The government is launching an all-out blitz on the proposed Canada -
European Union Trade Agreement today with no less than 18
events planned
across the country featuring 16 cabinet ministers and parliamentary
secretaries. The speeches will emphasize the benefits of the proposed
agreement to many areas of the economy, yet what is most noteworthy is
what won't be discussed. Industry Minister Christian Paradis is
speaking, but he won't be discussing copyright, patents,
pharmaceuticals, or cultural policy as his speech will emphasize the
pork industry. Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore won't be talking
about culture either as his speech is slated to focus on fish and
seafood. And Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq is missing from the slate
altogether.
The reason for the omissions are essential to understanding one of the
primary sticking points with CETA. While the government says the deal
is 75%
completed, negotiators have consistently indicated that they left
the toughest issues to the end. Those include rules of origin, agriculture,
immigration
and visa issues, and intellectual property.
The CETA intellectual
property chapter leaked in 2010, revealing that the EU is seeking a
complete overhaul of Canada's IP laws. Initial demands on copyright
included:
Read More ...
- compliance with WIPO Internet treaties
- extension of the term of copyright to life of the author plus 70
years (Canadian law currently at life plus 50 years)
- additional copyright term extensions for audiovisual works,
anonymous works, and unpublished works
- term of copyright for broadcasts for at least 50 years (Canada
wants to limit to wireless broadcasts, while EU wants it to cover
everything)
- greater transparency for copyright collectives
- new resale right for works of art
- new exclusive right of fixation for broadcasts (Canada wants to
limit to wireless broadcasts, while EU wants it to cover everything)
- new exclusive right for broadcasters for retransmission in public
places (ie. new fees for bars and other public places)
- new distribution right
- extension of the reproduction right to performers and broadcasters
- extension of the communications right for performers, phonogram
producers, film producers, and broadcasters.
- anti-circumvention rules including provisions against devices
that can be used to circumvent digital locks
- protection for rights management information
While some of these demands may have changed during the negotiations -
the negotiations are still shrouded in secrecy - the agreement would
clearly require reforms that go well beyond Bill C-11 (which the
government says strikes the right balance). The agreement also includes
major reforms to IP enforcement, trademarks, patents, and geographic
indications.
In June 2011, a Trade
Sustainability Impact Assessment
funded by the European Commission was released. That report included
the following analysis on the impact of the IP provisions on Canada:
- IPR-related provisions of CETA
could have, at best, a minor positive impact on Canadian growth.
Depending on their specific content, they could even have an adverse
impact on the Canadian economy.
- The impact of IPR provisions in
CETA on overall employment is likely to be minor.
- The Canadian trade balance
would not necessarily benefit from IP provisions in CETA. Trade in
specific goods, that are currently freely marketed and exported from
Canada, could be adversely affected. For example, several
Canadian
companies brand and export their products with labels that could be
considered as European geographical indications. These companies could
lose market shares in domestic and foreign markets if they are forced
to abandon their commercially significant labels. In sum, both Canadian
exports and imports might be slightly and negatively impacted, but only
in specific sectors.
- it is very likely that the CETA
will worsen the Canadian deficit in its balance of royalties and
license fees.
- the public sector, as a
consumer of IPR-protected goods, might face additional spending,
notably for educational books (educational institutions accounted for
23.4% of book sales revenues in Canada) and pharmaceutical products
(the public sector finances 45% of prescribed drug expenditure).
It is not only European analysis that has found significant new costs
associated with CETA for Canada. The Drummond
Report on the Ontario economy included the following dire warning
about CETA:
The outcome of the negotiations for a
comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union could have
significant impact on the cost of prescription drugs in Ontario. A key
negotiating point, the extension of Canadian patent protections for
pharmaceutical drugs to European standards, could cost Ontario
taxpayers up to $1.2 billion annually ($551 million for the Ontario
government and $672 million for the private sector), thus wiping out
gains from recent drug reforms. The province should work with the
federal government to ensure that a CETA does not undermine Ontario’s
interest in expanding the use of generic drugs.
Given these studies, it should come as no surprise that the
government's CETA blitz conveniently omits discussing the enormous
negative impact the IP provisions will have on the Canadian economy.
They also help explain why the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommended
last year that the government "ensure that domestic copyright policies
are not part of any present or future trade negotiations."
ceta, copyright, eu, intellectual property, ip, patents Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday April 27, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
The Department of National Defence is using crown copyright to demand
the removal
of a leaked government document that has been widely discussed and
posted on the Internet. At issue is the Canadian Land Force
Counter-Insurgency Operations Manual, which the Globe's Doug Saunders described
as "Canada's military manual and operational manifesto for the
Afghanistan war." The document was first leaked by Wikileaks in August
2009 and remains available
from that site. It was subsequently reposted in several places,
including on the PublicIntelligence.net
site and on Scribd
(the Globe appears to have posted it there).
Earlier this month, the Department of National Defence sent a demand
email to the Public Intelligence site seeking removal of the document.
It is not clear whether similar demands have been sent to Wikileaks and
Scribd. The demand states:
We believe that the copyright
protected work of the Department of National Defence (DND) is being
provided to the public through your website in a manner that
constitutes copyright infringement.
The demand email continues by arguing that the document was not
obtained under Access to Information and, even if it was, that ATIA
does
not permit widespread distribution of documents in violation of the
Copyright Act. The Canadian government has altered
its approach
to the restrictions on publishing public documents by granting
permission to reproduce government works for personal or public
non-commercial purposes without the need for prior permission. In this
instance, however, DND presumably believes that the document itself was
made available without authorization and that the permissive licence
does not apply.
crown copyright, dnd, wikileaks Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday April 26, 2012 |
|
Industry Minister Christian Paradis spoke at the Canada 3.0 conference
in Stratford yesterday, providing an update
on the government's digital economy plans. Paradis trumpeted some of
the measures in the budget as well as the trio of related laws -
privacy reform, copyright reform, and anti-spam legislation (which he
indicated he expects to take effect next year). He also noted the
urban-rural divide on broadband access, which he
seems to think can be addressed through rural deployment obligations in
the forthcoming the spectrum auction (the final consult to be released
today).
Paradis unsurprisingly did not mention that the privacy reform, Bill
C-12, has stagnated for months in the House and is increasingly viewed
as inadequate, nor that the anti-spam bill became law in 2010 but has
been delayed by his own department's failure to finalize the necessary
regulations. Nor did he mention lawful access (Bill C-30), which will
lead to increased Internet costs, or the budget cuts to the Community
Access Program (which will mean a loss of access for low income
Canadians), or reduced funding to CANARIE, which runs Canada's
high-speed research network.
Paradis concluded by saying the work is not done and that now the plan
is to release a digital economy strategy later this year (the IIC annual
conference would be a good bet). Given that the government launched
its digital
economy strategy consultation in May 2010, Industry Minister
Clement promised the strategy by the spring of 2011 as part of an interim
update in November 2010, and Paradis himself spoke
about the strategy nearly a year ago, the digital economy strategy is
still seemingly ensconced as the government's
Penske File.
canarie, cap, digital economy, paradis, privacy, spam Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday April 25, 2012 |
|
The European Data Protection Supervisor has issued a new
opinion
on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, expressing serious concerns
about the impact of the agreement on privacy and data protection (a prior opinion
was released in 2010). The
EDPS states:
Many of the measures that could be
implemented in the context of Articles 27(3) and 27(4) of ACTA would
involve a form of monitoring of individuals' use of the Internet,
whether by detecting actual IP rights infringements or by trying to
prevent any future infringements. In many cases, the monitoring would
be carried out by right holders or right holders' associations and
third parties acting on their behalf, although they often seek to
delegate such task to ISPs.
Read More ...
The opinion continues:
A targeted form of monitoring by
right holders would be legitimate if the processing is carried out in
the context of specific, current or forthcoming judicial proceedings,
to establish, make or defend legal claims. However, the generalised
monitoring followed by the storage of data on a general scale for the
purpose of enforcing claims, such as the scanning of the Internet as
such, or all the activity in P2P networks, would go beyond what is
legitimate. Such general monitoring is especially intrusive to
individuals' rights and freedoms when it is not well defined and there
is no limitation to it, in scope, in time, and in terms of persons
concerned. As a consequence, the indiscriminate or widespread
monitoring of Internet user' behaviour in relation to trivial,
small-scale not for profit infringement would be disproportionate and
in violation of Article 8 ECHR, Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, and the Data protection Directive.
The opinion engages in detailed analysis of specific provisions, noting
the lack of clarity on the scope of enforcement, the problems of
vagueness with respect to "competent authorities" entrusted with
injunction power, that voluntary cooperation agreements may require
conduct in violation of EU law, and the absence of sufficient
limitations and safeguards on monitoring practices. The EDPS statement
is a must-read for European politicians currently considering ACTA and
should be assessed by privacy authorities - including Canadian Privacy
Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart - to assess the impact of ACTA within
their national laws.
acta, Counterfeit, Counterfeiting, edps, privacy Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday April 25, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
|
An international publishing organization has escalated
the rhetoric
over Bill C-11 by making veiled threats about a WTO complaint against
Canada if the bill's fair dealing provision remains unchanged. The
signatories claim "there is a real possibility that a WTO complaint
will be brought against Canada" if the fair dealing reform (along with
reforms for non-commercial user generated content and an exception for
publicly available materials on the Internet) remains unamended. No
word
on whether the same groups have issued similar threats against
countries such as the U.S.,
South Korea, and Israel over their far broader fair use provisions.
c-11, copyright, wto Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday April 25, 2012 |
|
Car rental companies are infamous for encouraging customers to sign up
for expensive liability insurance policies. Since many renters already
have coverage from their own automotive insurance policies or can rely
upon insurance coverage provided by their credit card issuer, the
decision whether to sign up for a costly additional policy frequently
depends upon who is paying the bill. If the individual is on the hook,
they will often decline coverage and rely on their existing policies.
If someone else is paying, it becomes easier to justify signing up for
the additional coverage.
Last week, the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada, which
represents dozens of Canada's leading universities, signed up for one
of the most expensive copyright insurance policies in Canadian history.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto
Star version, homepage
version) notes the policy comes in the form of a controversial model
copyright
licensing agreement with Access Copyright, a copyright collective
that
licenses copying and distribution of copyrighted works such as books,
journals, and other texts. Should AUCC members sign the agreement - it
falls to each individual university to decide whether to do so - they
will pay $26 per full time student per year for the right to copy works
from the Access Copyright repertoire.
Read More ...
The deal marks a significant increase from the previous agreement,
which had cost students less than four dollars annually plus ten cents
per page for materials included within printed coursepacks. The new
fees are likely to be passed along to students, who will ultimately
bear the burden of the copyright arrangement with higher tuitions.
Those students may be puzzled by the AUCC decision to settle on an
expensive new licensing model. Over the past year, many universities,
including York, Queen's, UBC, and Waterloo have operated without Access
Copyright altogether.
Those schools have identified licensing alternatives such as campus
wide electronic database licenses that offer access to thousands of
journals and electronic books that can be incorporated directly into
electronic coursepacks. Universities already pay millions of dollars
for these licenses with the money flowing to database companies,
publishers, and authors.
Moreover, open access licensing, where research publications are freely
available online, constitutes a growing percentage of published
research, with thousands of open access journals and hundreds of
thousands of articles posted directly by the researchers themselves.
Add public domain works, fair dealing, hundreds of millions spent on
textbooks, and pay-per-use licenses for the remaining works and the
decision to forego an Access Copyright licence becomes easy to
understand.
Even more curious is the timing of the AUCC agreement. Bill C-11, the
government's copyright bill, features several provisions designed to
assist education. These include an expansion of fair dealing for
education and a new exception for publicly available materials on the
Internet. The bill is expected to become law by the summer.
If that wasn't enough, the model licence purports to grants rights for
copying that does not require permission. For example, it defines
copying as including "posting a link or hyperlink to a digital copy",
yet linking to content can hardly be described as copying materials.
Moreover, the licence comes packed with onerous restrictions such as
blocking the ability to store articles in online services such as
Mendeley or Dropbox.
And the millions of dollars collected by Access Copyright? Last
year,
the collective spent 30 percent of its licensing revenues on
administrative expenses, including over two million dollars for
Copyright Board applications and professional fees involving lobbying
against copyright reform that might benefit educational institutions.
Given these circumstances, the AUCC decision to sign the model licence
represents a stunning abdication of leadership that will cost students
millions of dollars and slow innovation in Canada's higher education
community. So why sign an agreement when there are other options?
Expensive additional insurance policies are easy to sign when someone
else is paying the bill.
access copyright, aucc Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 24, 2012 |
|
View
|
|
|
With the USTR Special 301 report slated for release next week,
Consumers International has released its annual IP
Watch List.
It adopts a consumer-oriented perspective, as the best-rated countries
tend to be those with the broadest copyright limitations, that allow
enough room for innovative reuse of content, and the free use of IP
goods within a close circle of family and friends. The top five
countries are Israel, Indonesia, India, New Zealand, and the United
States.
consumers international, ip, watch list Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 24, 2012 |
|
|
The NY Times reports
on how Twitter users in France circumvented a law prohibiting the early
publication of election results over the weekend. Canadians faced a
similar ban during the last election, but the government has since announced
plans to change the law.
election, france, twitter Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 24, 2012 |
|
|
The backlash against the current academic publishing continues to grow,
with the Harvard Library's Faculty Advisory Council finding
that "large journal publishers have made the scholarly communication
environment fiscally unsustainable and academically restrictive" and
promoting open access alternatives. Meanwhile, the Guardian featured
an article on the issue over the weekend, noting the emergence of open
access as an increasingly viable alternative.
harvard, open access Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 24, 2012 |
|
Appeared
in the Toronto Star on April 22, 2012 as The most expensive copyright
insurance policy in Canadian history
Car rental companies are infamous for encouraging customers to sign up
for expensive liability insurance policies. Since many renters already
have coverage from their own automotive insurance policies or can rely
upon insurance coverage provided by their credit card issuer, the
decision whether to sign up for a costly additional policy frequently
depends upon who is paying the bill. If the individual is on the hook,
they will often decline coverage and rely on their existing policies.
If someone else is paying, it becomes easier to justify signing up for
the additional coverage.
Last week, the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada, which
represents dozens of Canada's leading universities, signed up for one
of the most expensive copyright insurance policies in Canadian history.
The policy comes in the form of a controversial model copyright
licensing agreement with Access Copyright, a copyright collective that
licenses copying and distribution of copyrighted works such as books,
journals, and other texts. Should AUCC members sign the agreement - it
falls to each individual university to decide whether to do so - they
will pay $26 per full time student per year for the right to copy works
from the Access Copyright repertoire.
The deal marks a significant increase from the previous agreement,
which had cost students less than four dollars annually plus ten cents
per page for materials included within printed coursepacks. The new
fees are likely to be passed along to students, who will ultimately
bear the burden of the copyright arrangement with higher tuitions.
Those students may be puzzled by the AUCC decision to settle on an
expensive new licensing model. Over the past year, many universities,
including York, Queen's, UBC, and Waterloo have operated without Access
Copyright altogether.
Those schools have identified licensing alternatives such as campus
wide electronic database licenses that offer access to thousands of
journals and electronic books that can be incorporated directly into
electronic coursepacks. Universities already pay millions of dollars
for these licenses with the money flowing to database companies,
publishers, and authors.
Moreover, open access licensing, where research publications are freely
available online, constitutes a growing percentage of published
research, with thousands of open access journals and hundreds of
thousands of articles posted directly by the researchers themselves.
Add public domain works, fair dealing, hundreds of millions spent on
textbooks, and pay-per-use licenses for the remaining works and the
decision to forego an Access Copyright licence becomes easy to
understand.
Even more curious is the timing of the AUCC agreement. Bill C-11, the
government's copyright bill, features several provisions designed to
assist education. These include an expansion of fair dealing for
education and a new exception for publicly available materials on the
Internet. The bill is expected to become law by the summer.
If that wasn't enough, the model licence purports to grants rights for
copying that does not require permission. For example, it defines
copying as including "posting a link or hyperlink to a digital copy",
yet linking to content can hardly be described as copying materials.
Moreover, the licence comes packed with onerous restrictions such as
blocking the ability to store articles in online services such as
Mendeley or Dropbox.
And the millions of dollars collected by Access Copyright? Last
year, the collective spent 30 percent of its licensing revenues on
administrative expenses, including over two million dollars for
Copyright Board applications and professional fees involving lobbying
against copyright reform that might benefit educational institutions.
Given these circumstances, the AUCC decision to sign the model licence
represents a stunning abdication of leadership that will cost students
millions of dollars and slow innovation in Canada's higher education
community. So why sign an agreement when there are other options?
Expensive additional insurance policies are easy to sign when someone
else is paying the bill.
Michael Geist holds the Canada
Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online
at www.michaelgeist.ca.
access copyright, aucc Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday April 24, 2012 |
|
|
