’t care) that all parties are basically one, Corporatists.

    I may sound a bit cliched here, but if Big Content wants a war, a war they shall have. I am not about having my rights trampled by a bunch of rich crybabies wanting all they can get.

  6. Haven’t some of these clauses been ruled a violation of basic human rights?, at least in Europe?   They’re still trying to implement them?

    1. Those were supposed to be dystopian? Man, the only thing I thought our current brand of capitalism-run-amok had going for it was that it might produce a super cool fragmented postmodern post-State cyberpunk future like in Gibson or Neal Stephenson. 

  7. This may just be mindless late-night philosophizing, but what, in the grand scheme, is the endgame here?

    For the better part of a decade now, the content industry has been pushing increasingly draconian copyright legislation by hook, crook, and whatever other means they can come up with. Every year (or few months, lately) this comes up, and each time we’re (for the most part) able to push back and defeat them.

    Where is this headed? Will the costs of lobbying ever exceed their ambitions? Will they eventually find a way to sneak one through? Is there a any way to win this war, if not permanently, then at least on a long-term basis?

    Is this just happening because the content industry as we know it is in its death throes, and we just need to wait it out?

    I’m sure these are mostly dumb questions, but how many times does this have to happen before one must wrestle with the question of whether the corporatist agenda won’t win in the end unless we find a way to go on the offensive?

      1. Not trying to be a contrarian, just trying to be realistic, but how effective is that, really? I suspect that the people who track these issues represent a slim percentage of the media-buying public.

        How likely is it that the rest are going to give up their over-produced top 40 singles for a cause that, assuming they’re willing to take the time to understand, they’d just as likely shrug off due to normalcy bias or an assumption that they’d be unaffected?

        1. I think the reality is that most have decoupled consumption from payment. It’s a boycott without any real costs at the consumer end.

          If I want to listen to top 40, I just go to youtube and do it for free (without ads, because adblocking is the reality). Short of producers never releasing their product to anyone ever, it will get into the grubby hands of people like me one way or another.

          The only effective prevention for sharing these days is unpopularity. I’ve never had any issues in finding things that other people like.

        1. Boycotts work infinitely better than giving money to those causes you’re trying to defeat.

    1. I think it’s happening in part because certain pieces of the content industry are in trouble. I imagine if they break enough there will ultimately be a reaction, but a lot can slip before that, as the economy shows. The problem is a shortage of politicians who even pretend to care about public rights.

      But there are much more dystopian endgames, like in chainsawsuit.com:

    2. The content industry seems to be pouring everything they’ve got into these fights, and as a result, they seem to be burning themselves to the ground thanks to pouring too much money into lobbying, not hiring any strategists to direct their energy, having bosses that demand $1 million+ paychecks, and losing revenue due to not adjusting their business models.  Honestly, the endgame seems to point toward the content industry driving itself to exhaustion while the internet stands unmoving.

  8. This isn’t made very clear in this post, but in order for the US to enter a treaty, the treaty has to go through Congress like any other piece of legislation. A lot of you probably know this, but considering the defeated tone in some comments I thought I might mention it.

    1.  Other bad bills that had to go through Congress include the DMCA, the USA Patriot Act, the Disney copyright extension, the gutting of FISA, NAFTA, CAFTA and…well…I guess what I’m wondering is what exactly is your point? Counting on Congress to stand up for the people of the US  in the current era strikes me as akin to counting on KFC to stand up for the rights of chickens.

      1. I wasn’t trying to make a point, I was just mentioning that because the story, and some comments read to me as if it was going to be signed unilaterally, and this is not common knowledge. I’m not expecting Congress to do anything. There’s still an important difference between putting it through Congress and signing it right away.

        Btw, I love your Internet aggressiveness. RAWR. But I guess if you didn’t assume I was implying Congress was going to save us all, you wouldn’t be able to make that joke with KFC.

  9. …and the boy stood there in the field, struggling to force the words out through the feelings of terror. “Wolf!”, he cried. “Wolf! Wolf!” 

    They must come, they must! he thought. But the villagers had heard this cry too many times before. They would return to their sleep, comfortable in the thought that this cry could safely be ignored.

    1. The difference is that the wolves are there every time, and sometimes they take a victim when the villagers aren’t wary enough. The fable is not about how wolves aren’t dangerous, hungry predators, after all.

  10. Three-strikes policies and laws that require Internet intermediaries to terminate their users’ Internet access…

    In a day and age where internet access is becoming a required fact of life  for everything from banking and bills to accessing government info and benefits, this step seems as if it may at some point effectively render terminated users into the near equivalent of  non-persons.

    Do governments represent the people at all anymore, is are they all just agents of corporate power and big money? (Purely rhetorical question.)

  11. I don’t see how this can be constitutional.  The TPP seems to propose allowing a penalty to be levied against an accused criminal without ever even providing them an opportunity to dispel their guilt.  That absence of a constitutionally fair trial surely makes the terms of any such contract illegal, and unenforceable.  Specifically, their accusers aren’t being held to the burden of proving guilt for a criminal matter, and indeed appear to be trying to avoid that responsibility specifically.

    Regardless, no amount of arbitration agreements or legal maneuvering changes that they are carrying out a penalty as a result of an accused criminal offense, which makes that a matter of Courts and no longer a Civil matter.  It’s inexcusable for them to contend otherwise, it’s not possibly legal, and legal council that says it is should be debarred for stupidity.  It would take an Amendment to make that ever legal, God forbid.

    Thankfully, I’m quite certain there’d be hell to pay if the Fed ever tried to remove the Right to a Fair Trial however, which this treaty dances dangerously close to attempting.  The Right to a Fair Trial is sacred, for honest and good reasons.  No politician with any chance of winning could ever hope to support such a self-defeating and clearly foreign interested Treaty, this TPP.

    1. Except that they already removed the right to a fair trial. Indefinite detention? The ability of police, jails, and courts to punish people before trial? The defunding of public defenders? The ways the prosecution can interfere with the defense’s discovery?

      1. …  Good point.  Still, I’m optimistic such things won’t stand over time.  Whether they will or not though has yet to be determined >.<

  12. The fact that these bills keep coming up is a sign to me that this is not (only) about copyright.   Eventually one of these is going to pass, and strike a massive blow to free speech and destroy what little privacy we haven’t already given up.   The internet age is a dream for authoritarian rulers.

  13. Scary. Why don’t the hard right conservative nutcases go wild over this actual legitimate stuff? Been thinking this for a while, and on my mind especially after reading a thing on the Atlantic about it today. (cf:  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/the-hard-right-is-paranoid-about-the-wrong-things/261521/ ) 

    This stuff seems to just fly by ’em right along with warrantless surveillance, Guantanamo, and drone strikes, all under the rubric of ‘law, order, and security,’ whilst the stuff that gets them riled up is utterly fictitious nonsense having to do with Democrats and social programs. Riiight, it’s fucking Social Security and health care reform that is going to lead to totalitarian World Government. Way to be on top of things, wingnuts. 

  14. a trade agreement is usually about a lot more than just copyright trolls. don’t know the details of this one, but didn’t we used to wild out in the streets when this shit was happening? FTAA failed after quebec and miami, for example.

  15. First let’s reverse the laws that gave corporations all the rights of individual US citizens, then we can talk about copyrights.

  16. This treaty is being negotiated by the executive branch.  Complain to your Congress person, then give the White House a call.

  17. I love that on these technology freedom and privacy issues there is massive opposition across the right and left. Granted the leaders of our respective parties tend to be less receptive to our concerns…

  18. There may be horrific supression measures in this treaty that will raise free speech issues. There may be legitimate reason for voicing opposition to this.   IANAL, so I make no pretense about being able to read and understand the document.  But all I see here is paranoid ranting filled with vague FUD like “beyond…the spirt of DCMA” and “opens the doors for” and, my personal ‘favorite’, “if the copyright maximallists have their way….”

    It’s the copyfight equivalent of “The secret Obama-backed UN Arms Trade Treaty will let the UN take your guns!”

    Can anyone link to a analysis of this treaty with citations, that doesn’t read like it was written on a Mad Libs conspiracy theory template?

  19. Until we get a law that clearly protects the medium of the internet from censorship, a law similar to the first amendment, we will have all forces that want to control what people say over this medium look for ways to enforce their interests at everyone’s expense. 

    No matter how much we talk amongst ourselves, things will not change. Unless we stand united and cut the root of this evil, its hordes will continue attacking the internet, trying to shut up all the voices that make their shady deeds less shady.

    And yes, robbing the public domain is a pretty shady deed.

  20. Obey your corporate masters and their lackey figurehead politicians and bureaucrats you despised mere commoner scum.

    Love it or leave it!!!

  21. If memory serves the Internet was created for the purpose of sharing information and data as well as connecting people. And only now it appears that some people in high places have decided that extreme censorship of the Internet is the best option for controlling the populace. Therein lies the error of their judjement. Every time a government wants to spy on the public or restrict their basic rights, they land on the protection wagon, and it is invariably a false argument. It may be illegal for someone to download a copy of Madonna’s Greatest Hits but such a deed is not and never will be equal to child abuse or murder.

Comments are closed.