"develop a high-quality, comprehensive 21st century Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that increases economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly as membership expands over time."This all sounds very reasonable but what it doesn't mention is that, amongst other things, the TPP has a significant section devoted to copyright.
The US Trade Representative to the treaty negotiations has put forward a number of proposals which would "harmonise IPR provisions strictly upwards", these include:
- Banning parallel imports
- Increasing the term of copyright
- Criminalising Digital Rights Managment (DRM) circumvention - even when there is no copyright infringement
- Imposing ISP liability for the infringement of their users, including providing incentives for ISPs to become copyright cops for the content industry
- Requiring ISPs to identify users at the behest of the content industry
- Expanding the scope of what is patentable and limit objections to patents
Furthermore, the TPP contains provisions for "dispute resolutions" which means that countries that are not compliant with the increased scope of the IP provisions can be fined.
So what does this mean for Australia?
Firstly, the TPP IP provisions exceed those in the AUSFTA and even further than the completed-but-not-in-force ACTA treaty, especially the "exceptions" provisions for DRM and the expanded scope for patentable material.
Secondly, it will impose a regime of ISP copyright enforcement that goes much further than the suggested model put forward by Emmet, J in the AFACT v iiNet case. The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has already stated that it is prepared to draft a code to address the uncertainty regarding the steps that ISPs should take in responding to allegations of copyright infringement by their users. However, the imposition of the TPP will make this attempt at industry self-regulation redundant by substituting an industry negotiated code, which will likely contain at least some consumer protections, to a legislative regime which does not. Furthermore, a country is prevented from implementing more consumer friendly provisions by the "dispute resolution" clauses that may result in the country being fined.
So there is a real danger that the TPP will further tip the balance in favour of big content and away from consumers, but then this seems to be the modus operandi of these FTAs and is hardly surprising. The irony is that the more big content punishes consumers and refuses to provide content in a way that their customers want, the more their customers will pirate their content using the ever-more sophisticated tools available to find and download content and to hide their tracks while doing so - making a legislative regime ineffective.
As IIA president Peter Coroneous said recently:
"Market failure remains a core contributor to the infringement problem. If users have access to more and better content, when, where and in the form they choose to consume it, and at a realistic price, we're quite confident the motivation for infringement will decline. We certainly don't condone the infringement of copyright - but internet users need attractive, lawful alternatives if we are to see positive behavioural change. There's no reason why Australia shouldn't be leading the way here."And maybe that is the area in which Australia can lead the way, rather than continuing to implement an ever-more draconian legislative regime under the guise of "free trade".