Wikileaks release the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) IP rights chapter

[Macbeth]

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf 

[Someone]

How hard will the ISPs really try to block users?

[SeanB]

How hard will the ISPs really try to block users?

Depends on how hard the US government leans on them. Most will roll over and beg with just a threat, and remove the link from their local DNS servers.

[BravoV]

I'm lost as English isn't my native, what is this all about ? 

[digsys]

40 feet deep in lawyer-speak, so you know it's not going to be good news.
This section of the TPP seems to deal with IP (Intellectual Property) and Patents. Mostly with pharmaceuticals and technology (and anything tied to it).
It's impossible EVER to understand the lawyer talk, but it seems everyone has agreed to honour whatever ownership rights any company submits, without right of challenge.
Plus they want ISPs to ban / track / log any individuals / companies that "break" any of these rules. etc etc
I know I'm over-simplifying it, but having been following this for a while, it's pretty much what was proposed from the beginning. OZ gets a few export tariffs lifted, on agriculture
etc .. big deal. PLUS it's open for more restrictions / penalties later.

[nctnico]

Usually I'm not into paranoia but if a treaty cannot be explained to the common people, needs to be discussed behind closed doors then there is something smelly about it. If there needs to be so much secrecy it means the people negotiating don't trust each other to do the right thing. How are we supposed to do business that way? It smells like a few big companies are the driving force behind the treaty hoping they can circumvent consumer protection and product safety laws.
I'd definitely vote against as any person who holds democratic principles high should do.

[Marco]

I can't get two paragraphs in without being offended :

Article QQ.A.Y: {Principles}
1.  Parties may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures
necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors
of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development, provided that
such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter.
2.  Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this
Chapter, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by rights holders
or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the
international transfer of technology.

Well thanks for pointing out the bloody obvious I guess.

1.  Subject to paragraphs 3 and 4, each Party shall make patents available for any
invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the
invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application 33 .

Software patents mandatory.

Each Party shall disregard at least information contained in public disclosures used to
determine if an invention is novel or has an inventive step if the public disclosure 36,37 :
(a)  was made by the patent applicant or by a person who obtained the
information directly or indirectly from the patent applicant; and
(b)  occurred within 12 months prior to the date of filing of the application in
the territory of the Party.

Ohh, something which doesn't suck. (Patent lawyers HATE grace periods, so you know they have to be good ... not being ironic here.)

2.  With respect to a pharmaceutical product 50 that is subject to a patent, each Party
shall make available an adjustment 51 of the patent term to compensate the patent owner for
unreasonable curtailment of the effective patent term as a result of the marketing approval
process 52

Of course the only reason for the grace period is because it's American law and now we come to the downsides of exporting American law. Longer patent terms for medicines everywhere. Mickey Mouse extension act was also incorporated.

3.  In connection with the commencement of a civil or administrative enforcement
proceeding involving a patent that has been substantively examined and granted 111 by the
competent authority, each Party shall provide that each claim in the patent be considered prima
facie to satisfy the applicable criteria of patentability in the territory of the Party

This sounds extremely dangerous (ie. they can bankrupt you before you can challenge the patent).

The anti-piracy stuff is all really tame, there has to be room for punitive damages in civil law but they are not specified so American type judgements are not exported. Government has a lot of room in how to implement the laws for ISPs as well :

This framework of legal remedies and safe harbors shall include:
(a)  legal incentives
160 for Internet Service Providers to cooperate with
copyright owners to deter the unauthorized storage and transmission of
copyrighted materials or, in the alternative, to take other action to deter the
unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials

There is no obligation on the part of ISPs to record information, other than what governments put into law based on the above.

6.  Eligibility for the limitations in paragraph 1 may not be conditioned on the Internet
Service Provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing
activity.
7.  Each Party shall provide procedures, whether judicial or administrative, in
accordance with that Party’s legal system, and consistent with principles of due process
and privacy, enabling a copyright owner who has made a legally sufficient claim of
copyright infringement to obtain expeditiously from an Internet Service Provider
information in the provider’s possession identifying the alleged infringer, where such
information is sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing such copyright.

This won't really change things much for most countries I think.

PS. actually the software patents could be avoided through New Zealand's method. Although I'd say that would be unlikely to stand up in an ISDS (native judges would be more likely to defer to government on what constitutes an invention in my opinion).

[German_EE]

One strange thing about IP rights is that 70 year thing because some companies don't do anything with the IP that they own. A good example is Walt Disney and it's likely that they will hold the rights to anything to do with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck for all of eternity. However, how long has it been since Disney released a new movie or even a short cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse? As an experiment I went downstairs and spoke to the neighbor's little girl who's a very active three year old, she couldn't identify Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck and only knew who Pluto was because he's on one of her pyjama tops.

Disney may hold the copyright on that little crowd but they are fading from the minds of little boys and girls.

[Jeroen3]

How is the British involvement in these recent trade deals? Since you're  ?

It seems like they got inspired by movies where corporations are more powerful than governments.

[zapta]

Disney may hold the copyright on that little crowd but they are fading from the minds of little boys and girls.

Send them to Disneyland




Anyway, this deal should not be secret.  It reminds me the immortal statement by the ex head of our Congresss

http://youtu.be/hV-05TLiiLU

[German_EE]

That's my point. Send little Hannah to Disneyland and she'll encounter Mickey and Donald for the first time. There is NO new media featuring the old characters and they just seem content to rake in the cash from their latest production. Compare this with Marvel Comics who have a whole universe of movies and DC Comics who have updated the Batman and Superman franchises on a regular basis.

Come to think about it, Superman and Mickey Mouse are similar ages. Didn't 'The Man of Steel' start of as a radio series in the 1930's?

[Macbeth]

How is the British involvement in these recent trade deals? Since you're  ?

It seems like they got inspired by movies where corporations are more powerful than governments.

Oh we already have that shit like 70 year extensions on the death of Cliff Richard for his corporation to carry on milking his Summer Holiday song... I believe singing Happy Birthday used to be illegal in the USA without payment of royalties to some chain of copyright owners going back over a hundred years.

Our UK ISP laws suck too. However, copyright infringement is not a criminal offence here but civil and I suspect the same in our former antipodean and canadian colonies. The wording on the copyright crimes is to make sure the jail time is severe - on a par with the Hollywood economics involved in damages claims, so as to send out a message...

Also, specific stuff like making a shitty camcording of a movie in a cinema using your mobile phone - now a criminal offence.

Sorry, but a trade deal should be some kind of broad agreement, not one with hacked in specifically odd passages that only benefit a certain class of corporation.

Anyway, I noticed Dave twittering about TPP and I spotted that release within a few hours of its wiki release and decided to post here.

[Marco]

For what it's worth, TPP only requires infringement for commercial gain to be criminal. The patent part is much more insidious, especially in combination with ISDS.