The U.S. Trade Representative has issued a public consultation on the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The consultation, which runs until March 21, 2008, notes that comments should focus on international cooperation, enforcement practices, or the development of new legal framworks. Australia has similarly consulted on its potential involvement in the ACTA negotiations. Why has the Canadian government not matched its partners by openly consulting on the issue?
USTR Invites Submissions on ACTA
February 19, 2008
Share this post
2 Comments
Law Bytes
Episode 197: Divest, Ban or Regulate?: Anupam Chander on the Global Fight Over TikTok
byMichael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
March 11, 2024
Michael Geist
February 26, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 197: Divest, Ban or Regulate? – Anupam Chander on the Global Fight Over TikTok
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 196: Vibert Jack on the Supreme Court’s Landmark Bykovets Internet Privacy Ruling
- Better Laws, Not Bans: Why a TikTok Ban is a Bad Idea
- Government Gaslighting Again?: Unpacking the Uncomfortable Reality of the Online Harms Act
Dangerous territory
I’m afraid that ACTA is not concerned about the counterfeit of money or other physical things as some might think. Rather, their interest is IP, aka Imaginary Property. This is very dangerous territory and is often about control of information, often even free speech. Canadians need to become aware of these issues.
YES, the Canadian government needs to have an open consultation process involving their OWN citizens. All democratic governments do this, otherwise who would be guiding them?
There is no such thing as Intellectual Property
There are copyrights and there are patents.
Both are temporary and limited in nature – they are “loaned not owned†– and therefore cannot be considered “property†in any real sense of the word.
Yet this term is bandied about ubiquitously – mostly by the “copyright mob†and their paid shills, presumably in an attempt to persuade the unwary that ideas can and should be owned.
Their hope is that if they say it often enough we will start to believe it.