Top Five Ways to Protect Your Website

Below are the top five things to consider to ensure that your website and its content are adequately protected:

1.      Own Your Own Content

As a threshold matter, you need to create all the content yourself or, if it is created by others, it must be done pursuant to a “work for hire” agreement. If not, the person writing the content or providing the graphic or photographs owns the content, not you or      Continue reading

15 Provisions That Should Be In Your Employment Agreements if You Want to Keep Your Trade Secrets

Your best and most reliable way to protect your trade secrets is by making sure that those that come into contact with your confidential information have a duty to keep it that way–a secret. As anyone who has ever completed middle school knows, not everyone is naturally good at keeping secrets. It is your job to make sure that the people who are privy to your business’ secrets know that the information is confidential and know that they are required to keep it that way. The foundation for setting these expectations and requirements is through written agreements and/or policies with your employees that clearly set out the employee’s responsibilities with regard to your confidential information.

As a threshold matter, tell your employees what information is considered to be confidential. Disclose that information only on a “need to know” basis. Require that employees participate in a confidential information awareness orientation (and, here’s the kicker, actually hold one and make them go). Put a “confidential” legend or watermark on confidential information and treat it that way. In addition, your employment agreements and/or handbooks should cover the following bases:

1.    Include enforceable covenants not to compete in your employment contracts that are reasonable in time and scope. Courts don’t really like these provisions and in most cases will only require the employee to do what is absolutely necessary to protect the employer’s interests and no more. So, if you want the non-compete to be enforceable later, draft it narrowly and make it reach only as far as necessary.

2.    Use non-use/nondisclosure provisions in your contracts that address the following:

a.    Incorporate by reference the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §1832). Note that this provision can only protect “actually confidential” information that is subject to reasonable efforts to protect confidentiality. Tax Track Systems v. New Investor World, Inc., 478 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2007).

b.    To secure the benefits of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), use the language HP did in the following case, which proved to be critically important. Hewlett-Packard Co. V. BYD: Sign, Inc, 2007 WL 275476 at *11-13 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2007).The HP employees had agreed by contract to not disclose “any of HP’s intellectual property, trade secrets, and confidential information to any unauthorized persons, and to refrain from sending or accessing messages on HP’s computer systems for personal gain” (emphasis added). Consider going even further and get a covenant not to use the information in a manner contrary to the company’s business interests and define “personal gain” to include “personal non-economic benefit.

3.    Obtain a specific promise not to post secrets or confidential information on the internet. This becomes particularly important as we start moving to cloud-based applications that allow the employee to easily move information from your systems to the internet without the need for downloading or emailing documents.

4.    Have clear policies on what can be shared via social networking and blogging, etc.

5.    Obtain covenants not to solicit other employees in the event the employee changes jobs.

6.     Require anti-moonlighting provisions if appropriate.

7.    Include a contractual provision that requires the employee to assign to the employer any trade secrets or other intellectual property created by the employee in the course of the employment. Also, while you’re at it, make clear who owns what with respect to other intellectual property, i.e., business-related blogs, twitter accounts, and LinkedIn connections, etc.

8.    Obtain a requirement that employees return all company property upon separation, including any paper or electronic copies of company documents or other information.

9.    Specify Rules, either in a contract or in the employee handbook, for use of off-site digital storage devices.

10.    Require return/deletion of secrets from hard drives of digital storage devices used by the recipient. This provision would also include all the ways one can store data these days, i.e., on the employee’s cell phone, thumb drives, cameras, iPods, and the like.

11.    Insist upon a requirement that the employees submit to an exit interview.

12.    Require itemization of digital storage devices that have been used  to store your company’s trade secrets.

13.    Require that any disputes between the employer and employee be subject to mandatory arbitration (with an exception that allows you to seek an injunction for breach of these covenants if necessary).

14.    Have policies that protect confidential information with layered passwords, firewalls, intranets, file size restrictions on e-mailable documents, and encryption.

15.    Require one particular employee or IT consultant to check the internet regularly to monitor chat or other mentions of your company and protect its secrets. Early detection can limit damage.

Contractual Provisions with other Third Parties

Don’t just stop with your employees. Other people come into contact with your trade secrets too. Consider adding the following in agreements with other third parties:

1.    Companies that provide consulting services might consider “no-hire” clauses in contracts with its customers (such provisions must be narrowly drawn, though).

2.    Non-disclosure agreements with consultants or vendors who are likely to come into contact with confidential information or trade secrets. Consultants should be required to keep information confidential for some reasonable time period and then return or destroy the information.

3.    Negotiate for Protective Orders in Litigation with others.

4.    Always obtain a work made for hire agreement with consultants if at all possible.

5.    License Agreements must contain provisions which prevent the “naked” assignment of rights.

6.    Any shrink wrap agreements with users should prohibit the reverse engineering of your product and the posting of any secrets.

7.    Third Party Agreements should contain language advising the other party of their potential personal liability for misuse of the trade secrets by others if they in fact do disclose secrets.

Preventing the theft or inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets is far cheaper and more effective than litigating about these issues after the horse is out of the barn. Putting some thought into your contracts with your employees and third party vendors can help avert a disaster down the road.

Anatomy of a Business Divorce– When the Dream Unravels, Who Gets Custody of the IP ??

This cautionary tale is a scenario that I have seen over and over in my law practice. Two creative people meet and become friends, a business develops, something happens, things go south, the friendship sours, a business unravels and litigation ensues. In fact, it happens so often, I thought I would relay the fictional story of Jack and Rob, both to lay out the legal issues that come up in the dissolution of a business and to provide some advice as to what they could have done differently.  If “Jack” were a real person, he would have relayed something like this sad (and completely avoidable) tale over a cup of lukewarm coffee at my office. Here’s Jack’s story:

Jack:   My old college roommate Rob and I started a website selling t-shirts with funny political slogans on them. I came up with the slogans and ideas for the cartoons that would go with each slogan. Rob is a talented artist so he would draw the designs. The business is called “Politically Speaking.” I came up with that name and trademarked it with me as the owner. I have also trademarked several of the names of our most popular shirts in my name as well, which Rob didn’t know about.  I paid for all of the trademarks with my own money and obtained them in my own name—well, rather I used the business’ checking account to pay the filing fees but paid it back with my own money. I am the tech-savvy guy so I created the website, wrote all the copy on it, and created a political blog to promote it. Rob did create some artwork and photography for the website and photographed the products. We were doing pretty well with this business and were both making a good living from it. We have a huge window of opportunity coming up with the 2012 presidential election and expected to grow the business about 25% over the next two years.

Even though we used to be best friends, we have now had a big falling out over our political differences. At first it didn’t bother me but now it really gets on my nerves. He’s an Obama supporter and I like Ron Paul (who Rob constantly ridicules). I also found out that Rob had used company funds to make a pretty big Obama donation without my knowledge or permission (at least I think it’s big–$2,500). I am furious about the donation and he is mad at me because he found out that I obtained the trademarks in my own name without telling him about it. We can’t get past our problems, have grown to hate each other and can’t possibly stay in business together. He says he owns our products because he designed them artistically. I say he doesn’t because I came up with the basic idea of each shirt, he just executed my ideas. I own the domain name for the website and I have all the passwords to access the site, including the emails that come in. I also maintain our customer list in a database that I created and maintain. I say the trademarks, website, database, and customer list are mine but he says it isn’t because his art work is used throughout the website and he designed the logos.

Because we used to be such good friends, we never had a lawyer draw up any contracts to control the operation of our business or anything like that so I say it’s every man for himself. While I’m willing to pay him half of the profit I make from selling off existing inventory and maybe a little something for the artwork on my website, I don’t think I have any further obligation to him after that. I want to lock him out of the website this weekend. Can I do that?

Me: Before I give you an answer on whether or not you can lock Rob out of the website, let me give you some ground rules that will control how this messy situation should be sorted out. First of all, even though there are no written agreements, it is not simply every man for himself. Whether you realized it or not, you and Rob most likely have formed an implied or de facto partnership and most states have a statute that controls how things should go when two business partners get “divorced.” While it will depend on your state’s particular partnership act and could be changed by facts unique to a particular situation, in general terms, the partners are deemed to own the partnership property on a pro rata basis; meaning, if you’ve got two partners, they own the partnership property on a 50/50 basis. And, when two partners dissolve the partnership, they take the partnership’s money and property and put it in a big basket, pay off any debts that the partnership has incurred, and split the value of what’s left.

So, the next question is: what makes up the partnership property in this partnership? Although you might not like this answer, I think that most of the items you’ve discussed here– the existing inventory, the trademarks, the website, the blog, the customer list, and the data base containing those names, likely constitute partnership property. As I’ll get to in a minute, the shirt designs may or may not be partnership property. If the designs aren’t partnership property, they more likely belong to Rob than to you.  Let’s address each of these one by one:

The Existing Inventory

I think there is little doubt that the existing product inventory belongs to the partnership. The purpose of your de facto partnership was to sell these shirts and most courts would find that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the shirts that you and Rob had manufactured and are currently selling are partnership property.

The Shirt Designs

The designs of these shirts would be protected by copyright law and we would have to look there to determine their ownership. From your description, it sounds like there is at least an argument that these designs were jointly created. You came up with the overall concept and the slogan and Rob contributed the design. Although, I must tell you that there is also a real possibility that the part you contributed may not be copyrightable, because ideas, short phrases, and titles generally aren’t copyrightable. So, depending on the particular facts of your contribution, you may or may not have jointly created the designs. If you jointly own the copyright, this piece of the puzzle is fairly straightforward because it would be simple to conclude that the partnership owns the joint copyright. If the part that you contributed is not copyrightable, the copyright would be owned by Rob alone. Is the copyright partnership property? While you might think the answer is automatically “yes,” based on the reasoning we applied to the inventory question above, the answer is more likely “no.” Ownership of a copyright can only be transferred in writing. This means that in the absence of a written assignment agreement (or even an informal email) evidencing Rob’s transference of the copyright to the partnership, he likely owns it rather than the partnership. While this sounds bad for you, at least you can argue that the partnership has an license to use the designs, but even this is a gray area.

The Trademarks

Not surprisingly, trademark law controls the ownership of the trademarks. While you obtained federal registrations for the marks and paid for those registrations, you may not own them by yourself. First of all, to obtain a trademark, you had to sign a sworn declaration that certified to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) that no one else had any right to the trademark other than you. That statement wasn’t necessarily true because you personally were not the one making use of the marks in commerce–the partnership was the entity using the marks. The partnership (and/or Rob) would have a decent argument that you breached your fiduciary duty to the partnership when you took the marks that it was using and secured them for yourself, possibly perjuring yourself before the USPTO to do so. While there are certainly circumstances that would justify one partner actually owning the marks and orally licensing them back to the partnership, since you did this without Rob’s knowledge, you would have a very difficult time establishing that as the case here. I believe its very likely that a court would ultimately determine that the trademarks belong to the partnership because it was the one actually using them in commerce. If this is the case, you would be entitled to treat your footing of the bill to obtain the registrations as either a partnership capital contribution or it could be treated as a debt to you personally from the partnership. At any rate, you probably don’t own these trademarks in your individual name.

While it is not a good fact that Jack snuck off and registered these trademarks without Rob’s knowledge, Rob is not entirely without fault either. It was likely a breach of Rob’s fiduciary obligation as well to make a political donation with company funds without Jack’s knowledge or permission.

The Website, Blog and Domain Name

Many of these same issues are at play as we determine the ownership of the website. Like the shirt designs, the content of the website would most likely be subject to copyright law. (We’ll assume for the purposes of this question that there is nothing patentable about the content on the website). You created the written content as well as the layout and structure of the website and blog. Because you are the one who shepherded the “idea” of the website and blog into a tangible, written form, you should own them, right? Not so fast. Rob has also contributed copyrightable matter like artwork and photography to the website, which gives him a copyrightable interest in it as well. It looks like you two might jointly own the website and blog.

I realize that you own the domain name and whether it is partnership property will depend on a factual analysis of the entire situation. Whether a court would deem the domain name itself to be partnership property, as distinct from the contents of the website, is something of an open question that can’t be definitively answered without more information. Did you purchase the domain name before or after the partnership was formed, did you purchase it using partnership funds? Did Rob know that you were purchasing it in your individual capacity:? Does the domain name contain the partnership’s trademarks? A court would analyze all of these factors to determine whether the domain name really belongs to you or the partnership.

The Customer Names and the Database in Which They Are Housed

The customer list almost certainly belongs to the partnership. These customers were acquired in the performance of the partnership’s business–selling shirts emblazoned with political cartoons and slogans. The customer list is an asset of the partnership and possibly even a trade secret of the partnership.

As for the database, if you created this database yourself and there is something sufficiently unique about the arrangement of the factual elements in the data base or you programmed code that runs the database, you could have a copyrightable interest in the database and/or the applicable software. If you own the copyrightable interest in the data base, it would probably not be partnership property absent a written assignment transferring that interest back to the partnership. If a court determines that you own a copyright interest in the database, the court could still determine that the partnership has an irrevocable implied license to use the database.

Bottom Line: Unless you have some evidence that Rob intends to get into the website and damage it in some way, do not lock him out. He is a joint owner of the website with you so you don’t have the right to lock him out and you would probably have liability for that act if litigation ensues. This brings me to my next point. Avoid litigation. I know that you are very angry with Rob but it is not in either of your best interest to litigate about these issues. Now that you know the basic lay of the land, you and Rob should sit down and come up with a fair and equitable way to divide these assets between you. Litigating over these issues will likely deplete whatever assets are left and jeopardize the ability of either of you to start over with a new venture. Work something out that is equitable, recognizing that neither of you will be entirely happy with the outcome. I can assure you that you won’t be entirely happy with what a judge decides either but at least you won’t have spend tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars to get to the point of a decision that still doesn’t give you everything you want.

What Jack and Rob Should Have Done Differently

1.    First and foremost, Jack and Rob needed a written partnership agreement or, better yet, they should have formed an entity that gave them even more protection than a partnership would. Always seek legal advice from a good lawyer on the formation of a new venture to determine the business form that is most appropriate for what you are doing.

2.    The agreement should explicitly set out who owns what if it is different than pro rata joint ownership.

3.     The agreement should set out who is to do what work and how it is to be done so that there are no resentments spawned by the all too familiar martyr complex–i.e., “It’s not fair! I’m the one doing all the work!”

4.    The agreement should make clear that all intellectual property created before the formation of the legal entity is transferred from the individual to the legal entity. If this is not the intent of the people involved, at the very least the entity should have a license to use the property that sufficiently protects its ability to do business using the IP. The corporate entity and the individual transferring or licensing the IP should have separate legal counsel to ensure that an arm’s length transaction occurs.

5.         All creative work—the design of the shirts, the design of the website, the content of the website, the design and content of the blog, the design and content of the data base—should have been done pursuant to a work-for-hire agreement. A work-for-hire agreement makes it clear that the business entity, and not the individual doing the work (or any alterations to the work) owns the resulting copyright in the creative work  This is absolutely critical to a business based on intellectual property. You can head off years of expensive litigation and legal fees if you take this simple step on the front end of every project that will result in the creation or alteration of intellectual property.

6.         Don’t sneak off and do things behind your business partner’s back. This almost always will result in bad will and damage the relationship. The corollary to this rule is don’t go into business with someone that you don’t trust implicitly. Trust your gut instincts as to the character of your potential business partner. If anything gives you pause as to his or her integrity, walk away.

7.         The agreement should contain a roadmap that sets out how the entity will be dissolved and the property divided in the event that things don’t work out.

It’s Time to Consider a Kinder, Gentler Cease and Desist Lettter

Here’s an article I wrote recently on the wisdom of sending “Kinder, Gentler Cease and Desist Letters.” Check it out and consider turning the drama down a couple of notches.

IMG_4705 (1)

Kinder, Gentler Cease and Desist Letters

Is Warner Going to Have to Give up the Gravy Train that is “Happy Birthday”?

happy birthdayIt is my middle child’s birthday today and I thought I would post this in his honor. A suit was filed this week that will likely stop Warner Music from collecting millions of dollars annually as royalties for performance of the song “Happy Birthday.” According to the plaintiff in the case, the song is indisputably in the public domain and Warner knows that. It should be interesting to read Warner’s answer to the Complaint. Maybe the waiters and waitresses in your local fern bar can embarrass you with a rousing rendition of happy birthday in the future without having to pay for the privilege.

Update: Yep. The Court held that Warner Warner-Chappell lacked valid rights to the lyrics, whether or not they remained under copyright protection, even as it collected fees to the tune of $2 million a year.



I’m happy to see that the Supreme Court will address whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s findings on the likelihood of confusion between two trademarks should be given deference in Federal Court. The Supremes granted cert. to fastener manufacturer B&B Hardware Inc., which won a TTAB fight and obtained a finding that a trademark from competitor Hargis Industries Inc.was  confusingly similar to its mark. The victory was short-lived however, when B&B lost a lawsuit over the same issue after a federal court ruled that TTAB’s ruling should be given no preclusive effect, deference or even admittance into evidence.

A divided Eighth Circuit affirmed that ruling in May 2013, finding that TTAB’s test for trademark confusion was significantly different from that of a federal court, and that the board’s registration-minded approach did not give sufficient weight to real-world context for its ruling to be given deference.

The Supreme Court is taking the case because there is a split among the Circuits on this issue. For example, the Third and Seventh circuits, have given TTAB rulings preclusive effect when facts and analyses in the cases have lined up closely enough. The Second Circuit does so in cases where the TTAB considered evidence about confusion “in the entire marketplace context,” like a trial court would. Still, others have refused preclusion but given TTAB rulings varying amounts of deference. The Eighth Circuit’s position in B&B’s case against Hargis — refusing preclusion, deference or even admittance as evidence during the trial that eventually produced a verdict of non-infringement— was the farthest end of that continuum.

We will be watching this case with interest. Let me know if you have ever had to address this issue in federal court and how you think this should come out.

The case is B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries Inc. et al., case number 13-352, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Death Knell for Aereo – The Supreme Court Says that What They Do is Copyright Infringment

People that follow copyright law have been waiting on pins and needles for the Supremes to decide the Aereo case, which finally happened this week. The networks won; Aereo lost; and the Court tried hard to limit the import of this decision. In a nutshell, Aereo, Inc., sells a service that allows its subscribers to watch television programs over the Internet at roughly the same time the programs are broadcast over the air. When a subscriber indicates it wants to watch a given program, Aereo’s system picks up the show’s broadcast signal, translates its audio and video components into digital data, stores the data in a user-specific file, and transmits that file’s contents to the subscriber via the internet. The plaintiffs, an assortment of television networks and content owners, had unsuccessfully tried to enjoin Aereo in the courts below, on a number of different copyright theories. For the purposes of the Supreme Court’s decision, the sole issue was whether Aereo’s service amounted to a “public performance” so as to violate the exclusive rights of the content’s copyright owner and constitute direct copyright infringement. The majority likened Aereo’s service to cable services and found that it is a “public” performance of the copyrighted content it retransmits and, thus, constitutes direct infringement. The case was remanded for the lower court to award the content owners injunctive relief on this basis.

Judge Scalia, in dissent, while agreeing that what Aereo was doing (or enabling to be done) “ought not to be allowed,” he disagreed with the majority’s reasoning that Aereo was “publically performing” the copyrighted works. Scalia argues that while the services may amount to indirect or contributory infringement, they did not constitute direct infringement because Aereo’s conduct did not meet the act’s “volitional” requirement. In short, he does not find the services to be sufficiently similar to cable services.

What is the impact of this decision? In the short run, this decision will pave the way for television networks to continue to charge significant fees for the transmission of their content. The long-term impact of the decision is harder to predict. Which technologies are now infringing because they are too close to “cable services,” and which ones still require “volitional” conduct by the provider of the service? Because uncertainty almost always stifles growth and investment, is not difficult to see how inventors and investors will be reluctant to create and invest in new technologies if the specter of an injunction for direct copyright infringement looms murkily in the distance.

The bottom line:

-Everybody pretty much agreed that what Aereo did was infringing, they just differed on how they reached that conclusion;
-Content owners can still charge hefty fees for the transmittal of their content;
-The decision explicitly states it does not apply to DVR’s and cloud computing;
-Companies similar but not identical to Aereo may also now be guilty of direct copyright infringement if they are too close to “cable services”;
-Investment in technologies like this is a risky move;
-Congress is likely the best avenue for inventors and technology companies to seek more certainty on this issue

American Broadcasting Companies Inc. et al. v. Aereo Inc. f/k/a Bamboom Labs Inc., case number 13-461, in the U.S. Supreme Court


Elvis IP Rights Have Been Sold



There’s some big IP news out of Memphis today. Authentic Brands Group said Tuesday it has bought Elvis Presley’s intellectual property from CORE Media Group and is partnering with the founder of another company to operate the Graceland tourist attraction. Lisa Marie Presley continues to own Graceland and the estate’s original artifacts. Plans to modernize and expand Graceland may be in the works as well.



After Nine-Year Legal Battle, Google Books Wins Fair Use Ruling Before District Court

Today was a good day for Google and was a long time in the making. A federal district court awarded Google summary judgment with respect to authors’ claims of copyright infringement arising out of the mass digitization of works related to its Google Books project.

Judge Chin of the Southern District of New York ruled today that Google’s use of digital copies for full-text searching of 20 million books is “highly” transformative and thus constitutes fair use that does not require authorization from copyright holders. According to the court, the use of the full text of tens of millions of books for its online search function is a transformative use and thus Google’s mass digitization of those books without authorization from copyright holders constitutes fair use ( Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), 11/14/13 ). Noting that the books at issue are largely non-fiction and that the project enabled researchers to locate previously lost books and perform “data mining,” the court was not dissuaded from a finding of fair use simply because Google’s use is largely commercial or that its use involved a copy of the entire work. The court found that Google Books did not destroy the market for the books (because you can only read small snippets of the book), but that it instead enhanced the market for the books as well as providing a substantial benefit for the public.

We will all be hearing a lot more about this ruling and what it means for rights holders and for businesses premised on using or synthesizing the intellectual property of others.

WikiLeaks releases draft of top secret multi-national trade deal


 Details of a top secret, multi-national trade agreement being negotiated and drafted by twelve countries, including the United States, have been published by WikiLeaks, and critics are coming forth to loudly proclaim that there will be major repercussions for much of the modern world if anything close to this version is approved.

Yesterday, WikiLeaks published an excerpt from a recent draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, a NAFTA-like agreement that is expected to encompass nations representing more than 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product when it is finally approved: the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. The chapter on intellectual property published by WikiLeaks is perhaps the most controversial chapter of the TPP due to its wide-ranging effects on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents.

The United States and eleven other prospective member states have been negotiating the free trade agreement in extreme secrecy for years now, and there has been much rhetoric about how beneficial it will be to all involved:

The TPP will boost our economies, lowering barriers to trade and investment, increasing exports and creating more jobs for our people, which is my number-one priority,” Obama said during a Nov. 2011 address. The deal, he said, “has the potential to be a model not only for the Asia Pacific but for future trade agreements” by regulating markets and creating opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses in the growing global marketplace.

Upon the publication of an excerpt obtained by WikiLeaks this week, however, opponents of the act are reading it quite differently and contend that provisions dealing with creation, invention and innovation could be highly detrimental to companies, countries, and cultures that are inextricably woven into the internet.

Although the TPP covers many issues, WikiLeaks has published a chapter from a draft dated August 30, 2013 that deals solely on Intellectual Property, or IP, rights. Previous reports about the rumored contents of the TPP with regards to IP law have raised concern among activists before, with the California-based Electronic Frontier Foundation going as far as to warn that earlier leaked draft text suggested the agreement “would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate.” These activists contend that this is made all the more concerning because the treaty is being hammered out without any oversight or observation.

The IP chapter, wrote WikiLeaks, “provides the public with the fullest opportunity so far to familiarize themselves with the details and implications of the TPP,” an agreement that has largely avoided scrutiny in the mainstream media during its development.

Julian Assange, the infamous Australian founder of the whistleblower site, had particularly harsh words for the TPP in a statement published alongside the draft release:

If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons,” Assange said. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”

What exactly are the critics upset about? Public Citizen argues that the TPP would limit people’s access to affordable medicine.

And International Business Times asserts that the agreement “reveals a profound disconnect with the reality of the modern computer,” particularly as to the way it addresses the concept of “temporary copies.” The relevant text of the TPP provides as follows:

 “Each Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).”

* * *

 “Since it’s technically necessary to download a temporary version of everything we see on our devices, does that mean—under the US proposed language—that anyone who ever views content on their device could potentially be found liable of infringement?” the EFF wrote. “For other countries signing on to the TPP, the answer would be most likely yes.”

It’s too early to tell how this will all end up but the alarm bells have been rung and TPP will be in for the sort of fight that the proponents of  SOPA or ACTA faced. It is clear that this treaty touches upon profoundly important issues of personal freedom and privacy in the ever-evolving laboratory of the internet.