TPP agreement now available

[rjcroy]

The TPP agreement has now been made available on the New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.
http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text

Of particular interest to ebook readers will likely be the chapter on copyright protection and digital rights management.

"Chapter 18: Intellectual Property" [PDF]
http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/tr...%20Chapter.pdf

[Removed a statement that, as HarryT pointed out, (see below) is not accurate.]

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rjcroy

My superficial reading leads to think it exports US style copyright and DMCA law to other TPP signing countries.

I'm not sure that I agree with you there. The appropriate section would appear to be "18.68: Technological Protection Measures (TPMs)" and you'll note that, after saying:

In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights and that restrict unauthorised acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person that:

(a) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram...
...
... is liable and subject to the remedies provided for in Article 18.74 (Civil and
Administrative Procedures and Remedies)

it goes on to say:

Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied if any person is found to have engaged wilfully and for the purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain in any of the above activities.

ie it's only a criminal act if you do it for money. Otherwise it's civil, just as it probably is at the moment in your existing copyright law. This is unlike the DCMA, which makes it a criminal act in the US.

I also note the important point that (section 18.10, para 2):

a Party shall not be required to restore protection to subject matter that on the date of entry into force of this Agreement for that Party has fallen into the public domain in its territory.

Which specific part of it do you think will introduce "US style copyright and DMCA law"?

[rjcroy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which specific part of it do you think will introduce "US style copyright and DMCA law"?

Thank you HarryT. No, I agree with you. I think I misread it. The civil vs. criminal differentiation does appear clear.

Article 18.10 is interesting. However copyright protection will increase from 50 years (in NZ currently) to 70 years after the authors death (Article 18.63).

[Billi]

What is the legal procedure? Is this already a signed treaty or will the Parliaments of these countries debate and ratify it?

[rjcroy]

Originally Posted by Billi

What is the legal procedure? Is this already a signed treaty or will the Parliaments of these countries debate and ratify it?

The treaty is agreed by the participating countries, so it cannot be further modified. But to become law in each country it will need to be approved by each government and a bill passed to make it law.

In New Zealand that is effectively just a rubber stamp, rather than a meaningful debate, because the government has the numbers to pass legislation, and the text cannot be modified—so there is no point in the Opposition petitioning for improved terms.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rjcroy

Article 18.10 is interesting. However copyright protection will increase from 50 years (in NZ currently) to 70 years after the authors death (Article 18.63).

Sure, but unlike what happened when the copyright term in the UK changed from 50 to 70 years, what you already have in the public domain will stay there. In the UK, it was taken out of the public domain again!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

ie it's only a criminal act if you do it for money. Otherwise it's civil, just as it probably is at the moment in your existing copyright law. This is unlike the DCMA, which makes it a criminal act in the US.

I think you're wrong about the USA DMCA. As I read it, distribution of tools or DRM removal is a civil offence unless it's done for financial gain.

[rjcroy]

That is an important difference. Sounds like what happened in the UK was rough!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think you're wrong about the USA DMCA. As I read it, distribution of tools or DRM removal is a civil offence unless it's done for financial gain.

Thank you. I stand corrected.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by rjcroy

...Article 18.10 is interesting. However copyright protection will increase from 50 years (in NZ currently) to 70 years after the authors death (Article 18.63).

It is not an immediate worry as NZ negotiated an 8 year transition period for itself for this with interim arrangements for works maturing within that time. Time starts after enactment of TPP by NZ Parliament so actually more than 8 years away before fully effected.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by rjcroy

...In New Zealand that is effectively just a rubber stamp, rather than a meaningful debate...

Except that the empowering Bill will go to a Parliamentary Select Committee (those not familiar with the NZ legislation making process, see below) who will seek public submissions and then report its conclusions to the House.

So New Zealanders will get a cross party analysis, made with public input, of the TPP rather than just those of the Marxist university professor, who is rabidly opposed to any trade agreements, that the media seem to give exclusive time to at the cost of almost complete lack of access by New Zealanders to rational comment by those without ideological barrows to push. This forum may give space for others from the public, capable of informed and rational comment, to give the public a better view of what has been achieved (or not).

So while the TPP cannot be changed there will be the opportunity for a meaningful debate on the outcome, and from the public's point of view the only impediment to the success of that is how much the media will allow the public to hear all inputs rather than promoting activists of ideological persuasions to shouting it down.

Note: for those not familiar with the NZ legislation making process, Bills go to a committee made up of representatives of the various parties in Parliament (so not just the Governing party) who report their conclusions to the house. They usually seek input from the public.

[rjcroy]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Except that the empowering Bill will go to a Parliamentary Select Committee (those not familiar with the NZ legislation making process, see below) who will seek public submissions and then report its conclusions to the House.

Yes, the bill will go to a select committee. But the select committee process is based on the principle that recommended changes to the bill can then made before the bill is passed into law. In this case, many parts of the bill are not likely to be negotiable because they are already agreed and not negotiable.

However there may be some items that are not like this. I see in the agreement that some articles say "Party's shall implement..." and others say "Party's may implement...". Presumable the 'may's are still up for debate in the parliament.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by rjcroy

Yes, the bill will go to a select committee. But the select committee process is based on the principle that recommended changes to the bill can then made before the bill is passed into law. In this case, many parts of the bill are not likely to be negotiable because they are already agreed and not negotiable.

However there may be some items that are not like this. I see in the agreement that some articles say "Party's shall implement..." and others say "Party's may implement...". Presumable the 'may's are still up for debate in the parliament.

Yes "May" means may, as long as the more broadly described intents of the TPP are complied with.

You may not be aware but the Copyright Act was already going to be reviewed, but has been delayed until the TPP outcome was known.

In the end this will fly through the NZ Parliament from a general acceptability point of view when received from the select committee. Whether they vote for it or not the major opposition party is hardly going to be much against it given their strong support and fostering of trade agreements in the past; there will be politicking criticisms but to date they (and all others except for those with extreme political views such as Kelsey) seem to have found little to disagree with.

You sound as if you may have some specific concern with something in the 6,000 odd pages of the Agreement? Perhaps, for myself, I would have liked the copyright period to have remained unchanged, but in the end that is not going to be of immediate concern and I tend to look at these things from the overall outcome point of view, a perfect result for everyone cannot be achieved.

[rjcroy]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

...
In the end this will fly through the NZ Parliament from a general acceptability point of view when received from the select committee. Whether they vote for it or not the major opposition party is hardly going to be much against it given their strong support and fostering of trade agreements in the past; there will be politicking criticisms but to date they (and all others except for those with extreme political views such as Kelsey) seem to have found little to disagree with.

You sound as if you may have some specific concern with something in the 6,000 odd pages of the Agreement? Perhaps, for myself, I would have liked the copyright period to have remained unchanged, but in the end that is not going to be of immediate concern and I tend to look at these things from the overall outcome point of view, a perfect result for everyone cannot be achieved.

Yes, I think that the bill will have little problem getting a large majority in the in the house, with the opposition criticising particular aspects that contradict their policy platforms. That is where the center of NZ politics is at this time. I think that to label opposition as simply politicking, and Professor Kelsey as a Marxist shows a lack of appreciation for the influence of ideology on the full spectrum of politics, and of the ideological assumptions present in the TPP agreement itself. Like you, I prefer meaningful debate, not name-calling and cliche dismissive labels.

My main concern regarding ebooks and the TPP was Intellectual Property chapter, copyright and digital rights management technology, specifically the US style approach on this. On that front I don't see very significant changes for NZ law.

Other aspects are not really relevant to this forum.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by rjcroy

... I think that to label opposition as simply politicking, and Professor Kelsey as a Marxist shows a lack of appreciation for the influence of ideology on the full spectrum of politics, and of the ideological assumptions present in the TPP agreement itself. Like you, I prefer meaningful debate, not name-calling and cliche dismissive labels.

I did not state opposition to the TPP was "simply politicking" I claimed that the main parliamentary party would not be opposed to the TPP, given their past history on free trade, but that they would invoke some politicking - not that ALL opposition to TPP is politicking.

Professor Kelsey makes no secret that she is of Marxist persuasion and that she was first introduced to it while a student at Cambridge. It is not a label.

So it would be pleasant if you were to withdraw your, what could appear to be defensive of your own political persuasions claim, "I think that to label opposition as simply politicking, and Professor Kelsey as a Marxist shows a lack of appreciation for the influence of ideology on the full spectrum of politics, and of the ideological assumptions present in the TPP agreement itself."

Also, just to be clear regarding the passing of TPP into law, I was being economical with words as there will be no specific single Bill doing that, rather existing legislation for matters affected by the TPP will be changed to meet the TPP requirements. That may have been misunderstood. Hence my earlier reference to the Copyright Act the review of which was put on hold until the outcome of TPP was known; the requirements of the TPP will be written into that. This is the usual way NZ handles such multilateral agreements (very easy examples to follow as to such implementation, if unclear, are MARPOL which is taken into regulations administered by Ministry of Transport, delegated to Maritime NZ, or The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea where a visit to Maritime NZ's website will readily find the specific regulations which basically just restate the words of the multilateral agreements).