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 238: David Fraser on Why Bill C-2's Lawful Access Powers May Put Canadians' Digital Security At Risk
byMichael Geist

June 30, 2025
Michael Geist
June 23, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Canadian Government Caves on Digital Services Tax After Years of Dismissing the Risks of Trade Retaliation
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 238: David Fraser on Why Bill C-2’s Lawful Access Powers May Put Canadians’ Digital Security At Risk
Ignoring the Warning Signs: Why Did the Canadian Government Dismiss the Trade Risks of a Digital Services Tax?
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4
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.