The fact that the WTO took the initiative of harmonizing intellectual property in its member countries displeased the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, whose field this is. This pushed WIPO into being a bit more active regarding copyright. Two years later, in 1996, there were two WIPO agreements, one on copyright and the other on artists, performers and record producers. They included what was in the WTO agreements and added provisions, such as clauses concerning dissemination on the Internet. They added the right to communicate on the Internet as well as some rather controversial measures on technical means of protection and information management to obtain rights management. There was a consensus on this at the time.
What we find today in the TPP regarding copyright basically involves the same issues, in addition to “the life of the author plus 70 years”. The TPP also maintained — and many consider this a victory for Canada — the notice and notice provision that is in the 2012 Copyright Act. I'll explain the “notice and notice” system, quickly. When an author sees that someone is using his works on the Internet without his authorization, identifying that person raises privacy issues. The intermediary acts as a mailbox. The rights holder sends a notice to the service provider and informs them that someone somewhere, whom the provider knows but whom the author does not, is violating his copyright.
According to the American position, upon receiving this notice, the provider should take down the offending passages. In the United States they call this “notice and take down”. This can then be followed by litigation, and so on. Canada's position was that the provider did not have to take down the work, but simply had to send the notice to the person concerned, as the provider knows their IP address and can act as the go-between between the person and the computer. That is why the process is called “notice and notice”. It is a process that mostly leads nowhere, because it puts the emphasis on individual action. Do you really think that an author, or a “major”, one or the other, will be able to sue someone on that basis? That is completely unrealistic and makes no sense.
So, what are the consequences? This encourages certain uses, some of which are legal, of course. However, in the case of illegal uses, do you think that those who are doing these things are afraid of being sued? No; of course, there will always be people who...