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 221: Inside My Canadian Heritage Committee Appearance on Freedom of Expression
byMichael Geist
December 2, 2024
Michael Geist
November 25, 2024
Michael Geist
November 18, 2024
Michael Geist
November 4, 2024
Michael Geist
October 28, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- Government Finally Splits the Online Harms Bill: Never Too Late To Do The Right Thing…Or Is It?
- Canadian Media Companies Target OpenAI in Copyright Lawsuit But Weak Claims Suggest Settlement the Real Goal
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 221: Inside My Canadian Heritage Committee Appearance on Freedom of Expression
- When Antisemitism Isn’t Taboo: Reflecting on the Response to Nazi-Era Hate on the Streets of Montreal
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 220: Marina Pavlović on the CRTC’s Plans to Address Consumer Frustration Over Wireless Contracts
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.