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
2 Comments
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 248: Mark Surman on Why Canada’s AI Strategy Should Prioritize Public AI Models 
We Need More Canada in the Training Data: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on AI and the Creative Sector 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 247: My Senate Appearance on the Bill That Could Lead to Canada-Wide Blocking of X, Reddit and ChatGPT 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 246: Mohamed Zohiri on the Rise and Emerging Regulation of Stablecoins 
Senate Bill Would Grant Government Regulatory Power to Mandate Age Verification For Search, Social Media and AI Services Accompanied By Threat of Court Ordered Blocking of Lawful Content
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.