If you don\u2019t have a DVD or Blu-ray ripper and you want one, then you should consider buying one immediately because tools that assist in the circumvention of DRM could be banned if the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is ratified. Of course if the finalized TPP text, leaked by WikiLeaks, is ratified, then you could be criminally liable if you circumvent Digital Rights Management. While a worse-case scenario might involve copyright infringement as the TPP sets a copyright term to life plus 70 years, the judicial authorities could also \u201corder the destruction of devices and products found to be involved in the prohibited activity.\u201d The TPP is \u201call we feared,\u201d according to the EFF.Although ripping a Blu-ray is a tame example of circumventing DRM which could be banned under TPP, the EFF reported, \u201cThe biggest overall defeat for users is the extension of the copyright term to life plus 70 years.\u201d When combining the TPP\u2019s rules regarding copyright infringement with a ban on circumventing DRM, the EFF warned, \u201cThe odd effect of this is that someone tinkering with a file or device that contains a copyrighted work can be made liable (criminally so, if wilfullness and a commercial motive can be shown), for doing so even when no copyright infringement is committed.\u201dAlongside the prohibition on circumvention of DRM is a similar prohibition on the removal of rights management information, with equivalent civil and criminal penalties. Since this offense is, once again, independent of the infringement of copyright, it could implicate a user who crops out an identifying watermark from an image, even if they are using that image for fair use purposes and even if they otherwise provide attribution of the original author by some other means.The distribution of devices for decrypting encrypted satellite and cable signals is also separately proscribed, posing a further hazard to hackers wishing to experiment with or to repurpose broadcast media.\u00a0\u201cOne of the scariest parts of the TPP,\u201d wrote the EFF, \u201cis that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed. The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information\u2026This could lead to a family's home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center.\u201dYears ago, the EFF warned \u201chackers, makers and tinkerers\u201d just how badly the TPP could hurt them. Jeremy Malcolm, EFF\u2019s senior global policy analyst, told Motherboard's Jordan Pearson:\u201cAs a result, those who are tinkering with their own legally-purchased digital products will be at risk not only of financial penalties, but also having their equipment seized and perhaps destroyed.\u201dPresident Obama is proud of the TPP; if ratified, it \u201cwould be a legacy-defining victory.\u201d According to the White House TPP fact sheet, the TPP \u201cprotects digital freedom and preserves an open Internet.\u201d It supposedly \u201cincludes standards to protect digital freedom, including the free flow of information across borders - ensuring that Internet users can store, access, and move their data freely,\u201d yet the TPP also suggests offering \u201clegal incentives\u201d to ISPs in order for ISPs to act as copyright enforcers.Regarding overall security, if the TPP is ratified then insecurity wins. If ratified, then the TPP could leave IoT \u201cin a state of chronic device ecosystem insecurity.\u201d Vivek Krishnamurthy, a cyberlaw instructor at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, told Motherboard, \u201cThe TPP is going to prohibit people from checking these devices to see if they work as advertised.\u201d Before checking if a device works, hackers, tinkers, makers and anyone else will \u201chave to get permission from someone to do that research.\u201dSecurity researchers who find flaws without first having permission to hack a device could have their devices destroyed or worse such as if a found vulnerability were related to \u201cunauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a computer system.\u201d The EFF wrote:There is no evident explanation for the differential treatment given to trade secrets accessed or misappropriated by means of a computer system, as opposed to by other means; but it is no surprise to find the U.S. pushing such a technophobic provision, which mirrors equivalent provisions of U.S. law that have been used to persecute hackers for offenses that would otherwise have been considered much more minor.