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 278: Ben Waldman on Gander Social and the Challenges of Building a Sovereign Social Network
byMichael Geist

August 10, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Named to Canadian Lawyer’s Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers
Be Careful What You Wish For: Why Asking Google Maps to Defy the U.S. on Lake Ontario Would Undermine Canadian Digital Sovereignty
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain
Unleashing the Trolls: Ontario Court Opens the Door to Liability for Influencers Who Weaponize Their Audiences
Why Ottawa Will Likely Join the U.S. in Opposing the Quebec Online Streaming Law at the Centre of the Trade Battle

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.