TechDirt reports that Japan may be dropping its support for TPP. The country, which is known for absurd Internet-related laws, isn’t dropping its support because of any copyright or Internet-related propositions in the treaty. Instead, the treaty is losing support among officials due its potential threat to local agriculture.

Japan isn’t the first Asian country to suggest pulling out of TPP over concerns of what it would do to their economy. Back in August of last year, Malaysia’s Health Minister said the country should pull out of the agreement due to it favoring U.S. pharmaceuticals:

According to the agreement, if a medicine is launched in the US, and then three years later it is launched in Malaysia, the patent would start from when it is launched here and not when it was launched earlier in the US. This is not fair.”

Going back to Japan, the opposition from the agriculture industry doesn’t mean Japan will back out of it completely. Despite strong opposition from its citizens, the country secretly ratified ACTA in the middle of the night last year. Of course, Japan’s new conservative government may not be as willing to approve a treaty that’s being spearheaded by the U.S., but then again, maybe it is.

Despite the vocal minority objecting to TPP, the treaty still has quite a bit of support from participating nations. It also doesn’t face much resistance due to the secretive nature of the negotiations so most citizens don’t even know what those involved are planning. One group is trying to gain access to the treaty’s text by offering a bounty for it, but their efforts have yet to be rewarded.

To that end, it would be advantageous to look back on all the bills, treaties, etc that threatened the Internet in 2012. As they say, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Internet freedom fighters will have to learn from tactics employed this year to recognize threats to a free Internet before they even emerge.

Were you concerned for the free Internet in 2012? Do you think next year will be worse or better? Let us know in the comments.

The first battle over the free Internet came in January as the much debated SOPA and PIPA came up for vote in Congress. The bills were designed to combat copyright infringement online, but the powers granted to the government to do so were sweeping and overly broad. SOPA in particular gave government the power to censor Web sites on the DNS level thereby removing them from general access to most users. Potential for abuse was high and many feared that the bill would be used to destroy innovation and protect legacy businesses that have yet to adapt to how the Internet does business.

Worryingly enough, it looked like both bills would actually see smooth sailing through both the Senate and the House. Then the Internet banded together and launched a blackout campaign that saw many popular sites like Wikipedia going dark to show people what a world with SOPA could potentially look like. The tactic worked as thousands of concerned citizens called their representatives telling them to vote no on SOPA and PIPA. The bills were finally taken off the table for good in October.

After the threat of SOPA and PIPA subsided, a new threat emerged. It had free Internet proponents even more concerned as it was as international treaty that sought to rewrite international law in favor of large corporate interests. The treaty was called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA for short, and it contained a number of worrying implications. The most concerning part of the treaty was that it would require ISPs around the world to “monitor and censor online communications.” It was not only a threat to free speech on the Internet, but a major threat to online privacy as well.

After many parts of the treaty were leaked, citizens in countries across Europe took to the streets to protest. The protests worked as many countries refused to ratify the treaty and it was finally dealt a death blow in July as the European Parliament voted against it. The treaty was officially shelved, at least in Europe, earlier in December.

All the previous treaties and bills only sought to remove copyright infringing material from the Internet. It’s bad, but it could be worse. Our friends in Washington took on that challenge when lawmakers introduced CISPA and CSA – two bills that aimed to tackle cybersecurity, but threatened to violate any privacy that U.S. citizens may have online. CISPA was definitely more worrisome as it had the support of those who opposed SOPA just a few months prior. The new bill garnered support because it made it easier for companies to share information with government bodies without having to worry about lawsuits from those whose information was shared without consent.

Like the previous bills thus far, both were killed before getting very far. CISPA was able to pass the House, but its Senate counterpart, CSA, was killed time and time again. The latest attempt for passage happened in mid-November with the bill being officially killed for the last time.

The biggest threat by far, however, happened earlier in December when delegates around the world met to discuss an update to a decades old telecommunications treaty. The ITU, or International Telecommunications Union, was met with skepticism as some felt less than scrupulous members of the global community would use the meeting as an opportunity to seize control of the Internet. They did not disappoint as China, Saudia Arabia and others introduced a last minute change to the treaty that would have given them more power over the Internet. The treaty was rejected by the U.S. and much of Europe though, and it was unceremoniously killed.

Do you think these were legitimate threats to the free Internet? Were Internet freedom proponents blowing the potential threat of these bills and treaties out of proportion? Let us know in the comments.

As the above illustrates, 2012 was one hell of a year for Internet censorship and regulations. All of it was defeated, however, and tired Internet freedom fighters can rest easy knowing that the Internet is no longer under attack, right? Wrong. 2013 is shaping up to be an even worse year for proposed Internet regulation as various treaties and bills from 2012 are sticking around into the new year while new treaties and bills will obviously be proposed in due time.

Speaking of relics from 2012, TPP is a prime example of a trade agreement that refuses to die. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is much like ACTA, but it seeks to establish better trade relations between the U.S. and Southeast Asia. It’s similarities to ACTA don’t end there, however, as the treaty is negotiated in complete secrecy without any input from the public or Congress. In fact, many members of Congress are lobbying to have the USTR make negotiations more transparent since they have the constitutional right of approving treaties.

So, where does TPP stand in 2013? It could go either way to be honest. We keep hearing tales of how the treaty is constantly on its last legs as Southeast Asian countries are starting to realize it’s not good for their economy, but the secrecy in which it’s being negotiated makes it hard to tell just how close it is to either death or ratification.

Another worrisome trade agreement to look out for in 2013 is CETA – the Canada-European Union Trade Agreement. It doesn’t directly affect the U.S., but the treaty’s passage could spell trouble for the free Internet around the world as the treaty contains much of the same language that made ACTA so horrible. If ratified, the treaty could be seen as proof that ACTA wasn’t so bad and new attempts to ratify similar treaties could take hold around the world.

The last relic left over from 2012 is Clean IT – an European Commission project that seeks to censor the Internet in the name of protecting citizens from terrorism. The concern is that the project does little to actually stop terrorism and does everything in its power to use the Internet to monitor citizens in everything that they do. What’s worse is that the project turns people into Internet vigilantes where they can submit content that they feel is terroristic or otherwise “bad” to have it removed and those who fail to report any “bad” material would be punished.

As you can see, 2013 is already looking pretty grim and these are just the leftovers from 2012. There’s bound to be more laws, treaties and projects introduced in 2013 that will make SOPA, ACTA and others look like bastions of Internet freedom in comparison.

The free Internet has been a major force of change in the world, and some clearly don’t like that whether they be a legacy business that refuses to adapt or a world power that wants to subjugate its citizens even in the digital world. Either way, the Internet has proven to be resilient to any threats against it thus far and 2013 may prove to be its biggest test yet. It will be fascinating to see how the Internet and those who use it respond.

Do you think the Internet will survive 2013? What are you most concerned about in the coming year? Let us know in the comments.

Understandably, people are angry that TPP is still veiled in secrecy. They want Wikileaks or some other organization to get ahold of the most current negotiating text and share it with the world. To achieve that, Democracy In Action is crowdsourcing a bounty for TPP’s text. That bounty is now up to $25,000.

Here’s what the group hopes to accomplish:

At this very moment, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP)–a trade agreement that could affect the health and welfare of billions of people worldwide–is being negotiated behind closed doors. While 600 corporate lobbyists have access to the text, the press, the public, and even members of the US Congress are being kept in the dark.

But we don’t have to stand meekly by as corporate cronies decide our futures. Concerned citizens from around the world are pooling together their resources as a reward to WikiLeaks if it makes the negotiating text of the TPP public. Our pledge, as individuals, is to donate this money to WikiLeaks should it leak the document we seek.

As WikiLeaks likes to say, information wants to be free. The negotiating text for the TPP wants to be free. Someone just needs to release it.

The project is like a Kickstarter of sorts. People can pledge any amount of money that they want. Wikileaks, or whoever else leaks it, will receive the combined amount of pledged money. The group would prefer Wikileaks leaking the documents because they want the group to reaffirm its commitment to the public, and not just self interest.

It’s an great way to get people involved without expecting much from them. People can donate just $1 to the cause. Unfortunately, it could just backfire horribly in the end. There’s no guarantee that people will pay the amount they pledge. The text could be leaked and the those responsible wouldn’t get the money that was promised.

Even so, that wouldn’t be so bad, right? Important trade agreements like TPP should have been made transparent in the first place. It’s pretty sad that we have to resort to bribery just to find out what the Executive branch of our government is doing behind our, and Congress’, backs.

The Inquirer reports that Japan is the latest country to ratify ACTA. What makes this ratification so rotten is that it was done in the middle of the night. According to Japan’s Internet Watch, the treaty was quickly shoved through the House of Representatives without any kind of debate.

A quick passage seems par for the course when it comes to the current political climate of Japan. The Japanese government seems to have no problem when it comes to bending over backwards to appease content owners. Japan passed a law back in June that would make it a crime to watch YouTube videos of copyrighted content. Not to mention, the law also punishes the creation of back-up copies for personal use.

After the passage of the aforementioned YouTube law, Anonymous took to the streets in protest. They are planning on doing so again with the Pirate Party of Japan to protest the ratification of ACTA. They’re planning the protests to begin on September 9. The Japanese have proven that they’re pretty good at protesting, but the government has also proven that they’re pretty good at ignoring the demands of its citizens.

ACTA is still being debated around the world. TPP is also very much alive and well. We’ll continue to follow these trade agreements and deliver any updates as they come around. Unfortunately, updates don’t come often due to the secrecy that’s afforded to these treaties.

Malaysia Health Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai recently spoke out against TPP and its patent extensions on medicine. He feels that the U.S. is putting other countries’ citizens at risk by making them adopt stricter patent laws. Here’s his statement:

“We are against the patent extension. According to the agreement, if a medicine is launched in the US, and then three years later it is launched in Malaysia, the patent would start from when it is launched here and not when it was launched earlier in the US. This is not fair.”

According to Bilaterals, the Malaysia’s current patent on medicines last for 20 years. TPP would increase that to 10 more years. During that time, generic drug companies would not be able to make affordable drugs for those who need them most.

Liow also slammed TPP because it allows corporations to sue countries over perceived wrongs. In draft versions of the treaty that have been leaked, there are provisions that allow corporations to sue countries that don’t prove to be good investments.

Regardless of the reasons, countries are beginning to see that TPP does nothing for them. It’s all about empowering the U.S. in trade across the South Pacific.

We already spoke in length about how TPP is hoping to restrict fair use across all the countries involved in TPP. Not only would it hamper creativity in these countries, it would also hamper their economic growth. The same could be said for the medical patent rules.

Trade agreements should benefit all of the countries who are involved in the process. Everything we’ve seen about TPP so far indicates that it is only benefitting the U.S. The USTR has an obligation to make sure the U.S. is profitable in its trading, but restricting the economic development of other countries isn’t the way to go.

It would be unfair to say that fair use is directly under attack. Even the worst Hollywood executives understand fair use and do nothing to directly impede it. What bills and treaties like SOPA, PIPA and ACTA did was weaken fair use to a point where it didn’t matter anymore. Thankfully, those three laws were killed before they could change everything for the worst. Unfortunately, the most secretive treaty of all – TPP – just revealed its intentions for fair use, and it’s not good.

Is fair use a concern to you? Are exceptions to copyright law something worth protecting? Let us know in the comments.

Before we get into that though, it’s important to understand why fair use is so important. As an example, here’s a YouTube parody video based on the popular video game, Skyrim:

If you’re not aware, this video contains a lot of copyrighted content from the game’s developers. That content can not be used without permission from the original copyright owner under normal conditions. Under fair use, it’s totally legal and encouraged. You see, fair use is an exception in copyright law that allows people to use copyrighted materials if the content in question is a non-commercial parody or uses the content for criticism, commentary or education.

YouTube is actually the perfect example of fair use. The entire Web site is pretty much dedicated to it with thousands of video creators using other people’s works in ways that fall under fair use protections. The young girl singing her favorite Justin Bieber song into a camera is fair use. The political commentator pulling clips from CNN and Fox News to make a point also falls under fair use.

The importance of fair use can not be understated. That’s why the recent leak from the fair use section of TPP has proponents so concerned. After promising that the revised TPP would contain strong fair use protections, the text of the bill actually restricts fair use. Here’s the text of the treaty acquired by KEI Online:

1. [US/AU: With respect to this Article [(Article 4 on copyright) and Article 5 and 6 (which deal with copyright and related rights section and the related rights section)], each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights 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.]

2. Subject to and consistent with paragraph (1), each Party shall seek to achieve an appropriate balance in providing limitations or exceptions, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but no limited to, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.92]

As TechDirt points out, the leaked section on fair use actually does nothing to defend fair use or increase its reach. It pulls the text from the three step test that was introduced to the Bernes Convention in 1971. Here’s the text from the Berne’s Convention treaty:

It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

While the actual text doesn’t seem all that bad, it’s the interpretation that counts. When you leave the legality of fair use up to “not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author,” things are going to get messy. The problem is further compounded by a Supreme Court ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music that put the burden of proving fair use on the defendant. It’s so much easier to prove that a work is copyright infringing then to prove that it’s fair use. Thankfully, in the aforementioned case, the defendants were able to prove that their work was valid under fair use. One victory does not mean that all will be like that, and the rules of TPP make it harder for people to prove fair use.

What’s interesting is that only the United States and Australia are behind these excessive measures. TPP is being debated and written by a number of countries in the Pacific, but only the U.S. and Australia are behind the worst parts. In fact, countries like Brazil, Chile, Malaysia and Vietnam want to incorporate strong consumer protections into TPP that would strengthen fair use and allow consumers to own their digital content.

[NZ/CL/MY/BN/VN propose; AU/US oppose93: 1. Each party may provide for limitations and exceptions to copyrights, related rights, and legal protections for technological protections measures and rights management information included in this Chapter, in accordance with its domestic laws and relevant international treaties that each are party to.]

Do you think TPP should strengthen its fair use clause? Or are the current protections enough? Let us know in the comments.

Earlier, I used a Skyrim parody video to illustrate fair use. Unfortunately, we live in a world where real world examples of fair use and essential freedom abuses are easy to come by. We recently reported on a YouTube video being taken down due to copyright violation notices from CBS and the United States Department of Homeland Security. The main concern here is that the video, which only contains the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist, was taken down by a brach of the government.

The secondary concern is that the video falls under fair use. Even if it was the insane ramblings of a conspiracy theorist; he was using copyrighted content, a Sky News broadcast in this case, to provide commentary on world events. Such a case falls under fair use and copyright holders should know that. While there’s something to be said on how YouTube gives into copyright pressure too easily, it would only get worse if fair use was restricted.

While the changes to fair use are bad enough, we still don’t know the extent of the damage. TPP’s secretive nature has led to it being one of the more problematic treaties of our time. Fortunately, things can change for the better. If Sen. Ron Wyden has his way, TPP would be open for debate in Congress and among the citizenry. That’s really all we can ask for.

Do you think fair use is in danger from TPP? Or are advocacy groups blowing it out of proportion? Let us know in the comments.

It’s rare for us to get any kind of news in regards to TPP and even rarer for it come straight from the U.S. Trade Representative, but that’s what happened last week. During the always secret TPP talks taking place in San Diego last week, the USTR introduced “New Copyright Exceptions and Limitations Provision” into the TPP text. Here’s the statement from the USTR:

For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the United States is proposing a new provision, consistent with the internationally-recognized “3-step test,” 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. These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence. The balance sought by the U.S. TPP proposal recognizes and promotes respect for the important interests of individuals, businesses, and institutions who rely on appropriate exceptions and limitations in the TPP region.

So why is this such a big deal? The introduction of the Berne three-step test to TPP makes the copyright section at least appear desirable The three-step test allows people to use copyrighted works in cases of criticism, parody, education, etc all under the banner of fair use.

So is TPP fine after this? Not by a long shot, but it proves that the USTR is at least attentive to recent happenings around the world. The death of ACTA may have had a hand in this recent change as those involved in the treaty do not want massive protests on the level of what we saw in Europe.

While the introduction of the three-step test is a start, many civil liberties organizations feel that it is not enough. A joint statement from EFF, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge and Public Citizen said that the still secret provision could actually “restrict fair use and other copyright exceptions and limitations crucial for the progress and access of culture, science, education and innovation.”

Their fears are justified as the USTR only said that they would be introducing the three-step test. It’s not in the bill yet and those involved in the negotiations (i.e. Hollywood) might shoot down the provision. They could also pass it in name only, while keeping the draconian copyright statutes that we’ve seen in previous leaks.

We’ll keep you updated on any more changes to TPP over the coming months. The recent interest in TPP from a Congress that’s angry over their being left out of the negotiations could prove interesting as we head into the election season.

RT is reporting that the International Trade Committee (INTA) of the European Parliament has rejected ACTA. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a unanimous decision as 19 voted against it and 12 voted for the controversial treaty. Still, the majority ruling against it should help set the stage for a rejection once it hits the European Parliament vote in early July.

The rejection from the INTA today is just the latest in a string of rejections against the treaty. We reported two weeks ago that three committees within the European Parliament – Industry, Civil Liberties and the Legal Affairs Committees – all voted against it. Rejection from the INTA is the final nail in the coffin as far as committees go and a vote for it in the actual parliament would show not only contempt for the citizens, but for its own members as well.

Unfortunately, ACTA still has a chance to survive and be voted through. It was found that ACTA supporters may resort to dirty tricks to get what they want either through delays or pro-copyright industry rhetoric. Neither of those are likely to work, but the final idea – a secret ballot – may be just the ticket. It would allow those who publicly rejected ACTA to vote for it and none of the citizens would be none the wiser.

Regardless, the rejection from the INTA gives us hope that ACTA will be shot down and left to the books on failed treaties. It would be great if the rejection of ACTA had a ripple effect that would cause more countries in Southeast Asia to reject the equally awful TPP. It may even help the effort of getting our own government to shoot down CISPA. We can only hope.

Sen. Ron Wyden, friend of the Internet, has been against every major treaty and piece of legislation that would harm the Internet. He was one of the co-creators of the OPEN Act, the far more tolerable alternative to SOPA. His latest target is TPP and he wants to know what’s going on.

TechDirt is reporting that Sen. Wyden’s staff attempted to obtain details of the what the USTR is proposing in TPP. His staff has all the clearance they need that is legally required to obtain the treaty, but the USTR isn’t handing it over. Sen. Wyden says that it’s been more than two months now since he has requested the details as TechDirt put it, “the USTR gave him the finger.”

Congress not being made privy to details on an important trade agreement is one thing, but the USTR is proving itself to be a friend of corporations instead of the American people and our government. Sen. Wyden has found that the USTR is providing intimate details on TPP to major U.S. corporations like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast and the MPAA.

It’s not so surprising when you consider that the MPAA was intimately involved with TPP discussions at a secret meeting in February. Those attending the meeting were even given a private tour of Hollywood studios after the meeting was over. It’s pretty obvious that the USTR is playing favorites and Sen. Wyden is having none of it.

To combat this, he is introducing the Congressional Oversight Over Trade Negotiations Act. He says that it’s a clarification of the 2002 law, the Congressional Oversight Group. The idea was to increase transparency between the USTR and Congress, but it has obviously done little in that regard. The new law would make it so that the USTR would have to afford same level of clearance to Congress that it is obviously giving corporations.

While all of this is obviously bad and we wish Sen. Wyden all the luck in getting more transparency in government, TPP might not be the big, bad treaty it once was. Reports surfaced earlier this month that suggested the treaty was on the ropes due to the smaller countries realizing how harmful it is to their own economies. When a treaty tells countries that IP protection is more important than stabilizing their own developing economy, those countries are going to realize sooner or later that such a treaty is absolutely asinine and self-serving.

We’ll keep you updated on further efforts to increase TPP transparency and any other developments on this secret treaty. Considering that news has been slow to surface so far, I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t hear anything else on TPP until way later this year. Here’s hoping that’s not the case.

To read the full statement from Sen. Wyden, check out the copy that TechDirt has graciously provided. It lays out exactly what the new law intends to enable while laying the smack down on the Obama Administration for keeping the American public in the dark in regards to TPP.

wydentradeoversight

TPP finally poked its head out a few weeks ago and in public no less. Foreign Policy magazine reports that U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk was in Singapore talking up TPP. He was confident that all talks regarding TPP were to finish by the end of July leading to the treaty being signed in by all member nations.

It seems that Kirk is being a little too optimistic, because Foreign Policy spoke to many of Singapore’s “diplomats, journalists and academics.” Their take was that TPP was actually far from being ratified and might even be dead soon. The reason? The Obama administration has been apparently rushing to get the treaty ratified before the election, but has left out key partners from negotiations.

Those key partners are Canada, Mexico, Japan and China. Foreign Policy explains that getting Mexico, Japan and China on board will all be challenges for very different reasons. Even worse still is that Chile, once considered a major supporter of TPP, is also starting to question whether or not TPP will benefit them in any way.

It looks like TPP, from the start, was a deal created between Singapore and the U.S. to strengthen the presence of the U.S. in Southeast Asia. Other countries that were roped into the treaty are now starting to see this and backing out. Why would they sign an agreement that only benefited two countries? It makes no sense. Foreign Policy puts it best:

This is the problem with trying to use trade deals as tools of diplomacy. It may sound nice and positive for two countries to say they are tightening their relationship by doing a free trade deal. But eventually at some point, someone has to count the jobs and the balances of trade and financial flows. Typically, deals done primarily for geo-political purposes don’t add up, and when they don’t, all the “strengthening of commitments ” in the world often doesn’t save them.

Unlike ACTA, which is dying due to strong public pressure, TPP seems to be dying from its political ambitions and mismanagement. In somewhat of an ironic twist, the U.S. may be the straw that breaks TPP’s back. It was reported by Huffington Post last week that Congress is now wanting to kill TPP as well because of a part of the treaty that would ban “Buy American” provisions.

Whether it be from China’s unwillingness to join or America’s own rushing of the treaty; TPP seems to be on the ropes. It’s unclear whether it will be knocked out yet, but it’s not looking good. If the treaty isn’t signed by November, I expect the Obama administration to scrap it.

Do you think TPP is dying? Or will the U.S. and Singapore salvage it? Let us know in the comments.

[h/t: Techdirt]