Leaked TPP IP Chapter Would Lead To Much Greater Online Surveillance... Because Hollywood Still Hates The Internet

from the shameful dept

We already wrote a big piece about the latest leaked copy of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement text. However, there were a few additional areas in the leaked text that deserve further scrutiny, so we'll be having a few more posts. One significant concern is how the TPP is likely to lead to much greater surveillance by ISPs on your online surfing habits -- all in the name of "copyright" of course:
Draft rules under negotiation would impose on Internet service providers a legal obligation to fight against online copyright infringement. This obligation is embodied in several provisions, which would require, for example, ISPs to communicate to their users any supposed infringement committed through their accounts, take down from the Internet information that supposedly infringes on copyright, and collect information that allows identification of users that supposedly have infringed the law.
While the text of the actual agreement sounds like it's just internationalizing the DMCA (already problematic), it's actually worse. Subtle language choices make a big, big difference.
First, the TPP includes provisions that would extend spying obligations not only to entities that provide Internet services, but to “any person,” thus, not only Internet-related companies would be required to enforce the law, but “any person,” whether human or otherwise. Rights holders would likely interpret this obligation as applying to the manager of a free-wifi zone at Starbucks or your favorite neighborhood cafe, to public libraries and schools, as well as to that neighbor of yours who shares her wifi by keeping it accessible and open.

Second, TPP provisions do not seem to limit this spying to the Internet. Instead they refer to online providers, which may extend the scope of the law to other digital networks, such as intranets and private networks. What does this mean? It means that not only ISPs would be spying on you by collecting user data to protect Hollywood’s copyrights, but also other providers of online services, like the private network you use at your workplace, at your university, or even at your kid’s school, even if those networks do not provide actual access to or from the Internet.

Although the TPP states that Internet service providers would not be required by law to “monitor” users, it encourages this practice. Therefore, the TPP would leave open the door for private agreements between copyright holders (such as the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America) and Internet companies for enforcing the law against Internet users (for example, see the Center for Copyright Information). This raises concerns about powerful content industry players working together to promote abusive practices to enforce their interests against supposed infringers, since, in order to prevent any liability, online service providers may collaborate with rights holders to enforce copyrights beyond what is required by the law.
It's that last part that is the most troubling. Over the last few years, after Hollywood lost the SOPA fight and realized that legislation was more difficult, it's now seeking these so-called "voluntary" agreements -- even when they're really done by the government with the threat of regulations if an agreement isn't reached. These kinds of campaigns are hardly "voluntary" in reality, and are generally designed to get Hollywood everything it wants without having to through any sort of democratic process. Kind of like trade agreements.

Is it any wonder why the USTR has been so adamant about keeping the details of this agreement a secret?

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, internet, liability, networks, surveillance, tpp, ustr, voluntary agreements


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:30am

    That is the Devbils deal between Hollywod and the Governments, you give us what we want, and we will provide the monitoring and control over you citizens that you desire. The MPSS/RIAA members are setting themselves up as the censors of all publications, which is a return to the original role of copyrights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:31am

    That is the Devils deal between Hollywood and the Governments, you give us what we want, and we will provide the monitoring and control over you citizens that you desire. The MPSS/RIAA members are setting themselves up as the censors of all publications, which is a return to the original role of copyrights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:50am

      Re: Baffling

      It's not, really. If Hollywood is successful in trying to gain even more control over the internet, the logical end result will be the expansion of the "dark net". The net affect on piracy will be near zero, and the net effect on the freedom of everyone that uses the internet will be great.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re: Baffling

        "...the logical end result will be the expansion of the "dark net"."

        And the result of that will be the criminalization of dark nets.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          CK20XX (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:09am

          Re: Re: Re: Baffling

          Holy cow, we really are moving towards a future like that in Mega Man Battle Network. Every device and appliance online even when it makes no sense for them to be, a shady Undernet, the works.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:47am

          Re: Re: Re: Baffling

          ("dark net", not "dark web" -- we're talking about something more than the web here)

          Yes, but so what? The legality or lack thereof of the "dark net" is irrelevant.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re: Baffling

        You are correct that increasing enforcement will just drive "illegal" activity farther underground and the net effect will be zero.

        For instance, file sharing in Japan has always been criminal, not just civil copyright infringement, as it is in the US and Europe. It's no surprise, then, that most file sharers in Japan have always used "anonymous" P2P networks such as Winny, Share, and Perfect Dark.

        The end result of Japan's draconian copyright enforcement is that file sharing in Japan has always been just as popular as it is in countries with more liberal laws and lax enforcement. Japanese P2P users just protect themselves better, whether they realize it or not.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    beech, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:39am

    "Is it any wonder why the USTR has been so adamant about keeping the details of this agreement a secret?"

    Uhh, is it because if the terrorists find out we'll all be dead? That seems to be the usual reason.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:55am

    I've always hated the way that vague ideas are so often thrown out in laws and such without stating exactly how the process is supposed to work. It's the exact opposite of any EULA or TOS contract that a comsumer is likely to face, that lays down strict, detailed rules and effectively closes off all possible loopholes or alternative arguments.

    It's funny that although rules aimed at consumers generally leave no wiggle room for legal interpretation, rules aimed at companies leave a great deal of wiggle room for legal interpretation.

    Then it's only natural that the corporate interests with the biggest legal weaponry will argue for the most extreme interpretation of those rules that suits their needs ... and win.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:59am

    These trade agreements have become the give-a-ways to corporate interests so that they will continue their generosity towards the political machine (legal bribes). Everything must be accounted for so that every penny can be squeezed. That means spying with a capital S.

    This is the same direction that Germany went when it turned into Hitler's Germany. You can see many of the same things happening. It leads to the same sort of atmosphere and conditions. So how many years do we have till the government decides that ovens to cook the bodies are in the interest of national security? It's the proverbial frog in hot water. What isn't acceptable today will probably be acceptable sometime in the future.

    Before you think that all crazy talk, how many of you twenty years ago would have believed what we are hearing today with privacy issues and copyright morphing into what they are today.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:40am

      Re:

      "how many of you twenty years ago would have believed what we are hearing today with privacy issues and copyright morphing into what they are today."

      I actually predicted that things would be worse, something like China's "Whitelist" internet. But it's slowly happening, as many countries in Europe have now banned the entire website of The Pirate Bay (was it those printable guns?). Now the slippery slope begins, and eventually China's internet model will no longer seem so strange to the rest of the world.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:09am

    how many times have i said that the entertainment industries wont be content until they are running the internet? the scary thing is governments are helping as much as possible to get them to that goal. can you imagine what sort of world we are going to have (heading fast towards already) if it is controlled by an industry that lives in the imagination? that earns money by inventing make believe? that makes a living from selling what is made up and from exploiting its own artists?
    we are gonna be in deep shit people and those who are in charge, supposedly looking after the people who elected them, are gonna be returned to the dark ages where they and their lives mean absolutely nothing because 'their sole purpose for living is to support the upper class'!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:16am

    Look on the Bright Side

    An earlier draft had a part where they monitor all our telephone calls to make sure we're not singing Happy Birthday at one another.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:21am

    Big Brother via copyright

    It has been getting clearer to me the last 2 years. Copyright is the perfect excuse for total surveillance of the public. If they can't get there by screaming "but terrorists", then they will do it "to protect our intellectual property (sic)".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:29am

    The obvious answer is to stop consuming their content

    It's not really a boycott. It's just expanding your entertainment options to other things that leave no room for Hollywood content.

    Even on YouTube, there's lots of original content. There's lots of independent artists. You can read books, go to live shows, take a walk in the park, anything buy sit in a darkened theater passively feeding them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:10pm

      Re: The obvious answer is to stop consuming their content

      Then they'll start censoring original content using bogus copyright claims. The worst part is they're allowed to without trial, and the victims would have to wait a minimum of several years just to even appeal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Zonker, 16 Oct 2014 @ 1:18pm

        Re: Re: The obvious answer is to stop consuming their content

        Start? They already have been for several years, why would they stop now?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 1:41pm

        Re: Re: The obvious answer is to stop consuming their content

        Original providers can copyright their stuff too, and should. Even if they don't want to charge for its use. A tip jar should cover copyright costs.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 4:46pm

      Re: The obvious answer is to stop consuming their content

      "You can read books..."

      Don't forget that book publishers really aren't any better than movie studios or TV networks. They have a lower profile but the abuses are the same.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 6:09pm

      Re: The obvious answer is to stop consuming their content

      This has really never worked out.

      The industry's standard response to whatever reason money's not flowing into their pockets is to sue anyone too weak to fight back.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:42am

    Buy! Buy! Buy!

    VPN stocks are bout to go through the ROOF!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 1:11pm

      Re: Buy! Buy! Buy!



      Buy! Buy! Buy!

      VPN stocks are bout to go through the ROOF!


      But shirley they will also be required to monitor everything passing through them?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Commenter234, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:06pm

      Re: Buy! Buy! Buy!

      To me, it seems foolish for anyone who can afford $50/year or so NOT to use using the internet through a VPN.

      There are too many sleezy scam outfits able to use a mostly-fixed IP address to track and identify personal information.

      An ISP simply cannot be trusted with access to personal activity, since they are easy targets for extortion and coersion, and have mostly-captive customers. A VPN has no captive customers, and depends entirely on customer confidence for its income.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 4:00pm

        Re: Re: Buy! Buy! Buy!

        "To me, it seems foolish for anyone who can afford $50/year or so NOT to use using the internet through a VPN."

        But many web sites block out VPN IP numbers. I ended up being banned from a forum that I was an active member of for years shortly after I started using a free VPN (and no, I didn't even bother trying to beg my way back in). There are many downsides to using shared IP addresses, and VPNs are especially hard hit.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 11:58am

    While the text of the actual agreement sounds like it's just internationalizing the DMCA (already problematic),

    I'm seriously having trouble understanding Techdirt's position here. It would be problematic to take the DMCA and export it to the rest of the world? I thought it was something we want to keep around, because of the so-called "safe harbors" it provides, that it just wouldn't do to get rid of.

    Are the folks at Techdirt finally beginning to understand what I've been saying for years, that there is no such thing as DMCA safe harbors in the first place, that they are nothing but tools of extortion, and therefore exporting the DMCA to the rest of the world would be problematic?

    We can only hope...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:15pm

      Re:

      "It would be problematic to take the DMCA and export it to the rest of the world? I thought it was something we want to keep around, because of the so-called "safe harbors" it provides"

      Personally, I think it would be incredibly problematic. I want the DMCA to go away -- it's filled with so much bad stuff, it needs to be eliminated. The safe harbors provision is not enough to keep it around, and would largely be unnecessary if the rest of the DMCA didn't exist.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:21pm

        Re: Re:

        Exactly. And we really need to stop talking about DMCA safe harbors, because they don't exist. It's not a safe harbor if there are strings attached.

        CDA 230 is a safe harbor. It tells the bad guys "no, you can't harm this site." But a mechanism by which the bad guys can say "remove this thing we don't want and we won't sue you" IS NOT A SAFE HARBOR; it is a tool of extortion. Threatening a negative action against someone unless they comply with your wishes is extortion, plain and simple, and the DMCA Takedown system enables it. It needs to go; the entire DMCA needs to go.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Rob McMillin (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:33pm

    IP "Biz" and government have common interests here

    Years ago, before the DMCA, I observed that the real danger was a conjoining of private interests dependent on copyright (the **AA), and the government. The former wants a broad police power on the Internet for commercial reasons, the latter for political reasons. It is all too easy to see, for example, a system whereby you must register reading materials with some central repository -- which will allow revocation at any time. Such a system would be invaluable for the suppression of leaks.

    That is what is being proposed here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 12:40pm

    They have run out of excuses. Their belief that the world revolves around them will only lead them to failure. They are deluded into thinking that harsh laws would boost their profits when all it would lead to is implosion and/or a "Disco Demolition Night" on an entire industry.

    I refuse to abide. I will not give up my principles just because the dinosaur media could make a few more dollars. They should just accept defeat instead of trying to destroy what made them obsolete. If I have to lose what's left of my freedom to garbage with inflated budgets, then I will push for the day when they and their bad laws perish once and for all a global holiday.

    Whoever said the people have to choose between being able to have a private conversation and the next Transformers movie being funded in the same way was right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 1:47pm

    Give these greedy dirt bags enough rope they will hang themselves, and take their lawyers down with them. We have our own local mesh network, we share what we want, including ownership of the infrastructure. We answer to no one, except each other.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anti MAFIA, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:43pm

    Nuke the IP chapter out of existence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 12:31pm

    Surveilance, surveilance, surveilance

    Guess what, you for it? I hate to fcking burst your delusional bubble, but that means your NOT the good guy.

    How the fuck does surveilance fit into a true peace, were we can trust one another, as opposed to forced "peace", were the'll never BE A PEACE

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2014 @ 8:29am

    Dffdv bhh eggnog. Hgbb ggb. Bgfjfdf. Bjtcv. Ggb. Cbhtvcrcccvvv. Bhfvbb bXwfvv. Bggbfg. Bh fc. Bbgv. Bgv. Vg. Bgc vfcbhc. Vffvvvdvv. Vvgb bbvbbbbbvvgbgg. Judg vtgvdv. Vtgvdv bggv bbgv. Vgfvvbgvvvgccc ccvcfcc. Vvvvv.
    Dfbd. Vhg. £4? Brv. Ht. vvvv. Cfc brv. Gbfc vg. Cgvxsc. Vggvvgcc vgd. Vfccbfvhtvvvbhgb c vghev. Yrdcvvgg

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.