Leaked Text from TPP Negotiations Indicate an Attempt to Limit Fair Use

On Friday a few short paragraphs of text were leaked from the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty negotiations. The TPP is being negotiated by nine Pacific Rim countries (in secret) with the goal of producing a free-trade agreement that tackles issues related to intellectual property rights. The next round of negotiations is set to take place sometime in September in Leesburg, Virginia.

The negotiations for the U.S. government are being handled by the US Trade Representative (USTR), who was publicly criticized by 30 U.S. scholars earlier this year for the lack of transparency and the continued secrecy of ongoing negotiations. The agency shrugged off those criticisms and continued to negotiate the treaty anyway.

The USTR said that the trade agency would push for rules "that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."

Here's where that leaked text comes in that we mentioned earlier. According to that text, U.S. negotiators have included language that could be viewed as leaving room to allow for a crack down on any anticipated broad terms of fair use.

According to the leaked text unearthed and posted online at keionline.org, the US and Australia have proposed a rightsholder-friendly three-step test to determine what exceptions to copyright are allowable. The leaked text says that the countries should confine these limitations "to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder."

Of course, this text is in draft form, which could mean that it might not end up in the final document or will be heavily modified to say something different at the end of the process.

The leaked text does seem to indicate that the US and Australia are seeking more restrictive language, while other countries such as New Zealand, Chile, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam are looking for more open rules to allow "a party to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in its domestic laws." The US and Australia sought to change the language to suggest “that each party may, consistent with the foregoing, adopt or maintain… exceptions and limitations for the digital environment."

It will be interesting to see how the language changes as it is further negotiated. Much of the worry about the TPP is that the public is being shut out of the process entirely while stakeholders are heavily influencing the process. ACTA was negotiated in much the same way, which led many in countries throughout the world to strongly protest it… That pressure from citizens ultimately killed the treaty when it came time for the Europe Parliament to vote on it.

We will continue to follow this story as it develops.

Source: Ars Technica

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Meh and you believe in the 1:1 myth of any kind of distribution that dose not give all rights away to the IP owner equals to damage to an IP.

    I am really for a middle ground focusing on limiting what lawyers can spin creating more loss of revenue than all forms of piracy combined.


    Its simple focus on 3 things 1.Revenue generation based on the sites reputation and what information it links to or shares, this means no revenue generation no harm can possibly be made on the flip side when one generates unlicensed revenue from anything it harms the IP.

    2.Next you need to cover freedom of speech,news, commentary and general fandom, that can easily be done by looking at the amount of the IP is distributed based on time and quality factors.

    3.Educational needs its own rules hopefully limited to educational networks and personal.

    Fair use is nice but needs reenforcement to keep the lawyers at bay because businesses number one job is to rape and pillage where it can as much as it can(just look at the state of the US).

    Even under that youtube,ect would still have to go to IP owners because they are making a profit and more than half of what they distribute dose not really fall under number 2 of the above.

    And 90% of current file sharing would be illegal with illicit revenue generation guiding the law would be much more functional instead of going after the fallacy that they can functionally police the internet going after distribution alone without it being a burden the world can not afford.

    Oh and I have looked into IP anarchism its great for the consumer and big business but is the worst thing for any non contracted IP creator, and as an IP creator its as lop sided as the mess we have now. 


    So if you want keep on believing the koolaid that you can have absolute control over an IP and not destroy the world keep on jugg'n that piss. No right is absolute as they come as a cost to the world, the community, the people, and the individual(in that order even) .

  2. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    We all know you don't believe this, Zippy – you believe the people who make any piece of IP have no rights over it at all, so long as nobody else is making money on it.  Stop trying to act like you're just looking for things to be fair.

  3. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Here is how fair use/copy right should more or less work these days.


    1.Dose it generate revenue via direct or indirect information regarding the location(s) or gain of the item(s) in question, or dose it generate a revenue via merchandise or donations that are sold primarily due to traffic brought about by sharing information regarding the location(s) or gain of the item(s) in question, if not its untouchable if so dose it follow the below.

    2.How much of the content is changed for commentary? If over 40% of the whole item in question rated by time and quality then the item in question is untouchable if so dose it follow the below..

    3.For educational purposes a profit may not be generated from the item(s) in question and distribution of item(s) not covered in the above must be behind a locked protocol and limited to authorized personal that is not the general public, if it follows the above or this rule then its untouchable .

Leave a Reply