New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law | Hacker News Reader

New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

motherboard.vice.com

160 pointswalterbell94 comments

So they're criminalizing yet another everyday activity that hurts no one and is already protected by civil law. It seems to me the US and its puppet follower states just love the idea of criminalizing things that occur naturally, hurt no one, and in their enforcement and chaos bring in billions of dollars in profit off of ruining people's lives.

This has now been the norm for almost two decades and the movie / music "industry" wonders why many people refuse to give them a penny? The damage has already been done. At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit.

If you feel that way and don't want to support the industry, the real ethical thing to do is to not watch or listen to their products. Only support artists who are releasing their material under terms that you agree with.

I want to disagree with you because what you propose is, at the very least, inconvenient - but you're 100% correct, we should vote with our pocketbooks.

From http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/7/stop-treating-c...

"When people are framed as consumers, society becomes little more than a marketplace. Social problems get treated with individualized, market-oriented solutions — where each consumer-citizen is solely responsible for spotting deceptive practices and avoiding unfair schemes — instead of collective, rights-based protections.

When the private sector enters into the social contract, ... [we get] shallow public-private partnerships in which the corporate actors are really in charge. While the public is hung out to dry with effectively no defense or recourse since our political rights have evaporated into market choices."

How is that applicable here? What political rights are in play here? We're talking about entertainment, about as purely commercial a product as you can get. We're not talking about healthcare or water or food or housing.

The EFF has kindly created a youth education project on the topic of legal rights related to the history of innovation and copyright law, fair use, free speech and the public domain. From http://www.teachingcopyright.org/

"Kids and teens are bombarded with messages from a myriad of sources that using new technology is high-risk behavior. Downloading music is compared to stealing a bicycle — even though many downloads are lawful. Making videos using short clips from other sources is treated as probably illegal — even though many such videos are also lawful."

Also important to note that even if you pirate, you are increasing a film or album's viral coefficient and possibly helping verbally promote it. So yeah, if you hate an industry boycott it. Remove it from your life.

That's the funny part. One of the principle arguments for "legit" piracy is that the increased exposure is actually good for business. So combined, these two arguments amount to "you should pirate from these terrible, evil companies in order to increase their profits." Huh.

And that's why you shouldn't combine arguments from two separate persons. Just because they both disagree with you, doesn't mean they agree with each other.

But if you want change isn't defiance generally way more effective at creating it than boycotts? Especially when there is a huge power difference between consumers and the multi-national media conglomerates.

I get the feeling when people promote boycotts as the so-called ethical choice they're basically saying "shhhh, I like the system as it is, why don't you just go do your own thing instead". Even though intellectual property might be viewed as a relatively unimportant issue, I think it only helps protect the status quo to push an ineffectual form of protest.

I'm already not supporting them financially. Why should I have to also deprive myself of culture as well because of them, especially when I think access to culture is my right? Your argument makes no sense.

Depriving yourself of culture? Give me a break! Just say that you don't want to pay anything for music and movies released by major labels and studios, but you still want to enjoy them. Don't pretend you're taking some ethical stance.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that even cultural products released on looser terms tend to be captured by corporate behemoths. It's not uncommon for large labels to buy up rights to independently-released music, for instance. The artists may have limited say in this: they licensed the music to a small label, that label went bankrupt, the rights got bought up by a bigger company (which never would have signed the artist in the first place, but now that they're semi-successful there's less risk).

The problem isn't that you can't buy this or that new album without supporting the industry, the problem is that an entire medium is getting sucked up by these huge corporations, who push for copyright limits which make it impossible for that work to ever enter the public domain. "Vote with your wallet" is not a reasonable answer to this kind of situation.

> At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit.

I don't understand this rationale at all. Surely the solution to an industry whose business practices you don't like is to stop using their products.

Indeed, your rationale is one reason why Hollywood has so much power. Piracy eviscerates the criticism against these legal measures by strengthening the idea that people don't really care about freedom, they just want a popular product for free. Every time you pirate a Hollywood movie instead of simply forgoing watching it, you just validate the value and importance of the products Hollywood produces. You just reinforce the idea that these products are so important, it's worth undertaking these extreme measures to protect the companies that produce them.

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. See Moxie Marlinspike's presentation about this concept applied to technology:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk

When one oligopoly owns the vast majority of contemporary popular culture, we, the populace, should be expecting a lot more in return.

One of my very most successful friends, by far one of the most socially and artistically connected people I know, didn't see Star Wars until his late 30s. He seemed to have suffered for that: not at all.

Exactly, in as much detail as you can be patient enough to provide, how does "effective cultural participation" require you to see shitty new-release Hollywood movies?

Is Marco Arment culturally disconnected?

http://www.marco.org/2015/04/11/popular-movies-i-havent-seen

When I was growing up, we didn't have a television until partway through junior high. (One of the best moves my parents made.) I kept hearing these conversations in the hallway: "Did you see Starsky & Hutch last night?" (Yes, I really am that old...) I felt a bit left out based on that.

But I felt left out because of a lot of things. I wasn't a member of the dominant religion. I came into that school knowing nobody, because I didn't attend one of the elementary schools that fed into it. I didn't live in the neighborhood (my parents got me to go to that school rather than the one I was geographically supposed to attend because it had fewer knife fights.) And, I was a nerd.

So the actual amount I was "left out of things" because of not having a TV and therefore being unable to effectively culturally participate was... pretty small.

That was in junior high. Today, it's even less relevant to me. There's a conversation about a movie I didn't see? "Nope, didn't see it." If they are uncaring enough to keep having the conversation about that for the next 20 minutes, well, I'll just do something else. Or I'll listen, learn a bit about a movie I didn't see, go to Wikipedia and read about the plot, and save about two hours and $7.

Thanks for this comment (which is something I can say because I agree with you. :)

I feel like, if you don't know where your local MLB team is in the standings today, you probably don't have a lot of standing to make arguments about US cultural disconnection.

And "popular culture" (whatever that means exactly) is so fragmented today anyway that not being up-to-date on even popular TV shows, movies, or books aren't exactly a recipe for social isolation. I actually feel like I'm at least reasonably plugged into what's going on in culture and I hardly ever see a movie in the theaters, watch a bare handful of TV shows, and don't listen to much current music.

Almost 35, still haven't seen Star Wars in entirety, though I did own it on VHS for many years. Can attest that I did not "suffer" for it, though it has been a cause of awe and disbelief in others. Ok, just to be fair, some really stupid people got upset, but seriously, I wouldn't call that suffering. At this point, the movie's been ruined for decades--I just don't see the point of seeing a movie in which I already know what's going to happen. Also, IMO, from the parts that I've seen, it's just not that good.

Of course, if you apply this to all movies, books, and music under copyright you'd not only be culturally disconnected, you'd be culturally dead, so I do think the original comment is spot on.

One cannot always choose one's friends and environments. There are indeed friend groups that would not be available to someone who has not watched Star Wars, or Jersey Shore, or what have you.

There's no one item, no short list, of essential works that define the threshold between effective and ineffective cultural participation. But there is a compounding social effect for each movie/song/book/etc. someone doesn't know. Each additional water cooler conversation that one cannot join, and each additional movie reference missed, is one step further away from those friends. At some point, people stop trying to communicate with someone who doesn't understand them.

Beyond mere socialization and entertainment, popular culture forms the behavioral and memetic vocabulary with which people communicate. As an example of how isolating cultural non-participation can be, consider how difficult it is for escapees from fundamentalist religious communes to integrate into society. That is the extreme end of a spectrum, and each decision not to participate in one's local popular culture moves one closer to that extreme.

I'm not saying piracy is right; I'm saying that the choice not to consume is inextricably linked to a whole lot of other choices, including whether to participate in society at all.

Given all that, it is unconscionable for Hollywood et al. to wield the amount of power they have demonstrated in the provisions in leaked TPP drafts and other laws and treaties.

People aren't pirating culture, they're pirating Mission Impossible. It's action-porn. It's a packaged entertainment-product. You're talking about peoples' right to food while defending their stealing Twinkies.

My favorite telling detail in this debate is the extent to which people pirate fonts. Fonts. Vanity letter shapes.

I haven't seen many statistics, but fonts are quite expensive to license. By the same token, few designers would be foolish enough to pirate a font and use it publicly; so I would think most font pirates simply want them for personal use, which can't be denying the foundries and typeface designers much income...

few designers would be foolish enough to pirate a font and use it publicly

Really? What about your local "mom & pop" design shops doing signage work for small businesses and ads for regional magazines? Are the type foundries that dedicated to tracking down pirates?

Vanity letter shapes.

Without commenting on the piracy of fonts, and as a non-designer myself, this is definitely a non-designer's perspective :-).

I think that's a stretch.

Some things in life are essential to functioning effectively in modern society, like the abilities to have a stable home, to travel, to communicate, and to transact financially. Some infrastructure is then necessary to support these things, like sources of power and water for your home, effective transport and communication networks, and reliable currency. Losing access to these things is very bad, and so it is reasonable to consider measures like government regulation and universal/unbiased provision to protect that access.

On the other hand, the world is full of people with different tastes and different cultures. Sharing some specific entertainment may provide a bit of enjoyable discussion around the family dinner table or office water cooler later, but it's hardly essential in the big picture.

Sharing some specific entertainment may provide a bit of enjoyable discussion around the family dinner table or office water cooler later, but it's hardly essential in the big picture.

Then why bother with criminalizing circumvention and perpetually extending copyrights?

Where did I say I supported either criminalisation or perpetual extension of copyrights? Other than for the equivalent of other serious fraud in the former case, I support neither.

agree.

http://everythingisaremix.info/

Perhaps choosing the cheapest legal solution is a better middle road?

I'm very sympathetic to that argument. My problem with SOPA was that it forced every ISP to help enforce someone else's property rights.

Arguing the frivolity of Hollywood movie piracy is not terribly hard. Would you apply the same reasoning to academic research paper and/or textbook piracy?

People certainly complain about closed access academic journals, but they whine about the "MAFIAA" ten or a hundred times as much. When the situation changes and the principal complaint about copyright overlords is about textbooks, then that can become a good place to start the discussion.

That's ridiculous. Just because the idiot masses aren't complaining about it, doesn't mean it's not a huge problem. At least one person, Aaron Swartz, has already committed suicide after being targeted and threatened by academic copyright enforcers. Some of that information was funded with public money too.

No. Those are real problems. But their solution has nothing to do with copyright law.

In both cases, the problems you're talking about are collusive relationships between academic institutions and publishers. Collusion is its own problem, and yours are just two examples out of many.

Schools shouldn't require textbooks that cost $120/copy, and they shouldn't pressure associate professors to publish in journals that charge exorbitant fees or refuse authors the right to re-post their own papers.

What we should not do is root-and-branch transform copyright law in the hopes that among all the disruption that creates, maybe something good will come out of it in academia.

I think it is my right to access culture, and it is my duty, if at all possible, to avoid supporting organizations that cause such pain and suffering in the world. I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent.

I think access to culture is important and what you're effectively arguing is that I should forego such access because some company somewhere is willing to not only sue me but also throw me in jail for copying some text, music, or video. I'm under no illusions that copying actually causes financial damages, of course--that's silly--but I suppose to some that might be appealing.

I also think that copying has been a huge boon to society and the economy in a scale that we can hardly fathom, let alone measure. It has contributed a lot more than the companies holding the copyright to the education and advancement of people and society. I know a lot of people whose great contributions were started only because they had the ability to copy copyrighted works, especially software. I don't know too many children, for example, that can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on software simply to learn (and no, educational licenses, when they are provided, are not enough). We're talking about whole countries depending on copying for advancement not only of themselves, but of the worldwide economy and welfare: see Romania (http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-mix-of-poverty-and-piracy-t...).

What "right to access culture"? Last I checked there was no such thing. At least not remotely in the way you seem to mean it.

Even if there was, it certainly wouldn't define culture solely as "Hollywood movies and pop music". Broaden your cultural horizons.

Just like if you were to say "access to clean drinking water is my right", that wouldn't entitle you access to ALL clean drinking water. Just like "access to culture" wouldn't entitle you to pirating whatever content you feel like.

If you're going to try and take the moral high ground, do it right and just avoid consuming content produced by organizations you disapprove of.

A much stronger pro-piracy argument in my opinion is that of convenience and consumer experience. Legitimate paying customers suffer under the tyranny of DRM while pirates have a much better experience. If I buy a song on the Apple music store I may not be able to play it on every music player[0]. If I pirate it then I can convert the format and consume it however I like. Video games with DRM may require an Internet connection to "validate" when the pirated versions are available offline (remember that Sim City debacle?). What's worse, remember the SONY rootkit disaster? Also, Ubisoft actually had a remote code execution back door exploit for a while. I've never heard of a DRM that made anything better for the paying customer.

[0] This has apparently changed in recent years.

I do not define culture as "Hollywood movies and pop music," and do not appreciate the personal attack. You should learn how to read properly. My cultural horizons are broad enough, thank you.

Just because a right isn't spelled out in the constitution, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, DRM in inconvenient, but that's not a moral issue like throwing people in jail, driving them to suicide, or taking all their possessions are, all previously used tactics by the copyright enforcers.

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."

As cheesy as that quote is, it's absolutely right. Also note that posting it is probably a copyright violation and reading an unauthorised copy is, too. You're welcome to either forget reading it, or send a million dollars per letter to Marvel.

Or to Mark Twain's estate, seeing as he actually wrote those words in the first place.

Sousa held a very low opinion of the emerging and upstart recording industry. Using an epithet coined by Mark Twain,[8] he derided recordings as "canned music", a reference to the early wax cylinder records that came in can-like cylindrical cardboard boxes. In a submission to a congressional hearing in 1906, he argued:

Sousa in 1900, by Elmer Chickering. These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape. Law professor Lawrence Lessig cited this passage[41] to argue that in creating a system of copyrights in which control of music is in the hands of record labels, Sousa was essentially correct.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent.

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. More specifically, I don't agree with the general principle that copying stuff without paying for it is OK within our current economic system. (I do agree that the heavyweight criminal penalties for minor infringement advocated are wildly disproportionate and that some Big Media organisations abuse some legal systems in ways they should not be able to, but I consider both of these to be separate points.)

The only reason your strategy is successful is that other people are paying for these works, which makes them economically viable to produce. By copying, you aren't just ripping off the original creators of the work -- work that you demonstrably value enough to still watch/use/listen to it even though you refuse to pay for it -- you're also freeloading on the back of all the people who do pay instead of contributing your fair share.

Sure it has. That's why all businesses run Open Source software written by volunteers instead of expensive commercial software, fan fiction is much better quality than a well-edited novel written by a professional author, your local beer money band create the same atmosphere with their recorded-at-home CD as a professionally produced recording of a studio session, and Furious 7, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Kingsman: The Secret Service were all funded on Kickstarter.

Get back to me when copyright isn't life + 70 fucking years, rayiner, and we can talk about to what degree those who disagree with the Hollywood stance on copyright enforcement mechanisms and cultural-appropriation strategies, have a moral responsibility to opt out of their own culture entirely.

We don't dispute the importance of what Hollywood et al do, we dispute the outsize leverage that gives them in our government and in our laws. And I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to give up a significant portion of their culture while fighting a battle that has, so far, spanned a few generations.

If you're gonna go that far then I'd contest that simply consuming their content is unethical. HBO is more than thrilled with the piracy rates for Game of Thrones. It helps them. A lot.

If you don't want to support "immoral" companies then great. But you don't get claim moral superiority while benefiting from their work. You can't have your cake and eat it.

It seems to be giving everyone in the TPP area "Fair Use" rights. This is a HUGE positive change to Canada, NZ and Australia which haven't had that previously. [1]

However, the TPM section will make every single citizen in New Zealand a criminal. You see, in NZ every DVD player is sold region-free. The salesperson will say "would you like that region free"? Not being stupid, everyone says "yes", and proceeds to buy DVDs/BluRays from Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com. [2] Although, it does have this caveat:

"[...]applied where any person is found to have engaged willfully and for the purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain"

Which might give them a fig leaf to hide behind? Then there's this paragraph which looks like a truck sized hole:

"Each Party may provide certain exceptions and limitations to the measures implementing subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii) in order to enable noninfringing uses"

Oh, this is all around "Rights Management Information", basically, any piece of information which says who the authors, performers, producers and owners are. So, a bit of metadata attached to the mp3 is sufficient. Even a foreign key is allowed. [3]

Personally, I want to see the agricultural section, and whether or not parallel imports have been banned.

[1] http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-G-Copyright... Article.GG.Y

[2] http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-G-Copyright... Article QQ.G.10

[2] http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-G-Copyright... Article QQ.G.13 (c)

"This is a HUGE positive change to Canada, NZ and Australia which haven't had that previously."

Canada has "fair dealing", which has largely the same effect as "fair use" in the U.S..

"You see, in NZ every DVD player is sold region-free."

I'm not sure what you're basing this on. I haven't seen region free DVD players being sold in NZ for the last couple of years.

Are ex-officio powers still included in TPP? This would allow computer equipment to be searched/seized by customs officials and law enforcement, without any complaint from rightsholders, e.g. even in the case of fanzines.

From an industry lobby letter, http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Business%20Coalitio...

"Ex-officio authority for law enforcement officials. The TPP should mandate that law enforcement officials have the ability to seize infringing goods even if not specifically named in a warrant and without complaint by a right holder.

Border measures. It is critical that the TPP recognize the importance of preventing counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods from entering the channels of commerce, whether in the domestic market or intended foreign markets. As such, the TPP should provide customs authorities the ability to act ex-officio against imports, exports, goods in-transit, and goods in free trade zones."

From a 2013 analysis, http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzin...

"..in practice, it is rare for the police to commence an investigation without a complaint by the rights holder. However, this situation may change. The draft of the request of the US on Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) 15.5(g) stipulates, "its authorities may initiate legal action ex officio with respect to the offenses described in this Chapter, without the need for a formal complaint by a private party or rights holder."

Those "partnership" treaties are ultimately used by big corporations and other "big pockets" to annul democratic decisions and processes.

This is seen at the current TTIP negotiations and even more at the results that already in-place treaties have. Look at Mexico and its treaty with the US. The small farmers are the losers of this treaty and corporations are the winners. And not only on the Mexican side are the losers -- also the workers on the US side are losing because work gets cheaper and cheaper and even more important, health and environment standards are undermined!

With all those treaties (which are currently planned or already signed) in-place we have a capitalistic utopia with all the gains of society of decades annulled. Back to the capitalism of robber barons and uncontrolled exploitation (of humans and the nature).

> songs purchased through Apple’s iTunes music store—which restricts playback to a handful of computers

This is not true. If you download songs through Apple Music, then they are protected m4p, but if you purchase music, the files are unprotected m4a and play in other software like Traktor or in CDJ's without any problem.

Though if I'm not mistaken the unprotected m4a still contains a "digital watermark" (i.e. metadata with your iTunes account info) which this article claims would become illegal to remove.

It contains a tag, not a watermark.

In the US that may be the case, but in Canada purchases from iTunes are still DRMed.

[edit] - nope, sorry, I'm wrong. Assumed it was still there because I recently got a new machine and had to "authorize" it to play my iTunes purchases. The files, however, play in any audio player, so I guess it's a soft drm?

Videos are still DRMd, as is all the Apple Music stuff (the new streaming service).

So really, only music is DRM free and you can buy other stuff from Apple.

I'm excited to see the TPP potentially become an election issue in the recently ignited campaign. Really hoping the NDP brings both this mess and Bill C-51 up front so maybe we can squeeze some democracy into the process.

From what I've seen, Tom Mulcair is the only Canadian politician that seems to be in favour of the TPP. His criticism of Harper is that Harper is too weak to see it all the way through to a deal (implying an NDP gov't would). Unless he's changed position on that he's the one to avoid on these issues.

He is in favour of a deal. He wants to see the text before making any decisions about this deal.

It's very clearly not in our best interest to be involved in the TPP. The Canadian position should be: HECK NO! regardless of your position left, right, or center. We have nothing to gain, and quite a bit to lose if we join this, so under any terms it is in the best interest of every Canadian that no deal goes through.

Tom Mulcair is the only one championing these proceedings. Harper is involved because he's our current PM, but I don't think he's terribly enthusiastic about the situation.

Do you know where the Liberals stand on the TPP (including and excluding Trudeau)?

Interesting. I know that the dairy farmer's are going to get a chance to flex their influence over conservative rural seats if things don't fall in their favour. Likewise manufacturing bases are going to be shook up. My take away is not that Mulcair would see these decisions through. More so that he feels Harper has softened Canadian influence so much over the past decade that we don't have the negotiation power to stand up for Canadian interests. I think he will present TPP as leadership test which Harper has failed.

In my personal opinion Harper started off as a good leader because he did exactly what he said he would do. Lately (past couple of years) I get the feeling he has been a bit of a loose canon, and I feel like the government that had been representing the public's desires fairly well became suddenly divorced from what the people want now. We've seen law after law go through that nobody was in favour of, so it's kind of feeling like having Jean Chretien back with his autocratic 'dictatorship' leadership style.

Having said my opinion on Harper's leadership, I feel that Harper has acted well in this situation, not a failure at all. It's in our best interest to not be in this deal, or if we must for us to negotiate the terms that give us benefit and limit the sovereignty we have to forfeit. That seems to be the position we are in now so I'd say he's done an okay job of putting us where we need to be. Let's hope we get get the courage to ditch the TPP entirely!

If you read the Liberal platform, the way the TPP has been developed flies directly in the face of their commitments for running government. It's a great opportunity for them to highlight their platform using a law that will have real applicability to every Canadian. It would also be a way for them to put their money where their mouth is. ;)

"Behind closed doors and in secret, Canada will have already agreed to make these changes."

Well they can't have agreed to anything yet, seeing as Parliament is dissolved for the October election. And it's currently a dead heat in the polls between the top three parties (Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats), so it's really unclear who is going to form the government.

Apparently they have that covered, too: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/canada-changed-its-el...

It can't be officially signed until after the election, but they can still negotiate. And all three parties, according to the article, are in support of the agreement.

Nitpicking: It can probably be signed, but cannot be ratified. Ratification makes the treaty binding, signing does not, but I imagine it may be very difficult to re-open negotiations after signing.

From Michael Geist, the law professor quoted in that article, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/08/canadian-government-amend...

"Despite the government’s attempt to grant itself the power to continue to negotiate the TPP during an election campaign, there are reasons to doubt that it can effectively do so. First, while there would seemingly be no problem with ensuring Canada remains at the negotiating table, committing to significant policy changes would go well beyond the description of a caretaker government that should be largely limited to “routine” activities.

.. Without a government mandate, Canadian negotiators simply can’t provide other TPP countries assurances that concessions made today will last beyond October 19th."

When will these idiots learn that DRM doesn't work? How hard will it be for pirates to remove these controls? Assuming a software hack is hard, the option still exists for re-encoding the audio based on capturing the source data in its audio form (whether analog line out or digital line out).

DRM encourages piracy. It means that the DRM-free pirated version has extra value, and punishes those who do not want to break the law.

Hopefully the Canadian government can talk some sense into the other TPP members.

I think you are underestimating these folks. They are making it a criminal offence to remove Digital restrictions. It is their way of acknowledging that removal of DRM may always be possible (though looking at Apple's track record I think this assertion is questionable). Possibilities aside if you have the potential to spend a year in jail for jailbreaking your own hardware then that's a pretty big disincentive for many folks.

Of course, there's always the alternative of listening to music without DRM. There's a lot of good unencumbered music out there, and maybe all these restrictions will help give it a boost. I think the industry message should be as clear as possible: they are selling something dangerous that could land you in jail if you use it with the wrong music player. If they want to spread that message, help them.

To me that doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem as I see is that hardware manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, and etc will feel obligated to cover their rear ends and force consumers to verify their non-DRM content. So, if you can't verify it then you can't load it on their phones/players. The reason why they would do this sort of thing is to cover themselves in case of liability. If you can't load up non-DRM content then you can't sue said company for aiding piracy under something like TPP.

I sure hope it doesn't go in that direction. What will they do when I want to play the music I recorded myself or my friends' bands? It seems like this might actually discourage verification because it can be a criminal offense to change the name of the artist or track name, so it could introduce some huge liability for misidentifying music. Any verification system is going to have a few bad results, so they might have to just avoid doing it altogether to avoid liability for it.

I don't know if it's definitely going to pan out that way, but I wouldn't put it passed any of the hardware makers to put in some form of restriction. I believe Corey Doctorow talked about this in a more general sense where computers were compromised in how they could execute code. Meaning that computers in the hypothetical setting would be self-censoring.

The only element that keeps this from happening, at least in my view, is the fact that the same businesses depend on hardware and software to do their business. If applications become compromised such that performance cannot be guaranteed then they can't state any guarantee to investors. So, the whole thing hinges on greed which has a nasty way of twisting things. So, I won't bet on it either. Whatever happens is what happens.

Have you read TPP?

The current leaks specify that selling, buying, owning, using, inventing, planning, modifying, etc of devices, software, or methods that can be used or could be helpful for removal or circumvention of DRM have to be treated as a a crime.

That's what I don't grasp about this situation. Why can't content industries just accept that the gravy train of yesteryear is over? Just figure out a new business model. They've had well over a decade and a half to throw enough heads at the problem to figure out how to prevent further decline in their revenues. But it just seems they're as stubborn (if not more so) as an ox when it comes to accepting reality.

Why can't content industries just accept that the gravy train of yesteryear is over?

When you are a 60-70 year old media executive (or a shady cabal of dozens of them, each reinforcing their own viewpoints—sound familiar?) and your life has been money and success and everybody bowing down to you, why wouldn't you fight to keep it? They aren't in a business of generosity, they are in a business of taking your money.

To be fair, few software product companies have committed to do the equivalent thing: releasing all of their code as open source with instructions that make it possible for an average person to spin up an instance of the product with the push of a button.

If you are going to say that my comment adds nothing to the conversation, I would appreciate it if you would make an argument for why we should allow software engineers (and designers, DevOps, Admins, marketers, CEOs, etc...) to make money off copyrighting their work and claiming things as intelectual "property", but not allow musicians (and recording engineers, marketers, distributors...) to do the same?

Why are software engineers able to make money without constantly flying from conference to conference away from their families?

You do realize that Copyright does not apply for business logic or algorithms, so anyone can just copy those, too?

>Why can't content industries just accept that the gravy train of yesteryear is over?

Entrenched incumbents rarely can. And, economically speaking, if they reckon they'll be able to extract more longevity/revenue/advantage this way (lobbying to manipulate the playing-field in their favour, as opposed to coming up with innovations that would enable the business to adapt and thrive) -- then I guess that's the "rational" thing to do :)

It's about control and the very long game.

Think about it. Disney got started with works from the Brothers Grimm. Copyright terms were short then. Once Disney became an empire, they very quickly realized somebody else could compete with them. So they worked to extend copyright, and it's pretty much going to continue that way, keeping Mickey just out of the Public Domain.

Disney knows another Disney is bad for business, unless they own that Disney.

And there is where the control comes into play.

The people with empires today realize they can become extinct tomorrow. All it takes is a little competition and the barrier for entry has never been lower. People can put things out there and get a lot of attention and distribute for almost nothing compared to what it took to build the empires we see today.

If they get this, then they won't have to deal with competetors. It's going to be hard to do anything really, because the criminal risks associated with doing things with open tools and data will turn people toward, "safe" and "approved" means and methods. Those will just happen to align with approved distribution, meaning they get a cut, and or ownership ideally.

Given this perspective, reality is what they say it is. Has nothing at all to do with the tech and it's impact on the business model.

> "The current leaks specify that selling, buying, owning, using, inventing, planning, modifying, etc of devices, software, or methods that can be used or could be helpful for removal or circumvention of DRM have to be treated as a a crime."

They can't enforce that with music, it's beyond their control. To be able to control that they'd need to be able to restrict access to electronics components, restrict access to electronics education, confiscate all existing audio recording equipment, restrict access to purchase audio recording equipment (including equipment for musicians and the TV/film industry). Furthermore, once the music is DRM free, you'd need to be able to monitor the sharing of citizens around the world, not just through the Internet and private computer networks but through Sneakernets as well (an example of an effective sneakernet: http://www.fastcompany.com/3048163/in-cuba-an-underground-ne... ).

So with all this in mind, what's the point? Those who want DRM-free music are going to be able to get it and hide it from the authorities, and it'll have minimum to no effect on the industries it was designed to protect, and possibly backfire if enough people choose to resist the restrictions.

The whole things feels more like an easy way of putting (more) people into jail than anything else. Since the tech crowd isn't running around on the street smoking their joints (well, for the most part at least) it's far easier for law enforcement to shoot them down via the help of some random audio file on one of their devices.

TPP is as much a political agenda as it is a trade agreement. The US wants their "standards" around the globe, so they can get you anytime, anywhere without you having any chance of defending yourself. You cannot build a global surveillance state if there are still people around which can potentially undermine you by use of technology, so you need to get rid of them in a "nice and clean" way, and charging some cryptographers for illegal music will produce much less public outcry as if you were to put them into prison for doing their everyday work.

How sad it may sound, Cameron could learn a lot from these folks :/

As alluded to throughout many comments, the point is to be able to put any individual in jail at any time for any arbitrary reason.

Most of them know that DRM doesn't prevent lost sales due to piracy (as you said, DRM actually increases lost sales), and they as well know that it's futile to try preventing DRM breaking - it will be broken no matter what.

However DRM + corrupted anticircumvention laws give them various control and ways of writing their own laws without any democratic process. That way they can poison standards (HDCP for instance), ban competition (mobile devices locking) and attack individuals when they really want to (like Geohot case). I.e. they get a lot power as a side effect of DRM.

That's why they push so much for this trash. It's about control and has nothing to do with any piracy. And that's why society should strongly reject DRM and its kin (DMCA-1201 and etc.) as unethical and unacceptable police state approach.

Why exactly are any governments agreeing to this shit?

I feel like we are watching the sovereignty of nations fade, and watching the baton pass to corporations. The US has invented this industry of Intellectual Property deliberately as a way to extract money from people by limiting their freedoms. As nations become less powerful and corporations become more powerful, the political landscape is shifting. I believe the US is creating the TPP to try to give as much of an advantage to US corporations in that future landscape where corporations are sovereign over nations. The US is trying to intimidate other countries to join on the threat of being cut out of this new exclusive elite they are trying to create if they don't.

I think people are reluctantly agreeing to it because they are afraid of being outcast from future political influence if this TPP deal does go through without them, and nations become less powerful.

There is no difference between the US govt and its multinationals.

Why the TPP is being moved so quickly is because of the rise of a competing set of multinationals in china.

I do not think the idea of a nation state is going to go away anytime soon - espeically when you have robust democracy like in germany,india and europe. Multinationals do not invest in education, infrastructure, low cost housing, etc.

The US became an exceptional nation mainly because of its actions in the past when they actually invested in their people that resulted in companies like GM,GE to come into existence in the first place. Now they are just trying to preserve their global hegemony without paying for it.

because the US government is too powerful to ignore and the US government also happens to have been systematically corrupted by corporate interests.

Because it's just one part of a huge deal involving a lot more than copyright. NZ wants to get into the Canadian dairy market. Australia wants to be able to sell sugar to americans. Every country has things they want, and things they don't care about that they're willing to give up in exchange for the things they want. It seems that agreeing to the American's copyright demands mostly falls into the "things we're willing to give up" category.

Because, honestly, none of it inconveniences them.

You honestly think a congressman gives two shits about how much it costs to buy a DVD? Or having their internet traffic logged? Or whatever else is backdoored in these deals?

Meanwhile, by kowtowing and allowing this to happen, they win major career points.

Face it--we're not the citizens, we're the product.

I'm old enough to remember the VCR then you were allow to make personal copies. In my country it is still legal todo so for personal use but DRM prohibits one from excercising this legal right.

HDMI HDCP

All easily mitigated with some Chinese hardware that for an hacker is easy to come by but a little harder for the average consumer.

I guess rights holders fear that there will TV 2.0 on the darknet, given how much bandwidth people will have cheaply in the future its quite likely that such a system will emerge.

I guess they fear the Popcorntime of TV which may be vastly to the commercial offers. Pirates does not need to negotiate content agreements just make good software.

I'd like to pay for my TV service but it should be good an innovative.

>I'm old enough to remember the VCR then you were allow to make personal copies.

There was analog copy protection on VHS as well.

In Germany you actually pay a tax for empty data storage and the writing machine (as described here [1], and here [2] (with prices in German)).

For example, an external harddrive ≥ 1 TB will cost you 9.00 € in tax. This is supposed to cover personal copies (but does not give you the right to circumvent copy protection).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauschalabgabe

edit: Just saw the prices for mobile phones with touchscreen and over 8 GB storage: 36,00 €! Wow.

Yeah, it's not great. Drug prices are going to skyrocket to US levels for a lot of people currently enjoying correctly priced (cheap) drugs outside of the US.

The lobbyists are on board with this one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com