Chapter One: Initial Provisions and Definitions
Section A: Initial Provisions
Article 1.2: Nature and scope of obligations
In the phrase “more extensive protection and enforcement†Canadian is proposing to delete “protectionâ€, which would limit the scope of ACTA to enforcement, rather than to protection of IP generally.
Article 1.3: Relation to standards concerning availability and scope of intellectual property rights
Canada is proposing to add a paragraph “No Party shall be obliged to apply this section to any goods that do not infringe an intellectual property right held within the territory of that Party.â€
Canada seems to be attempting to limit the applicability of ACTA by requiring that IPRs be recognized in the territory of a member, for a member to have obligations to enforce IPRs.
Article 1.X: (General principles)
Canada is proposing to add an article that outlines principles of IP enforcement, such as technology dissemination and transfer, a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, measures necessary to protect health and nutrition, etc.
Section B: General Definitions
Canada has reserved its position on all the definitions pending discussion.
Chapter Two: Legal Framework for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
General Obligations
Article 2.X: General obligations with respect to enforcement
Canada is proposing: “(3) In respect of civil remedies and criminal penalties for enforcement of intellectual property rights, each Party shall take into account, as appropriate the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties and the applicable remedies or penalties.â€
The major difference between this and another option is the requirement to take the interests of third parties into account, and that specificness of the wording around proportionality.
Canada is proposing in paragraph (5) that the agreement shall apply ONLY to trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy.
Section 1: Civil Enforcement
Article 2.1: Availability of Civil Procedures
Canada is proposing that civil procedures only be available for copyright, related rights and trademark rights.
Article 2.X: Injunctions
Again Canada is limiting the availability of injunctions to copyright, related rights or trademarks. Canada is suggesting that the power of judicial authorities be “subject to any statutory limitations under its domestic lawâ€. This suggesting has been explicitly opposed by the US, Japan, EU, Switzerland, Korea and Mexico.
Article 2.3: Other Remedies
In two paragraphs of this article Canada is proposing remedies regarding destruction of goods or implements to create the goods, be limited to good which are found to be related to piracy or counterfeiting.
Canada is also proposing that judicial authorities have the power to order the destruction to occur at the infringer’s expense.
Article 2.5: Provisional Measures
Canada is proposing the that provision measures only be available where there is an imminent infringement of copyright, related rights or trademark rights.
Canada is proposing that for provisional measures, authorities can require sufficient evidence to ensure that infringement is imminent before provision measures are taken.
Section 2: Border Measures
Article 2.X: Scope of border measures
Canada is proposing that provisions for border measures be applied to trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. While Canada has not explicitly used the work “only†to strictly limit the application of border measures, but the US, Singapore and Japan have suggested changes to the wording to make border measures more broadly available, including “applies to at least trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracyâ€.
Article 2.X: De Minimis Provision
Canada is proposing to make the wording of the de minimis provision the same as the TRIPS equivalent, and include goods “sent in small consignmentsâ€.
Article 2.6: Application by Right Holder
Canada is proposing that Parties shall provide procedures for import, but not be obligated to provide measures to exported goods. In a footnote to this, Canada is also wanting to clarify that there is no obligation to apply the procedures to grey market goods. Canada is is also proposing that accepted applications for border measures be effective for a least one year.
Article 2.7: Ex-Officio Action
Canada is proposing that Parties give their customs authorities the power to suspend goods suspected of being pirated copyright or counterfeit trademarked while they are exported from the country or in transit through the country. This differs from the position of the US who propose that Parties shall give their customs authorities the power to seize on import/export/transit.
Article 2.X (Information sharing cooperation in lieu of suspension of goods)
Canada is proposing that any information sharing between an exporting or transit country and the destination country is limited by and must be consistent with any bilateral information sharing agreements.
Article 2.9: Security or equivalent assurance
Canada proposes to modifying the wording of this article to apply to copyright, related rights or trademark rights, which is consistent with Canada’s position that ACTA clearly apply only to those IPRs, rather than all IPRs.
Section 3: Criminal Enforcement
Article 2.14: Criminal Offenses
Paragraph 1:
Canada is proposing to clarify that criminal offenses apply to acts of piracy (rather than acts of infringement as the US is proposing). In either case, the piracy or infringement still must be commercial in nature. This seems like an attempt by Canada to make clear that criminal enforcement applies to a specific subset of infringement activities, rather than using infringement loosely in different contexts.
Paragraph 5:
Canada is proposing to specifically include that a theatre manager can be guilty of camcording of movies crimes, even in their own theatre.
Article 2.16: Seizure, forfeiture and destruction
Paragraph 1:
Canada is proposing that competent authorities have the power to authorise (rather than “orderâ€, which is what the article reads otherwise) the seizure of suspected infringing goods and the implements associated with them
Paragraph 3:
Canada is proposing that authorities have the power to order forfeiture “at least for serious†offenses.
Section 4: Special Measures Related to Technological Enforcement of Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment
Article 2.18: Enforcement Procedures in the Digital Environment
Canada has reserved the right to revisit the elements of this section at a later date, which may reflect the fluidity of Bill C-32.
Paragraph 1:
Canada has proposed that the wording of this article be limited to permit action against trademark, copyrights or related rights (as opposed to any type of intellectual property, which is what Japan, EU and Switzerland are proposing).
Paragraph 2:
In two instances of this paragraph, Canada is limiting the types of infringement covered by ACTA to copyrights or related rights, rather than general intellectual property rights, as the EU and Switzerland are proposing.
Paragraph 3(a)(iii):
Canada is proposing wording that clarifies that ISPs not be held liable in cases of referring or linking users to a location containing infringing material.
Paragraph 3(b):
Canada is proposing that ISPs can be allocated a defined period of time (rather than a more general “ “expeditiouslyâ€) to remove/disable access to infringing material.
Paragraph 3(c)(iii):
Canada is proposing that an ISP be exempt for liability if they have no actual knowledge of a court decision that materials are infringing.
Paragraph X: Exceptions to technological enforcement in 2.18.4
Canada is proposing wording slightly clarifying that a party can implement exception to provisions (rather than measures). Canada also proposes to distinguish the technological measures themselves from the provisions, so that exceptions apply to the provisions rather than to the measures.
Paragraph 6:
In the context of electronic rights management information, Canada is proposing that infringements of related rights is only enforceable when the related rights pertains to phonograms.
Paragraph 6(b):
Canada is proposing that importation for distribution only be an prohibited when the copyright owner is prejudicially affected.
Paragraph 7: Exceptions to technological enforcement
This paragraph seems to be almost identical to paragraph X, except that it may provide exceptions to 2.18.4 and 2.18.5.
As in paragraph 2.18.X, Canada is proposing wording slightly clarifying that a party can implement exception to provisions (rather than measures). Canada also proposes to distinguish the technological measures themselves from the provisions, so that exceptions apply to the provisions rather than to the measures.
I am proposing we stop this whole thing. I’m also betting that any laws the gov’t create that are strictly about money (and thats all this is about) will be completely ignored and the IT people of the world will find a way around them. Laws that are retarded should be ignored. In some parts of Canada you are still suppose to have a hitch for a horse to be tied to in front of your store.
It’s time the public at large stood up and said “No” in one voice. If 90% of the public refuses to follow a law, there is no way the Gov’t and the police can enforce it.
I guess the better option is to have a parliament that wouldn’t approve such laws at all. Vote wisely.
Nap.
Thats the problem with how we vote in our society. It’s not about how good the person is or the skills they poses, it’s a popularity contest, nothing more.
Personally I’d like to see a PM who was in his 30’s well educated, gay, and non religious. This way we know we’re getting someone who’s open minded and willing to work for the countries needs, not for the needs of other countries. Or at least I could hope that would happen.
lol, not all straight, religious people are stupid … just the ones who enter politics 😉
lol ok i’ll agree with you on that one. I just feel that what we have right now is either really old people who should be retired, who’s education is no longer relevant. People from a generation that saw things like homosexuality as a disease that could be cured, or that a computer was something that an individual would never need. That or we have people like Moore, and Harper who aren’t that old, but they are sticking with old ideals.
And as we have separated church from state, would should not have people in power who can not do the same. I watched harpers speech when he won the last election and was disgusted to hear him thank god and have a cross shaped pin on the lapel of his jacket.
And as the belief in god and religion are part of a person, there is NO way they can do a job like the PMO of this country with a true, honest and dispassionate job.
Harper has proven that several times.
Yes, the “how do I program this VCR” generation should not be in control of our digital future (so what is James Moore’s excuse?). On the topic of beliefs, I’ll agree to disagree with you somewhat there. Everyone is religious in some sense, either in God or their rebuttal of, but let’s not fill up this forum with that debate and instead focus on the old guard messing up our digital economy.
There’s nothing wrong with a politician or anyone being religious if they use the religion to better themselves without affecting others around them. The minute you use religion to try and shape other peoples lives thats when you crossed the line. Do what you need to do for yourself but leave that out when running the country.
“old guard messing up our digital economy.”
Yup that is the problem. And unfortunately our society runs on three believes. the first is the “i have nothing to hide, giving up their privacy rights” the second is they don’t understand, know or care. The third is the lost boy syndrome. “Follow the leader where ever he may go” and in this case it’s right off a proverbial cliff.
Ohhh and moore has no excuse.
“There’s nothing wrong with a politician or anyone being religious if they use the religion to better themselves without affecting others around them. ”
Unfortunately that is not possible. Human beings as they are, are not able to not push their beliefs on other people. This of course extends well beyond religion as we can see by the americans trying to force ACTA on Canada, but religion is part of someone, no different than being gay or having red hair. But once those beliefs are part of you, they force you to try and push your opinions on others. It starts simply with “thou shalt have no other god before me” and has gone on from there.
No there is no way anyone can be religious and give equal rights to every situation. Again something harper has proven, time and time again.
Take a look at yourself
I’m not sure how old you are, and that is not meant as an insult, but as you go through life you will see that everyone may not be religious but everyone is zealous about their own beliefs. Just look at your own insistence that people of religious faith are not able to make sound judgments for others. Your own term ‘no way’ is just the same zealousness that you ascribe to others whom you do not deem fit to make judgments.
It is never a good idea to bottle people into a group and place a label on them. People are individuals and it is a case of personal character that is important and how that character is exercised. Whether they be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Gay, Bi, Straight, Left, Center or Right.
I know there are ‘religious’ people who say homosexuals should die and then go off to picket military funerals. These people are idiots, and would be no matter what their belief system.
Then there are religious (and non religious) people who give of themselves sacrificially to help others and do good in the world.
Many of the heroes of human rights have been people of faith, many of the persecutors have too. Again it comes down to the person and the mark they leave with their lives, when we loose sight of that then the seeds of hate, prejudice and injustice produce the things that have ailed our societies for all of history.
Problems compound when a groups of people, whom by their own insecure & selfish personal nature, start trying to dictate their own way on others, this becomes an entity of it’s own and festers. KKK, Nazi Germany, Stalinism, Spanish Inquisition, Al-Qaeda are prominent examples. How do they grow? When good people stand by and do nothing. Again, it comes down to the person to make a difference. A wise person once said you will know a good person by their fruit. Go and be a big shiny apple.
I know I said that this forum is not really the place for this kind of discussion, so have said my peace and will leave it there. Take care.
Stephen Harper’s Swiss Cheese
> …That or we have people like Moore, and Harper who aren’t that old, but they are sticking with old ideals.
I don’t think Stephen Harper believes in god (himself excluded) anymore than the 2-terms George Bush. These people want power to mend the world into their image and/or just make money from it later, so religion is just one convenient tool. Canada’s political system is secular, but it is hard to find a politician who will admit not being religious.
> Problems compound when a groups of people, whom by their own insecure & selfish personal nature, start trying to dictate their own way on others, this becomes an entity of it’s own and festers.
You missed the Pope. The Pope said “…distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem” has done more harm than good in HIV prevention in Africa.
> Canada is proposing to add a paragraph “No Party shall be obliged to apply this section to any goods that do not infringe an intellectual property right held within the territory of that Party.â€
Come on Stephen Harper, be consistent at least. Why the double standards in C-32’s anti-circumvention stealing fair dealing and ACTA?
> Canada is proposing that Parties shall provide procedures for import, but not be obligated to provide measures to exported goods.
Again, more and more inconsistencies, but this one is retarded. If Stephen Harper can prevent infringement At The Source, he should do so, and not dumping the costs to the importers to police Stephen Harper’s dumping. This is what the *IAA does. They target distribution sites or individuals who upload (exporters), not the people who download (importers).
The more globalizations there are, there higher the trade walls.