Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement

[cimerians]

If anyone cares (probably should) this video explains the TPP agreement pretty darn well:

 

 

Article QQH4/H5 is pretty messed up.

 

Welcome to the world of corporate circle jerks.

[Jess Ragan]

Emphasis on "jerks."

 

Good luck trying to stop me from modifying systems I own.

[Flojomojo]

So, it's DCMA on an international scale. Sigh.

[TPA5]

Having just finished an election in Canada, I find my capacity for tedious political bullshit that suppresses the consumer while vigorously polishing the turgid shaft of corporations nearing zero. This deal is horrendous, and not just for the obvious copyright implications. It's been rushed-through and desperately fought for by an outgoing US president who, nearing the end of his reign, desires to cram in a win regardless of how stupid and foolish it ends up being for future generations. Unfortunately, our previous Prime Minister didn't have the testicular fortitude to stand up for the citizens of his country. Our new leader received a "friendly" phone call from the White House, with sincere hopes we continue to support (i.e. sit down and shut up) about the TPP.

 

 

And leaders wonder why the citizenry has no trust for them.

[Mord]

So, it's DCMA on an international scale. Sigh.

 

No, it's much worse than the DMCA.

[cybercylon]

 

No, it's much worse than the DMCA.

 

As far as I know, breaking DRM has always been illegal in the United States, but it seemed like there was always some vagueness on how it applies to fair use, etc. Unless you were selling your copies or passing them out to everyone, I don't know how much would have been enforced for just your personal use. Such cases would have been very expensive for all involved, and if ever pursued, likely a civil case.

 

This new agreement changes things. It pretty much spells out that copying our own DVDs to make a backup, modding consoles, games etc is illegal period and it seems like there no defined limits to the civil and criminal damages you could face. That is a huge problem as so open ended and vague. You could be faced with civil suit after civil suit plus jail time.

 

Does this thing even spell out what is considered to be a mod or was that also left wide open to interpretation on purpose?

[Mord]

You can bet it was on purpose, the same way that anything in the agreement that looks like it's intended to be a safeguard against abuse are marked optional things that each country can freely ignore implementing if they so desire. (But all the pro-business things are -required- to be acted on.)