Tag Archives: ISP liability

What’s In (and Out) of the IP Chapter of the United States, Mexico, Canada Trade Agreement

Yesterday, Canada announced—just in time for the self-imposed deadline by the negotiating parties of September 30— that it would join the trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. This agreement, a renegotiation of NAFTA, which apparently is also being called the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement or USMCA, includes much more prescriptive provision on intellectual property than what was included in the original NAFTA. The original NAFTA text on intellectual property, written in a different era of trade agreements, does not include language on copyright term or issues covered by the WIPO Internet Treaties (NAFTA was negotiated before the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty).

Presumably any deal that Canada agreed to in the renegotiation was going to be more prescriptive, with greater rights for rightholders, than in the original NAFTA. However, it is also worse, at least in some respects, than what Canada, Mexico and the United States—and nine other countries—had agreed to in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) (see analysis of that text here), which the United States withdrew from after Trump became President. (Note: after the United States’ withdrawal from the TPP, the remaining 11 countries in the negotiations—Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam—renegotiated and formed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, which suspended many of the United States’ demands on copyright and other IP provisions).

Here’s a look at what’s in—and out—of the renegotiated IP chapter, as compared to both the original NAFTA text and the TPP text:

Limitations and Exceptions 

Arguably the biggest disappointment in the recently released text is what the IP chapter does not include. The TPP had included language based off a United States proposal from 2012 on limitations and exceptions. The TPP obligated parties to try and achieve balance in their copyright systems. Article 18.66 of the TPP read: 

Each Party shall endeavour to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, among other things by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article 18.65 (Limitations and Exceptions), including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled.

While the language could have been stronger—for example by mandating that parties achieve a balance, rather than merely “endeavor[in]g” to do so, a provision on balanced copyright was seen as a success, recognizing the importance of limitations and exceptions in copyright. When trade agreements or laws only include provisions regarding the rights of rightholders, the rights of users get ignored. It is disappointing that the United States chose not to propose balancing language, but instead included limiting language with respect to limitations and exceptions (requiring parties to “confine” limitations and exceptions to the three-step test of 1) certain special cases; 2) that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work; and 3) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the right holder.). 

Copyright Term

Copyright term is one of the most significant areas with respect to copyright where Canada will be forced to change its law. As noted above, NAFTA did not contain provisions dictating copyright term (and, of course, was negotiated prior to the United States’ own term extension). Canada currently has a copyright term of the life of the author plus fifty years, but with the USMCA text, will need to extend that term to life plus seventy. Perhaps this concession was to be expected since TPP parties also agreed to the term, yet the consequences to the public domain are significant. The United States has seen a moratorium on published works entering the public domain for the last twenty years due to copyright term extension agreed to in 1998. The public domain is critical for the creation of new knowledge and culture and copyright term plays a significant role in closing off the public domain. This term goes well beyond international standards.

Additionally, Canada agreed to further extension of copyright term for corporate works, beyond what had been agreed to in the TPP. While the TPP parties agreed to providing corporate works (works that are not measured on the life of the author) with 70 years of protection, the USMCA text requires 75 years.

Technological Protection Measures

Because NAFTA went into force in 1994, it did not include provisions that have been found in the era after the WIPO Internet Treaties, such as anti-circumvention measures.  The new provisions in USMCA mirror the text on anti-circumvention of several past bilateral trade agreements by the United States. It requires parties to make it an offense to “knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know” circumvent technological protection measures, or to manufacture or distribute devices primarily designed or are promoted for the purposes of circumvention. This language is highly prescriptive and detailed. It also includes a closed-list set of seven limitations and exceptions to the anti-circumvention measures, plus a provision permitting “additional exceptions or limitations for noninfringing uses of a particular class of works, performances, or phonograms, when an actual or likely adverse impact on those noninfringing uses is demonstrated by substantial evidence in a legislative, regulatory or administrative proceeding in accordance with the Party’s law.” The text also makes circumvention an independent and separate cause of action, apart from any underlying copyright infringement.

On a positive note, the language regarding additional limitations and exceptions is not restricted to a three-year rulemaking cycle, as exists in the United States and several other trade agreements. From the agreed-to text, it appears that parties may provide for permanent limitations and exceptions, if permitted by domestic law.

While similar language regarding making circumvention an independent cause of action existed in the TPP, the TPP provision was potentially mitigated by a helpful footnote reading, “A Party may provide that the obligations described . . .with respect to manufacturing, importation and distribution apply only where such activities are undertaken for sale or rental, or where such activities prejudice the interests of the right holder of the copyright or related right.” Making circumvention a “separate and independent cause of action” is controversial and makes little sense, negatively impacting legitimate and non-infringing circumvention.

It is also disappointing to see the inclusion once more of a closed-list set of limitations and exceptions, mirroring those found in the United States’ copyright law, which have been criticized domestically as being overly-narrow and, in some cases, useless.

Objectives and Principles

The USMCA includes high-level objectives and principles that recognize at least some level of balance and mirrors language found in the TPP. Article 20.A.2, for example, notes that intellectual property protection and enforcement “should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.” Similarly, the principles provide that parties may “adopt measures necessary to protection public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter.”

While this acknowledgement of balance is welcome, the lack of specific provisions regarding balance underscores the fact that the agreement strengthens the rights of rightholders, ratcheting up protections, without providing the same for users.

Remedies Allow for Judicial Discretion

Another welcome inclusion is language on proportionality that was also found in the TPP, requiring parties to “take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the intellectual property infringement, and the applicable remedies and penalties, as well as the interests of third parties.”

ISP Liability

The USMCA language includes prescriptive provisions regarding safe harbors for Internet service providers. Like the TPP, it includes a carve-out to accommodate the Canadian system of notice-and-notice (as opposed to the United States’ notice-and-takedown). As noted on this blog previously, the flexibility to implement notice-and-notice is limited to Canada only because it is restricted to where such a system exists as “the date of agreement in principle” to USMCA.

For additional reading, Michael Geist has a nice summary from a Canadian perspective.

Analysis of August 2015 Leaked TPP Text on Copyright, ISP and General Provisions

The United States is currently negotiating a large, regional free trade agreement with eleven other countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. On August 5, 2015, Knowledge Ecology International published a new leak of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’s (TPP) negotiating text for the intellectual property chapter. This text, dated May 11, 2015 reflects the state of the negotiations prior to the recent Ministerial meeting in Hawaii (and new agreements may have been made during the recent TPP meeting). This latest leak reveals some substantial changes from last year’s October leak of the text by WikiLeaks (which revealed the state of negotiations as of May 14, 2014).

In general, the more recent text shows some improvement over last year’s text, although serious problems remain.

Copyright

Copyright Term

The copyright term has not yet been agreed to, and it has widely been considered to be a political decision to be determined by the trade ministers. Currently, there is a wide range of proposals available for copyright term, ranging from life plus 50 years, to life plus 70 years, to life plus 100 years when based on the life of an author. For corporate works, there are four proposed terms of 50, 70, 75 or 95 years. These are wide ranging proposals and longer copyright terms exacerbate the orphan works problem and hamper the public domain. The potential for excessively long copyright terms that far exceed international standards is one of the largest remaining flaws in the agreement from the perspective of access to knowledge and information. Countries should resist copyright term extension, particularly given the lack of evidence supporting these extensive copyright terms.

Japan’s proposal, which appeared in the previous leak, similar to the Berne rule of shorter term remains. This rule would essentially allow parties to limit the term of protection provided to authors of another party to the term provided under that party’s legislation. For example, if the final TPP text required a period of copyright protection of life plus fifty years, the United States would not be required to provide its period of life plus seventy years to authors in New Zealand, if New Zealand continued to provide a term of life plus fifty years. The United States does not currently implement the Berne rule of shorter term.

Formalities

In last year’s leaked text, Article QQ.G.X appeared for the first time and was unbracketed, signaling agreement by the TPP negotiating parties. This provision read, “No Party may subject the enjoyment and exercise of the rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms provided for in this Chapter to any formality.” As noted in last year’s analysis by ARL, the language was potentially problematic for countries wanting to re-introduce formalities for copyright protections granted that go beyond minimum international standards. The Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante, for example, proposed the re-introduction of formalities for the last twenty years of copyright protection in the United States, which would have violated the TPP if a period of life plus seventy years was also agreed to.

Although this provision was unbracketed in the 2014 text, it appears from the current leak that this ban on formalities has been removed. The removal of this language is significant as it would not only permit the reintroduction of formalities for the last twenty years of copyright term in the United States, but also allows for formalities in other areas. For example, formalities can be required in order to be eligible for certain remedies for copyright infringement. It could be used to address the orphan works problem by establishing registries in order to receive damages or an injunction for works that are still protected under copyright in the United States, but go beyond the terms required by international law. Footnote 160 in the current leak appears to allow such arrangements, providing that “For greater certainty, in implementing QQ.G.6, nothing prevents a Party from promoting certainty for the legitimate use and exploitation of works, performances and phonograms during their terms of protection, consistent with QQ.G.16 [limitations and exceptions] and that Party’s international obligations.”

Limitations and Exceptions

The language from the previous leak on limitations and exceptions, including a reference to the Marrakesh Treaty, remains in the text and is particularly welcome, given that it has not been included in previous US free trade agreements. The language provides that

Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.16.1, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled.[164] [165] 

[164] As recognized by the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (June 27, 2013). The Parties recognize that some Parties facilitate the availability of works in accessible formats for beneficiaries beyond the requirements of the Marrakesh Treaty.

[165] For purposes of greater clarity, a use that has commercial aspects may in appropriate circumstances be considered to have a legitimate purpose under Article QQ.G.16.3

Footnote 164, which references the Marrakesh Treaty, now includes an additional sentence that recognizes that some parties provide for limitations and exceptions for beneficiaries that go beyond the requirements of the Marrakesh Treaty. Currently, ten parties have ratified the Marrakesh Treaty and an additional ten are required for entry into force. Singapore and Mexico, both negotiating parties to the TPP, have already ratified the Marrakesh Treaty, and Canada has introduced a bill paving the way for implementation of the Treaty. A number of other TPP negotiating parties have signed the treaty, signaling an intention to ratify, including Australia, Chile, Peru, and the United States.

While inclusion of language on limitations and exceptions is a welcome addition to the agreement, this provision should be strengthened by making mandatory the obligation to achieve balance rather than using the term “shall endeavor,” as the Library Copyright Alliance pointed out in an August 2012 letter to the United States Trade Representative.

Technological Protection Measures

Last year’s leak revealed language that permits parties to provide limitations and exceptions to technological protection measures “in order to enable non-infringing uses where there is an actual or likely adverse impact of those measures on non-infringing uses.” The leak also revealed that the three-year rulemaking process to create these limitations and exceptions, as earlier proposed by the United States, was removed. The current leak maintains this language, but drops the reference to the three-step test (though the language on limitations and exceptions remains the same) and also eliminates Chile’s proposal that the process for establishing limitations and exceptions requires consideration of “evidence presented by beneficiaries with respect to the necessity of the creation of such exception and limitation.”

Overall, this language is an improvement over the United States’ initial proposal from 2011 regarding technological protection measures, which only allowed for a closed list of specific limitations and exceptions while others could be added through a three-year rulemaking process, because it would allow for new permanent limitations and exceptions to allow for circumvention of TPMs. Such permanent limitations and exceptions could be granted for cell-phone unlocking. However, the language does assume that parties need to provide for limitations and exceptions, even for non-infringing uses.

Article QQ.G.10(c) maintains the unfortunate language that “a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party’s law on copyright and related rights.” Establishing that the circumvention of a technological protection measure is independent of any copyright infringement negatively impacts legitimate, non-infringing circumvention. It is unfortunate that this language not only remains in the text, but is unbracketed, meaning that countries have agreed to this flawed provision.

Internet Service Providers

The text on Internet Service Providers appears in an addendum and contains important caveats that the text is “Without Prejudice” and “Parties are still considering this proposal and reserve their position on the entire section.” Thus, even where language is unbracketed, it does not necessarily reflect agreement.

The current leak reveals that the text contains significant flexibilities that did not previously exist. For example, the United States and Canada have proposed language that would continue to allow Canada’s notice-and-notice system, rather than require the United States notice-and-takedown system. It appears to protect Canada’s system as one that “forward[s] notices of alleged infringement” but requires that the system exist in the Party “upon the date of entry into force of this Agreement.” If this language is agreed to, it could therefore be conceivable that other parties to the TPP could implement systems of notice-and-notice, provided that they do so before entry into force of the TPP. Similarly, footnote 299 appears to allow Japan to maintain its safe harbor framework.

In last year’s leak, Peru had proposed a footnote that now appears in the general text of the section on ISPs. This paragraph now reads, “It is understood that the failure of an Internet service provider to qualify for the limitations in paragraph 1 does not itself result in liability. Moreover, this article is without prejudice to the availability of other limitations and exceptions to copyright, or any other defences under a Party’s legal system.” This language provides a helpful clarification and clearly establishes the language as a safe harbor, not as a direct creation of liability where an ISP does not qualify for the limitations set forth under the agreement.

General Provisions

In addition to improvements in the copyright section, there appears to be agreement on positive language regarding general provisions. Many of the positive proposals regarding general provisions in last year’s leak were bracketed and not yet agreed to.

The objectives now read:

The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

Additionally, principles that had previously been agreed to by six parties now appear unbracketed and specifically reference the public interest and address the need to prevent abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders:

1.  Parties may, in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio­economics and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter.

2.  Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.

There is also new language, which appears to be mostly agreed to, that promotes the dissemination of knowledge and information. In addition, Chile and Canada have proposed language, which the United States and Japan oppose, emphasizing the importance of the public domain. This article, “Understandings in respect of this Chapter” reads:

Having regard to the underlying public policy objectives of national systems, the Parties recognise the need to:

  • promote innovation and creativity;
  • facilitate the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture and the arts; and
  • foster competition and open and efficient markets;

through their intellectual property systems, while respecting the principles of transparency and due process, and taking into account the interests of relevant stakeholders, including rights holders, service providers, users and the public [CL/CA propose; US/JP oppose; and acknowledging the importance of preserving the public domain.]

It is disappointing that the United States would oppose language acknowledging the importance of preserving the public domain, which provides a storehouse of raw materials from which individuals can draw from to learn and create new ideas or works. The public domain is essential in fostering new creativity and advancing knowledge.

Proportionality in Enforcement

While this analysis does not cover the section on enforcement in detail, there is one significant positive improvement from previous texts. Under the general enforcement provisions, there is new text that appears to be agreed to language that is replicated from the text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and would require parties to “take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the intellectual property infringement, and the applicable remedies and penalties, as well as the interests of third parties.” Inclusion of this language is a welcome improvement to the text of the enforcement section.

Conclusion

Overall, the text of the copyright section as well as some other key provisions reflect improvements over the initial intellectual property chapter proposed by the United States in February 2011. The section on technological protection measures no longer limits the limitations and exceptions to a closed list and does not impose a three-year rulemaking process. It would allow for permanent limitations and exceptions to anti-circumvention provisions. Additionally, the text shows greater flexibility with respect to ISPs and appears much less complicated than it initially did. Furthermore, the current text reflects agreement on positive language with respect to limitations and exceptions and a reference to the Marrakesh Treaty has been included. The removal of the formalities language that appeared in last year’s text is also a welcome improvement. General provisions and enforcement language has also seen improvements.

While there have been improvements in the text, there are still concerning elements, the biggest of which is the potential for locking-in current lengthy and excessive copyright terms as well as the possibility of even requiring further extension to life plus 100 years. Additionally, the requirement that circumvention of a technological protection measure be independent from copyright infringement is illogical and prevents circumvention for legitimate, non-infringing purposes.  Finally, the obligation to achieve balance through exceptions and limitations should be made mandatory.

ARL Joins Amicus Brief in Mavrix Photographs v. LiveJournal

On June 22, 2015, ARL joined an amicus brief of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the case Mavrix Photographs v. LiveJournal, currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, supporting the respondent, LiveJournal.

The case involves a LiveJournal blog, Oh No They Didn’t!, a community blog involving reader submissions about celebrity gossip and pop culture.  These submissions include celebrity photos, including sets of photos from Mavrix.  Mavrix sued LiveJournal (without first sending any takedown notices) and LiveJournal responded by removing the photos and terminating two users as repeat infringers.  In the district court, LiveJournal prevailed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor rules because it did not have actual knowledge of infringement, nor did it have “red flag” knowledge of infringement (that LiveJournal should have known).  Mavrix appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

The amicus brief points out the importance of the DMCA safe harbors for the amici parties, including for libraries specifically:

The DMCA safe harbors have also been extremely helpful to the library amici in fulfilling their mission of providing their users with access to information.  Libraries act as “service providers” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 512(k)(1)(A).  Libraries are the only source for real Internet connectivity and Internet-ready computer terminals for many Americans . . . The Section 512(a) safe harbor for “mere conduits” has enabled libraries to provide Internet access without the specter of liability for onerous copyright damages because of infringing user activity.

Libraries also operate websites that host user-generated content and prepare directories that link users to other websites.  The safe harbors in Section 512(c) and (d) shelter libraries from liability for infringing activity by third parties.  Any new restrictions on the availability of the DMCA safe harbors could have an adverse effect on the ability of libraries to deliver a critical service to underserved and other user communities.

The brief points out that that while service providers do not have an obligation to look through user-submitted content for infringements, the DMCA also does not discourage monitoring. Many service providers review content for illegal or objectionable material that violates the terms of service agreements.  Such moderation does not result in the loss of safe harbor under Section 512(c) which addresses safe harbors for “Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.”

The brief also notes that, absent actual knowledge of infringement, “red flag” knowledge is a high bar.  It notes that just because a user submits content, such as a photograph, that exists elsewhere online does not constitute a “red flag” that the content is infringing.  Additionally, “Holding online service providers unexpectedly liable for the acts of their users, in contrast to the legal clarity Congress deliberately and presciently provided in Section 512, would be deleterious not only to Internet commerce, but also to free speech online.”  The full brief is available for download here.

New WikiLeaks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Intellectual Property Chapter — Analysis of Copyright Provisions

The United States is currently negotiating a large, regional free trade agreement with eleven other countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. On October 16, 2014, WikiLeaks published a new leak of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’s (TPP) negotiating text for the intellectual property chapter. This text, dated May 16, 2014, contains some substantial changes from last year’s November leak of the text (which revealed the state of negotiations as of August 2013).

The chapter is now shorter and numerous brackets (brackets denote areas of the text which have not yet been agreed to) have been removed. The text also includes some new provisions. Some differences between the copyright provisions from last year’s leak to today’s leak are highlighted below. However, given that the leaked text is from May, further changes may have been made in the last five months and bracketed issues may have been resolved. TPP negotiations will continue in Australia next week where issues may reach further resolution.

Copyright Term

In the prior leak, New Zealand, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Canada and Japan supported a proposal allowing the copyright term of protection to be determined by “each Party’s domestic law and the international agreements to which each Party is a party.” The current leak reveals that this proposal has been eliminated.

The new text suggests that the copyright term will be specified in the TPP, though the exact number of years has not yet been agreed to. Bracketed language around the period of years reveals that the three options being discussed are life of the author plus fifty, seventy or one-hundred years. The United States, along with the countries with which the United States already has bilateral trade agreements with—Australia, Chile, Peru and Singapore—currently have a period of protection of life plus seventy years. Mexico is the only country that provides for life of the author plus one hundred years. The other countries in the agreement use the international standard of life plus fifty years.

For corporate works that have been published, the bracketed text includes periods of protection of fifty, seventy, seventy-five or ninety-five years.

In addition to these specified periods of years, a new proposal similar to the Berne rule of shorter term appears in the leaked text. This rule would essentially allow parties to limit the term of protection provided to authors of another party to the term provided under that party’s legislation. For example, if the final TPP text required a period of copyright protection of life plus fifty years, the United States would not be required to provide its period of life plus seventy years to authors in New Zealand if New Zealand continued to provide a term of life plus fifty years. The United States currently does not implement the Berne rule of shorter term.

Formalities

Another new provision in the text is a rule against formalities. Article QQ.G.X is unbracketed and therefore appears to be agreed to by the TPP negotiating parties. It reads, “No Party may subject the enjoyment and exercise of the rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms provided for in this Chapter to any formality.”

This language could be problematic if the United States, or other TPP parties, wanted to re-introduce formalities for copyright protections granted that go beyond minimum international standards. Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante, for example, proposed the re-introduction of formalities for the last twenty years of copyright protection in the United States. If adopted, such a proposal would violate the TPP and subject the United States to investor-state dispute settlement, under which a corporation could sue the Unites States government for failure to comply with the TPP.

Limitations and Exceptions

Parties to the TPP have agreed to include language on limitations and exceptions, including a provision that has not been included in prior U.S. free trade agreements. This language reads:

Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.16.1, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to [AU oppose: published] works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print [AU propose: or perceptually] disabled.116 117

116 {In particular,} As recognized by the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (June 27, 2013).
117 For purposes of greater clarity, a use that has commercial aspects may in appropriate circumstances be considered to have a legitimate purpose under Article QQ.G.16.3.

Most of this language had already been agreed to in the November 2013 leak. However, the new leak reveals that parties have now agreed to include facilitating access for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. Additionally, footnote 116 specifically referencing the Marrakesh Treaty is a new addition. While the Marrakesh Treaty has not yet been ratified by any of the TPP countries and has not yet entered into force (the treaty requires twenty ratifications; India and El Salvador are currently the two countries that have ratified it), several of the TPP negotiating parties have signed the treaty including the United States, Australia, Chile, Mexico, and Peru.

Technological Protection Measures

The language on technological protection measures (TPMs) in last year’s leak was heavily bracketed, highlighting the lack of agreement in this area. The United States initially proposed a closed set of limitations and exceptions to allow circumvention of TPMs, with additional limitations and exceptions possible through a three-year rulemaking process modeled off of Section 1201 of the United States Copyright Law.

The new TPP text eliminates the specific limitations and exceptions and three-year rulemaking process. It now allows limitations and exceptions through legislative, regulatory or administrative processes. Additionally, the United States’ proposed “substantial evidence” burden (proposed in conjunction with allowing new limitations and exceptions through the rulemaking process)—a standard not found in the United States Copyright Law—has been eliminated. This new text, with the exception of a few clauses, has been agreed to by the TPP parties.

The text now provides that:

Each Party may provide [MY/MX/PE oppose: certain] exceptions and limitations to the measures implementing subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii) in order to enable non-infringing uses where there is an actual or likely adverse impact of those measures on those non-infringing uses, as determined through a legislative, regulatory, or administrative process in accordance with the Party’s law, giving due consideration to evidence when presented in that process, including with respect to whether appropriate and effective measures have been taken by rights holders to enable the beneficiaries to enjoy the limitations and exceptions under that Party’s law [in accordance with Article QQ.G.16] [CL propose:, as well as the evidence presented by the beneficiaries with respect to the necessity of the creation of such exception and limitation]

This language is an improvement over the United States’ previous proposal because it would allow for new permanent limitations and exceptions that would allow for circumvention of TPMs—for example, for cell-phone unlocking. However, the language seems to assume that parties need to provide for limitations and exceptions even for non-infringing uses. As noted in a recent Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) statement, one of the flaws of Section 1201 in the United States Copyright Law is that this section could be interpreted to prohibit circumvention of a TPM even for the purpose of engaging in a lawful use of the work.

Additionally, it may be difficult to create a general permanent limitation and exception allowing for circumvention for any non-infringing use, such as was proposed in the Unlocking Technology Act due to the language requiring consideration of an “actual or likely adverse impact” of TPMs and evidence presented, including “whether … measures have been taken by rights holders to enable the beneficiaries to enjoy the limitations and exceptions under that Party’s law.” Requiring such considerations could be interpreted as allowing new permanent or temporary limitations and exceptions, but only on a case-by-case basis rather than by a general rule.

Internet Service Provider Liability

The latest leak of the TPP text also includes several new non-papers attached as addenda. The non-paper on Internet service provider liability is included as Addendum III and heavily bracketed.