KEI has a roundup of commentary on the TPP IP chapter,  <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.keionline.org&#x2F;node&#x2F;2335" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.keionline.org&#x2F;node&#x2F;2335</a><p>A 6-min explainer video on TPP and ISDS, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg</a><p>HN discussion earlier today, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10359604" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10359604</a><p>From the EFF article:<p>&gt; <i>&quot;One of the scariest parts of the TPP is 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 (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family&#x27;s home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center.</i>&quot;<p>Is TPM&#x2F;DRM circumvention allowed for personal, non-commercial use? If so, why would ripping Blu-Ray movies for personal use (e.g. watching on an airplane) lead to computer seizure, e.g. during border inspection?